Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 Other CorrespondenceApril 23, 1999 John Hier, Manager Town of Carbondale 511 Colorado A venue Carbondale, CO 81623 GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department RE: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan Dear John: Garfield County received the Mid Valley Metropolitan District, Garfield County Service Plan on March 4th of this year. As required by C.R.S. 32-1-20, Garfield County was required to have the Board of County Commissioners refer the propose service plan to the Garfield County Planning Commission for review within 30 days of the referral. The service plan was intially scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their April 14th meeting. Mid Valley requested a continuance of that review, as a result of some concerns expressed by County staff prior to the meeting. A letter was sent to the District's attorney stating that the following issues are going to be included in a staff report, which will be based upon the criteria for approval or denial of a service plan per C.R.S. 32-1- 203: • There is no analysis of the alternative of using forced mains and lift stations to utilize the existing district facilities. There appears to be a possibility of utilizing the existing facilities based on the potentials noted on page 9 of the service plan document. • There is no analysis of the proposed water system in terms of demand, capacity, financing or operation. There is only the brief description of the existing facilities and noting that future development annexing to the district would be obligated to develop water systems capable of being a part of a larger system and be required to give all water rights to the district. • The proposed plan is not consistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area I, given that the sizing options are based on assumptions completely different from any proposed land use densities contained in the Comprehensive Plan. To base future facility sizing on the assumption that property owners "may elect to amend the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan to allow for a higher density", is driving land use decisions. The District is making decisions based upon assumptions that their vision of what should be approved, rather than the adopted documents in the County. • The plan contains a variety of alternatives for the siting of a treatment facility. Only one of these sites has any kind of agreement with the landowner involved. Additionally, the size of the plant is based upon a sub-regional capacity, with no real analysis of the feasibility of expanding to be a larger regional facility. This is not consistent with one of the earlier statements in the document noting the possible need to do so. The analysis of Ranch plant is based upon 813 EQR' s, not the stated need for 955 EQR's. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • Harold and Jean Blue are large property owners included in the service area, but only portions of their entire ownership are included in the service plan. They were not even aware that they had been included in the service area. As a result of these concerns, the District requested additional time to provide supplemental information to the County to address the above noted and other issues. At this time, the service plan is scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their May 11"' meeting. It is the staffs preference that if development is going to occur in the Roaring Fork valley floor between Carbondale and El Jebel, having a central sewage treatment is the preferred option to individual sewage disposal systems. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area I, encourages the use of central sewage treatment in areas where it is available and the plan also discourages the proliferation of private water and sewer systems. At this time, the Garfield County 208 Water Quality Management Plan is in the process of being revised. The 208 Plan adopted in 1984 recommended the consolidation of sewage treatment facilities as a general principle. In summary, from a staff preference, it is always preferable to have central sewage disposal facilities available to property, rather than individual sewage disposal systems. The consolidation of central sewage treatment facilities is also the preference over multiple discharge point over a relatively short stretch of the river. If you have a need for any additional information or have other questions, feel free to call or write to me, at your convenience. Bob Szrot, County Engineer and I will attend the work session on Tuesday, to answer any questions. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 DAVID C, WELLS WILLIAM A. LOVE TERRY W. SCOBY CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK EDWARD L. SERR G. HENRY SEAKS GARY B. ENGEN WELLS, LOVE & SCOBY, LLC .91.ttrYl''l"UPJ'd' at -£u1.> 225 CANYON BOULEVARD BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 TELEPHONE 303/449•4400 TEL.ECOPIER 303/449·6227 July 6, 1999 DAVID E. LEAVENWORTH GLEN A. KRAHENBUHL Via U.S. Mail and facsimile to 303-628-3729 Mr. Hardin Holmes Ireland Stapleton Pryor & Pascoe, P. C. 1675 Broadway, 26th Floor Denver, CO 80202-4716 Re: Wastewater Treatment Consolidation Dear Mr. Holmes: Enclosed is a copy of the June 24, 1999 letter from Michael Gerber, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners' Association to Leavenworth & Tester, P. C. dated June 24, 1999 which we discussed last Wednesday. I must reiterate that Michael Gerber's letter, and its tone, do not, in my view, assist consolidation negotiations between Mid Valley Metropolitan District and the Ranch in any way and may, in fact, prove counterproductive. Frankly, it also leaves us wondering whether the Ranch intends to respond to the Mid Valley's latest offer at all. Approximately three weeks ago, you reconfirmed the intention you have expressed to me for several months now, to prepare a counter-proposal to the last Mid Valley proposal to the Ranch at Roaring Fork. You further indicated at that time that we could expect to receive the Ranch's counter-proposal before Mid Valley's July 7, 1999 hearing with the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners to discuss the Mid Valley's proposed Garfield County Service Plan. It is now apparent that no such counter-proposal will be forthcoming before that meeting as promised. We take exception to the assertion made in Michael Gerber's letter to Leavenworth & Tester (and by copy also made to the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County) that "the Board of [the Ranch] Homeowners Association [has] negotiated with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District with a view to consolidating [the Ranch's and Mid Valley's] wastewater treatment services." In our opinion, this statement is simply not true. While it is true that discussions between the Ranch Board and the Mid Valley Board have occurred over the last two years, the Ranch Board has yet to enter meaningful negotiations with Mid Valley. The Mid Valley Board of Directors has in good faith made two serious written consolidation offers to the Ranch, neither of which has received a serious written response or counter-proposal of any kind, despite repeated requests by Mid Valley that the Ranch respond. After months of meetings and informal discussions during the summer of 1998, Mid Valley first provided an offer to the Ranch to consolidate wastewater treatment facilities by letter dated October 30, 1998. Louis Meyer, Mid Valley's District Engineer, and I, personally attended and RECEIVED JUL 8 1999 presented that proposal to the Ranch' Board of Directors. My subsequent requests in discussions with both you and Michael Gerber in December for a qualitative response indicating the Ranch's position regarding Mid Valley's offer went unheeded. On December 16, 1998 during a conference call attended by Michael Gerber, George Hoffenbeck and yourself, representing the Ranch, and Theodore Guy and Jerry Burnaman, representing Mid Valley, among others, the general nature of the Ranch's concerns were finally clarified, but the discussion again left unclear what the Ranch preferred. It was clear that the site Mid Valley had chosen was considered problematic. The Ranch also made clear that it believed time was of the essence. Your expressed concern thatMid Valley's plans involved too many unknowns, particularly in the context of the many required local and state approvals, was understandable. The only issue really clarified, however, was that the Ranch preferred an alternate site --a site with potentially significant wetland concerns. At the conclusion of that telephone conference, the Mid Valley Board agreed to direct its engineer to investigate the Ranch's preferred alternate site. Mid Valley further suggested proceeding with certain procedural applications, such as a service plan amendment and a 404 permit, to resolve some of the uncertainties of concern to the Ranch. During a subsequent telephone conference between you, Michael Gerber and myself on January 8, 1999, you informed me that the Ranch objected to Mid Valley's plan to proceed, at its own expense, with a 404 permit application to determine the extent of wetlands mitigation. requirements on the Ranch's preferred site. As a consequence, the extent of wetlands mitigation requirements remains unresolved. As you know, the Ranch has also objected to Mid Valley's attempt to clarify its ability to perform by submitting a service plan to Garfield County for planning consideration. On January 17, 1999, Michael Gerber and Charles Holloway, President of the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, finally wrote to Mid Valley in response to its October 30, 1998 offer, rejecting the offer. The Ranch's January 17 letter stated only that the Board believed the Ranch homeowners would reject the October 30 offer if presented without change. The Ranch presented no counter-offer or meaningful suggestions as to what would be acceptable to the Ranch. On January 26, during a telephone conference between you, Michael Gerber and myself, you advised that you believed that direct discussions with the developer with whom Mid Valley has contracted to provide wastewater treatment services could be more fruitful. In an attempt to salvage the negotiations Mid Valley consented and arranged to have Art Kleinstein of Wintergreen Homes meet privately with you. He later reported that he also could not advise what exactly would be required to obtain Ranch approval of consolidation. On February 19, 1999, the Mid Valley Board wrote to the Ranch and proposed anew offer to the Ranch attempting to address what the Mid Valley Board understood to be the Ranch's principal concerns. Most significantly, Mid Valley agreed to accept the Ranch's preferred site despite the likelihood of wetland mitigation requirements and to limit the proposed plant to sub- regional capacity. On March 5, 1999 you advised that concerns remained with the selected site. As I understood it, the new concerns primarily involved the size of the site and the fear that Mid Valley would later seek to significantly expand the site. You further requested that Mid Valley and the I July 2, 1999 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners ]'dark Bean, Garfield County Planning Director 109 grh Street, Suite.303 · Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 · • ASPEN · PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: Mid Valley Metropolitan District's Proposed Service Plan Amend~ent Dear Board of County Cillnmissioners, · The Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and Pl~ng Commissioners . respectfully forward ~he foJlowing comments for inclusion as part of the public record for the July.7, 1999 hearing on the Mjd Valley Metropolitan District's proposed Amended . · . Service Plan: · The ! 998 Rural Resort Region Intergovem~ental Agre~n\.en,t recogni;es that land use policies and decisions within each county have direct and significant impacts on each of : the other counties in t)le region. On that basis, Pitkin County supports the premise that ·Master Plans, Land Use Plans and Codes adopted by the Town of Basalt, Garfield and · Eagle Counties shoul,d be strongly considered as a basis for decisions regarding district expanswns. By Resolution Np. 8,.Series of 1999; the Basalt Board ofTrnstees states that the . propmred District expansion; "will cause urban services to be extended prematurely,: will · cause inappropriate development patterns in Basalt's Three-Mile area; and continue the · · problems associateiwith uncontrolled growth in th~ valley. " Moreover,. the expansion "is inco.nsistent with the adopted Three Mile Plan and the proposed Master Plan."· -. -. - Ao; the approval agency for the Mid-Valley Jyfetropolitan District's Service Plan, Eagle County is exercising their.right for a formal review ofthe service plan, rather than simply . providing comillents on the District's request to Garfield County for an Amendment to the Plan. Such a review will allow for critique of the proposal for compliance with Eagle County's adopted Codes and Land Use Plans. · · RECEIVED JUL 8 1999 '130 Sour'H GALENA STREET . ASPEN, Co10RADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920;5090 . FA_X 970.920.5439 Printed on Recycled Paper . " The Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commissioners strongly support the regional planning approach provided for in the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement · between Eagle, Garfield, Pitkin, Summit and Lake Counties. Accordingly, Pitkin County recommends denial ofthe proposed district expansion until such time as it can be brought into compliance with the adopted Plans and Regulations of Garfield County, Basalt and Eagle County. Thank you for your consideration. Peter Martin ounty Board of County Commissioners ~ - . ,,,__ ... --~~-. Chair, Pitk. County Planning and Zoning Commission i • i Ms. Mildred Alsdorf Garfield County Clerk and Recorder 109 -8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81607 Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan Dear Ms. Alsdorf Harold Blue 4003 Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-2055 April 5, 1999 The Mid Valley Metropolitan District has included a portion of my property in the Garfield County Service Plan as presented to Garfield County for approval. I do not want to be included in this Service Plan. There is no reason that the property should be included in the Service Plan. Please advise the Garfield Planning & Zoning Department and the Garfield Planning Commission Board that I do not want my property included in the Service Plan. Sincerely, ?'r~.#~ Harold Blue D! lj5J'i700r1 '.::.\ n o........iJ...J.lL..23.l ~ \VI ) 2 :: l 1 APR ; 1999 ~l ·.1 i.! ... ~~:::".'----~-......, J Li ,, . GARFIELD COUNTY CLEA.( ....- ---....--.--.--..- -.-- :=April 9, 1999 .-..... Western Slope Aggregate Mildred Alsdorf Counz Clerk and Recorder 109 8 Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Mid Valley Metro District We lease a gravel pit from Jean Blue on County Road 104. We do not feel we need the service of a sewer district for our commercial facility. Sincerely, luiLua~,, lie.~~ William M Roberts President P.O. Box 910 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (970) 963-9424 Ms. Mildred Alsdorf Garfield County Clerk and Recorder I 09 -8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81607 Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan Dear Ms. Alsdorf: Jean M. Blue 0404 Road I 04 Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-2653 April 5, 1999 The Mid Valley Metropolitan District has included a portion of our property in the Garfield County Service Plan as presented to Garfield County for approval. We do not want to be included in this Service Plan. There is no reason that the property should be included in the Service Plan. Please advise the Garfield Planning & Zoning Department and the Garfield Planning Commission Board that we do not want our property included in the Service Plan. Sincerely, r,,~fa,e ·u~~ue Mr. Phil Vaughan, Chairman Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission Board 109 -8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Vaughan: Jean and Dee Blue 0404 Road 104 Carbondale, CO 81623 May 3, 1999 Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan Enclosed is a copy of a letter to Ms. Alsdorf on April 5, 1999 protesting the inclusion of our property into the Mid Valley "District" plan. It is of great concern to us that we were not notified of this plan, and if the pumping station is located on the Cerise property, East of us, any service from here would have to be by a pumping system. Also, of great concern, is the mention of Senior Water Rights in Exhibit A, Section 3, Page I. As it appears to us the only reason for our property to be included in the "District" is to obtain our Senior Water Rights. This seems to be a property "taking" with out representation. Unfortunately we are unable to attend your meeting on May I Ith. Please enter this letter into the records apposing the Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan. Encl. CC: Mark Bean, Garfield County Planner Bob Szort, Garfield County Engineer RECEfVED M/~Y -5 "~~ ~ :::: MAR 24 '99 09:33RM RANCH RT ROARING FORK M~rch 23, 1999 Mildred AJsdorf. Clerk Garlie!d Counry Clerk and Rttorder 109 Eight Street. Suire 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 0 Walt via Fa.x and Crni!ied Mail Re: Proposed Mid-Valley Metropolilan District Gartie!d County Service Plan Dear Ms. Alsdorf: This cornspondence is in response to the G-.irfield County Service Plan. <U!red March 2. 1999, filed by the Mid-Valley Metropoliran District (MVMD) for review by rhe Garfield County Board of Commissioners. This plan proposes ro anne" the Ranch ar Roaring Fork CRRF) into an e:qianded !v(VMD service district. The MVMD Sel'Vlce Pl:lll also derruls a ~oposal to loc:lre a sub-regional wastewater plant on one of three (actually four) potential sires, including rwo proposed sites located on RRF propeny. The RRF Board of Direaors wishes to make clear that the RRF homeowners have no! agreed to anne.<ation into the proposed Garlield Counry Service Arca (GCSA), nor have they agrted 10 any ammgement or con1tact with MVMD for them to pro•ide wastewater 1reaunent service to the RRF. MVMD acknowledges llu.s on page 15 of the Scl'\·ice Plan by staling, •me District and the Ranch could nor agree upon terms muruaJJy satisfactory to Boords for the use of either of the two sites." Represematives of the RRF have been discussing a possible wasrewarer coasolidation arrangement "irh MVMD since July. However. no agreenient whatSQe\•er. has been reached and m:iy not be reached based on fundamental differences berwctn the prutic:s regarding the scope, capaciry. location, financing. and conirol of rl1e furure exparu1ion of the fucility. Alrhough we ha\"e h.'ld a cordial interaction with 1he M~ i3<iard of Directors. we believe that MV!vlD is premarure in presenting Garfield County with a Semce Plan that references and makes asseniollS regarding the RRF wasterwater tre:11men1 needs and plans. when in fact, ao agreements have been made. We also belie"e the Service Plan may rontain significant factual errors re1evan1 ro the RRf. If. after further S!Um·. we believe rlle\0 are mate.rial. we ,.;11 comment on them. Therefore. !he RlU' Board of Directors reSpcc!fully req~s the Ga<1ield Coull!)" Board of Commissioners ro consider that the RRF is not. at this time. a willing participan1 in the lilcd Garfield County Service Plan. We have no1 agreed ro eater the GCSA or 10 locare a sub-regional 1>~1S1ewaier treatmem plant on our property. The RRF is actively pursuing other wastewater treaunent options tbal t114Y prove more appropriate for the RRF homeowners and for coDSOLid:nion with prop&.;ed housing developmenlS adjacent ro the RRJ'. Several years ago we developed a plan to upgr.lde 'the RRF plant and submined this proposal to the Scace. The State re<juired that the RRF agree to serve St. fim1b11r and l'resha1ia fanns before approving rhe Site Application. Tbe IUlF agreed to service SI. Finnbar and Preshana Farms. The subsequent consolidation effort rook more than rwo years before it was approved a super-majority vo1e of rhe !lRF homeowners. We commissioned our Engineer ro prepare p~liminaty designs and a revised Sile Applicition. 14913 Highway 82 •Carbondale, Colorado 81623 P.1 '--, . ·- • ., ,. , --. _,,._, ...,._, -._.._,, " • •" " '""'' 1 ,-, I r\.VMf'l.J.I ll.:I r VI"\." The RRF is committed to renovating and expanding our existing S0,000 galloos per day M&leWaler IJeatment fucility to provide senioe 10 oar JIJ!ridents, as well as to our immcdialc neigbbon (development below Catherine Slore), if1hcy so desire. A 100,000 gallons per day lllcility has already been planned and financed by im asscssment ofRRF hc.meuwmtS. In addition, we have~ service 10 proposed housing dcvelopmedts adjaa:nt lo the RRF. The Site Application was filed nearly a year ago llld ooly mjuires apptO\'al by tbc Water Quality Coauol DMsion of the Colorado Departmeo1 o(Pulllic Hi:alth in onler to finish linal design lll1d commence QOllSlr\lctioo. We believe this is !be most expeditious plan 10 ensure continued servicle to the RRF residents and provide consolidated setvic:e to lKljac:ent development in Gufield COWlly. Rcspcoatidty. Boazd of Din:clors. R.m:ll at Roaring Folk Homcowoas A90ciarion f. T. Mike Gerber, Chairman oftbc Board cc: Mark Bean Don Dc:fonl, EJq. Ted Guy John Hair Hardin Holmes, Esq. Gcorse HopW. Esq. An Kleilllleio David Leavemwnh, Esq. Loyal Leavenworth, Esq. Ron LiSlon Ronald C. McLaughlin LauisMcyer Tim Thulson DQinWauoa Tam Zgncpnella P.2 Community Development Department (970) 328-8730 FAX (970) 328-7185 TDD (970) 328-8797 Email: eccmdeva@vail.net http: //www.eagle-county.com April 5, 1999 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Garfield County Board of County Commissioners C/O Mark Bean 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Mid Valley Metropolitan District, Garfield County Service Plan Dear Commissioners and Mark: Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 Thank you for the referral on the above referenced Service Plan application. After due consideration of the referred documentation, it has been determined by the Eagle County staff that this proposal represents a substantial modification of an existing service plan. As such, Eagle County will reserve any comments for full and complete review of a Service Plan Amendment through an application for the same to Eagle County. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Paul E. Clarkson AICP Senior Planner cc: Eagle County Board of County Commissioners Jim Hartmann, County Administrator Jim Fritze, County Attorney Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney Keith Montag, Community Development Director Mid Valley Metro District 0031 Duroux Lane, Suite A Basalt, CO 81621 RECEIVED APR 7 1999 ~c_ - , Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado Garfield Coumy Court House l 09 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8160 I April 2, 1999 ·Re: Water and Sewer Service to Ranch Creek Dear Commissioners, This letter is to advise you that the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, Inc. ("Ranch") will p~ovide water and sewer service for up to 22 single family residential lots (constituting not more than 22 EQRs) in the proposed Ranch Creek Subdivision subject, however, to the followina comments. Service would be provided pursuant to the Ranch Creek Agr~mcnt . ("Ranch Creek Agreement") dated March 9, 1998 between the Ranch and David P. Brown ("Brown") and Jane J. Jenkins ("Jenkins"). Under the. Ranch Creek Agreement, there are several conditions which mu.st be satisfied. The patties are in the process of trying to satisfy these conditions but, until the conditions are satisfied, the Agreement may be terminated, in wbicb case water and sewer service could not be provided unless another agreement is signed. We understand · that Ranch Creek Ills provided you with a copy of the Ranch Creek Agreement. Currently, the Ranchis in discussions with Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("MVMD'') about MVMD providing sewer service in our arta. Obviously, if MVMD or some other provider furnishes sewer service in the area of the Ranch, this provider, and not the Ranch, would have to provide sewer service to Ranch Creek. We note that the discharge permit for the wastewater. plant on the Ranch . has expired and the relevant government authoriti~ have not acted on the Ranch's long pending site application for rehabilitation and possible e!lpansion of our plant. The Ranch's ability to provide sewer service to Ranch Creek is theTefore dependact on obtaining neces8ary government approvals for the continued . operation of the plant. · We also note that our Consulting Engineers, McLaughlin Water Engineers. 14913 Highway 82 •Carbondale. (iJIO•ado 81623 • (303) 963·3500 Ltd. ("McLaughlin") have advised us of two problems which could inhibit our allility to provide service to Ranch Creek. Fir~t, hydraulic load due to inflow/infiltration has sometimes results in total flow exceeding our wastewater plant's existing discharge limits. Second, our existing wastewater plant is in poor condition and its design does not conform to typical reliability criteria. In connection with our Sewer Plant Improvement Project under the Ranch Creek Agreement, we hope to address both these problems but, at this time, we can give no guaranty that these problems will be solved. Pending completion of the Sewer Plant Improvement Project under the Ranch Creek Agreement, we believe that wc can provide, in the interim, (based on advice from our Consulting Engineers), water and sewer service for up to the 22 EQR's in Rauch Creek, uti!i'ling available capat:ily of our facilities after considering the obligations of the Association to other improved and unimproved lots presently anne:\ed into the Ranch. Our ability to provide sewer sel'Vice assumes that the wastewater load per day per EQR is substantially the same as our historical load per EQR and that historical load per EQR can be used to determine capacity:'Tnterim water and sewer servict? can be provided to the JO lots in the so-called Jenkins Parcel as defined in the Ranch Creek Agreement without any special agreement because this Parcel is already annexed into the Ranch but ii would be necessary for all conditions in the Ranch Creek Agreement to be satisfied or waived and for the Agreement to become fully effective or, alternatively, to negotiate a special agreemenr, for there to be applicable terms and provisions for interim service to the balance of the lots in Ranch Creek. Very truly yours, Ranch at Roaring Fork Home->wners Association, Inc. By: ?n.,~~z~-:""Y...--::-' ,.,.·<-,;-,,,-::;. Title: / __., cc. David P. Brown Jane J. Jenkins Charlie Holloway. President, R@RF Assn. Mike Gerber, Board Chair, R@RF Assn. George Hopfonbeck, R@RF Legal Committee Hardin Homes, R@RF Leg11I Committee March 23, 1999 Mildred Alsdorf. Clerk Garfield County Clerk and Recorder 109 Eight Street .. Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ,;a Fax and Certified lvlail Re: Proposed Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Senice Plan Dear Ms. Alsdorf: ... This correspondence is in response to the Garfield County Service Plan. dated March 2, 1999, filed by the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District (MVMD) for reView by the Garfield County Board of Commissioners. This plan proposes to annex the Ranch at Roaring Fork (RRF) into an expanded MVMD service district. The MVMD Service Plan also details a proposal to locate a sub-regional wastewater plant on one of three (actually four) potential sites. including two proposed sites located on RRF property. The RRF BoarclofDirectors wishes to make clear that the RRF homeowners have not agreed to annexation into the proposed Garfield County Senice Area (GCSA), nor have they agreed to any arrangement or contract with MVMD for them to pro,ide wastewater treatment service to the RRF. MVMD acknowledges this.on page 15 of the Senice Plan by stating, "the District and the Ranch could not agree upon terms murually satisfactory to Boards for the use of either of the two sites." Representatives of the RRF have been discussing a possible wastewater consolidation arrangement "ith MViv!D since July. However, no agreement, whatsoever. has been reached and may not be reached based on fundamental differences between the parties regarding the scope. capacity, location. financing, and control of the furure expansion of the facility. Although we have had a cordial interaction with the Y!VN!D Board of Directors. we believe that Y!VMD is premarure in presenting Garfield County with a Service Plan that references and makes assertions regarding the RRF wasterwater tre:ltment needs and plans. when in fact. no agreements have been made. We also believe the Service Plan may contain significant facrual errors relevant to the RRF. If, after further stud)·, we believe they :ue material. we .,.;u comment on them. Therefore. the RRF Board of Directors respectfully requests the Garfield County Board of Commissioners to consider that the RRF is not, at this time. a willing participant in the filed Garfield C ounry Sen ice Plan. We have not agreed to enter the GCSA or to locate a sub-regional wastewater treatment plant on our property. The RRF is actively pursuing other wastewater treatment options that may prove more appropriate for the RRF homeom1ers and for consolidation with proposed housing developments adjacent to the RRF. Several years ago we developed a plan to upgrade 'the RRF plant and submitted this proposal to the State. The State required that the RRF agree to serve St. Finnbar and Preshana Farms before appro,ing the Site Application. The RRF agreed to senice St. Finnbar and Preshana Farms. The subsequent consolidation effort took more than two years before it was approved a super-majority vote of the RRF homeowners. We commissioned our Engineer to prepare p~eliminary designs and a re\ised Site Application. 14913 Highway 82 •Carbondale, Colorado 81623 I ---'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The RRF is committed to renovating and expandin~(>k existing 50,000 gallons per day wastewater treatment facility to provide service to our residents, as well as to our immediate neighbors (development I below Catherine Store), if they so desire. A 100,000 gaIIons per day facility has already been planned and financed by an assessment of RRF homeowners. In addition, we have offered service to proposed housing developments adjacent to the RRF. The Site Application was filed nearly a year ago and only requires approval by the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health in order to finish final design and commence construction. We believe this is the most expeditious plan to ensure continued service to the RRF residents and provide consolidated service to adjacent development in Garfield County. Respectfully, Board of Directors, Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association ~-1'. Mike Gerber, Chairman of the Board MG/pt cc: Mark Bean Don Deford, Esq, Ted Guy John Heir Hardin Holmes, Esq. George Hopfenbeck, Esq. Art Kleinstein David Leavenworth, Esq. Loyal Leavenworth, Esq. Ron Liston Ronald C. McLaughlin Louis Meyer Tim Thulson Dwain Watson Tom Zancanella FROM JOE KISH 19708710607 p_ 1 t:;: -"Z. <5 -"J 6, -----·-·------...... -·--· / --··· '"·-·---/---·--·-·········--·····-- -~~~"'R, ,c.,,. :B~. ---··-·· ·-·--·· -·--------- ·----~Q.-'lf'~e.,~ .. ~v"'*°"( ~ 0_1lc~ \~ o.-J0_c1 .. \?JQV\ 'r'I \\0,1-·-. _ ....... ___ _ --·----·· -.... __ --·· ...... -·-· -·· .... --.. ---·-···- ---. ---G\~ S,p:c=-\.0q-~1 C:-0 ··-······-··. __ _ ____ ._,,,. ___ _ ---· ----.. ··-·-- ----·--·· ···-·------ --·······------·-··· ··----·· ··--------··---. ·-·--··----.... ···-··· .. --------·-·-··••» __ L....~W~-------~ _0._~__!b.-Z-_ .... __ Co,,V"'\o~~\~ r Go\o .. _ _5_\{a7.:=:. .... ·······-- ----· .. -·--- --·-·· .. -·--· ~0,.( b C,p,x:\ .. ~~----·----·-·· ... ___ ....... ___ .. _______ 1::-~ ".51.?:° .... Rc...R.:_ __ ~.2/)r-. --·· ··-------· .. -------····. -~~JaQQ-~ .. ~If?"' 'V\i-~. ~----------. . ........ ·-··------... · .. -..... _ ...... ·---··· ... ·--·--------~ 04~_7. -···-···-- ____ ....... ____ , --· ~10 ~ .. --8~_7'1 .. A--~--··----------· ---·-·-· ····--------·····---· --.... -.. -------· ·-·- ----·------·-·-· ,···--· --·-----·. --· ----.. ·-··-----·-·········-·-------···----- Mr. Phil Vaughan, Chairman Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission Board 109 -8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Vaughan: Jean M. and Dee Blue 0404 Road 104 Carbondale, CO 81623 May 23, 1999 Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan After much review and discussion regarding the Mid Valley Metropolitian District Service Area, we have decided to be included into the Service Area, provided that all our property is included. The property would be in the proposed Service Area and not an inclusion into the Mid Valley Metropolitian District. Sincerely, I) j !I.. -A /771. itYl" t,(_ rfe:~'· Blue. . ' / ' "'"? -Ate.-';&Lc_ CC: Mark Bean, Garfield County Planner Bob Szort, Garfield County Engineer Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Board !Ye"e'mue This letter was hand delivered on May 24, l'/tl'J FAX NO. Ma~. 26 1999 09:10AM P1 Attn Mark Bean P&Z Members, Garfield County, Co. We wish to express our concern and anxiety regarding the proposed Sanitation District . We have lived in the Roaring Fork valley for 30 years. and in the Middle Valley for 20. Growth is necessary and, indeed, essential . Undue rampant growth is not. We strongly oppose the size and scope of the proposal, as we understand it. A Vail-like corrider will surely result. Thank you for your consideration. Shep and Mary Harris 98 Arlian Rd .. Carbondale, Garfield County 963-0319 TO: FROM: RE: Date: Victoria Rob Study Areas 2 & 3 Comprehensive Plan, including 80-and 160-Acre densities 3/15/99 Here are the results of the buildouts you requested for Study Areas 2 & 3 based on the 3 scenarios you gave me. (FYI, Study Areas 2 & 3 comprise a total of 654, 700 Acres]. Private lands outside 1 mile spheres of influence: minus: Private lands with slope of 40% or greater: equals: Private lands to be evaluated for density: 263,350 Acres 57 .540 Acres 205,81 O Acres Scenario 1: Existing Zoning: 2 Acres minimum oer dwelling unit !DUI. 205,81 O Acres I 2 Acres per DU = 102,905 DU 102,905 DUX 2.66 persons per DU*= 273, 727 persons Scenario 2: Lower Density: 10 Acres minimum per dwelling unit !DUI. 205,81 O Acres I 10 Acres per DU = 20,581 DU 20,581 DUX 2.66 persons per OU*= 54,745 persons Scenario 3: 'Agricultural Density 1 ': 8 Acres minimum per dwelling unit (DU). 205,81 O Acres I 8 Acres per DU = 25, 726 DU 25,726 OU X 2.66 persons per OU*= 68,431 persons Scenario 4: 'Agricultural Density 2': 80 Acres minimum per dwelling unit IOU!. 205,810 Acres I BO Acres per DU= 2,572 DU 2,572 DUX 2.66 persons per DU*= 6,841 persons Scenario 5: 'Agricultural Densttv 3': 160 Acres minimum per dwelling unit !DUI. 205,810 Acres I 160 Acres per OU= 1,286 DU 1,286 DU X 2.66 persons per DU* = 3,420 persons "'Mean. Garfield County 1990 Census Date: April 5, 1999 To: Building and Planning Department Attn: Victoria From: Jim Sears, Undersheriff Re: Study Areas 2 & 3 Comprehensive Plan (Different density levels) Per your request, I have compiled the following information. Two assumptions are made concerning the numbers: I) One additional deputy per each additional 1500 persons, and 2) today's cost to hire and outfit one additional deputy= $56, 100. Scenario 1: 182 additional deputies at a cost of $10,210,200. Scenario 2: 37 additional deputies at a cost of$2,075,700. Scenario 3: 46 additional deputies at a cost of$2,580,600. Scenario 4: 5 additional deputies at a cost of$280,500. Scenario 5: 2 additional deputies at a cost of $112,200. NU. JUU Y. l Rrr:.1o:t1;=. ~IN'\0]'7-? ~ /.,,' \·. L I -' y .\ !~,,.-_ -:r • ~J. -' I I ' 'r l ------u ;.'. __ .=;___, f 1 \ ~ l,/ JUN 3 0 1999 l/IJ JU!I. jU. !~~~ !Cj~rNl LBAIBRRVl!D & lB~lBL r. l ---Jun_e_2_4_, -!9-99-.-------!-~---+v-r.:~-':.,--!',-'C-:;-,f.~Tic<::-~R?cr, C --·I...,, .. Leavenworth & Tester, P.C. 1011 Grand Avenue P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 RE: Mid Yalky Metropolitan District Dear Sirs/Madams: Post-Ir Fax Note Phone/I 3b:3 Fax•{30;::>, This letter responds to your letter of June 11, 1999 to property owners within the Mid Valley Metropolitan District's proposed Garfield County Service Plan area, requesting our views with respect to inclusion in the service area. The Ranch property owners do not request and currently oppose inclusion in tl1e proposed Garfield County Service Plan area. It is our belief that a majority of the property owners within the proposed Garfield County Service Plan area live at the Ranch at the Roaring Fork The Ranch has reliably provided water and \vastewater service to its homeowners for over a quartet' of a century. Accordingly, we do not require an "opportunity'to request wastewater treatment servic~ from the District in the future." As you know, the Ranch has submitted an application for site plan approval to renovato/expand our existing wastewater trca!rnent plant. This application was recently forwarded to the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division in Denver for consideration of final approval. We anticipate a prompt response by the State. In addition, Garfield County has already approved the Rm1ch's siLc plan. Representatives of the Board ofour Homeowners Association have negotiated with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District with a view to consolidating our wastewater treatment services. No agreement has resulted from these negotiations. Unless such an agreement is reaclied, there is no need for the District's services to extend to the area west oftlie Catherine Store Road il!ld we therefore oppose expansion of the District's boundaries to include that area. Sinccrdy yours, ·~:h-/~~ Michael J. Gerber, M.D. Chaim1a1i, Board of Din.'Ctors Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, Inc. CC: Secretary, Board of County Commissioners, Glenwood Springs As a homeowner in the proposed service area, I concur with the foregoing lett•T: Name Address 14913 Highway 82 • CarbondalP.. Colo•ddo 81f12;; • (303) 9K1'.J50G . ·~ 101 MIDLAND AVENUE• BASALT, CO 81621 (970) 927-4701 •FAX (970) 927-4703 TOWN OF BASALT, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 8 ----SERIES OF 1999 BASAlff ~ RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF BASALT TRUSTEES. BASALT. COLORADO. COMMUNITY ON THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE MID-VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT'S AMENDED SERVICE PLAN Recitals WHEREAS, the Town of Basalt is in the process of adopting its new Master Plan; WHEREAS, the Town of Basalt has previously adopted a Three-Mile Plan; WHEREAS, throughout both of these planning efforts the Town of Basalt has analyzed the impacts from the extension of urban services on historic growth patterns; WHEREAS, without question it is the extension of urban services and the approving of urban and suburban development without regard for the logical extension of existing urban infrastructure that has contributed to the sprawl development pattern in the valley; WHEREAS, in an effort to address these concerns the Town of Basalt has identified an Urban Growth Boundary for the extension of urban services and urban density and land uses in both the adopted and proposed master plans; WHEREAS, our.analysis in association with the preparation of the new Master Plan concludes that there are existing development approvals and sufficient land designat~d on the future land use mapping within the proposed Urban Growth Boundary, to double the population in the urban growth boundary. The Town's Urban Growth Boundary comprises lands currently located within service boundaries for existing special districts. Town Boundaries and existing private service providers; WHEREAS, the proposed Master Plan has the lnfrm;tructure/Utilitie;'i'.fbal, ·. "Public investment in infrastructure should be done in a cost effective way based on the community's desire to provide all reasonable necessary facilities and services. In part, this goal should be achieved through compact and efficient development patterns and effective phasing. Infrastructure improvements and expansion should serve the Town's growth, land use and environmental goals not vice versa." RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1999 -----------Established in 1901-----------' WHEREAS, the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District's Amended Service Plan erodes the Urban Growth Boundary's intent by the premature extension of urban services which will ultimately create development patterns that are inconsistent with the Town's planning efforts; and WHEREAS, Eagle County is the approval agency for the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District's Amended Service Plan and they have not been given the opportunity to process an application. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of Basalt, Colorado, find that the proposed amended service plan will cause urban services to be extended prematurely; will cause inappropriate development patterns in Basalt's Three-Mile area; and continue the problems associated of uncontrolled growth in the valley; and is inconsistent with the adopted Three Mile Plan and the proposed Master Plan. Approved on this 22nd day of Town of Basalt Board of Trustees by~ RICHARD P. STEVENS, MAYOR June , 1999 ATTEST: • 11V,JJO r.; HUEBINGER REAL ESTATE, INC. 1620 C Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-6190 Jltly 6, 1999 Gilriield County Board of County Commissioners 109 g11> Street, Sui!:e 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Application far Amendment of Seruice Plan '1y Mid-Valley Mmopolitan District/Carmty Commissioner hearing of July 7, 1999 Gentlemen: ·For a variety of reasons of which I will not dwell upon here, I was unable to attend the meetingofMay26, 1999 held by the Planning Commission upon the applic:a.t:ionofthe Mid-Valley Metropolitan District above referenc;ed. In th.is regard I would state thil.tl have ~viewedtheMid-VaUeyapplicationalongwithaUmaterialsre!evantlnthesameprovided to me by the County planning staff and that had I been present at the meeting of May 26, I would have recommended to you that th.is application be approved. It is my opinion that the proviSion of central water/Wastewater•seIViae contemplated unde):' th.is application furthers numerous important p6licies contained within the Garfield County Master/Comprehensive plan in that such service: • allows the clusreting of home sites which in tum, maximizes the flexibility available to the County under its land use authority to ensure the future provision of a variety of housing types a.t varying levels of affordability and to preserve open for recreational, aesthetic and other purposes; and • will preclude in this area so near the RoarlngForkRiver, the proliferation oheptic (ISDS) Systems and their attendant adverse environmental bnpac:tS. ·~71 By~ . Garfield c;ounty Planning Commissioner' ..... THEODORE K GUY ASSOC JUL-06-1999 09:39 i ;; • Rec:entl:r • 1eceioed a altlll«I taltr tom tne attomeys ~the Mid Valey Metnlpolitan Dlslrid c:onc:el!liag JOW l'eelings about being .. rved by I ptOposed · . ap1111Sion fl Mid \laley'S ..._ Ila. Thal leller lfsD ,qjad that if JOU didn't r.py rn 111e ne;atNe, 1Mf would recognize 'fOUt lack ar 1 ,.piy as a posllMI llldlcallon lllal JOU_. Intel• leO in being served lly Mid Valley. TM puiPose of lftli ..b, 1s'to llllp JOU llllderstand what Is ~ -and lo . enc:1111r.1ge JOU to 1e1pu11d lo die challenge M are fac::i11g. . . · . ~ ~··.., ~ infor11Nid~ Ille-~. Vie Ranc:li has been ill , dlsCI 1 r"a.ia willl Mid V-far mare u.n 1 year. 'They riave;proj)Oled lo build . · a 1.4 millian ;dart perdly plailt on our prapel\Y • enaugn ta:~ a . papui.acn of 10.aoo JlllCIJ*. Tiie _.they want ID build rs~ 11mes larger . 1Mn ourpiwe11C pllnL Upon ourl9fUSal:. tll9Y c;me,back will! a modified plan la blald • 4QO,CICIO ;altm plant C111ourproperty-ona*11111 c:oulCI be · · . · eJqlll1ded 1o ·' ,400.oaa ;ahnL w. ~ t11e in1ent is . . .. ..· . · · IO·lllllal 1lle Randt O Ruai1ilg Fort. tile redpitnt tll 14 lhe sewage ~am al . us ID 8aaJt. . ' . . . . .. . ,_ ;_;- n. fact ,. ui8ra -5 or 8 nlajur ""'*' of lafid bdweeri tt1e:R3nc11 and El Jeb81 wti08e dftwlDpnellt ... CIMGt be approved until 111~ have wastewater SIMce. One J*Clt Ille<:.-Ranch. is ;ipptfing tar I majof incrase In 11Dc1S1ng density Ind ii 111ey can be ouca"'* waste water~. their appllcallon. Will lwceive c:o11slde1.uua 11J tile county Commlssloneis. We do not · ·-..t 1o e~ wldesp1Ud development in Ille Valley.Ju ·the IDdam scates. . l(JGU Dull;CI ii. Urey will come. · · . ' ~~ ~-~ ~ mucJi to ralst develOpment IS II is.to Insure Ura quaGtr llil lite UllC-.. eunw1lly ~.Would you like lo•• a major MW9fn•11•1tplanlun CIUl'JllQPlll\Y, compietewltll Sllldge-1'.iNringtruc:ks ancl Ille PolSfbaJ ot slgtlt, SCllllld ar odor inlrusiun?. T"9 "8ndl CD RoarlnQ Fork Ila ~ DWll plan ID l'lllOftle/update our w;stewater l1e.alinenc faeillty • . TIMt 1lnanclrlg 1IU beeft a.ppu.ed, tu 1he S1a1e nas been advocallng lhat we . J01n Miit V"'leJ •a mllter ot"·~on·. · . -. . -. . -.· . .. . .Tllere hiwGllllllg$1Mt)GlloCMdot0 belpinsurelllepesc:rntiou ar,our -· anvlrul._.. and dr• slatll'llly 0( your prupecty Vllues. · t) Cane lo the County Cummilllonel"S meeting an JulJ 7111at8:00 1.m. •I the~ in Glenwriod 9lld lllppatt aw spea•81$ wtio will De se1llng faith Ille Railc:ll'sioppusiliun tu Ule Pl'IP ad bpal'ISlon. and 2) Sign • a supporter ut 1118 Ran~'S poaiticHI at lllCad in die enc:lased feller to the Ccwmiimloll-. ; ·. · · W. c:annat _,.,..Ille i~ence oi Olis matter. Please giW ii you ~ •114 utmost dentian. . I ' ' 14913 1'119,.,way 92 • Cartioncraie. C01oradc 81523 • (303) 9~3-3500 • i - I I 9709274813 P.02 . -·.; ·~ · .... . : '' TOTl'lL P.02 Garfield County Commissioners I 09 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81610 July 2, 1999 Re: Mid-Valley Metro Water and Sanitation District Application Dear Commissioners, Our family owns about 1500 acres in the upper Cattle Creek area of Garfield County. We are writing to urge you to deny the above application as it would encourage inappropriate high development concentration in the mid-valley area. We support development density recommended in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and any expansion of the Metro District's facilities should not exceed these limits. RECEIVED JUL -7 1999 ~ Sincerely, ~~~ ~es & Hensley Peterson 1654 County Road 121 Carbondale, CO 81623 945-7855 (H) 925-7796 (0) Garfield County Board of Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, COS1601 Dear Commission Members, 94 Arlian Road Carbondale, CO 81623 July 6, 1999 We wish to express our adamant opposition to the proposed expansion plans of the Mid Valley Sanitation District. This expansion would set the stage for total build-out in the mid-valley. Considering theimportance of adherence to the Comprehensive Plan, Mid-Valley's proposition is completely unnecessary and undesirable. As you consider your decision on this important issue, we trust that you will respect our community's commihnent to controlled growth and maintenance of a rural landscape along the valley corridor. Yours sincerely, ?~~ Jim and Vanessa Biehl 07-Jun-99 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Application for Service Plan Amendment by Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Gentlemen, The following is submitted for your consideration on behalf of myself, my brother, Richard Cerise, and my sister, Helen Gorrell, who together, constitute the Mumbert Cerise Family Trust Company. As is relevant here, the Mumbert Cerise Family Trust Company owns approximately 300 acres of land located in Garfield County along the Eagle/Garfield County line which land has been continuously ranched by our family since the 1930's. The application of the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District above referenced and presently before you for consideration, allows for the future extension of Mid-Valley's central water/wastewater facilities to our property; for the reasons set forth more fully below, we would strongly request that you approve this application. As life-long residents, we have been able to witness and assess the phenomenal increase in demand for housing that has occurred in the Roaring Fork Valley over the past decade and the impacts --both good and bad --that the res.ultant growth has had to the quality oflife in this area. This experience has reinforced in us the belief that the policies and goals set forth within the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan establish the proper parameters to guide future growth in the Roaring Fork Valley and that projects developed in accordance therewith will provide to the County as a whole, more benefits than detriments. As is exemplified in part by our property, we would submit that the extension of central water/wastewater facilities as presently proposed by Mid-Valley facilitates implementation of the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. ) At the present time, our property-like numerous other properties located within Mid- Valley's proposed expanded service area --is zoned AIR/RD which allows for the construction of one residential unit for every two acres. The availability of central water/wastewater facilities will have a significant impact on our ability to develop (should we choose to do so) such Dennis Cerise Correspondence Bd. of Commissioners Hearing o/07-Jul-99 Page 1 densities within our property. Simply stated, without available central water/wastewater facilities we will, for economic as well as engineering reasons, be without the means to cluster units/lots within our property. In such event, the future development scenarios available to us are quite obviously restricted i.e., we would be forced to develop our property in the manner of two acre lots or larger ranchettes, each to be serviced through wells and septic systems. In the context of the policies and goals set forth within the Comprehensive Plan, the following described consequences inherent to this manner of development are equally obvious: • The ability to provide a variety of housing types would be lost. Given the infrastructure and land costs that would necessarily be appurtenant to each lot, the ability to provide housing meeting any reasonable definition of affordability would similarly be lost; and • The economic feasibility of dedicating property for open space use would be greatly diminished; and • Distances relative to established transportation centers would be increased and resident's continued reliance on automobiles as their chief mode of transportation sustained; and • The proliferation of septic systems along the Roaring Fork River watershed would continue and the environmental and health impacts attendant to such systems exacerbated; and • The economic efficiencies and stabilities provided by special district owned and operated water/wastewater facilities would be lost. In conclusion we would state that our family's long history of involvement in ranching operations has by its very nature, instilled within each one of us true respect for the continued viability of our lands and the sense that as property owners, we are proctors of the land for future generations of our family and others. Unfortunately, given the current social and economic realities facing family ranching operations within Garfield County generally, and in the Roaring Fork Valley specifically, our family's continued involvement in ranching is doubtful and like so many others before us, it is likely that we will be forced to put our property to other more profitable uses, including residential development. It is our very strong belief that the extension by Mid-Valley of central water/wastewater facilities to our property will provide us the flexibility required to pursue this option in a manner and form consistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and correspondingly, the long term best interests of the future residents of the Roaring Fork Valley and Garfield County. For the reasons above stated we would again urge that you approve the Application for Amended Service Plan filed by the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District. Dennis Cerise Correspondence Bd. of Commissioners Hearing o/07-Jul-99 Page2 Very Truly Yours, Mumbert Cerise Family Trust Company By~~ Dennis Cerise, General Partner Dennis Cerise Correspondence Ed. of Commissioners Hearing o/07-Jul-99 Page3 To: Garfield County Board of Commissioners Glenwood Springs, Colorado Re: Expansion of Mid-Valley Water Treatment District Dear Sirs, Since I am unable to attend the hearing on July 7th for consideration of approval of expansion of the Mid-Valley Water Treatment District to include areas n Garfield County, I would like to express two thoughts on this issue for your consideration. 1. After a sewer system is inspected and installed for individual dwellings-homes or schools, there is no further testing of the efficiency or functioning of that system even if it fails to work. As dwellings are built, even within the comprehensive plan, there is no assurance that the surrounding ground water is not contaminated particularly if corners are cut or the system is abused or malfunctions. A recognized water treatment district however has state requirements for testing the effluent from their plant on an ongoing basis to assure no ground water contamination. 2. People being people, we tend to take the cheap way to fix problems, such as septic systems. It is easy and cheap to divert a malfunctioning septic system from a home into the nearby irrgation ditch or river until the septic can be fixed. This is a recognized inherent problem where water flows past homes. My father worked in septic system installation and repair for many years and related how people would frequently bypass their overfilled non-functioning septic tanks/leech fields to run raw waste into rivers and streams. My father worked in Illinois but do you think people out here are really any different? It seems to just make sense to allow expansion of a recognized treatment facility to include any future growth of homes or schools in the area north of the current Mid-Valley service district. I am a certified Infection Control Practitioner and am very aware of the re-emergence of water-borne illnesses in the United States. Doing the right thing to prevent human waste contamination of our rivers and irrigation ditches is needed now and in the future. Please approve the proposed expansion of the Mid- Valley District to include areas within Garfield County to prevent possible contamination of the Roaring Fork River or the many irrigation ditches which feed into it. Thank you for your consideration in this matter: Respectfully submitted, Trish Cerise RN BSN CIC 970 945 7785 1999,1217-02 LAW OFFICES OF KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 North Mill Street Suite203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 11:22 "824 P.01/04 Herbert S. Klein Millard J. Zimet* (970) 925-8700 Phone (970) 925-3977 Of Counsel: Jacqueline L. Gardner *also admitted io New York LETTER OF FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Date: July 2, 1999 Fax No.: 945-7785 PLEASE DELIVER AB SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: Name: Mark Bean From: Herb Klein Re: Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Plan Amendment Transmitting and/or messages: Letter to County ColllDlissioners. Mark: Please deliver a copy to each conunissioner. I understand that the packets have already been delivered. Total Number of Pages: 3 (plus one for this cover sheet) If you do not receive all of the pages, please call (970) 925-8700 as soon as possible. If you are not the intended addressee of this document, we regret the inconvenience caused you by its receipt. We ask that you telephone us, collect, to make ar:i:-angemente for its dispgsit:l.on. Because this document may contain privileged or confidential information intended only for the addressee, we must :r-equest that you take such steps as necessary to insure that this transmission is either destroyed or returned to us at our e:icpense. Thank you for ygur assistance. FROM :HERBERT s. ULEIN & ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 HERBERT S. KLEIN MILL.ARD J. ZIMET' PFIDFESSIONAL CORPORATION A1TORNEVS AT LAW OF COUNSEL: JACQUELINE L. GARDNER "'also admitted in Naw York July 2, 1999 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 109 9th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Via Facsimile 945-7785 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Office 109 ath Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1999.07-02 11:23 ~824 P.02/04 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 926-8700 FAX: (970) 925-3977 Re: Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Service ~lan hmendment Dear Honorable Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, the contra.ct purchaser of Preshana Farms. My client has closed in escrow on its acquisition of this property and the actual recording of its deed wil.l occur and July 22, 1999. Aspen Equestrian Estates anticipates obtaining sewer service from the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District ( "MVMD") whose ability to provide that service is dependant upon your approval of an amendment to its service plan-Your hearing and deliberation on that application will occur on July 7, 1999. I would appreciate this letter being made part of the record and your consideration of the points raised herein. Preshana Farms received a P.U.D. approval from Garfield County which required that it demonstrate the ability to have sewer service provided "from a wastewater facility district or owner." "Such contract shall provide a mechanism which the residents of the Preshana Farms l?. U. D. will participate in the operation of the wastewater facility_" (Condition No_ 3, Garfield County Commissioner Resolution No. 96-11 Approving Modifications to P-U.D. Rezoning l?lans for Preshana Farms P.U.D.). This condition was to have been satisfied not later than February 9, 1999. Your Board extended the date for satisfaction of this condition until October 4, 15199, based upon our demonstration to you that we have been working with great diligence and at substantial expense to obtain the agreement by MVMD to serve Preshana Farms. In the absence of compliance with this requirement, my client could lose the benefits of the P .·u -D-approval and be exposed to a substantial reduction in the 47 single family residential units approved under the P-U-D. FROM •HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 1999,07-02 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Office July 2, 1999 Page 2 11•23 ns24 P.03/04 plan. As we demonstrated to you when you approved the extension in a satisfaction date for this resolution, substantial efforts have been undertaken by my client in order to satisfy this condition and the MVMD application is the direct result of my client's efforts to obtain the wastewater treatment that this condition requires. As MVMD now comes before you for an amendment to its service plan necessary to provide the wastewater treatment required under the P. U.D. condition, there has been opposition to this plan voiced by certain members of the community who would prefer that growth be limited. They argue that for environmental reasons you should not approve the service plan amendment. The substance of their argument is that if reliable sewer treatment infrastructure is extended in the valley, you will lose your control over land use decisions. They fear that the existence of this infrastructure will cause you to disregard the Comprehensive Plan and approve up- zonings wherever properties can be served by public sewer treatment facilities. Opponents of the MVMD proposal have turned what is a water quality issue into a political/land use issue. We strongly believe that water quality is of paramount importance in this debate and that in the absence of a public sewer treatment infrastructure, individual sewer treatment facilities ranging from small package plants to individual septic systems will proliferate in the valley. Properties which have current zoning are entitled to develop under their zoned densities and if public sewer facilities are not available to them, they will have the legal and physical ability to construct private systems. The engineering experts who will provide information to you at your hearing will clearly indicate that the proliferation of individual private systems is likely to have a damaging effect on water quality. All of the experts agree that from a water quality perspective, the best way to assure water quality is a publically owned wastewater treatment facility. My client expects that the Board will make its decision on the MVMD plan based upon water quality considerations and that it will not acknowledge the fears of the opponents of this plan that the Board will be unable to resist the pleas of the developers seeking to up-zone their property simply because sewer service is available. We have far more confidence in your decision-making process and the integrity of your. existing plans, regulations and policies than do the opponents of this plan. Your Comprehensive FROM •HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOC TO 97121 945 778S 1999.1217-1212 11•24 h824 P.1214/1214 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Office July 2, 1999 Page 3 Plan discourages the proliferation of individual septic systems and encourages consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities. You have substantial guidance on this issue and a refusal to allow service by the MVMD will run counter to your established plans, goals and guidelines. From my client's perspective, we would view your denial of the MVMD proposal as a frustration of our ability to comply with the conditions under the P.U.D. agreement. While the condition states that sewer service could be provided either by a wastewater facility district "or owner", the requirement that there be a mechanism for participation by the residents of Preshana Farms in the operation of wastewater facility will be difficult to achieve in an agreement with a private owner of a wastewater facility. In contrast, participation in the operation of a facility if it i.s owned by a public special district is assured. Therefore, the terms of the condition lead us to believe that your preference at the time of imposing these conditions was that we obtain service from a public entity. That is precisely what we have been pursuing with MVMD for the past year. We strongly urge you to support the MVMD plan and if it is not acceptable to you precisely in the form it is submitted, to consider appropriate conditions which will harmonize the growth concerns of the opponents with the clear public policy of achieving and protecting the high water quality of the Roaring Fork River. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. sg\weinberg\presh\02B.ltr Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ~ BY=~~~_,,_~__..__~~~~~~~~~~~~­ Hebert S. Klein, Esq. Herbert S. Klein Millard J. Zimet* Of Counsel: 970 945 7785 1999.07-02 LAW OFFICES OF KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 North Mill Street Suite203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-8700 Phone (970) 925-3977 Jacqueline L Gardner •also admitted in New York LETTER OF FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL 11122 ~824 P.01/04 Date: July 2, 1999 Fax No.: 945-7785 PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: Name: Mark Bean From: Herb Klein Re: Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Plan Amendment Transmitting and/or messages: Letter to County Commissioners. Mark: Please deliver a copy to each commissioner. I understand that the packets have already been delivered. Total Number of Pages: 3 (plus one for this cover sheet) If you do not receive all of the pages, please call (970) 925-8700 as soon as possible. If you are not the intended addressee of this document, we regret the inconvenience caused you by its receipt. 1 We ask that you telephone us, collect, to make a;i:-rangements for its disposition. Because this document may contain privileged or confide1:1tial information intended only for the addressee, we must request that you take such steps as necessary to insure that this transmission is either deatroyed or returi:ied to us at our expense. Thank you for your assistance. FROM •HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TD 970 945 7785 HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW MILLARD J. ZIME'I" OF COUNSEL; JACQUELINE L GARDNER •also admitted ln N;w York Garfield County July 2, 1999 Board of County Commissioners 109 s•h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Via Facsimile 945-7785 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Office 109 9th Street Glenwood Springs, co 81601 1999.07-02 11•23 P824 P.02/04 201 NORTH MILL SlRl:ET SUITE 203 ASPcN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 925-8700 FAX: (970) 925-3977 Re: Mid-Valley Mecropolit.an District Service l'lan l\mendrnent Dear Honorable Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, the contract purchaser of Preshana Farms. My client has closed in escrow on its acquisition of this property and the actual recording of its deed will occur and July 22, 1999. Aspen Equestrian Estates anticipates obtaining sewer service from the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District ( "MVMD") whose ability to provide that service is dependant upon your approval of an amendment to its service plan. Your hearing and deliberation on that application will occur on July 7, 1999. I would appreciate this letter being made part of the record and your consideration of the points raised herein. Preshana Farms received a P.U.D. approval from Garfield County which required that it demonstrate the ability to have sewer service provided "from a wastewater facility district or owner." "Such contract shall provide a mechanism which the residents of the Preshana Farms P.tl'.D. will participate in the operation of the wastewater facility." (Condition No. 3, Garfield County Commissioner Resolution No. 98-11 Approving Modifications to P. U. D. Rezoning Plans for Preshana Farms P.U.D.). This condition was to have been satisfied not later than February 9, 1999. Your Board extended the date for satisfaction of this condition until October 4, 1999, based upon our demonstration tc you that we have been working with great diligence and at substantial expense to obtain the agreement by MVMD to serve Preshana Farms. In the absence of compliance with this requirement:,. my client could lose the benefits of the P. iJ. D. approval and be exposed to a substantial reduction in the 47 single family residential units approved under the P.U.D. F.ROM •HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 1999.07-02 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Office July 2, 1999 Page 2 11•23 ~824 P.03/04 plan. As we demonstrated to you when you approved the extension in a satisfaction date for this resolution, substantial efforts have been undertaken by my client in order to satisfy this condition and the MVMD application is the direct result of my client's efforts to obtain the wastewater treatment that this condition requires. As MVMD now comes before you for an amendment to its service plan necessary to provide the wastewater treatment required under the P.U.D. condition, there has been opposition to this plan voiced by certain members of the community who would prefer that growth be limited. They argue that for environmental reasons you should not approve the service plan amendment. The substance of their argument is that if reliable sewer treatment infrastructure is extended in the valley, you will lose your control over land use decisions. They fear that the existence of this infrastructure will cause you to disregard the Comprehensive Plan and approve up- zonings wherever properties can be served by public sewer treatment facilities. Opponents of the MVMD proposal have turned what is a water quality issue into a political/land use issue. We strongly believe that water quality is of paramount importance in this debate and that in the absence of a public sewer treatment infrastructure, individual sewer treatment facilities ranging from small package plants to individual septic systems will proliferate in the valley. Properties which have current zoning are entitled to develop under their zoned densities and if public sewer facilities are not available to them, they will have the legal and physical ability to construct private systems. The engineering experts who will provide information to you at your hearing will clearly indicate that the proliferation of individual private systems is likely to have a damaging effect on water quality. All of the experts agree that from a water quality perspective, the best way to assure water quality is a publically owned wastewater treatment facility. My client expects that the Board will make its decision on the MVMD plan based upon water quality considerations and that it will not acknowledge the fears of the opponents of this plan that the Board will be unable to resist the pleas of the developers seeking to up~zone their property simply because sewer service is available. We have far more confidence in your decision-making process and the integrity of your existing plans, regulations and policies than do the opponents of this plan. Your Comprehensive FROM •HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 1999107-02 11•24 #824 P.04/04 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Office July 2, 1999 Page 3 Plan discourages the proliferation of individual septic systems and encourages consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities. You have substantial guidance on this issue and a refusal to allow service by the MVMD will run counter to your established plans, goals and guidelines. From my client's perspective, we would view your denial of the MVMD proposal as a frustration of our ability to comply with the conditions under the P.U.D. agreement. While the condition states that sewer service could be provided either by a wastewater facility district "or owner", the requirement that there be a mechanism for participation by the residents of Preshana Farms in the operation of wastewater facility will be difficult to achieve in an agreement with a private owner of a wastewater facility. In contrast, participation in the operation of a facility if it i.s owned by a public special district is assured. Therefore, the terms of the condition lead us to believe that your preference at the time of imposing these conditions was that we obtain service from a public entity. That is precisely what we have been pursuing with MVMD for the past year. We strongly urge you to support the MVMD plan and if it is not acceptable to you precisely in the form it is submitted, to consider appropriate conditions which will harmonize the growth concerns of the opponents with the clear public policy of achieving and protecting the high water quality of the Roaring Fork River. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. sg\weillloerg\presh\028.lcr Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ~ BY=~~~~~~---~~~~~~~~~~~ Hebert S. Klein, Esq. Herbert S. Klein Millard J. Zimet* or Counsel: 970 945 7785 1999.07-02 LAW OFFICES OF KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 North Mill Street Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-8700 Phone (970) 925-3977 Jacqueline L. Gardner •also admitted in New York LETTER OF FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL 11:22 ns24 P.01/04 Date: July 2, 1999 Fax No.: 945-7785 PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE T01 Name: Mark Bean From: Serb Klein Re: Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Plan Amendment Transmitting and/or messages: Letter to County Commissioners. Mark: Please deliver a copy to each commissioner. I understand that the packets have already been delivered. Total NUmber of Pages: 3 (plus one for this cover sheet) !f you do not receive all of the pages, please call (970) 925-8700 as soon as possible. If you are not the intended addressee of this document, we regret the inconvenience caused you by its receipt. , We ask that you telephone us, collect, to make a:i:-:i:-angements for its disposition. Because this document may contain privileged or confid~tial information intended only for the addressee, we must request that you take such steps as necessary to insure that this transmission is either destroyed or returned to us at our e:x:pense. T:ti.ank you for your assistance. FROM •HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO HERBERT S. KLEIN MILi.ARO J. ZIMET' OFCOUNSa: JACQUELINE L. GARDNER •also admitted in New York Garfield County 970 945 7785 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AiTORNEYS AT LAW July 2, 1999 Board of County Commissioners 109 8'0 Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Via Facsimile 945-7785 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Office 109 st• Street Glenwood Springs, co 81601 1999 .1217-02 11:23 "824 P.02/04 201 NORT!-1 MILL SlRW SUITE 203 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 925-8700 FAX: (970) 925-3977 Re: Mid-Valley Met:ropolit.an District Service I'lan l\mendment Dear Honorable Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, the contract purchaser of l?reshana Farms. My client has closed in escrow on its acquisition of this property and the actual recording of its deed will occur and July 22, 1999. Aspen Equestrian Estates anticipates obtaining sewer service from the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District ("MVMD") whose ability to provide that service is dependant upon your approval of an amendment to its service plan. Your hearing and deliberation on that application will occur on July 7, 1999. I would appreciate this letter being made part of the record and your consideration of the points raised herein. Preshana Farms received a P.U.D. approval from Garfield County which required that it demonstrate the ability to have sewer service provided "from a wastewater facility district or owner." "Such contract shall provide a mechanism which the residents of the Preshana Farms P. U. D. will participate in the operation of the wastewater facility." (Condition No. 3, Garfield County Commissioner Resolution No. 96-lJ. Approving Modifications to l?.U.D. Rezoning Plans for Preshana Farms P.U.D.). This condition was to have been satisfied not later than February 9, J.999. Your Board extended the date for satisfaction of this condition until October 4, 1999, based upon our demonstration to you that we have been working with great diligence and at substantial expense to obtain the agreement by MVMD to serve Preshana Farms. In the absence of compliance with this requirement,. my client could lose the benefits of the P ."u. D. approval and be exposed to a substantial reduction in the 47 single family residential units approved under the P. U .D. FROM •HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 1999.07-02 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Office July 2, 1999 Page 2 11•23 ~824 P.03/04 plan. As we demonstrated to you when you approved the extension in a satisfaction date for this resolution, substantial efforts have been undertaken by my client in order to satisfy this condition and the MVMD application is the direct result of my client's efforts to obtain the wastewater treatment that this condition requires. As MVMD now comes before you for an amendment to its service plan necessary to provide the wastewater treatment required under the P.U.D. condition, there has been opposition to this plan voiced by certain members of the community who would prefer that growth be limited. They argue that for environmental reasons you should not approve the service plan amendment. The substance of their argument is that if reliable sewer treatment infrastructure is extended in the valley, you will lose your control over land use decisions. They fear that the existence of this infrastructure will cause you to disregard the Comprehensive Plan and approve up- zonings wherever properties can be served by public sewer treatment facilities. Opponents of the MVMD proposal have turned what is a water quality issue into a political/land use issue. We strongly believe that water quality is of paramount importance in this debate and that in the absence of a public sewer treatment infrastructure, individual sewer treatment facilities ranging from small package plants to individual septic systems will pro1iferate in the valley. Properties which have current zoning are entitled to develop under their zoned densities and if public sewer facilities are not available to them, they will have the legal and physical ability to construct private systems. The engineering experts who will provide information to you at your hearing will clearly indicate that the proliferation of individual private systems is likely to have a damaging effect on water quality. All of the experts agree that from a water quality perspective, the best way to assure water quality is a publically owned wastewater treatment facility. ' My client expects that the Board will make its decision on the MVMD plan based upon water quality considerations and that it will not acknowledge the fears of the opponents of this plan that the Board will be unable to resist the pleas of the developers seeking to up-zone their property simply because sewer service is available. We have far more confidence in your decision-making process and the integrity of your existing plans, regulations and policies than do the opponents of this plan. Your Comprehensive FROM :HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 1999,07-02 11:24 ns24 P.04/04 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Office July 2, 1999 Page 3 Plan discourages the proliferation of individual septic systems and encourages consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities. You have substantial guidance on this issue and a refusal to allow service by the MVMD will run counter to your established plans, goals and guidelines. From my client's perspective, we would view your denial of the MVMD proposal as a frustration of our ability to comply with the conditions under the P.U.D. agreement. While the condition states that sewer service could be provided either by a wastewater facility district "or owner", the requirement that there be a mechanism for participation by the residents of Preshana Farms in the operation of wastewater facility will be difficult to achieve in an agreement with a private owner of a wastewater facility. In contrast, participation in the operation of a facility if it i.s owned by a public special district is assured. Therefore, the terms of the condition lead us to believe that your preference at the time of imposing these conditions was that we obtain service from a public entity. That is precisely what we have been pursuing with MVMD for the past year. We strongly urge you to support the MVMD plan and if it is not acceptable to you precisely in the form it is submitted, to consider appropriate conditions which will harmonize the growth conce=s of the opponents with the clear public policy of achieving and protecting the high water quality of the Roaring Fork River. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. ' sg\weilll:>erg\presh\028.ler Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ~ By:~~~~~,,._,. ....... .,._.,,.--=,........,~-,,,~~~~~~ Hebert S. Klein, Esq. Herbert S. Klein Millard J. Zimet* or counsel: 970 945 7785 1999,07-02 LAW OFFICES OF KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 North Mill Street Suite203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-8700 Phone (970) 925-3977 Jacqueline L Gardner •also admitted in New York LETTER OF FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL 11:22 ns24 P.01/04 Date: July 2, 1999 Fax No.: 945-7785 PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: Name: Mark Bean From: Berb Klein Re: Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Plan .Amendment Transmitting and/or messages: Letter to County Commissioners. Mark: Please deliver a copy to each commissioner, I understand that the packets have already been delivered. Total Number of Pages: 3 (plus one for this cover sheet) If you do not :i:-eceive all of the pages, please call (970) 925-8700 as soon as possible. If you are not the intended ad~essee of this document, we regret the inconvenience caused you by its receipt. 1 We ask tha.t you telephone us, collect, to make a:i:-:i:-angements for its disposition. Because this document may contain privileged or confidei:itial information intended only for the addressee, we must :i:-equest that you take such steps as necessary to insure that this transmission is either destroyed or returned to us at our e:x:pense. Tl:Lank you for your assistance. FROM :HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO HERBERT S. KLEIN MILLARD J. ZIMET' OF COUNSEL: JACQUELINE L. GARDNER ~also admitted in New York Garfield County 970 945 7785 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AiTORNEYS AT LAW July 2, 1999 Board of County Commissioners 109 a•• Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Via Facsimile 945-7785 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Office 109 st• Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1999.07-02 11•23 #824 P.02/04 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 200 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 925-8700 FAX: (970) 925·3977 Re: Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Service I'lan Nnendment Dear Honorable Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, the contract purchaser of Preshana Farms. My client has closed in escrow on its acquisition of this property and the actual recording of its deed will occur and July 22, 1999. Aspen Equestrian Estates anticipates obtaining sewer service from the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District ( "MVMD") whose ability to provide that service is dependant upon your approval of an amendment to its service plan. Your hearing and deliberation on that application will occur on July 7, 1999. I would appreciate this letter being made part of the record and your consideration of the points raised herein. Preshana Farms received a P. U. D. approval from Garfield County which required that it demonstrate the ability to have sewer service provided "from a wastewater facility district or owner." "Such contract shall provide a mechanism which the residents of the Preshana Farms P.U.D. will participate in the operation of the wastewater facility_" (Condition No. 3, Garfield County Commissioner Resolution No. 98-11 Approving Modifications to P. U .D. Rezoning Plans for Preshana Farms P.U.D.). This condition was to have been satisfied not later than February 9, 1999. Your Board extended the date for satisfaction of this condition until October 4, 1999, based upon our demonstration to you that we have been working with great diligence and at substantial expense to obtain the agreement by MVMD to serve Preshana Farms. In the absence of compliance with this requirement,. my client could lose the benefits of the P .·u. D. approval and be exposed to a substantial reduction in the 47 single family residential units approved under the p_U.D. FROM •HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 1999.07-02 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Office July 2, 1999 Page 2 11:23 ns24 P.03/04 plan. As we demonstrated to you when you approved the extension in a satisfaction date for this resolution, substantial efforts have been undertaken by my client in order to satisfy this condition and the MVMD application is the direct result of my client's efforts to obtain the wastewater treatment that this condition requires. As MVMD now comes before you for an amendment to its service plan necessary to provide the wastewater treatment required under the P.U.D. condition, there has been opposition to this plan voiced by certain members of the community who would prefer that growth be limited. They argue that for environmental reasons you should not approve the service plan amendment. The substance of their argument is that if reliable sewer treatment infrastructure is extended in the valley, you will lose your control over land use decisions. They fear that the existence of this infrastructure will cause you to disregard the Comprehensive Plan and approve up- zonings wherever properties can be served by public sewer treatment facilities. Opponents of the MVMD proposal have turned what is a water quality issue into a political/land use issue. We strongly believe that water quality is of paramount importance in this debate and that in the absence of a public sewer treatment infrastructure, individual sewer treatment facilities ranging from small package plants to individual septic systems will proliferate in the valley. Properties which have current zoning are entitled to develop under their zoned densities and if public sewer facilities are not available to them, they will have the legal and physical ability to construct private systems. The engineering experts who will provide information to you at your hearing will clearly indicate that the proliferation of individual private systems is likely to have a damaging effect on water quality. All of the experts agree that from a water quality perspective, the best way to assure water quality is a publically owned wastewater treatment facility. J My client expects that the Board will make.its decision on the MVMD plan based upon water quality considerations and that it will not acknowledge the fears of the opponents of this plan that the Board will be unable to resist the pleas of the developers seeking to up-zone their property simply because sewer service is available. We have far more confidence in your decision-making process and the integrity of your existing plans, regulations and policies than do the opponents of this plan. Your Comprehensive FROM •HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO 97121 945 7785 1999.1217-1212 11•24 U824 P.1214/1214 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Office July 2, 1999 J?age 3 Plan discourages the proliferation of individual septic systems and encourages consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities. You have substantial guidance on this issue and a refusal to allow service by the MVMD will run counter to your established plans, goals and guidelines. From my client's perspective, we would view your denial of the MVMD proposal as a frustration of our ability to comply with the conditions under the P.U.D. agreement. While the condition states that sewer service could be provided either by a wastewater facility district "or owner", the requirement that there be a mechanism for participation by the residents of Preshana Farms in the operation of wastewater facility will be difficult to achieve in an agreement with a private owner of a wastewater facility. In contrast, participation in the operation of a facility if it is owned by a public special district is assured. Therefore, the terms of the condition lead us to believe that your preference at the time of imposing these conditions was that we obtain service from a public entity. That is precisely what we have been pursuing with MVMD for the past year. We strongly urge you to support the MVMD plan and if it is not acceptable to you precisely in the form it is submitted, to consider appropriate conditions which will harmonize the growth concerns of the opponents with the clear public policy of achieving and protecting the high water quality of the Roaring Fork River. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. J sg\weinloerg\presh\028.ltr Very truly yours, ICLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ~ By:~~~-~..__._~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hebert S. Klein, Esq. Herbert S. Klein Millard J. Zimet* Of Counsel: 970 945 7785 1999,07-02 LAW OFFICES OF KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 North Mill Street Suite203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-8700 Phone (970) 925-3977 Jacqueline L Gardner *also admitted in New York LETTER OF FACSIMILE Tl'tANSMITTAL 11:22 #824 P.01/04 Date: July 2, 1999 Fax No.: 945-7785 PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: Name: Mark Bean From: Herb lUein Re: Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Plan Amendment Transmitting and/or messages: Letter to County Colll!llissioners. Mark: Please deliver a copy to each commissioner. I understand that the packets have already been delivered. Total Nwnber of Pages: 3 (plus one for this cover sheet) If you do not receive all of the pages, please call (970) 925-8700 as soon as possible. If you are not the intended addressee of this document, we regret the inconvenience caused you by its receipt. 1 We ask that you telephone us, collect, to make ar:i:-angements for its disposition. Because this docwnent may contain privileged or confidBDtial information intended o:c.ly for the addressee, we must request that you take such steps as necessary to insure that this transmission is either deistroyed or returned to us at our expense. Thank you for your assistance. F~OM =HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORA110N ATTORNEYS AT LAW MILLARD J. ZIMET" OF COUNSEL.! JACQUELINE L. GARDNER ~also adm!n0d in Naw York Garfield County July 2, 1999 Board of County Commissioners 109 a•h Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Via Facsimile 945-7785 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Office 109 ath Street Glenwood Springs, co 81601 1999.07-1212 11:23 na24 P.02/04 201 NORTH MILL STRW SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 925-8700 FAX: (970) 925-39n Re: Mid-Valley Mei:ropolitan District Service I'lan 1'.rnendrnent Dear Honorable Cotmnissioners: I am writing on behalf of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, the contract purchaser of Preshana Farms. My client has closed in escrow on its acquisition of this property and the actual recording of its deed will occur and July 22, 1999. Aspen Equestrian Estates anticipates obtaining sewer service from the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District ( "MVMD" l whose ability to provide that service is dependant upon your approval of an amendment to its service plan. Your hearing and deliberation on that application will occur on July 7, 1999. I would appreciate this letter being made part of the record and your consideration of the points raised herein. Preshana Farms received a P. U .D. approval from Garfield County which required that it demonstrate the ability to have sewer service provided "from a wastewater facility district or owner." "Such contract shall provide a mechanism which the residents of the Preshana Farms P. U. D. will participate in the operation of the wastewater facility." (Condition No. 3, Garfield county Commissioner Resolution No. 98-11 Approving Modifications to J?. U. D. Rezoning Plans for Preshana Farms J?.U.D.). This condition was to have been satisfied not later than February 9, 1999. Your Board extended the date for satisfaction of this condition until October 4, l999, based upon our demonstration to you that we have been working with great diligence and at substantial expense to obtain the agreement by MVMD to serve Preshana Farms. In the absence of compliance with this requirement,. my client could lose the benefits of the P ."u. D. approval and be exposed to a substantial reduct: ion in the 47 single family residential units approved under the P.U.D. ~ROM :HERBERT s. K~EIN & ~ssoc TO 97121 945 7785 1999,1217-1212 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Office July 2, 1999 Page 2 11:23 #824 P.1213/1214 plan. As we demonstrated to you when you approved the extension in a satisfaction date for this resolution, substantial efforts have been undertaken by my client in order to satisfy this condition and the MVMD application is the direct result of my client's efforts to obtain the wastewater treatment that this condition requires. As MVMD now comes before you for an amendment to its service plan necessary to provide the wastewater treatment required under the P.U.D. condition, there has been opposition to this plan voiced by certain members of the community who would prefer that growth be limited. They argue that for environmental reasons you should not approve the service plan amendment. The substance of their argument is that if reliable sewer treatment infrastructure is extended in the valley, you will lose your control over land use decisions. They fear that the existence of this infrastructure will cause you to disregard the Comprehensive Plan and approve up- zonings wherever properties can be served by public sewer treatment facilities. Opponents of the MVMD proposal have turned what is a water quality issue into a political/land use issue. We strongly believe that water quality is of paramount importance in this debate and that in the absence of a public sewer treatment infrastructure, individual sewer treatment facilities ranging from small package plants to individual septic systems will proliferate in the valley. Properties which have current zoning are entitled to develop under their zoned densities and if public sewer facilities are not available to them, they will have the legal and physical ability to construct private systems. The engineering experts who will provide information to you at your hearing will clearly indicate that the proliferation of individual private systems is likely to have a damaging effect on water quality. All of the experts agree that from a water qual.ity perspective, the best way to assure water quality is a publically owned wastewater treatment facility. J My client expects that the Board will make its decision on the MVMD plan based upon water quality considerations and that it will not acknowledge the fears of the opponents of this plan that the Board will be unable to resist the pleas of the developers seeking to up-zone their property simply because sewer service is available. We have far more confidence in your decision-making process and the integrity of your existing plans, regulations and policies than do the opponents of this plan. Your Comprehensive FROM :HERBERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 1999.07-02 11:24 US24 P,04/04 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield county Planning Office July 2, 1999 Page 3 Plan discourages the proliferation of individual septic systems and encourages consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities. You have substantial guidance on this issue and a refusal to allow service by the MVMD will run counter to your established plans, goals and guidelines. From my client's perspective, we would view your denial of the MVMD proposal as a frustration of our ability to comply with the conditions under the P.U.D. agreement .. While the condition states that sewer service could be provided either by a wastewater facility district "or owner", the requirement that there be a mechanism for participation by the residents of Preshana Farms in the operation of wastewater facility will be difficult to achieve in an agreement with a private owner of a wastewater facility. In contrast, participation in the operation of a facility if it is owned by a public special district is assured. Therefore, the terms of the condition lead us to believe that your preference at the time of imposing these conditions was that we obtain service from a public entity. That is precisely what we have been pursuing with MVMD for the past year. We strongly urge you to support the MVMD plan and if it is not acceptable to you precisely in the form it is submitted, to consider appropriate conditions which will harmonize the growth concerns of the opponents with the clear public policy of achieving and protecting the high water quality of the Roaring Fork River. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. , sg\weinbe>:g\presh\028.ltr Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ~ By:~~~~~~.._~~~~~~~~~~~­ Hebert S. Klein, Esq. 970 945 7785 1999.07-02 LAW OFFICES OF KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 North Mill Street Suite203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 11:22 #824 P.01/04 Herbert S. Klein Millard J. Zimet* (970) 925-8700 PhOD!' (970) 925-3977 Of Counsel: Jacqueline L. Gardner *also admitted in New York LETTER OF FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Date: July 2, 1999 FaJC No.: 945-7785 PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: Name: Mark Bean From: Serb Klein Re: Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Plan Amendment Transmitting and/or messages: Letter to County Commissioners. Mark: Please deliver a copy to each commissioner. I understand that the packets have already been delivered. Total Number of Pages: 3 (plus one for this cover sheet) If you do not receive all of the pages, please call (970) 925-8700 as soon as possible. If you are not the intended addressee of this document, we regret the inconvenience caused you by its receipt. We ask that you telephone us, collect, to make arrangements for its disposition. Because this document may contain privileged or confideJ:Ltial information intended only for the addressee, we must request that you take such steps as necessary to insure that this transmission is either destroyed or retuJ:'Jled to us at our expense. Thank you for your assistance. FROM =HERBERT s. ~LEIN & ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 HERBEFIT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION A1TORNEYS AT LAW MILLARD J, ZIMET" OFCOUNSEW JACQUELINE L GARDNER •also admitted in Naw York Garfield County July 2, 1999 Board of County Commissioners 109 9th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Via Facsimile 945-7785 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Office 109 9th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1999,07-02 11:23 #824 P.02/04 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 925-8700 FAX: (970) 925-3977 Re: Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Service I'lan llmendrnent Dear Honorable Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, the contract purchase:r of Preshana Farms. My client has closed in escrow on its acquisition of this property and the actual recording of its deed will occur and July 22, 1999. Aspen Equestrian Estates anticipates obtaining sewer service from the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District ("MVMD") whose ability to provide that service is dependant upon your approval of an amendment to its service plan. Your hearing and deliberation on that application will occur on July 7, 1999. I would appreciate this letter being made part of the record and your consideration of the points raised herein. Preshana Farms received a P. U. D. approval from Garfield County which required that it demonstrate the ability to have sewer service provided "from a wastewater facility district or owner." "Such contract shall provide a mechanism which the residents of the Preshana Farms I?. U. D. will participate in the operation of the wastewater facility. 11 (Condition No. 3, Garfield County Commissioner Resolution No. 98-ll Approving Modifications to p.U.D. ~ezoning J?lans for l?reshana Farms P.U.O.). This condition was to have been satisfied not later than February 9, 1999. Your Board extended the date for satisfaction of this condition until October 4, l999, based upon our demonstration to you that we have been working with great diligence and at substantial expense to obtain the agreement by MVMD to serve l?reshana Farms. In the absence of compliance with this requirement,. my client could lose the benefits of the P. U. D. approval and be exposed to a substantial reduction in the 47 single family residential units approved under the P.U.D. FROM •HERBERT s. K~EIN & ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 1999107-1212 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Office July 2, 1999 Page 2 11•23 ~824 P.03/04 plan. As we demonstrated to you when you approved the extension in a satisfaction date for this resolution, substantial efforts have been undertaken by my client in order to satisfy this condition and the MVMD application is the direct result of my client's efforts to obtain the wastewater treatment that this condition requires. As MVMD now comes before you for an amendment to its service plan necessary to provide the wastewater treatment required under the P.U.D. condition, there has been opposition to this plan voiced by certain members of the community who would prefer that growth be limited. They argue that for environmental reasons you should not approve the service plan amendment. The substance of their argument is that if reliable sewer treatment infrastructure is extended in the valley, you will lose your control over land use decisions. They fear that the existence of this infrastructure will cause you to disregard the Comprehensive Plan and approve up- zonings wherever properties can be served by public sewer treatment facilities. Opponents of the MVMD proposal have turned what is a water quality issue into a political/land use issue. We strongly believe that water quality is of paramount importance in this debate and that in the absence of a public sewer treatment infrastructure, individual sewer treatment facilities ranging from small package plants to individual septic systems will proliferate in the valley. Properties which have current zoning are entitled to develop under their zoned densities and if public sewer facilities are not available to them, they will have the legal and physical ability to construct private systems. The engineering experts who will provide information to you at your hearing will clearly indicate that the proliferation of individual private systems is likely to have a damaging effect on water quality. All of the experts agree that from a water quality perspective, the best way to assure water quality is a publically owned wastewater treatment facility. ' My client expects that the Board will make its decision on the MVMD plan based upon water quality considerations and that it will not acknowledge the fears of the opponents of this plan that the Board will be unable to resist the pleas of the developers seeking to up-zone their property simply because sewer service is available. We have far more confidence in your decision-making process and the integrity of your. existing plans, regulations and policies than do the opponents of this plan. Your Comprehensive \ FROM •HERBERT s. KLEIN~ ~ssoc TO 970 945 7785 1999,07-02 11•24 "824 P.04/04 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Office July 2, 1999 Page 3 Plan discourages the proliferation of individual septic systems and encourages consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities. You have substantial guidance on this issue and a refusal to allow service by the MVMD will run counter to your established plans, goals and guidelines. From my client's perspective, we would view your denial of the MVMD proposal as a frustration of our ability to comply with the conditions under the P.U.D. agreement. While the condition states that sewer service could be provided either by a wastewater facility district "or owner", the requirement that there be a mechanism for participation by the residents of Preshana Farms in the operation of wastewater facility will be difficult to achieve in an agreement with a private owner of a wastewater facility. In contrast, participation in the operation of a facility if it i.s owned by a public special district is assured. Therefore, the terms of the condition lead us to believe that your preference at the time of imposing these conditions was that we obtain service from a public entity. That is precisely what we have been pursuing with MVMD for the past year. We strongly urge you to support the MVMD plan and if it is not acceptable to you precisely in the form it is submitted, to consider appropriate conditions which will harmonize the growth concerns of the opponents with the clear public policy of achieving and protecting the high water quality of the Roaring Fork River. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. I sg\weinloerg\presh\02B.ler Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ~ BY•~~~~~~--~~.......,.......,~~~~~~~~­ Hebert S. Klein, Esq. 07/06/1999 13:38 19709257796 JAMES D PETERSON -,.("'..:.. -··,\,. , ROUTE D John D Larry D Walt \ Garfield County Cotn1nissione1· I 09 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81610 --77~~ July 2, 1999 Re: Mid-Valley Mc:tro Wate and Sanitation Disl'l'ict Application Dear Commissionc:rs, Our family owns about 500 acres in the upper Cattle: Creek area of Garfield County. We are writing '" urg you to deny the above application as it would encourage inappropriate high d velopment concentration in the mid-valley arc:a. We support developmen density recommended in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and any e pansion of the Metro Dhtrict's facilities ~hould not exceed these limits. Sincerely, PAGE 01 c~~~~··P~ -James & Hensley Peterson 1654 County Road 121 Carbondale, CO 81623 945. 7855 (H) 925-7796 (0) LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH CYNTHIA C. TESTER GREGORY J. HALL DAVID H. McCONAUGHY KELLYD.CAVE DAVID A. MEISINGER* TOM KINNEY SUSAN W. LAATSCH *Admitted in Wisconsin only Mark L. Bean, Director July 6, 1999 Garfield County Building & Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1011 GRAND AVENUE P. 0. DRAWER2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261 FAX: (970) 945-7336 ltlaw@sopris.net VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District's Garfield County Service Plan Supplemental Information Dear Mark: I am writing on behalf of Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("MVMD" or the "District") to supplement the information for our presentation to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners on July 7, 1999. Enclosed please find a copy of St. Finnbar Land Company's Petition for Inclusion into the District dated July 2, 1999. With this Petition for Inclusion, St. Finnbar, Preshana, and Winter Green Homes/Mumbert Cerise Ranch (all located within the proposed Garfield County area) have formally requested inclusion in the District for service. Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. LEL:lln cc: Don DeFord, Esq., w/enc. Bob Szrot, w/enc. Louis Meyer, P.E., w/enc. Board of Directors, Mid Valley Metropolitan District, w/enc. Kelly Mullane-Johnson, w/enc. David E. Leavenworth, Esq., w/enc. Douglas Pratte, w/enc. Kevin Patrick, Esq. w/enc. Ronald B. Liston, w/enc. Tim Thulson, Esq., w/enc. Herb Klein, Esq., w/enc. F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos\MVMD-Bean-ltr -4. wpd JUL 02 '99 01:50PM GARFIELD HECHT BASALT IN THE MATTER OF: .MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PETITION FOR INCLUSION P.3 The undersigned, St. Finnbar Land Company, a Colorado corporation, (hereinafter "Petitioner"), hereby respectfully petition the Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("District"), acting by and through its Board ofDirectors, for the inclusion of the land described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incolllorated herein by this reference (the "Property") in the District. The Petitioner represents to the District that it is the owner of one hundred percent (100%) of the Property, that no other persons or entities own an interest therein except as beneficial holders of encumbrances, and that no such beneficial holder has any right to object to such inclusion. The Petitioner represents that the Property is not currently within the boundaries of a special district, a municipality, or a city and county with the power or ability to provide wastewater treatment services. The Petitioner represents that the Property is suited for, and appropriate to, receive the services of the District. The Petitioner acknowledges that the District is not required to enlarge or extend its facilities or services beyond those cunently existing and that any enlargements or extensions necessary to serve the Property will be undertaken only pursuant to a written agreement. The Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw this Petition for Inclusion in the event a mutually acceptable pre-inclusion agreement between the Petitioner and the District (the "Pre- Inclusion Agreement") is not executed. The Petitioner hereby requests that the Property be included in the District and that an Order may be entered in the District Court in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, including the Property in the District, and that from and after the entry of such Order, the Property shall be liable for the full ad valorem mill levies from time to time levied by the District and the full applicable specific ownership tax. The Property shall also be liable for its proportionate share of annual operation and maintenance charges and the cost of facilities and the taxes, rates, tolls, charges, assessments certified and levied or assessed therefor, as may be specified in the Pre- Inclusion Agreement. The Property shall also be subject to the District's rules and regulations as validly promulgated and as amended from time to time. The Petitioner hereby requests that the District publish notice of the filing of this Petition and the place, time and date of the public meeting of the Board of Directors of the District at which ~ P.4 P.03. Uiia JlllitiOZI abl1i lie hied. Any immlted penons shall aper at 111.cb timl anti pleoe aa4 aw 1181111! m cliina whJ the Peti'&iosl U0\114uot \ie gnlll'ld. s11.a.S 1llla ..:F! -~ 1999. PITITIONEll . p· Land Campu.y ... STAT! OP 4e1<0t cg T ) ) SI, · cointtY OP 6rkteur~?a · ) · · . 'Ow ~I.lg Mm fat bmmon w acknowlldiecl ~-Uiil ,./~day of Q_t'jr .1999,by.'Zigy A . .ta1e)4«E OfSt.FilmbarLadCampaaf. 27 . . .. Wil.Ull IDY h•\l•d omllia1 llCIL My coallllluiun upin:s: ,ill .::.. ELI~~ V. ICAllmpF; . BTATi OF r PUl[.fe -., ", ' .. COMMISSION E~~liL,,~.,. L ' . .. ••• ( •.. Ju I. JUL ~~ '~g 01:51PM GARFIE1 D HECHT BASALT 2. I 999 11: 36AM COMMON WiALTl! T ni.i No. 1238 .p, 3/E'. 5 -. -. ·- .. . •' /. Pl\OHRTr DBSC:R~P'l'ION A.P•rcel af l•nd aLtuaced in La•• 6, 12, IJ, and 19 af Section 31, Township 7 South, Ran9e 87 N•st of the Sixth trincl.pal Meridian, Garfield couuty1 Col .. ado. Sai.d parce1 being .... re particularly desurib•d •• foll...,s• . Doginnln9 ac • rabar anll c11p n1orke.t L.S. 195981 .,henco the wLt1\ia•s eorJ\e.t' to aha nor:tb9alt. C!o,cori.a~ of aa.ld Sli!iet:..i.on l L bears 11o•·th 41"06'04" Eaac, 3203.06 leot; thenc::a South l.1'37'27' Wget, 1304.&9 feat; thence .soutl!. 2j'40•24• West, BO.SB feet; ·thence sout!I l6',04 •45• llaat, u.16 feet to the centerline o~ the Roaring ro~k Rive:; thence the following eight course• along said centarlln9 of r.i.var1 l) North 65°57'30' Wast, ,56,75 fest, 2) North 63'59'48" Wezt,.319.32 feet,· · 3) North &G'SO'l8" Weot, 203.39 f•et, 4) North 7S'33'll", Wut, 272.62 feet. · 5) North 84'25'20" West, 257,22 feet, 6) Nor .. 11 S7'4l' 19' Nest,· 22J.l8 feat, 7) Nor~ll 08'JO'lS' west, 346.12 fe•t, 8). North 6~"5''25" liHt, 120,lS fe1>c; tl1ence leaving •aid c"ntedine North 00'30'00" Weot, 233.20 faet; ehence South 88'3!'40'" West, 499.0' fact; thance North 00°00'33" Eaot, 1273.0' feet; ·thence Nn~th·S9'11•07• East. 471.Ja f<!et; .. he11ce Nortn 00°00'18" S•st, 262.17 feet; tho11aa So,.th 76'47'40" Bast, 10J9,7J fHt; ·thence South 13'12'20" Weot, 120,00 teat; t.hanC"e So\lt:h. 81'01'1?• Ea.at., 2BS.92 feet: thence.Sout:ll o'J0,'29' East, 89.H feet: thl!llc:e So\1th 62.ol8'46• E:ast, 375,99 le•ti thance sautll 77'44'52' ta~t, 317.09 feet; thence· south 72'H'J2" 6ast, 136.34 feet to tho point of beqln11l.n9. 'l'oqP.l:her with all of Gront-..~·-right, tit!" ond lot.aroot Jn. ond to 11 ~erp@t~1J. easament. 'lilhic:t\ iei descr:ibed 1.9 Poccel ·a··. in the Agr;eernrant., taseinent c~ant a1uJ Hutuol neleol9Ai r@<.:n1•,fpd · Octob@r 22, 1906 in Bllok 07 ·~ P•9" 61& u11clar Recep~iun No. l7~6!iB ill the z:og~oz-rJs o[ l:.h'I Gat'!Leld Co1.111t.y, CvJorailQ Clerk and iteco~der, a~r.ept that portion of· sald Porc<>l •s• 11hich . crant.ur eg11veyed to Ra.l~h t,,. ~z-e.den by Wa"teanty Deed cl!cu"cled Dacembei: 7, 1997 Ln Book 7.25 ·at Pq9e 792 undei: R.ecapt.i.on " ·.~ ' ' · ... "'. ' '., ,• ·-.... -.. _ .... , _ _t:!o~. :'.!~073 in •••~ reeo•"<I•. .. · · · . _ _ .. ....... . ... -..... ' ............. ·-·-. -....... _ -· ·-·· ...... -... _. .. ~ ........... , • 7-06-1999 12o17PM FROM WELLS LOVE AND SCOBY 303 449 6227 P.2 ., EYis CAVID C. Wf;LLS WU.LIAM A. LOVI!. TERRY W, SCOBY CRAIG N, l!LOC:KWICK EDWARC \,, !lli:lilR G, Mt;NRY S&::AKS t;ARY B. !NC.tN DAVID I, L..l!i:AVENWOATM C:l,.F;;N A. KRAHllNBUHL Mr. Hardin Holmes WELLS, LovE 8: Scoev, LLC ··~"'""'"J# "' ;!,,,,, azg CANYON BOULE'.'VA.AD BOULDER, CQLORADO 90302 TIL..l:PMONL; 3091449•4400 TELECOPIER 30314.d~·llZ.27 July 6, 1999 Via US. Mail and facsimile to 303-628-3729 Ireland Stapleton Pryor & Pascoe, P.C. 1675 Broadway, 2611> Floor Denver, CO 80202-4716 Re: Wastewater Treatment Consolidation Dear Mr. Holmes: Enclosed is a copy of the June 24, 1999 letter from Michael Gerber, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners' Association to Leavenworth & Tester, P.C. dated June 24, 1999 which we discussed last Wednesday. I must reiterate that Michael Gerber's letter, and its tone, do not, in my view, assist consolidation negotiations between Mid Valley Metropolitan District and the Ranch in any way and may, in fact, prove counterproductive. Frankly, it also leaves us wondering whether the Ranch intends to respond to the Mid Valley's latest offer at all. · Approximately three weeks ago, you reconfirmed the intention ycm have expressed to me for several months now, to prepare a counter-proposal to the last Mid Valley proposal to the Ranch at Roaring Fork. You further indicated at that time that we could expect to receive the Ranch's counter-proposal before Mid Valley's July 7, 1999 hearing with the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners to discuss the Mid Valley's proposed Garfield County Service Plan. It is now apparent that no such counter-proposal will be forthcoming before that meeting as promised. We take exception to the assertion made in Michael Gerber's letter to Leavenworth & Tester (and by copy also made to the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County) that "the Board of [the Ranch] Homeowners Association [hasJ.negotiated with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District with a view to consolidating [the Ranch's and Mid Valley's] wastewater treatment services." In our opinion, this statement is simply not true. While it is true that discussions between the Ranch Board and the Mid Valley Board have occurred over the last two years, the Ranch Board has yet to enter meaningful negotiations with Mid Valley. The Mid Valley Board of Directors has in good faith made two serious written consolidation offers to the Ranch, neither of which has received a serious written response or counter-proposal of any kind, despite repeated requests by Mid Valley that the Ranch respond. After months of meetings and informal discussions during the summer of 1998, Mid Valley first provided an offer to the Ranch to consolidate wastewater treatment &cilities by letter dated October 30, 1998. Louis Meyer, Mid Valley's District Engineer, and I, personally attended and 7-06-1999 12,18PM FROM WELLS LOVE AND SCOBY 303 449 6227 --~ presented that proposal to the Ranch' Board of Directors. My subsequent requests in discussions with both you and Michael Gerber in December for a qualitative response indicating the Ranch's position regarding Mid Valley's offer went unheeded. On December 16, 1998 during a conference call attended by Michael Gerber, George Hoffenbeck and yourself, representing the Ranch, and Theodore Guy and Jerry Burnaman, representing Mid Valley, among others, the general nature of the Ranch's concerns were finally clarified, but the discussion again left unclear what the Ranch preferred. It was clear that the site Mid Valley had chosen was considered problematic. The Ranch also made clear that it believed time was of the essence. Your expressed concern that Mid Valley's plans involved too many unknowns, particularly in the context of the many required local and state approvals, was understandable. The only issue really clarified, however, was that the Ranch preferred an alternate site --a site with potentially significant wetland concerns. At the conclusion of that telephone conference, the Mid Valley Board agreed to direct its engineer to investigate the Ranch's preferred alternate site. Mid Valley further suggested proceeding with certain procedural applications, such as a service plan amendment and a 404 permit, to resolve some of the uncertainties of concern to the Ranch. During a subsequent telephone conference between you, Michael Gerber and myself on Janual)' 8, 1999, you informed me that the Ranch objected to Mid Valley's plan to proceed, at its own expense, with a 404 permit application to determine the extent of wetlands mitigation. requirements on the Ranch's preferred site. As a consequence, the eld:ent of wetlands mitigation requirements remains unresolved. As you know, the Ranch has also objected to Mid Valley's · attempt to clarify its ability to perform by submitting a service plan to Garfield County for planning consideration. On January 17, 1999, Michael Gerber and Charles Holloway, President of the Ranch at Roaring .Fork Homeowners Association, finally wrote to Mid Valley in response to its October 30, 1998 offer, rejecting the offer. The Ranch's January 17 letter stated only that the Board believed the Ranch homeowners would reject the October 30 offer if presented without change. The Ranch presented no counter-offer or meaningful suggestions as to what.would be accept.able to the Ranch. On January 26, during a telephone conference between you, Michael Gerber and myself, you advised that you believed that direct discussions with the developer with whom Mid Valley has contracted to provide wastewater treatment services could be more fruitful. In an attempt to salvage the negotiations Mid Valley consented and arranged to have Art Kleinstein of Wintergreen Homes meet privately with you. He later reported that he also could not advise what exactly would be required to obtain Ranch approval of consolidation. On February 19, 1999, the Mid Valley Board wrote to the Ranch and proposed a new offer to the Ranch attempting to address what the Mid Valley Board understood to be the Ranch's principal concerns. Most significantly, Mid Valley agreed to accept the Ranch's preferred site despite the likelihood of wetland mitigation requirements and to limit the proposed plant to sub- regional capacity. On March 5, I 999 you advised that concerns remained with the selected site. As I understood it. the new concerns primarily involved the size of the site and the fear that Mid Valley would later seek to significantly expand the site. You further requested that Mid Valley and the P.3 7-06-1999 12,19PM FROM WELLS LOVE AND SCOBY 303 449 6227 '· . Ranch's engineers be allowed to resolve cerr.ain site specific concerns directly between themselves. As you know, Mid Valley consented to our engineers working directly to resolve site specific concerns. In addition, on May 20, 1999, Theodore K. Guy, President of the Mid Valley Board of Directors, again wrote to the Board of Directors of the Ranch to clarify and modify Mid Valley's February 19, 1999 consolidation offer. Specifically, Mid Valley agreed to reduce the acreage required for the site and agreed to contractually commit not to expand the site in the future. Now we are advised that a formal written counter-proposal from the Ranch to Mid Valley's latest offer will not be forthcoming, despite your repeated assurances that the Ranch would respond. As you have requested, I will forward to the Mid Valley Board of Directors your latest request that Mid Valley provide the Ranch Board with a firm date by which service could be assumed available through consolidation, but as I have now stated on several occasions, I seriously doubt that they will respond. The Mid Valley Board has, as you know, previously expressed its unwillingness to negotiate further with itself and I am sure this request will be viewed in that light. Finally, I would appreciate you passing on to the Ranch Board my personal belief that if the Ranch Board chooses to wait until it has received site application approval from· the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment before further responding to Mid Valley's consolidation proposals, as you indicated they may, it will likely put at risk the possibility of serious future negotiations. It would be extremely difficult to view such a decision as one made in good faith. We request again that the Ranch Board provide Mid Valley a counter-proposal for consideration. The counter-proposal must be received no later than Thursday, July 1 S, 1999 to allow consideration by the Mid Valley Board at its next regular meeting. If the Ranch Board is unable or unwilling to do so, we request that the Ranch Board take the action it indicated to us some months ago that it would take if it could not reach a decision regarding consolidation, and forward the Mid Valley proposal to the Ranch homeowners for their direct consideration. We are, of course, aware that Michael Gerber has forwarded his June 24 letter to the Ranch homeowners along with a brief and incomplete description of Mid Valley's offer to the Ranch. The Ranch's failure to mention in its undated newsletter to its homeowners that Mid Valley was offering free taps to all existing homeowners borders, in my view, on bad faith. This newsletter also can only leave us questioning whether the Ranch is negotiating in good faith. If Mid Valley's proposal can not be objectively and accurately presented to the Ranch membership, the Mid Valley Board has made clear its intention to do so itself. I would hope that would not be necessary. cc: Board of Directors, Mid Valley Metropolitan District Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County Mark Bean, Garfield County Building & Planning Loyal Leavenworlh, Leavenwonh l!t. Tester, P.C. V~Tru!yp ~feavenwonn David Akers, Water Quality Control Division, CDPH&E Dwain P. Watson, Environmental Protection Specialist, CDPH&E Tom Bennett, Senior Water Quality Planner, CDPH&E P.4 07/06/1999 12:13 9709274261 LAND STUDIO PAGE 02 la.Nd.#cap~ arcllitl!Ct•re la11d pl11nnif'.g eOmlfl•niry plt1nnin1 1uly l, 1999 Garfield Board of County Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81610 re: MVMD Garfield County Service Plan relationship to Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Dear Commissioners: As you know from Planning Commission discussions, numerous newspaper articles, and personal conversations, there are many people who anticipate land use changes based on the provision of water and waste water services by the Mid Valley Metro District to the Garfield County region between El Jebel and Catherines Store Road. To address the Garfield County Service Plan proposal as it might affect land use, the following is an obsetvation of how the extension of waste water and water services into Garfield County by the Mid Valley Metro District (MVMD) will affect the ability of land devel- opment/land conservation proposals to meet the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. We feel that the Mid Valley Metro District's proactive response to providing environ- mentally sound waste water treatment and water distribution to future growth areas, even at a Comprehensive Plan level of density, will insure that there is flexibility in future land use proposals to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan has a housing goal that seeks to provide all types of housing ensuring that current and futw:e residenrs have equitable housing opportunities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential structures that are compatible with and protect the natural environment The current zoning for this ser- vice plan area allows minimum lot sizes of two acres without central water and sewer. It is impossible to create a diversity of housing types with this lot size. To insure a mi:x; of housing types and affordability, a variety of lot si7.Cs and unit types are required. ru well, if there is to be any opportunity for on site affordable housing mitigation, smaller single family lots and multi family units will be needed. These affordable units will require central water and sewer. The MVMD service plan proposal leaves Garfield County with the flexibility to meet its housing goals as it reviews land use applications trying to meet their new affordable housing guidelines for this area in the future. The transponation goal includes options for the use of modes other than the single occu- pant automobile. The majority of the proposed service plan resides on the Roaring Fork post offioo box 107 1002 la111en lane bull~ oolooido 81621 phone (970) 927-3690 fax(970)927-4261 land<mdio@compuserve.com 07/06/1999 12:13 9709274261 LAND STUDIO PAGE 03 valley floor contiguous to the transit conidor Highway 82. No matter what the density of land use proposals approved in this area, all lands that are contiguous with the transit conidor will have the opportunity to coordinate transit stops with the Roaring Fork Transit Agency or whatever transit entity is in place in the future. This benefit will give people an alternative to driving in single occupant automobiles. The upper end of this service plan is also within 1 112 miles of the major RFfA park and ride facility in El Jebel. Short commutes to transit centers from this service plan area will afford people alternative modes of transportation. The recreation, open space, trails, and agricultural preservation goals in the Comprehensive Plan relate to the promotion and retention of these land uses in Garfield County. Clustering development on lots smaller than two acres with central water and sewer retains or creates open space, recreation, and agricultural land uses by giving landowners the flexibility to cluster development off lands appropriate for open space. Subdivisions with two acre lots, individual sewage disposal systems, and individual wells will not promote the clustering of development due to engineering considerations for the seperation of wells and septic. Again, the MVMD service plan will give Garfield County the flexibility to meet its open space, trails, recreation, and agricultural preservation goals. The water and sewer services goal pursues lhe provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new develop- ment. The MVMD has looked at the economics of waste water treatment and water dis- tribution at a variety of densities including the Comprehensive Plan density. lt is their opinion that it is economically viable to construct, maintain, and operate these facilities at comprehensive plan densities. Higher than comprehensive plan densities are not required for this proposed service plan leaving any comprehensive plan amendments to the discretion of the Garfield County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners in future land use processes. The MVMD service plan proposal to build, operate, and maintain a waste water facility is an environmentally sound alternative to waste water treatment versus the proliferation of individual septic systems on the valley floor even at comprehensive plan densities. Goals in the Comprehensive Plan relating to the natural environment encourage land use patterns that recognize the environmental sensitivity of the land, and are in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of Gadield County. Again, clustering develop- ment away from environmentally sensitive areas and avoiding the use of individual sewage disposal systems works towards meeting this goal. poot office boll. I 07 1002 lawen Jane bani~ colorado 81621 phon• (970) 927-3690 r ... (970J 921-4261 landltudio@c:ompuserve.~nt .• 07/05/1999 12:13 9709274251 LAND STUDIO PAGE 04 lond1cape archlt~c111re land plan.nJ,.g comm11ni1y plo11nin1 As written in an article regarding the expansion of water utilities from a BBC Research and Consulting Newsletter entitled Does Development Drive .Growth?: "BBC examined specific case studies throughout the west and specific conditions in Mesa County. Case studies nationwide revealed that anticipated growth would still occur if the (water) pipeline were not expanded, but in unpredictable pat- terns and undesirable locations from a public planning standpoinL" "When water utilities take a proactive stance and develop water infrastructure in advance of growth, they are often simply responding to migration uends forcast- ed by state and local governments responsible for land use planning." Again, based on the above observations, we believe that Mid Valley Metro District's proactive response to providing environmentally sound waste wat.er treatment and water distribution to future growth areas, even at a Comprehensive Plan level of density, will insure that there is flexibility in future land use proposals to meet the goals and objec- tives outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the Land Studio is worlcing on land development and land conservation pro- jects in Garfield County. Some of these projecrs reside within the service plan area pro- posed by MVMD and some lie ourside of this area. This information is not designed to influence your decision regarding land use issues, but to let you know how a planner working with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan can better meet the goals and objectives in this document with the provision of water and waste water services to the service plan region. Please fmd enclosed a copy of the quoted BBC Research and Consulting Article so you can review the context in which the above statements were made. We appreciate your attention to this issue. Respectfully, po•t office box I 07 1002 lowen !Ille bHol~ mlorado 81621 phone (970) 927-3690 fa~ (970) 927-4261 landatlldi.o@compuserve.com 05 PAGE LAND STUDIO 9709274261 07/06/1999 12:13 BBC VIEWl'OINT • JJJJJ8-1JJJJJJ • BJJC &,e.vch cJ Co11Jultit1g Page5 es Private: ·cut Costs Does Growth Drive Development? vcy, BBC ManaBing Direciot supervised rhe La.t Cruces. y and si~il~r work in Gree· '.'.olorado. • begin, BBC idcnrillCd those · mmcnt 1er¥ices ustd by· . r govemmtnt dcpartmtnts livisions, . From chert, a cosr 1rion algarichm was devel-. . A cuaiornized software · ,1 indicated how charges I change for incerguverri~ d consumpl'ion ol rhese es. · sanie n as Ratepayers to. s ) :, ~ ' ' ' ' . ., ..... yor 11nd City Council !"hove tnwar<f imnf.-. Ir's a classic case ol the chicken an.I the egg. Which comes /lnr - population &n>wrh or infrutruc-· rure drtelopmen1? For many · years, tO.d consnuction liiced heaced debaces on 1hi1 score. Now BBC is llnding that warer · and wa.1rewater infruihicrure is · being painred 'wirh the samt . brush. Is water inf11111rucrure the chicken and populatiOR growrh 1he egg, or vice versa? This is 1he q~rion water disrricu, utilities · and public or q...Si-publk water enticieJ arefacin& from con- stituents and regulatOl)' agencies concerned about growth. F1equently, warer uriliries and disrrim are blamed for.bringing growth co an area because they inscall th• basic inf111srrucru11', w.are-r 5upplies, u·tarmenr, storage and transmission line• !Jtfore the new neighbo1s movdn. BBC has examined this issue 10 determine if th• devdopmenc of water ser- vice infrascrucrure drives growdi. 01 if wnter d isrricrs nre sim.ply re.ponding to 1inticipated, and virtm1lly inevitable, grow.rh. The Ure Water Cons•IVoncy Disrrin in Grand Junctioo, Colorado, found 1hrmsclves rn11ght up in rhis controversy over 1)roposeJ 11nd potenr.ial develop· menr on the Wli·stern SloJle nl'ar Gr•ndJunnion. Ure budly nreded w replace· .. dererioroting warer rr11ns1uissiun li11e, buf anriciparing i11crc:using w.-r~r ser- . vice nttds, Ure w•nied to <nlarge the pipeiint to accomm~ate pl11nned <ltvelop!titn<•. Through the public inpm proces•, Ure found 1he &rowth i$5ue ci>n· fronlin& ics pipeline exP.nslon. BBC examined use studies throughoi.li 1he West anchpe- cillc conditions in Mesa County. . Cue midies nadonwide revealed that a~1icipared BfOwth would . still occur if rhe pipelint w.ere · not expanded, but.in u.npre· dictable parterru and undesirable locations from a public plannins'' · 111ndpoint. The ii11pact on Mesa · Counry would be iiegarive and considerable; Grand Junction. and Men Count}' had anrici· · · pated &rowth pieterns and together concentrated public ·facility '"d servke efforts around the urban area. Mesa cOOmy's considN:ible invcstnlfnt in th.-s<· projem would be w11Sted if Ure did not expand the pipeline, forc- ing more dispersed £COWth in uncxpec1ed·arcas. · BBC found that growth is the "chicken" and 11 Jeasr in this inmmce, wacer infrastructure is rho "egg." Whtn water utilities rake a pro8Ctive seance and develop wacer infrasrrucmre in . advance of growth, they arr often simply responding to migration trends foretasted by sme and · localgovemmenrs responsible fot land IW! planning, + Et/ H11rwJ 11nd Doug)tdfl0'11 "'"'' 11/10 11tltlrrssrtl this is1111 for C01Jcbt//11 Vdl/1y Wa1erDiltrict •(Palm Springs, CA.) anti 1h1 Nortbtrn ~111r Constl'fla1uy Distrkl. ( l.o1'11'1.11ul, CO), I l · ' i I I i JUL-06-1999 17:28 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEU ·. Juiy 2, 1999 Garfield County oard of County Mark Bean, Garfi Id County Plaim" 109 gth Street, S te,303 · G!enwoGd Spring'., CO. 81601 ·' i mtnissioners . i g Director I TO .·, 9-9457785 P.02 ; As •E~ • l'rrKIN • Cot.OOJNIIY f~I~~· 061'.,.RTN.F,]llr · .. ' ' . RE: Mid alley Metropolit 1 District's Proppsed Service Plan Ame idinent . . ty Commission rs; The Pit.kin Co~ Board ofCoun Commissioners\and Planning Co.!I'.miss oners r.:spectrully forw rd the foll~win~ mments for inc~usion as part of the pu lie record for the July 7, J 999·h aring on the Mjd alley Metropo~Tan District's propose Amended Service P Ian: · · · The 1998 Rural so.rt Region Int ovem'menial Agreemeqt recognizes th t land use policies and decis"ons within each C)unty havedirecc and significant impac 0n each ef: the other counties in the region. On that b'15is, Pitkie County supports the p -einise that ·}\faster Plans, L Use Plans and odes adopted b}~ the Town of Basalt, G , eld and · Eagie Count\es s uld be strongly c !lllid~red as a:bli-sis for d~cisions regar ing district ! expans,ons. By R.esoltition N .. 8, Series of199.; the Basalt Boaird ofTmstees states th t the prC1posed District xpansion; "will c ·use urban servzl::es to be extended pre ature!y; ·will . . I : · cause inappropri te ?fevelopment p zterns in Basal! 'ii' Three-Mile area; a cimtinue the ·· problems associa d with uncontrol edgrowth in th~ valley." Moreover,. th· expansion "is inconsisten,t "th the adopted. T. ee Mile Plan a~d the proposed Master lan. "· As.the approval a ency for the Mid Valley !V[erropolitan Dis~ict's Ser11ice Ian, Eagle . County is exercis· g their right for formal review qfthe service pl~, rath r than simply . providing comme ts on the District s request to Garfield Cou..,ty for an Am ndmenr to . I the Plan. Such a evie~ Will allow or critique of th~ proposal for complian e v.ith Eagle County's adopted Codes and Land se Plans. · ·· · · . ,. I . I I I I . 130 SoJ1 CAU!l<A Sru<r · Asm, c •LORA~ 81611-197~ · PHo•1' ~70.92M090 · F«·970.920.5439 ., I . . . ! .. . Prinled on R~-dod r~ptl' ) ' .. ' ' . I I I I JUL-06-1999 17:29 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEV TD 9-9457785 P.03 : The Board of Co ty Commission · regional planning pproach provide ' between Eagle, eld, Pitkin, S recommends deni 1 of the proposed into compliance th the adopted Pl Eagle County. Thank you for y ur consideration. and Planning qommissioners strongly ort the for iii the 1998 lntergovemmental Agr ment it and Lake Cbunties. Accordiilgly, "tkin County ·strict expansioii until such time. as it c J:>e brought s and Regulati~ns of Garfield County, Basalt and ty Coaintlssioo¢rs ' ' oning Cornmissfon ' ! '' ' TOTAL P.03 Mr. Phil Vaughan, Chairman Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission Board 109 -8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Vaughan: Jean M. and Dee Blue 0404 Road 104 Carbondale, CO 81623 May 23, 1999 Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan After much review and discussion regarding the Mid Valley Metropolitian District Service Area, we have decided to be included into the Service Area, provided that all our property is included. The property would be in the proposed Service Area and not an inclusion into the Mid Valley Metropolitian District. CC: Mark Bean, Garfield County Planner Bob Szort, Garfield County Engineer Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Board This letter was hand delivered on May 24, l'!Cf1 Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County Planner 109 -8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: Harold Blue 4003 Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 May 23, 1999 Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan After much review and discussion regarding the Mid Valley Metropolitian District Service Area, I have decided to be included into the Service Area, provided that all my property is included. The property would be in the proposed Service Area and not an inclusion into the Mid Valley Metropolitian District. Sincerely, Harold Blue /'l? -;7.-v" ~ (!/ ~ This letter was hand delivered on May ~f L ~ / FAX NO. Ma~. 26 1999 09:10AM P1 Attn Mark Bean P&Z Members, Garfield County, Co. We wish to express our concern and anxiety regarding the proposed Sanitation District . We have lived in the Roaring Fork valley for 30 years. and in the Middle Valley for 20. Growth is necessary and. indeed, essential . Undue rampant growth is not. We strongly oppose the size and scope of the proposal. as we understand it. A Vail-like corrider will surely result. Thank you for your consideration. Shep and Mary Harris 98 Arlian Rd .. Carbondale, Garfield County 963-0319 1-19-1996 dod0AM FROM JOE KISH 19708710607 P. 1 ,E)(, y --· ____ .,., ··------ .... ··-·----?~~? :_3~---··-· .... ''''' ·-· ··---· , _ _,_M::..:..!\~ '(,,. B~ ,_,., -·· ···--. -.... ______ .... ,,. ,, ......... ,,, __ _ ·----~°"--\('~('!,~-. ~.~"'~"'(--~ o_ild~_Q..!t.\~. \?)QVI VI \V\1-.... .... . ... ----- .. --·"····--·-· ..... _ .... ""'·' ........ . .. ·-. .... .... ' .. ···-···-------·-·-- ····-·Gir \~ Sip-c--'-09\-~ I L£;) ·-----·'' ---- --····--~-·· --------·· --· """'-·----··--·'" .... ,, .. , __ _ --------· ........ _______ _ -----·-· ,_ ... ___ TI..i.. ~,9-l(: _ __g Y--__ S3eo..~---·-----.... ---- ----~····-~···-~----·-·----·-··. ··········--..... ,,_....,....,_, __ _ ·---· '"··---------····.' --- __ L~:w~----.. ---~········ \1..':!'/~1=_... . ... ···--···-·-- __ · ~~\o~~\~ r-c.e~ .. -· .B._Uo~_ ............. ----·----.. ---.................. _ --_,.,. .. ,,, ____ ,,_,,, .... ____ ,. ... .,_,,,, ··-- ---···-"'--···--~ .. ~.L. \?;? ~v:w.~--... ___________ ,_ ... - -2.. 4! '5 'l 'S° ~C...\C:... ~ '5 ~ ... --·----·-··· ····,------__ ,, ...... ··-···----·-~···· ····-·---··········" ······-·-----. .. ··-----··-···-··' '" ·--···-···---·---·-.. .. ________ ... ___ _2~__boo-~_ ~-IP"" 'V\,l·-·'.5 _ <,fQ···-··-·----···· ...... . ....... --------...... _,,__ __,,. ,,,__ ....... ' ·--·-----······-~-94e._7 __ _ ___ ,.,, -······----·"··~''-- -···-· ~10 -.. £:1.9__-.::_]9.~----· .. ----------.. --.. '' ····-----·-··""w ·--..... ,......... ----·-·········-·------··-..... , ·-·-- ___ ....... __ _ ----"······-· ··--------' '. ,, _____ ......... -- _ ___ .. ,, __ , .... -·-·--····~ -~·----··· ..... ·------·--·--·· .. ·----J·~·-····---J······ .. ,. .. _____ , .. ····· .. ·-····----··· ·--·----.. ·-··-.. ---·-·-····-"----~········•"·•"·-- ~ ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,, 9709638220 Fmi:to: Marklleu Gu8eld cpaaty P'•n•ta• jlt fonh& Com•teelon 1098'1l~ Glea.woo4 Bpria.O, CO 81601 945 '778S GAVIOTA GRAPHICS 94AdlulltoU Cuboa.clde, CO 8Ui23 May 26, 1999 PAGE 01 We henby wt.h to ap-our oppomltkm to the llllle of the ........... pbuul of tJae 11111 Valley Ser•ettoa Da.trlct. Thia woahl -the ataee for total baJld-oat m the mtd..-ney, uacl Is we 11 llUJI' It the CompreherMlYe Piiia la to be aclherecl to. Youn .mcerely, .Jim uul V·n-• Blebl 6July, 1999 Compass Mountain Land Use Institute P.O. Box 86, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Eric D. McCalferty, Director 970.945.2274 Garfield County Board of Commissioners John Martin, Chairman I 09 Eighth Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen, Please accept the attached comments as public testimony in the public hearing for consideration of the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District proposal to amend the District's Service Plan in Garfield County. Due to a scheduling conflict, I carmot attend the hearing to present the attached comments personally. lfl may be any service, please contact me at the above telephone number. rt~PiR~r -..:c·-·~,.... and Use Institute Analysis of the Garfield County Service Plan Proposed by Mid-Valley Metropolitan District, in southeastern Garfield County The Garfield County Service Plan (Service Plan) acknowledges that "Utility planning ... should not drive land use decisions." This is a fact that most professionals agree with. Quite simply, land planning must first consider details such as appropriate uses of the land, residential and commercial densities, and distance to population centers. Only then can infrastructure be planned to accommodate the proper land use(s). The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan for Study Area I (Comprehensive Plan) was adopted by the County Planning Commission, in August, 1995. The Comprehensive Plan, among many other details, sets forth "Proposed Land Use Districts" that establish a philosophy of focusing dense development in areas that are most appropriate for such development. This vision, if implemented, would result in encouraging land uses and densities that require municipal-type services to occur in areas where this level of service can logically be provided, resulting in an avoidance of dense development on critical or hazardous lands, as well as a limitation on development sprawl between urban areas. One of the key findings that must be made in establishing or expanding a special district is that "The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its boundaries." For the following reasons, this finding cannot be made relative to the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District proposal. The Service Plan proposes to encompass approximately 1834 acres, envisioned by· the Comprehensive Plan as having a density of approximately 462 units. Three (3) different locational scenarios are put forth to detail the infrastructure costs attributable to construction of a wastewater treatment facility on each of the three (3) sites. However, to justify "economical and sufficient services" the applicant apportions the cost per EQR using a residential density of either 813 units or 955 units, which are both unrealistic, according to the Comprehensive Plan. The resulting artificially inflated amount of EQRs, more than 200 per cent of the density envisioned by the Plan, has been established by "Landowners Projections, "thus resulting in underwhelming the cost per EQR. A true assessment of planned densities results in a more realistic cost per EQR, as shown in the following table1: Cerise $3,927,009 $8,500 Ranch at Roaring Fork $4,507,119 $9,756 St. Finnbar $4,019,190 $8,700 1Calculation: Cost ofplaut and infrastructure divided by Comprehensive Plan density. The Service Plan further erroneously states that the cost per EQR "compares favorably" with the current tap fee of $4,200, as well as being similar to other tap fees in the Valley, a statement that is entirely devoid of justification. As has been shown, the artificially low tap fees identified in the Service Plan do not "compare favorably" and cannot be used as justification for establishment of the District. Furthermore, the preferred location for the wastewater treatment facility (based on a desire for full-gravity flow and an established ''precedence for the land use") at the Ranch at Roaring Fork, would ensure the highest projected cost per EQR of $9, 756. In order to counter the above-demonstrated, astronomical costs of wastewater EQRs, the applicant proposes to phase a new wastewater treatment plant, to serve only developments that have a conditional approval. This results in a per EQR cost of$6204. This cost certainly does not "compare favorably" with the current tap fee of $4200, and is, in fact, nearly 50% more expensive. The applicant has been requested to further evaluate the provision of central domestic water supplies. While this has been accomplished, no estimate of the cost of these facilities has been provided. Therefore, it is impossible to calculate the additional tap fee for domestic water service. The Board of County Commissioners must not accept an omission of factual information to be conclusive evidence that economical and sufficient services will be provided. Another required finding is that "There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. " This finding is very much related to the required finding that "The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. " For the following reasons, these required findings cannot be made. Currently, Garfield County permits individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) for the treatment of domestic wastewater, so long as the ISDS conforms to applicable setbacks and State standards. Moreover, the Comprehensive Plan must surely have considered ISDS wastewater treatment in its Proposed Land Use Districts section, when proposing the relative densities of the Districts. Clearly, it is infeasible to utilize central treatment for lands with such projected, low densities. Thus, there is no ''. .. sufficient or projected need for organized service ... " The applicant argues that centralized wastewater treatment is substantially more-preferable than the customary, individual sewage disposal system (ISDS), when he states "The alternative is to not plan for higher densities, which will result in service that is substandard and environmentally unacceptable. " and " ... growth continues and has resulted in haphazard, ill-planned and unsafe water and wastewater treatment facilities. " It appears the applicant is arguing that the typical method of sewage disposal in Garfield County, ISDS, is actually destroying the environment, attempting to establish that "the existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. " If the County Commissioners accepts this argument, then the Commissioners must act immediately, Page -2- in the public interest, to outlaw all of these offending individual sewage disposal systems. That is the real "Catch-22" facing Garfield County. The Service Plan correctly states that "Utility planning ... should not drive land use decisions." However, by incorrectly utilizing "Landowners Projections, " for the wastewater treatment plant, in an attempt to justify service and establish unrealistically low costs, the Service Plan is doing precisely what it identifies as being poor justification for land use planning. The Service Plan confuses the original premise for establishing the expanded service area. That is, the only way to justify "economical and sufficient services" is to discard the Comprehensive Plan and base projections on a completely arbitrary density, which is based neither on rational planning, nor engineering criteria. The Garfield County Service Plan must be denied, at a minimum, on the following grounds: I] There is NOT sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. 2] The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is NOT inadequate for present and projected needs. 3] The proposed special district is NOT capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. Page -3- Attorneys al Law 1700 Lincoln Street Suiu 4100 Dr:l'Ut:lj Qilor"Odo 8020.N541 ·1;,1 (i/Qi/)1161-7000 Far (303)866-0200 www.hro.com Derwer Salt La"4 Cit,y BautJer Co/JJrodJJ Spring• Lm"'1.o1t ... Hohne Roberts & Owen UP June 30, 1999 Via Facsimile (970) 945-7785 Garfield County Board of Commissioners 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District, Garfield County Service Plan Dear Co=issioners: • On behalf of Thomas H. Bailey, a landowner in Garfield County, we are submitting the following co=ents opposing the plan by Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("Mid Valley") to expand its existing sewer and water service area into a significant portion of eastern G-arfield County. MR. BATI.E)''S INTEREST Mr. Railey owns a 125 acre ranch immediately west and downstream of Mid Valley's proposed expanded service area. Mr Bailey is also a landowner and a member of the Homeowners Association in The Ranch at Roaring Fork subdivision ("the Ranch"), which is at the westerly limit of the proposed Mid Valley expanded service area. As such, Mr. Bailey, his ranch, his property and that of bis neighbors at the Ranch, au.d many other residents and property owners in Garfield County will be materially affected by the decision of the Garfield Board of County Commissioners ("the Board") on Mid Valley's plans to expand further into Garfield County. These comments are submitted on behalf ofMr- Bailey's interest in his property adjacent to one of the proposed wastewater treatment facility locations, as one of the landowners of the Ranch, and for all Garfield County citizens concerned about the quality of life in Garfield County. We understand that the Board of The Ranch Homeowners Association will be providing s1:parate comments on Mid Valley's expanded service plan and we do not intend to speak for other residents of the Ranch, but only on behalf of one landowner within the subdivision. INITIAi. COMMENTS We have reviewed the May 26, 1999 Service Plan analysis prepared by Mark Bean and the Garlield County Planning Department Staff and we conunend them for their report. Although we do not agree with each and every statement, the analysis and consideration of statutory mandates are thorough and well #525250 Jgj 002 UO/JU/BB 16:23 Garfield County Board of Commissioners June 30, 1999 Page2 reasoned. To avoid duplication we will not restate all of the arguments previously made by the Garfield County Planning Department Staff (the "Staff') on the statutory requirements to be considered by the Board, but we do support the May 26, 1999 analysis and recommendations of Mr. Bean and his staff. We will however, address other statutory issues, address those few areas in which we di~agree with the Staff, or amplify ou certain consideratio11s raised in the May 26, 1999 analysis. At the outset, we want to emphasi?.e that there are other alternatives to what Mid Valley is proposing. It is our understanding that the Ranch is in the process of obtaining approvals to renovate or expand its cWTent wastewater treatment facility which would allow the Ranch to serve its area and two additional subdivisions east of the Ranch, Preshana Farms and St. Finnbar. If the Board were to approve an expansion of Mid Valley's service area in the County, Mid Valley could then extend its service area west only to Catherine's Store Road, and use lift stations to transport waste to its cWTent plant in Eagle County. In addition, the possibility of having the area west of Catherine's Store Road serviced via a gravity line to the Tow11 of Carbondale has been studied in the past and should be considered as an alternative to Mid Valley's extensive expansion. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS As indicated in the May 26, 1999 Staff analysis, the Board is statutorily obliged to act based upon certain considerations. Again, we only rouch on certain arguments and refer the Board to the Staff analysis for the majority of the appropriate comments. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-1-203(2): "The board of county commissioners fill.all dis1Lpprove the senrice plan unless evidence satisfactory to the board of each of the following is presented:" (emphasis added) "a. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized senrice in the area to be semced by the proposed special district." • There is one existing subdivision within the expanded service area -The Ranch. That subdivision has an existing wastewater treannent facility and the Ran2h is awaiting approval from the Colorado Water Quality Control Division for renovation and expansion of the facility. Vlhen that approval It! 003 ' .--· J .../ 06/30/99 16:23 Garfield County Board of Commissioners June 30, 1999 Page3 is received, the Ranch will have the capability of providing wastewater service, not only for current Ranch residents, but also for two proposed developments immediately east of the Ranch, Preshana Farms and St. Finnbar. As such, the proposed expanded service plan excee<ls the existing and projected need to be serviced by including !!IIld west of Catherine's Store Road up to and including the Ranch. • To the extent that the Ranch cannot serve its residents or those of Preshana and/or St. Finnbar, the Town of Carbondale has an existing wastewater treatment facility and has had past discussions on providing wastewater service in this area. While we understand that those discussions may not presently be ongoing, Mr. Bailey is willing to participate in discussions and undertake certain actions to facilitate Carbondale serving that area. • The projected need for Mid Valley's expansion is premised on the assumption that all of the subdivisions in its plan will be built. While we understand the need to be prepared for wastewater services in the area, it is our understanding that some of the subdivisions proposed to be included arc only in initial stages of planning and may not be built or approved as being in compliance with Garfield County planning and zoning regulations. If so, there is no need for the expanded service. "b. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs." • In this instance we disagree with the conclusion of the Garfield County Planning Staff. The existing facilities at !ht: Ranch are able to serve existing needs with minor renovations and no expansion. With respect to future needs, if requested, the Ranch will be able to serve St. Finn bar and Preshana once its site application is approved. The Ranch will have the capability to serve those areas west of Catherine's Store Road up to and inclu<ling the Ranch itself. There is no need to expand Mid Valley's service area inside of Garfield County, especially west of Catherine's Store Road. iai 004 Uti/aU/99 16:24 Garfield Cowity Board of Commissioners June 30, 1999 Page4 "c. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries." • The expanded service plan submitted by Mid Valley contains a number of altematives, many of which are predicated upon as yet unallocated financial resources. ln addition, as indicated by the Garfield County Planning Staff in its analysis, some of the proposals for treatment facilities are insufficient to provide service within the proposed extended boundaries. .A3 required by statute, the Board must disapprove the expanded service: plan if there is no concrete proof that Mid Valley can provide economical and sufficient service. • One component of Mid Valley's proposal is the provision of potable water to the proposed subdivisions. Mid Valley's proposal requires those in the service area to dedicate their existing water right.~ to Mid Valley, dedicate wholesale and retail water facilities necessary to provide for the developments needs, and developing high capacity municipal alluvial (shallow) wells to provide that potable water. However, once the developments are constructed, that high quality shallow groundwater will quickly become degraded with fertilizers, pesticides and stonnwater- related pollutants such as petroleum and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (P AHs). Once degraded, those shallow groundwaters will be rendered useless as a water supply source. Consequently, Mid Valley may be unable to provide sufficient service to the expanded area. "d. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the propMed indebtedness on a reasonable basis." • In this instance, we are again forced to disagree with the Staffs suggestion to include additional language in the service plan to meet this requirement. As Staff concludes, the densities in the Cerise Ranch proposal are not in conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. If the current Cerise Ranch development proposal is reduced or modified it will affect the ability of the developer to pay for wastewater treatment plant capital improvements. As such, if the capital improveinents for the wastewater plant disappear, so does Mid Valley's ability to discharge its indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The extended 141005 U~/JU/99 16:24 Garfield Coimty Board of Commissioners June 30, 1999 Pages service plan as submitted by Mid Valley is predicated on tenuous assumptions, is therefore facially inadequate and, again the Board is mandated by starute to disapprove it. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-1-203(2.S): "The board of county commissioners may disapprove the service plan if evidence satisfactoiy to the board of any of the following, at the discretion of the board, is not presented:" "a. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis." • While not a municipal or quasi-municipal co:tporation, the Ranch has the current and future ability to provide service to those areas west of Catherine's Store Road up to and including Ranch property. Once the Ranch's site application is granted, that service can be contractually provided within a reosonable time and on a comparable basis. "b. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under section 32-1-204(1)." • See May 26, 1999 comments of the Staff. "c. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to section 30·28-106, C.R.S." Staff hos outlined many of the areas where the expanded service plan is 00! in compliance with the Garfield County Master Plan. Additional objectives and policies of the Master Plan with which the Mid Valley extended service plan fails to comply include: llS252SO Jal 006 06/30/99 16:25 Garlield County Board of Commissioners June 30, 1999 Page6 Objectives 8.1 -The County of Garfield reserves the right to deny a project based upon severe envirolltllental constnlinls that 1:ndanger public health, safety or welfare. • In this instance, a significant environmental constraint arises due to the increased development which will undoubtedly occur due to the availability of easily available sewer service cast of Carbondale. Simply put, having a ~ewer main that is easily tied into will create more interest in the building of additional housing developments and at a higher density than currently contemplated in Garfield County's Master Plan and zoning regulations. These additional residences will ultimately produce more ef!:1ucnt than can be assimilated by the Roaring Fork River. Mid Valley's proposal does not account for the proliferation of housing that will be created by its expansion or the resulting water quality impacts. • When the water quality of the Roaring Fork River is degraded to the point where it no longer meets water quality standards, more stringent and costly treatm.ent requirements will be placed upon dischargers in the valley, which is also not accounted for in Mid Valley's expanded service plan. • Although Mid Valley's proposal only specifies wastewater treannent plant locations and an effluent discharge location for only one of its • #SZS250 alternatives, it is obvious that Mid Valley's effluent will eventually reach the Roaring Fork River immediately above Carbondale. Having two major discharge locations within close proximity will strain the ability of the Roaring Fork River to assimilate t11e ammonia, increased water temperature and turbidity associated with those discharges, putting a strain on aquatic life, not to mention possible drinking water problems. While there have been allegations that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment does not require ammonia removal beyond secondary treatment, that will certainly change if there is a proliferation of development and significant increases in wastewater discharged in the Roaring Fork Valley. Another··environmental constraint arising from the proliferation of · housing construction is the degradation of air quality in the Roaring Pork iai 007 06/30/99 16:25 Gar.field County Board of Commissioners June 30, 1999 Pagc7 Valley. The problems of 1) increased road traffic creating added vehicular emissions and road particulate matter distribution; 2) increased use of gas powered maintenance equipment and other suburban-related accessories such as lawn mowers, hedge trimmers and gas grill~; and 3) the significant air quality problems arising from the construction activity itself due to the machinery used and the dust and other air debris problems created, will significantly degrade the air quality in the Roaring Fork Valley. If Mid Valleys extended service plan is approved, ultimately, Garfield County and the entire Roaring Fork Valley cuuld suffer the same type of regional haze and air quality degradation problems currently experienced in other parts of Colorado. • As indicated previously, Mid Valley's proposal is short-sighted in that it proposes to use shallow groundwater which will ultimately be degraded by the very development encouraged by Mid Valley's extended service area. As such, Mid Valley's proposal will endanger public health, safety or welfare. • Finally, the increased development resulting from Mid Valley's expanded service plan will result in other unfavorable environmental consequences such as an increase in the need for refuse and sludge disposal and stom1water drains associated with developing and paving a large portion of the Roaring Fork Valley. 8.2 -Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical features of the land and design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment. 8 .4 -River-fronts and riparian areas are fragile components of the ecosystem and these area~ require careful review in the planing process. 8.6 -Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical wildlife habitats are protected. 8.7 -Development will be encouraged in areas with the least environmental constraints. ·=· ~008 06/30/99 16:26 Garfield County Board of Commissioners June 30, 1999 Page8 • Objectives 8.2 through 8.7 concern the placement of projects in areas where they will not cause visual or ecological damage to land in Garlield County. With respeet to Mid Valley's proposal to build a sub-regional or regional treatment plant on the Ranch property, none of these objectives are met. There is essentially no worse location to place a large wastewater treatment plant than ClllTent open space between Highway 82 and the Roaring Fork River. In addition, one of the two alternate locations for Mid Valley's treatment plant on the Ranch, and certainly some of the water and wastewater transmission lines will cause the destruction of sensitive wetland areas. The plant will be an eyesore, will not be compatible with the natural environment, will not prutet.i scenic and ecological habitants and will certainly not be in the area with the least environmental constraints. Policjes 8.1 -Gar.field County shall discourage and reserve the right to deny development in areas identified as having severe environmental constraints such as active landslides, debris flows, unstable slopes, bedrock slides, major mudflows, radioactive tailings, slopes over 25 percent, riparian areas and wetlands and projects proposed within the 100 year floodplain. 8.4 -The County will require development with river frontage to address the issue through physical design in a way which will protect fragile wetlands and scenic resources and protect :floodplains from encroachment. • Mid Valley's proposed location for a wastewater treatment plant on the Ranch property is directly in or adjacent to a I 00 year floodplain as shown in the Flood Plain Profile Garfield Co. Study Area 1(October13, 1997), part of the Garfield County Master Plan. As such, the proposal obviously encroaches on :floodplain~ and, as indicated above, will not protect scenic resources such as open space on the Ranch. 8 2 -Garfield County shall discourage development proposals that require excessive vegetation removal, cut and fill areas or other physical modifications that will result in visual degr<1dation or public safety concerns. ~009 06130199 16:26 Garfield County Board of Commissioners June 30, 1999 Page9 • Again, any proposal to place a large wastewater treatment plant on Ranch property between Highway 82 and the Roaring Fork River will certainly result in visual degradation. "d. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water quality management plan for the area." • Unfortunately, as indicated by Garfield County Staff, the County's 208 Plwi does not address additional point source discharges to the Roaring Fork River or the proliferation of high density housing and increased wastewater discharges that invariably occur when a metropolitan district offers service to an expanded area. "e. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served." The expansion of Mid Valley Metropolitan District into areas of Garfield County is not in the best interests of those served. • As indicated above, Mid Valley's expansion will lead to the proliferation ofhi.gh density housing in its service area both within and east of Garfield County. When sewer and water lines are available for new housing, additional developments will be proposed and requests for higher density zoning will be made. In essence, sewer service will drive zoning and planning considerations, which represents a reversal of appropriate land use decisions. • We understand that the Ranch subdivision has informed the Garfield Board of County Commissioners that it does not wish to be included in the expanded service plan. While the Ranch is proposed for service by Mid Valley, it is appropriate and essential to allow the Ranch to determine its own best interests for a number of reasons: 1) the Ranch has an existing wastewater treatment plant and is in the process of seeking State approval for renovation/expansion; 2) the proposed location for the Mid Valley wastewater treatment plant on Ranch property is located in dedicated open space which would disappear as a future use for Ranch residents (as well as an open space visual conidor for ffighway 82 travelers); 3) while Mid Valley's proposed Garfield County Service Plan ~010 06130199 16: 27 Garfield County Board of Commissioners June 30, 1999 Page 10 purports that the Mid Valley Board is reluctant to use its condemnation powers to obtain land on the Ranch for its treatment plant, there is no doubt that Mjd Valley would do so if unable to negotiate a purchase from the Ranch; and 4) while Mid Valley's proposal is for a sub-regional plant on Ranch property, there is also no doubt that the plant will ultimately grow and potentially be the main regional site for wastewater treatment in Mid Valley's service area-the Ranch would be forced into the unacceptable position of having to be the location for receipt of wastewater from all of eastern Garfield County and Mid Valley's current service area in Eagle County and possibly expanded service areas of Eagle and Pitkin Counties. • The area east of Carbondale to the Garfield County line currently ha~ sufficient areas of open space to allow an aesthetic open space visual corridor. As indicated previously, when sewer and water main lines are provided to these areas, high density growth will occur and those visual corridors will disappear, limiting the quality oflife of current residents in the proposed service area, as well as residents of other an:as of Garfield County and those using Highway 82 for travel. In essence, encouraging wastewater treatment expansion is encouraging high density housing and discouraging utilizing existing ranches for anything but high density housing. In addition, current owners oflow density housing land such as famls, equestrian centers and existing ranches, will see their quality oflife deteriorate to the point that remaining in the Roaring .Fork Valley may no longer be attractive, and they may ultimately sell their property which will be developed into even more high density housing. Obviously, this possibly unintended result of Mid Valley expansion is not good public policy or good land use plaroring for eastern Garfield County. • #525250 Mid Valley's proposal is not only ll.Q1 in the best interests of those proposed to be served, it is not in the best interests of all of Garfield County east of Glenwood Springs. Pursuant to the Colorado Special Districts Act at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-1-207, once a service district such as Mid Valley has established a significant presence in a county, they are essentially able to expand their service plan into other areas of the County at will. Once the requested Mid Valley service plan is established, Garfield··county and its residents will have little or no say in further la! 011 ' _,,..--· 06/30/99 16:27 Garfield County Board of Commissioners June 30, 1999 Page 11 expansion by Mid Valley, which degrades Gar.field County's ability to effect its land use planning and zoning policies and regulations. ALTERNATE CONSIDERATIONS Mid Valley sent a letter to homeowners in the Ranch subdivision in which they make certain representations we believe to be misleading or erroneous (see attached June 11, 1999 letter to "Property Owner"). First, Mid Valley asserts that their expanded service plan does not include the addressee's property. Our review of Mid Valley's expansion plans show the Ranch property clearly within the expl:lllded s~rvice area Secondly, Mid Valley state~: The District [Mid Valley] intends to provide sub-regional wastewater treatment to Garfield Co1.mty, and inclusion of your property within the District's service area does not obligate you to receive service in any way, now or in the future, nor does it subject you to imposition of a mill levy or other ad valorem tax or service charge. However, the Special District Act, Colo. Rev. Stat.§§ 32-1-101, et.seq. states otherwise. Section 32-1-1006(a)(l) gives the board ofa sanitation district the following power: #525250 To compel the owner of premises located within the boundaries of any such district, whenever necessary for the protection of public health, to connect such owner's premises, in accordance with the state plumbing code, to the sewer, water and sewer, or water lines, as applicable, of such district within twenty days after written notice is sent by registered mail, if such sewer or water lines is within four hundred feet of such premises. If such connection is not begun within twenty days, the board may thereafter connect the premises to the sewer, water and sewer, or water system, as applicable, of such district and shall have a perpetual lien on and against the premises for the cost of making the connection, and any such lien may be foreclosed in the same manner as provided by the laws of this state for the foreclosure of mechanics' liens. lgJ 012 UU/J0/88 16:28 Garlield County Board of Commissioners June 30, 1999 Page 12 Even if the Mid Valley Board chose not to exercise its power to compel a connection to its system, Mid Valley. as the exclusive provider in the service plan boundaries, would have the power to refuse to consent to any new treatment system or improvement of an existing system pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-4- 538: It is hen:by declared that a district shall be the exclusive agency for the acquisition and operation of a sewage disposal system within a district, except as in this part 5 otherwise provided or authorized, and that no sewage disposal system or other facility for the collection, trea1ment, or disposal of sewage arising within a district, including any sewage treatment or disposal facilities of a municipality, shall be acquired or improved after a district is organized, unless the district gives its consent thereto and approves the plans and specifications therefor, except for any acquisition or improvement of any sewer collection facilities or sewer system, but not sewage treatment or disposal facility or sewage disposal system, or any part thereof, owned by a mwticipality at any point above the connection of such collection facilities or sewer system with any sewage disposal system or other project of the district. Therefore, in the event that the Board accepts the: plan for expansion by Mid Valley in Garfield County, we respectfully request that the Board limit Mid Valley's se.rvice area to those areas east of Catherine's Store Road pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. 32-1-204 which states: The board of county commissioners may exclude territory from a proposed special district prior to the approval of the service plan submitted by the petitioners of a 'proposed special district The petitioners shall have the burden of proving that the exclusion of" such property is not in the best interests of thi: proposed special district. Any person owning property in the proposed special dj5trict who requests that his property be excluded from the special district prior to approval of the service plan shall submit such request to the board of county commissioners no later than ten days prior to the hearing held under section 32-1-204, but the board of county commissioners shall not be limited in its action ~013 06/30/99 16:28 ·~) Gar.field County Board of Commissioners June 30, l 999 Page 13 with respect to exclusion oftemtory based upon such request. Any request for exclusion shall be acted upon before final action of the county commissioners under section 32-1-205. We understand that the Ranch has made two requests to the Garfield County Board of Commissioners to be excluded from the proposed service area, one dated March 23, 199 and the second recently sent to Mid Valley's attorneys with a copy to the Garfield County Board of Commissioners. While we believe that Mid Valley's entire proposal should be rejected for the reasons stated previously, we respectfully submit that at the very least the Ranch's request should be honored and all areas west of Catherine's Store Road should be excluded from the proposed expanded service area. CONCLUSION For the reasons above and m accordance with the decisions of the Garfield. County Planning Staff and the Garfield County Planning Commission, we strongly urge the Garfield County Board of Commissioners reject the proposed expansion plans by Mid Valley Metropolitan District. In the event the Board chooses to allow :tvf:id Valley to expand its service area in any way, we respectfully request that the area west of Catherine's Store Road be excluded from Mid Valley's proposed expanded service area. Respectfully submitted this 30th day of June, 1999. HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN, LLP 111525250 ltJ 014