HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report BOCC 9.10.84/4- trr@
€yhr0l A - ppp/reo/ror7
€vhrbi
€xhlt/
exhdrl
ll
tt
lt
, N "-il1/eYfr"'tt"/
Kc/u-n ,&crq'C
-Sfaff Cor'v>ra€ ,tk-ler b. Ppl, ile",Uh - tnr ?ufuda/e Frr'e- /rwld" l#'
* 0o. 0u. of da/e* {cs '
.t, *i/r, -{u-dcz b
1t /r. 4eJ4nea/ Santa/
o-E-
€ooo EvArb,b
&hE,/4@i:f,;,
eA$i (, (/a/tua 'fac'rtol
gxty,1!- "l?i;:'L":('
6thbi0 - slaffbn'nt
&A$,/ E ' Irin 4o' &/'/l*l*
dk6* i ' a;Pf;b nru io
*il6,*6 - g b.Qv'a/ln*P'
irar6,l tJ ' tt Pd{' St''' oo '
-^tif , *"firf::fif;
f,r,i,t,l t- 'r'l*' a)'rra'nMtg
*ttbi z- - zelrr LTdto ue?nfur<
;,;;;;/ rt - " sisAnluett{ ksoe'
7v,1,7,t t - t' Pa|+ry' tne*on
F.4-
/4r
frnnr/''Et
P. c, ,4ox
f /k,t
//8b
Ca*lan a/alt' 7
(o
PURLIC I\DTICE
Take Notice that Anneliese K' Al1en
(has) (lFsA) .oi1 tV'
State of Colorado, to grant u p..ii,oinary i1.t apprcnral- in crcnnection
with the followirrg described property situated in the C6Lrnty of
Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit;
Legal DescriPtion:
A parcet of land situated in sections 11 and 14, Township B south'
Rarge 88 West of the sixth Principal Meridian nxrre particularly
described as follows:
Beginnirg at a point r.ihence the brass cap for the witness corner to the
southwest corner of said Section 11 bears S 58"48'41" W 869'15 feet
with a]l bearings contained herein relative to a bearinq of N 89"31'46"
!{ on the south line of said section 11; therce N BB"2g'47" E 293'96
feet; thence S 01.29,39" E 23g.g7 feet; thence N BB"2g|48" E 739.90
feet; thence S 02"28'39" E 521 .51 6et to a point on the line between
Garfield ard Pitkin Counties; thence N 89'59'26" w 1432'71 feet along
said county line to a point ol't
-tir"-easterly line of t-hat parcel of land
(fenceline) referred tt in Docrrnent lto. lZOaOS in Book 553 at Page 684
in the records of the Clerk and Recorder, Garfielrl Courty, Colorado;
thence afong said easterly line the foliowing five (5) courses: ('l) N
19"57'14, E 95.10 feet; thence (2) N 06"22'44" E 74.87 feet; thence
i1l-* o9"42,21u E 't53.04 feet; thence (4) N 38'39'12" E 371'83 feet
thence (5) N 30"30'OO" E 137.72 feet to the point of beginning,
containinq 17.68 acres fircre or less'
Practicat DescriPtion :
Dirkle Lake bad approximately 2 miles southeast of carbondale'
Said preliminary PIat is to allcnr the Petitioner(g) --
To subdivide the property into I single family lots to be known as
the }Ioun ta in . P1ea.do*"- J:bd i"i:io"
on the above described ProPertY.
A11 persons affected by the proposed Subdivision are invited to appear
ard state their viewsr-protests or objections. If you cannot appear
personally at such meeting, then you ;9 ..ged to state lctir views by
ietter, $rticutarly if laou have objections to such trreliminarlr Plat'
as the'6unty eranning clnnission ,1tt give crcnsideration to tie
conrnents of surroundirg propet&';;;;='urd others affected in deciding
whether to grant or deny the request for prelminary pl?t' Ti=
preliminary-pfai appticitiot *.f be reviwed_at the office of the
planning Departrnent- located at iOl4 Blake, Glenvood Springs, Colorado
n"i*"""-tfr.^hout= of B:00 A.t4. and 5:00 P.t'l., Monday thru Friday'
That gnrlic hearing on the application for the above preliminary plaL
has been set for the Bth day of AugLrsY , , 19 84 ' at the hour of
7 : 00 at the-6,fficourt'house,-ffii6ion-ers E-arirg Rocrn, 1 09
r
Colorado
m-Ckffia Sprirrgs, Colorado.
Garf ieLd County,
oE
.9
=to-
0,rE. I
-tol5l
tlcllsl.=lUI
=l2llo.Ll)oS-lolc;
O'=
-!or-EoE:€bo=
:d
coLOJ9Eoa
T'cEoE
!i;thto
oO.o
Ac )oU
,lol
.9
;c|o
!
E
0)
I
fo
u
.c,
C,
o
=o
0.,
0,
!,ooo
E:
I
I
$
dl
,ri
I
I
EoE
bo.oo-
E
i.olct:lo\-l
UH
(rl.e
lE
t.].4;
'itJI.9qE
t:q;
Ll_
ol o
cdE
,o
c.9o3
Eaooi
EOo-o- ",o:o,=
p;
3oq
o
C,)q
.2
CJ
.c,
.s
0o)
o
.9
oc
p
o
o
o
o
=
rO-
I
E
qJ
oE
!
o
i;c
.9
lUti
.s
(,
.z
aIoocoI
$,1
4
I
I
o'='
Uo-
F!*.E.! 5tE I i .=:
t.gi;_>=9.=tE'i si
flr:FsEiiffi tE;is:ig:EEsy 8,Ea.EiIeB;E3:E
r!*f ;;;1;Er ;E
=.c=:\: 9 F 9 .-. _-c ., ,.r
iI;E:!ii;i,I ii
i:rxeirE;igii
E $e:*E: FE E E'A
3;;E*:;El;E ;€rr!i,q:596€- cq)5€!fiizrpl= E:
E;3 r ?;Hi: $; s;
€e;*ei1'p?iE saea.fiE;:i;f;g 2-
q,
!
o
ic
Eo
oo
$
\
\
N
J(F(r
tl
.,8
!
9to-
Orl(/)l
Etsu0.1]
oo?dd- u-nU
o(.7ULLLO
Eii8AU
J
ZEco
5;
<JU<i;xelr.lr.
3EOc95LE
o
1)'a
x
UJ
c
.9o
.9
E
EoU
€
6-f
Foo
Cou,
do - !L6 X_ !;O ra-L O; iE; =!I {5; eE e io 3-r
u---l= OQ<- ^-'"f =:i
e 6; 1p3"16d6do - {=+46T6
=Ei;€ "i1==;i sYz$d n b'=db'Et =i$Hrt- :?+5a* ^4ii3 €=p3cj
=E.-?E qTs--1 Y:3&F oh'"6i9 -l;-.1 i'ePdP6 m9q! r a: i ^ f xO''h Og9:(5'o PQ dQ i a - )
f.5- 9e = *e q3,q; tso^i:=
- 6 Y ==.O
E; 1+r :Fi irE *!El+lt g i'"ti#i', in ;EIBep $;s+r;i*;Fii+iHE:+ii'S"rrsi$ il= ;ql"-
sr E iiiitEs$riiifli1iiiialiae*i+ [[- 5i;?1
;e iE [?gB;i;[iitiiialiEEgi€ f[F +giiiiii
+ii, i$iliEiifiiiIl;iiiiii ilii i' iiiEl
a
EAr6t/ 6u--
t ist of Property o,.mers within 200 feet of l'lountain Meadows
Flaven J. & I,tilma A. Cerise
P.O. Box M
Carbondate, Colorado 81623
Robert B. & Nancy B. Enerson
86 South 3rd Street
Carbordale, Colorado 81623
Ruth D. Peace
1211 Rod 111
Carbordale, OO 81623
David K. Jancigar
1500 Sinclair Bldg
Ebrt Worth, Texas 76102
o
TION &/,/,/ 6u-
PUBIIC NOTICE
Iok€ Noti(e lhol Anheliese K Allen (hos) opplied lo
ihe Boord ol County Commitiiohtrt Gorlield Counry
l, Srot. ol colo.odo. lo gronl o Preliminory Plol oPProvol
in conneclion with iho lollowing described ProPerty
ritoolcd in tho CounlY ot Gorliald' Stolt of Colorodoi
- leiol oe-;ipii6n, - ---
A porccl ol lfrd .tted in Sa(liont I I ond l,a.
Town3hip 8 Sourh, RonEG 88 Wc.r of lho Sirth Prio.ipol
Mcridion more poriiculorly dcscribcd or lollowr:
B€ginning ol o poinl whanao the bro3r cop lor lhe
witnGss corner lo lhe soulhwe3l cornar of roid Saciion
ll beors 5 58'a8rl' W 869.15 leer wilh oll b.o.ings
conioined herein relolive lo o beoring ol N 89'31'a6" W
on th6 soulh line ol roid Se(laon I l: ihence N 88o29'17"
E 293.96 loet. lhenco S Ol 029'39" E 239.97 fecl: lhen(€ -
N 88o29'a8" E 739.90 loel: rhcnce S 01"28'39" t 521.51
lcer lo o poini on fhe line b€lween Gorlield ond Pillin
Countres: thence N 89"59'26" W la32.7l leel 01069 soid
County line to o poinl on lhe ooslerly lino ol lhol porcol
ol lond (lenceline) relerred to in oocumeni No. 326a05
in Boot 553 ol Pogo 684 in lh€ records ol the Clerk ond
Rccorder. Gorlield County. Colorodo; lhence olong
roid ao.terly line the tollowing live (5) cou6er: (l) N
19"57'la" E 95.10 tedt; ihen.6 (2) N 6"2?'1.' E 7..87
l..i: rhence i3) N 09or2'21" C I63.0l lcori rhon(6 (a) N
38039 12" 8 371.83.|e.t; rhonce (5) N 3Oo3O'00" E 137.72
leel io lhe poinl ol b.ginning, contoioing 17.68 o.re3
more or lesg,
Procticol i)€scription:
Daoll€ I'oke Rood opp.oximotoly 2 mil.! 3oulheost
ol Corbondole.
Soid Preliminory plol ii to ollow lhc Polilioner(r) lo
ruMivide ihe property in?o 8 single lomily lotr to be
known os lh6 Mounloin Meodowt Subdivision on lhe
obovc de:cribed propertY.
All perlons ol{ected by the proposed SuUivi3ion ore
invited to oppeor ond ilole their viaws, P.olells or
obiGctions. ll you (onnol oppeor ps.sonolly oi suah '
me6ling. lhen you ore urged lo 3lole your viaws by
l.tte.. porliculory il you hove obi*iion3 to ruchi
Preliminory Plol, os the Boord ol Counly Com'
missioners will give con3ideroiion lo lha comdanl! ol
surrounding property ownors ond othert 0116(led in
deciding wherher io gronl or dcny the requesl lorl
preliminory plot. Thir preliminory plot oPPlicotion moyr
be reviewed ot the oliice ol the Plonning D€porrment
'lcoled or 2ola Blokc, Glenwood Springr. Colorodo
lbetwcon the hours ol 8:00 A.M. ond 5:OO P.M., Mondoy
I
thru Fridoy.
Thor publi( horing on thG opplkotion lor the obove
'pralimino.y plot hos been lot for tho l0th doy ol
Scplember. l98a o, thc hour of t:30 P.M. ot th. Couiiy'Courihou.o Cofimilsionort Hco.ing Rooh, l09 grh
Glcnwood Springr, Colorodo.
Mork B@n
County Oepodmenr ol Dovelopmcnt
Gorlrcld County, Colorodo
Publilh.d Aegu.t 22, t984, in thc Gl.nwood Poil.
STATE oF CoLoRADo, \.r.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD.,
PROOF OF PUBLICA
GLENIVOOD FOST
fn witness
day of .........,
iseall
0 I 5739
swear that r am . ........9.9.L9r.e.I. .llgl+.g:-r of the
N9
GLENWOOD POST; that the same is a newspaper printed, in wholeor in part, and published in the Countl, of Garfield, State of Colo-rado and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has
leen publishcd coniinuously and uninterruptedly in said Coirnty ofGarfield for a period of more than fifty-trvo consecutive weeks nextprior to the first publication of t}e ann-exed iegal notice or advertise-ment; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United Statesmails as second-class matter unCer the provisicns cf the Act of
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof. and that said newspaperis a newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and ad-vertisemcllts u,ithin the meaning of the larvs of the State of
Colorado.
That the annexed Iegal notice or advertisement was published in
the regular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper for
the period of .....1........ consecutive insertions; and that the first pub-
lication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated
..AUgus.t.......2.2........e.D., 19..-44.., and the Iast publication of said
notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ....A.D.,
19.
set my hand this ....?.21tA.....
Subscribed and sworn to beiore me, a notary public in and for the
County of Garfield, State of Colorado. tbis ...........?-2.P.f,................ a.y
of ..............................August.............. A.D., 19.......8.4
-5qn11.,Iyyw$--.....K,.. 8:p.:mrg:^
MY Commission ExPires ffiqBOti"
My Coinmission Expires
2014 Grand Ave., Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
General
A.D.,
/ Publisher
o sEN DER: mif,':"f.['J tzfi ,fl n N ro, space
on teverse.
B
vm{c!2l
(colrsuLT PoSTTTASTER Foa FEES)
r. The following service is requested (check one).
D St o* to whom and date delivered --0D Show to whom, date, and address of delivery..
-Az.D nesrRlcrED DELTVERY
-o(The restrictcd dcli*ry fee is chatged in additbn lo
the rctum rc<zipt lee)
TOTAL 3
3. ,An+10t E AOOR€SSED Te
' JZn-^-'t /
n'lrr, A"/ ///r"^/,-,.*"(*t-/1\-/)*tc,,motr!
--lumo6-{m!m
.0
oG!mo
zo
.. TYPE OF SERVICE:
Enecsreneo Elnsureo[cennrro [-l coo
Elexpness rrr-
ARTICLE NI.IT8ER
(Atwaya obtaln slgnsture ol addrers€e or agent)
I have received the articlc described above-
$GNATUBE E naarcsee f1 Authorizcd agent
\ A^j ,{, €)u-.-_-
?/tt'POSTUAAl(
(Ody drqu6un)
7. UHAAIITO O€UVER ECC t SE:7& EIPLOYEES
rNlTtrAtS
.r? vvl
3
E
F
6
,
mIcaz,tnotr?
-{,n|o
@
m,lll
-ozoc,I!0
2o
a SEHDER: holete items 1, 2, 3' and 4.
?xr:s!:"ss in the "REruRN ro" space
(CONSULT FOSTMASTER FOB FEES)
r. Ttre foliowing service is rerluested (chcck one).
[--'l cr^.., r^ .,,L^- ^^A A^td zlplivared
D Sho* to whom, date, and address of delivery.. --Oa.E ResrRtcrED DELIVERY ----a
(The restricted delivery fee Ls choryed in additbn to
the rerura rcceipt lee.l
TOTAL
"77r*:..ott( c-€**
>-a*.^^1-,o e" >/c7
a. rYPE OF S€8V|CE:
fl arcrsrenro flnsuneolcrnrrro d coo
flexpness reu
ARTICLE TUTEER
?zrC s2rqrQ
(Always obtsln slgnsture ol addreeece or agenll
1
I have received the article describa
SIGNATUFE E addro*e
d above-
[--] er
G
'otrEof1t ir.-l to-"?
*64
6. AOORESSEET X)OAESS (Otrr f
,. UXASI.E TO DEUVER AECAUSE 7a- EIPLOYEES
TNTTtALS
3g
FI
,m
cI-
O SENDER: Gompl€te atems 1, Z 3. aN 4.
Add yar address in thE "RETURN TO" qace
on revers€.
(coNsuLT PoSTTASTER FOR FEES)
i. The following service is requested (check one).
[-l sr'^-, rn whnm qat Aqtc rlali,arsl
E Show to whom, d"te, aod address of delivery.. --4
z.E ResrntcrED DELryERY ---n(The restrictd delivery fee is choryed in addition to
the retun rtreipt l*.)
TOTAL 3
4. TYPE OF SERYICEJ
Elnnomeno DnsmroEcenrrro E coo
Eexpnes3 xer-
ANTrcLE NUUBER
(Atways obtaln rlgnature ol addreatee or agent)
I have received the article described above.
SIGNATURE E aoaressec fuleuthorizod agent\Ku**" >frAn<>-
,TE(r oEuvEEV
? ')i,*J
(F"r6. AIIQAESSIEE S ADAftE$ (Onty i! reqtae,,'t
7. UflAALE TO DEUVER AECruSE 7A EIIPL\JEE'S
rNmALS.-
,FIotr!
--{,llle
@{lll5mo.-
zoEiIImlot>l2lololml,t
+lm!olII
=l
e5
-=g
E
a SENDER: Compl€te items 1, 2,9, and 4.
Add yorr address in the .?ETURN TO" space
on reverse.
(CONSULT POSTTASTER FOR FEES)
r. The following service is reqiested (olect one).
E Sho* to whom and date delivered __-UD Sho*, to whom, date, and address of delivery.. __j
a. D_nrsrRlcrED DELTvERy ___j(Thc renricted delivery lx is charged in addirion n
the retum receipt lee,)
TOTAL 3
3, ARTICLE ATDFESSED TC
/rnrrr-, ?w=)i rr^ S-- E fl ilsr,r,
a. TYPE oF sERvrcE:
-T
Enecrsreeeo lnsuneoLJcenrrreo E coo
Ll expRess xln-
F??WfuW
(Ahrays obtaln ignature of aOCrcssee or agent)
I have received ttriirtGte EescdffiE
Slct{ATURE E Addr.ss". E n
ve.
.u'Jrorized-1 COv-
'/Z,^/vy' t )
See6. AD.*ESSEE'S ADORESS (Orly y'rcguarad))r,,
7. UilAALE TO DEUVEF BECAT'S8 7r.
IMTIATJ
"^W.m'Lgy,fr
&AilI/ D
Bocc glLO/84
PROJECT TNFORMATION AND STAFF COMI{ENTS
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL parcel is irrigat,ed cropland that slopes
ffisouth to the north. There are a number of large
cottonwoods along the County Road.
PROJECT NAME:
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
ENGINEER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
Ivlountain l4eadows Subdivision
Preliminary Plan
Anneliese Allen
Schmueser & Associates
A parcel of land located inportions of the SW L/4 Section 11
and the NW L/4 Sectron L4, T8S,
R88W; more practically described as
a parcel located approximatelY 2
mrles southeast of Caroondale on
County Road 1II.
To split a L7.68 acre Parcel into 8
single family lots.
Central Water
Individual septic systems
Via County Road fll
A/R/RD
Nor th :
South:
East:
West:
A/R/RD
Pitkin County
A/R/RD
A/R/RD
I.
ADJACENT ZONING:
RELATIONSHIP TO THE CO},IPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed subdivision is located in District C, RuraI Areas/Minor
Environmental Constraints. The CarbondaLe Urban Area of Influence is
within one (I) mile of the proposed development, which is considered a
transition zone between urban and rural densities. The recommended
density for transition zones is one (f) dwelling unit per two (2)
acres.
Project Description: It is proposed to split a parcel of
@ acres into eight single family lots of 2.0+
acres each. One of the lots has an existing house, with a
previously approved access easement to 1t. Tne remaining Seven
(7) lots will access onto a proposed 990 foot long, 50 foot wide
cul-de-sac from County Road tll. Domestic water will be provided
through a central water system that will be developed with a new
well being drilled for the water supply. The water system will
supply the Seven (7) nev, lots proposed. Lawn lrrlgation wrll be
provided by an existing underground pressure irrigation system.
Fire protection wiII be provided by a centrally located 10r000
gallon cistern, that has been approved by the Carbondale Rural
Fire protection Oistrict. The existing house uses a well that is
shared with two adjacent pieces of property. Individual, on-site
sewage disposal systems are proposed for the seven new lots.
B.
This parcel was originallY
L979, the Pareel was sPlrt
2.02,2.02 and 28.'L6 acres-
in Pitkin CountY.
III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
32.2 acres in
by exemption
A portion
size. In November of
into three Parcels of
of the 28.L6 acre sit,e is
A.
B.
parcels are all 2-0+ acres each' The
ffi is zonld agricuttural/Resldentiar/Rural Density (A/R/RD)
*fricfr allows a minimum lot size of two acres. The proposed
development meets the requirements of the A,/R/RD zone district'
Agency Comments:
I. Colorado Department of Heal$: Noted that
ana r sYstem must
approved by the Denver office. (See letter,
2. Carbondale Fire Protection District: stated that
suO ict's emergency
and that the I0rOO0 gallon water cistern is properly
(See letter, Page ,? I )
complete cnemical
be reviewed and
pages /?-2 o I
the
venicles
Iocated.
Lydia IvlcIntyre and
agricultural land in
3. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Does not feel water
suppfillans are sufficientlY
the following reasons: (See
aevefopea to recommend aPProval for
Ietter 1 paees)2-)tDl
a. Question whether the existing well serving lot I
is registered or adjudrcated.
b.Question whether the BasaIt Water Conservancy District
will actually se11 augment,ation water to t,he develop-
ment.
Feel that covenants and plat notes snould restrict
domestic water use to inhouse use only.
Question whether the Iandowner responsibilities and
ownership of the water system are adequately defined.
Question the yield of the proposed well.
Questioned whether the developer intended to inter-
connect the existing weII with the proposed weII.
a 10 foot front
the street.
d.
a
f.
4. PubIic Service Company of Colorgdo: ,Reguestedfot fots L-7 adjacent to
(See letter page 23 I
5. Colorado Geological Survey: Recommended that individual soils
and ne made prior to the construction
of any structures. Otherwise they felt that if the
recommendations of the engineering-geologic consultant are
followed there will not be any geologic problems associated with
the developmet. (See Ietter, Page 2y' )
6. Letters were received from Richard and
william Kashing opposing the development of
this area for residential purposes (see lett,ers page &3aLlzl .
7 . At the Planning commission meeting, John Turnbull spoke
against the furthei subdivision of this agricultural area due to
the negative impacts on the ranches in the area. Bob Emerson, an
adjacent land owner, expressed concerns about the possible
negative effect of having seven additional irrigation water users
on the existing system and the fact that there are no proposed
irrigation line easements for maintenance and repair purposes
(see minutes , pages JF -
- e-
).
Staff Comments
1. On April 23, 1984, the Sketch PIan was
of County Commissioners by Resolution No.
following condit,ions :
a. That the Garfieldr/Pitkin County boundary line be legally
described and accepted by the Garfield County Surveyor prior to
any final plat aPProval.
b. That the aPplicant recognize that any parcels created by
Garfield County action will, in no way, obligate Pitkin County to
approve any building permits without compliance with the
appropriate Pitkin County Land Use Code reguirements and
ploceOures. And that, if a final plat is approved for this
derelopment, a plat note will be included noting the above
mentioned fact.
c. That a copy of t,he contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy
District be piovided or a water augmentat,ion plan be filed as a
part of the Preliminary Plan submitt'al.
d. That a legally appropriate entity be formed to control and
manage the proposeA water system, with specifrc provisions for
enfoicing tfre payment of annual assessments to pay the Basalt
Water Conservancy District as agreed upon by Contract.
e. That the protective covenants include a management system to
maintain the Lxisting underground pressure irrigation system and
that each lot be assigned on egual portion of the water rights.
f. That building envelopes be shown on the Preliminary Plan,
that protect the neighbors view of Itlt. Sopris.
g. That it be demonstrated at Preliminary Plat that adeguate
safeguards have hreen taken t,o protect existing weIIs on adjacent
properties.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Schmueser and Associates has defined the southern properLy
boundary that is the Garfield/Pitkin County boundary line and
received tenative verbal approval from the Garfield County
Surveyor, Subject to a Final PIat being submitted for approval.
This point has been agreed upon and will require a plat note on
the Final PIat.
An unsigned copy of an application to the Basalt water
Conservincy Di;arict has been provided along with a letter from
the Oistrict stating Lhat a contract was authorized for 3.3 acre
ft. of water to serve I0 single family dwellings.
It is proposed t,hat the owners of the property enter into an
agreemettt that wiII entitle t,hem to a L/L6 interest ln aII
iirigat,ion water and water rights used in connection with the
property. This document would be recorded at the Clerk and
i,ecordei's office. There is no specific provision for enforcing
the payment of annual assessments.
approved bY the Board
B4-74, with the
a.
b.
d.
- 3-
g.
e. There are no proposed protective covenants provided with theapplication since the new subdivision regulations do not requireir.
f. Building envelopes are noted on t,he Preliminary PIan that shouldnot result in the obstruction of any neighbor's view of t4t,
Sopr is.
The engineer's report lndicates that the proposed werr is 375feet from the nearest well and that the proposed well should havea maximum area of influence of 50 ft. to 75 ft. Tnus thereshourd not be any adverse effect on adjacent domestic watersources. Addit.ionally, the existing welr wilr be monitoredduring the drilling of a new well to verify any influence. Acertification by a reglstered engineer wilr be provided to thecurrent users documenting the monitoring.
The chemical analysis prans and specifications for the watersystem shourd be approved by the cororado Department of Healthprior to Final plat approval.
The Division of i{ater Resources concerns are addressed asfollows:
a. The Alren residence and two previously exempted rots arebeing served by a domestic well approved in L977 by the Divisionof Water Resources.
b. A letter stating that a contract for water has beenauthorized by the Basart water conservancy District has beensubmitted to this office.
c. It is suggested that a condition of approval of thePreliminary Plan be that a plat note be put on the Final prat
stating that: "alr domestic well water wirr be used for in-housepurposes only. "
d. The Division of water Resources misread the example well,water and road agreement. The two previously exempted lots havethe right to consume L/L6 of all irrrgation water al-Ioted to theentire parcel from the East tvlesa Ditch. Thus, the Deveroperpresently has 7/8 ownership of the irrigation water rights. Thedeveloper proposes to let each property owner in the proposedsubdivision to have the right to use L/L6 of the irrigatlon wateravairable from the East Mesa Ditch. Thus the deveroper wouldmaintain 7/L6 interest in the East l\,tesa Ditch water rights toirrigate their 2.0 acre parcel and the remaining l0+ acre parcelin Pitkin county. rt is assumed that the seven new-lots wourdshare equarly the ownership of the new werl. This should beclarrfied as a condrtlon of approval.
e. The Developerrs engineers have determrned that it will benecessary to pump 10 garrons per minute to meet the peak hour
demands of the subdivision. The engineer can not provided anyactual daLa to supPort his position that the new well can providethe needed I0 gallons per minute. The engineer has discussed theproposed werl with two loca1 welr drirrers, who berieve that a
2.
3.
welr can be drllled that wrll provide the needed water. (seeIetter pages j {- 3L )
4-
f. There is no intention on the part of the developer to
interconnect the two welIs.
A plat note stating, "That individual soils tests and foundatlons
investigations shall be performed by a Colorado registered
professional engineer prior to tne issuance of each building
iermit. " This would address the Colorado Geological Survey and
Lne recommendations of the Developerts geologic consultant.
IV.SUGGESTED FINDINGS
A. That proper publication, public notice and posting was Provided
as requiied Oy law for the hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners; and
B. That the hearing before the Board of county commissioners was
extensive and complete, that aIl pertinent facts, matters and
issues were submilted and that all interested parties were heard
at that, hearing; and
C. That the proposed subdivision of land is not compatible with t,he
adjacent and nearby agricultural lands; and
D. That for the above-stated and other reasons, the proposed
subdivision is not in the best interest of the health, safety,
morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield CountY.
RECO}IMENDATION
On August 8, 1984, the planning Commission recommended denral of the
prelifrinary plan based on Section 4:33 (F) of the Garfield County
Subdivislon Regulations of 1984 that reguires a finding of
compatibilty *itn existing land uses in the surrounding area' Thq
plairning Commission determined that the proposed subdivision would not
be "o*pitrble with the surrounding agricultural uses and questioned
whether an adeguate domestrc water supply wiII be available to the
subdivision.
4.
o !
c(]LotrlADO
Richard D. Lamm
Governor
1. Complete chemical analYsis,
systero must be submitted to
trlEPAFITMEIUT ctF HEALTH
Thomas M. Vernon, M'D
Executive Director
the water
app rova 1.
June 2t, 1984
Mr. Mark Bean, Senior Planner
Departnent of DeveloPment
P. 0. Box 540
Glenwood Springs C0 81602
Re: Strang Ranch and Mountain Meadows Prelininary
Dear Mark:
The following are my comnents on the review of the
Strang Ranch
1. The water weI1s will have to be readjucated for potable use'
2, Chemical analysis of the wells will have to be performed on the potable
water and subrnitted to our Denver office for review and approval.
1. plans and specifications on ve11 constmction and water treatment will
have to be submitted to our Denver office for review and approval'
4. The site application for the wastewater treatment plant will need to be
reilone and submitted with all the si.gnatures attached.
5. I do not favor the idea of the centraf sewer system. The arnount of upkeep
and naintenance will be very hieh. A discharge permit will most likely be
required for the leaehfield.
6. A homeowners association is not able to get a site designation' It nust
be a legal district.
Mountain Meadows
€fil/4r E
Plans, Garfield CountY
above plans:
and plans and sPecifications
our Denver office for review
for
and
222 South 5th Street'
6TH STREET, GRAND
Roon 252, Grand Junction C0
JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501
3ot)248-7L5a
G03 ) 2qB-7000
81501 -2758
PHONE
:$:'(I'n;,s:
:{
:.fr
1,*
i*
i{
'',ry
$
$
;f,
rt.
*r'tI
fr
f:
$:
222 s,
RWz
/E -
GAITIETD UU PTANHEB
Mr. Mark Bean, Senior Planner
June 29, 1984
Page 2
I don't see any problem with llountain Meadows' However' the Strang Ranch
centraf sewage systern is going to be a long, drawn-out affair, with nany
problems to be overcome before approval'
If you have ar5r questions, please call rne'
Si nc ere IY '
IOR DTRECTOR, WATm QUALTTY coNtRoL DrvrsroN
-/,d,*(r9&d,>
{"rra /c. Biberstine, P.E
District Engineer
JCB/ zp
c c: tr'i 1e
,'))r
%'' u,.qoo, "(
,QO
cq
' ., ^'ii;>^'.\
- t-"?\
+ - ".'li.),-/9n ',litvy' . './ /,/p, .' ,/ ,/,''r+""((/,''9f, \-t'
ll-
4
$
l(Y
!(
'll
'-i'r;r
CARBONIDALE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
3OO Meadowood Drive
Carbondalg Colorado 8f 623
(303) 963-2491
JuIy 12, 1984
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
The proposed 10,000 gal1on
and is of sufficient size
for firefighting purposes.
If you have any questions,
Sincerely,
/"- o/--z-
Ron Leach
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
District Chief
RL:vb
-1.t4._l
water cistern is located correctly
to provide an adequate water supply
feel free to contact me at 963-2491.
$;i
rltI
#trli
$.t.
ii:
'):
;')'$
.{
,.$
*
1,',
,)
I
FxhM// F
Dear Mark,
As per you request, the Directors of the Carbondale & Rural
Fire Protection District have reviewed the preliminary plans
for the Mountaln Meadows P.U.D. We would like to offer the
followinq comments regarding fire protection for this devel-
opment.
Fire and ambulance servj-ce will be provi-ded from the Carbondale
Fire Statlon with an approximate response time of ten to fifteen
mi-nutes.
Access to the proposed subdivision is adequate for Carbondalers
fire apparatus.
t ,,,-rt-? 31984
O\ ANIIER
o o-e
*,"*O'O D. LAMM
Governor
302IH
JEFIS A. DANIELSON
Slate Engineer
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
13't3 Sherman Street-Floom g18
Denver, Colorado 90203
(303) 866-3581
July 12, 1984
Ms. qmthia M. ttrcuben
C,arf ield County planning Departrnent FrA/6// 4
Preliminary
M9W
P. O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, @ BL6O2
Re:
Dear IrIs. ttrcuben:
. Water supply plans for this protrrcsedciently developed to recornmend approval ofing inforrnation seems relevant:
lbuntain
Section .
Meadows1I, Tgs,
I. One of the protrnsedtic well which also
This arrangement was
not reviewed by this
indicate if this well
eight-Iot suMivision are insuffi-the preliminary plan. Ihe follow-
in-house use but it is notrestrict water use.
lots has an existing residence served by a dornes-serves two other dwellings on setrErate 1ots.ap5nrently the result of a previous exenptionoffice. Ttre information transmitted does not. is registered or adjudicated.
2' rhe applicant includes an unsigrned application for a water allocationfrom Basalt water Conservancy oistrii-t but contains neitLrer i conmit-nent from the District nor a contract. rn addition, *" i"quir" ustatement from the District indicating the property is wiuiin thedirect exchange area, "area Ar'.
3. Ihe proposed application to Basaltclear that covenants or plat notes
Institutional arrangenents seem poorly defined. Irr the current situ-
Stio! three trnrties share the well uut the developer apSnrentry has a7/8 inLerest or ovmership. r're berieve att useii itouih'G-"qrit"urvrepresented in the management of the water system in order t6 assurea reliab'le supply. rhe institution responsiLre for water suppiv wilprobably have some restrrcnsibility to keip the Distri.i;=-"".f,i6"contract current.and dues paid. rot purChasers shourd be made i*ur"of these restrrcnsibilities. The instilution must be strong enough toassure 1ot owners pay their dues.
-.f,k'
is for
roould
4.
o,
1,1s. O/nthia M. Houben
July 12, 1984
Page 2
5. No actual information or data is presented to predict ttre yield of
the protrnsed welI.
6. Any connection of the existing weII to ttre new system.would require a
new well permit application for the o1d well in addition to tkre per-
mit applilation foi ttre new welI. l[tre transmittal does not indicate
whetLrer the systems would be seSnrate or connected. We reconnend
that thre watei system be constructed and approved by the countyrs
engineer prior to lot sales. Alternatively, a performance bond
should be required. [pically, homeovrners ass@iations for eight-Iot
subdivisions do not have poh,er necessary to construct a water system.
I^ihile this protrnsal rnay have some merit, we must reconrnend iL be held in
abeyance until water supply plans are completed and reviewed by tLtis office.
ttre aUove items represent our concerns after having reviewed the limited
infornation supplied.
Sincerely,
iltu Uftil D. Simtrscin, P.E.
A.ssistant State Ergineer
HDSTkCX:ma
cc: Orlyn BeII, Div. Etg.
Fred Ioo
,t,
224 -
$:s
.I
+i
.v,.4.t4,th
il
'!L
,10,+
it'
,,iA
'4,A
({s.t
l:(.+,
"if.,tt.^.
: t..
:.
.).
.1.i-
pubfic Servtee Cornpa4y @ CollonmCo
P. O. Box L52, Rif1e, CO. 81550
July 11, 1984
Garfield CountY
Department of DeveloPment
P. O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, CO. 8L602
Re: lilountain l,leadows Prelf,minary PIan.
&/tB,/ d
Comments: Request t0' front lot line easement on Lots L-7
adjacent to all Streets and Cul-de-sacs'
Reviewing Office: Pub1ic Service Co. of Colo'
Date: JuIy 11r 1984
RM/dI
by: -2"!^sLM
Robert Murdock
GARF,tLIJ r,d. r,LAl,lirlER
'E
lrQ,EenrtrIq
JJI JUL1z1sB4
GA-84-0007
?*""%g-ru*J
JOHN W. ROLO
DIRECTORBICHARD O. LAMM
GOVEBNOR
.,:{:
.,j
:l
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING _ 1313 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER, COLOFADO 80203 PHONE (303) 865-2611
July 9, 1984
JMS-84-083
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Department of Development
100 Bth st.
Glenwood SPrings, C0 81602
RE: MOUNTAIN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION
Dear Mr. Bean:
I^le have received and reviewed the materials for the proposed Mountain
Meadows Subdivision.
From the data and analyses presented in the accompanying documents,
thi s subdi vi si onl ir-pi'opotla, appe*! .to- be enti rely feasi bl e . i f
;;i.i;-preciuti6ni-ui^. laken. ihaividual percolation tests will be
necessary tor eacfr-tot to determine the spetitig tyPe and-design of
i.pii. slstems ir,ut *il1 be most suitable for that ]ot. Similarly,
inhiviaril soifs ina foundat'ion investigat'ions.should be made for
each structure to be built as collapsin! or settling soils may be
present in somes areas.
If these recommendat'ions and those made by the-engineering;g99logic.
consultant are ioiio*.a and made a condition of fFRroval.of this sub-
division, then we have no geo'logy-.etated obiectibn to its approval '
Si ncerely,
//b* rl//,/, Wr--
dmes M. Soule
Vngineering Geologist
bj
I-.lF' 1
;'' l;:1 I lill':'''1 n :
\H 'jiii.X 'i 1eB4 iiti'
J i-.! ,r.aL! - L-u"-'
GAIII[l'0 c{l Pl-ANr'{'"'
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST. . . KEY TO THE FUTURE
ExAB,f f
- 24-
Ca^6oaJ"*(q- (ol. 3{6 ) 3
//u n r't, 11 (c' e'''rl\, f. c?)
)- c' / ? fito Kt qLe_
11 ltrr r.16rqr.., tr.
?r[r,o,
giltlt/ k
f, sl--l< <- .''J- c'L 9 uL /r"/''S'(/7'-1 ' u'-,7
r'-s cr l'.nJ Pr, ..'.roJ'c,'tit{, '//' t'{)
N"=l.n+;- ; Koi,/r,,a G"\ *1. f,-F^nE
hi+[ o*o Jc'vt(,fT',.+ ',9lls' l].yaf
t
L,tur z- \\" c c,. ). f "o., r ':{' }1 " o,^, * "n -T,
N o M c,-\ e-- L. ori eJ- ' dUo'J LJ q- Ao ' n-
p".\-. A ll=- -f ,
= , /1 o1 * \* Jc'wr <--- no"Q-
,--s oo.,l1 1,,. )', r TA,s /o,) r-s
ho.","L, \!n) / rr< ^(l w'n L /eacl' '6_-
?r,el on) sf.ce- , 7f 7au o/lo*
I\i' "d-1 fl ''',^r+ ":t :: r;^"[ ,:s')''?
I-** | rv u *< | -, TrrnL, I I I, lfln -f, /y ," ) K1+t /f N''c'-rd
-f, n, <-.< q 1 .-.,
*
U.l0.-;K-J'--7
\-
R.
Vq.,
G\.-N\"
h\
(5
o o -ifff:K
., cott,wulilifJ,r,oro,
b1"7 ,
frrlt?r fu-u
A* )-^ h>--,* t, n-^,y ffitu,t-a>uY7-f
7M lA,arv,^;, fu fr* '/%-tt"'t1
M /J.r^rb4///r/a,r/.r, ,4 u;J- /r'-ba-u Tru.%,/M.A:-L4Y A*'b lrft,r- WtdL et@
qpt-4r,t'- /r*"- ruty W" a-d g
I D,uv /tl,n t-/.t, fu^.,^
t, ifuLdr" 6 fuWh /hr',fr, fu- ,r-"i- J-e, -h rhr^fr, fu- u-"i- *#-
W /*r>p-ttta , /- W ,l'arrr*tLVPt; ,w a.,r\- @4^^/
A/uA- -U',- fr r' b *-eLo-^- i41k'b,
dtu;;,r>t-oY- d #i /ry 6 d*ftlff'4,r* uJ i 4**d /,**
n-, -d^; 3{:-u-= a-e -il."* ,AoL
ylT^tuL a* LJh)-") g /ru>-<- /*z','-rp
1,'r.r;r-r .! iQ i:l ltil,liR
o
--r+-fa4/ ,q/!"r.*
e .7* T %fuYwryfeffi,,ffiffi-n/ryf 'fuffi
m F 'wrn lq- 51@ryrn@%T4+
ry!WA*t/4)@,wru;wr 11
,4ry79 ffal{ryf
a+
r-l\/
?W
Qru,rEERs & corusr,Ucro,s
August 30, 1984
Mr. Mark Bean
County Planning Department
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenuiood Strrrirgs, Colorado 81601
RE: l,lountain Meadows subdivision (l"lrs. Anneriese K. A1len, orrner)
Sqplernental Information qr Water Sutrply
Dear Mark:
This letter is in direct response to the discussion that took place at
the Planning a zoning Ccnmission neeting concerning thre crcntents of threpreliminary retrnrt of ttre above referenced sr:Mivision as it related tothe quantity and quality of water supply arzailable to the project. r
would like to expand q)on ttre information wtrich was presented in ttre
subrnittal docunents.
As stated trrreviously, there is an existirg roell on the trxoperty vfrichindicates tLrat ttrere is without a doubt a presence of ground water.
The question therefore was nct wtrether there was water avaitable butthe quantity of water aizailable. Except for actually drirling a wetwater well or ttre proS:erty, rryre have tried to do a thorotrgh imzesglga-tion of all facts vfiich pertain to this question. I have <liscussed atIength the project site with our two local wetl drillers, Shelton Dril-ling and Collins Dril1ing. The concensus of my discussions with ttresedrillers is ttrat ttre Qpical roell in this area can range in depth r:p to
200 feet ard tlpicarly has a r,urerl yierd in ttre 6 to 10 gpn rarge. Thegeology of thre area based qr ttre wells drilled is a crclluvial rnaterial
which oontains significant anounts of the Eag1e Valley EVaporite forma-tions wtrich form thre bedrock layers in ttre area. The welt was trrrotrnsedto be located in ttre easterly trnrtion of tlre property to take advantageof the anticipated increase depths of coltuvial materials anticipatedin this area of ttre property. Both drillers indicated tLrat ttrey feltthere lvas a high prrobability that a well onstructed on ttre trropertywould in fact produce Sntab1e water; if a single r,,e11 were orilled anddid not pnovide ttre 10 gpn required for the introuse use, then obviouslyit r,vould be necessary to either crcnstruct a second well or enter intoan agreernent to share the existing well if that proved feasible.
Mr. Steve Shelton drilled ttre e:<isting roeI1 qr ttre property. Ttre well
was originally drilled to a shallou,r depth in ttre order of 50 feet and
went dry. Steve indicated ttrat he ttren deepened the well to the 80 to
90 foot rarge and to his lmowledge ttre well has proved satisfactory forthe three residences wtrich currentry utirize the werr. He arso
SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1512 GRAND AVENUE, sutrE 210 o GLENWOOD spRtNGS, coLoRADo 81601 . (303)945-5468
Mr. Mark Bean
August 30, 1984
Page T\o
indicated that the well had slotted casing with a safe assumed wellyierd in the 6 !? g glm range. rt was our intention to onstruct a neg/well using a weII sreen vfiich has been shov,rn to typically increase awell yierd for a given location by as *u.h *-toot. we feel that witha nl)re expensive and technicar wett aritring technique, tr,at -tr,e
sareyield o! ttre aquifer beneath trris property-.; L aeveropea lL a votunereguired to serve the pa:operty.
The fact that the. r,vrell .is being used by ttre e:<isting residences dernon-strates the fact ttrat the watei beneatti trre property is in fact potableand usable and does nct constitute a public health hazard. rt is aninfrequent occurance that there ip * 'oi;i,rg-we11 on a property surmitted for suMivision vrtrich can_ be usea-in-sipport of trre question ofw.ate1 quantity and quality. rt has been nry exFrience in oeaiing withthe county Planning staff in the past, trrit tire enzidence that can begenerated for tri: property is ncr_e significant than is usuarly ttrecase' rt has not been tLre policy of the county in tr" Ga-lo-requirea property develo.per to expend nnnies in the cr:jnstruction of a wel1, orfor that matter in the cronitruction of *u=t"*it.r treatment facilities,roads or any other improvementsr. during the "uoairri=ion *i* p:ocessin order to denonstratL engineering ooric1u"i""=.
l{e ]:espectively request your qcnsideration of the above information.As r stated above, we have investigated all ungr"= of the questio' orwater quality and quantity short or actuarly -drirri,g i- *"li * theproperty. we trust that the above informatioi "* be rised ny tr,e stafffor determining the question of an adequate water supply.
Respectfully suhxnitted,
SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES
De rdon, P.E.
Ergineer
Irt*. Anneliese K. AllenMr. John Schenk, Esq.
Pri
c/o
Dr.fc/jj
SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATE',
''".
S
LAv1r'
ROBERT B.
OFFICES
EMERSON, P.C.
THIRO STREET
coLoRADO 41623
A6 SOUTH
CARE}ONDALE
(303) 963-3700
s*p
ultrv*,i
ROEIERT El. EMERSON
September 6, 1984 €x/,/, / t),"
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Department of Development
Garfield County Courthouse
109 8th Street, Suite 306
Glenwood Springs, CO BI6OI
Re: All-en - Mountain Meadows Subdivision
Dear Mark:
Due to the fact that I do not anticipate being able to attend the
hearing before the County Conrnissioners for fi-nat plat review of the
above-referenced subdivision, I thought I would send this leLter
expressing my concerns. I have tried to consj-stently convey these
concerns in the past by speaking directly with the representatives of
the Allens, ttre Board of County Conunissioners at the sketch plan
hearing and the Planning and Zoning Conrnission at tl.e review hearing.
t do not feet that my concerns have been adequately addressed at this
point in time, and hope that the Board of County Conrnissioners will
consider them at the time of their preliminary ptat revie-w-
1lLre first concern that I have deats wj-th the questi-on of domestic
water. When the Board of County Cormnissioners first considered this
matter, f believe that board members shared my concern that the Allens
needed to satisfactorily establish that a proposed source of water for
this development would not adversely impact the existing well that
serves the Allens, the Finleys, and my family. f do not believe that
the information supplied by the developer's engineering company
satisfies this concern. The information provided does not show that
the proposed well will be able to supply a quantity of water that is
adequate for the prolrcsed subdivision. The projections are based
solely upon the existing well, but the engineers have admitted that
they have not even performed a pump test to determine the productive
capacity of the existing well. Even if this information had been
obtained and used, I question whether or not the existing well
provides a sufficient basis for comparison to establish the
productivity of the new weII.
Trtre location of the new well has been determined based on convenience
for ttre subdivision, not by criteria developed with respect to the
proposed well's productivity or the impact of the existing weIl. f
think that it is noteworthy that wells drilled by Dr. Allen,
't,'F&Dt
7 tss4 lllll
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 2
September 6, 1984
John Cerise, and Tom Turnbull in tl:re vicinity of the proposed weII
have all gone dry in the past. It is also noteworthy that the State
water officials have stated objections to the domestic water proposal
for this develotrxnent. But perhaps most important j-n my mind is that
the proposal fails to answer two extremely significant guestions,
namely, what happens if the proposed well does impact the existing
weII and what happens if ttre proposed well delivers an insufficient
quantity of water. Ttre developer proposes to monitor the impact on
the existing well after the proposed well is drilled and tested.
However, there is no statement of what would happen in the event that
an impact is found to exist. fhere is also no statement of wtrat would
be done if the proposed well produces an insufficient quantity of
water. By failing to deal with these questions, I'm not satisfied
ttrat proper planning has been done to protect the interests of those
persons now using the existing we1l.
The second area of concern deals with irrigation water. The
irrigation water for this property as well as my property and that of
the Finleys is delivered by underground pipes located within the
proposed subdivision. T'hese pipes are not shown on the plat of the
property, and no easements have been created for maintenance, repair
or replacement. If a line would break within the proposed
subdj-vision, there should be an easement that would grant me the right
to go in and repair or replace the line as necessary to allow the
continued operation of my irrigation system. I believe some of the
building envelopes may actually be located on top of existing
irrigation lines. Obviously, if a house were constructed on top of an
irrigation line, signifi-cant problems could develop if a leak
occurred, bottr with respect to trying to repair ttre leak and with the
potential damage to the homeowner. TLre Board of County Conmissioners
recontrnended that some sort of management system be developed to deal
with the irrigation system. However, this recommendation has been
ignored. Because my property and the FJ-nIey property are not a part
of t]1is subdivision, we would not be members of a homeowners'
association. Because water rights for irrigation have been
transferred to us, some method needs to be established that includes
us 'rithin any system that is designed to manage the i-rrigation system.
The irrigation system works either through or by gravity pressure or
by pressure from an electric pump. If the sprinklers in the existing
agricultural fj-e1ds are operating by gravity pressure, tJ:e pressure is
reduced significantly for irrigation at my house. If ttre system is
being operated with the pump, there is sufficient pressure. T'hus, I
can envision problems regarding who decides watering times, who
controls the use of tl:e electrical pump and who collects and pays for
the operation of the electrical pump. None of these issues have been
dealt with.
Ttre third concern I have is with respect to the building envelopes.
am glad that the developers have taken ttre step to provide for
Mr. Mark Bean
Page 3
September 6, 1984
building envelopes, but I think that the envelopes are too large and
in some cases are too close to adjoining property. For example, a
building can be built within twenty-five feet of my rear lot line. I
think that this is too close. I believe that the building envelopes
can be reduced in size without affecting marketa.bility of the property
should the subdivision be approved.
ltrank you for considering my concerns. I hope that if the board
"pptorrl" this subdivision that it does so only if my concerns ttave
been adequately addressed.
-.-
rson
RBE/ec
Sincerely,
W6-
Robert B. Ene
oqAgo r>
s*- . *- lA
t0RtsT stRl,ltE
cotolaoo llalt uNVtgsrIr
;CC]LORADO
STATE
FOtrIEST
SEtrIVICE
State Services Building
222 S. 6th Street, Room 416
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephone 3O3 I 244-7325
L,
July 12, l9B4
Mark Bean, Senior Planner
Garfie'ld County Dept. of Development
P. 0. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81602
RE : Mountai n Meadows Subd'ivi s i on wi'l df i re hazards revi ew
Dear Mr. Bean,
The vegetative description of the site for the proposed Mountain Meadows Subdivisjon
would preclude the necessity for wildfire hazard mitigation.
The developer should be conmended for the planned .I0,00C gal1on c'istern with stand-
pipe for uie in case of fire. The diameter of the standpipe as we'I1 as the thread
iyile should follow the recorrnendations of the chief of the Carbondale Fire Protection
Di stri ct.
Thank you for the opportunity to revieur th'is proposal.
Sincere'ly,') /
Lr< "7'/
John Denison
District Forester
..',,..-.. Ii,-".."t*1 :;._i..r. -
'i^r.ii. l.,: .. l
i u).r ''
I ;, v'J-i" i;il t.:,i i *ilr!,.1, *
1t'-,
;l ,i', .-,..4"'-* - ^ !
GARIiit''-r ''
'ji'{}s,\qi!\
I' tt.lNt-R
CrnrrEEPs & corvsr,Ucro,s
June 25 , "1984
Board of County Cqnnissioners
Garfield County, Colorado
P.O. Box 640
Glenviood Springs, Colorado 81602
c/o Mark Bean
RE: Wildlife Habitation
ltruntain Meadors SuMivision
Dear Sir:
As requested by Garfield County SuMivision Regulations, we have
reviewed the possible impact to wildlife by develotrment of the protrnsed
Mountain l*badows Subdivision. the proposed developnent site is on ttre
Dinlde Lake bad (County Rd. 211) appr:oximately tr^rc miles soutkr of
Carbondale.
The site is currently irrigated pasture land strrounded bv single
fanily hor:sing. Ttre site is not utilized by gane for feed ard it is
not onsidered a migration path. ttre orly wildlife trrresent are snall
mannals such as mice, rabbits, etc.
For the reasons described aborze, developnent of the site is not
considered impactive to wildlife in the area.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER & A.SSOCIAIESZzu/4o*
Rich Holsan, P.L.S.
w[/i)
SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1512 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 210 r GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 o (303)945-5468
JOHN R. SCHENK
DAN KERST
wILLIAM J. oEWINTER, III
SCHENK, KERST & NNWTNTER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 2O1, AI7 COLORADO AVENUE
GLITNWO()D SPRINGS, COLORADO 416()1
.3031 94s-2447
JuIy 3l-, 1984
h;i984
Mr. I{ark Bean
Garfield CountY Planner
20L4 Blake Ave.
Glenwood SPrings, CO 8160I
Re: AIIen Subdivision
Basalt Water ConservancY
District - contract
GAEFIELD C(). PIANXIR
Dear luir. Bean:
P1ease be a<lvised that on July 10, t9B4 at the regular
meeting of the Board of Directors of the Basalt water conser-
,r^rr"y 6i=tri"i ltr=. Annaliese Allen's applicatio, for 3 ' 3
acre feet of the Districtrs Ruedi Reservoir rights was presented'
The application was approved and_ a contract was authorized
for 3.3 acre feet of water Lo serve the 10 single family
residences of the A1len Subdivision'
Very trulY Yours,a ,. ,/l)ci ,-{'rn ..-, fl l-Lr-- /
BARBARA MICK,
SecretarYBasalt Water Conservancy District