HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 10.01.198410/1/84
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: For a S.B. 35 Exemption Request
APPLICANT: Henry Dietz, IV
LOCATION: Sec. 25, T5S, R91W; located NW of
New Castle along the entrance to
the Elk Creek Subdivision.
SITE DATA:
ACCESS:
SEWER:
WATER:
ZONING:
Division of approximately 9.2 acres
into 4 lots.
Off County Rd. 245 by way off an
existing private access road.
Proposed individual septic disposal
systems.
Town of New Castle
A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: North R - MH/G/UD
South A/R/RD
East R - MH/G/UD
West A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The site lies within District A, the Urban Areas of Influence for the
Town of New Castle.
The following is taken from the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Natural
Environment Section (pg. 77-78):
The following standards apply to those aspects of the natural environment
that require specialized site -planning or design consideration in Garfield
County.
I. Steep Slopes (25% and over) and Moderate
Slopes (16% - 24%)
A. Potential Problems
1. Erosion.
2. Sedimentation.
3. Rapid runoff.
4. Revegetation difficulty.
5. Excessive cut and fill.
6. Landslide potential.
7. Subsidence.
8. Increased potential of hazardous areas such
as rockfall, mud flow or unstable slope.
4
i
B. Performance Standards
1. Slopes 25% and over shall be restricted from
development. These slopes may be:
a. Maintained as permanent open space.
b. Platted as a portion of an approved
building lot, with an open space ease-
ment.
c. Platted as a portion of a building lot
which has adequate usable building space
available other than steep slopes.
d. Platted as a portion of a subdivision and
dedicated as permanent open space.
e. Developed with special design considera-
tions and engineering.
2. Areas of disturbance or clearing on slopes 25% or
greater shall be stabilized and revegetated to pre -
disturbance levels with appropriate, rapidly
established vegetation.
a. Native or apt plant materials shall be used.
b. Method of stabilization used shall blend with
or enhance the existing surrounding environment.
c. Stabilization methods shall be completed before
any lots or homes are sold unless otherwise
approved by the County Commissioners.
3. On moderate slopes (16% - 24%) only those
structures that are designed to fit the contours
of the land shall be considered. The leveling, or
"benching", of these slopes shall not be permitted.
4. Construction measures which may be used to mitigate
moderate slope hazards are:
a. The disturbance of the natural vegetation shall
be kept to a minimum during the construction of
any development.
b. Dust and wind erosion shall be kept to a minimum
during construction by the use of temporary soil
stabilization measures.
c. Erosion and runoff control measures which
demonstrate the control of storm water and
water -born soil during and after construction
shall be provided for all development activities.
5. The grading of all new development shall be designed so
that cut and fill are kept to a minimum and can balance
within the project site.
a. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1
efficient stabilization methods are utilized.
b. The proposed development shall be designed in a
manner which demonstrates a "fit" with the existing
topography of the land.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The site sits to the+north of County Rd. 245
along both sides of an existing access road used by the Elk Creek
Subdivision. The site is mainly steep hillsides and contains the
Coryell Ditch and the City of New Castle Waterworks.
B. Project Description: The proposal is to divide the 9+ acres into
4 lots of approximately 2, 2, 2, and 3 acres. Three of the four
lots would sit to the west of the existing access road andone
would sit to the east.
The proposal includes the following:
1. A 60 foot wide public access and utility easement from the
County Road #245 to Comanchero Trail. This easement
encompasses New Castle's water line located in the existing
road. This easement shall be shown on the final plat.
2. A 30 foot wide utility easement to encompass the New Castle
water line as it leaves the New Castle property to the
existing road, (southerly end). This easement shall be
shown on the final plat and shall be deeded to the town of
New Castle.
3. A 30 foot wide ingress and egress easement from the existing
road to the gate and the water treatment plant property -
this easement covers the approximate existing access that is
being utilized at this time. This easement shall be shown
on the final plat and shall be deeded to the Town of New
Castle.
4. Building envelopes for each lot shall be shown on the plat.
A plat note shall indicate that no building shall take place
outside of the designated envelopes.
5. A 30 foot wide drainage easement on the over flow ditch.
This will be denoted on the plat and deeded to the Town of
New Castle.
6. A 10 foot wide utility and maintenance easement of the
easterly boundary of the plant property (20 foot wide) at
the northeast corner where it will intersect the Elk Creek
development boundary. This easement shall be shown on the
plat and deeded to the Town of New Castle.
7. A 5 foot maintenance easement along the South, West, and
North plant boundary. This easement shall be shown on the
plat and deeded to the Town of New Castle.
8. A 24 inch diameter c.m.p. will be installed at the overflow
ditch when improvements occur to parcel 4 if ingress and
egress for lot 4 is to be by way of Navaho Street. There
shall be a plat note indicating this access improvement
shall be installed at the time of development of the access
to lot 4.
9. A plat note shall indicate that no mobile homes shall be
allowed on parcels 1 - 4.
History: In 1983, a 12 + acre parcel was divided by exemption
into 2 tracts leaving this 9 acre parcel. At that time, the
applicant requested to be able to come in later for further
review to possibly get additional exemptions on the 9 acre
tract. Thus Resolution # 83-138 does not contain any restrictive
wording regarding further exemptions. (See page2/. )
On 3/12/84 the Board of County Commissioners referred this
proposal to the Planning Commission for review. On May 9, 1984,
the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal.
On June 4, 1984, the applicant asked the Board to table the
request until additional information could be obtained. On
August 20, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners tabled the
request to allow the applicants and 4,4Elk Creek Homeowners'
Association time to review possible access solutions with regards
to safety and maintenance
4,7
III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Review Agencies:
1. The Town of New Castle noted in a letter to the applicant
(see letter page ,3 ) that they would be happy to work with
the applicant to provide water taps for the lots and that
they were willing to negotiate a land exchange with regards
to the city's water works area. In another letter dated May
4, 1984 (see page G 9) the applicant states that the Town of
New Castle has reconsidered and has determined that their
present property lines are more feasible for the town than
the proposed land exchange boundaries. On July 16, 1984,
the Planning office received another letter from New Castle
covering the negotiations that had taken place between New
Castle and the developer (see page 2.4 7)
2. The Elk Creek Subdivision Homeowners Association sent a
letter dated June 20, 1984, indicating concern regarding the
proposal (see page 29). Since that time, Mr. Goetz,
President of the Homeowners' Association, has informed the
Planning office that the concerns expressed in the letter
have been discussed with the applicant and satisfied with
the exception of the road maintenance and safety concerns.
The Homeowners' Association requests that there be a
condition that the newly created lots participate in the
maintenance fees associated with the access road off County
Road 245. In addition, the Homeowners Association has
concerns regarding the safety of the proposed access drives
to each parcel.
B. Staff Comments:
1. There is a small portion of proposed lot #4 (.03 acres) that
has been encroached upon by lot #7 in Block 4 of the Elk
Creek Subdivision. The applicant wishes to give this small
parcel to the owners of the lot in the Elk Creek
Subdivision. The Board of County Commissioners has already
given conditional approval for a boundary line adjustment
for this situation.
2. The soils report from the Soil Conservation Service
indicated that all soil types found on this site have severe
limitations with regards to development due to steep slopes,
rock exposures and shallow soils. An additional soils
report done for the New Castle Water Treatment Plant
facility was provided and reviewed by the County building
staff. The County Building Official recommends that soils
tests be done for each lot to determine if engineered
foundations will be necessary.
3. The applicants submitted a site evaluation done by a
registered engineer. The County Environmental Health office
has noted that it may be necessary for any septic systems on
the proposed lots to be designed by a registered
professional engineer. In addition the following comments
were made regarding the proposed septic:
- The evaluation specifies minimum allowable distances from
potable water wells and storage tanks+. If the request is
approved, every effort should be made to place any system
component in excess of the minimums to additionally ensure
the New Castle water treatment facilities. The report also
/3 ---
recommends the optimum safety precaution.
- Parcel Number 2's percolation rate and soil profile
observations indicate an unsuitable condition for a standard
"septic system". This parcel would most likely require a
design by a registered professional engineer.
- Parcel Number 1 may also require the services of a
registered professional engineer due to ground slope
exceeding thirty percent.
- It should be kept in mind that the individual sewage
disposal systems on the properties may dictate the location
of the dwellings, should the exemption receive approval.
- If approved, the master plat should advise a purchaser of
the possibility of an individual sewage disposal system
designed by a registered professional engineer.
4. The site review of the parcel indicated that areas of the
parcel could be in excess of 25% slopes.
5. The proposed access for parcels 1, 2, and 3 is currently
being used and maintained by the Elk Creek Subdivision
Homeowners' Association. This application proposes to
provide the Elk Creek Homeowners' with a 60 foot wide public
access and utility easement. The road is currently not a
legal access for the Elk Creek Homeowners' according to deed
research done by the applicant.
6. The proposed access for parcel #4 is by way of Navaho Street
in the E1K Creek Subdivision. A signed agreement with the
Elk Creek Homewoners' Association will be required if this
access is to be used. If an agreement is not aquired, then
the developer must provide access to lot 4 by way of the
access road to be used by parcels 1, 2 and 3.
7. The surrounding property includes the Elk Creek Subdivision
which has approximately 1/4 acre lots.
8. Since the applicant had one exempted parcel created in 1983,
the proposed number of additional lots (4), if approved,
would mean that the applicant has had a total of 5 lots
created by exemption from one original parcel. However, one
of the lots created by exemption was separated by County
Road 245.
9. It appears that sections of the existing and proposed access
exceed 8 degree grades but that it is within the 12 degree
limitations for private roads in Garfield County. This road
has one large curve where access to proposed parcel #2 could
pose a safety problem if not designed properly.
IV. SUGGESTED FINDING
1. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was
extensive and complete and that all pertinent facts, matters and
issues were submitted.
2. The proposed use is compatiable with the existing surrounding
land uses.
3. If all conditions are met, then the proposal is in the best
interest of the health, safety, welfare, prosperity, convenience
and order of the citizens of Garfield Coupty.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL, with the following minimum conditions:
1. That there be a plat recorded in the Clerk and Recorder's office
including the following:
a) A legal description of each lot which includes the
appropriate access easements with regards to the existing
access road. It shall also include all ditch, powerline and
easements for the property as proposed by the applicant.
b) That a plat note be included stating that each lot may be
subject to engineered foundations and to septic systems
engineered by a Colorado registered professional engineer.
This plat note shall state that each lot shall be required
to submit a soils test with the building permit application
to determine if engineered foundations and septic systems
will be required.
c) A plat note shall state that no mobile homes shall be
allowed on the parcels created by this exemption.
d) Building envelopes shall be shown on the plat. In addition,
a plat note shall state that no habitable structures shall
be allowed outside of the designated building envelopes.
e) A plat note shall indicate that a 24' C.M.P. culvert shall
be installed across the drainage if access is developed to
parcel #4 by way of Navaho Street.
f) There shall be a signature block for the County Surveyor and
one for the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.
2. The applicant shall submit a signed copy of a agreement with the
Elk Creek Homeowners Association for access to lot 4 by way of
Navaho Street or the developer shall provide access to lot 4 by
way of the access road to be used by lots 1, 2 and 3.
3. The Town of New Castle and the Elk Creek Homeowners Association
shall be given an opportunity to comment on the final plat prior
to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
4. A Homeowners' Association shall be created for parcels created by
this exemption. This Homeowners' Association shall be
responsible for maintnenance of the access road.
5. Six hundred dollars ($600.00) shall be paid to the Department of
Development for the School Impact Fee prior to final approval.
6. The applicant shall file with the Department of Development the
boundary line adjustment to take place between lot #7 of the Elk
Creek Subdivision and lot #4 of this exemption.
7. A written legal description of all four parcels including all
easements shall be submitted to the Planning office prior to
final approval.
8. The applicant shall have 120 days from the date of conditional
approval to meet all conditions. 44
,b.
field' )
.i.,
H...:,ct springs , on Monday
Oilers for Garf eld, Colorado, held iit..the Corti4 ilOrkerst Mne* in
meeting oi.3t.:Tid;r.d947:...7671ety,,
. .,.
:::..
....
regular ft:e
there were present: • ,,,4-4s!,
,: .: •
"1 - -Eugene wan" Drinkhouse . ccsiicner ch.a ;mai
LarrY Vela! .uez , COMASSiOner
Flaven J. Cerise , .ComrnisaiOner
• Earl Rhodes. , County Attorney
. •
Mildred Alsdorf , Clerk of the Boat& a
:n the following proceedings, among others were hac“nd done, to -wit:
• :
RESOLUTION NO. 83-138
tESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH GRANTING AN EXEMPTION FROM illE GARFIELD COUNTY
3DIVISION REGULATIONS FOR HENRY W. DIETZ, IV. .:-. .
,,,;! • .
WHEREAS, Henry W. Dietz, IV. has petitioned theHl10*rd.of:M
mmissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, for an eXeillPtionfrOhe
finition of the terms "subdivision" and "Pdb4ivid04.141)47.:WIAWC.R.S.
73, 30-28-101 (10) (4)-(d), as amended, and the $0,41.Y.I.F4.0fl .90,etions
Garfield County,.Colorado, adopted slanuarY:.2, 19740.0q04402:21
) and 3.02.01 for the division of a 12 actetractA050,peC04011ows:
at parcel of land located as describedB. t'.'555a:
., .:-(02911SPfiled in
e Office of the Clerk and Recorder of GarfO1d Co.V4 tc91'ci)r.140:-into 2
acts of approximately 9 acres and 3.84 acres ech OFOoe..'.14#4. which
oposed divided tracts are more particulirly:descri zki folUwsl'.
11(
.,.....:,:. •:: ' , ; ''' .J;s;i% .; ,;o.'i;i'4.‘ liki• ; r. .
ACT A: A parcel of land in the NE 1/4 of q*CtiOnWnship 5 South
Range 9]. West of the 6th Principal.$00.di41., -P4Xfiel_l3p0nty,
Colorado and being more particularildescri4d *iillOwi:':' Beginning at the center 1/4 Cornercif.:saidle4icin:::25t iioce
N.00'07'58"E. a distance of 435.67 feet tO,'.;:a5.. 13.0int:60.4..fie : •
southwesterly right-of-way line .of .co0i.ii,,Ba•ikcipio'.• 2,4:Sitthence
Southeasterly following a curve to )16 lefw -0,j..:so.:....
right-of-way line whose radius is• 6.3.8.....81...fat 41Ws•014,44,;:central •
angle is 38".09'0711 for an arc Xength-diStagse ,cWapp;ix:foet and .
whose chord bears S.6209'05'1E. 418.21 •feiatrUhencecOitinuing •
along said right-of-way line folloWirig a wai tO. thiiright
having a central angle of 22•27'0r and a id.,iiis of 0..$0;52 feet.
for an arc length distance of'.254038:1,:feenditWhose:0Soo.bears
S.70•00'08"E. 253.27 feet; thenceci;q10:4Iitilong,igV
tS
right-ofway line S.58646'371E. a.di§.0:i.45COI?P44.4tf thence
continuing along said right-Of-way1in'eiAigOia:cdryeTtO'the
left having a central angle of 01°091;34.!:AAVii..44ditislf:1316.73
feet for.an arc length distanCe.of*WfylgoldWOO:;c4ord
bears S.59'21 24 . 26.65feet 't.'a pointQflt1e40#h,e4Yline.
of the N.B. 1/4 of said Section 25Nliihgek. 89'27'50W. and
along the said Southerly line a distance 7.-..
.
76:::.more or
less to the 'Point of Beginning. COntaini5 ,Mt1412 iC7eii' More or
less.
:RACT B: The parcel as described in Book 55.51.Pagew!
1,th tict: exception
. ..
.:,-,',...,... .
of Tract A, as described above.
...4....--,-
,.i..,-.;
(in the State of Colorado and County Of pg_tfle14)1 and.
WHEREAS, the Petitioner has demonstrated tot4.541401..440'04 of the
. .
at
3oard of County Commissioners of Garfield. CoUntyicAlOriditlithe
proposed division does not fall within. the:Pqrposegof Tart,I.Article 28,
Title 30, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, 11;; erriencloclafoitlieeeson that
the impact created does not warrant further subdiVi4On reVieW; and
• •
-2-1-
•4.
•
•
•H$REAS, the Petitioner has demonstrazeu w
rd of County. Commissioners of. Garfield County, .0 .;orado, of that there is
reasonable probability of locating doiaestic ..ovate each ,said
said tracts that the
racts, that there .is adequate ingress ariA egress "t
location of septic tanks will be'permitted bythelQradoj?eprtment of
Health, that the,requested division is not part of,aplexistitig' QrA.arger
development and does not fall within the general pu'r'. uses 'and$nte.nt of
the subdivision regulations of the State of Colorado,4;and e'
•thC*Aunty of
Garfield,• and should, therefore, be exempted .from•theS•:d.efiriition of the
terms ,"subdivision" and "subdivided land" as set fo'rtai in C.RS. 1973,
30-28-101' (10) (a) -(d), as amended; •
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the division'of the above
described tracts "A" and "B" from the above described12 acre' tract is
hereby exempted from such definitions and said tract may be divided into
tracts "A" and "8", all as is more fully described above, and'said divided
tract may be conveyed in the form of such smaller tracts without further
compliance with the aforesaid subdivision statutes and regulations.
In addition, a copy of the instrument or instruments of conveyance when
recorded shall be filed with this Resolution.
ATTEST:
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY,` • COLORADO •
k of the Board
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was
adopted by the following vote: •
•
Eugene "Jim" Drinkhouse
Larry Velasquez
Flaven J. Cerise
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Garfield
)
) ss
•)
I, , County. ,Cle;k and ex,o.fficio Clerk
of the Board of County Commissioners in and ,for tkelCounty .:arid State
aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and�foegoing•:.Qrder is truly
copied from the Records of the Proceedings of tWBoard of County
Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in myoffice.. •
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand.and affixed the seal
of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this '='.•<day of ,
A.D. 19
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the
Board of County Commissioners.
•
Gary D. Berschauer
Landmark Surveying
P.O. Box 883
Rifle, Co. 81650
NCW CASTLC. COLORADO SI 6417
TELE►NONCI 111144311
January 19, 1984
RE: Water Taps for Dietz Exemption Property - Elk Creek Sub-
division.
Dear Gary,
The Town of New Castle is quite willing to provide eater taps
to the identified property provided an adaquate system „can be
designed and approved.by the Town which insures that -s: dequate
pressure is available to the lots served. This can.be`accomp-
lished by a number of systems. The Town's Engineer`villbe more
than happy to work with you.
we are also willing to negotiate a land exchange.f.or the ident-
ified properties.
We do have a concern that the utmost care be taken.ln:`the design.
of the wastewater systems so as to insure that the Tovnls potable
water system is not contaminated. The Town's water processing
plant is located downhill of the proposed subdivision:.""
We look forward to working with you on this project:',;
It
Respectfully,
1.1
Kenneth Resor.
Town Administrator
cc: Garfield County rlanning and Zoning Commission
4
' 'I
•1 1
JAN 2 0 1004
1'
G/.x'FIELU CO. PLAilliiER
•
May 4, 1984
••101
i
Garfield County Planning Department
2014 Blake 'Ave.'
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attention: Cynthia and Mark
RE: Dietz Exemption
Dear Cindy:
t ` If
ji
ti:. •�: ' 7 1984 . �j
CU. PLANNER
Herewith is the plat with 'the 'approximate 14 mesite 'locations
for the Dietz' exemption petition, approximate' access routes are
also enclosed.
The Town of New Castle consulting en inee A feel ththe
property the water plant sits on now is more 'f.easable 'foe plant
expansion than the property we' are willing to.exchange, s.o parcel
4 is still as shown on the 'plat. We 'will obta1.z from New ' astle
some type of direction for water tap service;'ti}atKthey 'arwilling
to provide and at the 'same time address their concerns if;'any of
the parcel 4 building site 'locations and the '1mtir:ovements4hereof.
We are not anticipating a need for full subdivision review with
this project as we believe that your concerns'addressed. As
we have mentioned before Mr. Dietz will not request any mo.e'exemp-
tions for the area shown on the'insett map.
Some df access routes will require culverts and ditch'crossing(s)
and the parcel 3 route can be appropriately laid out to minimize'
scarring of the terrain. Thank you.
Sincerely,
I
Gary D. Berschauee
GDB- j lw
P.O.Box 883
•
RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 • (303) 625.3540
•
•
1VYYrr Ur 1VGYY Lr.JILG.
Box 1$$
NEW CASTLE. COLORADO $1$47
TELEPHONE; 1$4•2311
July 16, 1984
Garfield County Dept. of Development
2014 Blake Ave.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Dietz Proposed Exemption Petition 2 miles
north of New Castle.
Dear Planner,
Find enclosed a copy of a letter spelling out
as proposed between Landmark Services and the Town
above referenced exemption.proposal.
The contents of this letter were accepted and.
regular meeting, July 11, 1984. Therefore, the•prop
(pg. 2) from the Town of Nev Castle is hereby given
Please note the very last paragraph of the let
statement of Nev Castle approval will be affixed to
We will consider our acceptance of the Plat as our
exemption.
We do appreciate your willingness to allow us
exemption request. It has some very important const
we feel have been worked out very well.
Thank You and
JUL 1 T 1984
pIAZER
S
R
the negotiated agreement
of New Castle, for the
approved at our last
used recommendation
ter. It agrees that a
the Exemption Plat.
final approval of the
to review this particular
aerations for us, which
Ispectfully,
„tic.4.,
tan Fulbright
Town Administrator
Town Trustees
Town of New Castle
New Castle, CO 81647
RE: Dietz Exemption
Dear Trustee's:
As requested by your Planning and Zoning Board please find
herewith a copy of the Dietz 'Petition for Exemptions to Garfield
County addressing concerns and recommendations in respect to the
New Castle Water Treatmerit Plant property etc., more specifically
also as listed.
1. 60 foot wide public access and utility easement'from the
County Road #245 to Comanchero Trail. This'easenierit•ericompasses
New Castlet's water line located in the existing road. !
2. .30f'foot wide 'utility easement to encompass the•New Castle
water line as It leaves the New Castle 'property to the 'existing
road, (southerly end).
.3: 30 'foot wide 'ingress and egress easement from the 'existing
road to the gate 'and the water treatment plant property - this ease-
ment covers the approximate' existing access°that is being utilized
at this time.
4. Building envelopes as shown on plat.
5. 30 foot wide drainage easement on the overflow ditch as
denoted on the plat.
6. 10 foot wide 'utility and maintenance easement on the easterlj
boundary of the 'plant property (20 'foot wider, at the 'northeast corner
where it will intersect the Elk' Creek development boundary.
7. 5 $oot maintenance easement along the South, West and North
plant boundary.
8. A 24 inch diameter c.m.p. will be installed at the overflow
ditch when improvemerits•occur to parcel 4 so.that ingres's and egress r
be 'made to Navaho Street.
P.O. Box 883
•
RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 • (303) 625-3540
•
.5' .
a
•
Mr'
Town Trustees
Jr
.:!,:::7
July 10, 1984
Ii.
Page 2
...,. ..,•::4.;1'.. . ./
tt.10
. . ••;..0 :i...
..:,
9. The Petition is per County zoning area ind is for single
family residential dwelling (no mobile homes). . •
. ••.•
10. Dwelling site 'easterly of plant boundary has been ommitted.
In return we are requesting that New Capita formerlyrecommend
the following: . •.,,; •
.:.,r
,,...:
1. Approval to Garfield County Commissioners for the Exemption
Petition.
2. Provide water taps. (Placement will be.worked out as improve-
ment occurs to the parcels with New Castle). -•
3. Abandon old ditch easement or right-o44Wly through Dietz pro-
perty.
0.
4. Request that New Castle hake *availablo soil tests.to the
.-? •
plant property' for analyzing and suppleentalanformation•to the Peti-
tion.
,VkA • xe, •
:4
A statement of New Castle 'approVal vi11.affixedt� the Exemption
Plat upon apptoval of the .eXetption plat by Garfield County and will
become part of your records.* •
•
Thank You for your time on this project.
Sincerely,
• ,:':i2,•.-gs ..kr:y,
:.!..v,...; •
CI . .!,,,,,Loc1
.....
.A.. --N \.
Gay D. Betschauer:
1• .
ir
. .!:'•"?r .• �'� '•
•IjfI l ?yr. -
• .. .f t. } : 84�1111
%el 'L, 44. • Z V •+�.1 • �•�i.( f1.•i
;.. r.
M
•
r
• '.�..M•`� ...x�1 C•�L1 i .
:a.
••••; ••
•
rr ?t 1 fail
rk•; 2'1 . • 4cvj 1-
•
r
.\_:?‘ • • •.1.. .
•
•
. ' ;•:.
•
•
. t ,� v).. . . `` !, 1 .' .r{t � r I. , 1att.
R• • .4' •. ; iI • •! � %j .1r ••?~ '•� '•LY- V >e,•ti t 011-.6 ? •&./ ••- • 1
• r 1
•it
L • � 1.41; • • }.I..i