The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 BOCC Staff Report 11.15.1993• c0, et~ E.~13-~s R E'/.C 1J10ct"J t;N1 ... .....,) E:. "i.-:o) t::JH L.. \.J ' \.,l, ~ "I'll> I:> -+ ~ b. pz.o b IJiS. ~ lq<alf' BOCC 11115/93 r) b¥lt..Co , Ci? L . .01'l I '""-1 I PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS W At-~~t I: !:) ~~ I• REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING: "'" JU\ An exemption from the defmitio~~ subdivision z.s~ : 't:Pf ' ~ l4ctC> L , Kozak\King Q Located in a portion of Section 25 , T5S, R91W of 6th P .M.; Located approximately two (2) miles northwest of the Town of ( /j New Castle, immediately east of the Elk ( .,. ~' Creek Development (BCD). ~..Y ""' ' '1r.' c 40.351 acres ~~'..) ly\~~ . New Castle Water A 4 \~~ by ~ I.S .D.S . " .. A ~'y Cq P9 [..) Access easement from existing, public-right-~~~ of-way and Lot 12 of BCD NR/RD L RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located in District A -Town of N ew Castle Urban Area of Influence as shown on the Garfield County Management Districts' Map. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The exemption parcel is located northeast of the Elk Creek Development, northwest of the Town of New Castle. The site is currently undeveloped, and rises gradually to the north. The property includes significant natural vegetation, and the northern portion of the property may be impacted by existing drainages (see vicinity map on page~). n __ -~ - -~ T"o • •• • ill. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Subdivision Regulations. Section 8.52 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations state that ''No more than a total of four (4) Jots, parcels, interests or dwelling units will be created from any parcel, as that parcel was described in the records of the Garfield County clerk and Recorder's ODice on January 1, 1973, and is not a part of a recorded subdivision; however, any parcel to be divided by exemption that is sph"t by a public right-of-way (State or Federal highway, County road or railroad) or natural feature, preventingjoint use of the proposedtracts,andthedivisionoccursalongthepublicright-of-wayornatural feature, such parcels thereby created may, in the discretion of the Board, not be considered to have been created by exemption with regard to the four (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable; Records in the Garfield County Assessor's Office indicate that the parcel consisted of approximately 40 acres in 1964 (Book 356, Page 299). Therefore, up to four (4) parcels may be created through the exemption process. B. Zoning. The exemption parcels are consistent with the two (2) acre lot minimum lot size for the NR/RD zone district. C. Legal Access . The applicants intend on accessing the lower lot from an existing access road directly from County Road 245, shown on the Elk Creek plat. Access to the remaining parcels would be via the established road system, and then through Lot 12, which is owned by the Kozak Family. Planning Staff had concerns regarding the legal ability to access the exempt ion parcels through a plated lot. Walter E. Brown, legal counsel for the Kozaks, has responded to this concern (see letter on page L). In staffs opinion, there does not appear to be any statutory limitation, County or otherwise, that restricts the use of Lot 12 to access the proposed exemption parcels. In fact, Lot 12 has been used as an access and egress by the HOA to service their waterline which runs over and through the property subject to the application. Staff has also meet with legal counsel for the Homeowner's Association (HOA), who oppose the access arrangement with Lot 12. A primary concern of the HOA is the impact of the additional traffic generated by the exemption on the internal roads within the subdivision. Numerous court cases have concluded that the assessment of impacts must be based on the concept of "Rational Nexus", defined as the legal requirement that any governmental imposed impact fee or mitigation be consistent with the incremental impact of the proposed development. 1 There are currently 67 dwelling units within the BCD. The proposed exemption is requesting four lots. Even if all the proposed exemption parcels accessed from the internal street system, the total increase in traffic is approximately four ( 4) percent. One option to address the potential impact would require the D. exemption parcels to participate in the Homeowner's Association road maintenance program, which is estimated at $5.00 per month per dwelling unit. The HOA also has concerns regarding the proposal that lot lines within the exemption converge on the center of the existing waterline easement. The primary concern is that the HOA retains the ability to access the water tank and accessory infrastructure. Staff suggests that the following plat note to address the potential for fencing within the easement: "A supplemental setback for lots 1, 2 and 3 prohibits the placement of any fencing, landscaping or other structure within 10 feet of the established easement to the water tank." The location of the setback shall also be depicted on the final plat. A copIO'Slsan Snyder's comments, legal counsel for the HOA, is attached on page • I Water and Sewer. Water will be provide by water taps from the Town of New Castle (see letter on page a). Sewage disposal for the exemption parcel is ISDS. Soil types and primary constraints to development are shown on Table 1. TABLE I SCS SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS Badland (#9) Slight Moderate: 25 percent (large stones) Potts-Iidefonso (#58) Severe: (slope) Severe: (slope, 15 percent large stones) Toniorthents-Rock (#67) Moderate: (slope) Moderate: slope 60 percent Source: Soil Survey of Rifle Area, Colorado, United State Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1985. Notes: Building Site Development based on a single-family dwelling unit without basement (Table 7). ISDS constraints based on typical septic tank and leach field (Table 8). Based on the slopes on the site confirmed during fieldwork and SCS data, Staff suggests that the following plat note be included: • • • F. Drainage. The property does include historic drainages due to the talus nature of the slopes and the location of siz.able draws. Although the proposed lots most susceptible to drainage impacts (Lots 2 and 3) are quite large, staff suggests that the following condition of approval be placed on the development: "Prior to the signing of a Final Exemption Plat, the applicant shall have an engineer or geologist, licensed in the State of Colorado, identify building envelopes on Lots 2 and 3. These envelopes, either in the form ofbuildable or unbuildable areas, shall appear on the plat. G. Fire Protection. The Silt-New Castle Volunteer Fire District has reviewed the project (see letter on page I'\ ). Staff notes that no direct approval or mitigation is contained in Mr. Zordel's letter. Staff is attempting to confirm with the District that no additional water infrastructure is needed for the exemption. H. School Impact Fees. Each newly created lot (total of 3) are subject to the required $200.00 per lot school impact fee . I. Additional Comments: Several homeowners have submitted comments regarding the proposed exemption. These letters are included on pages~ IC\ IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. A Final Exemption Plat will be submitted, indicating the legal description of the property, dimension and area of all proposed lots or separate interests to be created, access to a public right-of-way, and any proposed easements for .. 11 -; ' • • 1 ., . • ' .. . ,~ ~ • 4. That the applicant submit $200 in School Impact Fees for the creation of each new lot. 5. Driveway permits, if necessary, shall be obtained from the Road and Bridge Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner. 7. The following plat notes shall be included on the final plat: 1. Soil conditions on the site may require engineered foundations and septic systems. 2. A supplemental setback for lots 1, 2 and 3 prohibits the placement of any fencing, landscaping or other structure within 10 feet of the established easement to the water tank. 8. Prior to the signing of a Final Exemption Plat, the applicant shall have an engineer or geologist, licensed in the State of Colorado, identify building envelopes on Lots 2 and 3. These envelopes, either in the form of buildable or unbuildable areas, shall appear on the plat. ~ fJtALL 9. The following ~~ be addressed on the exemption plat: 4.' Remove the tie lines that appear to imply that Lot 12 is included within the subdivision exemption. Apache Drive should appear on the fi~ e;icemption plat as shown on the Elk Creek Development plat. (~of.,,) ~ ~llCP. ~~~ = ss ea~~wil~· eed ~appear ~ Lot l~ ~d a prop~ate me s r rd with' the °\unty pri~ to s1 g o a Fmal tion lat. ,~~:i1l;r . j.'. . :·~ .• ... '~,' ~ ..... ---'! \ .·@!> I 1 .. \,. ,, ~@ :,· .. ~ .. : . ":' ·~ i''1··~. :ti.. ,l, 'i' .,'t . ·1 . ,. r >· . : ) i • :I .V. '. ~:-,..,. _.. : . • i. ., . .... . ,, • . '·. ':':-,, : 1-----'I: ~ .. ' ~ () 1-----'1 •, <'.- '.-· / / / / • [ ! I } } .' I r,,., ..... ~. f ' • • ' ' • • • t • • • • • " • • • • It • • • • • "· • • • .. . . . .. '• . • ' I' .. ,! •.. • II& • ,~ !,tu-j ''it: ·~ ..... . ' '11"' ' ', .•.• ..... f, • fr. t. ' .. .. • ... " • • • < . .... • • 1 ,/ .... , ,.;· .. .. / ... • . ..... ... : .. ,,:;.,.:_.~,··-~~~.:..:.:~ ... :-_ .. ,,_._ ... _·J -~ ............ ~. ·..... .. ••• ·:: ............... , • . . ---:··:·-,:,·-.'.,~,~ .. ~,.;-.'~·~~~---r--'-~~~~··_--·:_'·.·-~-~·---.·:-···.·_·,._, _____ .~.;~~--:-- .? ,, , :;·-~F; .. .,_'.·'.: '·,: .... · ,• . . ' ,: IJ /£ 1-.1~ .. ----. ....,' : @ .. •O . '. 1 '.; ,.. .i I ·":l .. I I I ·, . Ad10 1n1n9 2125 -24 LoT 3 ( I 3 . l, 1 b.L~S') LGT 2- ( 13 .lDl ~s) LOT ( I < /\ ) ,,,,1 I · I (@)(01) /' / CD / / I • ..I I :I ' ·! i j j ,, ·I l September 13, 1993 TO: Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Proposed Kozak Exemption Dear Commissioners: The property is currently held by the members of the Kozak family in undivided one third interests, and held in joint tenancy by husband and wife members. It is the intention of the family to divide the parcel thus creating separat e parcels for the family members as follows: Tracts 1 and 4 Kazimierz and Esther Kozak Tract 2 Robert Kozak Tract 3 Nathan and Alina King The family members intend to develop their individual parcels by building homes on them. ·····''"'I' I.,, .. :i:-nuu II 1 i'' ·-·1:. :l '' ·:·'I .'!''fl . :1· ·: .. -· 1· .... T . :: :! '"mlll'., i''T :1 1 --· F' 1 .. · · 1• :. · : ·:· ,· ·:· •; ·1 ~·· .. ,. ·::· F r "J.!"'~ • ·:-.. , ·-·;-o:··-·~ · 1"':"1•••• , .... • -:··u ".t~ .. rn -·,r ·1 -·· •' -· ·r 1 :· J"T T ·1 ·1 -·· --·--· ·-- Dave Michealson WALTER E. BROWN Ill ATTORNEY AT LAW 1 1 20 GRAND AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81 60 I (303) 945-236 1 FAX 945-8903 September 28 1993 Garfield County Planning Dept. 8th and Colorado Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81601 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. DRAWER 2010 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 RE: Kozak exemption Dear Dave: Thank you for your call Monday appeared ready for filing except access rights of the applicants. to say that this application for the letter regarding the In reviewing the title to the realty, I could locate no recorded document that res t ricts access to or from this property in the Clerk and recorders office. Further, the original subdivision reflects that the streets are dedicated for public use and at least two streets adjoin the property the Kozak's seek exemption for in this matter. Lot 12 is owned by the Kozaks and it is being used and has been used as an access and egress by the Homeowners Association to service their water line which runs over and thru the property that is the subject of this application. Morever, an adjoining lot owner also uses Lot 12 for access because he mistakenly built part of his structure on Lot 12. Finally, Lot 12 is wide enough to accomodate vehicular access to the three lots which will be served by it. The fourth lot will access ~rom the south, as I understand it. Again, I appreciate your attention to this matter. In my view, the applicants have every right to access their property from the publicly dedicated streets, as much as any owner of land adjoining a public str~et would have. If there are persons who do not agree with that opinion, then I would like to see what legal restriction there is to that effect and what their motives really are. This opinion has been rendered pursuant to your request for our position on this point but without seeing the Dietz exemption documentation which was not available in your office. The formal application and all documentation you have did not have the fees attached and that accompanies this letter. Please advise of the date you want to set this for hearing. I'll be gone Thursday until late in the day but return on Friday. Walt Brown .- STEVEN M. BEATTIE GLENN D. CHADWICK SUSAN W. SNYDER Mr. Dave Michaelson BEATTIE & CHADWICK ATTORNEYS AND CO UN SELORS AT LAW 710 COOPER AVENUE . SU I TE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS , CO 81601 November 12, 1993 Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 TELEPHONE (303) 945 -8659 FAX (303) 945-8671 RE: Proposed Kozak Subdivision Exemption Development Dear Dave: Our firm represents Elk Creek Homeowners Association and we have been asked to address to you several problematic development issues regarding the above referenced application. The Elk Creek Homeowners Association is opposed to approval of this development application unless satisfactory resolution of these issues can be reached with input from the Elk Creek Subdivision. Some of the issues are as follows: 1. Access. A significant concern of the Elk Creek Homeowners Association is the proposed route of access into this new development. The applicants propose travel from County Road 245 through Elk Creek Subdivision roads and then through Lot 12, Block 5, in the Elk Creek Subdivision to provide "legal" access to three of the four parcels in the new development. As you may know, Elk Creek Subdivision roads are substandard roads which are not able to adequately handle the traffic that is already being generated by the Elk Creek Subdivision. These roads require frequent and costly maintenance and repairs and are privately maintained and repaired at the expense of the Elk Creek Subdivision lot owners. The County has consistently declined maintenance of these roads because they fall well below county road standards. The new development has the ability to provide legal access to all of its development parcels d irectly off County Road 245. The Association feels that a decision to not require this new development to provide its own legal access and to allow additional development traffic onto substandard, overburdened Elk Creek Subdivision roads would cause a significant safety risk to all users of the Subdivision roads. The noise, traffic and safety hazards are significant. There has been discussion regarding what is the incremental impact (and incremental cost) of adding new development traffic Mr. Dave Michaelson November 12, 1993 Page 2 to the Elk Creek Subdivision roads. It is difficult to measure such "incremental" impact when the roads are already substandard, are already unable to adequately handle the traffic that is generated by the e x isting subdivision, and already show significant signs of overuse and safety risks. We would ask that this additional burden to the Elk Creek Subdivision roads not be imposed and that t h e applicants be required to develop their own access. In addition, Lot 12, Block 5, of the Elk Creek Subdivision is being proposed as part of the "legal" access to this new development. This Lot 12 is a platted residential lot in the Elk Creek Subdivision. Owners of lots in the Elk Creek Subdivision have relied on and are entitled to rely on the plat of the subdivision which s hows Lot 12 as a residential lot, not as a public access route to a new subdivision. To allow dedication of this Lot 12 as a public access route to a new subdivision would amount to replatting of the Elk Creek Subdivision. As the County subdivision exemption regulations s t a te, real property is eligible for subd i vision exemption only if that property is not part of an already platted subdivision. Lot 12, Block 5 of the Elk Creek Subdivision is already part of a platted subdivision and it should not b e replatted as a public access route. 2. Fire Protection. The draft water systems improvement plan submitted by Wright Water Engineers, Inc., on behalf of the applicants, indicates that fire protection has not been addressed in their plan. We have not seen submittal of an approved fire protection plan. The Elk Creek Homeowners Association is very concerned that adequate storage tanks and other iire protection measures be implemented by the development so as to help prevent the spread of uncontained fires to the Elk Creek Subdivision. 3. D~ainage Impacts. Approximately 10 years ago, drainage overflow from above the Red Rock Ditch caused flooding on in the Elk Creek Subdivision on Block 5, Lots 1-5. To remedy the problem, ditch own e r Eric Williams constructed 3 ponds on what is shown as Tract 3 of the Kozak exemption plat. Such ponding has thus far prevented further drainage overflow impacts to these lots. The Elk Creek Homeowners Association would like to see these ponds remain on Tract 3 and would request that residential development on Tracts 2 and 3 be reviewed and approved by an engineer so as to prevent drainage overflow problems for Elk Creek Subdivision lots. 4. Utility Easements. There is no indication on the proposed exemption plat where utility easements to serve this new development are proposed to be located. The Elk Creek Homeowners Association is not concerned with the location of these easements .. Mr. Dave Michaelson November 12, 1993 Page 3 as long as the easements will not be located on Elk Creek Subdivision propert y. The Town of New Castle has indicated to the Homeowners Association that the waterline for this development must come off County Road 245. 5. Plat. As we have discussed, the proposed plat does not show the location of the Apache Drive extension which is a platted road. Also, the proposed plat appears to include Lot 12, Block 5, in the new development parcel. Such inclusion is not permissible under t he subdivision exemption regulations. 6. Notice. As we discussed earlier with your office there are claims that clear and conspicuous notice was not posted on the property so as to be visible from a public right-of-way at least 15 days before the hearing. There also was concern that ditch owners and owners of some of the lots in Block 8 of the Elk Creek Subdivision may have been required to be noticed for the hearing and were not noticed. As of the writing of this letter, to our knowledge, those issues remain unresolved. The above summarizes some of the concerns that the Elk Creek Homeowners Association and its members have expressed with this development project. Other issues may be raised by individual property owners at the scheduled hearing time. Please call if you have any quest i ons. On behalf of the Elk Creek Homeowners Association, we thank you for your time and attention to these issues. Very truly yours, '){A-ca~TJ ~ Susan W. Snyder . (/ SWS:bd cc: Elk Creek Homeowners Association Walter E. Brown, Esq. 'Burning Mountain' 1888 TOWN OF NEW CASTLE Telephone (303) 984-2311 Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Glenwood Sp r ings, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners: Box 166, New Castle, Colorado 81647 July 7, 1993 The New Castle Board of Trustees have approved four water taps to the Kozak Exemption described as Section 25. T.5.S .. R91 W. 6th P.M. These water taps are for the Kozaks' purposed development of four single family homes. If you have arcy questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ,4~/'4m~ Gertie Hampton Town Clerk/Treasurer ro. ~B prlfl t ed on recy cled paper Silt-New Castle Volunteer F.P.D. Board Ross Talbott..Qiairman William Mootovcr Sean Mello Cary Schroeder Gordon Witzlcc April 15, 1993 To Whom It May Concern: Box 236 Silt, CO 81652 Don Zordcl -Chief Stu Cerise -JU,,isL Chief The Kozak land in Section 25. T.5.S. R.92W. is in the Silt-Newcastle Fire District. Sincerely, ~ifln ila £!fL( Don zo@e Chief, , il t-New Cas·tle FPO ",r'.'·1!!•:1·:r 1•1::·1rrn 1•11" I "''·· ··1: n " ',, "'" I. r• "·: ·' . f November 11, 1993 Mr. Dave Michaelson Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Proposed Kozak Subdivision Exemption Development: Dear Mr. Michaelson, As residents of the Elk Creek Subdivision and members of the Elk Creek Homeowners Association, we would like to express our concerns over the proposed development of the Kozak property. This property borders the Elk Creek Subdivision to the north and east and attaches to property t h at we own. The first issue is the usage of the roads into the proposed new properties. We are especially concerned with maintenance and safety on the Elk Creek Subdivision roads. The Elk Creek Subdivision roads are privately maintained. property owner pays a monthly assessment to contribute to maintenance of these roads. Th i s monthly fee contributes keeping our roads in a state of useability. It aiso pays snow removal. Each the in for Due to amount of traffic on our roads, they continue to be in substandard condit i on. After road work is completed, the roads tend to deteriorate very quickly. Additional traffic on these roads would only contribute to an already overwhelming p r oblem. We often take walks through our neighborhood. Due to the unsafe nature of our roads, passing traffic often forces us off the berm of the road into the ditch. The roads are very narrow and winding and overburdened with traffic. Additional volume on these ioads would only increase the risk of accident,'especially .if the condition of the roads continues to deteriorate. Our second point of concern is in respect to the Apache Drive extension that intersects the Kozak property. We understand that this road is part of the Elk Creek Subdivision with an easement in place to protect our access to this road. It is also our understanding that if the proposed Kozak development takes place, that this easement is not recognized in their plan. On several occasions, the Apache Drive extension has been the only access to our home . . '·:!!'t:l"'•!"1; .~ , . ( ,. ., '! I. Our property is located near the end of Apache Drive. We typically use the Elk Creek Subdivision's p r imary roads. However, there have been several occasions that have required us to use the Apache Drive extensi o n as any other access was blocked. Just recently, work was being performed on one of the subdivision roads and the road was inaccessible. Another recent situation occurred when construction work was being performed at a neighbor's home and the road was blocked for a few hours. In the past, road work and water line work have also prohibited us from using the primary Elk · Creek Subdivis i on roads. In these situations or in an emergency situation, our only route may be the Apache Drive extension. We would request that the parties proposing the new development be required to provide their own road access. Also, that the Apache Drive extension continue to be available for use whenever necessary. It wou l d be important that if construction on the proposed new properties damaged this access road, that they be required to return it to its original condition. '. We have seen little cooperation on the part of th~ Kozak parties. They have posted "Keep Out 11 signs at either end of ' the Apache Drive extension and we have been told repeatedly by Esthe r Kozak that we are not to use that acc e ss road; that it is private property and to keep off their land. We appreciate your time in reviewing this matter. Please contact us if we can offer additional information that might be helpful. Sincerely, ,~-//~-rf'~ ~ M.<aker · 0162 Apache Drive New Castle, CO 816 4 7 Telephone 984-2836 Garfield County Planni11g Dept 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 November 12, 1993 Michael & Lamie O'Connor 0114 Comanchero Trail New Castle, CO 8164 7 RE: Proposed Kozak Subdivision Exemption Development Dear Sirs, Our home is located within the Elk Creek Subdivision on Lot 13, Block 5. Access to our home and garage is provided by a permanent easement over and across southeasterly portion of Lot 12, Block 5; which is owned by Kozak and King . This easement was recorded with Garfield Cmmty on October 4, 1990, rec# 4176656, Book 790, page 160. We purchased our home with the knowledge that Lot 12, Block 5, was platted as a residential lot, not as a thoroughfare to another subdivision. This was a major consideration in our decision to purchase our home. We have small children and do not wish to risk their safety. We felt secure with the County subdivision regulations. We are very concerned with the proposed route of access into the new subdivison; through Lot 12, Block 5. We object to the proposed route of access and feel that the new subdivision has the ability to legally access it's properly directly from County Road 245. We do not feel convenience and cost should jeapordize the safety of children. We are planning to be present at the scheduled hearing and appreciate your attention on this matter. Sincerely, ~ '-/' ~ f\~, a~ 0 1ce.--~ < . __ y ~~ Michael &Laurie O'Com10r ,,,_.; ......... ,_ ..... ,, ... ___ ,. Garfield County Planning Dept 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 November 13, 1993 .. A R Schrieber 0122 Comanchero Trail New Castle, CO 81647 RE: Proposed Kozak Subdivision Exemption Development Dear Sirs, I am unable to attend the scheduled hearing on December 6, concerning the proposed Kozak/King subdivision exemption , but wish to register my objections in this letter. When I purchased my home, located on Lot 11, Block 5 in the Elk Creek Subdivision, ! understood that lot 12 would be used solely as an access for maintaining the water tank and the irrigation ditch. The County Subdivision Exemption Regulations state that it is platted as a residential lot. The steepness of the grade on lot 12 is enough to make it impractical for use as an access road t o future homes. In dry weather, if Mr. King stops his van in order to hook or unhook the chain across the their property, he is unable to keep his van from rolling downhill , even by using both low gear compression and the emergency brake. If he stops going uphill, he can't get started because of the grade. There is only room for a narrow, one lane road, which exacerbates the problem, especially with winter weather conditions. My driveway is 10 feet away and 4 feet below this access road . Traffic on this road would shower my car with gravel and dust in dry conditions, and dirt and slush in wet conditions. I have emphysema and dust adversely affects my health. I am also concerned about be ing plowed in when it snows I have difficulty with snow removal and worry about the plowing of this road and burying my car and the whole lengh of my dr iveway. . ___ ..,_,_ ,.._ . . ~ I have only expressed some of my own personal objections, but there are othe r issues that I believe should require the proposed route of access be denied . Thank you for your time and attention on this matter. Sincerely, A R Schrieber ' ENGINEERS SURVEYORS (303) 94:5-1004 -s GM_ SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER 1001 Grand Avenue . Suite 2E Glenwood Springs . CO 816 01 FAX (303) 945-5 948 January 6, 1994 Walter E. Brown 111, Esq. 1120 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 RE: Little Elk Creek Subdivision Roadway Analysis Dear Walt: At your request and direction, I h ave compieted an overview site analysis of t he roadway system in th e Little Elk Creek Subdivision north of New Cast l e. The purpose of t his overview i s t o determine if t he roadway system i s cons istent with t he current Garfield Count y Roadway Standards and if not how they dev i ate from those standards and if it i s possibie to upgrade the roadways t o meet the standards_ Cone I usions I n general, none of t he roadways w i thin the subdivision meet current Garfie ld County Road Design cr it er i a. From a practical standpoint, i t i s not possible t o modify t hem t o meet the st an dar ds. Roadway Standards Generally, the roadway standards have been prepared to address rural r oadway conditions, while thi s subdivision has a density that is t ypical of an urban environment. Nonetheless, the r oadway standards are reasonable as an overall guideline for this application. In my opinion, the roadways fall under three classifications as fol l ows: 1. Minor Collector -Ute Avenue and the South Connector Street would f all under this classification. The road standard requires a right-of-way width of 60 feet, a platform w i dth of 32 feet (2-12 foot dr i v i ng l anes and 2-4 foot shoulders) plus a 10 foot ditch section. 2. Secondary Access -Th is classification would be consistent with t he remainder of the r oadways with the exception of Nava j o Street south. The standards for this classification are a 50 foot right-of-way, 30 fo ot platform (2-11 foot driving lanes and 2-4 foot shoulders) plus a 6 foot wide ditch section. 3. Rural Access -This c l ass i f i cation would be applicable to Navajo Street south. The standards for this classification are a 50 foot right-of-way, a 26 foot platform (2-11 foot driving lanes and 2-2 foot shoulders) plus a ditch section of 6 foot width. For application within this subdivision, it i s my op1n1on that t he standards would require a chip seal sur f ace on all of the roadways. They f urther would require a cu IL de-sac at the end of all dead end roadways, adequate site distance at intersections and proper signage. January 6, 1994 Walt Brown, Esq. Page 2 Existing Roadway System Characteristics General observations with respect to the ex i st i ng roadway system and deficienc i es from either county standards or design pract i ce are as follows: 1. Generally , platform w i dths v aried f rom 14 f eet t o 24 f eet wi th t he v as t majorit y of the platform widths i n the 16 to 18 foot range. The South Entrance road has the widest pla t form at 2 4 f eet at i ts i ntersection w i th the county road. Apache Dr i ve h as t he narrowest section a t 14 t oo t t o 16 foot wh i ch is essentially t he county standard f or a dr i veway. 2. There are no cul-de-sacs at t he dead end r oads wi thin t he subdivision. There is no right-of-way available and no practical way t o construc t adequate turnaround facilities. 3. I was not able to ver if y l ocat i on and s izes of c u l ver t s. T he d itch sections appeared to be inadequate to meet ex i sting county design standards or good design practice. I f t he roadways were ever prov i ded with a hard surface, t he ditches are i nadequate t o prevent excessive subgrade moisture conditions and maintain t he i ntegr i ty of t he hard surfacing. 4. Grades on the roadways generall y met the county standard of 8% to 10%. 5. 6. The notable exception was the South Entrance r oad where grades appeared to exceed 12%. Grades at i ntersections generally exceed t he county standard of 4%. An extreme variation was noted at t he i ntersection of Coma n cero T rail and the South Entrance road where grades on two of t he i ntersection l egs are in the 10% to 12% range. Right-of-way widths are 40 fee t on all roadways with th e exception of Apache Dr i ve where the r i ght-o f -way width i s 20 f eet. The 20 foot right-of-way width is not su f ficient t o construct any i mprovements at all. The 40 foot right-of-way width i s wide enough t o accommodate required platform widths bu t i s n ot w ide e noug h t o accommodate t h e back slope and fore slopes necessary to construct t he p latforms. 7. It was generally noted that improvements along the roadways lim i ted the practical roadway disturbance or l i mits-of-construction area to 30 to 36 feet. It is also noted that driveways coming off the exist i ng roadways were relatively steep. If these roadways were broug h t t o coun ty standards, there would be a significant i mpact on all roadside improvements and all of the driveways would be significantly steepened. It was my observation in the field that both of these impacts probably would not be acceptable to the ex i sting residents. i j -I I i i January 6, 1994 Walt Brown, Esq. Page 3 8. There would be areas of significant cut and f ill requ i red i n o rder to widen the existing roadways. In summary, the characteristics of the existing road system do not generally meet county roadway design criteria. It would not be possible to meet all of the current design standards. Any reconstruction or modification of t he platform widths of t hese roadways would have a significant impact on the existing i mprovements i n t he subdivision. Upgrade Scenarios In my opinion, the only practical upgrade scenario w ould be to provide a chip sea l surface on the existing roadway platforms. In addition , the drainage ditches would need to be improved to protect the paved roadway system. My assumption is that several of the culverts would need to be replaced and/or i nstalled i n order to i mprove t he drainage patterns. I t has been my experience that grave l ed roadways generally do not have enough structural capacity to simply accept a chip seal surface. Therefore , my recommendation would be to add a minimum of 4 inches of gravel pr i or to the chip seal application. A preliminary estimate for providing 4 inches of grave l, a chip seal surface and improving the drainage system for the existing roadway system would be on the order of $50,000. The second alternative would be to bring the roadway system up to county standards from a platform width and drainage standpoint. As stated in the previous section, i t is not possible to meet county standards with respect to certain design criter i a. In order to provide standard platform widths, it would be necessary to obtain additional right-of-way or construction easements of at least 10 feet on either side of t he existing r ight-of-way. This is a very difficult cost estimate to provide without doing -a detailed takeo-ff. A conceptual cost estimate for this l evel of i mprovements would be in the $250,000 -$300,000 range. I trust that the above is sufficient for your i mmediate needs. I will re main available to provide additional input as necessary. Respectfully submitted , SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. DWG/ja94003 .. · .. :c. ·' •' .. ·. . ~.:-..··: :~.: . ' ... '::: . '·· •' ..... .. ; . ·:~ -~ .. .·_, ·:-.. ·.· .. ·· . ... . ·. ·. :. ' ·~ . : ... ·.· ICNOW All MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT OO~OTHY M. SCHRIEBER Flnt Perty · P Q, ~ox 795 · ·P.O. ti. ortr..t Addr.- .. · Silt Colorado · · Ctty Sttte 81652 z1p '°'Ind k't contlderatlon of ten dollen end othtr walulble c:ont ideretlon, In hand pekt, het9bv •111 Ind qultclei to , " . ,. . .. ", :., .. ; ., :· .:~ ....... ALVIN R. SCHRIEBER Second Plfty .. . P. 0. Box 886 City State • ' lrtdl'tlduelly '" : " . c jolllt tlNllcy . .\. . 0t1Nfteylft~ 0 I Colondo Corporatlefl c.~., 0 I UtftltM flwNnflflJ 0 I Truet . ·, . ~ . ··ir,.-· . --:··, :{~'':··, . ":~~ '•. . . the foitowing delcribed pr~ in the County of __ G_e_r ... f.-1 e_t_d .. · --Ind State of Colorado: ·· .; . . ~ ·.~:.,: ·. ·. See Exhibit' A attached hereto and Incorporated herein. '· ;.- ' • I ~ . . . ; ... ". ·.,, ':. .. ·"'· . .. , ·.~ " . ~··~ . ·' . ' '!\'ith all its appurtenances . ,.-· ... , . .( STATE OF COLORADO SS . ·COUNTY OF GARFIELD "The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i' <; day of ) 1pM ..ah, 1 19 .~by · DOROTHY M. SCHRIEBER. . . . · . · Witnesl my hand and official seal. ·'/-My commillioruxpirn : " -.J . .l . ? J. . ·' .' . ~ • ..> .... MOTi:' .·· . ............... _.. ........ .......................... _._..... ..... . · .;, ,., . ... -.. ... .. . , . ~ " I ~· :. " . ... , · . ~ ;'.' " .. ·~ .•, .. ,,:·: ' '" • I . •:. · . ... ' ( '/ ··~ . ... .. .. ; .. : '·. . -~ ., . l . :.1 · .. · ... .. . ,1 :.· . .. ·.· :. l . . " . . ~l "·.·. ~. .. · ·.·.· ., '.I ·i I " : \ . -I . . .; I ..; ~-.' . ,·{: ... : .... : : .. .... · ·.·· .. . ~ . : . ·.~. ' ·'\ . : .. ~ ·.·: ~ .· .... .· .... -. ·.::: · ... , ', •• ·-v : ·: ' •• ·-·· .. ·. ·.:' '•; ., .. : ....... :~ .. ·· ... . ·.· .. · . ....... ... -.. .·I> ·•:,- ., .... '. . ··.· ... · ....... . . , ... ..... .: .. '· · .. ·' .·.: .. ; . ~~ ..... : " '. ·-.... \, ;"" e &{l(l ll 81·1 ract901 Lot Ten (10), Block rlve (S) of Un\t 1 oc the l'!lk Creek Development, a aubdlvlslon in the NE% oC Section 25, Township S south. Range 9l WeAt of the sixth Principal Meridian: accordinq ·; .. to Map ·oc record ln the oCCice of the Garfield County Clerk and . -Recordei as Document No. 230S2l. Lot Eleven (11), Block rive (5) of Unit One of the Elk Creek Development. in the NE~ of Section 25, Townnhlp 5 South,·Ranqt 91 West ot the . 6th r.M .• •• shown on plat of the !lk creek '~., Development, lnc., recorded as Document No. 230521. The above ·:·· land la sub}ect to the restrictive covenants contained in the .. ·-~, · document recorded ln Book 367 at Page 258 in the office of _ the .Garfield .County Clerk and Recorder. The west twenty reet (20') of Lot 1£. ~lock 5, Unit One, l'!lk . Creek Development, said plat beinq duly rer~:ded in Plat Book 3, Page 22. Garfield County, Colorado, describud by metes and ·bounds as: · Beginning at th~ NW corner Lot 12, Block 'J, Unit One, l'!lk creek Development, thence S 50•02 1 E 20.0 0 foet alonq ·the north l i ne of said Lot 12 to a point: Thence S 39•09• W 125.84 feet to a point on the south line of said Lot 12, being tbe north right of way line ~f Comanchero Trail: · thence N 63°21' W 20.48 feet along said south line of Lot l2, ~nd along said riqht of way line to t~~ ~~ corner of · s~id Lot 12, Block 5: Thence N 39°09' E 130.57 feftt along the west line of Sd\O Lot 12 to the point of beginning, containing 2,564 square feet or 0.059 acres, being part of SW~NE~ Section 25, T. s s .• R. 91 w .• 6th P.M. A~cording to map of record in the office of the Garfield ·county Cler~ anJ Recorder ac Document No. 230521. · ·:. i"' .. ) . . . : .... ,~ . • .r.; ~ •· ::':.' ~· ~ .... "· .· ... ' .~ .~ ... ,., .· .. ::.r . •. ·' l~ . ~ ·~ .. ··.-1·. :i ~ . -~--~ , ., .. .. .-.. -:·::~ : .i.' ... {'.~ ;-.: . ·.-.:: :. I .... _l .... ., . ,,.,::-., ~'I.·,.. , ... ~~'f~>:.'~. . ~ .. .: -: .. • • •• ""t .. ' .. ~· ,, . . .' ¥ .. , ·~ . . . "· . "~. .... ; .. : .. : ... .' , ... ,. . . .!" . -~ .. ·- ... ·, . · .• 1 ., .I • 1'' •• ' . ~ .; . :·. ·.··, ·. ·: :· .... < .... :;,.. . ~ ii t'l ~ i~ t f !}. l ::t t . : ' \;.}~ l ~i ~ f· ' l r ' l c -(. ,-r· , ~I -~ ·ii -f1 \' • t .. I l J 1· ~ ;t e l ; . ' • ,, ,_ ~i.-'. ~ ~ k.' :--· I h :1 ~ I t I I. ;:-- .... '.'~>":.·~·'.· :; .·. t ... : : .· ~,THER (.Y~A_C~~T .. ~.~-~E~~~~~;\kAC~~J.~l~~s,~f~i~~~f,~~~/3}~~' New Castle ·' 'tABA). scHEDULE NoO 1;3G5 I_'~· · 1DA1 / M:~ .Nb ... '-'t;,''>.,c-·:..>:.;.~~AF /~~xi?~~E·~~SF~~l~(:{~, ... ,. 1 ·-.-.:-"' I VAAI CITY OR TOWN •V AS I -I VAO I • ------ SuBOI V IS IO N °' LOTtSI ~.-. Elk Creek Dev. Unit '.. 1 5 -· •O AC I CITY ND IOAOI sue NO .•. IOAJ I NEIGHBORHOOD 1C AF 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS ·-. --- I BA A l •• ., -..... ADDRESS -----(HAC) . IHAEJ & IHAFI IHAll IHABl . !CACI !CAO) . ICAE ) BOOK OR PAGE TYPE OWNERS NAME MAILING ADDRESS CITY /STATE -ZIP SALESOATE I HAHI CLERK'S NO DEED DOC.FEE \',It'\;_. \\@( ~ ~~--=:;::--i/\Gfu'.LiJ:C' i~ I, f'J(O__.\"\u I \ ===rt: C:::C:::· \"=t:l 'F't tJ \ \] \A I . ---;:::;\T_ 1 ~l l.5'°li? SD~&<' J C.'L . ()I V--07~ \h -~7 i M$)y~ 3 ~~-\-\'\Pr P--..'135 ~·d:~~ £5 R) I Q.$ j ~?;:) 101;2, ~~~ t(-1 h+\=\ r\ n -!().., . 3 A.\ i 'f'ln 'I ;;, l )() ·1:1 \ -.r .. ...;. "":. 1.'12:.'" • _:.w..::...._:_~s ··i::~,.:_roN .... ___ ,.. __ REMA A KS ·: , -.. .•.:.x-;.;.·( {HeeJ cHaF > .Lot 12 Bl k . 'j, [Hrt of Lot 13: ' _. ·~·:"r,·: .. -._. VER . ~Beg. at the NW corne r of Lot 13 IHAK I ON SALE . VERIFIED SALES PRICE CODE '" . -. . ~" -i Then;~ E~st 8. 11', 1 the~ce -___ . _ ·--· :,;_~t;.:=-~;:.:L-': _ s ·:; .:.-~ .. '-";·~:: ''. :;'>·~; S 39 09 W. 3 3 .4S, tnence ~ ._,.~~~-.:...;...._:;::..-. _ ,. -· ,,_ .. -. ~ .... ,. .,..,. ~~c~~~-f~~ a~~~~~~~:~~~~~:! O: i ~. B. ..! --~~~~~{ef;~ s .. · :.;_·~,~~-Xf.i~~i-~~#;,{J.~D Lot 12, Beg. at the -SE cor ;-ier IJ FA I ON L,>,ND I " ,; . U ~,;: ~ ".:_\; .. ,- of Lot 12; t!'.ence N. 63°-21' s ·c _ "' _, · W. 18. 06', thence N. 39 °-09' I ~/qd-.·::.:: b ~~.,ct iE · 83.44', thence s .. 26°-39' s ~ f ol, ~.)S-dSl-Ol ~-?J_,_4.§.' to the P.O'.B. --····--~ ' C ts- .LA Elk Creek Dev . Unit 1 -.-. LA N O VALUE CALCULATIONS • '· ·(.. • • >:'EARNING OR PRO · NE!o , Sec. 25-5-91 .PARA LE SALES BA SE uN 1T • ro AL ATTAi! ----REF E ENCE VAL UE SI ZE p SIT' LAND VALUE DATE SALES /RENTAL RE IQ AHI ZONING -:· .... I JAAI USE Considerat i on of 1he amount of t i me req uired to recognize Potential Value Yr s. Est. Po tent ia l Va l u e S '""I '"'"''' I J 1u• I "v'' I lc ooe f ACRES VALUE ACRES SIZE LOCATION OTHER COMPOSITE UNIT VALUE ,., I ""," " I I J UB I •• t.. I I 0 5 10 I 0 -I <e '. I •,".<'""'Jvfl) I I JUC I SHE• I 10 5201 I -5 JG:. I '>t1J fW"-l"- J ~f I 1.u-.~JI. 1,u; J!:!' I '>l lt!, .. T 'j ' ••L t(V J 1.-f _.bL IL N .:..Tf"J J( ~ I 1"/f l l //t.Tf lo./ JCC !P u tn 11. SE •'-'F '"' J' 1, I ::it " > ~ > u ._, 11 f I ·.1-r r,A> J' ' 1 r t ! r; 11~ If.! r "' JD() JUE JO f JU •• Jt:A "" JEC ;f!) "' '" LOW SLOP1,.,,,- " - MET WALL i::tEP~EH "" fi\TI V E S HAP E 1RPEGu1.. ... R S'"4 •'E CUL DE ~.1.C C0 !-4,...fH LO T VIE W ~()-.,, sr r1.1 o "'r ACCESSIBILITY FAIR PRIVATE 0530 5 -10 0540 10 -35 b550 35 -100 0 560 100-UP SQUARE FEET 100 I '3,.o foo ·P 200 - 300 -400 ~.:·-~ ... ·-· :;:. .• -x~ ....... ~ .,.7 ... · ~,;.:;.:: -;~:r.~~-1~r~~ACTU·A ·L VAL TOTAL ·YEAR I IGBOI . I F BC L ANO !MP! /-•":" --> .. ·o · ABST NO IGSAI I FSAI ll F BAI OD ABST NO IGSAI IF BAI A:ST NO llGBAI I I FBA I ASST NO IGBl\I IFBAI ASST .NO . IG BAI kFBAI l ASST NO llG Sl\f I FBAI IFBAI GOOD ~PUBLIC · POOR Y EAR -ROUND~~~-i-~~~~~~~+-~~~~~t-~~~~~~-:-~-~~~~--'~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~_;_:-;;;;:-;;;:;-t~:-;-~~~~~:-- SEASONA L I 1 ABST NO l !G BAI --...:- -· . " . ~·· .... .. .. .. fl( )Liii :> ~ ·. c 4 l // .. ·l17G~~ o • a:io: i.1• ". OCT ·I 1990 ... 1 t L r, ~ c ;) ;., L .) l' \) .. ~ ~ , ( . ; lJ '1 r y ~ l ~: ~ K '.i • o r ! f L l.J C '.} l: ;<; 1 Y , <. ,) I .. (' "> \ .l l EASEl\lT:ST AGREEMF:N'I' ',.[I· I I I THIS AGREEMENT is madc this -LS da:>' ,Jf .. i·,. f'~.,._.-4. , 1990, by a!'H! t>c:wccn'Henrv \V . DiC '.7., IV, and K3tie T .0rene Dil·lz (hci·cinaftc:r "Dktz) who~ addrcH j, PO Box 1n. Diamond :ii)', :\rkaM~"\S n&u. and SIC\'CO L. Cahlc and Sally L. Cable 1~1.;r,·in:d°1i:r "Cable") whosc addrcss is 0703 Tenth Stri:ct, Gknwood Sprincs, Colorado 8160 I, \\'!TNESSl :TH: WHEREAS. Cable arr. the owners of lot 13 a11 cl p.ut ofrft 2, Block 5 , Unit I, rm: Creek Dl!vc::lc1pmcn1 in GJ.tfi :Id Counly, Colorado; and . WHEREAS, Dietz ar! the owners of part of Lot 12 l~sa B k S; and \\'Hf.REAS, access :: the hous:: and glrage localed o~said LotD is a11d has been by u~c 0f 1h:it ccrL1in r0:1dwa> and g ~avel drive as established and in pbc:c on tL! .~ou1h~~asterly p<Htil1n ,,i Loi I~: :111d WIH:'.Rr.AS, Dietz have aerccd to grant a JX!f!>e!Ual non-cxclus :ve easer.icnt over and ·across a ronion of Lot 12 as hl!reinafler provided. . ~OW THERF.FOPI:, for good and valuable con .iideration, the !:uflicicncy or which is hcrch) ;,,·l.:nuwkdgcd, lhe panies hereto hereby acre~ as follows: t . ~Dn·~ill.u.tlYr Y..illliru'.rl\. Dlr.t7. he reby i:ranl and convey 10 Cable a perpetual nc11H:xrlu~ivc r..ucmt11t and if.ht·of·way ov~r :incl across lhc r~dwQy and er;wel drive cum:n11y k...::itcd in the: ;south~stcrl>''P<)rtion ,of l..ot .12 which .roac lway .and gravel.drive are -depicted ·on :I J.~~improvcmcnHurvey o ·Loi • 13', and a ponion of I.ht 12 recorded i:oncurren tly herewith. S1J.:h l\1~·mcn1 an.i right-of -.vay over and acro~s said ro~dway as currently c~1ablished w<l in ~~-:,i~,:,.shall..bc:. for . the p\Jrpcse or ingress and cgrcsuo an d•from Lot -13 .and .the .easement .over' :ind.Jcrn~\.~1id gravel dr;ve shall be for µurpo5es of ingres~ and egress to and from -and parkirie a\'.!j:ICCJlLl fl..lhc!.rcsido.:nce and &iira:ce on Lot 13 ; T hHasem ~11t~n d right·of·war us.J!~!~i'l granted.loll ·U~..':::l·~,1u$ivc. :u~c! 1hc: owrcr o·r owners of.,bot.1 3 shall _1 101 us (S.'liu ·easc mcnt -ancl rislit-of~wa~ :a_i!r1;.~-:;-~1_1':1i~·l .... ~1cl would unr.:asonably intcrfere _\vilh thct..J SC of_said rc ·atlway by the _Dictu;;, ~~, l '.1 ~ ,.<:. r ~:l:!i_)~~~nc .• Owrier~_Associacion or J hclr .r csp<.~ct 1 vc agent~ or. e111ployecsi for_acce~~ to 4 t~~· w::i:t:~l ~l:.\i . .J ;1nl: •• orJor other-purposes for .which .such.roadway . is cum:nrly used~ ·I i r<'nju0_i:11~. Dietz hereby further g ·an t to Cable a license to [><:nnit the c.c~1 1:!cl1r1 :cr:: of the cxistinc, wocd deck onto Loi 12 .is depi :tcd 011 tht~ above referenced 1mp r0 ' c111<:11: ~urvcy. which licc:ns.: shall continue until the ~xi st ing hou!)(! lln I.All I J is destroyed, ~att·d . or Oll1crwi .•;c re: moved fr,11n its curr(:;nt localion. 3 . lt1_1kmn!ficar i"n . In consitlcration of the g1 <mt of c:i~mcnt and license as herein ~el fonh, :h.: owna or owners of Lot 13 shall indemnify and ho ld h:u-mlcss ·Dieti, lhc Elk Crc:ek Ho111c:,m n c r~ :\swci:ition and their successors and assigns from and against any claim, loss, or c;in1 :1i.:c: ro.:sulting frurn the: use by the owner or owners I)( Lot 13, or their family members, I • ,'ff'i:,.'t·~ 'Ill.. )..,.. ~L~ ; •• ~ >. 1. .. . I ;." (' ' ' .:~:.:;~'.f?\'~~~r~;~~h~,\·::-~1 ~~ Bl.IOK '7.JO 11ir.r1s·~ .·:· guests, or invitees, of th~ ta5':mcnl and right-of-way or the lii:ense to encroach as herein gran ted. Such indemnity shall include the: payml!nt of reasonable a1torney's fees and com incurred by the prevailing party in the c:nforcemcnt of lhis Indemnity. 4 . Yb.i.YcLaruLfuka..~clh~1-.a.i.ru. In further consideration of the ea.~ment and license herein set fonh, the owner or owners of LA-t 13 waive and release any and all future cla ims, loss.:s, or dam:i,e<'s resulting from the use a.nd occupancy of Lot 12 by Dietz, or the Elk Crl!<!k Home.owners Association, their successors an <.! a.~sign i :, for any lawful purpo~. and agree to pay the r.:asonable attorney's foes ::md costs incurred by the prcva.ilin~ party in any action in which this w:tiver and rele35C is raised ;u a defc:nse. 5. lli.ruiin~. The easement and richt-of-way and license hi!rcin gr..r.ted shall be: appurtenant to and benefit of JJ, and the covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be inure: lo the benefit of and be binding upon the panics her.: :o , ;ind their respective heirs, per.;onal rcpresen1;11ives, successors, and assigns. · · (-/~ :;~··~;·~"~:.:.:-:::.,:..=.~=::::~ l knry v.t3f elZ; IV \t1,,-r~L¥ · ~>rcnc Dietz ·.· ~ . ,, ... 1, r :;,.._.;-. ~. '-~--.. : . . . . : .· . . ..:.::>,A.!-~~ Stcv~n L. C: ble • '.! • ~[C[JU[O F•on ]Ql9•51977 / .. ... -•• -.... • c. '-·,.~ .... 1"4\.,:'.,· . STATE OF ARXANSAS ) 0 ) ss: COUNTY Or-µC,,,u._ ) f}G • The foregoine instrument was acknowledgei;. before me this (;? g day of .rldc .u ; C-x :x , 1990, by Henry W. Dietz, JV, ard Ka i:i e Fl orene Diet7., who 'Personally lpJ~Mcd ·before me. \Vitn~ss my hand and official seJ.l My . Commission Expires: '-) . } .) -Cj .?: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss: COUNTY OF (->1,(' Fn:c:. D ) f ) . ( ... '/f~2Jtia , Qc Joo:n o Notary Pu b lie The foregoing instr.1men1 wis acknowledced befo 1·e me Uils ZS -'//._ day of <.~:)'..,, <·i·· -" ,:. , 1990, by Steven L. Cable and Sall·: L. Cable , who Pc:rsonally .:ippcared be for~ me:, . ' .. •: ,; ·:~s·;·:.::;:? :: ·:.::.' ' Witness . my hand and official seal My Commission Expires: <-~/ /(./<J</.'. ' ·•. ,.· ........ l. ,;.\_: ~-:· '"· .. '' ' ' . ' .. , ... ~·. :; . . ... ~ .. ~ ; ~ ~.... .: <.~-:·>.:~ :\·. :~· !/ :~\ . :t .... _ ·' '. l . .. - 3 • ·"'i ,.!....S.!!it£..:..,_:...!;..::..: / / hereby prepared )':.;;c;r-;_ :. ' / , •r /.',._. .' '•'',··'·,·· , . /".' ' ./IL ... _ ·-.: . '\'4v..,."- ... / --1 ".?. I. <v ~ ,l__i ~ ~ ·; ~ .. l_'.J ~ ! J . R~.OCK 5. Ull r r l ~Hf. Flt". en En: OF..Vf"•_Ql'MF.IH , SlAlf-UF COLORADO 73.25' F..Y.CF.:Pf!NG THEREFROM n -:n f',\Rf OF Lor 13, OLC CK ~. Ul·IIC JNE, FLY. CHEEK DICVELOPMEIH OF.SClllfJF.D /.S rOL .LO'tl'.l: 1F..GINNrnG Al 'fHE ~I': tOHNEH OF 1.or 13 lhf.NC:E EAST B .11 FEET Al.O!•IG THE U Ol lTH LINF. C1F LO T 13; TH EN CE S 390~'W 3J. 46 FCE r TO A POIN r Ott THE WEST UNE OF LCI T 13; fHEt·ICE N 2039. E ~9.04 rEF.T ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE POJNl' OF OEGINNING, ... · ·.: .::.PARCEL B .. ~·: ,. __ ·~:, ., XP ':~· ':';":'.-9!y;:~~i·;:,;.;,;· :';, ;;.::f ,,;)r., ·. _;'.,.' '· . .,''/:,:: ·,::~<-~; :, ' '.'.. THAT rART OF LOT 12:'BLOCK :~':UNIT ON E; 'ELK CHEEK -.OEVELQPMENT DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : ·BEGINNrnr :AY..THE SE CO R"IER OF,:s i1 IO :LoT ·-12;.·THENCE N .B321'W .,·18.06 FEET ALONG THE.·SOUTH 1·UNE .:aF -. •• OT .12;.,1 ·rHENCE ;j,(3909 •E 'B3.44 FEET .... '. ,TO A Pu1Nr oN .rnE EAiT ,-:Li~ii:·o F sA10 Lor.12;:,;rnENcE ·s ·203a·w .. a1..io FEET ALONG SAID EAST -LINE,OF --LOT 'l2 TO TllE POINT ::aF ·.OEGINNING, RF..ARI ·;,~s. sun 1/EY AN[ IMNl~-~EMEN T S UA~~o o~; ::;J~~~v:·:~y .·E~OOflADO ENGlNE~~ING (j..\ I r:.n ; 3 MA y ! 'Jfl : . . OA r IQ . 8 I 1-1 / ' 0114 c:),Vf,,ti.·-.·c>-1 -r:C'o i:;:,11 •. • ,..1 r: P('1r:.1.o Co , ,..-r;r_o;; /.D:; SCllMUtsER CORDON MEYER -INC. ENc71NE£RS &' SURVEYORS . ~ . . ... ~ ~ C) e :e Recordcrl of 3 ?3-o'clock f. llA. JllN l 4 1903 MOK Rec~ptieo No. 3413073 MILDRED ALSDORF, RECORDER WARRANTY EASEMENT DEED THIS DEED made this /3# ... day of Jl_,.°<'.-'-1_1 ,.-U ____ , 1983, be- tween Henry W. Dietz, IV, whose a d dress is P. O. Box 138, Oiamonu City, /\ .. I.'kdtH:JaS 72b4 4 , of the tir-!3t vart and the Elk Creek llomeownors l\~ nocia t .ion, a Co lori\do non -profit corporn ti on, whose address is New Castle, Colorado 81647, of the second part: WITNESSETH that the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of ·Ten Dollars and other good and valuable con- sideration to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, sold and conveyed and by these presents does grant , sell, and convey unto the said party of the second part, its he i rs and assighs forever, for the purposes herein stated, the followi :n.g described· real property situate, lying, a d eing in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to wit: An easement on, u der, over, through and across a parcel of land owned by the G an or and described on Exhibits A, B, and C, attached hereto -and i corporated he :r ein by this reference for the purposes of cons ructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, installing, replacing, enlarging, improving, and removing water wells, storage tanks, pumps , treatme!nt facilities, waterlines, and all other facilities appurtenan t thereto or necessary for the ·operation thereof, or as may be necessary, useful, or proper ·to the transportation, use and distribution of water by the Grantee, together with a non-exclusive easement for reasonable access to said Easements over, thro~Jh, and across the property owned by the Granter described in Exhibits A. and D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, such access to be for use by employees and authorized.· agents of. the Grantee for the purpose of reasonable ingress and egress by vehicle, motor vehicle, .. foot or horseback in constructing, operating, main- taining, repairing, installing, replacing, enlarging, improving and removing said water wells, pumps, treatment facilities, waterlines and other facilities. The easements · herein conveyed shall be for the benefit of and appurtenant to the water system of the grantee and the real property used in connection with said system. The Grantee may erect fences or other devices to restrict access to the well 0 site :e·asement or the storage tank easement. Provided Grantor·does not interfere with the Grantee's acti- vities in the operat'ion of its water system, Granter may use in common with the Grantee the access and waterline easement herein conveyed as described in Exhibit A. In the event of construction o i:-repair work within said easements by the Grantee, the Grantee shall restore the site upon completion of construction to it :~ previous condition to the extent feasible. The Grantee shaLL not store any materials within the easements herein conveyedl , which materials are not reasonably needed for the water system of the Grantee. TOGETHER WITH all and singular ~!:he herediments and appur- tenances thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions. rernainde i ~ and remainders. rents. nnnK G:c?tt rte£ 1.10 ·i : .. : of the first part for its heirs, executors, or administrators does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with t he said party of the seconu p a rt u nd it..!3 heir u an ll a1HJi<JnB that at. the time of the ensealing and delivery o f t .hese presents, is well aei:r.e<l of t.h e premises above-conveyed as of good, sure, perfect, absolute, and indefeasible es t ate of inherita nce in law nnd feo simple nn<l hllll goo<l right., full powo r und nut-hority to grant, bargain, sell, and convey the same in the manner and in the form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear of all former and other grants,. bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, and encwnbrances of whatever kind or nature except: Reservations and exceptions conta i ned in the United States Patents; All of the above in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado. the quiet and peaceable its he i rs and assigns, lawfully claiming or to said party of the first And the above-bargained premises i n possession of the said second party, against all and every person or persons claim .the whole or any part thereof, the part shall warrant and forever defend. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the hereunto set his hand and above written. said party of the first part has seal as of the day and year first STATE OF COLORADO County· ofJI/'~ ) ) ss. ) 111Th'e foregoi?J~~strument was acknowledged before /.3 -day of ~ , 1983, bY. Henry w. Dietz, IV. ~lTNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: --· me this ' . I ·-. Exhibit A SHALE COUNTRY SURVEYING nnnK 62'J r~GE111. Midford L. Coolbaugh L.S. 10871 515 W.2nd Sull.e~"Z!.C!l:<flxlhlnJzStz. Suite 4 Rllle, Colorado 81650 Ph. 625·3158 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR WELLSITE. A parcel of land in the NE! of Section 25, T.5 S., R.91 W. of the 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado and being more particularly described as follows: · Beginning at the Center I Corner of said Section 25, thence N.00°07'59"E. and along the Westerly line of sa i d NE! a di stance of 106.97 feet; thence East a distance of 120.00 feet; thence S.00 °07'59"vl. and parallel to said Westerly line of said NEI a distance of 106.97 feet more or less to the Southerly line of said NE!; thence West and along said Southerly line a distance of 120.00 feet more or less to the Point of Beginning. Contain- ing 0 .2947 acres more or less. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT FOR WATER LINE AND ACCESS ROAD TO WELLSITE. A tract of land in the NE! of Section 25 , T.5 S., R.91 W. of the 6th P.M., in Garfield County, Colo r ado, and bei ng more particularl y described as follows: Beginning at the Center I Corner -of said Sec t ion 25; thence N.00°07'59"E. a distance of 106.97 feet; thence East a distance of 120.00 feet; thence S.00°07'59"W. a distance of 23.42 feet to t he Point of Beginn i ng of this easement, said point being 12 .5 feet Northwesterly of the existing water "line; thence N.65°21'58"E. and parallel to said water line a distance of 341.24 feet more or less to a point on the Southwesterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 245; thence N.65°21'58"E. a distance of 341.24 feet more or less to a point on the Southwesterly right-of-way line of County Road No . 245; thence N.84°35'06"E. and along said right-of-way line a distance ' 9f 39~33 feet. The following t hree courses d~scribe the Southeasterly line of this easement and include an existing roadway, all points along these said ~-courses are more than 12.5 feet Southeasterly of said existing water line; thence S.13°57'33"W. a di stance of 41.29 feet; thence S.71 °05'4l"W. a distance of 173 .57 feet; thence S.62°31'17"W. a distance of .197.67 feet more or less to the Easterly line of a well site; .thence N.00°07'59 "E. and along sa1cf Easterly 1 irie a distance of 41.57 feet more or less to the Point of Beginnjng _of this easement. Containing 0.2977 acres more or less. EXHIBIT "B" SHALE COUNTRY SURVEYING Midford L. Coolbau g h LS. 10871 515 West 211tlS.ul1t1.tlp!.ODxllXllfl1dZS1. Sulte 4 Rifle, Colorado 81650 P/1. 625-3158 June 7, 1903 AN EASEMENT FOR A WATER LINE TO SERVE ELK CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. . A tract of land in the NE! of Se c tion 25, T.5 S., R.91 W. of the 6th Principal Meridian in Garfield County, Colora do, being 25 feet in width and being 12.5 f eet on either sid e of the following descr i bed centerline:· Beg i nning at a . point from which the Center l Co r ner of said Section 25 bears S.62°56'09"W. a distance of 449.11 feet; thence N.05°24'54"W. a distance of 48.0 5 feet; thence N.54°17'34"W. a distance of 158.40 feet; thenc e N.58°28'52"W. a distan c e of 67.28 feet; thence N.28°05'04 "W. a distance of 137 .37 feet; thence N.21°12'15"E. a distance of 180.99 feet; thence N.42°15'10"E. a distance of 280.55 feet; thence N.36°34'01"E. a di stance of 186. 37 feet; thenc e N. 37°42 '30"E. a di stanc e of 163.95 feet; thence N.44°31'42"E. a distance of 54.92 fe e t; thence N.50°33'3l"E. a distance of 432.85 fe~t; the nce N.44°44'33"E. a distance of 412.39 feet to a point of terminus on the Southwesterly l ine of the Elk Creek Homeowners Assoc- iation tank site, from which the said Center i Corner of said Section 25 bears S.35°43'09"W. a distance of 2210.58 feet. •. I .. I .. EXHIBIT C SHALECOUNTRYSURVE~NG · Midford L. Coolbaugh L.S. 10871 515 W. 2nd S'tlltCZ2,Z1Qg. 8 zr.t.1Yct'Sl. Suite 4 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Ph. 625-3158 June 7, 1983 TANK SITE EASEMENT . A parcel of land to be used for water storage tanks and the associated water lines, situated in the NE! of Section 25, T.5 S., R.91 W. of the 6th Principal Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado and being more particula~ly described as follows: Beginning at a point from which the center ! Corner of said Section 25 bears S.35°43'09"W. a distance of 2210.58 feet; SOOK 629 rir,e113 thence N.45°15'27"~1. a distance of 45.00 feet; thence N.44°1\4'33"E. a distance of 75.00 f eet; thence S.45°15'27"E. a distance of 90.00 feet; thence S.44°44'33"H. a distance of 75.00 feet; thence N.45°15'27"W. a distance of AS.OD f eet more or less to the Point of ·Beginning. Containing 0.1550 acres more or less. · ..:.: ·. • 600K ()~ ftGE1.1.£l EXHIBIT D That portion of t-_he Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 5 sout ~h, Han<Jo <)l w~n t. o f the S ixt_h Principal Meridian, excluding the Elk Creek Subdivi s ion, as con t ai11e u 111 t-lw roc.:o r:clo of the Clerk and Recorder, Ga rfield County, Colorudo, a nd the following parcel of land in said Northeast Quarter of said Section 25: Beginning at the · center Quarter Corner of said Section 25: thence N.00°07'59" East a distance of 435.67 feet to a point on the Southwesterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 245; thence Southeasterly following a curve to the left along said right-of-way line whose radius is 639.81 feet and whose central angle is 38°09'07" for an arc length distance of 426.03 feet and whose chord bears s.62°09'05" East 418.21 feet; thence con- tinuing along said right-of-way following a curve to the right having a central angle of 22°27'01" and a radius of 650.52 feet for an arc length distance of 254.89 feet and whose chord bears s.70°00'08" East 253.27 feet; thence continuing along said right-of-way line S.58°46'37" East a distance of 254.94 feet; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, along a curve to the left having a central angle of 01°09'34" and a radius of 1316.73 feet for an arc length distance of 26.65 feet and whose chord bears s.59°21'24" East . 26.65 feet to a point on the southerly line of the Nor.theast Quarter of said Section 25: thence S.89°27'50" West and along the said Southerly line a distance of 849.76 feet more or less to the Point of Beginning. I . .. , ,· ! • ~, f .. I . j , •, "1• , . .. ., 0 ...... "?"JI'. , ... ti' . "./ ..... I...,. ; I • , #'_. # . -., •• ~ "I ., ~ • ,,.• • '.') . I > > ';"• ~ ,. .,.,, ~ · ...... · /l'fll . . ,. .. ~. . . • ;1 • .\ •• TOWN OF NEW CASTLE REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEE MEETING JUNE 15, 1993 The Bonni 11 f Trustees of the Town of New Castle, County of Garfield, State of CnJ <'>t:ad11 "011 ve11ed into regular session in the Town Hall on June 15, 1993, at 7:00 p.rn. Trustees Present: Virginia Erickson Jim Stevens Steve Rippy ti.lso Present: (~ertie Hampton, Town Clerk/Treasurer llP1tnis Muhun, Ghie( of Po.l ic e Skip Marino, Water/Wastewater Operator Mayor Breslin presided. Minutes Corn~ct inn" wf':'re made to the minutes of the June 1, Trustef':' tlef't ing. Trustee Rippy motioned that the Trustee Stevens seconded. Motion carried. Water Emr~rgcucy 1993 Regular Board of minutes be approved. Skip re~11Psted that we call a water emergency. The water coming in from Elk Cre<:'k h:is so much dirt in it that the filtering plant . cannot keep up with the denwnd. Tl1P. Bo:ird of Trustees decided to call the water emergency and request that PP'>ple not water at all for 48 hours and after that water only between the h<)111 ·" of 6:00-9:00 a.m. and 6:00-9:00 p.m. Letters will be distributed to home owners tomorrow. Awli t 5h:lron l\renner explained the 1992 audit and explained the auditor's role. She noted thnt tl1ey take a sampling of the transactions that occur during the year to ac r.u;1 l l r pull and verify. The audit d ra ft will now be sent to Denver for Sharon's partner's opinion and then she will come back with a final copy. Out of ln\i'll -Water Tap Buford I<oad Esther Kozak wanted approval for four water taps and presented two proposals. They hn~P 'no plans to build or use any water before next year. After rliscussinn, Mayor Breslin motioned that we allow four water taps. Seconded by Tr11stee Rippy amending the motion to go with Alternative 2 of Esther's plan nod t~p i11to the line at 245 Rd conditional on the availability of water. Motion cnrried. \ Chanr,e iu Uwnership of Liquor License Cary Shrneder of Schroeder's General Store formed a corporation about 2 1/2 years ngo nnd Cary didn't realize he needed to change anything for his liquor license . l\y his incorporating it changed the ownership of his business and he 11eeds to rhnnge the liquor license to reflect that. Gary Bates, the State Li.qnor lnspector uoticed this on an inspection. Cary wanted the Board of Trustees t.o know that he would correct the problem. Poli c:e flef"ll·tmenr- Dennis h:is p111-chased a plaque for Steve Strait progrnm nnrl p::issed it. to the Board o f Trustees. Ler-.ter fr·n111 llennis and Frank. for part1c1pating in the DARE It will be sent to him with a For P.urn i 111•. M1)110tain flays, Dennis is going to have two Deputies and two Rese n 'e flf[ i.c'"!q:; from the Garfield County Sheriff's Dept. assisting him. The Reserve O[ficers will not cost the town. Parking RV's ::ind vehicles for sale on the street for extended periods was discusser!. Dennis is going to check out the ordinance. August 1.-1~. ll~·nnis is going to be in Breckinridge for the Colorado Assoc i ation of Chief nf Police convention. He is also planning to take a week off the middle of August. ·v'· The Board nf Trustees agreed to post signs in our parks that state "no dogs ~11 lowed" nnd "no overnight ~amping". Dennis wi ll work on other items to be included nn t.he signs. Maintenance Report One of t.hr· State trucks snapped a line on our banner poles and this needs to be repairer! so the Burning Mountain Day's banner can be hung. We are going to repair it and then send the State Highway Dept. the bill. John is ~1ing to check out the recycling box that Rifle wants to donate .to us i'lnd 111ak1~ :n1:angements for picking it up. There was general discussion of the recyclintt prugram. Town Cl~~k Report The Bn:11rl nf T r ustees approved the purchase of a reconditioned IBM typewriter for $.1.75 nnd also the purchase of a secretarial chair. The vr• r i nus business and contractors licenses were discussed. covered <it. another Board Meeting . The will be Committee Reports Public Wnr:ks Ch:.~nges werP made to the report. The Board of Trustees decided to cut down the tr~e on the Schenk property. Personnel The Bo:1rri of Trustees agreed to increase the petty cash accounts for the Polire r>ept. and the office to $100 in order to cut down on charge purchases of s1nn 11 flmmmt:s. They olso agreed to ii:;suing one pui:cho.se order pe1: vendor per month for the places that we do i·egular business. We need to decide who is and isn't going ro be drawn up and then we attorn~y as to the legal aspects of subject to comp time. A questionnaire is will reques t information from the town's comp time. •·· New Business Trustee Rippy is going to meet with Bob Mather from United Companies and request bids on chip and seal. Barbara Smith told Frank that we need a new flagpole at .the cemetery. Truste~ Rippy is going to call the railroad to see whether they need . a full appraisal or a market analysis on the property that we had inquired about purchasing. Meeting adjourned 10:45 p.m. TOWN OF NEW CASTLE -"( k_L&~ 1trank Breslin';MaYOr · Attest: /L;-c,; it"'j;rt;,.J - Gertie llamptonTown Clerk 1;'CLJ()( 11•••• OCT .\ 1990 :·~~Lr1~C J ;..L .:L' ;F .. ' (_,\~'!~ '!' ~t .. C'K. ·.;~=-r:ru; c ;t;,\1 Y , \»:.:~~'.11 EASf:i\ ff~"\'.T AGREE:\ ff:\'T ['· I THIS AGREEME~'T is mac.le th is 2'6 dilv oi .\·,. f_.,,..h _ , 1990, by :t~H ! :i c:·.i.·ce:1-Hcnrv \\'. Di<!t7., IV, :md K:itie r .url!l\t! Dil'!Z (hL'lcinaflc:r "Oktz) who~ aJJrc~) I) ru 80x 19~. Di:\rnond -:::iry •. \rkJ.n~-'1S 7264J. :tnd S tl!\'Cll L . C:tltlc :Uld Sally L. CJblc 1 1 1\.'r1.·1:1:dt...:r "C:ibk") whox :iddrcss is 070J Tenth Srr1:cr, Gknw00d Sprincs. Color:ido S 160 I, \\ !T."i ESSI:TH: WHEREAS, Cable! ar'! the owners o( Lot lJ :111d p.u-t of µ,t ~:?. Died 5, U11it I, r:lk Crt:'t:'k l'>..~vel(lrrne111 in G:trfr~ld County , Color:ido; and 1 I ! \ ! ,,..... I ' .,., . Wl-ffR EAS, Di~cz are the owner s oi p:irt of Lot t 2 !nl saftf Blbck 5: :111d \ i \\'Hf.REAS. :tccess .~ the hous.: and g1f:tgc loc:itvi on \s.~iid Lot lJ is :rnd has been by us ~ e r' !11:it c c~!:\in r0;1dw:t) :u1d g:·a vel dri v i: ;i.s est:ibli shcd an·d in rhc-c on t~.~ .s outhe:t~!t:r\y ~xti l 1 n •,'r' t_c r . _: ::wd \\'I I r .r-.r.AS, Dietz h:i\·e :1creed to gr1nt J. ~r;;etual non-~:<clus.v e !!aser.icnt 0vcr lnd ::ic:-nss ~ 00 ni0n i..1( Lo t 1:2 JS h~rein:ifle r provided. ~O'.\' THER.F.FOPE, for good and valu:lble considcr:i.tion. the '.:ufticicnc :1 o f -.vhich is hc r l'.11\ ;,, kr H.J\~ kdbeJ, the pnrtit.!s hereto hereby acrcc as follows: 1. ~Do.-i:,,·lusivr i:11~c::mi:n..t. Dl~o: hl!rcby ~rant and conve :r to Cab!~ a p<.!rpetu:il rH11H\t".u~ivc c'.1 :;cm~11t Jnd ir.ltt·oi-w:iy over and across th.c ro~dw:iy and er:wcl drive c~Lly ~ ?:1 '.lit )l1uthe:im:rly ~)rtion of !.))t 12 which roadwily and gravel drive Jr!! depicted on :h e i~:-r <::>\C~1 ~·:1t sur.ey o· Loe lJ, :ind J f)<.mion of Lot 12 recordt!d t:o:~surrently herewith. S .J."n l'-1 )1.·1 ~1cnt l.'1-:! ri~ht-or' -.v:ty over :ind :icro~s s..titl roadw:iv as C!.lrre1Hlv es1:i.bli~hed :i.nd in ::i::i :..: :.:i:::! ~1 e t(ir r.he :o\!rpc .e o l ingress ;u-id egre ss to and from Lot 13 and the ~ascmcnt over :m e.:.::;:)"~ '~·t;C. t_;rJ\c l .:r :\'e c:h;ill be for µurpo~s of inere s i; and egre ss to ::ind from wd p::irkinc :i..::;:'.,·c nt '·'' 1 :1c ri:sid1..:n cc ::vid f;ir:i'[it: on Lot 1 J . The r.asement and ri ht-or-w:i as here in gr:intcd '" ~ur ~·n:'.~s :·;c.:. :u~c t ltc: owra o·r owne::rs oi Lot 1· sh:tll not ust! s:1iu e<t:>cmcnt :lJl n~ 1!-ot-way :·1 :1:i:. ·-·:.:-::~l'~ \1.h 1c 11 · ... ould un;e:ison:i.bly int crfe1e with the JSC of ~:i.id rcac.lway by the Dit.!t:Lt!S , :~1 c: 1:1f. '.·: .• T ,; 1-!u;:i l'. ()\,·11e;~ ,.\~~cx:i:i.r1 o n or 1.llcir respective ahcnt.~ or e111ployccs, for :icc~~s to ~~.c :. :::::; ":i..1 r :1,_·t ::-.11 k, o r :'clr otlier purooscs for which su er, roJdw::i y is c urn:ntl y used. ~5Ll0_fr)t;r<'(l c h . Dietz hereby fur1ht.!r g·:i.nt to Cable a licen~ to ~rmit the ~·~:.::~~~..::::::(.'.r :: o f :!1c cx1~tine \vocd deck onto lot 12 as depi:tcd o n tli r. :i.bovc referenced 1:~1;':0 ·. \.':ll rn: \t.;"':1.:y , •.vhich licen ~c shall conti nue u ntil the '-:x:isting h ou .~ n n i~t I J is dc~tro y ed, ·:1!.l·.:!. 0 r ot herwi •;.e rr!moved fr,>111 its curre:~t !oc:ition. ~. lt'.<l•;rin ;fk;Vif'lr). In consideration o( the gr.mt of cl~mcrlt :1r1d license J.S herein ~cl ior,11, :1 ,~ ow!'l~r or ownc..:rs of Lot 13 sh:ill indemnify and hold h:.i.rrnkss ·Di~t:L, the Clk Creek H•m1c:c1\' !1 l ·r:; :\~~.c>i:i:itil1n ;tnd their successors and assigns from :in<l :1gai11st :iny clilim, loss, or guests, or invilecs, of the t.1~menl and right-Qf-way or the license to encmach as herein granted. Such indcmnicy shall include tht: p:lymcnr of reason1b!e attorney's fees and cost!i incurred by the prevailing party in the r!nforccment of I.his indemnity. ·l . .w.li.YcLand Bi:lio:a...<..· o( Future Clai rns. In further consider:ition of the ta..sement and liccn~ herein set fonh, lhe owner o~ owners of Le t 13 w:tivc :rnd rel ea~ any and all future c!J.irns, !oss.!s, or dam;iet>s resulting from the use and occupancy of Lot 12 hy Dietz, or the Elle Crt!Ck Homeowners Association, their succ~ssors :md a.~~i i;ns, for any l:l.wful purpo~. :.md :igrce to pay the rt!:i.son:iblc attorney 's foes :ind co~ts incurred by the prcva..iling tJarty in any action in which thi~ w:Uvcr and rele.1SC is raised ~ a defense. 5 . filn.d.inc Effes::t. The easeml'nt and right-of-way and license hl!rein gr-..:. tea shall be appuncr~ant to and bl!nctit 0f 13, and th~ covcn:vm and conditions of this Agreement shall be inure to the bcndit of and ~ binding upon the pJrtics her.!·:o, <ind their respective heir~, pcr.;on al representatives, successo~, and assigns. \f{cd:LL~1 ~ Kane Florene Dietz · ...___) Stcv~n L. C;ble .. _ •• -....... c::. ,_,.., STATE OF AR:<ANSAS ) 0 ) ss: COUNTY or: ?JU )\.._1.... ) t}1._ ' The foregoine instrument was acknowledget: before me this ,} g day of ,. ldu "{-t '" , 1990, by Henry W. Dietz, IV, JftJ Katie Florene Di"" who Person nJ I y lppe~ucd before me. Witness my hand and official se.11 My Commission Expires: •. ) J ,') ' ..:_·1 ~ STt\ TE OF COLOR.ADO ) ss: COUNTY OF 6.-1!-2 F) ~::(_ {) ) /'l / · '/f ;2 'c la , (Jc Jo /YH.o Noury Public ·' The lor~~'Jir.g i n ~rr ~ment -.;·:is acknowledced before me uiis .,..-:_ SltL day of . . .. / ·.. ,~ · ·-, 1990, by St~ven L. Cable and Sally L. CJble, who personally . :ippeared bcfor~ rnc. Witne:;s my hand and official seal :-Viv Commission Exoircs: . • ,// .. :. /<':', / ' ... ,. . y ... ·. /· .. · '' \ c' .f;1%'(""'7··'1 ·'·Not.try .~ublic ..... :· .... ,, !~\ ;. ~ •. ',,,--. ( _., ___ ' ,..:/,,<· C.,~(./.1.. ;·: ..... · ... ' ~· .' r .. ~ .... ·~;: ~ '/ !a·,,.: . ·' ··. :, . •":" .. ,. !MPROVEM~NT . LOCATION CERTIFICATE 73.25' ~I ' ' ', ·1 . t ~ereby certify that this lmpr6vement locetion .cer~ificnte :we~ creoar~d ro r ar:uy :\NG ·;a. ~~~tit !3 n ot~ land 3urvey plat 3nd th at I t I!! no~ to be ro:?l\ed 'Jeon for ':.he 9Stabl1shmcnt of fenr.e. 'Juild \nQ . ')r 'Jt i'ier fut •J r'? :ciorcvement lines. lur~her cer~!!v ~hat the !m or ove~ents an t he ~bove described parcel 'l n ~ ri \ s '1 ;i t e . I 2 S" E. Pr. I 9 9 0 . ~ x c e p : 'J t I l I t y c o n n e c t I o n s a r· e ·~i ,,r n 1r~ ·10 ~nc ~ ri <H:nments u o o n 11 '~':':.'i ·.;n ilflv 3Ll}o ~nln ~ J rernisc3. :'.i ·:::i 3Coarent ev!dence o r . s i g n <i ~ . ·• :: i i r t 0 f s 3 1 d c il r :: ?. : . ~ :< c c o t :; .. , ,· .·..-/" ·{··. ,~~ .... :~ !__·_·:-_· -----------"'>_,__·-_ .. _,._· - -·~~·1r1f~!'-1 ~1 ·,-1rL s :~: '._S i r:-~c : .. ~ ~ : ~: . • '_. • ! . S "T ~\ r i-~ "J f= : C: ~ _ r~ ~L\ C 0 except as shown. that ~ .. "'::c:=:?r:t1G 'H ~fl E.""'O'I -1 ·.-~~ ·.·.\nr ~:r· ·_::: :J. JL'.J i~:< ~. 'J r:r~ ~r;c:. rL Y Cf 1E F.K n:::·n:L.0P ~·r:11r C)F.:Scnrnr:'.J ·.s r i:::~ L'~·.~:i: ::c".sr;1nu1s .\ r ;~~-ff: ~r: r:muJEH aF t.or !3 Tl,F.•JCE :.: .. ~S T 8 .: '. :-~::: ~L.()~J G THf. :!QIH H Li r ii:: OF t..or 13: THf:NCF.: s 390~"rl J~ .. :o r-cr:r r o :. ::irJ 11 ;r o :: r HF ;-ii::sT '..::·1r:: Dr Lo r 13: rHEr lCE N 2039· r- 29 . O•I rt:F.T ALONG SA I:J 'o'IEST LINE T O THE POIN T OF OF.:GINl.J!NG . • ,',L, •,·~·";I ' .Lo;,.• . ' , ' ) • June 12, 1993 K::.zimierz & Esther Koza.1<: f 1 00 .!~ '.,..,,,..._.> Dr:'"e . V !"\l-'u.'-'u\i.. • 'f New Castle, Coicr::.dv 81647 RE: Koza...~ Property -Proposed Water Syste:n Dear Mr. & 1frs. Kozak: p:; / /Zev,'c :.J ~ C:~wev.-f. This letter outlines proposed water system impi:ovements for your property located north of New Castle. Tne source of water is proposed to be a tap(s) from the Town of New Castle's water system. Water Reauirements The proposed development of four single-family houses will require an estimated 580,000 gallons per year including 400,000 gailons for in-house use and 180,000 gallons for irrigation. This is an average demand of 1,600 gallons per day with an estimated peak .demand in July of 4,000 gallons per day. These calculations are based upon planning level assumptions which include: • 3.5 people per house. • 80 gallons per person per day (in-house use). • 2,500 square feet of lawn and garden irrigation. Water System Improvements There are m·o alternatives for serving the property. Alternative 1 is to serve the three upper houses from a master meter tap and the lower house from a single tap off of County Road 245. Alternative 2 is to serve all four houses from a master meter. Both alternatives propose a storage tank to dampen peak demands and provide emergency back-up supply. Fire protection is not provided in either alternative. ~- June 12, 1993 Page 2 '·· Alternative 1 would require a 1-ir.ch master meter, booster pump , 2-inch m::..in line, and a 3,000 gallon storage ta..r1k. The master tap would be located below the treatrr:e:1t plant ar.d in the existing Elk Creek Subdivision utility easement. Alterr.ative 2 would require esser.tially the saine improve:ne:it 3.S Alternative 1, except a 4,000- gallcn stooge tar .. 1<: is recommended. (The master ~p could be lcc~ted as m .\.'.:emative 1 or n"'".,. tl.e 10·"0 r hCU'"' ol-"f' of r .,u~r·'{ R-;:.'.ld 1 4°' 1 Alt<>.,.,..,-r;··~ ., '.'lPl""""'1'"" ·o :.,. -:n!'"~ ~·'"""P"•'.i''" ~ U! .. w'W°\..o • w"" .&... ....,u ~. .... '"°'"""" -.J., 1 ~._ ..... .J..-. '"" ..., w. ..... ---....::. ... \J"'-' ... -....... """""l'-··-·"'ir..,; tha..n Altewative 1 and m2y incur physical con~L.""3..int.s such as st;::p slc;es, rcc1-:y soils, an-: irrigation ditches. Chiorine Contact Time Based upon the current layout of the New Castle water treatment pbnt, the cle2;.-,x;ell provides adequate chlorine contact time for water delivered to the Koza.1<: property . Tne existing 120,000-gallon clearwell could provide up to 170 minutes contact time for the 17ia.."<imum rated treatment plant flow of 7C-0 gallons per minute. The Colorado Department of He.11th guidelines recommend a minimum contact time of 30 minutes . Impact to \Vater Treatment Plant The proposed development would have minimPv impact to the Town of New Castle's water treatment pla.1:-t. The impacts would include~mtremental chemic:ll and power costs. There should be no impact to peak demands on the New Castle system as the proposed storage tank will buff er pea.le demands for the Kozak property.· Please call if you have any questions. 1'UE/blh 931-072.000 Very truly yours, WRIGHT WATER L'\1GL\"EERS, me. " By: (,, :Michael J.~~.E. Projec~an~ ~·~ By: Sj, \Villiam L. Lorah, P.E. Vice President TOWN OF NEW CASTLE REGULAR BOARD OF TRUSTEE MEETING DECEMBER 07, 1993 The Board of Trustees of the Town of New Castle, County of Garfield, State of Colorado convened into session in the Town Hall on November 02, 1993, at 7:40 p.m .. Mayor Frank Breslin presided. Trustees Present: Also Present: Jim Dukas (arrived at 7:45 pm) Virginia Erickson Jim Stevens Sheryl Shru ll (arrived at 7:40 pm, left at 9:17 pm) Kathryn Bullinger, Town Clerk Dennis Mahan, Chief of Police SCHEDULED CITIZENS & VISITORS Di r k Larsen and Ed McCune, 7:41 p.m. Dirk Larsen and Ed McCune asked the Board for 10 out of town water taps for 10 homes on a subdivision on 80 acres when finished. The Board suggested that Dirk and Ed speak with the Elk Creek Homeowners Association concerning the creation of a water district and to put together an actual water system proposal. 7:54 pm Pa t ty Seaton President Elk Creek Homeowners Association: Patty states that Elk Creek homeowners Association would like to come to some kind of agreement with the Town that would benefit both to provide water to existing users or future users. Elk Creek Homeowners Association is proposing to install a 125,000 gallon storage tank or more to allow 1000 gallons of water per minute for 2 . hours for fire protection. The board again suggested that Dirk and Ed speak with Elk Creek Homeowners Association regarding the creation of a water district and to put together an actual water system proposal. H.O.M.E. -Building Inspectors, 8:27 p.m. Bob Fuller and Chuck Lanci, the Town's Building Inspectors, proposed to take over all phone calls and all question of the building permit process for 1994 for the same fee structure as in 1993. Bob and Chuck asked the Board if the Town is looking for other options for a building inspector in 1994. Mayor Breslin explained that possibly working with the Town of Silt, not only to share a Building Inspector but to share a Planner and possibly other services since both Towns master plans are so alike. Another item that the Town is looking at is hiring a staff for a building department within the Town. Mayor Breslin stated that the Town is reviewing its possibilities and will talk over the renewal contract for 1994 with the Board members not present at this meeting. Patty Seaton -President Elk Creek Homeowners Association, 9 :17 ~ Patty Seaton informed the Board that Elk Creek Subdivision has added one homeowner for a new total o f 51 homes in the subdivision. She stated that Elk Creek Homeowners Association wants to pursue negotiations to be the Town's water distribution center for out of town water users. Patty and the other Elk Creek Homeowners Association Board members had questions regarding the formation of ~ - --_, -.... -+-~ ,.;i +-h => +- CONSENT ITE~j! Minutes, 9:54 o.m. Corrections were made to the minutes of the November 16, 1993 Regular Board of Trustees Meeting. Mayor Breslin made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Trustee Stevens seconded and after discussion the motion carried with a voice vote. Bills AlJ owed_L . 10:05 o.m. Corrections were made to the Bills Allowed for November 1993. Mayor Breslin made a motion to approve the Bills Allowed for November 1993 as amended. Trustee Erickson seconded and after discussion the motion carried with a voice vote. 10:10 p .m. -Trustee Dukas motioned to table the rest of the agenda i tems until the December 21, 1993 Regular Board of Trustees Meeting . Meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m. TOWN OF NEW CASTLE ~~ ·Frank Breslin, Mayor ATTEST: