Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 10.16.1995no((: 10-16-95 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: An exemption from the definition of subdivision. APPLICANT: Robert & Emma Eicher and Lisa Eicher Bracken LOCATION: A tract of land located in Section 11, 'f7S R92W of the 6th P.M.; approximately six (6) miles south of Silt and two (2) miles east of Clt 33 I. SiTE DATA: 56 Acres WATER: Shared Well SEWER: ISDS ACCESS: Access ofr of CR. 331 onto a private road which serves between five (5) and ten (10) single family homes. EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONINC: A/R/RD 1. RELATIONSiIIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is located in District C - Rural Areas/Minor Environmental Constraints as designated by the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's Management District Map. 1L DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site is located approximately six (6) miles south of Silt, two (2) miles east of CR 331 on a private, unimproved dirt/cobble road. The western portion of the tract, the portion to be created by exemption, slopes moderately (less than 20%) to the east, northeast. The southeastern boundary of the property to be created by exemption is a relatively steep slope, (approximately 35%) and cliff The slope becomes gradually less steep to the north, (approximately 10%). The western portion of the parent tract. consists mainly of native grasses, giving way to sage near the top oldie slope. The slope and the rest of the parent tract consist of sage, grasses, and .juniper with some larger deciduous trees scattered throughout. The rim of the slope is chiefly a rock outcrop, covered by a thin layer of soil. Adjacent land uses include other single family homes on Tots generally in excess of thirty (30) acres. The surrounding area is comprised chiefly of agricultural uses and BLM owns approximately 160 acres so th and southwest oldie property in question. See vicinity neap attached on page 13. Protect Description: The parent tract of land to be subdivided consists of 56 acres, whereby the proposal calls for creating two (2) parcels of 47 and 9 acres each, more or less. The applicants are requesting the exemption based on the provisions of Section 8:52 of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado of 1984, as amended, whereby a natural feature creates a split preventing joint use of the proposed tracts. The applicants intend to sell the newly created, nine (9) acre parcel for use as a single family home site, if the exemption is granted. See sketch plan attached on page 111. J\IAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Subdivision Regulations. Section 8:10 (Applicability) of the Garfield County Subdivision regulations gives the Board "discretional:), power to exempt a division of land from the definition of subdivision and, thereby, from the procedure in these Regulations', provided the Board determines that such exemption will not impair or defeat the slated propose of the Subdivision Regulations nor be detrimental to the general welfare. The Board shall matte exemption decisions in accordance with the requirements of these regulations. Following a review of the individual facts of each application, in light of the requirements of the regulations, the Board may approve, conditionally approve or deny an exemption request." Section 8.52 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations states that "No more than a total of fan' (4) lots, 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 Office or January 1, 1973, and is not a pini of a recorded subdivision; however, tory parcel to be divided by exemption that is split by a public right-of-way (Stale or Federal highway, County road or railroad) or natural _feature, preventing joint use of the proposed tracts, and the division occurs along the public right-of-way or natural feature, such parcels thereby creased may, in the discretion of the Board, not be considered to have bceeri created by exemption with regard to the four (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling mil limitation otherwise applicable,'" Because the applicants arc requesting the subdivision exemption clue to the natural feature preventing joint use oldie property to be subdivided, the parent tract can be considered as exempt., in the discretion of the Board, with regard to the four (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable. I lowever, staff has conducted an on-site investigation of the tract ()Hand in question and found the tract to only marginally meet the criteria stipulated in Section 8:52, as referenced above. The natural split does occur and is prominent on the southern portion of the property, but on the northern boundary, where the existing driveway is located, the natural split is not nearly so prominent and it is dubious as to whether the natural split, in this location, prevents joint use of the property. Furthermore, the northern boundary line splitting the nine (9) acre parcel from the parent tract has been arbitrarily placed and does not follow the natural feature. '1 I3. Zoning: The proposal meets the criteria of a two (2) acre minimum lot size as required by the A/R/RD zone district. C. Legal Access: Legal access exists fi-om CR 331 on an unimproved, private, dirt road. The road is not built to county standards and access via a two -wheel drive vehicle is difficult. The road is narrow, rough, steep in sections (>15%) and crosses three cattle gates. Access by emergency vehicles would be very difficult, and given certain road or weather conditions, perhaps impossible. D. Water and Sewer: The applicants are suggesting the use of a shared well system, capable of serving up to three (3) single family hones. The applicants have been granted a replacement well permit which allows the use of three (3) acre feet of water per year, a pumping rate not to exceed fifteen (15) GPM and irrigation of no more than one (1) acre of land. Additionally, the ► -mit allows the watering of stock and poultry. See permit attached on pages The shared welI system would consist of a well drilled twenty (20) feet deep in is alluvial aquifer of the West Divide -2 Creek stream basin, supplying water via a 1.5 inch PVC pipe to a 1000 gallon cistern located approximately 1800 feet from the well, on the parcel to be created by subdivision. Furthermore, the water supplied to the cistern must be p ped upwards approximately 200 feet. See attached well diagram, page . 1t is questionable that, in the driest years, this stream basin and aquifer s an adequate, year-round, source of water to supply the applicant's water and water that will be used at the parcel to be created. Staff would recommend that, in the event of approval of this subdivision request, a qualified hydrologist comment on the adequacy of the water supply. Additionally, water quality tests are warranted to determine the chemistry of this aquifer's water. 'Hie vicinity map (page C ) shows the Mult a - Trina Ditch trending roughly north/south through the east/central portion of the parent tract. The water supply line for the shared well system would cross the Ditch at bridge level, above ground. Representations by the applicant indicate that an easement is not required for this type of crossing; however, staff recommends that, at the least, the Ditch company give consent for this type of crossing. Staffreconunends the construction of the shared well and water supply system be in such a inaililer as to be fully protected from freezing. The supply lines and other structures susceptible to freezing should be placed below the frost line. Given the local soil conditions and the predominance of exposed bedrock on-site, burial of the water line will require excavations through solid rock, increasing costs of construction accordingly. Since this will be a shared system, it will be necessary to set-up a legal, shared water management agreement and applicants will be required to keep the system in perfect working order at all times. Access easements around the well and' supply line must be twenty (20) feet radially around the wellhead and a ten (10) feet wide line easement which must be legally described. Furthermore, these easements must guarantee year-round access to the well and its mechanical components. 111 the event of approval, staff recommends a plat note indicate these provisions. Sewer: The well permit requires the use of an ISDS with leach field. The Soil Conservation Service lists the soil comprising the westernmost portion of the tract (the nine (9) acres to be created by subdivision) as a torriorthent, basically a rock outcrop, comprised of very thin soils atop solid, sandstone bedrock. Because the SCS has designated this as such, it does not give any building or sanitary facility information. Construction on this site would be costly as excavation would be difficult. Likewise, the installation of a septic tank would be difficult and costly as the site would most likely have to be engineered to construct an appropriate, working leachfield. Percolation through solid rock, nide, s it is highly fractured, would be very slow. See attached soils information, page / . During the site visit, the applicant indicated to staffthat the installation of the existing electrical pole required significant amounts of blasting. 11 is conceivable that any further excavations made on-site will require commensurate efforts. Staff recommends plat notes be required to address these constraints, requiring engineering of the ISDS as well as the building foundation. E. State and Local I lealth Standards. No State or Local health standards are applicable to the application, with the exception of Colorado Department of health ISDS setback standards, which should be verified by an engineer. Additionally, staff recommends a water quality analysis of the West Divide Creek alluvial aquifer water be conducted if this request is granted and prior to the signing of a final plat. F. Drainage: The parcel to be created by exemption, in its natural state, is not subject to any drainage or flooding problems, and no drainage easements occur within the area of the parcel to be created. However, the location of the wellhead and other components of the shared well, if within the stream basin or natural floodplain of West Divide Creek, could be susceptible to flooding and consequent damage by debris or water flow. The wellhead and all above ground components should be protected from such occurrences. G. Fire Protection: Given the difficult access to the parent tract, fire protection is an issue. The Burning Mountains Dire Protection District has been notified and asked to continent on this proposal; however, no response has been received, to date. Staff recommends that approval be contingent on receiving a favorable response by the appropriate fire protection district. Easements. Any required easements (drainage, access, utilities, etc.) will be required to be shown on the exemption plat. If this exemption is approved, applicant will be required to receive approval from the owner of the Multa - Trina Ditch to allow crossing by the well system. I. School Impact Fees The applicant will be required to pay the $200.00 impact fee for the newly created lot, prior to the approval of the final plat. J. Natural hazards. No natural hazards exist on the parcel to be created. K. Current Liti ag tion: '11►c applicants are currently involved in a lawsuit concerning the Right -of -Way across their (Eicher) property to adjacent property owne(i by the 'll►ompsons. in short, apparently the applicants are petitioning to (leny access across their property to the southern property owned by the "Thompsons. Applicants assert that the i hon►psons can access their eastern property via a new access roa(1 which could be created south of the proposed subdivision, at the expense of Mr. Thompson. Staff believes that this representation makes the Eicher subdivision request invalid because the Eichers claim they are unable to use their property in a joint manner because of the steep terrain. However, the applicants are forcing the Thompsons, through litigation, to create an access road to their eastern property over the very, same natural feature the applicants claim is impe(iing "joint use" of their property. It is the opinion of staff that, if the applicants designate the terrain as usable for the construction of an access to the eastern 'I1►onipson property, then the terrain does not sufficiently constitute the applicants' claim of impeding "joint use" and, therefore, an invalid request. Atacked is a discussion of the litigation, provided by the Thompson's attorney, pages / '2,7. Specifically, item #8 tends to support staff opinion. The applicant's attorney has responded to the 'Thompson attorney's le tern an effort to clarify the respective positions. See letter, attached on pages " SO. L. Oil and Gas Leases: According to the I3LM, the subject property is located within the Hunter Mesa federal unit fbr oil and gas development operated by Snyder Oil Company. Snyder Oil's long -terra development goals indicate a very strong likelihood of up to two (2) wells being drilled in the northeast quarter of Section 1 1 . Staff would recommend a plat note be required to address this likelihood. See FILM leiter attached on page 1 x'101, IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 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 submitte(f and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption is NOT in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDA'T'ION Staff recommends DENIAL of the application on the grounds that the proposal does not meet the intent of Section 8:52 of the Counties' Subdivision Regulations. The natural feature (terrain) is not sufficient to impede joint use of the property by the applicants. If the Board feels that sufficient evidence exists that this exemption will not impair or defeat the stated purpose of the Subdivision Regulations, nor be detrimental to the general public welfare, staff suggests the following conditions be part of a conditional approval: 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 shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the properly, dimension and area of the proposed lot, access to a public right-of-way,. and any proposed easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities. 3. That the applicant shall have 120 days to present a plat to the Commissioners for signature fi:om the date of approval of the exemption. 4. 'll►at the applicant shall submit $200.00 in School Impact Fees for the creation of the exemption parcel. That the following plat note shall appear on the Final Lxemption Plat: "Soil conditions on the site may require engineered septic systems and building foundations. Site specific percolation tests at the time of building permit submittal shall determine specific ISi)S and building needs on the site." 6. Final approval is subject to a favorable response by the Burning Mountains Fire Protection District. 7. An easement, or at least a letter of approval, granting a crossing of the Multa - Trina Ditch be granted by the owners of said Ditch. 8. The shared well system be designed and installed by a competent party with particular concern given to the siting of the various components in an effort to guarantee the integrity of, and access to, the system. 9. The approval subject to a favorable response lion► a competent hydrologist as to the adequacy of the water supply from the alluvium of West Divide Creek. Furthermore, a water quality analysis, conducted by the State Board of 1 Iealth, shall indicate that the water is lit for human consumption. 10. A well -sharing agreement shall be provided prior to the final approval of the plat and shall be recorded in conjunction with each deed conveying well ownership. 11. A plat note be required to address the likelihood of oil and/or gas development near or within the area of this proposed subdivision, stating: "Snyder Oil Company has indicated there is a strong likelihood for the drilling of up to two (2) natural gas and/or oil wells in the area of this subdivision." 12. Final approval take into consideration the ultimate outcome of the current litigation, specifically any Rights -of -Way issues. 13. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility oldie property owner. © �� • Il 11 / I \ 11 11 II -i 1' O J 0 r co • 0 / I/ �. . 0 ti J \ it \\ \', )II 1 O/ \\ 1 (II . II u, I II I1 \\ 1 /=+i `41406'-, 0 0 th CJ) m tri 0 0 ti \\ \1 6000. • / 0 Cn O ,0) z-� c P1 X m to azi D 0 N 00174; 9' W 1014.20' P1 - �O -V SEC110N 11 SFC110N 12 z co cD CP Cr P1 rn 0 0 Z 7 -, tv cn cn M n 0 0 Z Z t) CO N 0 Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF TI IE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 ROBERT A & EMMA M EICHER LISA L BRACKEN P 0 BOX 30 SILT CO 81652- (303) 876-2146 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL SELF WELL PERMIT NUMBER /////iX DIV. 5 CNTY. 23 WD 45 DES. BASIN MD Lot: Block: Filing: Subdiv: APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 12 Twp 7 S RANGE 92 W 6th P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 5100 Ft. from South Section Line 4300 Ft. from East Section Line ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDRIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The well shall be constructed in accordance with the variance granted by the State Board of Examinees of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors on July 28, 1995. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A) as the only well on a tract of land of 55.6 acres described as that portion of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 12 and that portion of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 11, all in Twp. 7 South, Rng. 92 West of the 6th P.M., Garfield County, being more particularly described on the attached exhibit "A" 4) Approved for a change of legal description and for the relocation of an existing well, permit no. 111876. The well constructed under permit no. 111876 must be plugged according to the Water Well Construction Rules within ninety (90) days of completion of the new well. The enclosed well plugging reportform-must be completed affirming that the old well was plugged. 5) The use of ground water from this well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside three (3) single family dwellings, fire protection, the watering of poultry, domestic animals, and livestock on a farm or ranch, and the irrigation of not over one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns. 6) The maximum pumping rate shall not exceed 15 GPM. 7) The return flow from the use of the well must be through an individual waste water disposal system of the non -evaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream system in which the well is located. 8) This welt shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit. (9_1) 7-7-15 OVVNER'S GOPY APPROVED JD2 /id Stale Engineer Receipt No. 0388508 DATE ISSUED SEP 0 7 1995 fly EXPIRATION DATE SEP 0 7 1997 walst� .PJ 000T ) 0 33 plc to a 0 0. c`t7. 0 0 0 a (ro 1 0 0 0 0 0. vIVG o rri O 0 a 0 F tb 0 tri CD C. 0 0 0 0 0 4. Torriorthents-Rock outcrop-Camborthids Dominantly shallow to deep, well drained, sleep to ex- tremely steep soils, anc/ flock outcrop, Ort nxountaMS, fans, and ridges This map unit is throughout the survey area. The soils foi coed in sandstone and shale. Average annual precipi- tation is about 14 inches, and average annual tempera- lure is about 47 degrees F. -I his map unit covers about 20 percent of the survey area, or approximately 130,000 acres. This unit is about !,0 percent I orrior lhents, 20 percent Rock outcrop, 20 percent Camborthids, and 10 percent soils of minor extent. (orriorlhenls are on steep and very sleep mountain- sides and steep fans. They are shallow and moderately sleep and are well drained 3 hey are clayey 10 loamy and contain variable amounts 01 gravel. cobbles and stones. Rock outcrop is 0n sleep and very sleep mountain sides and escarpments. 11 is mostly sandstone and shale. Camborlhids are 00 sleep fans and mountainsides. They are shallow to deep and E110 gena ally clayey to loamy throughout. Minor in this unit we I_azear, Dollard, and Ansari soils. These soils are on steep mountainsides. This unit is used almost entirely for wildlife habitat and limited grazing. It is well suited 10 wildlife habitat and is important winter feeding areas for deer and elk. Grouse, mountain lion, rabbits, and coyotes also use these areas. ibis unit is poorly suited to community development be- cause of depth to rock, sleeP slopes, and (bock outcrop. STEVEN M. BEATTIE GLENN D. CHADWICK KAREN J. SLOAT BEATTIE & CHADWICK ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 710 COOPER AVENUE. SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CO 81601 September 11, 1995 Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Eicher Subdivision Application Dear Mark: -6.1.,1 i „,c77....r17:...,:l.rnj j ii____ „ SEP 1 2 1995 --- .- _AL cOAt -It_LU GOUINTY TELEPHONE (970) 945-8659 FAX (970) 945-8671 I represent Steven and Patricia Thompson, who own land south of the Eichers. The Eichers propose to divide a total of about. 56 acres into two parcels of 9 acres and 47 acres. The Thompsons have several concerns about the application, and they asked me to send you a letter about these concerns. Please feel free to call me for clarification or more details. 1. Enclosed is a map of the area in question. Eichers own Parcels 4 and 5N. Thompsons own Parcel 5S, and Parcels 1 and 2 to the southwest. The Eichers bought parcel 4 from Ralph Cervin in 1988. The Eichers and the Thompsons and each bought approximately half of Parcel 5 from Mr. Cervin in 1990. There was a boundary line agreement concerning the split of Parcel 5; copy enclosed. Eichers' half of Parcel 5 is called "5N" on the map, and Thompsons' half is called "5S". Are Eichers' parcels now one in the eyes of the County, or are there still two separate parcels in the County records? 2. The Public Notice which Mr. Thompson received has attached to it a legal description which describes only the northerly of Mr. Eichers' parcels, Parcel 4. 3. There is a steep cliff/hillside indicated on the map, running generally north and south, which prevents vehicular access from the upper (west) portion of the properties to the lower (east) portion of the properties, except for one road down the cliff as shown on the map. This road was in place when the Eichers bought their land. They use it for access between the upper and lower parts of the land. 4. The New Multa Trina Ditch Company has a right of way to use this road to reach and maintain the ditch. Copy enclosed. The subdivision application does not mention this. 41111110 mos Mark Bean September 11, 1995 Page 2 5. The Thompsons also claim a right of way along this road to reach the lower (east) part of Parcel 5S; there is presently no other vehicular access to the east end of 5S. The Eichers deny that Thompsons have a right of way. The Thompsons and the Eichers are in the midst of a lawsuit on this issue: Thompson v. Eicher, Case No. 95 CV 51-A, District Court, Garfield County. Trial is set for October 12-13, 1995. The subdivision application does not mention this. 6. The route claimed by the Thompsons does not appear to cross the Eichers' proposed 9 -acre parcel, but it goes very close to it. It is not clear how the subdivision might affect Thompsons' claimed right of way. It would seem prudent for the County to wait until the lawsuit is decided. 7. In the application packet is a letter from BLM to your office dated August 28, 1995. It assumes that the land to be subdivided by Eichers is adjacent to BLM public land. This is not accurate. Thompsons' land (Parcel 5S) is between Eichers land and BLM, and Eicher does not presently have a right of access across Thompsons' land to reach the BLM land. 8. The Eichers assert in their application that the terrain on their lots effectively creates two separate parcels, for which joint use is impossible. Thompsons strongly disagree. The terrain between the 9 -acre and 47 -acre parcels is not severe and does not prevent joint use of the proposed parcels. Terrain is not a reason to create a subdivision in this location. The Eichers' assertion is inconsistent with the position they are taking in the lawsuit with Thompsons. There, Eichers argue that Thompsons do not need a right of way on the disputed road, because they say it is feasible for Thompsons to build a new road within Parcel 5S from the upper (west) end the lower (east) end. The terrain separating the upper and lower parts of Parcel 5S is much more severe that the terrain "separating" Eichers' 9 -acre and 47 -acre parcels. 9. Eicher's subdivision would create an additional parcel of land to be served by the access road from County Road 331. The road is fairly long and rough. There is presently no agreement in place regarding road maintenance, and Thompsons are concerned about the impact and cost to them of increased traffic. 10. Eichers propose a well down by the river on the 47 -acre parcel, to serve both the 46 -acre parcel and the 9 -acre parcel. This may be necessary because all of the attempted wells on the upper level are dry. However, Thompsons do not know what, if any, arrangements Eichers propose for a water right, a well permit, or a well sharing agreement. Also, there would not good Mark Bean September 11, 1995 Page 3 be year-round access to the well for maintenance. Eichers propose to allow limited access down the disputed road. This road is not passable on a year-round basis, and it may not be possible to reach well in case of breakdown. 11. The Eichers' subdivision would create a new lot closer to Thompsons' than any other lot. The Thompsons live where they do because of the solitude and isolation, and they do not believe it is appropriate to further subdivide parcels in this area. Yours very truly, Glenn D. Chadwick GDC:kas Enclosures . cc: Mr. and Mrs. Steve Thompson • r� V 3 00'09'15- w N9�10-� t��ryJ 1.1 r r l 11 [ 111 00 43 3' 300.13' 329.36 z SJ d r Ird ti y CL 1/N SECTION 2 SECTION 1 61 U U n_ P =OL�i 'of A LI y/// ///// c0 I f++01103 l fiouDi — -r- ;db'i Ct - M.5T,Rbo II [1 Y t 1• d 1.1 z 5 'D FECORDED AT /041V O'CLOCK/1.M. OCT 17 I9yu o FEC A 417961 MILDRED ALSDORF, COUNTY CLERK GARFIELD COUNTY. COLORADO AFFIDAVIT RE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT f-- " x 790 ricf 9F�T, STEVEN RICHARD THOMPSON, PATRICIA KAY TIIOMPSON, BOB EICIIER, EMMA EICHER and RALPH CERVIN, being first duly sworn upon their oaths, depose and scale as followsa 1. Steven Richard Thompson and Patricia Kay Thompson are the owners of the real property described In Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. Bob Eicher and Emma Eicher are the owners of the real property described in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Ralph Cervin is the owner of the real property descclbed In Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4. Steven Richard Thompson, Patricia Kay Thompson, Bob Eicher and Emma Eicher are desirous of adjusting the boundary lines of the respective properties now owned by them by Steven Richard Thompson and Patricia Kay Thompson purchasing the southerly portion of the parcel owned by Ralph Cervin and by Bob Eicher and Emma Eicher* purchasing the northerly portion of the property owned by Ralph Cervin. 5. Subsequent to the conveyances by Ralph Cervin to Steven Richard Thompson and Patricia Kay Thompson and to Bob Eicher and Emma Eicher as above stated, the description of the parcel owned by Steven Richard Thompson and Patricia Kay Thompson will be as set forth In Exhibit D attached hereto and made a part hereof. The description of the'parcel to be owned by Bob Eicher and Emma Eicher will be as set forth in Exhibit E attached hereto and made a part hereof. 6. This boundary line adjustment is made in accordance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984. 7. Affiants represent that no new lots will be created. Therefore, Garfield County will not be required to issue any building permits other than what it would be required to issue for the already existing lots. 8. Affiants represent that none of the parcels of property involved in this boundary line adjustment are part of a previously platted subdivision of record. 9. Affiants represent that the boundary line adjustment the subject hereof will not cause the loss of access by road or to utilities by any parcel of property herein involved. Bnnti '2•00 pv2E ) ,:' 10. Affiants represent that a copy of this Affidavit will be recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado. 11. Further affiants sayeth naught. Executed the day and year set opposite the name of each signatory. Date: , Date: /.%-/ Date& Oil DiCIa _ Date r / f Date: GGL�. c-177‘" STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) / • STEVEN RICHARD TIIOMPSON/ „r-14`- PATRICIA KAY TIIOMPSON • EMMA EICIIER LPII CERVIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 10 r,' day of OcAL-0or_ 1990, by Steven Richard Thompson avid Patricia Kay Thompson. Witness my hand and official seal. ,l)IN1j) rli\ Address: "I' - My commission expires: 511-1H) - 2 - Notary Public Book 790 P!6E9n3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this !CrH day of (1001,-)Q,v" , 1990, by Bob Eicher and Emma Eicher. :Witness my hand and official seal. •/Address: n(a • 4.1Y.commission expires: L&CLn Lti Ct- _ 1 L 1 cILL�_ Notary ,Public •1 STATE OF IDAlHO ) ss. COUNTY OF BONNER The fo egoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 5111 day of(���_ 1990, by Ralph Cervin. A.,1 L�..• "WJt,'ness my hand and official seal. tdi)ixil i s y .O. fox C- �7 y(oatl ( , TQ a. IA0 My..commisslon explreii 11„/Jf//cIcI otary - 3 - Public 133611 BIIOK 790 P!CE969 EXIIIBIT_A Attached to and Forming a Part of Affidavit Re Boundary Line Adjustment Between Steven Richard Thompson, Patricia Kay Thompson, Bob Eicher, Emma Eicher and Ralph Cervin A parcel of land situated In the SW4NEE, NNNEj, Section 11, Township 7 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M., lying6northerly of the southerly boundary and westerly of the easterly boundary of said SLANEj, is more particularly described as follows; Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 11, a rebar and cap In place; thence S. 00°19'58" W. 1014.94 feet along the North-South centerline of said Section 11; thence leaving said centerline N. 89°44'25" E. 399.71 feet to the "True" point of beginning; thence N. 89°44'25" E. 1108.20 feet; thence S. 00° 14'49" E. 299.57 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of said MHO; thence S. 09°44'24" W. 194.41 feet along said Ni1E southerly boundary to a point of said westerly boundary also being the Northeast Corner of said Stri1Fs, a rebar and cap in place; thence leaving said 1iiNEj southerly boundary, S. 00°16'47" W. 1313.91 feet along said westerly boundary to a point on said southerly boundary, also being the Southeast Corner of said StA NES; thence leaving said westerly boundary S. 89°42'51" W. 901.33 feet along said southerly boundary; thence leaving said southerly boundary N. 00°15'35" W. 1613.82 feet to the True Point of Beginning. BOCK 79Q reef 9io EXHIBIT 8 Attached to and Forming a Part of Affidavit Re Boundary Line Adjustment Between Steven Richard Thompson, Patricia Kay Thompson, Bob Eicher, Emma Eicher and Ralph Cervin A parcel of land situated in the NE1NE1, Section 11, u'4NI+2♦, Section 12, Township 7 South, Range 92 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, lying southerly of the northerly boundaries of said NEI 11E1 and said NI+411W1, and westerly of the easterly boundary of said NS'8NW1, more particularly described as follows; Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 11, a rebar and cap In place; thence N. d9°45'53" E. 1497.64 feet along .4aid northerly boundary, also being the northerly boundary of said Section 11, to the "True" point of beginning; thence N. 89°45'58" E. 1132.95 feet along said northerly boundary to the Northeast Section Corner of said Section 11 a rebar and cap In place; thence N. 88°16'19" E. 1312.48 feet along said northerly boundary to a point on said easterly boundary, also being tire Northeast Corner of said NW1NW1, a rebar and cap in place; thence leaving said northerly boundary S. 00°09'18" W. 685.35 feet along said easterly boundary; thence leaving said easterly boundary S. 89°57'14" W. 2440.20 feet; thence N. 00°14'49" W. 643.11 feet to a point on said northerly boundary, the "True" point of beginning. BOOK 790 ►tG€971 EXHIBIT C Attached to and Forming a Part of Affidavit Re Boundary Line Adjustment Between Steven Richard Thompson, Patricia Kay Thompson, Bob Eicher, Emma Eicher and Ralph Cervin Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 11, a rebar and cap In place; thence N. 09°45'50" E. 1497.64 feet along the northerly boundary of said Section 11; thence leaving said northerly boundary S. 00°14'49" E. 643.11 feet to the "True" point of beginning; thence N. 09°57'14" E. 2440.20 feet to a point on said easterly boundary; thence S. 00°09'18" W. 629.78 feet to a point on said southerly boundary, also being the Southeast Corner of said MIA; thence leaving said easterly boundary S. 88° 21'14" W. 1314.06 feet along said southerly boundary to the Southwest Corner of said NWiNWI; thence S. 09°44'24" W. 1122.10 feet along said southerly boundary; thence leaving said southerly boundary N. 00°14'49" W. 670.66 feet to the "True" point of beginning. 2 '3n '7`.)0 PIGF9•? ? EXIIIBIT D Attached to and Forming a Part of Affidavit Re Boundary Line Adjustment Between Steven Richard Thompson, Patricia Kay Thompson, Bob Eicher, Emma Eicher and Ralph Cervin A parcel of land situated in the SW4NE4, N17INE1 and NEjNEE of Section 11 and the NW)NWJW of Section 12, Township 7 South, Range 92 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado; said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 11; thence S. 00°19'50" W. 1014.94 feet along the North-South centerline of said Section 11; thence leaving said centerline N. 89°44'25" E. 399.71 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence N. 89°44'25" E. 1108.20 feet to a rebar and cap In place; thence N. 88°17'37" E. 2438.07 feet, to a point on the Easterly line of said MANIA of Section 12, a rebar and cap L.S. 119598 in place; thence S. 00° 09'18" W. 329.35 feet to the Southeast Corner of said MAMA, a rebar and cap in place; thence S. 88°21'14" W. 1314.06 feet to the Southwest Corner of said i'4uwj; thence S. 09°44'24" W. 1316.51 feet to the Southwest Corner of said NF.INEa of said Section 11, a rebar and cap in place; thence S. 00°16'47" W. 1313.91 feet to the Southeast Corner of said SI'4NEj of said Section 11, thence S. 89°42'51" W. along the Southeasterly line of said SI4NEy 901.33 feet; thence N. 00°15'35" W. 1613.82 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said parcel containing 52.998 acres, more or less. 4- e (Toy '79n P,r:F9';3 EXIIIBIT E Attached to and Forming a Part of Affidavit Re boundary Line Adjustment Between Steven Richard Thompson, Patricia Kay Thompson, Bob Eicher, Emma Eicher and Ralph Cervin A parcel of land situated in the NE 1N13 of Section 11 and the NF4NP4 of Section 12, Township 7 South, Range 92 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado; said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 11; thence N. 89'45'58" E. along the Northerly line of said Section 11, 1497.64 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence N. 09°45158" E. 1132.95 feet to the Northeast Corner of said Section 11, also being the Northwest Corner of Section 12; thence N. 80°16'19" E. 1312.48 feel to the Northeast Corner of said Nt'4Nt , thence S. 00°09118" W. along the Easterly line of said NNW} 985.78 feet to a rebar and cap L.S. 119598 in place; thence S. 88°17137" W. 2438.87 feet to a rebar and cap in place; thence N. 00°14'49" W. 1014.20 feet to the True Point of Beginning; said parcel containing 55.600 acres, more or less. • • �•fi'1i"l OF,'�; �'il r �+�� d�+l!I;KY, iiog 4 yf i i '. . a .'y,.. s�,c4 5��,:w����;�s���`�?ll!(rl,fXafl'P6 ri++'!:40k1iY ���Q��;��,� t't. .'N �' Fl�SIt;�Ili's'�1ii;}i��;,�r� ac±i�`r)'yeast,?�✓4l'^;i14;`?^'.9s;:i��1`•�'.-"�`t•( Ni r�C+c!i�,y, ,i'1..' �• � I :. . ��:�r,., ,cr:it�' '�:'i.'Sfa�!. • Xrtitic'ti Hocorded at 61:5.1 o'clock /1 M EP_2 1 Q1 Reception No aH.]J.a4 MILDRED ALSDORF, RECORDEII GARF1ELD COUNTY, COLORADO 892K 721 PGE (''3 EASEMENT GRANT TIIIS EASEMENT GRANT 1s made between Ralph Cervin (herelnafter.referred to as "the grantor" and the New Multa Trina Ditch Company, a Colorado not-for-profit corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the grantee"). The following recitals of fact are a material part of this instrument: A. The grantor is the owner of the tracts of land being in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, described as follows and may be hereafter referred to as "the property": Two parcels of land situated In the NE►NE$, Section 11, NWNW4, Section 12, Township 7 South, Range 92 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, lying southerly of the 1 northerly boundaries of said NE4NEI and said NANW4 and westerly of the easterly boundary of said NW1/4WW4, more particularly described as follows: PARCEL A Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 11, a rebar and cap In place; thence N. 89°45'53" E. 1497.64 feet along said northerly boundary, also being the northerly boundary of said Section 11, to the "True" point of beginning; thence N. 89°45'58" E. 1132.95 feet along said northerly boundary to the Northeast Section Corner of said Section 11, a rebar and cap in place; thence H. 00°16'19" E. 1312.40 feet along said northerly boundary to a point on said easterly boundary, also being the Northeast Corner of said NW4NW1/4, a rebar and cap In place; thence leaving said northerly boundary S 00°09'10" W. 685.35 feet along said easterly boundary; thence leaving said easterly boundary S 09°57'14" W. 2440.20 feet; thence N. 00°14'49" W. 643.11 feet to a point on said northerly boundary, the "True" point of beginning. PARCEL R Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 11, a rebar and cap In place, thence N. 09°45'58" E. 1497.64 feet along the northerly boundary of said Section 1.1; thence leaving said northerly boundary S. 00°14'49" E. 643.11 feet to the "'true" point of beginning; thence 11. 89°57'14" E. 2440.20 feet to a point on said easterly boundary; thence S. 00°09'18" W. 629.78 feet to a point on said southerly boundary, also being the Southeast Corner of said NW1/4NW4; thence of. 23 -1- .,VA�i,lwtr f,.l6rltiidWi1J01t:t�(N..,44+I�MI��E11Y1/fK1�.I3/kIMaIYJ�IRM �6i1�� ennl( 721. No[ 64 leaving said easterly boundary S. 08'21'14" W. 1114.06 fe't along said noutherly boundary to the Southwest Corner of said NW1HWrrl thence S. 89'44'24" W. 1122.10 feet along said southerly boundary; thence leaving said southerly boundary N. 00'14'49" W. 670.66 feet to the "True" point of beginning. Togethe.. with an easement for ingreen and egress from County Road 331 to the above described Parcels A and B. B. Grantee Is the owner of the New Multa Trina Ditch which traverses In part the above-described property and adjoining properties owned by others. The New Multa Trina Ditch may be hereinafter referred to as "the Ditch". C. The grantor wishes to grant and the grantee wishes to receive an easement over, under and across Parcels A and R described above and along the above easement from County Road 331 to said parcels. NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of the conveyance by irantee to grantor of 100 shares of stock in the New Multa Trine Ditch Company and other valuable consideration, the receipt and su`ficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the following grants, agreements, covenants and restrictions are made: 1. GRANT OF EASEMENT. The grantor hereby grants to the grantee, its successors and ensigns, as an easement appurtenant to the New Multa Trina Ditch, a perpetual easement for ingress and egress over, under and across the property described above belonging to grantor including the right to use for ingress and egress purposes grantor's easement from County Road 331 to said described parcels. 2. USE OF THE EASEMENT PREMISES. The above-described property and the easement from County Road 331 to said property are hereby referred to and defined au "the easement premises". Use of the easement premises is not confined to present uses of the new Multa Trina Ditch, or present means of maintenance of said ditch, or present means of transportation. The installation or maintenance by the grantee of pipes, conduits, or wires, under, upon or over the easement premises is forbidden. Exclusive use of the easement premises is not hereby granted. The right to use the easement premises, likewise for ingress and egress, is expressly reserved by the grantor. In addition, the grantor reserves the right to make any surface or subsurface use of the easement premises that does not unreasonably interfere with grantee'■ use of the easement premises as set forth hersin. 3. LOCATION OF ECSEMENT. The easement granted herein shall be located entirely on and along the roadway already in place and in use connecting County Road 331 to the above-described property and traversing said property to the New Multa Trina Ditch. -2- •r �, . ,a•►v�l+c.yv'.; �d.le,f:IL':.i1�11.;C�U1�'.�RlPlu4�5if ; '�, �; dnrn( 721. Fitt n5 4. PARKING. Both parties covenant that vehicles shall not he parked nn the easement prernlsee except so long an may be reoeonat)ly necessary to load and unload and perform maintenance functions on the roadway or the ditch. 5. (UPGRADING AND MAINTENANCE OF EASEMENT. Both parties will work together immediately upon the execution hereof to upgrade the existing roadway and put same into mutually acceptable condition for the uses intended herein. Maintenance of the roadway shall be shared equally between the parties hereto. 6. PURPOSE OF EASEMENT GRANT. The purpose of the easement grant herein in to provide access by grantee to the New Multa Trina Ditch for operation and maintenance of said ditch. Accordingly, it in understood that construction equipment may from time to time be used upon and across the easement herein. 7. WARRANTIES OF TITLE. Grantor warrants that he has good and indefear-lble fee simple title to the easement preml''ea. 8. TITLE INSURANCE. It is understood by the parties hereto that no title search has been done of the easement premises and no title opinion has been given by any attorney or other title examiner. Grantee has relied upon grantor's representations set forth herein. Should grantee so desire, he may apply forthwith for a title insurance policy insuring the easement hereby granted and grantor will make available for inspection by the title company any evidence of title in his posseeeion. 9. RUNNING OF BENEIFTS AND BURDENS. It is understood and agreed that the covenants, provisions, and agreemente heroin c,ntained shall be covenants and provisions and agreements, including the benefits and burdens, running with the land and property herein and any and all portions thereof, and shall extend to the benefit or and be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, and assigns, including, but not limited to all subsequent owners of the property described herein and all persona claiming under them. 10. ATTORNEY PEES. Either party may enforce this instrument by appropriate action and should he prevail in ouch action or litigation, he shall recover as part of his costa a reasonable attorney's fee. 11. CONSTRUCTION. The rule of strict construction doee not apply to this grant. This grant shall be given a reasonable construction so that the intention of the parties to confer a commercially usable right of enjoyment on the grantee le carried out. 12. RELEASE OF EASEMENT. The grantee herein may terminate this instrument by recording a release in recordable form with directions for delivery of name to grantor at hie last -3- •r BOON /'a.,,t Int 643 klown r.dress whereupon all rights, duties, and liabilities hereby created shell terminate. For convenience such instrument may run to ''the owner or owners and parties interested" in the property described above. II. JOINDER OF SPOUSE. The spouse of grantor joins herein for the purpose of waiving homestead and other marital rights, all of which are waived with respect to this easerent, IN WITNESS WNEREO^ the grantor, his spouse and the grantee have hereuntj net their hands and seals this /7 day of quly, 1907. Th /K .7. 1 i 1 � • 1 L ,� \ Ralph Cervin New Multa Trina Ditch Company, a Colorado not—for—profit corporation ©y (7/4.1d, . _!c-Tr"c- Prgaident c-1 ,J ATTEST: Fu,Air u 1:3 Se retary Li STATE OF COLORADO ) sa. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The foregoing instrument wan acknowledged before me .on this /. ':I day of L I„ :A6, l , 1987, by Ralph Cervin and 1 r l! . Witness my hand and official seal. My conmission expires: 6- a - (F' C'�• ,_ eirt.� toy<C4.: Notal Puhi c .�i •��.,' —4— . •�:�;:�,�t.r.�'3�r..'�t��r,Ic ��� ,:� �` `0 Vrk ,:.. 'Y .. ' '!'•t�. � -� , ^F �' t �'F;�!�s',,�tl'rrL+Fri.�,'.���,nci�s,�iG,h�,�4'�95�!�9�J,s/sMii�.i;+!6?��r'rl= :;li b7y41f�"itf ^ti�hl �iaa: ��� ''' ^�'�t�l'�-,%q!qty{J.+iSr�:ii•'d?,`9M:��f•ir?;��}7Fu��l�-1i?tlr�'�!!h1R'�M,'':�t�r!i�.� • 44 STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD as. BOOK '721 ME 67 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on thas s President aof Presid ntandattesta1987, by �l by - ` (' f ti3Or .. 7)„ ti r,; of the New Huila Trina Ditch Company, a/ as or-pSecerofit corporation. a Colorado not-for-profit Witness niy hand and official seal. My commission expires: G - )_ 3'b' -5- Notary Public / >0a „ .r. Stephen .1. Worrell Daviel W. Griffith Anthony J. Durrett Kenneth 11. Jaynes VVORIZI:LI., �ilZll l l"1'Il, [)UIZIZFs"1-J' & JAYNES, P.C. nrn)uNFI'S Ar I.AW September 27, 1995 Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Eicher Subdivision Application Dear Mark: 21)1 Eighth Street Post Office Box 1089 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 "Telephone: (970) 945-0494 Facsimile: (970) 945-8449 8[T2rt195 I,ID Ci, :F it •G(YUS -E y I have been asked by Robert Eicher to review the status of this Subdivision Application and, in particular, respond to the letter from Glenn Chadwick dated September 11, 1995. I believe that the concerns raised by Mr. Chadwick are more the result of Mr. Thompson's ongoing battle with Mr. Eicher than the result of legitimate concern on the part of Mr. Thompson. I will address Mr. Chadwick's concerns in the order that Mr. Chadwick has presented them. 1. Both the Thompsons and Eichers entered into a boundary line adjustment agreement whereby the parcels, at the request of the County, were consolidated into single parcels owned by each party. The error made in the description was the result of clerical error on the part of the County, which has subsequently been corrected. 2. Again, the County's description of the application is erroneous and there is no legitimate issue on the part of Mr. Thompson as to the property which has been described in the application. 3. Mr. Chadwick has misdescribed the geographical contours of the property. There are two geological separations. The first is a 10 foot to 30 foot decline which forms the natural boundary for the proposed subdivision. This decline is located on the western portion of the property and is not depicted on Mr. Chadwick's attached map. The steep hillside referred to on that map is in fact a separate geographical feature which is a larger and steeper slope than the boundary for the subdivision. The roadway referred to by Mr. Chadwick was constructed in 1987 to provide the Multa Trina Ditch Company ("MTDC") access to the lower property. Mr. Chadwick's characterization of the cliff as preventing vehicular access reflects Thompson's legal position in a lawsuit pending in the Garfield County District Court. The map Mark Bean September 27, 1995 Page 2 provided to the County by the Eichers most accurately depicts the property and the natural division forming the boundary for this subdivision. 4. The Ditch Company easement does not cross the subdivision and is not affected by the application for subdivision. The Ditch Company makes only limited use of that easement and the sporadic use will not affect the owner of the subdivision to any degree. The driveway is approximately 60 to 70 feet north of the proposed subdivision. 5. Again, the assertion by the Thompsons of right-of-way along the roadway is irrelevant to the issue of the subdivision. The Thompsons' claim of right-of-way is limited to recreational use of a lower portion of the property, which again is physically distant from this subdivision. 6. Mr. Chadwick suggests that the County should withhold judgment on an application because there is the potential for some effect, which Mr. Chadwick and the Thompsons are unable to identify. The Thompsons' position appears to be the result of conflict with the Eichers and not the result of well -reasoned objection to the subdivision. 7. Mr. Chadwick himself draws an erroneous inference regarding the BLM proximity. The BLM boundary is located approximately 300 feet south of the subdivision and is accurately reflected in the sketch plan prepared by Eicher and submitted to the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Department. 8. Mr. Chadwick again mischaracterizes the application for this subdivision insofar as the natural boundary of this subdivision. Mr. Eicher has not asserted that access to the two parcels is impossible, but has asserted that there is a logical division between the two parcels because of the geographical characteristics. The decline at the point of the boundary is only one of the physical characteristics that set aside this parcel from the remainder of the Eichers' property. Eicher does not believe that the natural boundary is impossible to traverse, but rather the lay of the land suggests the appropriateness for two individual parcels. Mr. Chadwick's reference to the existing lawsuit in his letter again reflects the adversarial nature of his letter and an attempt to affect the ongoing litigation by means of this objection to the subdivision. 9. At the time of the original subdivision plan in 1979, nine parcels were contemplated as being serviced by the roadway referred to by Mr. Chadwick. At this time, only three residences have been established in the area of this subdivision. There will not be an increase in the usage of the property as anticipated by Mark Bean September 27, 1995 Page 3 Mr. Thompson. Originally, the subdivider anticipated that the County would take control of the access roads and maintain those roads. As a result, there was originally no agreement for maintenance. Various parties have discussed that maintenance recently and such discussions are ongoing. Mr. Thompson's suggestion regarding lack of maintenance is disingenuous as Mr. Thompson has acted to avoid having to make any financial expenditure on the maintenance of the roadway. 10. The well proposed by Mr. Thompson has been granted a permit by the state. The applicant does not anticipate problems with the well as it has been properly engineered to avoid problems. While any well can have problems with the pump, those repairs can be made year-round, even should foot travel be required because of winter conditions. The Eichers have presented full information to the County regarding the status of the well and will submit further information as requested by the County. 11. The lot created by the subdivision will not be the closest lot to the residence of the Thompsons. Mr. Griffin's residence is closer and forms a greater impact upon the Thompsons' lifestyle. Regarding Thompson's solitude and isolation, the proposed parcel would not change the nature of the area. The number of parcels anticipated when Thompson purchased the property has not increased and other parcels which have been anticipated have not been developed. The concept of respect for isolation and solitude is a two-way street. The Thompsons have not demonstrate a recognition of the duty to respect the solitude of others and their assertion of privacy is contradicted by their interference with the privacy of others. On the whole, the proposal by Mr. Eicher for a subdivision does not change the character of the area nor does it diminish the Thompsons' enjoyment of their property. I would request that the County look closely at the application by Mr. Eicher and find that it is appropriate to allow Mr. Eicher to subdivide the nine acre parcel. KHJ/vs cc: Robert Eicher Ole 3 0 Sincerely, nneth H. J INH131't Y RI• IRIO United States Department of the Interior •�� BUREAU OF LAND MANAC13M1?N"1' (Jlcnwoocl Springs IZcsourcc Arca 50629 1ligl,way 6 ;mil 2,1 P.O. 13ox 1009 Glenwood Springs, (i'olorado X1602 August 28, 1995 .AUG 2 10 r* o) Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. McCafferty: In response Lu your reque:;L for comments regarding the proposed Eicher Subdivision Exemption located approximately 11 miles south of Silt in T7S, R92W, Section 11, Sixth PM, I offer the following statements for your scheduled September 18, 1995, public meeting. I believe the 56 +/- acre parcel is adjacent to public lands administered by this office. Current uses on the BLM involve livestock grazing, wildlife habitat and open space. 1. Ownership of land adjacent Lo BLM-administered public land does not grant the adjacent landowner(s) any special rights or privileges for the use of the public lands. 2. The adjacent public land is currently permitted for livestock grazing. The proponent should be aware of the location of property boundaries to ensure no encroachment occurs on public land. Should any fence construction be considered along the private/BLM boundary, the fence standards should allow for easy passage by big game. This office can provide additional information regarding fence standards upon request. 3. Any roads, trails, paths, or utilities (water, electric, phone or otherwise) crossing BLM would require right-of-way (ROW) permits from this office. An environmental assessment report would be competed as a part of the ROW permitting process. 4. The adjacent 40 acre BLM parcel has been designated as BLM Disposal Parcel #38. This office may consider disposing of this parcel in the future. 5. Review of our lands records shows there are no federal minerals located witlrir, the subject private lands. However, the prop.'sai is within the Hunter Mesa federal unit for oil and gas development operated by the Snyder Oil Corporation. Snyder Oil's long Lerrn development plans could result in two wells being drilled within the northeast quarter of section 11. The southeast of the northeast quarter is federal surface and minerals and leased to Snyder Oil for oil and gas development. We have contacted Snyder Oil for additional information and they cannot identify the exact location or timing of a future well due to fluctuating market conditions and unknown potential of the gas reserves. Their records indicate the subject tract (Eicher) is leased to Snyder Oil for oil and gas development. Overall, the probability for one or two wells being drilled somewhere within the northeast quarter of section 11 is considered very high. We recommend for any subdivision proposal where the oil and gas subsurface estate is under a valid ].ease (private or federal) that:, as a condition of approval under the county's authorization, the developer be required to inform potential buyers of the existence of an oil and gas lease and the legal rights of that lease. Snyder Oil concurs with this approach and would further add 1 Eicher Subdivision - Page 2 that any future buyer contact Snyder Oil or the current oil and gas lessee for information on current development potential. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, please contact Jim Byers or Dan Sokal of this office at 945-2341. Sincerely, Michael S. Mottice Area Manager lc s:2Q /k, Sc)tA H or SrL + 3 2 rur %fS� (P/'ivo r L{N/tt-1(/ ' P 9+rZ/ VA -i- Z i4 CO (s -rs /,N /Vr4?ir 211- L v66 : o� CK 3; g oo,c1 Cb N161), . S 4G6, GK•4ss<S �o�r^/-f6r�sJ2/f CIELA CL,� eV -1/-t `w/lCd2t LAD LAO Gc <-°'1 �- 13 M a ,., s rgf'Pi x. /6 Z> r4[.Dees -r--(-4 G S<v -ri-i SL Pt=2 i'2 s �o�r/15k-)eROC7eTc i oL pd�E.D '1/C X2.5 Z" -)f/]6/ RE�n-. S r-iv4(N LEss STEE) “ ES w c>r /t 2 S/>v 4.f F'�t I`� t o� r� 5's6, { lSLt tv _ cs C ij i AG(1 ES %N20o G r Tu L FAII G G" 56614 r✓ c6: 511617/ v i s t kviick6.,6v rofo4d7: US( or �NLC��IJjs - _ -.r I:/d Sutivi✓1 16 ' 4G otZp Vise. 6,ri4S ioL,'2 [� ,e6A-tri I N -m r or% or (X41Ait) RA "1)6(./M170i/^1 aE �{ SU5011/ t Si og"/ Fe"/PED) lilt So,✓ `��E S N o r jr•/ `(� r s c aZC i l a (--2i7-74�4 i l C 0X 6-0-te-1 `-)e. FEAl- />✓C6NT bF S-14dot.►sro) g'661'14it v„! OcZ .s `-Q RP^Cr%'.4c. rC� C ..F'a02C S-4 FC 411-S es, Ci X T' S t C ct Jr✓ (,Z�t�yiiorJ Ar'p 44s 5EEPJ Me NTU >4i2giL. c-6.4 r t1`Rt %% 'ts Si ti �y S S?Ar i o of /S f ort-t/NEN7 72> T -I g /Li Lt y C- s ei c ru iN. i e., 7/6 & 0 27/-1 X1/4/.1 v, si-/iv6 WI v(),-if!V /S (AI L-1- rs( `J -v �i/C �/(g'TriEtzp- XaUN poie�i' / G2�ss ti l7 ut rvL tVrD(t6 7NC /3'l2cc C- i R 64'6-rEO p6E5 � v NizipA dAL f -rw2r 174 I, /Ms -En/ Z &r'/NI? P MS . c, /t -t C 6 - 4G ai it-Wvr'044-04 i Sr zE d 5 v(GNA7-6o it5V 4/i2(721) 24" v& 1)/sit'/c 1 ss 11144 A ?R1v,4i g 712 i (°49 Si6-,r lru SCU/ovvS /5 /"1- l (A/L1 'Fa (oi-N717) 5 ip)942spS ,ltNb f-& 9/ (Net/ENr EMEk6G.Nf.01 Access! L G,EsS a/UES c—E i'r 4 (pi a' -P 2 U, GSH Cel c N D r i , otO (h0Toscri0 SNS 02 W CL syi ci gAw(ek) b 1-44f6‹ vriaL klaui(R or I,./es'r 71 v/pc LeOK tfr'&J- / S `,?Qbgc.s 6 SC 2.0 re Errl? t Sbtvoce' 1,,01-62. - 4 /4300 G4LLor.1 Gs-r4.2r/ C-45 c,fTL0 Eao ' LLNoY t /T h sir orA3i.0 /N ride v2ics©r v€14e, s I S k1,- ALi Cam 4 - S 1 poc.y �4 — r r /4'9 Gives orf of w c(k.. w'Tt Uau f Y ft4/41/ 14C C is /°/-4c GE Yule- goiAA)P 56/o e.NA UJ514 L9 (o 2/ 4c -&e s l � 7f-/ V'6( -L- /Lipp Sr/4FF Ass LA", 6-5 AA) Ay 73 -E- N 6 3tN€ cessi12(7/ � fr1 uu�i4 i 2tNA .-AL5 o A La.& w 2 -g/AXf,l ,g(ww(A31 l5 A)ELES,VAti L.wca h/ttL Goetd4f(7- oeC 4/t s tA s DE 1 SDS w0 aer-/ riQLD. S S //tits / DE.r,ill r:p 17-04T res 1--ti1IV 8e ,NC W5t?6,11- tiFs g ,rlZ1,J6 E/) eee(2 p MD 5vs-eMS A S S . & /l,D(N( Fouiv 1'7/, 71or)S. S7-AfE GoH 51;419-60140S ' A -A) S-r/41E oR L 14-L i k{ SiA1, S A2C AVFLICt4rrLt Siefe.r t,Jot1L_D +2 C.©v---/u CAV D 4 Q.4.41444 -re J4PJALY S ?c P0—z602rk4?` (94411wkGc I VAQZc-GL lac e_4eA AT Er /5 tv i SUt35-Cc A)17) 5 ysi- etA ,4 L.4s l3C Fe 61 Er0 �/iv Ev&' or Fz°cam ONl u�NrN/�%atc S rrozE ��� rrlNr4f7v rz6 '1(01:66—� (z,r✓ S-rerc /JdS 6 g C Crf N 0-0 F l 6p A 1,1-1- 14) 0 x --Es rat- s /4/ 5 » (-E6Ew D) CA5Efrg7's /LL, 2cQi,t/€cam CIK- 1omss Acts r 4-6 6tZ4 Ji 7 �tvp Or,/ I C2 -&-L /G,J 7LA75 /4Wvzox / ioc (€6--r ScA6bL 4A i. e> b P1�l,1 ww� g-80UITC� r4�/ .g7.66�N � moi Pe (oK ((Amt.. AmC. ST,f (,(W PeRS2*/V°S 7?C 4pe 1 6.‘4,..)1* _s A /Nvoi,i/ o iN '200 9/ s7i-rG (DA c_c:_IQNr p\ -)b A Ne16-Mgo2t s otcI GO -1 lb Lt S b ff A) SD 4'i J '11719C 1 <-04 /`' 'T'S ®teo?IZ-IV LAIN) sLA t7 (s S4,046 -1.i4 ► i I`2Alktvt S v 1,:r 946 APft(LA , 1 w(/v S f(- LAw SvA(r) WIC - »G/° ft.c%(C 4e-/ ?MD Dual( -NE SA ,it ' orb&a,io1V /W£ i'1ee.1i4( iw(� rMPEDE S -3":01/•)- Lt SL . U SE S 110®611 2 S y mrL ©I L )16 c ;S N O III 6#f s (�£14�C tae r -H/5 a;-) i%) // pND L-,rt;L(ooQ DC of Tz5 Z we -c -s E2� S A 5 -1 -P --or) 6 -IA) (7 C fQ2t CiTL jN r/1 /S Ai E . IPCN(pC t5F- m11 ( 47/6) 0,•.)7 / 2o�w aS �4I PDL c, "Pc Es /Vc SATisCr' St/tEn( \ siav) s Cp c 7l T' qZ,q/l fF Tr Al>J (-rS P/56R02o f-2 Ls T1A T /rs eaU& �6cS tfol' CIROAIIVti771CACIA3p►uIsiovsJ eC660,4i6)11 7-7-)E.-(‘) r.fc 1-4p: ,9AK'T 6r 4 CONvi oN APPPD/I) L a Soil Conservation Service aerial photograph, CT) • •