HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationBEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORDO
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION
Pursuant to C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-101 (1) (a) - (d) as
amended, and the Subdivision Regulation sof Garfield County,
Colorado, adopted April 23, 1984 Section 2:20.49, the undersigned
ROBERT DELANEY and KENNETH BALCOMB respectfully petition the Board
of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, to exempt by
Resoluton the division of 8.09 acres of land into four tracts of
approximately two acres each, more or less, from the definition of
"subdivision" and "subdivided land" as the terms are used and
defined in C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-101 (a) - (d) and the
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations for the reasons stated
below:
A. A sketch map marked Exhibit A at a scale of 1"=200'
showing the legal description of the property, dimension and area
of all lots or separate interests to be created, approximately and
the fact that the property is adjacent to a County road.
B. Attached as Exhibit B is a Xerox copy of a portion of
U.S.G.S. Quadrangle depicting the City of Glenwood Springs,
Colorado, and the location of the property known as the Coke Ovens
at Cardiff which is the property to be subdivided.
C. Attached as Exhibit C is a copy of the deed dated May 9,
1962 conveying the property to Applicants.
D. So far as Applicants can ascertain, the only property
owners within 200 feet of the proposed exemption are City of
Glenwood Springs, 806 Cooper Avenue, Glenwood Springs, Colorado
81601; Grand River Construction Company, 817 Colorado Avenue,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 801601; Four Mile Land Company, 0497
Sunny Acres Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601; and, Glenwood, Ltd.,
a Partnership, Attn: Douglas Cook, 2552 Taft Court, Lakewood, CO
80215.
E. Attached as Exhibit D, consisting of four sheets, is the
plate identifying the geological map from which the evidence was
obtained, a general map of the area showing in red approximately
where the property is located, and the description of the two soils
involved according to the geologic map. On the face of the
identity portion of the map is a brief statement as to the soils as
described on the ground itself.
F. Since the proposal is to divide the property into
commercial lots to be used for either storage, vehicle parking and
maintenance, garages and the like, very little water or sewage
disposal is necessary. There is a pipeline in the immediate
vicinity and all sewage disposal will be in accordance with
Garfield County requirements where no sewer line is available.
G. The letter from the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado
concerning the use of City water will be obtained and furnished at
a later date.
H. As indicated by the attached copy of deed, the
Applicants have owned this property for a long time and during such
period of time the property has been subject to much vandalism,
overnight camping, and, in fact, being used as living quarters
creating health hazards. The taxes have repeatedly increased and
the property, except for the pistol range loaned to the City for a
considerable period of time, has been otherwise been relatively
unused. The Glenwood Springs Historical Society has indicated an
interest in maintaining for historical purposes a few of the ovens,
but have no desire to attempt the maintenance of all of the coke
ovens and it is the intention of the Applications, if the exemption
is granted, to level the area, except for the portion to be given,
free of cost, to the Historical Society, and install the necessary
facilities to operate commercially. It is the intention of the
Owners and Applicants to give to the Garfield County, to be leased
to the Historical Society, free of cost, an area approximately
described as Lot 2 on the preliminary plan attached as Exhibit A
above.
Unless the property is subdivided, it is of no particular
value.
I. The deed demonstrates the parcel exists at this time as
it did on May of 1962.
J. The fee is submitted herewith.
K. In connection herewith as a part of the Petition for
Exemption and as part of the agreement to give a portion thereof to
Garfield County , Applicants request that the County vacate that
portion of the County road which is located immediately East of the
entire property from the West line of the gas line as depicted upon
Exhibit E attached to the property line. The remaining County road
would be in excess of 60 feet and would be adequate to serve
whatever purposes the County and the City may have in the area for
the future. Attached as Exhibit E is a map prepared by Schmuesser
& Associates depicting a division which was not acceptable but
-2-
which does show the ownership and location of property surrounding
the parcel for which exemption is requested and indicates that
Cardiff, etc., is not within 200 feet of the proposal.
Respectfully presented this -- day of September, 1991.
ROBERT DELANEY
KENNETH BALCOMB
a Partnership
By
Kenneth Balcomb, General Partner
P.O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Tel: 303-945-6546
•
SMO 3 1 1992
f ARFjiaU COUNTY
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORDO
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION
Pursuant to C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-101 (1) (a) - (d) as
amended, and the Subdivision Regulation of Garfield County,
Colorado, adopted April 23, 1984 Section 2:20.49, the undersigned
ROBERT DELANEY and KENNETH BALCOMB respectfully petition the Board
of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, to exempt by
Resolution the division of 8.089 acres of land into four tracts of
approximately two acres each, more or less, from the definition of
"subdivision" and "subdivided land" as the terms are used and
defined in C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-101 (a) - (d) and the
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations for the reasons stated
below:
A. A sketch map marked Exhibit A at a scale of 1"=200'
showing the legal description of the property, dimension and area
of all lots or separate interests to be created, approximately, as
well as the fact that the property is adjacent to County road 163.
B. Attached as Exhibit B is a Xerox copy of a portion of
U.S.G.S. Quadrangle depicting the City of Glenwood Springs,
Colorado, and the location of the property known as the Coke Ovens
at Cardiff which is the property to be subdivided.
C. Attached as Exhibit C is a copy of the deed dated May 9,
1962 conveying the property to Applicants.
D. So far as Applicants can ascertain, the only property
owners within 200 feet of the proposed exemption are as follows:
Donald L. Vanhoose
Eva L. Vanhoose
0189 County Road 160
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Glenwood Ltd.
Attn: Eugene E. Lolli
2126 Ranch Drive
Westminster, CO 80234
Richard Allen Birk
Dixie Jo Birk
0068 160 Road
Glenwood Springs,
City of Glenwood Springs
816 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Diana Force
0160 Road 160
Glenwood Springs, CO
Four Mile Ranch Joint
0497 Sunny Acres Road
Glenwood Springs, CO
81601
Venture
81601
Grand River Construction
CO 81601 P.O. Box 1236
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dave Force
0160 Road 1670
Glenwood Springs,
Joseph R. Maynard
Phyllis K. Maynard
CO 81601 P.O. Box 511
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Rudd Aviation
0132 Park Avenue
Basalt, CO 81621
E. Site location map and the soil characteristic features
furnished by SCS and previously submitted and approved.
F. Since the proposal is to divide the property into
commercial lots to be used for either storage, vehicle parking and
maintenance, garages and the like, no water or sewage disposal is
necessary.
G. A letter from the office of the Water Division Engineer
indicates well water to be available if augmented, and that
augmentation by West Divide can be obtained.
H. As indicated by the attached copy of deed, the
Applicants have owned this property for a long time and during such
period of time the property has been subject to much vandalism,
overnight camping, and, in fact, being used as living quarters
creating health hazards. The taxes have repeatedly increased and
the property, except for the pistol range loaned to the City for a
considerable period of time, has been otherwise been relatively
unused. The Glenwood Springs Historical Society has indicated an
interest in maintaining for historical purposes a few of the ovens,
but have no desire to attempt the maintenance of all of the coke
ovens and it is the intention of the Applicants, if the exemption
is granted, to level the area, except for Lot 2, the portion to be
given, free of cost, to the Historical Society, and install the
necessary facilities to operate commercially.
Unless the property is subdivided, it is of no particular
value.
I. The deed demonstrates the parcel exists at this time as
it did on May of 1962.
J. The fee is submitted herewith.
K. The petition was presented on September 24, 1991 and a
hearing was not had until August 3, 1992. The conditional grant
outlined in a letter of August 5, 1992 from Dave Michaelson,
Planner, was unacceptable in many particulars, primarily because
most matters could be addressed at the building permit stage. The
-2-
• •
75 foot setback from the centerline of County Road 163 on the
northerly end of the tract, some 575 feet in length, 50 feet in
width, renders the parcel unusable and accounts to a taking. The
limitation of two access points in a 2700 +/- frontage is
unreasonable, especially in view of the 25 foot minimum frontage
required for access in ordinary situations.
Respectfully presented this 31st day of August, 1992.
ROBERT DELANEY
KENNETH BALCOMB
a Partnership
BY/ "9Y'-6.,/".
Kenneth Balcomb, General Partner
P.O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Tel: 303-945-6546
•
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
September 30, 1992
Mr. Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Regulatory Offices and Personnel
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Delaney/Balcomb Partnership Subdivision Exemption request
Section 27, T 6 S, R 89 W, 6TH P M
Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. McGregor:
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to split an eight acre parcel into four
parcels of two acres apiece. The City of Glenwood Springs Water District has been designated as
the source of water; however, no letter of commitment for service has been submitted. Information
in this submittal indicates that the District may have sufficient water resources to serve this
development. We recotmend approval contingent upon the developer obtaining a written
conunitment for service from the District.
We find that we do not have current information in our files regarding the District's water
supply capability. Therefore, in order to facilitate future reviews of subdivisions to be supplied by
the City of Glenwood Springs Water District, we are requesting that the District provide to you and
to this office the following information:
1. A summary of water rights owned or controlled by the District.
2. The yield of these rights both in an average and a dry year.
3. The present demand on the system and the anticipated demand due to commitments
for service entered into by the District.
4. The amount of uncommitted firm supply the District has available for future
development.
5. A map of the service area.
•
Andrew McGregor Page 2
September 30, 1992
We request that you forward a copy of this letter to the City of Glenwood Springs Water
District, as we have no record of their mailing address. Please feel free to contact this office if you
have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
JvL)
John Schiffer, P.E.
Senior Water Resource Engineer
JS/jd
delaney.rev
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
Bruce DeBrine
City of Glenwood Springs Water District
�i ai�V�_ P✓'\ i
•
Vendor Agreement with Garfield County, Colorado, to be Effective
September 30, 1992 to September 30, 1993.
Mike Copp reported that the City has entered into this program for the last
six or seven years. This program is an assistance program to low income people
to help with their electric fees to the City. It does not cost the City
anything.
Councilmember Zanella moved, seconded by Councilmember Tripp, to adopt
Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1992.
A roll call vote was taken.
AYES: Jeung, Zanella, Tripp, Schiesser, Trapani, and O'Leary
NAPES: None
ABSTAIN: None.
ITEM NO. 13 Request from Frontier Historical Society for Assistance in
Preserving the Cardiff Coke Ovens.
Dennis Pretti greated Council and reported that the Society has been thrust
into an interesting position. Three years ago, the Society was approached by
Ken Balcomb and Bob Delaney, who own the coke ovens property adjacent to the old
Cardiff Townsite. The proposal was that they would like to do something with
the property and wanted to know if the Society was interested insofar as their
deeding, to the Society, a portion of the coke ovens on the property. Of
course, the Society would like to see that done and went out to identify those
ovens that are in a little better condition. Nothing happened for a couple of
years, but earlier this year, Balcomb and Delaney went before the County
Commissioners to request an exemption to the subdivision requirements to parcel
off the coke oven property into four sites, one of which would be deeded to the
Historical Society. The request has fallen victim to both County development
regulations and, of course, the City's concern of adequate water and fire
protection to that site. The Commissioners did not want to make a decision on
the request and an extension was given. Mr. Balcomb commented that if anyone in
the community wanted to see the entirety of the ovens preserved, he would be
amenable to either sell or trade the property for other property. The reason
the Society had not been pressing for the acquisition of the entire coke oven
property, was just lack of funding. This is a valuable historic site and easily
the longest array of coke ovens representing a lot of Glenwood history. The
Society's attitude is, not only seeing the coke ovens restored, but also to use
this as a historical park with an effort being made to point out the
significance of the coal mining industry to the valley and our community.
Staff, in expressing their concerns to the County, has expressed an interest in
the preservation of the coke oven site. Given the 60 day window, the Society
felt this would be an appropriate time to approach Council to see if there is an
opportunity to enter some type of negotiations with the landowners.
Councilmember Trapani asked what kind of financing the project requires.
Mr. Pretti stated that an appraisal would probably have to be done. The
landowners may trade or swap the property, but there seems to be an impasse as
to whether they would be granted an exemption and allowed to put up a
construction yard on the property. If that were allowed, the deeding of a
portion (Lot 2) would be accomplished.
10/1/92 18
Councilmember Schiesser noted that there is really nothing wrong with poles
being removed. Councilmember Trapani suggested the poles stay as they are until
an arrangement can be made.
Councilmember Jeung asked how many property owners would have to be
involved. Robin Millyard replied that there are three owners: Priscilla, Dean
Moffat, and Rob Chapmas; as well as some owners at the lower part of the hill.
Mr. Millyard added that the service poles would remain if they chose not to
underground their service, but there wouldn't be wire running from pole to pole.
Mayor O'Leary asked that a report on negotiations come back to Council at
the first meeting in November.
ITEM NO. 10 Consideration of Resolution No. 92-19, A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Approving the
Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF) Contract L-10-93.
Chief Williams reported the City has been awarded by the State of Colorado,
for the third year in a row, a LEAF grant for DUI enforcement assistance in the
City. Pursuant to the grant rules, and because this is the City's third year,
the City cannot receive a grant next year, but can reapply in 1994 for another
three years.
Councilmember Zanella moved, seconded by Councilmember Schiesser, to
approve Resolution No. 92-19.
Mayor O'Leary noted that Glenwood Springs has been very active and
pro -active in this matter and congratulated Chief Williams and his force in the
matter of DUI enforcement.
A roll call vote was taken.
AYES: O'Leary, Jeung, Zanella, Tripp, Schiesser, and Trapani
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None.
ITEM NO. 11 Consideration of Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, An Ordinance
of the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Amending the Time for
Installation of Public Improvements in Conjunction with
Developments and Subdivisions.
Mayor O'Leary reported that Chris Daly recommended this item be removed
from the agenda.
Mayor O'Leary moved, seconded by Councilmember Tripp, to remove this item
from the agenda.
The motion passed by a majority vote of the Council.
ITEM NO. 12 Consideration of Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1992, An Ordinance
of the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Authorizing the City
Manager to enter into a Low Income Energy Assistance Program
10/1/92 17
•
Councilmember Schiesser stated that, if this could be worked out, she would
like to see the ovens refurbished to their original forms. Mr. Pretti replied
that the Society is not particularly interested in developing this site, to
leave things as they are, but if becoming involved, use as a historical park by
pointing out what the ovens were for and how they fit into the whole scheme of
things with the coal mines, the Midland Railroad and all that was involved in
the valley at that particular time. The Society would be willing to research
and put together displays, signs, etc. that would depict what was happening at
that time.
Mayor O'Leary asked what should be done within the 60 -day window, and who
would do it? Mr. Pretti said the Society's ability to acquire the site is out
of the question, but they would assist in spearheading any effort to undertake
such an effort. The acquisition would have to be done in a manner that
ultimately the City would acquire ownership of the property. Of course, the
City has a considerable amount of property at the airport now. In fact,
property across from a portion of the ovens is presently owned by the City.
Mayor O'Leary asked if the current owners are open to an appraised value,
or do they have a certain speculative value that they are looking at. Mr.
Pretti said he can't answer that question, but at the last Commissioner's
meeting, that sentiment was expressed by Ken Balcomb. Whether he would be
amenable to a side appraisal and negotiation based on that figure, Mr. Pretti
couldn't say. Mayor O'Leary asked if they might share in an appraisal. Mr.
Pretti said, in all honesty, he would be reluctant to acquire the property
through an outright purchase, but the idea of exchanging land intrigued him.
The property owners would probably be willing to share some of the expense in
determining the value of the site.
Mayor O'Leary suggested Council empower Mr. Pretti to talked to Mr. Balcomb
regarding steps to be taken to establish a value (not an AMI appraisal) so
Council can look at what they are dealing with. The City's portion of a local
realtor's opinion will not exceed $300.00. Mr. Pretti said he would carry that
message back to Mr. Balcomb.
Councilmember Zanella asked for clarification as to whether the landowners
agreed to donating 25% of the ovens for a park. Mr. Pretti said the original
plan called for dividing that lengthy piece of property into four lots, three of
which would be used for commercial purposes, one of which would be used as the
preserved coke ovens. The other ovens would be destroyed and removed. He has
not seen the plans, so he does not know if they are all evenly -sized lots.
Mayor O'Leary asked if the landowners would be open to petitioning the City
to annex and deal with the City with regard to the subdivision and dedication of
the park land. Mr. Pretti replied, possibly. He knows there has been some
conversation about that, but there are reservations because of the water.
Councilmember Schiesser asked, because of the unique kind of preservation
this would be, are there any grant funds available. Mr. Pretti replied that a
portion of the limited stakes gambling are to be used for historical
10/1/92 19
preservation, but whether those funds would be available for acquisition of a
piece of property, is not known at this time.
Mike Copp asked if there is a piece of the City's property the landowners
are looking at. Mr. Pretti said, if there is, that was not spelled out.
Councilmember Schiesser suggested handing this matter to Mr. Pretti to' help
Mike Copp negotiate with the landowners.
ITEM NO. 14. Discussion of Resolution Establishing a Transportation Oversight
Group of the Roaring Fork Forum.
Leslie Klusmire reported that this is a proposal from the Roaring Fork
Forum. The City is now working with the Colorado Department of Transportation
on looking at a valley -wide transportation concept. The Department wanted to
set up a Forum group that would work with CDOT and then have individual special
interest groups report to that Transportation Oversight Group.
Councilmember Tripp requested Greg Jeung be appointed to the group on
behalf of the City.
Councilmember Schiesser asked if the group is intending to establish an
office in the Roaring Fork area. Councilmember Tripp stated that they already
have established an office.
Councilmember Jeung asked if there Council should appoint someone from
staff. Mike Copp said that Councilmember Jeung could serve the group, and staff
could give the support Councilmember Jeung feels is necessary. The Forum
prefers elected officials.
Mayor O'Leary moved, seconded by Councilmember Tripp, to adopt Resolution
No. 92-21, Establishing a Transportation Oversight Group, to include the
appointment of Mr. Jeung as the City's representative.
A roll call vote was taken.
AYES: Zanella, Tripp, Schiesser, Trapani, O'Leary, and Jeung
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion passed.
ITEM NO. 15 Citizens Appearing Before Council.
There was no citizen present who wished to address the Council.
ITEM NO. 16 Report from City Administration.
Mike Copp reported the City sent a letter to Unocal, who responded through
Jim Lochhead, that they want the City to take the ball and make an offer. The
City is currently in the process of interviewing MAI's for getting the appraisal
10/1/92 20
ROY ROMER
Governor
�18
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
WATER DIVISION V
Orlyn J. Bell
Division Engineer
P.O. Box 396
)6d2ifxmxklitAxmit 50633 US Hwy 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
(303) 945-5665
November 25, 1992
Ken Balcomb
Delaney & Balcomb, P.C.
P 0 Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Ken:
1 1.
HAROLD (HAL) D. SIMPSON
State Engineer
This letter is in regard to your questions concerning water availability
for the coke oven property. The property is in a section of the Roaring Fork
Valley alluvium, the diversions from which can be replaced by releases from
Ruedi Reservoir. This is commonly done by contracting with the West Divide
Water Conservancy District for the replacement water required for non-exempt
wells. The persons to contact from West Divide would be Carl Bernklau,
president, or Russell George, attorney.
OJB/nch
Sincerely,
(2(/
Orlyn J. Be
Division Engineer
1992
SOav0NV1$ A3Van33V dVIN lVNO11VN HUM $311d1YO3 dVv+
• ..o s I o uvi
00Va010:I
S LIgIHX�
133HS AO 831N33 1Y NOILYNI1330
H1iON DI13N•JYN 1961 ONY OIND run
pa,fpaq'un sl or,
a,a4M saw,
13A31 V]S NV3W SI V flIYO
Saf1O1N00 lUOJ OL 1N3S38a38 S3N11 031100
1333 OP 1VA831N1 MflO1NOO
8313N0101 1
s -ow 89Z
S11N9Z
0
.BZ.I
au02 le,luaD'L
1333 000L 0009 0009 0001? 000E 0002
0001
0
0001
TUN I
£,LI
'IW 1£ N3d SV
w
6? J7VSVB
0
000 tql 3110S
z
Nty
N9
3N Al Z9S0
4332/3 3711431
AanJns le3I oho
0011 AZ 41333 00008P 1 86t
I'9 I
1• `" •5 . i .
r_ L `•• j
asmo3 ❑03 \ ,
s2uI,IS poOMuaio I'
\�
� ni
tr"
Book
Filed for record the 2 day a NatA. D. ag
15k25
iE Hifi),
Nm 2223.69
Chas. S. Keenan
lanotu all lett bp thest itirevento, That I, L. S. WOOD
RECORDER
of the the County of Cook and State of ni LIMAN for the
Consideration of
TEN...1m,LA RS AND QTHER VALUABLE CONS IDE RAT ION IftrfAnk-RSIT
in hand paid, hereby sell and convey to ROBERT DELANEY and KENNETH BALCOMB
of the County of Garfield and the State of Color ado , the
following real property situate in the County of Garfield and State of Colorado, to -wit:
That certain tract of land in Section 27, Tp. 6 S. R. 89 W. of the '
Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows:
Commenting at a point on the east boundary line of the Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SEh of NWh) Of Section Twenty-seve!i
(27) where a line one hundred (100) feet southwesterly froM, and
parallel to, the center Of the main line of the Colorado -Midland
Railway (as said Railway existed on the 5th day of duly, A.b. 1895),
would intersect said east boundary lihdf thence southeasterly along 1
aline one hundred (100) feet from, acid parallel to, the center
line of said Railway five hUndred seVenty-five (575) feet to.a point
thence southwesterly at a right angle to the center line Of said
Railway one hundred (100) feet to a tidbit; thence southeasterly two
hundred (200) feet from and parallel td the center line of said
Railway two thousand ninety-three (200J) feet to a point on the
1 „
south boundary of the Northwest Quartet of the Southeast Quarter
I (NWSE4). of said Section Twenty-deveh (27): thettte east along said
" south boundary of the Northwest Quarter of the SoUtheast Quarter
(NW4 of sEh) of Section Twenty-seven (27) one hundred fifty (150)
feet to a point: thence northwesterly fifty (50) feet from and
parallel to the center line of said Railway two thousand eight
i hundred twenty-three (2,823) feet td a.tioiht which is oh the east
'boundary of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest'Quarter (sEh of
h Nwh) Of said Section Twenty-seven (27): thence sohth and along said
east boundary of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
I
(SE h of NWh) of said Section Twenty -Seven (27) sixty-two (62) feet
to place of beginning, containing seven and eighty-nine hundredths
(7.89) acres, more or less.
, with all its appurtenances and warrant the title to the samel.exce,pt taxes for 156,
payable in 1963.,...prior_.resetvations...irt...patents.,...prior...reservations.
of oil, gas, and other minerals, and easements and tights -of -way now
in_existence..
• !• Signed and delivered this day of May
• THE PRESENCE OF , AL t1.1.9 62
County �t Cook:
r • •
C.•
I:IU 0L ;F •If acting in official or representative capacity, insert name and also oflioe or capacity and for whom acting.
5' WAERANTY DEED Stet Frinting and Stationery Co. toiorado Springs. Colorado
by*
Witness my hand and official eal.
My commission expires My Commiss
"I" A t? ,
,The foregoing itistriitneht was acknowledged before pie this
L. S. Wood.
day of May
ti Expires
&L22,. l32
Notary Public
108
TABLE 8. --SANITARY FACILITIES
SOIL SURV.,
[Some terms that describe restrictive soil features are defined in the Glossary. See text for definitions or
"slight," "moderate," "good," "fair," and other terms. Absence of an entry indicates that the soil was
not rated]
Soil name and
map symbol
Septic tank
absorption
fields
I Sewage lagoon
areas
Trench
sanitary
landfill
Area 1 Daily cover
sanitary I for landfill
landfill
:Poor:
slope.
1 :Severe: :Severe: Severe:
Almy Variant I slope, I slope. ; slope.
I percs slowly. ;
2*: 1
Arle ;Severe: ;Severe:
1 slope, 1 slope,
: depth to rock. : large stones.
: ;
, 1
Ansari :Severe: :Severe:
1 slope, 1 slope,
I depth to rock. 1 depth to rock.
1 :
. 1
Rock outcrop. :
3 :Severe: :Moderate: Moderate:
Arvada : percs slowly. I slope. too clayey.
1 ,
4 :Severe: ;Severe: Moderate:
Arvada 1 percs slowly. 1 slope. too clayey.
1 1
I I
: 1
5 :Slight ;Severe: Severe:
Ascalon , 1 seepage. seepage.
1
I 1
6 :Moderate: :Severe: Severe:
Ascalon ; slope. I slope, : seepage.
: : seepage.
:
7*: : ;
Ascalon :Moderate: :Severe: Severe:
: slope. I slope, seepage.
: : seepage.
I I
Pena :Severe: :Severe: :Severe:
: slope, I slope, : large stones.
I large stones. ; large stones. ;
1 1
1 i I
1 ; :
Atencio :Slight :Severe: :Severe:
: : seepage. 1 seepage.
I ; :
Azeltine :Severe: :Severe: :Severe:
large stones. 1 seepage, 1 seepage,
: 1 large stones. : large stones.
11
I 1 I
9*, 1
1
Badland ; 1 :
: 1
10 ;Moderate: :Severe: :Severe:
Begay 1 large stones. 1 seepage. ; seepage.
I I 1
11 :Moderate: :Severe: :Severe:
Begay I slope, 1 slope, ; seepage.
: large stones. 1 seepage. 1
12*: ; i ;
Bucklon :Severe: :Severe: :Severe:
: depth to rock, 1 depth to rock, I depth to
I slope, I slope. 1 slope.
1 percs slowly. 1
1 1
1 I 1
Severe:
slope,
depth to rock.
Severe:
slope,
depth to rock.
See footnote at end of table.
:Severe:
I slope.
:Severe:
I slope.
:Severe:
: slope.
:Slight
:Moderate:
; slope.
,
1
:Severe:
I seepage.
:Severe:
: seepage.
:Severe:
: seepage.
:Severe:
: slope.
:Slight
:Severe:
1 seepage.
Severe:
seepage.
:Severe:
: seepage.
:Severe:
rock, 1 slope.
:Poor:
1 slope,
large stones,
area reclaim.
;Poor:
I slope,
I thin layer,
area reclaim.
:Fair:
: too clayey.
:Fair:
I slope,
I too clayey.
:Good.
1
:Fair:
1 slope.
1
;Fair:
slope.
:Poor:
slope,
: large stones.
;Severe:
: large stones.
:Poor:
I seepage,
I large stones.
:Fair:
: large stones.
:Fair:
slope,
: large stones.
:Poor:
thin layer,
: slope,
area reclaim.
RIFLE F
Soi
m,
12*:
Incha
13----
Chilt
14----
Chilt
15----
Chilt
16----
Cimar
17---
Coche
18*:
Coche
Jerr;
19*:
Coch
Jerr
20*.
Crya
21*:
Cush
Laze
22 ---
Date
23 --
De t1
24*:
Dol.
SOIL SURVEY
134
TABLE 13. --ENGINEERING INDEX PROPERTIES
[The symbol < means less than; > means more than. Absence of an entry indicates that data were not estimated]
;Depth;
Soil name and ;Depth; USDA texture
map symbol
1
; Tn I
1 1 0-8 ;Loam
Almy Variant 18-34;Clay loam
134-60lFlaggy clay
1 loam, flaggy
1 1 loam.
I 1
2*: 1 1
Arle 1 0-101Very stony loam
110-32;Very stony loam,
1 very stony
I sandy loam.
32 ;Weathered
1 bedrock.
Ansari 1 0-101Loam ;CL -ML,
1 SM -SC
110-181Loam, stony loamlCL-ML,
SM -SC
1 18 ;Unweathered 1
' ---
bedrock. 1
I
; ; 1
Rock outcrop. 1 1
I I 1
3, 4 1 0-3 ;Loam ;CL -ML
Arvada 13-17;Clay, silty clay1CL:, CH
1 loam. 1
117-601Clay loam, silty CL
1 1 clay loam.
Classification 1Frag- 1 Percentage passing
;ments 1 sieve number --
Unified 1 AASHTO ;> 3 1 I 1
; ;inches; 4 1 10 1 40 200
1 1 Pct ; ; ;
; ; ; ; ;
CL -ML ;A-4 1 0-5 190-100190-100180-95 50-75
CL ;A-6 ; 0-5 185-100185-100175-95 65-85
CL 1A-6 25-35 175-90 175-90 160-80 50-70
1 ; ; 1 1
I
1 1
, 1I
1 I I
; ;
SM, GM, 1A-4 25-40 160-85 155-80 145-70 135-55
ML 1 1 1 1 1
GM, SM ;A-2, A-1130-60 40-70 ;40-70 ;35-55 ;20-35
1 I ; I I
11 I I
I I I I I
I I
I
,
5, 6
Ascalon
7*:
Ascalon
Pena
8*:
Atencio
1 0-5 ;Fine sandy loam
1 5-301Sandy clay loam
130-601Sandy loam,
1 sandy clay
1 loam, fine
1 sandy loam.
; I
I I
1 0-5 ;Fine sandy loam
1 5-301Sandy clay loam
130-60lSandy loam,
1 sandy clay
1 1 loam, fine
I sandy loam.
1
1 0-121Stony loam
112-601Very stony loam,
1 very stony
sandy loam.
1 0-11 Sandy loam
111-23 Gravelly sandy
1 clay loam,
1 sandy clay
1 loam.
123-28 Gravelly sandy
clay loam,
1 gravelly sandy
1 loam.
128-60 Sand, gravel,
1 and cobbles.
1
See footnote at end of table.
SM
SC, CL
;SC,
SM -SC,
CL,
CL -ML
;SM
ISC, CL
1SC,
1 SM -SC,
1 CL,
1 CL -ML
1CL-ML
;GM
1 i ; I
1A-4 1 5-15 175-100175-90 170-80 145-65 1 20-30 1 5-10
1
i 1 ' 1 1 1 1
I 1 1
1A-4 115-35 175-95 ;75-90 170-80 145-65 1 20-30 1 5-10
1 1 1 1 1 1
I,
1--- 1--- 1--- 1--- 1 1
1 --- 1I
1 1 1
I I 1 1 1
1 1 ; 1 I 1
1
1 ; I
I 1
1 1
; ; ; I 1 1
1A-4 1 0 190-100190-100185-95 160-75 1 15-25 1 5-10
1A-7 1 0 ;80-100175-100;70-100165-95 1 40-65 1 20-35
I 1 1
� 1 � I { I I �
;A-7 1 0 180-100;75-100;70-100;55-80 1 40-45 1 20-25
; ; ; ; ;
I
95-100190-100170-95 125-50
IA -6 0 195-100190-100 80-100140-55
1A-4, A-6 0 195-100195-100 75-95 135-65
1
,
1 1 1
1 ,
1 1 1 1
1 ; 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1A-2, A-4 0 95-100190-100 70-95 125-50
1A-6 0 95-100190-100180-100140-55
1A-4, A-6 0 95-100195-100175-95 135-65
!Liquid
limit
Pct
Plas-
ticity
index
10-20
30-40
20-30
5-1U
10-20
10-15
NP
NP
IA -2, A-4 0
1 i 11
1 1 I
1 1 1 1
,
1 1 ; 1
1A-4 5-20 75-90 175-85 170-75 150-60
1A-1, 35-75 40-75 135-70 130-65 120-50
1 A-2, 1 1 1
1 1
1 A-4 ;
1
I 1 ; 1
I
1 , 1 I 1
SM 1A-2 0-5 75-100175-100150-65 120-30
SC 1A-2, A-6 0-5 65-90 150-90 135-65 125-45
I ; ; I
1 1
; 1 1
1 1 1
I , I I 1
SM -SC 1A-2 1 5-10 150-80 150-75 140-65 115-30
' 1 I 1 1
,
1 1 ; 1
I
1
1A-1
SP, GP,
SP -SM,
GP -GM
1 1 1
30-60 140-60 135-55 110-35 1 0-10 NP
1 1
1 1 1
1
1 1 1
15-25 1 NP -5
20-40 1 10-20
20-40 1 5-15
15-25 1 NP -5
20-40 1 10-20
20-40 1 5-15
20-40 5-20
20-30 NP -5
15-20 NP -5
20-30 , 10-15
15-25 1 5-10
• •
RIFLE AREA, COLORADO 141
TABLE 14. --PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS
[The symbol < means less than; > means more than. Entries under "Erosion factors --T" apply to the entire
profile. Entries under "Organic matter" apply only to the surface layer. Absence of an entry indicates
that data were not available or were not estimated]
Soil name and :Depth;Clay <2mm; Permeability :Available; Soil :Salinity;
map symbol : : ; : water ;reaction: '
I I :capacity : :
: In : Pct In/hr : In/in 1 Et :mmhos/cm:
1 1
I , , 1
1 : 0-8 : 20-25 0.6-2.0 ;0.16-0.19:7.4-7.8 ; <2
Almy Variant : 8-34: 30-35 0.2-0.6 ;0.18-0.20:7.4-8.4 ; <2
134-60: 20-35 0.6-2.0 10.13-0.15:7.9-8.4 ; <2
1
, ; 1
2* : : :
Arle 0-10: 15-25 0.6-2.0 :0.07-0.09:7.4-8.4 ; <2
10-321 10-25 0.6-2.0 10.06-0.0917.9-8.4 : <2
32 : - - - - - -
• I
I I
Ansari : 0-10 18-25 0.6-2.0 :0.10-0.13:7.9-8.4 ; <2
110-18 16-20 0.6-2.0 10.08-0.1217.9-8.4 : <2
: 18 --- --- 1 --- : ---
I
1 , 1
Rock outcrop. ; ; : :
; : : ;
3, 4 : 0-3 15-27 : 0.6-2.0 :0.16-0.18: >7.9
Arvada : 3-17 35-45 : 0.06-0.2 :0.07-0.09: >8.4
:17-60 28-40 : 0.06-0.2 :0.09-0.111 >7.8
11
1 1 1 I I
5, 6 : 0-5 : 10-20 : 0.6-6.0 :0.11-0.16:6.6-7.8
Ascalon : 5-301 20-30 : 0.6-2.0 :0.13-0.15:6.6-7.8
:30-60 15-25 1 0.6-6.0 10.11-0.1517.9-8.4
11
1 1 1 I
7': 1 1
Ascalon ; 0-5 10-20 : 0.6-6.0 :0.11-0.16:6.6-7.8
1 5-301 20-30 : 0.6-2.0 10.13-0.1516.6-7.8
:30-601 15-25 : 0.6-6.0 10.11-0.1517.9-8.4
1 I 1 :
Pena 0-12: 15-25 : 0.6-2.0 :0.12-0.1517.4-7.9
12-60 15-25 : 0.6-2.0 10.03-0.0817.9-8.4
1
1 1
8*: : : :
Atencio 0-11 10-20 : 2.0-6.0 :0.12-0.14:7.4-7.8
11-23: 20-30 : 0.6-2.0 10.11-0.1317.4-7.8
123-28: 15-25 : 2.0-6.0 10.07-0.09:7.9-8.4
128-601 0-2 : 6.0-20 10.03-0.0517.9-8.4
1i
, 1 I I I
Azeltine : 0-18; 10-20 : 2.0-6.0 :0.08-0.12:7.9-8.4
:18-60: 0-2 ; >6.0 :0.03-0.05:7.4-8.4
1 1
I 1 1 I
9*. ; : 1
1
Badland : : :
1
11 1 ,
I 1 1 1
10, 11 1 0-141 10-18 1 2.0-6.0 0.12-0.14:6.6-8.4
Begay :14-24: 10-20 1 2.0-6.0 0.12-0.15;7.4-8.4
124-601 10-15 : 2.0-6.0 0.08-0.1117.4-8.4
11
1 1 1 ,
12*: : : :
,
Bucklon : 0-5 : 20-27 : 0.06-0.2 :0.17-0.20:6.1-7.3
1 5-15; 20-35 1 0.06-0.2 10.16-0.18:6.1-7.3
: 15 1 --- : --- 1 --- : ---
: 1 1 11
Inchau 1 0-3 1 15-27 : 0.6-2.0 10.16-0.18 6.1-7.8
: 3-361 20-35 1 0.6-2.0 :0.11-0.15 6.1-7.8
; 36
1 ; : :
13, 14, 15 : 0-131 10-20 1 0.6-2.0 10.12-0.1417.9-8.4
Chilton 113-60: 10-18 1 2.0-6.0 :0.07-0.09:7.9-8.4
1 1 1 : 1
16 1 0-4 1 10-25 1 0.6-2.0 10.16-0.18:6.6-7.8
Cimarron 1 4-601 35-45 1 0.06-0.2 :0.14-0.1616.6-7.8
: 1 1 1 :
See footnote at end of table.
Erosion :
Shrink -swell : factors ;Organic
potential : : : matter
; K : T :
1 : : Pct
I I
I : I
Low 0.28: 5 : 3-5
Moderate 0.32: :
Low 0.32:
1
Low :0.10: 2 : 2-4
Low :0.10:
I ,
: I 1
Low
Low
1
;0.15: 1 : 2-4
;0.15: :
1
1 I
I I
I I
I 1
I ,
<4 Low :0.32: 5 :0.5-1
<4 :High :0.32: ;
<8 High :0.32: :
, 1 1
<2 :Low :0.17: 5 ; 1-3
<2 Moderate :0.24: 1
<2 'Low :0.24; ;
1
1 1 1
<2 Low :0.17: 5 : 1-3
<2 :Moderate :0.24:
<2 Low :0.24: :
1 , I
I : I
<2 ;Low :0.28: 3 : 1-3
2-4 Low 0.24:
1 I 1
I 1
<2 1Low 0.24: 3 : 2-4
<2 Moderate 0.171 :
<2 Low 0.101 :
<2 ,Low 0.10: :
1
<2 :Low :0.10: 2 : 2-4
<2 ,Low :0.10:
:
I :
1
, 1 I
1 1 :
<2 :Low :0.24: 5 10.5-1
<2 Low :0.32: 1
<2 Low 10.321
,
1 1
<2 Moderate 10.321 1 : 2-5
<2 Moderate :0.37: 1
I
1 1
--- I
1
1 1 I
<2 :Low 10.321 3 1 2-5
<2 Low :0.28: 1
1 :
<2 ILow :0.28: 5 :0.5-2
<2 'Low :0.15: :
1 1
I
<2 Low :0.37: 5 2-4
<2 'High :0.32:
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
STATE OF
• •
September 30, 1992
Mr. Andrew McGregor
Garfield County Regulatory Offices and Personnel
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Delaney/Balcomb Partnership Subdivision Exemption request
Section 27, T 6 S, R 89 W, 6TH P M
Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. McGregor:
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to split an eight acre parcel into four
parcels of two acres apiece. The City of Glenwood Springs Water District has been designated as
the source of water; however, no letter of commitment for service has been submitted. Information
in this submittal indicates that the District may have sufficient water resources to serve this
development. We recommend approval contingent upon the developer obtaining a written
commitment for service from the District.
We find that we do not have current information in our files regarding the District's water
supply capability. Therefore, in order to facilitate future reviews of subdivisions to be supplied by
the City of Glenwood Springs Water District, we are requesting that the District provide to you and
to this office the following information:
1, A summary of water rights owned or controlled by the District.
2. The yield of these rights both in an average and a dry year.
3. The present demand on the system and the anticipated demand due to commitments
for service entered into by the District.
4. The amount of uncommitted firm supply the District has available for future
development.
5. A map of the service area.
• a
Andrew McGregor Page 2
September 30, 1992
We request that you forward a copy of this letter to the City of Glenwood Springs Water
District, as we have no record of their mailing address. Please feel free to contact this office if you
have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
J,4,,,,,)
,L, ,..,
John Schurer, P.E.
Senior Water Resource Engineer
JS/jd
delaney.rev
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
Bruce DeBrine
City of Glenwood Springs Water District
• •
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on September 1, 1992, I mailed the
attached notice at the United States Post Office, postage prepaid,
by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following named
property owners adjacent to or within 200 feet of the exemption
site, to -wit:
Donald L. Vanhoose
Eva L. Vanhoose
0189 County Road 160
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Glenwood Ltd.
Attn: Eugene E.
2126 Ranch Drive
Westminster, CO 80234
Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture
0497 Sunny Acres Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Grand River Construction
P.O. Box 1236
Lolli Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Richard Allen Birk
Dixie Jo Birk
0068 160 Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
City of Glenwood Springs
806 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Diana Force
0160 Road 160
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dave Force
0160 Road 1670
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Rudd Aviation
0132 Park Avenue
Basalt, CO 81621
Joseph R. Maynard
Phyllis K. Maynard
P.O. Box 511
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
The receipts for Certified Mail reflecting date of mailing
are attached hereto, together with the return -receipts.
•
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
SEP 1 8 1992
couNTy
I hereby certify that on September 3, 1992, I posted the Public Notice concerning
the Delaney/Balcomb Partnership application to appeal Subdivision Exemption decision in
connection with a tract of land in Section 27, T. 6 S., R. 89 W. of the 6th P.M. (coke ovens)
by placing the Notice poster upon the property, which poster was visible from County Road.
160.
l
DONALD F. GILLESI'1E
2
Exhibit I
Delaney - Balcomb Partnership Subdivision Exemption
Vicinity Map & Surrounding Zoning
'109 cam w
■fib' V. 1N1-1701
• �0
C/G
tw ar
Q
0
0
0
1 G -O?
A/R/RD
-Of
u Exempt
1
4
0
o. 1
t
C/G
—27-
CITY of GLENW0OO
r.? E.0w,r
North
GARFIELD COUNTY •
REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
August 5, 1992
Mr. Robert Delaney
Mr. Kenneth Balcomb
P.O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Mr. Delaney and Mr. Balcomb:
During their August 3rd regular meeting, the Garfield County Board of County
Commissioners conditionally granted your application for a Subdivision Exemption. The
conditions the Commissioners placed on your project are as follows:
1.) Approval of the proposed water supply to serve the lots will be obtained from either the
City of Glenwood Springs (central water) or the Division of Water Resources (wells)
prior to the recording of a Final Exemption Plat.
2.) A letter from the appropriate fire district addressing the potential to provide fire
protection on the site must be submitted to the County prior to the recording of a Final
Exemption Plat.
3.) Percolation tests will be required, prior to the recording of a Final Exemption Plat to
determine the feasibility of individual I.S.D.S. systems on each lot.
4.) All lots will be required to observe a 75' setback from the centerline of CR 163. The
setback shall be depicted on the Final Exemption Plat.
5.) Driveway accesses will be consolidated in the following manner: Lots 1 and 2 will be
allowed a single access, with Lots 3 and 4 to have a shared access. Easements necessary
to consolidate the access for Lots 3 and 4 will be depicted on the Final Exemption Plat.
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
•
August 5, 1992
Delaney & Balcomb
Page 2
6.) The applicants will deed Lot 2 directly to the Frontier Historical Society.
7.) The applicant shall have 120 days to complete the required conditions of approval.
Extensions of 120 days may be granted by the Board for a period of up to one (1) year.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
aAk—
Dave Michaelson
Planner
GARFIELD COUNTY
REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
August 31, 1992
Kenneth Balcomb, General Partner
Delaney/Balcomb Partnership
P.O. Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
RE: Subdivision Exemption
Dear Mr. Balcomb:
Your appeal of a Subdivision Exemption decision, located adjacent to the Glenwood Springs Airport,
has been scheduled for a public meeting before the Board of County Commissioners on September 21,
1992, at 10:30 a.m., in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Suite 301, Garfield County Courthouse,
109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. It is suggested that you be present at the time of the
meeting.
Copies of the enclosed exemption public notice form need to be mailed by certified return -receipt to
all property owners adjacent to or within 200 ft. of your property at least 15 days, but not more than
30 days, prior to the meeting. In addition, the notice needs to be mailed by certified return -receipt to
owners of mineral rights, or lessees of mineral owners of record of the land proposed for exemption,
at least 15 days, but not more that 30 days, prior to the meeting. The certificates of mailing and
return -receipts from these mailings need to be presented at the time of the meeting or submitted to the
Planning Department prior to the meeting. The exemption site must also be posted with the enclosed
Notice posters, visible from a County Road, at least 15 days, but not more than 30 days, prior to the
meeting. In order to comply with these requirements, the mailing and posting must be completed by
September 4, 1992. If you have further questions or concerns regarding the meeting or public notice
requirements, please contact this office.
Sin
David H. Michaelson
Planner
DHM/sa
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY
REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
December 21, 1992
Mr. Kenneth Balcomb
P.O. Box 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Mr. Balcomb:
On December 7, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners conditionally approved your
application for a subdivision exemption with the following conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless
otherwise stated by the applicant;
2. The applicant shall have 120 days to complete the required conditions of approval
(note: this time period began on December 7, 1992);
3. The following plat notes shall be included on the final exemption plat:
A. All lots are subject to the requirement of engineered wastewater systems. At the
time of Building Permit Application, proof will be required by a licensed
Colorado Engineer regarding specific wastewater system needs on each lot.
B. Lot 2 is approved for historic preservation purposes only, per applicant's written
and verbal representations.
4. All existing easements shall be depicted on the final exemption plat;
5. Proof of adequate and legal water supply, either in the form of West Divide Water
Conservancy District contracts or well permits issued by the State Engineer's Office, are
required prior to the recording of a final exemption plat;
6. Five (5) access points, at the external points of lots 1, 3, and 4, will be allowed.
1098TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 915-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
• •
Mr. Ken Balcomb
December 21, 1992
Page 2
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Singerel
Dave Michaelson
Planner
DHM/dhm
410 Ilk ,--6 _ 3 - cl
1 PUBLIC MEETING FOR A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION REQUEST; LOCATED ADJACENT TO
2 THE GLENWOOD SPRINGS AIRPORT. APPLICANT: DELANEY & BALCOMB
3 This is a request for exemption from the definition of Subdivision, for
4 a tract of land located in Section 27, T6S, R89W of the 6th P.M.;
5 located on C.R. 163 adjacent to the Glenwood Springs, Airport. Don
6 DeFord asked Mr. Delaney if he had properly contacted all the involved
7 owners. There was also a record of mineral owners of record required
8 for publication. Don indicated that it appears to be adequate based on
9 the receipts.
10 Entered for record were the following:
11 Exhibit "A" - Mail receipts
12 Exhibit "B" - Proof of Publication
13 Exhibit "C" - Staff Comments
14 Exhibit "D" - Letter to the Frontier Historical Society
15 Request that the property be split into 4 parcels. They range in size
16 from 1.6 to 2.4 acres in size. They intend to use them for commercial
17 lots specifically storage, vehicle parking etc. They are proposing
18 that lot 2 be given to Garfield County, to lease the property free of
19 charge to the Glenwood Historical Society. The remaining coke ovens on
20 lot 2 would remain for historical purposes. There is a concern as to
21 whether the Board can grant an exemption due to evidence of compliance
22 legal access to public right of way, adequate water and sewer, health
23 standards, improvements, fire protection, adequate easements and school
24 impact fees if applicable. There were water concerns, but it was
25 stated that there would be a well provided. They will also provide
26 further documentation. They stated that they would talk to the fire
27 protection district as to requirements. There will also be a
28 percolation test. Application was sent to the City of Glenwood
29 Springs.
30 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Exemption for Subdivision
31 request be granted under the following conditions:
32 1. That they provide further documentation concerning water
33 feasibility from the City of Glenwood Springs.
34 2. That they receive a letter from the fire protection district.
35 3. They do a percolation test.
36 4. They provide a plat note to the Frontier Historical Society at the
37 time of execution.
38 5. That it be set back 75 feet from the center line of County Road
39 163.
40 6. That 120 days be allowed for execution of conditions.
41 7. Exempt lot 2 as part of condition.
42 8. Combine 3 and 4 and with single access.
43 Commissioner Arbaney seconded the motion; carried.
44 PAYABLE CLAIMS AND PAYROLL EXPENDITURES
45 After discussion with Chuck regarding the bills for July, 1992 and the
46 July payroll expenditures, Commissioner Smith made a motion that the
47 payable claims against the County for 1st run of July, 1992 and the
48 payroll expenditures for the month of July, 1992 be approved and the
49 Chairman authorized to sign the resolution concerning these approvals.
50 Commissioner Arbaney seconded the motion; carried.
51 SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE BONDS
52 There was discussion by the Board concerning the selection of a
53 consultant. It was decided to accept a proposal from Jerry Kintzel at
54 Hanifen Imhoff, as it was more reasonable.
55 BUDGET
56 Commissioner Smith made a motion that Chuck will be the budget officer
57 for 1993. Commissioner Arbaney seconded the motion; carried.
58 CRYSTAL RIVER BRIDGE
59 Commissioner Smith a motion that the Chairman be authorized to sign the
60 documents for the Bridge grant for Crystal River. Commissioner Arbaney
61 seconded the motion; carried.
62 King stated that he had sent in an intent to proceed on June 23 for
63 $397,00.00.
Page 11
• •
1 Tuesday through Saturday. The revenue coming in will take care of the
2 expenses.
3 SALE OF PARACHUTE PROPERTY
4 The Commissioners directed Chuck to wait until after the election to
5 proceed with trying to sell the Parachute property.
6 USE OF SOUTH HALL AT FAIRGROUNDS FOR CHARITY AUCTION FOR
7 WILKERSON/ERICKSON FAMILY
8 The Commissioners agreed to waive the fees for a charity auction for
9 the Wilkerson/Erickson families to be held at the South Hall at the
10 Fairgrounds. They will take care of the insurance requirements.
11 COLORADO INITIATIVE GRANT FOR EXPO
12 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Board of County Commissioners
13 agrees to be the conduit for a Colorado Initiative Grant application
14 through U.S. West for the Expo at Rifle. Commissioner Arbaney seconded
15 the motion; carried.
16 ENERGY IMPACT GRANTS
17 Chuck stated that January is the deadline for Energy Impact Grant
18 applications. There was discussion about Mamm Creek road and the
19 consensus was to go to the Jenkins Cutoff, not Nuckolls.
20 PEST AND WEED MANAGEMENT REPORT
21 Dave Gallagher, Pest and Weed Manager, gave a report on the activities
22 of pest and weed management. Dave explained about mapping for weeds.
23 He works with the owner on a small area, furnishing them with a noxious
24 weed book and then shows them how to do the mapping. Dave gave a Field
25 Day update. Dave drafted a letter for a reply to State Representative
26 Entz' letter for the Board's approval. The Commissioners suggested
27 that he state that there are 134 landowners signed up with the
28 approximate acreage and state the public agencies that are working with
29 the County. BLM told Dave that the Washington office of BLM has set
30 aside funds specifically for weed management. BLM's priority is to get
31 inventory and mapping done of weeds. Dave stated that there were quite
32 a few Road & Bridge people coming to Field Day to learn more about
33 chemical mowing. Commissioner Smith suggested that Dave see if Steve
34 could video some events from the Field Day.
35 SPECIAL USE PERMIT -ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS /"
a�-��
36 Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Chairman be authorized to
37 sign Special Use Permit for Rocky Mountain Natural Gas. Commissioner
38 Arbaney seconded the motion; carried.
39 ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT OF SECTION 7.05 TO MODIFY NON -CONFORMING
40 USE LANGUAGE IN TERMS OF MOBILE HOMES AND REPLACEMENT OF THEM
41 After discussion, Commissioner Smith made a motion that that this zone
42 district text amendment for Section 7.05 for modification of
43 non -conforming use language in terms of mobile homes and replacement of
44 them be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration at their
45 October 14, 1992 meeting. Commissioner Arbaney seconded the motion;
46 carried.
47 PUBLIC HEARING FOR ABATEMENT FOR GLENWOOD CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE
48 Commissioner Arbaney made a motion that a public hearing be set for
49 October 5, 1992 at 10:45 A.M. for abatement for the Glenwood Church of
50 the Nazarene. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion/Ic��%%a �ied.
51 PUBLIC MEETING FOR A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION APPEAL; LOCATED ADJACENT TO
52 THE GLENWOOD SPRINGS AIRPORT -APPLICANT: DELANEY & BALCOMB
53 Don DeFord, County Attorney, stated that notice is required for public
54 meeting. Applicant gave Don proof of mailings to adjacent property
55 owners together with a list certifying the identity of the owners which
56 should be accepted as an exhibit. There is also a certificate of
57 posting. Dave Michaelson, Planner, requested that the following
58 exhibits be entered into the record:
59 Exhibit A - the certificate of posting
60 Exhibit B - certificate of mailing
61 Exhibit C - Staff report
62 Exhibit D - application
63 Exhibit E - 9/18/92 letter from Leslie Klusmire, City of
64 Glenwood Springs
Page 2
• •
1 Chairman Mackley entered Exhibits A through E into the record.
2 Dave explained that Mr. Delaney and Mr. Balcomb are requesting
3 subdivision exemption for an 8.9 acre parcel to be split into 4 parcels
4 ranging in size from 1.6 to 2.4 acres in size. The subject property is
5 commonly referred to the coke ovens at Cardiff are located on the north
6 side of C.R. 163 west of Glenwood Springs. The site is currently
7 undeveloped. The applicants intend on leveling the site, including the
8 existing coke ovens on lots 1, 3 and 4. Lot 2 which is approximately
9 1.6 acres in size is proposed to be given to the Historical Society.
10 The remaining coke ovens on lot 2 would be retained for historical
11 purposes. Correspondence from the applicant includes a reference to
12 the intention of the applicant to install the necessary facilities to
13 operate commercially the historic site. The specific commercial
14 facilities proposed by the applicant have not been specifically
15 identified.
16 Dave stated that the applicants are appealing the conditions of
17 approval that were granted by the Board on August 3, 1992. The
18 applicants stated that the conditions placed on the project are
19 unacceptable and in the case of the setback requirements represent a
20 taking. Staff contends that these conditions are valid and supported
21 by both Colorado law as well as Garfield County subdivision regulations
22 and zoning. Staff recommends that all these conditions remain in
23 place. Condition #1 All representations of the applicant shall be
24 considered conditions of approval unless otherwise stated by the
25 applicant. Condition #2 The applicant shall have 120 days to complete
26 the required conditions of approval. Extensions of 120 days may be
27 granted by the Board for a period of up to 1 year. Condition #3 The
28 following notes shall be included on the exemption plat: a. All lots
29 may be subject to the requirement of engineered waste water systems.
30 (There is no central sewage disposal system available for the proposed
31 site so an ISDS system will be required.) b. All lots will be
32 required to observe a 75' setback from the centerline of County Road
33 163. (Dave cited county regulations and case law to support this.)
34 c. Lot 2 is approved for historic preservation only per applicant's
35 verbal and written representations. Condition #4 All existing
36 easements shall be depicted on the exemption plat. Condition #5
37 Approval of the proposed water plan either from the City of Glenwood or
38 the Division of Water Resources will be submitted prior to the
39 recording of the final Exemption Plat. (Proof of legal and adequate
40 source of domestic water for each lot created.) Dave read a letter
41 from Leslie Klusmire of the City of Glenwood Springs stating: "Thank
42 you for keeping us informed of the ongoing proceeds of this development
43 application. The City remains firmly behind our position stated in the
44 July 27th letter regarding this and other similar projects. We have
45 had a number of developers who have proposed storage, mini -storage and
46 airplane hangar uses arguing that they did not need City water supply.
47 We have reviewed proposals to use an alternative source such as a
48 storage tank. We consider such development unacceptable and are of the
49 opinion that storage of materials is subject to fire danger and that
50 upgrading of water facilities so that customers in this area can be
51 appropriately served by City water is essential to all development.
52 Therefore, it has been the policy of the City, Council and other
53 similar requests to uphold resolution 89-5 for all development. Some
54 concerns have been raised by reported plans to raze the coke ovens. It
55 is our understanding that this is the longest string of historic coke
56 ovens in the State. We recognize their important role in our
57 locality's past. At the same time, we sympathize with the burden of
58 the private property owner who has possession of them. I would like to
59 make the property owners aware of new grant money from gambling
60 proceeds which is available for the purchase of historic properties and
61 other programs which may address their financial burden and preservethe
62 coke ovens for the community at the same time." Dave stated that the
63 Staff would be available to help the applicant if they do choose to
64 apply for grant money to offset their financial burden. Condition #6
65 A letter addressing fire protection from the appropriate fire
66 protection district will be submitted prior to the recording of the
67 final plat. Staff suggested that this condition be deleted as a letter
68 from Jim Mason is included that addresses the concerns Jim Mason had.
69 Condition #7 Driveway access will be consolidated in the following
70 manner: Lots 1 and 2 will be allowed a single access, with lots 3 and
71 4 to have a shared access. (This is due to potential traffic volumes
Page 3
411 110
1 that could be associated with the City's alternative route.) Condition
2 #8 Percolation tests will be required, prior to the recording of Final
3 Exemption Plat to determine the feasibility of ISDS on each lot. Staff
4 would recommend that this condition also be deleted assuming the
5 condition that is described in the plat notes under Condition #3 which
6 says all lots may be subject to the requirement of engineered waste
7 water systems remain. Staff would recommend that there be some verbage
8 included that at the time of building permit, the applicants would have
9 to provide some documentation from a Colorado licensed engineer that an
10 engineered waste water system will or will not be necessary.
11 Don stated that the map referred to needs to be accepted as an
12 Exhibit. Don stated that technically this is a new application, not an
13 appeal and must meet all the procedural requirements for a new
14 application.
15 Chairman Mackley entered the map into the records as Exhibit F.
16 Ken Balcomb stated that initially when he talked to Don DeFord about
17 dividing the property so that part of it could be preserved, he was
18 informed that the only way he could give the Historical Society or the
19 County to lease to the Historical Society was to get an exemption
20 permit or a prepare a subdivision plat. He stated that after the
21 Historical Society people had been at the site and had discussions,
22 they agreed with Mr. Balcomb that because of the limitation of funds,
23 the 12 to 15 ovens are about all they can take care of. The Historical
24 Society would have to have title before they can get grant money. Mr.
25 Balcomb said he was not going to make the application for grant money.
26 The Historical Society or someone else can apply for grant money if
27 they desire. Mr. Balcomb stated that he would like to see some of the
28 coke ovens preserved, but he does not want the property to sit there
29 idle. He stated that if a sewage system was necessary, he would do
30 that. Mr. Balcomb stated that he had no intention to sell the property
31 outside of his own personal property. He intends to utilize the
32 property for the same thing that Paul Rippy is using an identical piece
33 of property south of his. Paul has no water or sewage system and no
34 requirement for same. Mr. Balcomb expressed his concerns about paying
35 another application fee of $300.00 in order to address the Board about
36 what he feels are unreasonable restrictions on the use of the
37 property. Mr. Balcomb discussed his feelings regarding the need for a
38 water supply stating that he had no need for water for storage
39 facilities. Mr. Balcomb said that he could obtain a well permit but
40 would have to pay application fees, drill the well and use the water in
41 order to keep the water. He stated that the setback requirements are
42 not a problem. He discussed the 2700 feet of property facing the
43 county road and felt that 2 driveways for the four lots is not
44 adequate. Mr. Balcomb felt that the requirements were unreasonable and
45 he was not being treated fairly.
46 Janet Riley of the Frontier Historical Society stated that they were
47 interested in preserving the whole site; however, the funds and means
48 are not available to do this as it should be. Janet stated that there
49 are funds available for emergency rental of the property. They could
50 use these funds for a lease for a temporary basis to explore the
51 possibility of the State or some other office obtaining grant money for
52 the purchase. Janet stated that the Historical Society's use of lot 2
53 would be passive visitors with perhaps a small display. There would be
54 no water or sewage requirements for this type of use. They have
55 discussed fencing the site for protection from vandals or use by
56 transients. The Historical Society would prefer one driveway for the
57 lot. There is a lot of support from society members and the general
58 public to preserve at least part of the coke ovens.
59 Dennis Pretti as president of the Frontier Historical Society stated
60 that the term preservation not only implies leaving the site as it is
61 but doing remedial work to make sure further deterioration of the site
62 does not continue. The biggest problem is the cost that would be
63 necessitated to either preserve the site as it is or at some point to
64 restore some of the coke ovens to their original state. Dennis stated
65 that if site is left as it is without any attempts to preserve or
66 maintain it, there will eventually be nothing left there. The
67 Historical Society does not have the funds to maintain the whole site.
Page 4
• •
1 Dave explained that the Lester Colodny had requested a four lot
2 exemption on the property based on a physical separation which is a
3 slope that splits the property in half. Staff had recommended denial
4 for two reasons. The first is that a parcel had been created from the
5 parent parcel in 1984 by Court action. Based on Staff's interpretation
6 and discussion with the County Legal Staff, it was determined that he
7 was only eligible for three parcels. The code reads that four parcels
8 are allowed for the property as it existed in 1973. There was one
9 split. In addition, a lot that is physically separated by a physical
10 feature or a County Road may be created. Staff felt that even though
11 there were four dwelling units down there, Lester Colodny was only
12 eligible for three splits on the lower portion. There were also
13 questions about the existing well there. Dave stated that he and
14 Sherry had discussions with each other and with the State regarding the
15 wells. The State told Dave on Friday that they felt that three wells
16 could be put out there, each serving three dwelling units. Dave said
17 that water does not appear to be an issue. Dave sent a letter to
18 Lester Colodny on January 19, 1993 summarizing what happened at the
19 previous hearing. The Board instructed Lester Colodny to resolve two
20 issues; the first was the well issue and it has been addressed and
21 secondly the Board requested him to reconfigure the proposed exemption
22 to allow only three parcels.
23 Dave stated that the fact that there are four dwelling units there has
24 no bearing on the number of lots that are available.
25 Sherry explained to Don DeFord that they have decrees for three wells
26 on this parcel and they are exempt wells. There would only be two
27 wells used on the lower parcels and a well sharing agreement would be
28 necessary.
29 Lester stated that they did not do a second site plan yet. He stated
30 that they would like to ask again that with the existing topography and
31 the road system that services these houses. He discussed taking the
32 last house and having a bridge put over the creek and redoing the road.
33 Sherry explained that the reason Lester is in this predicament now is
34 because of something that was beyond his control where part of the
35 property was taken by the bank and foreclosed upon. Sherry said that
36 what he is seeking is to split the property to be able to sell off four
37 lots with existing houses. Sherry felt that the County could still
38 grant four lots because this was not something he had done previously.
39 Sherry said that Lester's goal was to have 4 lots for the 4 houses that
40 are existing.
41 Don Schleiger stated that he had talked to Jack Jones this morning and
42 he said stated he would send a letter stating this property is in the
43 Fire District and the District is able to provide fire protection
44 service. Jack Jones did make an on site protection.
45 Don DeFord explained that the regulations require that the lot line
46 fall on the road or terrain feature and it makes no provision for an
47 exception as to a Court -created lot. There was considerable discussion
48 about the number of lots. Don Schleiger said that there were three
49 natural features separating the land: the old train track, the creek
50 and the ridge.
51 The Board directed Lester Colodny to work with the Planning Staff so
52 that the lot lines fit with the intent of the law.
53 Commissioner Mackley made a motion that the meeting be continued to
54 March 8, 1993 at 3:00 P.M. Chairman Pro Tem Smith stepped down to
55 second the motion; carried. / _9
56 EXTENSION-DELANEY AND BALCOMB SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
57 Dave said that Ken Balcomb called and requested 120 days extension for
58 the Delaney and Balcomb Subdivision Exemption. They need the extension
59 to complete the paperwork with West Divide Water District.
60 Commissioner Smith made a motion that a 120 day extension be granted
61 for the Delaney and Balcomb Subdivision Exemption (Coke Oven Project).
62 Commissioner Mackley seconded the motion; carried.
Page 7
GARFIELD COUNTY
REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
June 22, 1993
Mr. Robert Delaney
Mr. Kenneth Balcomb
P.O. Box 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
RE: SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION EXTENSION REQUEST
Dear Mr. Delaney and Mr. Balcomb:
On June 14, 1993, the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners approved your request
for an extension of time for the submittal of a Final Exemption Plat. The Board approved a
120 day extension, which begins on June 14, 1993, and terminates on October 14, 1993.
Additional extensions are possible, but must be requested prior to October 14, 1993.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Si
y,
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planner
DHM/dhm
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
r
GARFIELD COUNTY
REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
February 17, 1993
Mr. Robert Delaney
Mr. Kenneth Balcomb
P.O. Box 790
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
RE: SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION EXTENSION REQUEST
Dear Mr. Delaney and Mr. Balcomb:
On February 16, 1993, the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners approved your
request for an extension of time for the submittal of a Final Exemption Plat. The Board
approved a 120 day extension, which begins on February 16, 1993, and terminates on June 16,
1993. Additional extensions are possible, but must be requested prior to June 16, 1993.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planner
DHM/dhm
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601