The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 PC Staff Report 09.08.2010Exhibits -- Combined Preliminary Plan/Final Plat — Roc and Mary Gabossi, CPFF 6341 PC Public Hearing (09/08/2010) Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Proof of Publication, Posting, and Mailings B Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended C Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended D Application E Staff Memorandum F Staff Powerpoint G Letter from Garfield County Road and Bridge, no date given H Memorandum from Garfield County Vegetation Manager, dated July 27, 2010 I Email from Garfield County Vegetation Manager, dated July 12, 2010 J Letter from Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. (consulting engineer), dated July 13, 2010 K Email from Jim Rada, Garfield County Environmental Health, dated June 3, 2010 L Email from Dan Roussin, Colorado Department of Transportation, dated June 2, 2010 M Email from Karen Berry, Colorado Geologic Survey, dated August 4, 2010 N Letter from Town of New Castle, Kevin O'Brien, dated August 20, 2010 0 Letter from Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District dated July 12, 2010 P Colorado State University — Grass Seed Mixes to Reduce Wildfire Hazard, No. 6.306 Q Colorado State University -- Forest Service, Native Grass "Fire Mixes" R SGM Preliminary Plan Drainage Report — Basin Sub Area Map, dated 12/9/09 S Letter from Division of Water Resources, dated August 4, 2010 T Letter from Michael Erion, Resource Engineering, Inc. dated August 31, 2010 U Email from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering Inc., date September 1, 2010 \ O,nA.W LUJ 3i14„c•L'A.Ac, Lk J ► m 6kAAAA-. dl 15 -ti c..47} 0 1010 t i -0 L Section 7405 Standards for Public Sites and Open Space A. Dedication of Public Land. B. Final Plat Requirements. C. Amount of Public Land Dedicated. 1. Road Dedications. 2. Park Dedication 3. School Dedication. D. Payment in Lieu of Dedication of Public Sites. Staff Comment: This development does not propose to dedicate any public lands for roadways, parks, or schools nor is any payment in lieu of dedication required. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the public hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties were heard at those hearings. 3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommended residential densities set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of the County. 4. As conditioned, the proposed subdivision of land does conform to the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended, and does comply with all applicable Development Regulations. 5. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the Board of County Commissioners for the proposed Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat with the following conditions: b. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Applicant shall include the following text as plat notes on the final plat: a. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner. b. Automatic fire suppression systems shall be installed in all new residences, including ADUs constructed in the development. The systems shall be designed to NFPA 13D or NFPA 13R standards. The flow and control valves, on the systems shall be monitored by a fire alarm system that is monitored by an independent UL Listed Central Station monitoring company. c. A 20 to 30 foot defensible wildfire space shall be required around all structures. d. The Bowles Well (Permit No. 52966) and Bowles Well No. 2 (Well Permit No. 68856) shall be used for household use and not for irrigation. e. A minimum of 150 gallons of water storage and required booster pump to pressurize the house shall be required for each unit on Lots 2, 3, and 4. The amount of necessary storage shall be confirmed by a professional engineer at the time of a building permit. 3. The seed mix to be used in the subdivision shall consist of the Colorado State Forest Service Native Grass "Fire Mixes" as identified under Tables 2 and 4. 4. The final plat shall describe all necessary easements for provision of utilities and access which shall be conveyed to the HOA prior to final plat approval. 5. The property is located in the School District RE -1. As such, the Applicants shall be required to pay a fee in -lieu of School Land Dedication for the additional lots created. This fee shall be calculated and paid prior to the signing of the final plat. An appraisal of the property is required to determine the proper fee for payment. 6. The Applicants shall provide documentation to the County indicating Initial Acceptance from CDOT an the access permit for Lots 2, 3, and 4 prior to the signing of the final plat. 7. An easement for the Minges Chenowerth Wolverton Ditch (aka Williams Canal) shall be placed on the final plat. The Applicants shall also provide the County with the irrigation shares of the William Canal, and a deed to these shares prior to final plat approval. 8. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicants shall provide the County with the historic areas of irrigation for the Williams Canal on the subject parcel. ok9. Prior to the signing of the final plat, the Irrigation Water Use and Maintenance declaration shall address to the County's satisfaction, the design, routing, easements, and distribution of irrigation water from the Williams Canal to the respective Tots. 10 The Applicants shall provide easements for the irrigation ditches serving Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the final plat and these easements shall be conveyed to the HOA through recorded deeds. These deeds shall be provided to the County prior to final plat approval. 5 ott-rriOrs �.'L1 11. Prior to the signing of the final plat, the Applicants shall provide to the County a cut ditch design along the shoulder of the west access road and placed it on the final plat. 12. The access road for Lots 2, 3, and 4 shall be a private road dedicated to the HOA. A deed shall be provided to the County for recording with the final plat. 13. The private road that serves Lots 2, 3, and 4 shall meet the semi -rural road standards. 14. The Applicants shall provide a Deed of Easement dedicating a perpetual easement over and across all roads within the subdivision allowing unfettered access for all applicable emergency services personnel. These easements shall be described and shown on the final plat with the following plat note: a. All roads as depicted on the accompanying plat are hereby dedicated and set apart to the Old Orchard Subdivision HOA, a Colorado not-for-profit corporation, for the use of the members and guests thereof, subject to: i. The right of appropriate public utility companies to utilize said roads as utility easements; and, ii. The right of all emergency vehicles to make use of such roads in all reasonable circumstances. 20 15. All future buildings on Lot 1 shall be located outside of the debris flow zone. To establish the extent of this zone at the time of development (County Land Use Change review process or building permit), the Applicants shall provide the County with a debris flow study. This study shall demonstrate that a structure(s) is outside of this hazard zone prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change permit and/or building permit. 16. Prior to signing the final plat, the Applicants shall obtain a building permit for the ADU on Lot 1. 17. Prior to the signing of the final plat, the Applicants shall transfer sufficient water rights to the Homeowners Association (HOA) to meet its representation of legal water supply. Water transferred shall be consistent with the State Department of Natural Resources — Division of Water Resources letter prepared by Craig Lis dated Au ust 4 2010. 18Jfhe Augmentation Plan de a in Case Number 97C 162, indicates that the existing pond is to be used for "fish cultur: , ivestock and wildlife watering, fire protection, and augmentation" for Lots 1, 2, 3, an. . the Gabossi Exemption Plat (Reception # 620584). Prior to the _s[King of the fi = plat the Applicants shall provide the County with a recorded access easementNto is pond and shall place this easement on the final plat. In addition, the Applicant hall obtain a signed agreement with each lot owner addressing pond access, main = ance, fire protection, and other responsibilities. 7/ 19. The existing pond is shown within the CDOT right-of-way. The Applicants shall obtain an encroachment agreement from CDOT to allow for the existing pond to be within the CDOT right-of-way. This agreement shall be provided to the County prior to final plat approval. c\NizuL,. VIII. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I make a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat of the Old Orchard Subdivision to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommended findings and conditions," 5-'1-- SO 1 ( 02 -d 4 -t- \AA peoke,,iive coiKAA..04q,„„ L.,1)1 dek-A-441rw`'„ et'"' vv"-f-tko( ro 60N,Q4rwur 9 ei ree® red -76.-- �s 'A? 6'M C-/e<4-ce- ix,v- ,14 ie. �� 21 cipt 7 / e(e,e,--W -7‘ °.2') t)ptifrt/r-- z7.`--"ro 71e) 414.4ek%iyi,._ 4-07'449 , To whom it may concern: I have reviewed the proposed plans for the Old Orchard Subdivision, and see no issues that concern Garfield County Road and Bridge. i do ask that the traffic to CR 138 Slaughterhouse Rd. be kept to a minimum due to the width of the road. Thanks, WYA7T KEESBERY Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman / Rifle and Silt District 0298 CR 333A Rifle, Co. 81650 0298 County Road 333A; P.O, Box 426 Rifle, CO 81660 Phone: 970-625-6601 Fax: 970-625-8627 MEMORANDUM To: Molly Orkild-Larson From: Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Management Re: Comments on the Old Orchard Permit CPFF-6341 Prelim Plan/Final Plat Date: July 27, 2010 Staff did a site visit with John Tauffer on June 13, 2010. Four county -listed noxious weeds were identified on site (Canada thistle, Scotch thistle, Russian -olive, Common burdock). Mr. Tauffer stated that the applicant would take care of these. Items in the permit and subdivision improvements agreement, related to noxious weeds and revegetation are acceptable. From: Steve Anthony To: dolly OrkiIc1 .arson Subject: RE: Comments on File #CPFF-6341 I Date: Monday, ]uiy 12, 2010 3:18:45 PM Hi Molly The mixes are fine, I prefer 2 and 4, as 1 and 3 has blue grama, blue grama does better on the Front Range/east slope than it does here... From: Molly Orkild-Larson Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:38 PM To: Steve Anthony Subject: FW: Comments on File #CPFF-6341 Steve: This is what I got from the FPD. Any comments on the seed rnix? From: Ron Biggers [maiito:ron.biggers@cogs.us] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:02 PM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject; Comments on File #CPFF-6341 Molly, My comments are in the attachment, the Colorado State Forest grass seed mix brochure is in an attachment also. • John Taufer and I have discussed this project a number of time regarding fire protection needs. 1 think for this application they are adequately addressed. When it comes to building design and construction of the homes the principles at that time will need to contact me to get more details on the design of the systems. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to comment on this application. Ron Biggers Deputy Fire Marshal Glenwood Springs Fire Department Fire Sprinklers Save Lives II! Disclaimer: This email message and all attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Content cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error -free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard -copy version. July,13, 2010 Ms, Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County. Building & Planning 0375 County Road 352; Building 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING,INC. CIVIL AND.ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN RE: CPFF-6341, Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plait: Roc and Mary,Gabossi Dear Molly This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the .Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat application of Roe and Mary Gabossi. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The following questions, concerns, or comments were generated: Plat 1. The County. Required Plat notes have numbering that needs be corrected. • 2. The irrigation ditch to the north of the property trespasses on Lot 1. An easement should be granted for this. Similarly, the application proposes that irrigation water will be shared but no irrigation easements are apparentfor distribution to Lots 2,'3, and 4. Plans' 3. It appears from the proposed contours that water drainsalong the shoulder of road from 'station 1+50 to 2+50. A cut ditch should be provided to convey water. 4. The cul-de-sac "length is longer than 600'" which is acceptable if allowed by the BoCC. Often the Board values the opinion of the local Fire Department. The applicant should review the cul-de-sac length with the Fire Department in, anticipation of the BoCC approval. Application Materials 5. To share Well #2 between three lots and. 4 ADUs, some system of telemetry, pumping, storage and pressure boosting will be necessary. No design or design parameters were included with the .submittal. This system should be designed and engineered to be certain that the future connections to the well are compatible. This engineering may cause some revisions to the "Well Water Well Use and Maintenance" declaration. 6. The legal distribution of irrigation water rights was handled in the "Irrigation Water Use and Maintenance" declaration but no design, routing, easements, or distribution of irrigation water from the ditch to the respective lots is included. 7. The local Fire Department should review and approve the fire protection system proposed. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountai1 Cross Eng :erin� nc. is Hale, PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.9453558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com Molly Orkild-Larson From: Jim Rada Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:03 AM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: CPFF-6341 - Gabossi Subdivision Attachments: Jim Rada Orada@garfield-county.com).vcf Molly, My comments on the referenced subdivision application. ISDS — 1. Section 25-10-111 CRS subparagraph 5 (page 52 Garfield County ISDS Regulations) indicates that not more than one dwelling....shall be connected to the same ISDS unless such multiple connection was specified in the application and in the permit issued for the system. Lot 3 and Lot 1 already have permitted ISDS serving the existing homes. This implies that the second units for each parcel would require a separately permitted system or a new permitted syste.m to accommodate both dwellings. Soils on Lot 2 are very problematic for ISDS due to silty clay content. It is likely that there will be no issue placing a second septic system on Lot 1 but well placement, irrigation ditch locations and irrigation structure types, water lines, building locations, etc could create problems for locating appropriately sized ISDS. 2. The water engineer indicates that softening and reverse osmosis system may be required for the water from Well #2. ISDS plans should discourage discharge reject water from these water treatment systems to individual systems, particularly under the existing, questionable soil conditions. 3. No information about the irrigation practices is provided. Flood irrigation and over irrigation by spray systems will have detrimental effects on leach fields so these areas must be protected Recommendation — It is not certain from the information provided that these parcels have the capacity to support !SDS. Applicant should do a more thorough analysis of ISDS feasibility for at least Tots 2, 3 and 4. Analysis should include potential lot configurations that will allow building placement and ISDS placement along with appropriate soils information in the areas of potential leach field locations. Analysis should also include availability of additional area for replacement of leach fields. We may just find that these three lots (and their limited building envelopes) may not be capable of supporting 6 septic systems or even 3 large systems. Water supply — 1. Depending on size of dwellings and eventual occupancy numbers, well #2 could become a public water system (25 or more people for 60 days or more during a given year). Should this occur, the owners will be required by law to meet all applicable state drinking water system requirements. Recommendation — Final plat note and/or other notification in final approval documents concerning critical review point on the water supply to ensure that the water system complies with state laws and regulations. Please call me with any questions. Thanks for the opportunity to review this application. Jim Kacla, R1115 Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W14% Street Rifle, CO 81650 1 From: To: Subject: Date: Roussin, Daniel Molly f loci -Larson, Roc and Mary Gabossl Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:12:05 AM Molly — CDOT has issued an access permit #309040 for 8 DHV which includes assessory dwelling units. The permit will allow access to all 4 lots. However, there is an existing access on the SH 6 which currently accesses Lot 1 only. The permit states that Lot 1 private drive would be closed when the Lot 1 redevelops or subdivides.. it appears that the final plat does have a 30' ingresslegress easement to allow Lot 1 to use the new permitted access on US 6 highway. The access permit also states that the another field approach access would be required to close. This hasn't been completed. The applicant hasn't finished the entire permitting process for the State as indicated in the review package "Traffic Section" letter dated July 15, 2010. The applicant will still need to build the access. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6th Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-683-6284 Office 970-683-6291 Fax From: To: Subject Date: perry. Karen N1411Y Orkild-Larson Old Orchard Subdivision Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:17:56 PM Dear M. Morkild-Larson: As you are likely aware, CGS reviewed the preliminary plan last year. In that review, we recommended that debris flow hazards in Lot 1 be avoided. Generally, we strongly recommend avoidance over mitigation. However, I do recognize that Lot 1 is already developed. CGS continues to recommend that any new development be placed outside of mapped debris flow hazards, If the county approves the development as currently proposed, the note contained on the plat should trigger additional studies. These studies could result in the need for easements and agreements to maintain and access mitigation structures. Adjacent lots and public roads could be impacted by the design and location of proposed mitigation or by the lack of maintenance of mitigation structures. The other comments outlined in my previous letter are still valid and should be addressed during the development and construction process. Regards, ►;—"`t Karen A. Berry Geological Engineer, PG, AICP, CPESC-SWQ Land Use Program Colorado Geological Survey 1313 Sherman Street, Rm 715 Denver, CO 80203 303.866.2611 Ext. 8315 En Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Administration Department (970) 984-2311 Fax: (970) 984-2716 www.newcastlecolorado.org Town of New Castle PO Box 90 450 W. Main Street New Castle, CO 81647 August 20, 2010 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson, Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning Department 0375 County Rd. 352 Rifle, CO 81650 Dear Ms. Orkild-Larson: Thank you for referring the Old Orchard Subdivision Preliminary Plan/Final Plat application to the Town of New Castle pursuant to the intergovernmental agreement with Garfield County. Town staff reviewed the application and presented it to the New Castle Planning Commission at their meeting on August 11, 2010. The New Castle Planning Commission unanimously approved the following motion: "Motion -The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of New Castle request the Garfield County Planning Commission deny the Old Orchard Subdivision Preliminary Plan/Final Plat application because it does not comply with the New Castle Comprehensive Plan". The Commission's concerns are detailed in the letter from the Town Planner dated August 11, 2010. (Leland/Apostolik) After voice vote the motion carried. This project lies within the planning area for the Town. New Castle offers the following comments on the submittal. Compliance with the New Castle Comprehensive Plan. The Town of New Castle adopted their Comprehensive Plan on June 10, 2009. The Plan identifies the subject property as "Rural Low Density". The uses in this classification are described as "large lot single-family, working ranches/farms, ranchettes, open pastures and rural qualities characterize this area." Net densities in Rural Low Density are 10 or more acres per dwelling unit. The plan states "These rural areas represent the open lands that extend beyond the feathered urban edge. It is intended that these areas will remain low density and rural to minimize service demands. Higher densities are inappropriate in this area and should be directed to urban areas where municipal services and utilities can cost- effectively support density." The County did not forward the Old Orchard Subdivision sketch plan to the Town for review. Immediately prior to County staff completion of the sketch plan report, New Castle spoke to the County planner Dusty Dunbar about the application. Ms. Dunbar was busy preparing a planning commission report due shortly thereafter and New Castle staff was informed that time was not available for written comments to be included in the document. At that time, the revised New Castle Comprehensive Plan had not been adopted, but the Garfield County staff was informed that the densities in the New Castle Plan for the area were specified as one unit per 10 acres. The County sketch plan staff report included that information. In addition, the sketch plan approval included a condition that is noted in the pre - application conference summary dated 7/3/2009 "Review and respond to changes to the New Castle Comprehensive Plan." Earlier this year, Mr. Farrar, the New Castle Planner, met with Mn Taufer during preparation of the current application to discuss the adopted Comprehensive Plan density standards and the Man's relationship to the proposed subdivision. The "Future Land Use Map" was reviewed with Mr. Taufer and there was discussion about the density designation of one unit per 10 acres and that the application as it was proposed did not comply. Mr. Tattler was given a copy of the future land use map. The Old Orchard Subdivision submittal states that the New Castle Comprehensive Plan was adopted in June 2009 but was not posted online until November 2009. The plan was adopted at a public hearing June 10, 2009 and the adopted plan was available for the public shortly after that date. Numerous public meetings were held prior to the plan adoption and the various components of the plan including the future land use map were posted online in advance of the adoption date. Although the applicant states that the 'owners were caught midstream with this change", the owners should have been aware that New Castle was considering a revised comprehensive plan during the two-year review process. In addition and as noted above, the applicant was made aware of the density and other provisions in the plan during the sketch plan process and prior to submission of the preliminary plan. There was ample time for the applicant to reconfigure the submittal to conform to the revised New Castle Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision includes a total of eight units (4 single-family units & 4 ADUs) on 20.22 acres or a gross density of one unit per 2.53 acres. This project is a re -subdivision of one of the four lots in a 2002 subdivision exemption granted by the County. The cumulative effect of the subdivision exemption action and this subdivision would be the creation of seven new lots and up to 14 units including ADUs. The proposed Old Orchard Subdivision does not comply with the New Castle Comprehensive Flan. Other Concerns. The August 17, 2009 letter from the Colorado Geological Survey identifies concerns on the property with debris flows, collapsible soils, and "severe geologic hazards that will require additional investigation and mitigation." They recommend that "Though mitigation is feasible, to the extent possible, development in the northern and eastern sections of Lot 1 should be avoided. Mitigation plan should be required for Lot 1 and subject to County review and approval." It is recognized that HP Geotech has responded to the concerns, but development of this property as proposed has significant constraints. This concern is restated in the 2009 Preliminary Plan Drainage Report prepared by Dave Kotz at SGM. On page 3 of the report Mr. Kotz states "per the August letter, the CGS still believes there is debris flow risk and that mitigation and/or creation of "no build" areas is warranted on Lot 1. Risks to other lots are lesser, but they should be acknowledged." The Town of New Castle requests that the Garfield County Planning Commission recommend to the County Commissioners denial of the Old Orchard Subdivision because it does not comply with the New Castle Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for considering the Town's input on this project. Please contact Davis Farrar the Town Planner, if you have any questions or would like to discuss the issues contained in this letter. Sincerely, Kevin O'Brien Chair, New Castle Planning Commission Cc: New Castle Planning Commission, Andy Barton, Davis Farrar, Tim Cain olgoOD July 12, 2010 To: Molly Orkild-Larson, Garfield County Staff Planner From: Ron Biggers, Deputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department RE: Comments on fie number/name CPFF-6341, applicant Roc and Mary Gabossi, contact John Taufer, location 44523 Highway 6, Garfield County,, request four lotsubdiviision John Taufer and 1 have discussed this application regarding fire protection needs for this planed subdivision, John has included the basic fire protection items we have discussed in the preliminary plans/final plat application write up. When the homes for the subdivision are being designed the owner, architect and builder shall contact me to discuss the details of the design of the fire protection systems (sprinkler systems and alarms) that will be installed in these homes The grass seed mix used in, areas on the lots where grass will be planted; otherthen lawns, shall be the mixture described in the attach Colorado State'Forrest Service brochure number 6.306. Because all the new homes constructed in the subdivision will have an autnmatcsprinklersgstem installed in them we will not require a municipal water supply with fire hydrants installed on it to be constructed in the subdivision. One service this area lacks is a reliable water supply for firefighting Thus we recommend that the residence of the new and existing homes in this subdivision work with their neighbors to create a reliable water supply to meet fire fighting needs. If you or the applicants have any questions on these comments or any other fire protection needs for this subdivision please contact me. 101 WEST 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970-384-6480 FAX 970-945-8506 Quick Facts... Plant "FireWise" grass species to reduce the risk of wildfire damage. "FireWise" grass mixes may contain only native species or a combination of native and non- native species. Sow half the seed north to south and the other half east to west. Rake the seed Into the soil. Mulch erosion -prone areas. If possible, water often and lightly. Maintain the area properly. Putting Knowledge to Work 0 Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 8/99. Reviewed 1/06. www.ext.cotostate.edu NATURAL RESOURCES FO RESTRY SERIES Grass Seed Mixes to Reduce Wildfire Hazard no. 6.306 by F.C. Dennis' During much of the year, grasses ignite easily and burn rapidly. Tall grass will quickly carry fire to your house. Plant "FireWise" grasses in the defensible space around your home, Defensible space is an area around a structure where fuels and vegetation are treated, cleared or reduced to slow the spread of wildfire. See fact sheet 6.302, Creating Wildfire -Defensible Zones. Seed Mixes for Colorado Grass seed mixes developed for Colorado use native or a combination of native and non-native grass species. While the basic nixes (Tables 1 and 3) work reasonably well on all sites, they were modified for moist sites and/or those with northern exposures (Tables 2 and 4). Grasses included in these mixes have the following characteristics: • They are lower growing. • They needless maintenance. • Seed is readily available and relatively inexpensive. Grass seed mixes made up entirely of native seed may take longer to establish — up to three years — than those with a percentage of non-native seed. Planting Use either a drop or a cyclone seeder to seed your defensible space. A drop seeder is more accurate in placing seed, especially if wind is a problem. However, if the ground is rough or rocky, the cyclone seeder will be easier to use. Seed at the rates shown in the tables below. Divide seed into two equal parts. Sow half of the seed by crossing the area north to south and the other half by crossing east to west. Rake seed into the soil as soon as possible after sowing to reduce the chances of it blowing or washing out. Soil cover also helps to protect the young seedlings from drying out. When sowing on slopes prone to erosion, cover the seeded area with mulch. Recommended mulches include dean straw (straw with no seeds in it), netting or matting of some kind. If you have water from a central community system or a well permit that allows outside irrigation, water the newly seeded areas frequently and lightly. Water enough to keep the soil moist but not so heavily as to cause soil washing and loss of the grass seed. Maintenance Even "FireWise" grasses need proper maintenance. See 6.303, Fire - Resistant Landscaping, for tips on proper mowing and other maintenance and landscaping suggestions. • FIREWISE is a multi -agency program that encourages the development of defensible space and the prevention of catastrophic wildfire. FOREST SERVICE This fact sheet was produced in cooperation with the Colorado State Forest Service. 'Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Coordinator, Colorado State Forest Service. Native Grass "Fire Mixes" Table 1; All exposures. Species Arizona fescue Western wheatgrass Streambank wheatgrass Indian ricegrass Blue grams Variety Redondo Barton/Rosana Sodar Nezpar Lovington TOTALS Percent Broadcast Rate of Mix Pj.S Lbs/Acre 20 9.0 x .20 = 1.80 20 32.0 x .20 = 6.40 20 22.0 x .20 = 4.40 20 25.0 x .20 = 5.00 20 6.0 x .20 = 1.20 100% 11.80. Table_2 Northerly exposures and/or moist sites. Percent Broadcast Rate Species Variety of Mix PLS* Lbs/Acre Arizona fescue Redondo 25 9.0 x .25 = 2.25 Western wheatgrass Barton/Rosana 25 32,0 x .25 = 8.00 Streambank wheatgrass Sodar 25 22.0 x .25 = 5.50 Indian ricegrass Nezpar 25 25,0 x .25 = ..625 TOTALS 100% 22.00 Non-Native/Native Grass "Fire Mixes" Tabie'3: All exposures. Percent Broadcast Rate Species Variety • otildix PLS* Lbs/Acre Canada bluegrass Reubens 10 2.0 x .10 = 0.20 Western .wheatgrass Barton/Rosana 20 32.0 x .20 = 6.40 Streambank wheatgrass Sodar 15 22.0 x .15 = 3.30 Indian ricegrass Nezpar 15 25.0 x .15 = 3.75 Sheep fescue Cover 20 8.0 x .20 = 1.60 Blue grama Lovington 20 6.0 x .20 = 1.20 TOTALS -100% 16.45 Table 4JJortheriy exposures and/or moist sites Percent Broadcast Rate Species Variety of Mix PLS* Lbs/Acre Canada bluegrass Reubens 15 2.0 x .15 = 0.30 Western wheatgrass Barton/Rosana 20 32.0 x .20 = 6,40 Streambank wheatgrass Sodar 20 22.0 x .20 = 4.40 Indian ricegrass Nezpar 15 25.0 x .15 = 3.75 Sheep fescue Cover 30. 8.0 x .30 = 2.40 TOTALS 100% 17-25 *Pure Live Seed. References For additional information on protecting your homesite, see: • 6.302, Creating Wildfire -Defensible Zones • 6.303, Fire -Resistant Landscaping • 6.304, Forest Home Fire Safety • 6.305, FireWise Plant Materials Colorado State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Colorado counties cooperating. Cooperative Extension programs are available to all without discrimination. No endorsement of products mentioned is intended nor is criticism implied of products not mentioned. OLD ORCHARD ORCHARD SUBDIVISION \\.•Th ,# - , — y. ...-4.-' • . 1'4-, -,- l• : ....- 0,4 ' ....' 1 1 e ' ' ' - . ' . '-'71 ; • • ..CF r. licZAR• • . :1 ',•,,... ': , sie9 • l't tif',":!.. , • ,-;-5 • c v. 4 , ..• , . , . • 11,' -.. i ,.• - • r-. ,e ... ....—.....,.././ .../".„ ...-• ,0 • • 4 1. ' I • .1 . ..,-",11010111"1111...Fal"1"1,111miefth6i..._,.• •-• .4, • ' h . • " -1,.. • ' 7%.1 1 .. .. • :.i.# • -'....••:—. / .. a. %... . .. ...* • . • • v. .1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES August 4,2010 Molly °Mid -Larson Garfield County puildIng and Planning Department 106 8th St Ste 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 131111kiner, jr. coverhir MilSe Kilfg NCeiitiVe Direetor Pick Wcilfe, P:E,. Diredot/S0.1d Engineer Re: Old Orchard Subdivision Preliminary Plan and Final Plat Section 35,153, R90W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 39 Dear Molly: We have reviewed •the above -referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 20.22 acres into four each of which are to contain a residential unit and an auxiliary unit. The applicant proposes to supply water through two existing wells for in-house uses and the Williams Canal for irrigation uses. SeWage disposal is to be through individual Systems. Water use is estimated at 4666 gpd for in-house purposes. The Bowles Well WAS decreed abaolute for 0.033 cfs (15 gpm) for domeetic use In. Case No. W-1358 on Deeetfiber 13, 1972, vvilh March 14, 1972 as the date of beneficial Use. Permit Na. 52966 was issued on March 14, 1972 for this well, in accordance With CRS 3740-137(2), for a pumping rate of 15 gpm. The maximum amount of ground water appropriated by this Well is not to exceed 0,033 acre-feet per year. Use of the Well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside oneSingle.-family dwelling. The applicant proposes to continye.using this well for a single dwellin4; however the applicant is unclear as to if outside uses of the well are to be expected. This preposed use inside one single-family dweiling is currently allowed under the Well pertrilt, however outsides uses are not permitted. The Bowles Weil #2 was permitted on December 22, 2009 through Permit No. 68856-F in accordance with CRS 37-90-137(2) for a Pumping rate of 25 gpm. The maximum amount of ground water appropriated by this well is not to exceed 2.8 acre-feet per year. Use of the well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside seven single-family dwellings. This well is to operate under an augmentation plan as decreed in court case 96CW162. The aPplicant proposes to use this well to prbvide household only use water to seven dwellings through a well sharing agreement. The proposed uses are currently allowed under the well permit. Based on the information provided, the applicant will use the Williams Canal to irrigate portions of all lots. The applicant intends to continue Using the canal only for the historically irrigated land located on each lot. Per a letter frorn Resource Engineering, Inc. a 24 hour well pump test was completedlor the Bowles Well in July 2009. The well pumped at approximately 8.7 gpm which is sufficient for the single dwelling. A 24 hour well pump test was completed for Bowles Well #2 in January 2010. Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 *Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-866-3581 * Fax: O3 -866-35S www.ivater.etate.co.us Molly OddId-Larson Page 2 Old Orchard Subdivision August 4, 2010 The well pumped at approximately 15 gpm which is sufficient for the seven dwellings so long as adequate storage is provided. It is suggested that the county verify that the applicants own the claimed water rights prior to the approval of this subdivision. The claimed rights include the Bowles Well (water right No. W- 1358), Bowles Wells Nos. 1.3 (97CW162) and one-half interest in the plan for augmentation as. decreed in 97CW162. It also includes use of the Williams ditch for lrrngatioh purposes, however information On the ownership of this right was not mentioned. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to CRS 30:-28-136(1)(h)(I) and. CRS 30-28- 1360)(h)(11), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the Wells operate according to the terms and conditions of their current plans for aughientation, and are physically adequate. Also note that the use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place of use is changed. If you or the applicant has ahy questions concerning this matter, please contact this office for assistance. sincere Cralg M. Lis, ''. Water Resource Engineer CMLIKAAIOId Orchard.docx cc; Alan Mlartellara, Division Engineer, Division 5 Eddie Rubin, Water Commissioner, District 39 ®111111111tEr I®®® ®1111 ®®®1111 E :, N. G. I N .: E. E RING IN ''John Taufer John. L. Tauter and Associates PO Box 2271 Glenwood Springs CO ,81$02 RE: Old >(�rahard Subdivision Shared Well Design Parameters and ISDS Feasibility Analysis -:Dear John: August 31, 2010`•:` This letter presents the design parameters: for the shared; wel•l, (Bowles„Well No. 2) water suppjy system and the feasibillty of constructing ISDS systems on Lots 2, 3; and 4 of. the proposed OId•Orchard Subdivision. These items are presented in. response to comments • from the GARCO Environmental Health Manager, Mountain, Cross Engineering, and the Division of Water Resources: • SHAREDWATERSUPPLY PARAMETERS The shared well;for a primary residence and an ADU on Lots 2,.3, and 4 has.a long term yield of,10 gprri and can be pumped 0.01 -Ate -Of 15 gpm The well pump shall: provide: 15 gpm at a total dynamic head, of 200,feet,The water system shall have a central pump • house control facility with 'at least '40 gallons of pressurized storage.; The well pump shall be controlled by a pressure -that operatesbetween..30 psi.._ (pump on) -and 50.: psi (pump: off) The;service fine to each ;lot shall be 1 inch dlameter,pipe with a 2'gprn Dole Flow Control orifice. Each house will:provlde a miriimum,of 150;gaflons of storage and booster pump to pressurize the house . The storage tanks shall have: a low leve! float control to activate an automatic valve on the sup ply line 'froth 'the well The°Iow level float control shall activate the:vaive at a maximum drawdown of 25 gallons of •storage: ISDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS. . .... NALY5lS Lot 1 has an: existing ASPS system that has functioned for many;years' There is adequate usable•. space on Lot 1 (5+ acres) for a replacement .effluent infiltration bed • (leach field) and /or a new leach field for an ADU. • Lot .2 has approximately 15,000 square feet of usable space for a leach field in the southerly portion of the parcel after applying all the setbacks from wells, property lines, water bodies, etc. The average percolation rate from the HP Geotech study is 71 minutes per inch. Assuming an infiltrator unit system with a bed configuration, two dwelling units would require approximately 2800 square feet of adsorption area. A primary and back up leach field could easily be located within the 15,000 square foot area: Lot 3 has an existing ISDS system for the existing dwelling unit, This system has a 700 square foot leach field for a percolation rate of 24 minutes per inch. Lot 3 has an 11,000 square foot area for leach fields in the southwesterly .corner of the lot. An additional dwelling unit could require up to 950 square feet for a leach field. The new leach field Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909. Colorado Avenue ® Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ® (970) 945-6777 or Fax (9703945-1137 John Taufer .'. Page 2 August 31 2010 aned replacement: leach fieldbe could. easily located within the available a com n ,.. - aF Lot 4 has approximately 14,000 square feet of .usablespace ,for Pi .leach field in the southerly. portion of the parcel' after:applying ail the setbacks from wells, property lines, water bodies, etc The average percolation rate from the- HP Geotech study is..12 minutes per Inch• Assuming 'aninfiltrator.. unit system with. a 'bed :configuration, two dwelling unifs would require approximately 1200. square feet of adsorption `area A prnrnary, and back up Teach field could easily be located :within ,the 15,000, square foot area Piease'call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOU; E GINEERING;;INC J Erion, P E a r Resources Engineer MJE/mmm 872.-2.0 . :::::FRESDUROE i:fiiU E N G I N E.E. I NG I N C. Moll Orkild-Larson From: Sent: To: Subject: Chris Hale [chris@mountaincross-eng.comj Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:55 AM Molly Orkild-Larson RE: Gabossi I have reviewed the letter and it addressed Item #5 from the letter dated 3u1y 13, 2010. It generated no additional comments. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81.601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 Original Message From: Molly 0rkild-Larson[mailto:morkild-larson@garfield-county.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:45 AM To: Chris Hale Subject: RE: Gabossi Do you have any comments on Resources' letter that they sent you yesterday? Wed, Jul 21, 2010 5338773 Ad Ticket #5 14:57:40 Acct: 102298 Name: John L. Taufer & Associates Phone: (970)945-1337 Address: PO Box 2271 E -Mail: Client: Caller: John Taufer City: GLENWOOD SPRINGS _Receipt State: CO Zip: 81602 Ad Name: 5338773A Editions: 8CT78PIN1 Start: 07/29/10 Color: Copyline: 5338773 rct Gabossi Hearing Lines: Depth: Columns: Discount: Commission: 101 8.35 1 0.00 0.00 Net: Tax: 0.00 0.00 Payment 0.00 Original Id: 0 Class: 0990 Stop: 07/29/10 Issue 1 Rep: P1 Legal's Ad shown is not actual print size 5338773 PROOF OF PUBLICATION RIFLE C i ZE 1 TELEGRAM STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF GARFIELD I, Jenna Weatherred, do solemnly swear that I am a Publisher of The Rifle Citizen Telegram, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 7/29/2010 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 7/29/2010 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand thisdi day of July 2010. i 2 Jenna Weatherre+, Pub isher (--"itc) Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 29h day of July 2010. Mary E. B6rkenhagen, No t'3try iblic My Commission expires: August 27, 2011 John L. Taufer & Associates My Oenio; scion Expires G6127'2311 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Roc and Mary Gabossi have applied to the Planning Commission, Garfield County, State of Colorado, for a Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat to allow a four (4) lot subdivision, a property located at 44523 Highway 6, County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land being situated in the NW1 /4 of Sec- tion 35, Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.M., County of Garfield. State of Colorado, said tract of land being described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at a point from whence the North 34 corner of said Section 35 bears N.45°21'31"E. 655.56 feet, said North 14 comer being an iron pipe with an aluminum cap PLS No. 15710 being found in place; Thence S.26°31'06"E. 55.72 feet; Thence S.26°11'52'W, 62.99 feet; Thence S.11 °39'34"W. 51.69 feet; Thence $.37°28'23°W.. 80.15 feet; Thence .S.4 9°48'42"W. 68.45 feet; Thence S.22°3714"W. 167.65 feet; Thence 5.04°15'08'E. 209.64 feet; Thence S.40°24'52'W. 63.16 feet; Thence S.23°42`17"W. 160.96 feet; Thence S.34°01'36"W. 250.32 feet; Thence 5.28°03'51°E. 69.80 feet; Thence S.02°38'42'W. 276.57 feet to a point on the State Highway 6; Thence at ng sht of Waay Oid Colorado Northerly Right of Way the following five (5) courses: 1 ) Thence 358.13 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 2010.00 feet, a central angle of 1092'31" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.72°17'01 "W. 357.65 feet; 2) Thence 5.13'1200"W. 50.00 feet; 3) Thence 270.72 feet along the arc of a non -tan- gent curve to the left having a radius of 1960,00 feet, a central angle of 07°54'49' and sub -tending a chord which bears N.81°2135'W. 270.50 feet 4) Thence N.85°19'00'W. 368.00 feet; 5) Thence 109.74 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 5680.00 feet, a central angle 0101°06`25" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.B4°4548"W.109.74 feet; Thence departing said Northerly Right of Way and along that line as described in document recorded in Book 491 at Page 790 the following courses: Thence N.23°00'10'E. 85.51 feet; Thence N.33°41'22'E. 273-31 feet; Thence N.10°41'01"E. 126,20 feet; Thence t'J.18°00'46"E. 102.71 feet; Thence N.89°42'59'W. 34.78 feet; Thence N.45°44'37"E. 194.88 feet; Thence N.23°33'14"E. 128.60 feet; Thence N.37°48'14'E. 135.68 feet; Thence N.04°22'29'E. 135.53 feet; Thence S.50°44'37'E. 38.18 feet; Thence 6.37°33'49'E. 59.61 feet; Thence S.35°15'19"E. 161.50 feet; Thence 8.31°5293"E. 130.89 feet; Thence S.26°55'22'E. 62.07 feet; Thence S.20°42'31"E. 84.87 feet; Thence N.45°21'31 "E. 1000.98 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 20.22 acres, more or less. Practical Description: The 20.22 acre property is located at 44523 Highway 6, in Section 35, -- Township 5 South, Range 90, Garfield County, Colorado. This application is for a Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat to allow a four (4) lot subdivision. The site is located within the Rural Zoning District Ail persons affected by the proposed by the Com- bined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat application to allow a four (4) lot subdivision are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 106 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for the Bth day of September 2010, at 6:30 Pill. in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 81601. Planning Department Garfield County Published in -the Citizen Telegram on July 29, 2010. j5338773] 102595-024.1540 SENDER COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION. ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. �1 Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the ront if space permits. 1. Article Ad ressed to: ddre see Conrad L. & Marsha L. Wagner 0024 County Road 138 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Received by (Printed Na e) dyrV4 ` .. D.Isd If YJ .6 -rd S nter de vi dt� m tiefn 1? eiow: 3. Service Type XLCertifled Mall 0 Registered 0 Insured Mail ❑ Express Mall 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) _ 7007 2680 0001 7032 7118 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 ER:,COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this car /to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front space permits. 1. Article Address =b to: G. t oal 1,4 At44 64.41-L) 1u, COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X VJ Agent 0 Addressee B. Received by P, rrfed Na C. Date of Delivery ''. c:-.6----.7-36 7 6 D. Is delivery addr4s"d�fferen` fro gem 1? 0 'es If YES, enteri4eliviaryaci$ sbeidv .1 0 ilo I 1),(\ 3. Service Type Certified Mall Registered 0 Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes. 2. Article Number rfrom ( (Traansfer from service labelj 7007 2680 0001 7032 7200 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 0 Yes MPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on t e front if space permits. 1. Artlr`r .. ressed to: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature R. Rew. Dy {fir dlf}a11]f 0 Agent r addressee 117at'bf Delivery Uni.dirtfacific Railroad Company Proparty Tax 1400Douglas, Stop 1640 Omaha, Nebraska 68179-1640 Is delivery edd�ydlffejerlt from m t? 0 Yes If YES, enter itticiksilgr: 0 No v✓ tL. i� ...)016'2`74-/ 3. Service Type Ur Certified Mall Registered 0 insured Mali O Express Mail 0 Return Recelpt for Merchandise 0 G.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer fmm service label) 7006 3450 0001 4311 5499 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.02.M-1540 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3, Also complete item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Ad9essed to: US Bank National Association Williams No. 2 FBO Eric Williams P.O. Box 64142 St. Paul, MN 55164-9366 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature 61-N-9 X 0 Agent 0 Addressee B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery T D. Is delivery add diff~ nt fro ate ,Ai? 0 Yes If YES, enter eiivery:Odres! belayiejf\ ❑ No 3. Service Type �l�.._ .. , $L CertifiedMae s,ressya'il ❑ Registered 0 R6t.1 MM Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mall 0 C.O.D. JUL 6 211111 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 700? 2680 0001 7032 7101 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 114 ru m N 1-9 1-9 r- ru r-9 D D D 1=0 RJ 1E1 U.S. Postal Service,r, CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.comu Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $2.B0 $2.30 $0.00 $5.54 Sent To Street, Apt. No.; or PO Box No. 0,0,7,4 1,3 4 Le....444 ct AI 1,a City, State, Z1P+4 L PS Form 3800. August 2006 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.coma 444idior447 Postage Certified Fee 1:=1 Return Receipt Fee 1=1 (Endorsement Required) D 7007 2680 cr- u7 r -R m CZ) D L.r) m Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ $0.44 $2.80 $2.30 $0.00 $5.54 SentTo 6. 41 1v.4 t 46.4,1 Street, Apt No.; or PO Box No. O't1 tow.: City, Stale, Z1P+4 PS Form 3800. August 2006 4 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.como Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorgement Required) Restrtiged Delivery Fee (Endorgement Required) Total Postage & Fees Sent To , t^* .gfreet, Apt. Ivo.; or PO Box No. rt.24,.vtel c1) 1,,e City, State, ZiP+4 (4? - 1 41. 14, 40 PS Form 3800. August 2000 See Reverse for Instruct ons 7032 7101 rq D D D D co r1.11 r - D r— nJ m 1=1 P- rq D D 11:1 ru t73 U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery Information visit our website at www.usps.comE, S1NTPAULAN Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fes (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees Sent To Fi) Street. Apt .1i1O..A1 or PO Box No WO s. 1 4,-.4-0 ed • I442 PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse for tnstructions U.S. Postal ServiCemi CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery Information visit our website at www.usps.com0 DENVER CO Post- Oe Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees Sent To eilLraija $5.54 Street, Apt. No.: or PO Box No. *Dv City State, ZIP+4 44x io12.L PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse for Instructions