Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3.0 BOCC Staff Report 12.20.10
Exhiits — Combined Preliminary Plan/Final Plat -- Roc and Mary Gabossi, CPFF 6341 BOCC Public Hearing (12/20/2010) 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 Bride, 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 V Written comments from Eric Williams, dated September 8, 2010 W Water Agreement, 2004 — Reception # 791618 X Email from Glenwood Springs Fire Department, Ron Biggers, dated October 29, 2010 y Email from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering Inc., date November 30, 2010 Z Agreement, dated April 16, 2001, Reception #791617 AA 2003 Gabossi Exemption Plat BB Amendment to Water Agreement, 2010 c-( (_&a k)()::./6 S 4,ha ,Ii' by c'- -LLZW c(.lit, I; cYA.(A h ._3 -- 0 &t'r nUn e BOCC December 20, 2010 MOL PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST APPLICANT f OWNER REPRESENTATIVE/ENGINEER LOCATION PROPERTY SIZE WATER SEWER ACCESS EXISTING ZONING Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat for CPPF 6341 Old Orchard Subdivision Roc and Mary Gabossi John L. Taufer Associates/John Taufer 44523 Highway 6, Glenwood Springs, CO 20.22 acres Individual Wells (shared) Individual Sewage Disposal System State Highway 6 Rural I. (iI NtKAL. F'KOJkt: I INI-UKMA I ION 5 107'2900" W W6$84 107°27'00" W TIt 107°28'00" W WGSP4 IO77t2TOO' W X11, I amFI(T ll��ars tta+ni from TOPOI9M0Witao..re ro(...wwcoaJ Viarroty Map I ° 2000' A. Introduction This Application, a "Combined Preliminary Pian and Final Plat", is for a four lot subdivision, a division of one exemption lot in the Gabossi Exemption approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in 2003, to be known as the Old Orchard Subdivision. The 20.22 acre site is located approximately one mile west of Canyon Creek on State Highway 6 (SH 6). The Applicants propose to divide their 20.22 acre parcel into four lots; Lot 1: 12.343 aces; Lot 2: 2.286 acres; Lot 3: 2.293 acres; and, Lot 4: 3.198 acres. All lots are in excess of two acres as required in the Rural Zone District and density of the Comprehensive Plan. An existing single family home and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) are located on Lot 1. The ADU is situated on the ground floor of the residence and has never obtained a Land Use Change Permit. Through this review process, this structure can be brought into compliance with the County's code. An approved ADU permitted through Gabossi Subdivision Exemption (Resolution 2005-73) is located on Lot 3 and will become a primary residence if the Combined Preliminary and Final Plat are approved. One acre or larger building envelops are proposed for Lots 2, 3, and 4. No building envelop is shown on Lot 1 since no additional buildings are proposed. An existing drive off of SH 6 provides access to the residence on Lot 1 and Williams Canal. The other lots will also obtain access off of SH 6 from an existing driveway along the west property line. Two existing wells will provide potable water for the proposed subdivision. The Bowles Well (Permit No. 52966) located on Lot 1 will serve the existing residence and the Bowles Well No. 2 (Permit No. 56101-F) situated on Lot 3 will serve Lots 2, 3, and 4 plus the ADU on Lot 1. The Bowles No. 2 is permitted to serve up to seven dwelling units. Non -potable water for irrigation will be provided through improvements to the existing Williams Canal ditches. Non -potable water for fire protection will be available from the Bowles Pond, located on Lot 1, along with potable water from the wells. The development will use Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) and Lots 1 and 3 have existing ISDS in place. B. General Property Description The 20.22 acre property is located approximately one mile west of Canyon Creek and just north of SH 6 and Interstate I-70. The site is bounded by moderate to steep hillsides to the north and east, pastureland to the west, and SH 6 to the south. An existing house is situated on the east side of the parcel along with a shed, pond, pasture, and an orchard. An ADU is located in the northwest corner of the property. The southern portion of the property slopes gently up from SH 6 to a steep hillside that serves as a backdrop to the property. This site is situated below two large drainage basins and the eastern portion of the property is part of one of these basins. Steep slopes are characteristic of this basin. The central and south portions of the property slope to the south-southwest at a five percent grade. An old grouping of established apple trees is located adjacent to SH 6 and west of the primary residence. Another grouping of fruit trees is located at the northwest corner of the property in which the approved ADU is situated. The area between the orchards is pastureland and where predominantly the development is to occur. The basin on the eastern portion of the property drains into a channel. This channel carries runoff and irrigation flow from the Williams Canal down through the parcel and under SH 6. The Williams Canal (identified on other mapping as the Minges Chenowerth Wolverton Ditch) is situated north and adjacent to the property. At the time of the Planning Commission public hearing the Final Plat showed the Williams Canal on Lot 1. Since that time the Applicant had the canal resurveyed and discovered that the canal isn't located within Lot 1 thus explaining the plat change. 2 An irrigation lateral is located south of the Williams Canal and north of the building envelops of Lots 2 and 3. This lateral is used is to water the pastureland, orchards, and landscape within the property. A drainage channel can also be found along the west property line. C. History of Subject Lot and Associated Water Rights 2001 Agreement The Applicant, Rocky and Mary Gabossi (Gabossi) and Conrad and Marsha Wagner (Wagner) agreed in 2001 to "jointly purchase, occupy use, and develop" a 61 acre parcel. The possession and use of Lots 1 and 2 were designated to the Gabossi's' and Lots 3 and 4 to the Wagner's'. Also, the water rights decreed in Case No. 97CW162 and the irrigation water and well appurtenant of the lots were divided evenly between Gabossi and Wagner. A site plan, identified as Exhibit A in this agreement is miss - labeled, Lot 2 should be labeled as Lot 3 and Lot 3 should be labeled as Lot 2 and is attached as Exhibit Z. 2003 Gabossi Exemption Plat The Gabossi Exemption Plat, approved by the BOCC in Resolution 2003-13, created four lots from the 61 acre parcel and subject of the 2001 Agreement. Lot 1 of this exemption plat is the subject parcel being reviewed under this application and is attached as Exhibit AA. 2004 Agreement The 2001 agreement between Gabossi and the Wagner was superseded by a 2004 "Water Agreement," (see Exhibit W). This agreement was not available to the Planning Commission but was described to the Planning Commission by the Applicants' representatives during the Planning Commission hearing. Planning and legal staff have reviewed the agreement since the Planning Commission hearing. The document influences a number of the Conditions of Approval now being recommended to the BOCC on pages 27 - 29 of this Staff Report. Based on staff review and multiple conversations with the Applicant's representatives, a summary of the 2004 agreement's provisions regarding both real property and water rights follows: Real property • Gabossi to own Exemption Lots 1 and 3 of the Gabossi Subdivision Exemption together with one half the water rights awarded in Case No. 97CW162; • Wagner to own Exemption Lots 2 and 4 of the Gabossi Subdivision Exemption together with one half the water rights awarded in Case No. 97CW162; Water Rights and Structures The 2004 agreement summarized the findings and orders of the Water Court in Case No. 97CW162, determined location of wells and other structures, split water rights, divided irrigation water, and defined the responsibilities of Gabossi and Wagner as follows: • Bowles Well Nos. 1-6 located on the Gabossi Exemption Lots 1-4, to be utilized by both Gabossi and Wagner; 3 • Gabossi entitled to utilize Bowles Well Nos. 1-3 located on Exemption Lots 1 and 3; • The Bowles Diversion and Bowles Pond First Enlargement located on the lands owned solely by Gabossi; • Gabossi entitled to releases of water from the Bowles Pond First Enlargement in the amounts as provided for in the ruling of Referee in Case No. 97CW162 for one-half of the evaporative losses for the Bowles Pond First Enlargement and the consumptive use associated with 15 of the 30 single family dwellings augmented; • Each party responsible for 50% of the costs and expenses associated with reconstruction, cleaning, maintaining, repairing and operating the Bowles Diversion and Bowles Pond and their appurtenances; and, • Each party received an equal share of the total 8.8 shares, i.e., 4.4 shares, in the Williams Ditch and Canal Company, represented by a stock certificate showing "voting membership shares, as a member of the Williams Canal Company." Recently, Gabossi and Wagner amended the 2004 agreement so that the Gabossi now hold 5.535 and Wagner 3.265 shares of the total 8.8 shares in the Williams Canal (Exhibit BB). This document was also not available to the Planning Commission. It has been reviewed by planning and legal staff since the Planning Commission hearing and has informed some of the recommendations presented by staff on page 28 of this Report. Under the rulings in District Court Case No. 97CW162 Division 5 of the Water Court, the Bowles Pond, located on "Lot 1" of the subject property, may be used for fish culture, livestock and wildlife watering, fire protection, and augmentation for the entire 61 acre parcel originally owned by both Gabossi and Wagner. However, under this application, the Applicant proposes that the owner of Lot 1 of the Old Orchard subdivision along with the adjacent property owner identified in the 2004 agreement (still the Wagner family at present) retain the right to use the Bowles Pond for the uses specified above. Owners of the new subdivision Lots 2, 3, and 4 will have only storage rights in the Bowles Pond for augmentation of the proposed shared Bowles Well No. 2 for domestic uses and fire protection. These lot owners will not be allowed access to the Bowles Pond other than as the water stored in the pond may need to be used by the Glenwood Springs Fire District for emergency fire protection. Thus, no easements are shown on the plat for pond access for the future owners of subdivision Lots 2, 3, and 4. An easement is shown allowing emergency access to the pond. D. Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat The Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 allows a combined Preliminary Plan/Final Plat review "... if the proposed subdivision has seven (7) parcels or less and development of the lots does not require extensive engineering." In this process, the Planning Commission forwards a recommendation to the BOCC and the Board reviews the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat simultaneously. The Final Plat Mylar and the Subdivision Improvements Agreement are then signed by the Chairman at a later date. The proposed Final Plat, illustrated in the image below, shows the division of a 20.22 acre parcel into four (4) lots. The eastern lot (Lot 1) is 12.343 aces in size and contains 4 an existing residence, ADU, shed, and pond and is accessed off of SH 6 via an existing driveway. The ADU on Lot 3 obtains access from SH 6 from a separate driveway that is proposed to be upgraded to a private road and will terminate in a cul-de-sac. Lots 2, 3, and 4 will use this road to access SH 6. As part of this application, this driveway will be improved to Garfield County's semi -private road classification standards. An access permit (Permit No. 309040) has been issued for the west driveway by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). CDOT considers the east access "grandfathered" in therefore does not require an access permit. al -35244459 IMAM, F 2444222221ra.A.22992022,2x wuwn No 2 P.o 629 6t Y.2 Sr. Pw, M 65,6GA966 Old Orchard Drive M23-35240454 IU, G L U S. Burt Karam AssomAr�ox 0.e ka.2 P.O. Bay 66Ic2 Sr.. PAw MN, 55,64.4.166 CO Rab o Srar;r 1 sp o, FIE3.552-06467 for 9. Crites, 22122.222.1 1222 421~ 2+0Mfly Avg GAS= 24222 72,2I2 Ar 6 4Lmr6oa vwtr co. 6+631 5 II. REFERRAL AGENCIES 1 DEPARTMENTS Staff referred the application to the following agencies and County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are briefly mentioned below and are more comprehensively incorporated within the appropriate section of this memorandum. Comment letters are attached as Exhibits to this staff report. A. County Road and Bridge Department (Exhibit G): This department had no concerns. B. Garfield County Surveyor: No comments initially received. Since the Planning Commission public hearing the County Surveyor has reviewed the Final Plat and has no outstanding issues. C. County Vegetation Management (Exhibits H and I) This agency's comments are as follows: • Subdivision Improvements Agreement addresses noxious weeds and revegetation sufficiently. • Prefers seed mixes 2 and 4 proposed by the Glenwood Fire Department. D. Garfield County Development Engineer — Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc., Chris Hale (Exhibit J) • The irrigation ditches on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 need easements; • The cul-de-sac length exceeds the allowable length of 600 feet and should be reviewed by the local fire department; • The distribution of water from Bowles Well No. 2 to Lots 2, 3, and 4 and all ADUs on these lots needs to be designed; and, • The Irrigation Water Use and Maintenance declaration does not include design, routing, easements, or distribution of irrigation water from the ditch to the respective Tots. Since the Planning Commission hearing this consultant has reviewed additional documentation including a drainage report, revised construction drawings, revised Final Plat, legal documents (declarations, agreement and covenants, and various correspondence emails (Exhibit Y) and found it to be adequate with the exception of labeling the irrigation laterals as "permanent and non-exclusive" and mislabeling of water documents. E. Garfield County Health Department, Environmental Division (Exhibit K): This department has the following comments: • Garfield County ISDS Regulation indicate that not more than one dwelling shall be connected to the same ISDS unless such multiple connections was specified in the application and in the permit issued for the system; 6 • Lots 1 and 3 have permitted ISDS serving the existing homes which implies that the second units for each parcel would require a separately permitted systems or a new permitted system to accommodate both dwellings; • Soils on Lot 2 may be problematic for an ISDS; • There is no information about irrigation practices; and, • Require the Applicant to provide an analysis of ISDS feasibility for Lots 2, 3, and 4 to ensure that these three lots are capable of supporting six septic systems or even three large systems. F. Colorado Division of Water Resources (Exhibit S): This agency had the following comments: • It is unclear if the Bowles Well is to be used for outside use; • The Bowles Well No. 2 pumps approximately 15 gpm which is sufficient for the seven dwellings so long as adequate storage is provided; • It is this department's opinion 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 augmentation and are physically adequate; and, • Use of irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use. G. Colorado Department of Transportation (Exhibit L): This agency indicates: • CDOT has issued an access permit for four residences and four ADUs; • This permit states that when Lot 1 redevelops the existing driveway to this lot will be closed; • The field access along SH 6 needs to have the gate removed and replaced with a fence; and, • The Applicant hasn't finished the entire permitting process for the State and will need to build the access. CDOT verbally requested that the "Initial Acceptance" be made a condition of approval for the proposed private road. H. Colorado Geologic Survey (Exhibit M): This agency's comments are as follows: • Recommends that debris flow hazards in Lot 1 be avoided rather than mitigated but this agency realizes that Lot 1 is already developed; • Recommends that any new development be placed outside of mapped debris flow hazards; and, • Recommends note on the Final Plat stating that if additional structures are proposed within the mapped debris flow hazard area on Lot 1 that additional 7 studies be performed to analyze the impacts of these structures to the site and surrounding area. I. Colorado State Forest Service: No comments received. J. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No comments received. K. Town of New Castle (Exhibit N) The town had the following comments: • The proposed development does not comply with the New Castle Comprehensive Plan; • Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as Rural Low Density which specifies densities of 10 acres or more per dwelling unit; • The proposed development doesn't adhere to the large lot single-family, working ranches/farms, ranchettes, open pastures and rural qualities character; and, • Planning staff review this project with New Castle's Planning and Zoning Commission and they motion and approved unanimously to request that the Garfield County Planning Commission deny the Old Orchard Subdivision Preliminary Plan/Final Plat application. L. Williams Canal, Eric Williams: No comment received. M. RE -1 School District: No comments received. N. Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District (Exhibits 0, P, Q): This department had the following comments: • Request that the Fire Department be contacted at the time of building permit to provide more comments; • Suggested grass seed mix to be used on the lots where grass will be planted; and, • All homes in the subdivision will have an automatic sprinkler system and therefore a municipal water supply with fire hydrants will not be required. • The area lacks a reliable water supply for firefighting and therefore recommends 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. Since the Planning Commission hearing the Fire Protection District has provided Staff with an email (Exhibit X) stating that they approve of the proposed 800 foot long cul-de-sac road since the proposed residences will be sprinkled and a 90 foot turnaround is provided. III. GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property is located in Study Area 2 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and identifies the site as Outlying Residential District. Outlying Residential requires a gross density of two acres per dwelling unit of which this proposed development satisfies. The 8 Applicants propose to subdivide the parcel into four Tots that will contain a residence and ADU on each lot. This proposed development is situated outside of the Town of New Castle's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but a portion of the site (Lots 2-4) is shown on the Town's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as Rural Low Density. This land use category has a net density of 10 or more acres per dwelling unit and envisions Targe lot single family, working ranches/farms, ranchettes, and open pastures for this use. The Town of New Castle's Comprehensive Plan also states "These lands are situated in unincorporated Garfield County outside the urban growth boundary shown on the Future Land Use Map. Primary land -use jurisdiction lies with Garfield County. 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 residential densities are inappropriate in this area and should be directed to urban areas where municipal services and utilities can cost-effectively support density." Since this application is situated outside UGB of the Town of New Castle and meets the County's Comprehensive Plan density and Zoning minimum lot size requirements the County can't support the Town of New Castle's request of denial. IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE RURAL ZONE DISTRICT The following is an analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning regulations of the Rural Zoning District. A. Proposed Uses The Applicant proposes to divide the 20.22 acre property into four single family residential lots including: Lot 1 - 12.343 acres, Lot 2 — 2.286 acres, lot 3 — 2.393 acres, and Lot 4 — 3.198 acres and each lot will have an ADU. The single family residence is a "use by right" in the Rural Zoning District and an ADU is permitted with an administrative review and approval or with approval as part of a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat. B. Common Dimensional Requirements Building setbacks within the building envelope on the Preliminary Plan would meet or exceed the requirements of the ULUR (2008). The Rural Zoning District dimensional standards are shown below. • Minimum Lot Size: 2 acres. > Maximum Lot Coverage: 15% ➢ Minimum Setback: Front Yard: (Arterial) 50 feet Front Yard: (Local Street) 25 feet Rear yard: 25 feet Side yard: 10 feet or 1/2 building height ➢ Maximum Building Height: 25 feet residential, 40 feet non-residential V. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Subdivision applications are required to adequately address topics in Section 4-502(D) Land Suitability Analysis, Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis, and the general approval standards for Land Use Change Permits discussed in the first four Divisions of Article VII 9 Standards; Division 1 General Approval Standards for Land Use Change Permits; Division 2 General Resource Protection Standards; Division 3 Site Planning and Development Standards; Division 4 Subdivision Standards and Design Specifications. The following discussion addresses those standards. A. Section 4-502(E) Land Suitability Analysis: 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. Staff Comment (For items 1-3): The property has public road access onto SH 6 by an existing driveway on Lot 1 and a shared driveway for Lots 2, 3, and 4. There are no issues with site access and no access constraints identified. The Applicant has adequately demonstrated the adequacy of access to the site. 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. Staff Comment: The majority of Lots 2 and 4 are at a five percent grade whereas Lot 3 slope ranges from four to 18 percent grade. Lot 1 is relatively flat where the existing residence but slopes up to the north and east with slopes in excess of 19 percent. 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. Staff Response: The property is part of and below tributary basins in the area. The eastern portion of the site is part of a large drainage basin. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Staff Comment: The eastern portion of the site is part of a drainage basin which contains a channel (Bowles Gulch) that carries water through the site and under SH 6. Water from this channel is diverted occasionally to an existing pond (Bowles Pond) located in the southeastern corner of the parcel. North and adjacent of the site is the Williams Canal which provides water to irrigate the property. A drainage ditch is also located along the west property line. 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. Staff Comment: The subdivision will use the existing wells on-site for potable water. The property has irrigation water rights on the Williams Canal and this non -potable water will continue to be used for outside irrigation by the individual lot owners. 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. Staff Comment: The Garfield County Geographic Information System does not identify the site to be within a floodplain or flood fringe. However, the property is on an alluvial fan and the site has risk to debris flows, mud flows and alluvial fan flooding. The eastern portion of the parcel (Lot 1) is at greater risk from continued debris flows. 10 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. Staff Comment: There are two existing and permitted ISDS on Lots 1 and 3. In September 2009, H -P Geotech, Inc. performed percolation tests on Lots 2, 3, and 4. The tests results indicated that the site is suitable for waste disposal. Staff recommends that all ISDS be required to be designed by a professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. Staff Comment: The geology of the site is summarized in The Preliminary Geologic Site Assessment report prepared by H -P Geotech, Inc. This report was further reviewed and commented on by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) in a letter dated August 17, 2009. H -P Geotech reviewed and responded to CGS's comments and summarized in a letter dated January 8, 2010. The above mentioned report and letters are included in the application. The geologic report by H -P Geotech, Inc. states that the primary geologic hazards include the potential debris flows, collapsible soils, and moderate earthquake potential. The report also indicated that the subdivision could be subject to debris flow and sheet wash flow originating from the drainage basins north of the site. While all lots are subject to potential flows, the greatest risk is on Lot 1. The New Castle fire that occurred north of the project site in 2007 damaged existing vegetation in the drainage basins. Shortly after the fire, an intense rainstorm triggered debris flows that brought mud and debris down the drainage basin on the eastern side of the property. The existing residence on Lot 1 is situated uphill from the drainage channel and wasn't impacted by the 2007 flows or by any other past flooding. In response to the 2007 event, the Applicants built a two to three foot high berm on the western edge of the drainage channel to further protect the existing structures on Lot 1. This application does not propose to build any more residential structures on Lot 1. The risk of debris flows impacting Lots 2, 3, and 4 is low. As per H -P Geotech's letter dated January 8, 2010, soils within the site can be addressed when the lots are being developed and recommend that an engineered soils report by a Colorado licensed engineer be completed for the foundation design of all buildings. Staff concurs with this recommendation and shall set this as a condition of approval. Earthquake potential can be addresses through the design of the structures on- site and building permit review. 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. Staff Comment: The Wildlife Report by Beattie Wildlife Consulting, dated April 24, 2009, provides details of the fauna located on the site. The report concludes this development "will have no measurable adverse impacts on any wildlife population currently using the subdivision, nor will it result in a reduction in the range of any wildlife species, nor will it directly result in classification of a wildlife species as threatened or endangered." A study of flora on this site was waived by the Director since the area to be developed consists of agricultural fields. However, a Weed Management Plan by 11 John Taufer, dated March 1, 2010 identifies the vegetation that is present within the project site. A small pond (Bowles Pond) and a drainage channel (Bowles Gulch) are located on Lot 1 and drainage ditch along the west property line. The application does not identify any wetlands. 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, paleontological and historic resource areas. Staff Comment: The application contains a letter prepared by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc., dated August 6, 2009. This letter states that the results of the file search showed that no protected or registered cultural or paleontological sites are in the subject site. B. Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis: The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the applicant will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis. 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. Staff Comment: The Applicant provided an address list for property owners within 200 feet of the parcel for public notice which is located under tab "Adjacent Property Owners" of the application. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. Staff Comment: Properties within 1,500 feet include to the east a mini storage facility (zoned commercial) and single family residence (currently Wagner); to the south roads (SH 6 and 1-70) and a railway line; west, agriculture and single family residence; and, to the north undisturbed, undeveloped open space. 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Staff Comment: The site contains a portion of tributary basin with steep slopes in the eastern portion of the site where Lot 1 is situated. Due to a wildfire in 2007, the drainage channel within this basin has the potential for flooding and/or debris flow in areas of Lot 1. However, this application does not propose any new residential development in Lot 1 and the existing home is located on higher ground and hasn't been impacted from past flows. Since the 2007 flooding, mitigation measures such as the placement of a two to three foot high berm west of the channel on Lot 1 has been implemented. The Preliminary Geologic Site Assessment indicates a breach of irrigation ditches (above the site) from intense thunderstorms may also produce a potential risk of flooding to structures below in Lots 2-4. To reduce this risk, mitigation 12 structures such as berms or walls to divert possible flows can be used. This application does not propose any such berms along the north property line. In the initial application submittal, the Applicant proposed, a three foot high berm along the west and portion of the north boundary of Lot 3 to protect from a breach of the drainage ditch along the west property line. At the request of the Planning Commission, an engineered drainage plan was required to be developed for the site. As a result of this study, the berm along the west boundary of Lot 3 was removed in order not to divert water onto the adjacent property to the west. 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: The Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by SGM, Inc. (dated December 2009) identifies the soils on-site are Begay sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes, Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 toll percent slopes, and Torriothents-Rock outcrop complex, steep. The Preliminary Geologic Site Assessment prepared by H -P Geotech, Inc. indicates that the soils within the property as collapsible and are subject to changes in volume and settlement in response to wetting and drying often resulting in damage to structures. As per H -P Geotech's letter dated January 8, 2010, these soils can be addressed when the lots are being developed and recommend that an engineered soils report by a Colorado licensed engineer be completed for the foundation design of all buildings. Staff concurs with this recommendation and shall set this as a condition of approval. There are two existing and permitted 1SDS on Lots 1 and 3. In September 2009, H -P Geotech, Inc. performed percolation tests on Lots 2, 3, and 4. The tests results indicated that the site is suitable for waste disposal. Staff recommends that all ISDS be designed by a professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comment: The geology of the site is summarized in The Preliminary Geologic Site Assessment report prepared by H -P Geotech, Inc. This report was further reviewed and commented on by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) in a letter dated August 17, 2009. H -P Geotech reviewed and responded to CGS's comments and summarized in a letter dated January 8, 2010. The above mentioned report and letters are included in the application. The geologic report by H -P Geotech, Inc. states that the primary geologic hazards include the potential debris flows, collapsible soils, and moderate earthquake potential. The report also indicated that the subdivision could be subject to debris flow and sheet wash flow originating from the drainage basins north of the site. While all lots are subject to potential flows, the greatest risk is on Lot 1. The New Castle fire that occurred north of the project site in 2007 damaged existing vegetation in the drainage basins. Shortly after the fire, an intense rainstorm triggered debris flows that brought mud and debris down the drainage basin on the eastern side of the property. The existing residence on Lot 13 1 is situated uphill from the drainage channel and wasn't impacted by the 2007 flows or by any other past flooding. In response to the 2007 event, the applicants built a two to three foot high berm on the western edge of the drainage channel to further protect the existing structures on Lot 1. This application does not propose to build any residential structures on Lot 1. The risk of debris flows impacting Lots 2, 3, and 4 is low. As per H -P Geotech's letter dated January 8, 2010, these soils can be addressed when the Tots are being developed and recommend that an engineered soils report by a Colorado licensed engineer be completed for the foundation design of all buildings. Staff concurs with this recommendation and shall set this as a condition of approval. Earthquake potential can be addresses through the design of the structures on- site and building permit review. 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. Staff Comment: The Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat propose four residences and four ADUs. A central water system (public water system that serves more than one service connection used by year round residences) will be created as defined in Article XVI, Section 16-101 for the Bowles Well No. 2 whereby Lots 2, 3, and 4 will be served along with the existing ADU on Lot 1. The existing residences on Lot 1 will use the Bowles Well. The ULUR requires a test for "quality and quantity" when requesting approval of any Land Use Change Permit. In July 2009, a 24 hour pump test was performed on the Bowies Well by Resource Engineering, Inc. resulting in pumping rate of 8.7 GPM. From this test it was concluded that this well is more than adequate to serve the existing residence on Lot 1. Another 24 hour pump test was conducted on the Bowles Well No. 2 in January 2010 by Resource Engineering, Inc. The pump test indicated that the well pumped at a rate of 15 GMP. This well yield is more than adequate to serve the in-house demands for seven dwelling units. The Division of Water Resources determined that this well would be sufficient as long as adequate storage is provided for each dwelling (Exhibit S). The Applicants demonstrated compliance to this request in Resource Engineering's letter dated August 31, 2010 (Exhibit T) and confirmed by Mountain Cross Engineering's email to the County dated September 1, 2010 (Exhibit U). Both existing wells were tested for nitrates and bacteria in 2002 and laboratory report results indicated no concerns with the water quality. 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. 14 Staff Comment: The site currently contains one residence (with an unpermitted AUD on the first floor) and an approved ADU and are serviced by two separate individual Sewage Disposal Systems. No additional impacts to groundwater or aquifer recharge areas are anticipated with the proposal of additional residences and ADUs and the permitting of the ADU within the existing residence by means of this application. 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna. Staff Comment: The Wildlife Report by Beattie Wildlife Consulting, dated April 24, 2009, provides details of the fauna located on the site. The report concludes this development "will have no measurable adverse impacts on any wildlife population currently using the subdivision, nor will it result in a reduction in the range of any wildlife species, nor will it directly result in classification of a wildlife species as threatened or endangered." b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources. Staff Comment: The application contains a letter prepared by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.; dated August 6, 2009, states that the results of the file search showed that no protected or registered cultural or paleontological sites are in the subject site. c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat. (1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, and blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. Staff Comment: The Wildlife Report by Beattie Wildlife Consulting, dated April 24, 2009, provides details of the fauna located on the site. The report concludes this development "will have no measurable adverse impacts on any wildlife population currently using the subdivision, nor will it result in a reduction in the range of any wildlife species, nor will it directly result in classification of a wildlife species as threatened or endangered." The property will be fenced and no domestic animals can stray onto or off of the site. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. Staff Comment: The Preliminary Geologic Site Assessment by HP Geotech indicates natural radioactive exposure to the site is typical and no mitigation is needed. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. Staff Comment: The Application does not include a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan and this standard does not apply to this application. 15 9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(J). Staff Comment: A Level 1 Traffic Assessment by SGM, dated September 17, 2009, indicates that the trip generation for the western access, serving Lots 2, 3, and 4 will generate approximately 57 trips on an average weekday with four to five trips in the AM peak hour and six trips in the PM peak hour on an average weekday. Trip generation at this access, is not expected to exceed six vehicles trips per hour. This traffic generation calculations includes the three primary residence and the three ADUs for a total of six units. The trip generation for the eastern access will generate approximately 19 trips on an average weekday with one to two trips in the AM peak and two trips in the PM peak hour on an average weekday. Trip generation, at this access, is not expected to exceed two vehicles per hour. The traffic generation includes the one primary residence and one ADU for a total of two units. CDOT considers this eastern access "grandfathered" therefore an access permit is not required. CDOT has issued an access permit (Permit No. 309040) for the secondary access on the west end of the property. CDOT has verbally requested that the "Initial Acceptance" be made a condition of approval. 10. Nuisance. impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comment: No additional impacts for vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare, or vibration are anticipated for this proposed residential development. 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212 (B). Staff Comment: There will be very little disturbance associated with this development. Disturbances will be limited to construction around the dwelling units and the access drives. The access drive that will provide ingress and egress for Lots 2, 3, and 4 exists but will be upgraded to meet County standards. No seed mix is proposed for these disturbed areas. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the Applicants use the seed mix proposed by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department after the west road is upgraded. C. Article 7 Division 1 General Approval Standards for Land Use Change Permits Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions Staff Comment: The proposed subdivision complies with the development standards of the Rural Zoning District of the ULUR of 2008 as amended. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and intergovernmental Agreements The property is located in Study Area 2 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and identifies the site as Outlying Residential District. Outlying Residential requires a gross density of two acres per dwelling unit of which this proposed development satisfies. The Applicants propose to subdivide the parcel into four Tots that will contain a residence and ADU on each lot. 16 This proposed development is situated outside of the Town of New Castle's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but a portion of the site (Lots 2-4) is shown on the Town's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as Rural Low Density. This land use category has a net density of 10 or more acres per dwelling unit and envisions large lot single family, working ranches/farms, ranchettes, and open pastures for this use. The Town of New Castle's Comprehensive Plan also states "These lands are situated in unincorporated Garfield County outside the urban growth boundary shown on the Future Land Use Map. Primary land -use jurisdiction lies with Garfield County. 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 residential densities are not appropriate in these areas and should be directed to urban areas where municipal services and utilities can cost-effectively support density." Since this application is situated outside UGB of the Town of New Castle and meets the County's Comprehensive Plan density and Zoning minimum lot size requirements the County can't support the Town of New Castle's request of denial. Section 7-103 Compatibility Staff Comment: The surrounding properties include rural residential/agriculture, open space and commercial land uses. The proposed development is setback from SH 6 a minimum of 280 feet and proposes the preservation on the orchard along the highway providing a visual buffer between the development and SH 6. The site and mini storage to the east are separated by a ridge which acts as a visual buffer. The proposed use meets the requirements of the ULUR of 2008, as amended. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems Staff Comment: The Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat propose four residences and four ADUs. All the ADUs and residences on Lots 2, 3, and 4 will use the permitted Bowles Well No. 2 well whereas the existing single family residence on Lot 1 will use the Bowles Well. The ULUR requires a test for "quality and quantity" when requesting approval of any Land Use Change Permit. In July 2009, a 24 hour pump test was performed on the Bowles Well by Resource Engineering, Inc. resulting in pumping rate of 8.7 GPM. From this test it was concluded that this well is more than adequate to serve the existing residence on Lot 1. Another 24 hour pump test was conducted on the Bowles Well No. 2 in January 2010 by Resource Engineering, Inc. The pump test indicated that the well pumped at a rate of 15 GMP. This consultant indicates that this well yield is more than adequate to serve the in-house demands for seven dwelling units. The Division of Water Resources determined that this well would be sufficient as long as adequate storage is provided for each dwelling (Exhibit S). The Applicants demonstrated compliance to this request in Resource Engineering's letter dated August 31, 2010 (Exhibit T) and confirmed by Mountain Cross Engineering's email to the County dated September 1, 2010 (Exhibit U). 17 Both existing wells were tested for nitrates and bacteria in 2002 and laboratory report results indicated no concerns with the water quality. There are two existing and permitted ISDS on Lots 1 and 3. In September 2009, percolation tests were performed on Lots 2 and 4 to evaluate their suitability of on-site waste water disposal systems. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the tested areas should be suitable for on-site waste disposal systems. A site specific soil analysis was conducted on Lot 3 for the existing ADU and site specific soil analysis will be required for engineered building foundations on Lots 2 and 4. As per County regulations, building foundations shall designed by an engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. Staff recommends that all ISDS be required to be designed by a professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities Staff Comment: There are no additional public utilities required for the operation of this site. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways Staff Comment: The property has public road access onto SH 6 by an existing driveway on Lot 1 and a shared driveway for Lots 2, 3, and 4. There are no issues with site access and no access constraints identified. The Applicant has adequately demonstrated the adequacy of access to the site. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards Staff Comment: The geology of the site is summarized in The Preliminary Geologic Site Assessment report prepared by H -P Geotech, Inc. This report was further reviewed and commented on by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) in a letter dated August 17, 2009. H -P Geotech reviewed and responded to CGS's comments and summarized in a letter dated January 8, 2010. The above mentioned report and letters are included in the application. The geologic report by H -P Geotech, Inc. states that the primary geologic hazards include the potential debris flows, collapsible soils, and moderate earthquake potential. The report also indicated that the subdivision could be subject to debris flow and sheet wash flow originating from the drainage basins north of the site. While all Tots are subject to potential flows, the greatest risk is on Lot 1. The New Castle fire that occurred north of the project site in 2007 damaged existing vegetation in the drainage basins. Shortly after the fire, an intense rainstorm triggered debris flows that brought mud and debris down the drainage basin on the eastern side of the property. The existing residence on Lot 1 is situated uphill from the drainage channel and wasn't impacted by the 2007 flows or by any other past flooding. In response to the 2007 event, the Applicants built a two to three foot high berm on the western edge of the drainage channel to further protect the existing structures on Lot 1. This application does not propose to build any residential structures on Lot 1. The risk of debris flows impacting Lots 2, 3, and 4 is low. As per H -P Geotech's letter dated January 8, 2010, these soils can be addressed when the lots are being developed and recommend that an engineered soils report by a Colorado licensed engineer be completed for the foundation design of all buildings. Staff concurs with this recommendation and shall set this as a condition of approval. 18 Earthquake potential can be addresses through the design of the structures on-site and building permit review. D. Article 7 Division 2 General Resource Protection Standards Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands Staff Comment: The Garfield County Geographic Information System shows the west portion of the site as "irrigated not prime". The subdivision of the site will not adversely affect any surrounding agricultural uses. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Staff Comment: The Wildlife Report by Beattie Wildlife Consulting, dated April 24, 2009, provides details of the fauna located on the site. The report concludes this development "will have no measurable adverse impacts on any wildlife population currently using the subdivision, nor will it result in a reduction in the range of any wildlife species, nor will it directly result in classification of a wildlife species as threatened or endangered." Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies Staff Comment: The subdivision doesn't propose to develop in any wetland or water bodies. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants Staff Comment: This is a residential development and doesn't propose to store hazardous materials, sand or salt on-site, fuels or waste on the property. Machine maintenance is also not proposed. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation Staff Comment: Site disturbance will be limited to excavation for building foundations and driveways to the residential units. The disturbance on-site shall be less than one acre and won't require a CPDES permit. Section 7-206 Drainage & Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off Staff Comment: SGM prepared a Preliminary Drainage Report in December 2009. The purpose of this drainage report was to analyze the offsite basins to determine "clean water" flood flows and facilitate judgments as to risk and appropriate mitigation of debris flows. This report indicates that two large off-site basins, Sub Area 1: 289 aces and Sub Area 2: 57 acres, (Exhibit R) are located above the proposed subdivision. Both basins have appreciable area and are steep and capable of producing flash floods in response to thunderstorms. Debris flows are also a concern in both of these basins. Portions of these basins burned in the New Castle fire in 2007 and later that summer heavy debris flows occurred due to intense thunderstorms. In February 2008, the BLM seeded the burned areas and some areas have re -vegetated. The drainage of Basin 1 delivers flow to Lot 1. While the stream channel intermittently carries stormwater runoff, irrigation water from the Williams Canal is carried most of the year. The channel crosses the existing driveway by a culvert, bypasses the pond and crosses SH 6 in a six foot concrete box culvert. In response to the 2007 debris flows, a 19 two to three foot high berm was placed on the west bank to aid in protecting existing structures. Basin 2 drainage delivers flows to the drainage easement on the west side of Lots 3 and 4. Flow proceeds down the natural channel west of the access road and crosses SH 6 in a 24 inch culvert. This report concludes that since no new development is occurring on Lot 1 and the risk to occupied structures is minimal, no improvements or mitigation is proposed. At such time as a Building Permit is required in the future, it is suggested that the Applicants be required to demonstrate that construction is outside hazard areas or appropriate mitigation will be completed as part of the work. The Applicants indicate that the historic drainage pattern of the property will not be altered or compromised with the development. The natural topography of the area to be developed slopes from the north to the south/southwest. Lot lines run perpendicular to the topography thus allowing site drainage to continue toward SH 6 into a drainage ditch on the north side of SH 6. Drainage from the access road sheet flows to the west where it is collected in an existing swale on the western boundary of the property. Section 7-208 Air Quality Staff Comment: No air emissions or air quality issues are expected for this proposed subdivision therefore CDPHE permits are required. A Vlp Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards Staff Comment: The site is identified as a Low Wildfire Hazard on the Garfield County Wildfire Hazard Map. The Applicants propose for all lot owners to keep a 20 to 30 defensible wildfire space around any structures. All residential structures will be sprinkled with an automatic fire suppression system. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards Staff Comment: The geology of the site is summarized in The Preliminary Geologic Site Assessment report prepared by H -P Geotech, Inc. This report was further reviewed and commented on by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) in a letter dated August 17, 2009. H -P Geotech reviewed and responded to CGS's comments and summarized in a letter dated January 8, 2010. The above mentioned report and letters are included in the application. The geologic report by H -P Geotech, Inc. states that the primary geologic hazards include the potential debris flows, collapsible soils, and moderate earthquake potential. The report also indicated that the subdivision could be subject to debris flow and sheet wash flow originating from the drainage basins north of the site. While all Tots are subject to potential flows, the greatest risk is on Lot 1. The New Castle fire that occurred north of the project site in 2007 damaged existing vegetation in the drainage basins. Shortly after the fire, an intense rainstorm triggered debris flows that brought mud and debris down the drainage basin on the eastern side of the property. The existing residence on Lot 1 is situated uphill from the drainage channel and wasn't impacted by the 2007 flows or by any other past flooding. In response to the 2007 event, the 20 Applicants built a two to three foot high berm on the western edge of the drainage channel to further protect the existing structures on Lot 1. This application does not propose to build any residential structures on Lot 1. The risk of debris flows impacting Lots 2, 3, and 4 is low. As per H -P Geotech's letter dated January 8, 2010, these soils can be addressed when the lots are being developed and recommend that an engineered soils report by a Colorado licensed engineer be completed for the foundation design of all buildings. Staff concurs with this recommendation and shall set this as a condition of approval. Earthquake potential can be addresses through the design of the structures on-site and building permit review. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance Staff Comment: The application contains a letter prepared by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.; dated August 6, 2009, states that the results of the file search showed that no protected or registered cultural or paleontological sites are in the subject site. Section 7-212 Reclamation Staff Comment: There will be very little disturbance associated with this development. Disturbances will be limited to construction around the dwelling units and the access drives. The access drive that will provide ingress and egress for Lots 2, 3, and 4 exists but will be upgraded to meet County standards. No seed mix is proposed for these disturbed areas. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the Applicants use the seed mix proposed by the Glenwood Springs Fire Department after the west road is upgraded. E. Article 7 Division 4 Subdivision Standards and Design Specifications Section 7-401 General Subdivision Standards A. Preservation of Natural Features Staff Comment: The Tots and building envelopes are situated in areas of open, gently sloped pastureland which preserves the existing vegetation especially the orchards. B. Extensions for Future Development. Staff Comment: No extensions for future development are proposed. C. Maintenance of Common Facilities. Staff Comment: Maintenance of common elements is addressed in the Old Orchard Protective Covenants. D. Domestic Animal Control. Staff Comment: All animals, including dogs and cats are to be kept within the boundary of each lot and permitted domestic animals shall not run at large. E. Fireplaces. Staff Comment: No open hearth, solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed on any of the lots. Section 7-402 Subdivision Lots. 21 A. Developable Lots. B. Lots Conform to Code 1. Appropriate for Location. 2. Appropriate for Use. C. Lots Have Access to Public Roadways. D. Side Lot Line Alignment. E. Lots Configuration - Cul -de -Sacs. F. Lot Division by Boundaries, Roads or Easements Prohibited. G. Nonconforming Lots Prohibited. H. Multiple -Unit Family Development Prohibited on Single Parcel of Land. Staff Comment: The proposed Combined Preliminary and Final Plat meet the requirements of the ULUR. Section 7-403 Fire Protection A. Adequate Access Lanes B. Fire Lanes C. Water Sources for Fire Protection D. Fire Hydrants E. installation by Applicant F. Maintenance Staff Comment: The subdivision application was sent to the Glenwood Springs Fire District and comments were received. Since the Planning Commission public hearing additional comments were received by Staff and are attached as Exhibit X. Section 7-404 Survey Monuments. A. Monuments Located Within Streets. B. Setting by Standard Construction Techniques. Staff Comment: The final mylar will meet all survey requirements prior to signature by the Board and recordation. Section 7-405 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 22 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. The subject parcel in RE -1 school District and the Applicant shall make a payment in lieu schools. VI. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION During the Planning Commission public hearing the following topics were discussed. These items included: • Providing an access easement through Lot 1 in order to maintain the Williams Canal. Presently, this ditch is accessed through Lot 1 and has been used for the upkeep of the Williams Canal. The Planning Commission has recommended that this maintenance easement to be identified on the Final Plat; • Adding a head gate and divider box/measuring device on the Williams Canal where the proposed subdivision will obtain irrigation water from the ditch. This will assist in diverting water to the subdivision in the amounts allowed; • For the Applicant to upgrade the perimeter fence to a 36" woven wire fence with two strands of barbed wire at the top in order to keep the proposed subdivision's residents and pets out of neighboring properties with livestock; • Providing County staff with the 2001 and 2004 agreements between the Gabossi's and Wagner's which identifies lot ownership, water rights, etc. regarding the Gabossi Exemption Subdivision. These documents are to be recorded prior to the signing of the Subdivision's Covenants and Final Plat; • Include in the Subdivision's Covenants the guarantee that will insure the rights of all lot owners for the pond maintenance and water rights from the pond located on Lot 1. The pond maintenance shall be transferred from the Gabossi's and Wagner's to the Subdivision's HOA; • Providing an engineered drainage plan to address drainage within the subdivision and more specifically how the proposed berm on Lot 3 affects on-site and off-site drainage patterns; and, • To not allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) on Lots 2, 3, and 4 at this time. This decision would not preclude future lots owners from applying for an ADU at a later date. During the public hearing the potential of having eight dwelling units (four single-family residents and four ADUs) was discussed. More specifically, whether a two acre lot has. the ability to accommodate one or two Individual Septic Disposal System(s) (ISDS) for two homes and maintaining a higher density than was envisioned by the Town of New Castle's Comprehensive Plan which is a rural designation. The Planning Commission recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat of the Old Orchard Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. 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 (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. 24 The Applicants shall provide documentation to the County indicating Initial Acceptance from CDOT on 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 Williams 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. 9. 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 lots. 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. 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, 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 — 25 Division of Water Resources letter prepared by Craig Lis dated August 4, 2010 18. The Augmentation Plan decreed -in Case Nurm-ber-g-7-S-W1-62-,indicates that the existing pend is to be used for "fish culture, livesteok,anol-wife watering, fire-protecrfion, and augmentation" for Lots 1, -2T-3, d 4--of--the--Gabo,si Exemption Plat—(Reception--# 5205:4). Prieto -the signing of-th- - - - -- •t - - - - aunty with a recorded geese osement to this pond--and--snail place this ase r;t-o the-fiaa1 plat:-- In addition, the Applican a sig d-agreerment--with each-4ot -owner addres' ppond-aocess, maintenance firo nrotertion, and-ethecresponsibilities, 18. 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. 19. Include on the Final Plat an access and maintenance easement for the existing users or ditch company, of the Williams Canal ditch. 20. The Applicant to add a head gate and divider/measuring device on the Williams Canal. 21. The Applicant to upgrade the perimeter fence to a 36" woven wire fence with two strands of barbed wire at the top. 22. Include and legally record in order, the 2001 and 2004 agreements between Gabossi and Wagner prior to the recording of the declarations and the final plat. 23. The Applicant to include in the declarations the guarantee that will insure the rights of all lot owners for the pond maintenance and water rights form that pond, and shall include the assignment of pond maintenance responsibility to the HOA. 24. The Applicant shall provide an engineered drainage plan for the subdivision. 25. Limit lots 2, 3, and 4 to one single family residence with no ADUs at this time, VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since the Planning Commission public hearing, the Applicant has provided County staff with the 2004 Water Agreement, amendment to 2004 Water Agreement, and corrections to the survey which has provided clarification on water rights and features on the property. With this information, some existing conditions have been revised and/or additional conditions added, 1. 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 26 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 (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 using the shared Bowles Well No. 2. 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 by deed prior to the signing of the Final Plat. 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. The Applicants shall provide documentation to the County indicating Initial Acceptance from CDOT on the access permit for Lots 2, 3, and 4 prior to the signing of the Final Plat. The Final Plat shall also contain the name of the private road in accordance with Section 5-502 (5)(i)(1) of the ULUR. The existing right-of-way on Lot 1 An easement for the Williams Canal shall be shown placed on the Final Plat. The Applicants shall also provide the County with the irrigation sha€es certificates of the Williams Canal, and a deed to proof of conveyance of these shares prior to Final Plat approval, as required by condition #9 a. below. 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 in order to prove no expansion of historic use. 9. Prior to the signing of the Final Plat: t• - + _ _ - • = . - deslaration span°-addis✓ to the C, - - - - - - - - - - - sements, and distribution of irrigation water from the Williams Canal t —the,espectivc lots. a. Gabossi shall convey 5.535 "shares of water under stock certificate from the Williams Ditch and Canal Company" to the HOA. b. The Irrigation Water Use and Maintenance declaration shall address to the County's satisfaction, the design, routing, easements, and distribution of these 5.535 shares of irrigation water from the Williams Canal to Lots 1L2, 3, and 4. 10. The Applicants shall provide easements for the lateral 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 recorded at Final Plat. These deeds shall be provided to the County prior to Final Plat approval. 11. Prior to the signing of the Final Plat, the Applicants shall provide to the County a cut 27 ditch design along the shoulder of the west access road and placed it on the Final --Pat Drainage/Grading Plan and Driveway Profile sheet. 12. The Final Plat shall describe the shared access road for Lots 2, 3, and 4. This road shall be a private road dedicated to the HOA, allowing unfettered access for all applicable emergency service personnel and a A deed conveying the road right-of-way to the HOA shall be provided to the Gounty for recording with the Final Plat. 13. The shared private road that serves Lots 2, 3, and 4 shall be constructed by the Applicantto meet the semi -rural road standards. 14. The Final Plat shall include the following plat note: Applicants eh-all—provide a Deed of Easement dedieating—a pial- eacement over --ate acrd; s --a11 -roads --with-in--the -for al! applicable emergencyrsonnel. These easements -shall be described --and shown en -the Final Platte 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, an unincorporated HOA, a not-for-profit corpora -ti -o -n for the use of the members and guests thereof, subject to: • The right of appropriate public utility companies to utilize said roads as utility easements; and, • The right of all emergency vehicles to make use of such roads in all reasonable circumstances." 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 including an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 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 August 4, 2010. 18. The existing pond is shown within the CDOT right-of-way. The Applicants shall obtain an encroachment ag-reement license 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. 19. The Applicant shall show on the Final Plat an access and maintenance easement for the existing users or ditch company of the Williams Canal prior to Final Plat approval. 20. The Applicant shall add a head gate and divider/measuring device on the Williams Canal prior to Final Plat approval to the improvements to be constructed under the terms of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 21. The Applicant shall upgrade the perimeter fence to a 36" woven wire fence, with two 28 strands of barbed wire at the top and add this upgrade to the improvements to be constructed under the terms of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement prier to Final Pat-ap r�v-al. 22. The Applicant shall legally record, in order, the 2001 (Reception No. 791617) and 2004 (Reception No. 791618) agreements and the 2010 amendment between Gabossi and Wagner. This shall be done before recording the Declarations of the Subdivision and the Final Plat; 23. The Applicant shall include in the Subdivision's Declarations, the assurance of guarantee that insures the rights of all lot owners to the fo lie-{pend-ranaintena ec and storage water rights for well augmentation purposes from that pond the Bowles Pond on Lot 1 related to domestic use and fire protection. and The Applicant shall assign include the assignment to the HOA of -pond -maintenance -r- .:. _ . _ • • t- �o Pinal Plat a-pproval applicable storage rights for augmentation and fire protection under District Court Case No. 97CW162, consistent with the agreements identified in Condition No. 22 above. The Declarations shall also include assignment of pond maintenance responsibility to the HOA. 24. The owner of Lot 1 retains the right to use the Bowles Pond for fish culture, livestock and wildlife watering, consistent with the rights of the adjacent property owner identified in the 2004 Gabossi and Wagner agreement identified in Condition No. 22 above. The Applicant shall include a Prat note in addition to those included in Conditions No. 2 and 14 above, as follows: "The owners of Lots 2, 3, and 4 have only storage rights to the Bowles Pond for augmentation and fire protection related to the Bowles No. 2 well (Permit No. 68856). These owners do not have access to the Bowles Pond for livestock and wildlife watering, and fish culture (District Court Case No. 97CW162 and a•reements recorded as Reception No.s 791617 and 791618 ." 25. The Applicant shall provide an engineered drainage plan for the subdivision prior to Final Plat approval. 26. Lots 2, 3, and 4 shall have only one single family residence, with no allowance of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) at this time. 27. An engineered soils report by a Colorado licensed engineer shall be completed for the foundation design of all buildings. 28 Any ISDS proposed for the subdivision shall be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. 29. The Applicant shall construct the central water system as defined in Resource Engineering's letter dated August 31 2010. VIII. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I make a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat of the Old Orchard Subdivision with the recommended findings and conditions," 29 To whom it may concern: Garfield County 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, WYA TT 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 81650 Phone: 970-625-8601 Fax: 970-625-8627 EXHIBIT H 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: 5teve Anthony To: Molly Orkild-LarsoR Subject: RE: Comments on File #CPFF-6341 Date: Monday, July 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 mix? From: Ron Biggers [mailto: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. I 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 1!! 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 EXHIBIT RE: CPFF-6341, Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat: Roe 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 Roc 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 apparent for distribution to Lots 2, 3, and 4. Pians 3. It appears from the proposed contours that water drains along 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 Iength 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, Mountain Cross En is Hale, PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • 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 {jrada@garfield-county.com).vcf Molly, My comments on the referenced subdivision application. 1SDS 1. Section 25-10-111 CRS subparagraph 5 (page 52 Garfield County IDS 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 system 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 ISDS. Applicant should do a more thorough analysis of ISDS feasibility for at least lots 2, 3 and 4. Analysis should include potential lot configurations that will allow building placement and 1505 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 Kada, KE.i i5 Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 From: Roussin. Daniet To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: Roc and Mary Gabossl Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:12:05 AM EXHIBIT IL 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' ingress/egress 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 4 4 4 From: Berrv, Karen To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: Old Orchard Subdivision Date: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 2:17:56 PM Dear M. Morkild-Larson: EXHIBIT M 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 4 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. 4 �1 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 - The other comments outlined in my previous letter are still valid and should be addressed during the development and construction process. Regards, .�J 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 `„'A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail Administration Department (970) 984-2311 Fax: (970) 984-2716 www.newcastlecolorado.orq [1). EXHIBIT 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/FinaI 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 II, 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 staffwas 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 Mr. Taufer during preparation of the current application to discuss the adopted Comprehensive Plan density standards and the Plan'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. Taufer was given a copy of the future land use map. The Old Orchard Subdivision submittal states that the New Castle Comprehensive Pian 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 tvith the Nese Castle Comprehensive Plan. 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 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 1 ���000 �pRfy 10 0EPARR 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 lot subdivision John Taufer and I 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, other then irrigated 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 automatic sprinkler system 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. 41/4 1 10I 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. Colo University Cooperative Extension Putting Knowledge to 11 in* O Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 8/99. Reviewed 1/06. www.ext.colostate.edu NATURAL RESOURCES FORESTRY SERIES EXHIBIT P 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 mixes (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 need less 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 clean 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. 0-��QS FIREWISE is a multi-agency program that encourages the development of defensible space and the prevention of catastrophic wildfire. Colo 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 grama Variety Redondo Barton/Rosana Sodar Nezpar Lovington TOTALS Percent Broadcast Rate of Mix PLS* 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% 18.80 Table 2: Northerly exposures and/or moist sites. Species Arizona fescue Western wheatgrass Streambank wheatgrass Indian ricegrass Variety Redondo Barton/Rosana Sodar Nezpar TOTALS Percent Broadcast Rate of Mix PLS* Lbs/Acre 25 9.0 x .25 = 2.25 25 32.0 x .25 = 8.00 25 22.0 x .25 = 5.50 25 25.0 x .25 = 6.25 100% 22.00 Non-Native/Native Grass "Fire Mixes" Table 3: All exposures. Species Canada bluegrass Western wheatgrass Streambank wheatgrass Indian ricegrass Sheep fescue Blue grams. Variety Reubens Barton/Rosana Sodar Nezpar Covar Lovington TOTALS Percent Broadcast Rate of Mix PLS* Lbs/Acre 10 2.0x.10= 0.20 20 32.0 x .20 = 6.40 15 22.0 x .15 = 3.301 15 25.0x.15= 3.75 20 8.0 x .20 = 1.60 20 6.0 x .20 = 1.20 100% 16A5_ Table 4: Northerly 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 Nome 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. EXHIBIT 17, OLD ORCHARD SUBDIVISION -./ 1 1 -7 ---. — .7. • '• . • .. ) i o • . ti/ {{{\ ,J • f I r r'\. /74 . . l 7!'r , err..,' �.gD,r• 4 -, • k 0.A� ' r1 " .rob ` , ,H \I ) �, ; 4:' . II r f..,\_.- c:. i 6- -- ...„-,.. \ • l • f (4U ',ARJ A \ g r ' T 11 89 L3 %j' 1 <� • • „..e,7 . / i . . 1 l ' •,/ 1 : . ; • •* .. • . .. • .- r} f r f. • UB AREA 11 • J •L_' � r• • • ' — • r'• tib' r . • DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL. RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES August 4, 2010 Molly Orkild •Larson Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th St Ste 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 1 EIBIT Bill Kilter, Jr. Governor Mike King Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P E Director/State Engineer '..ttf 'EJ@'ED AUG 0 5 2010 GARFIELD COUNTY E3UILDlNG & PLANNING Re: Old Orchard Subdivision Preliminary Plan and Final Plat Section 35, T5S, R9OW, 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 lots, 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 4800 gpd for in-house purposes. The Bowles Well was decreed absolute for 0.033 cfs (15 gpm) for domestic uses in Case No. W-1358 on December 13, 1972, with March 14, 1972 as the date of beneficial use. Permit No. 52966 was issued on March 14, 1972 for this well, in accordance with CRS 37-90-137(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 one single-family dwelling. The applicant proposes to continue using this well for a single dwelling; however the applicant is unclear as to if outside uses of the well are to be expected. This proposed use inside one single-family dwelling is currently allowed under the well permit, however outsides uses are not permitted. The Bowles Well #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 provide 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 from Resource Engineering, Inc. a 24 hour well pump test was completed for 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: 303-8663581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 ww tt . water.state.co.us Molly Orkild-Larson Old Orchard Subdivision Page 2 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 irrigation 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- 136(1)(h)(II), 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 augmentation, 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 any questions concerning this matter, please contact this office for assistance. Water Resource Engineer CML/KAA/Old Orchard.docx cc: Alan Marteliaro, Division Engineer, Division 5 Eddie Rubin, Water Commissioner, District 39 .M...EESOURCE MEM ■.■■■ E N G I N E: E R I N G I N C. John Taufer John L. Taufer and Associates PO Box 2271 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 RE: Old Orchard Subdivision — Shared Well Design Parameters and ISDS Feasibility Analysis Dear John: August 31, 2010 This letter presents the design parameters for the shared well (Bowles Well No. 2) water supply system and the feasibility of constructing ISDS systems on Lots 2, 3, and 4 of the proposed Old 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. SHARED WATER SUPPLY PARAMETERS The shared well for a primary residence and an ADU on Lots 2, 3, and 4 has a long term yield of 10 gpm and can be pumped at a rate 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 operates between 30 psi (pump on) and 50 psi (pump off). The service line to each lot shall be 1 -inch diameter pipe with a 2 gpm Dole Flow Control orifice. Each house will provide a minimum of 150 gallons of storage and a booster pump to pressurize the house. The storage tanks shall have a low level float control to activate an automatic valve on the supply line from the well. The low level float control shall activate the valve at a maximum drawdown of 25 gallons of storage. ISDS FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Lot 1 has an existing ISDS 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 for 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 81 801 ■ (970) 945-5777 • Fax (970)945-1137 John Taufer Page 2 August 31, 2010 and a combined replacement leach field could easily be located within the available area. Lot 4 has approximately 14,000 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 12 minutes per inch. Assuming an infiltrator unit system with a bed configuration, two dwelling units would require approximately 1200 square feet of adsorption area. A primary and back up leach field could easily be located within the 15,000 square foot area. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOD: E GINEERING, INC. Mich J. Erion, P.E. Wa =r Resources Engineer MJElmmm 872-2.0 RESOURCE E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Moll Orkild-Larson From: Chris Hale [chris@mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:55 AM To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: RE: Gabossi EXHIBIT 11.4 I have reviewed the letter and it addressed Item #5 from the letter dated July 13, 2010. It generated no additional comments. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 Original Message From: Molly Orkild-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? EXHIBIT V Comments on Old Orchard Subdivision preliminary and Final Plat From Eric Williams reprehensive of Eric Williams Trust Adjacent land owner West & North of Property 1. My biggest objection is the zoning of which this is proposed , will allow for an additional dwelling unit for each lot. This will make 8 units in this subdivision. This will impact ground water with the septic systems and the surrounding nature of a country setting which is present now. I think there should be no more than 4 units period, so the zoning or a rider needs to be attached not to allow more than 4 units. 2. Fencing to the north and west needs to be improved to 36" woven wire and better post with 2 strands of barb wire to keep the increase people and pets within boundaries of the subdivision. Pets tend to chase livestock. The fence where it crosses ditch easement needs to be fenced around. 3. Road right of way across lot 1 to maintain existing ditches needs to be put on plat. 4. The berm that is being proposed on the west side puts the burden of the storm water on me where it historically went on both properties. 5. A head gate and divider needs to be put on the ditch where they get irrigation water out. It currently has a measuring weir which does not work right because the ditch is too flat. 6. The water needs to be split after the canal split and a HOA needs to be responsible for their split. HOA would be the owner of the water rights. Comments submitted by Eric Williams September 8, 2010 r .11 W-1,,VL16 fri MANN !! P�11�1�> ' �" '14 �j 4 1 r� F1111 Rtca t i wnii ; 79181 a 13911712810 04:23:19 PM Jean Alberico 1 of 6 Rec Pna;S31.00 Doo Faa!0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY co r11st1N RRLN WATER AGREEMENT EXHIBIT W THIS AGREEMENT i5 made and entered into the day of , 2004, by and between Roc Anthony Gabossi, also known as Mary Anri Gabossi, whose address is 44523 Highway 6, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601, hereinafter referred to as "Gabossis", and Conrad L Wagner and Marsha L. Wagner, whose address is 5403 County Road 154, Suite 1, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601., hereinafter "Wagaers". WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into a certain Agreement dated April 16, 2001 providing for the purchase of certain property commonly known. as 4453 Hwy 6, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto have completed the purchase of said property and have cornpleted the subdivision exemption of the property as contemplated by said Agreement between the parties dared Aptil t6, 2001, recorded as the Gabossi Exemption plat; and WHEREAS, the parties have obtained conmiercial zoning for Lots 3 and 4 of the Gabossi Subdivision Exemption as contemplated by said Agreement between, the parties dated April 16, 2001; and WHEREAS, the parties have paid off the loan from Wells Fargo Bank for the purchase of the property as contemplated by said Agreement between the parties dated April 16, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Gabossis have the right, use and title to Lots 1 and 3, and all the improvements and structures thereon, together with one half of the water rights awarded in Case No. 97CW162, Water Div. 5, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Wagner have the right, use and title of. Lots 2 and 4, and all the improvements and structures thereon, together with one half of the water rights awarded in Case No. 97CW162, Water Div, 5, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the provisions of said Agreement have been fully performed and completed by the parties, and the parties desire to address issues of use and distribution of water rights associated with the Gabossi Subdivision Exemption. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, to be kept and performed by the parties hereto, the parties agree as follows: The above .recitals are true and correct. 2. The term of this agreement shall be perpetual unless and until amended as provided herein. 111,18/21016 A. If'.il1 SI" -+t1 VI ifP:S "IC41I61ii it i! I Rets_ppt4. n8; 781618 gg 3 0l 62k.o F.m S l!erc F.p0.IVCRFTELD couNTV Co 3. The Agreement between the parties datedApri116, 2001, has been Fully performed and is hereby terminated In all respects. ' 4, Gabossi awns lots 1 and 3 of the Gabossi Subdivision Exemption as shown on the Gabossi Exemption Plat recorded in the office of. the Garf3eld County CIerk and Recorder, together with one-half of the water tights awarded in the aforesaid Case No. 97CW 162. Wagner owns Lots 2 and 4 of the Gabossi Subdivision Exemption as shown on the Gabossi Exemption Plat recorded in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder, together with one-half of the water tights awarded in the aforesaid Case No. 97CW 162. 5, PROVISIONS CONCERNING CASE NO. 97CVI62: a) [n Case No, 97CW162, Water Div, 5, Colorado, the court awarded 050 cis. conditional to the Bowles Diversion legally described as being at the point of diversion from a natural gulch known as Bowles Gulch and located at a point in said natural gulch from, whence the West Quarter Corner of Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.M. bears South 48°29' West 1358.28 feet. The Court also awarded 250 AF conditional to the Bowles Pond First Enlargement legally described as having a center point in Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the 66 P.M., at a point 1000 feet from. the West section line and 1750 feet froth the North section line of said Section 35. The source of the water for Bowles Pond First Enlargement is the Bowles Diversion. b) In Case No. 97CW162 the Court approved a plan for augmentation utilizing all of the water rights identified in Paragraph 3 herein above, The entire water rights awarded to the Bowles Diversion and the Bowles Pond First Enlargement are reserved and dedicated to said Plan for Augmentation. Uses augmented are the diversions from Bowles Well Nos. 1 tlwough 6 for up to 30 single family dwellings and evaporative losses from the Bowles Pond. The water rights identified in the foregoing Paragraph 3 for the Bowles Diversion shall be stared in the Bowles Pond First Enlargement for the purpose of augmentation of diversions of water from Bowles Well Nos. 1 through 6 and evaporative losses from the Armies Pond, Total augmentation water required by Said plan for augmentation is 2.448 acre feet. Releases will be made from the Bowles Pond First Enlargement described in the preceding paragraph at such times as there is a valid call on Canyon Creek or the Colorado River by holders of senior vested water rights as provided for in the Ruling of Referee entered in Case No. 97CW 162 c) Bowles Well Nos. 1 through 6 are to be located on the property now described as Gabossi Exemption Lots 1 through 4. Water Agreement - Gabossi/Wagner Page 2 inlildr1010 11:,3u Wnn4onliL ri +t.IV 1KUN rmua V4400 Ni[I�"��Y�EI�tii�l�i���l�fr�ll�1�1'IItr#lif�� uf!!! 341,112 112 ig1G94 1 DoeeFeAO ic RFXELD COUNTY CO d) Gabossi will be entitled to utilize x3owles Well Nos. 1 through 3 as decreed, which shah be drilled or constructed wholly upon Lots 1 artd 3 of the Gabossi Subdivision Exemption. Gabossi shall have no night to drill or construct any of the Bowles Well Nos, 1 through 3 or connected facilities on the lands owned by Wagner, Gabossi will be entitled to releases of water from the Bowles Pond First Enlargement in the amounts as provided for in the Ruling of Referee in Case No. 97CW162 for one-half of the evaporative losses for the Bowles Pond First Enlargement and the consumptive use associated with 15 of the 30 single family dwellings augmented. e) Wagner will be entitled to utilize Bowles Well Nos. 4 through 6 as decreed, which shall be drilled or constructed wholly upon Lots 2 and 4 of the Gabossi Subdivision Exemption. Wagner shall have no right to drill or, construct any of the Bowles Well Nos. 4 through 6 or connected facilities on the lands owned by Gabossi, Wagner will be entified to releases of water from the Bowles Pond First Erxlargement in the amounts as provided for in the Ruling of Referee in. Case No. 97CW162 for one-half of the evaporative losses for the Bowles Pond First Enlargement and the consumptive use associated with 15 of the 30 single family dwellings augmented f) The Bowles Diversion and Bowles Pond First Enlargement are located on the lands owned solely by Gabossi. The water commissioner for the Bowles Pond or Gabossi may cause such releases of water from the Bowles Pond First Enlargement as directed by the Ruling of Referee in Case No. 97CW162. The parties will be responsible for 50% of the costs and expenses associated with. reconstructing, cleaning, maintaining, repairing and operating the Bowles Diversion and Bowles Pond and their appurtenances. The 50/50 split of costs and expenses is reasonably believed by the parties to reflect the benefits each wilt receive from using the structures. Gabossi shall be responsible for determining the timing and extent of constructing, cleaning, maintaining, repairing and operating the Bowles Diversion and Bowles Pond and their appurtenances. Said structures shall be maintained so the augmentation plan in Case No. 97CW162 will remain operational, The Water Commissioner for the Colorado Division of water Resources will lawfully administer, inspect and determine if repairs, changes or other maintenance is necessary to keep the structures and augmentation plan operational. Gabossi shall not be responsible for any periods of time when the augmentation plan is not operational as the result of an act of God or as a result of matters beyond the direct control of Gabossi g) Water Agreement - Cxabossi/Wagner Page 3 1 G / l tf / 4!7112 1"2:4U 71 1174D17L1 L 1111 IiF i1 y1 li � I��i it I � Ii t 1�ii�� L�I��� L X11 Re bone: 791818 4Ro3¢oFo�e4qq o i 3&00 torceeGG RRTa.o COUNTY co rt l ltiln 1Kun rkut u41 bio h) in the event that the Water Commissioner determines that the structures and/or augmentation plan axe not operational, then the parties hereto shall submit to mediation for the purpose of determining a course of action designed to correct any defective conditions. Either party may request mediation by written notice to the other party. Upon receipt of request for mediation by either party, the parties shall promptly schedule mediation with an established and qualified mediator at the earliest available time. Through mediation the parties shall develop what action or repairs are necessary to prevent the loss of the augmentation plau and a schedule for completion of such repairs. The repairs will be contracted for by Gabossi within ten days of the conclusion of mediation. The repairs will be completed within a reasonable time considering applicable weather conditions and availability of contractors. The parties will share the costs and expense of mediation and repairs as provided in subparagraph(g) hereinabove. i) Each party shall be solely responsible, at their sole cost and expense, for any reporting aD.d accounting required by the State Division of Water Resources in connection with the Decree and administration of the augmentation plan in Case No. 97 CW 162. j) Neither party will transfer, or utilize the Bowles Diversion or Bowles Pond First Enlargement except as provided for in the plan for augmentation in Case No. 97CW162 unless said party properly files for a change of water right with the Water Court for Division 5, State of Colorado. Each party shall be solely responsible, at their sole costs and expense for filings with the court for the transfer of conditional water rights, for maintaining diligence and prosecuting applications for findings of reasonable diligence or to make said water rights absolute for their respective interest in the water .rights and augmentation plan in Case No. 97 CW 162. 6. PROV/SZONS CONCERNING CASE NO. 02CW058: a) The parties acknowledge that there is pending Case No. O2C.W038an Water Div. No. 5, State of Colorado, for the Gabossi Well and Wagner Well, and for approval of plan .for. augmentation The Gabossi Well is located in the SEVaNWY of Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the 66 pan., at a point 2,000 feet frost the North section line and 1,770 feet from the West section line of said Section 35. The Wagner Well is located in elle SEV4NWs of Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the 6;' p.m, at a point 2,200 feet from the North section line and 2,380 feet from the West section line of said Section 35. Each well has applied for 0.056 c.l's. (25 g.p.m,.) with annual diversion for each well of L4 AP, all conditional for commercial and irrigation uses. Water Agreement - Gabossi/Wagner Page 4 iv/ ;VI Lt -1.I4 i L. JO 7/U7Y:JULIL rf-147C VW/ O V MIK K iW t1 J I%' luIPVCITEV 11111 lopt10 791618 5of e2120::74960 40oeCR rioR FIELO couwrr co b) The Gabossi Well is owned by Gabossi and located on lands owned by Gabossi. The Wagner Well is owned by Wagner. and located onlands owned by Wagner. Each party shall be entitled to the water right associated with the well owned by them. Neither party shall enter upon the lands of the other to construct, repair or other wise utilize the water rights associated with said wells. c) Each of the parties has contracted with the West Divide Water Conservancy District for 1.0 AF of water to augment the uses. Each party shall be responsible for all payments and requirements for their respective contracts with West Divide Water Conset'vancy. d) Such wells are augmented for irrigation of a maximum area of 10,000 square feet of lawn, 10 offices, and washing of 20 vehicles per day, as shown in the table attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Each party shall be entitled to one-half of the uses and consumptive use associated therewith. e) The parties agree to cooperate in good. faith to coraplete Case No. 02CW038 and to provide documentation as may be necessary. Upon final Decree in Case No, 02CW058, each party shall be solely responsible, at their sok costs and expense for filings with the court for the transfer of conditional water rights, for maintaining diligence and prosecuting applications for findings of reasonable diligence or to make said water rights absolute for their respective interest in the water rights and augmentation plan in Case No. 02 CW 058. 7_ GENERAL PROVISIONS a) In addition the parties have equally divided 8.8 shares of water under stock certificate from the Williams Ditch and Canal Company. With this addition there are no other water rights appurtenant to the Gabossi Subdivision Exemption Lots 2 and 4, except for water rights that have been or maybe in the future developed by Wagner. I)) All of the provisions hereof shall be and remain covenants running with title to the above described water rights and the real properties within the Gabossi subdivision Exemption upon which the subject water rights and related structures are located or used. c) This agreement and all provisions hereof shall apply to and bind the parties hereto, their agents, heirs, successors, partners and assigns of all kinds. d) This agreement shall be recorded in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. Water Agreement - Gabossi/Wagner Page 5 .uI iu. cvici it. .7o 7 f 47'+7UL1L 110 K11 11i1l14 11111 ��B1 R 7l2at4 :tPMore Rio rp .00beoFiAeg1og4FiQp cour,rr co r1IKUN L UN r'1 *. Utatib e) Any amnendtnent of this agreement must be in writing, and must be executed by the parties hereto in order to be effective. Any dispute concerning the provisions of this agreement shall be determined pursuant to the law of the State of Colorado. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover their cost and expenses of enforcing the terms of this agreemen , including reasonable attorney fees. In witness whereof the parties have executed j±is Agreement the day and year first written above. Water Agreement - Gabossi/Wagner Page 6 From: Ron 6ioners To: Molly Orkild-Larson Subject: FW: Old -Orchard Subdivision CR -137 Date: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:50:52 PM From: Ron Biggers [mailto:ron.biggers@cogs.us] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 3:59 PM To:'mo!kild-larson@garfield-county.com' Cc: 'John L. Tatter' Subject: Old -Orchard Subdivision CR -137 October 29, 2010 To: Ms. Orkild-Larson, Garfield County Planner RE: Approval of length of cal -de -sac assess road in the Old -Orchard subdivision. The Glenwood Springs Fire Department approves the 800 foot access road in this cul-de-sac because of the following reasons: • The developer will be installing fire sprinkler systems in all the homes in this subdivision • A pull out will be constructed at the mid -point of the access road • There is a 90 foot emergency turnaround at the end of the access road If you need more information from me to allow this project to move forward please contact me by email of phone. Thank you Ron Biggers Deputy Fire Marshal Glenwood Springs Fire Department Fire Sprinklers Save Lives l!! 970-384-6433 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. November 30, 2010 Ms. Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building & Planning 0375 County Road 352, Building 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INe. CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN EXHIBIT RE: CPFF-6341, Combined Preliminary Plan and Final Plat: Roc and Mary Gabossi Dear Molly: This office has performed a review of the additional documents provided for the Final Plat application of Roc and Mary Gabossi. The additional documents that were provided were: a drainage report, revised construction drawings (3 sheets), revised final plat (2 sheets), various email correspondence, and Old Orchard legal documents (Declarations, Agreements and Covenants). The additional information addressed the previous comments from the letter dated July 13, 2010 adequately except for the following: 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. Concerning the above comment, Deputy Fire Marshal Biggers submitted an email on behalf of the applicant stating that the cul-de-sac length was reviewed and approved. This office has no additional concerns but the decision whether or not to allow it is ultimately up to the BoCC. The review of the additional material generated the following additional comments (numbered additionally to the letter dated July 13, 2010): 8. Item #9 in the Declaration of Irrigation Water Use and Maintenance describes, "...permanent and non-exclusive easements..." conceptually that may not be congruent with the easements as physically described on the plat for the same purposes. Item #9 and the plat should agree. The Applicant should review and revise as necessary to bring both documents into agreement. 9. The document titled Old Orchard Water Declaration is the same document as the Irrigation Declaration. The Applicant should provide the separate Water Declaration if necessary. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mounta Cross Engine - ri g, Inc. C1 is Hale, PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.cotn L J! Lor ;.ULU LL: 4L 'Jf r774DKJLLL r'1 IKIN 1KUN fall Pk 1#41 liNICliNlii,1011111111 ReolptAnn#; 7g1617 0911 !2010 04;23:19 PM Jean fllbarlco 1 of 6 Rea Fe,:336.00 Doc Faaa0.00 GARFMLD COUNTY CO AG ki.. E,MLNT PAGE 91/06 EXHIBIT IZ THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into April 16, 2001 by and between Roc Anthony Gabossi, also known as Rocky Gabossi and Mary Ann Gabossi, whose address is 1125 Palmer Avenue, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601, hereinafter "Gabossis", and Conrad L. Wagner and Marsha L. Wagner, whose address is 111 Park Drive, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601, hereinafter "Wagners". WHEREAS, Gabossis have entered into that certain real estate contract dated February 9, 2001 providing for their purchase of certain real property commonly know as 4463 Hwy. 6, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601. A copy of said contract has previously been received by Wagners. AND WHEREAS, the parties hereto have agreed to jointly purchase, occupy, use, develop and transfer said property in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter contained. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, to be kept and performed by the parties hereto, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Purchase of Property. Gabossis shall proceed with the closing of their purchase of the property in accordance with said contract, said closing being presently scheduled to take place April 18, 2001. The purchase price for the property is the sum of $700,000.00 which shall be paid as follows: a. The sum of the $560,000.00 from the proceeds of the loan to be obtained by Gabossis from Wells Fargo Bank West, N.A., said loan to be executed by Gabossis only and secured by a first deed of trust on the property. b. The further sum of $70,000.00 in cash or certified funds from Gabossis. • c. The further suns of $70,000.00 in cash or certified funds from Wagners. All, loan fees, costs, expenses and closing fees incurred at the time of the purchase of the property shall be paid four -sevenths by Gabossis and three -sevenths by Wagners, except for legal and appraisal fees which shall be paid equally by both parties. Such costs shall include legal, appraisal and planning fees incurred and previously paid by either party in connection with the purchase, financing and development of the property. In order to obtain favorable financing, title to the property shall be held in the names of Roc Anthony Gabossi and Mary Ann Gabossi as joint tenants. igleitehit101 1111! R,c�7tMonti: 793817 lQQee of2BRRC F 128.Q0 Doe e10.00UPOFIELD COUNTY CO 2, Subdivision Exemption. As soon as practical after the completion of the purchase of the property, the parties shall submit .an application to Garfield County for as exemption to divide the property into four separate lots. The lots to be created shall be as shown and described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. Simultaneously with this application, the parties shall also apply for commercial zoning for Lots 2 and 4 as shown on said Exhibit A. ' 3. Property Costs and Expenses. Except ae otherovise provided in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 below, all expenses incurred prior to the division of the property as hereinafter provided and in connection with the joint development and use of the property, including property taxes, insurance, subdivision exemption expenses and any other expenses benefiting the property as a whole shall be paid four -sevenths by Gabossis and three -sevenths by Wagners. 4. Loan Payments. Gabossis shall be jointly and severally responsible for the payment of 58.9 percent of the principal and interest due on the loan. from Wells Fargo Bank West, N.A., and Wagners shall be jointly and severally responsible for payment of 41.1 percent of the principal and interest due on said loan. In order to insure timely payment of the monthly installments,. each party shell deposit their share of the total monthly payment, including amounts paid to any tax and insurance escrow, into a separate account at least seven days before the due date of the installment. Gabossis shall be responsible for timely payment of each note installment from such accounts. The parties shall annually adjust between themselves the payments made for taxes and insurance on the property to reflect the obligations of each party therefore as set forth in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 hereof. Each party is separately responsible for their share the interest paid on the loan, and Gabossis agree not to claim more than their share, adjusted if necessary if the provisions of paragraph 10 apply, as a deduction on their income tax returns. 5.. Possession and Use of Lots 1 and • 2. At all times during the term hereof, Gabossis shall have the right to possession of the area described as Lots 1 and 2 on the attached Exhibit A, together with one-half the water rights awarded in the aforesaid Case No. 97CW162, and the irrigation water and wells appurtenant to said property. Gabossis shall be entitled to occupy the residence and all other buildings located thereon without any further compensation due Wagners. G ahossis may make such repairs and improvements, including repairs and improvements to wells, ditches and other water facilities, as they desire on said Lots, all at their sole cost and expense. Gabossis shall pay the cost of all utilities serving that portion of the property, all property taxes levied on the improvements located on that portion of the property and casualty insurance premiums on the improvements. 6. Use and Possession of Lots 3 and 4. At all times during the terra of this agreement, Wagners shall be entitled to the use and possession of the property described as Lots 3 and 4 on Exhibit A, together with one-half the water rights .2. A J1' 1U1 4V1V 14.•fG -2IU3y;JUL1L I1l1lA511110,14 11111 R�y� t�oiP79l17 @911712@4fl Od;2a:19 R{q Jean Alpe WAL 3 of 6 Ree Faa:$26.00 Oee Fee:O.f0 GARFIE1.0 COUNTY CO ra inary 1tuN FAL.. 03/L awarded in the aforesaid Case No. 97CW162, and the irrigation water and any wells appurtenant to said property. Wagners may makes repairs and improvements to the property, including repairs and improvements to wells, ditches and other water facilities, at their sole cost and expense and occupy: a,ndso any such improvements. Wagners shall be responsible for the payment for any utilities serving this portion of the property, all property taxes levied on the improvements located on this portion of the property and casualty insurance premiums on the improvements. 7. Division of Property. It is agreed between the parties that, except as may be otherwise agreed regarding the joint development, use and sale of any portions of the property zoned commercial, the property is to be divided between the parties as set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6 above. Within one year from the date of purchase of the property pursuant to paragraph 1 above, Wagners shall pay Gabossis all that part of the remaining balance due on the loan from Wells Fargo Bank West,, N.A. which is their responsibility as provided above. Gabossis shall, convey Lots 3 and 4 (as finally created in the subdivision exemption process) to Wagners free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except for any liens or encumbrances created by or against Wagners. Any other sums due either party at the time of conveywace shall be paid at the time of division. 8. Subdivision Adjustments. In the event the parties are unable to obtain commercial zoning for Lots 2 and 4 on Exhibit A, there shall be no change in the provisions herein regarding the use and development of the properties except that Gabossis may adjust the dividing line between Lots 1 and 2 and Wagners may adjust the boundary line between Lots 3 and 4 to create lots more suitable for residential development. 9. Right of First Refusal. It is hereby understood and agreed that after subdivision exemption approval, either party may sell one or more of the lots owned or to be owned by them but only after full compliance with all terms and conditions of this paragraph 9. Both parties hereby agree not to. sell or transfer, or make any contract for the sale or transfer of all or any part of the property unless it is based on a bona fide offer of a third party; and each of the following conditions is met. a. The contract for sale must be a formal, written contract setting forth all the terms and conditions of the proposed sale. (This contract for sale shall be referred to in this paragraph only as the "Formal Contract") b. The selling patty must deliver a copy tithe Formal Contract to other party by the end of the second business day following the day on which the Formal Contract is signed. Such service shall be an offer to sell to the other party upon the same terms and condition as set forth in the Formal Contract. c. The other party may accept such offer in writing, any time before the 5:OO P.M. on the twentieth calendar day following receipt of the offer. Acceptance -3- 181, 1 JI GU4v 1L. $L 7! LJ3Y.l CiLit R tion$ 791617 1191 25910 04;23.19 FNS Aar. Aib.r1 4 of 6 Rdb F441636.01 Goo Feer0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO I""1!man iI!JI1 rMA2c 041U0 must be accompanied by the down payment called for in the Formal Contract in cash or by certified check. Upon acceptance of the offer, both parties shall be bound by all provisions of the Formal Contract and shall close or terminate the transaction as provided therein. d. If the other party shall not give notice of acceptance or exercise the option, the selling party shall be free to execute the sale to the third party pursuant to the Formal Contract free and clear of this right offirst refusal. If the sale to the third party shall not close, for whatever reason, the foregoing provisions for the option to purchase shall apply to any new contract for sale. e. Prior to the closing of any sale pursuant to this paragraph 9, and as a condition precedent there to, the parties shall complete the division of the property pursuant to paragraph 7 above. The terms and conditions of this paragraph 9 shall survive the division of the property pursuant to paragraph 7 above and remain in full force and effect for a period of one year from the date of the purchase of the property pursuant to paragraph 1 above. Upon division of the properties, the parties shall execute a recordable right of first refusal to the others sufficient to evidence the rights granted herein and containing the exact date of expiration of this right. 10. Default and Remedies. Except for the payment due Gabossis, pursuant to paragraph 7 above, in the event either party fails to make any payments required of them under the terms of this Agreement, the other party may advance sufficient funds to cover the amounts due from such party. Such advance shall be deemed a loan to the other party and bear interest at the rate of Been (150 percent per year until paid.. In the event Wagners fail to make the payment required pursuant to paragraph 7 above, or one party becomes indebted to the other party in an amount of $5,000.00 or more, and after written notice to the defaulting party, all right, title and interest in and to all the property shall be conveyed by the defaulting party to the other party and this Agreement, including the provisions of paragraph 9, shall no longer be of any further force and effect. In any event, the defaulting party shall have the right to cure the default by full payment of all amounts due the other party within thirty days from receipt of the above written notice. 11. Terme of Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 9 above, this Agreement shall remain in effect upon the parties until such time as Lots 3 and 4 are conveyed by Gabossis to Wagners pursuant to paragraph 7 above, or to one or more third parties pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 9 above. .4- ■Ill �'i� i� `�11��i��if� liStRION1011414 I R tie M: 791617 R9/17/2010 04;27;19 PM Jowl R1birioo qt a Re* Fae;$36.M11 Dee ee:Q.Do GARFIE1.0 COUNTY GO 12. Miscellaneous Provisions. a. Successors and Assigns. This interests of Gabos is and Weepers are held by both as husband and wife, in joint tenancy with right of survivorship. This Agreement is binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors, personal representatives, heirs and assigns; however, except as between each husband and wife, no party will have any right to assign any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of all other parties, which consent may be withheld for any reason or for no reason at all. b. Amendments. This Agreement and the Exhibits and other documents related hereto set forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect of the subject matter hereof and may not be amended or modified except in writing subscribed to by all of the parties. c. Governing Law. This Agreement is entered into in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and governed in all respects by the laws of Colorado, Venue for any action involving this Agreezaent is expressly agreed to be in Garfield County, Colorado. d. Modifications or Severance. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is found by any court or other authority of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or unenforceable, such provision will be severed or modified to the extent necessary to render it' enforceable and as so severed or modified this Agreement will continue full force and effect. In witness whereof the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first written above. Roc Anthony Gnbu , also known as Rocky Gabossi Conrad L. Wagner 5114c6� , , , ; 91,1 �o AU/ JOU' L1J U ,t. L.•fL Jf NJ1.�ULlt OM VAIMIIVVIIIA 14LWRIMOCI0`I41111II141 III Raaaptien#: 791S617 11 q 6 r 6 Rao Foe'33€.oDoe Ree:O.OQiG�1RFIELD COUNTY CO 7iM11�w M rw rimi" M- ... .. wma.4A'vailNMonPP Ifl!IER: *xiROM M MPFO4I+ VOW A Oe1[Aelaii►ta ft /lRP7 I mi■iMR"P wit illiA ripiciST ji117A 110REItl910R1s•M mom is LAMM A. WA•e arCIOr MA AM OP PIM ▪ RrIAiROAirai'la' f1>7AO S 1 OS1 -U Pitts .il9iis&mumxrir bla A"ALM IP RYES: =We 10 Maw arir MRA 9iTMCib f.i Rimy d1liII9111.11rieMCA MUM. All PW W M91 ai OaC11ais Ater LWAMAIM MIA MCI 197Rif19i0 mestriT MR A ammo lffata t MINNgovrim wpm irsr imr /MOO No PIM MOOIR 411, DA A ORRAliCt, ISA rim TOM 161.131111 um]f71'L ZA DRAM' CO UMW pima Mutt f/]lR19+i. Mt eaarkss rim Mow* A.111 Al PIMP awal% War AA 44o1Pwit f7A,M CPA 1.01 M n)rA y. lrr rJ. I1\.IN 1FCIJ1N rAtat Ob/15b I•• I.SA 014,4 ro 01e*Aai�M01641 11K CSPPA.Au. LII-t51s'v 13a' x71^St't]•v Int ti+A r, how r .. U. ... DMA I .c SAS • .+AAt aI4R tge.4.1 L,OTI :naew� 4rw er .natfi G as*IJtt.1JS Af I•.;areA Au. IAWC1US Mhl. a+r 0.14h AAASH/MIRdeM.CP i■tw•r+ta ivA IMAil .w.•er g ti an AA. Cf.%1.? tV 111 tel: SO P,,.Aa si h .UP _„, 7 71.-Tei.10,4 >f 1 oc. , �w M Two s1 oeT t r� •-. Bow uU MJS10., rblinPRI b�%p 11iq 71e !TMe bei' weew 174 aziugf ed Sb bo 10"' £ ' suuml, Size' , r1b Chi rc Rdo /-79CO2 (7-7 EXHIBIT AA I sip Ed w '�1 x r 'fiqq iit Mtd §d R . Fag. Iiii1E::,,i: R ii 4- 04141;;; E Pia { "Y.8:1 :.-. i a she xi iiid; R F, d Cd�19. etll Ie :� 3 7g R -I.. $ 2 =Q°"zs II pillg 1 4 414:4415 1 E4�g �€_. °ri,E 441 444 i. $ d=y ' gel -a If, e!G 9qit a_ 3_ 0 ap i. „^�j,q g S011! 3gs� R1a 04:1 SRR qr bA �r.c9C ja,�-� 2R�_n9 II E {iR 9pq^ Elg5;� ip{ FFg ix 1! x,1aa !I q/ ON P. g! -- 8^^gid a44a g s: i 'a $s- ,',Tec 4E_ 9F E P Y Al o "s o q0P" 1 {9i 132 or) r o d' o —i 5- a a NOI1dW9X3 ISSOEIV 911.3 41.4 • AMENDMENT TO WATER AGREEMENT EXHIBIT 8 This Amendment to Water Agreement is made this day of , 2010 between Roc Anthony Gabossi and Mary Ann Gabossi whose address is 44523 Highway 6, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 ("the Gabossis") and Conrad L. Wagner and Marsha L. Wagner, whose address is 5403 County Road 154, Suite 1, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601("the Wagners") and amends that Water Agreement between the parties recorded September 17, 2010 as Reception No. 791618 in the Office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. WHEREAS, Paragraph 7(a) of the Water Agreement provided that the parties equally divide between themselves 8.8 shares of William Canal Company; WHEREAS, upon investigation and due to the historic use of the irrigation water, the parties were not able to equally divide the 8.8 shares of Williams Canal Company; and WHEREAS, the Gabossis and the Wagners have agreed on terms to allow the shares to be divided and wish to document the terms and conditions of that agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Gabossis shall receive 5.535 shares of Williams Canal Company and the Wagners shall receive 3.265 shares of Williams Canal Company. 2. The issuance of shares notwithstanding, the parties agree that the water rights available to irrigate the Wagner property are 1.1 cfs of Spion Kop Ditch Priority 158A and .3452 en of Spion Kop Ditch Priority 255 and the water rights available to irrigate the Gabossi property are 1.5 cfs Canyon Creek Ditch Priority 58 and 1 cfs Canyon Creek Ditch Priority 239. 3. The parties hereby release each other from any claim or liability arising from or related to the transfer of William Canal Company shares and the administration of water rights to the Gabossi and Wagner property as set forth herein. DATED this day of 2010. Roc Anthony Gabossi Conrad L. Wagner Mary Ann Gabossi Marsha L. Wagner FROM : FAX NQ. : 61-60 Dec. 19 2010 04:57PM P1 641.04.1 /2:26 a 2-qb G S Co 7-kAa EXHIBIT -we 6�-e�.4 sit'°•uQ 'to 6-24 Onata.O nom ae�.e 4(0 44421au.;; a4,07:&-4 autPeo-rd24,b -462-4"1-) taA-;4 alua de,144$ Wzde-&-v C-4 co TRANSFER OF WILLIAMS CANAL COMPANY VOTING MEMBERSHIP SHARES We the undersigned, Roc Anthony and Mary Ann Gabossi, authorize the transfer of 5.535 voting membership shares of Williams Canal Company, a Colorado not for profit corporation, to the Old Orchard Subdivision Homeowners Association, Colorado not for profit association and authorize the Williams Canal Company to issue a new membership certificate to the Old Orchard Homeowners Association. Roc Anthony Gab Date )4—ev\_,9 Mary Ann abossi 111 • "111.391.4KV11.Le.m.11•44..11 II P. d10., NM •WW,M.M.Irl• • P. • • • MIW• • MMM MMM ••11•11.E.MME.MM MMMMM voting membership shares, as a member a corporation not for profit, with all the rights, but subject to all the conditions granted or obligations imposed by the Articles and Ry -Laws of said corporation now or at any time hereafter in force and effect. Any transfer or assignment of this certificate is subject to the Articles of Incorporation and Ry -Laws of the corporation which impose limitations upon the alienability of memberships. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to b signed by its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the seal of the Corporation, this day of 4. D. .11_2-c)E? 7 GOES 3& OlArlaNT oil. H. JAGROON, cilICA403 ,,,6014111h:1111111,111111111 111 IY.III iFllk!Iw h IIIIII I�lti'�, v � •falh6 .11111 1L voting membership shares, as a member a corporation not for profit, with all the rights, but subject to all the conditions granted or obligations imposed by the Articles and Ry -Laws of said corporation now or at any time hereafter in force and effect. Any transfer or assignment of this certificate is subject to the Articles of Incorporation and By -Laws of the corporation which impose limitations upon the alienability of memberships. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to bsigned by its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the seal of the Corporation, this day of. -4 D. 1`, aril) [G7 GOES 368 6ffigaxY a h. x. JACKt6N, CKIGWUO /elm 41 n E.. • I ' 4n11iininrektiisawksimig. Property Mgmt. No.: 007477. ----- Project ( {Project No.: FAP 145E Parcel ID: N/A Location: 44525 Hwv 6, Glenwood Springs 1 NW '/a Sec. 35, T. 5 S.. R. 90 W.. Gal P.M. ENCROACHMENT LICENSE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into in triplicate this Za day of (} -r d - , 201d, by and between the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Licensor and Roc Anthony Gabossi and Mary Ann Gabossi the Licensee, WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Licensor is the owner of certain real property heretofore acquired as right of way for a public highway constructed as Project F 0014i19), now occupied and used as State Highway No. 6, and WHEREAS, the Licensee is the owner of a fresh water pond now found to encroach upon said right of way, and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties hereto to provide for the temporary occupancy by the Licensee of the land in said right of way so encroached upon until the same shall be terminated by the Colorado Department of Transportation; the above stated Licensee no longer owns the encroaching improvements • or until an overt act by the Licensee, shall cause the cancellation of this License. NOW THEREFORE BE 1T KNOWN, that in consideration of the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) to the said Licensor paid by the Licensee, receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, and in further consideration of the conditions herein written, to be kept by the parties hereto and their respective heirs, and successors, the Licensor does hereby LICENSE AND LET unto the Licensee, the following right of way as shown on the map attached hereto, and made a part hereof and marked " Exhibits A ", consisting of three (3) sheets . This License is made and accepted subject to the following conditions: 1. This License may be terminated by the Licensor upon ninety (90) days notice in writing to the Licensee, whenever, at the sole discretion of the Licensor. This License is also terminated as of the date the Licensee no longer owns the encroaching improvements. The Licensee shall be solely responsible for any costs generated and resulting from termination of this License. 2. The Licensee may occupy the Licensed Premises until at such time it is canceled per paragraph one, unless sooner canceled, but no additions will be permitted to be made to existing structures. In case of partial or total destruction of such existing structures by fire, windstorm, or other disaster or by riot or insurrection, no reconstruction, remodeling or rehabilitation will be permitted without written approval of Licensor; but nothing herein contained shall be construed as denying the Licensee the right to perform normal maintenance. 3. Buildings, structures, improvements located upon the Licensed Premises and owned by the Licensee may be removed by the Licensee during the term of this License, or any extension hereof, or within sixty (60) days after service of notice to vacate as herein provided. 4. The Licensee shall not perform any acts, nor shall the Licensee permit the performance of any acts upon the Licensed Premises which are contrary to the laws of the United States, statutes of 1 of 6 Rev. 6/98 the State of Colorado, ordinances of the Municipality, and breach of this condition shall constitute cause for irrrmediate revocation of this License and all Licensee's rights hereunder shall thereupon cease. 5. The Licensor owes no duty to protect the Licensee from damage resulting from construction, maintenance, or other operations carried on in connection with said highway, and Licensor shall not be held liable for such damage. 8. The Licensee shall save and hold harmless, the Licensor from any liability for damage to persons or property resulting from occupancy of the licensed Premises evidenced by current P.L. & P.D. policy in the amounts specified under Item 7. T 7. Holl Harmless and Insurance. The Licensee shall save, indemnify and hold harmless the Licensor and FHWA for any damage or loss to persons or property resulting from Licensee's occurrence or use of the Licensed Premises and shall purchase general liability and property damage insurance in the amount of not less than $150,000.00 per person and $600,000.00 per occurrence. In order for this License to be executed, Licensee must provide a Certificate of Insurance listing the Colorado Department of Transportation as Certificate Holder and additional insured. The Certificate of Insurance must also evidence that the Certificate Holder will be provided a 45 — day written notice by certified mail of cancellation or non -renewal of the policy. The above insurance requirement must be in effect during the entire term of the license. Licensee shall at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain insurance on his inventory, equipment, and all other personal property located on the Licensed Premises against loss resulting from fire or other casualty. An annual Certificate of Insurance must be kept on fife for the term of this License, and should be marled to: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maintenance .& Operations Branch Property Management Section 15285 S. Golden Road, Building 47 Golden, Colorado 80401 8. Licensee shall not assign this License without specific written permission of the Licensor. 9. The Licensee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Licensor and any employees, agents, contractors, and officials of the Licensor against any and all damages, claims, liability, loss, fines, or expenses, including attomey's fees and litigation costs, related to the presence, disposal, release or clean-up of any contaminants, hazardous materials or pollutants on, over, under, from or affecting the property subject to this License Agreement, which contaminants or hazardous materials the Licensee or its employees, agents, contractors or officials have caused to be located, disposed, or released on the property. 10. The Licensee shall also be responsible for all damages, claims and liability to the soil, water, vegetation, buildings or personal property located thereon as well as any personal injury or property damage related to such contaminants or hazardous materials. 11. Upon the transfer of title of this property, this License is null and void, and new owner must reapply for said License. 12. This License will be recorded in the Garfield County Colorado real estate records to put future buyers/ users on notice of this license. 2of 6 Rev. 6/98 WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned execute this lease as of the day and year first above written. LICENSEE: LICENSEE: By: Roc Anthonv:.0 si__ _.__ By: Mom Ann Oitiossi Title: Owner Title: Owner Address: 44523 .Highway 6 Address: 44523 Highway 6 Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The foregoing lease was subscribed and sworn to before cyte this _ day of, 20J D , by Roc Anthony ossa and Mary Ann Getbossi„ Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission expires • ATTEST: Be?n rdt K. Rasmussen Chief Clerk Address: r tory Public LICENSOR; STATE .OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRASPOPTATION _ I Pamela Hutton, P.E. Chief Engineer 3of 6 Rev. 6198 r. ef,5 PSP Ft VI 8619 •nail 9Jett E 10 1133HS if lIgIHX3 ' • • #411V•MM1Mf _ orers rfl, d .�F�. 1M•� 61 011. • .?t ft" fix• ' sell v: A'Gt sff. 6111 nyi .m at -2" laxai6 •r 4744 if 1111 •pr1 lifi•Isti4m ii ia:fY r1f'Q+.7•497.=4717.•e i fi1;n •l1liKpr f. rani a1i e1 i -tiff■4 x, ruin; '■.yY-��•l .a.wr 1;•WG ad a.1t1y t +.,.0 Y's; -tern''' t -Ina ,lF.Lia 'w' .I1�j�'• ��0iy�r` r u►''�'�1l Fa'n a�. r�-,. 'x. 4•[100 .4Y K! 11n1� ,4•r t S ailL� b�—-'a.S/i.rt'S ;`tlfl_[ nr 41] 1 Pm • PI11Y .n1.iWi .els N P q„ Y! 44IIr fl 'JL4ja �fixY ii . .1. R::p.11Yfi um 10'1 Irma 1 Ons nni u �t ra! •lfaP11■ K +a 1 rrru i 7a .t1..M� f1 4J1�F. mum.* a: rib !P: is • ar/rfmtwa •e• A',O�'lP 11611! Rax •e.R.Y'SK Ir �q q fi ' rtuoR 13w tryY. 'rnu ! n? P .. L 114.1 Wilma r• amid mil iEMI 11110 YI. hl LRi {f W��1f1aKr 74 1 i ni •1 Off 1 iQ. 14 49,•.24 •L1W1r1.»4'Ri iit e[ i +cC •i 114 4in r I 1 a4i 1* ue- i'wE pp rye • 7a. •�[p7r��iirp � vl+ i,"f1 i4f if . w nva4f irge- rir• nl ai ttl...s.A-v1 t,ls f 3 4 IL P'tL•r i!_ ! 4iire •ie 11 igi•g yltt x.Sa.mf •r t 41 14 ■ N tic u t fi 115 n .471-att •ma afu iq: is teFi +'f+ry.iir •a+.•Cr t ! d. 1x1L7 r.nt .V -OHM •17r17614d i. n !1.1nir. pi: Irriflri�nn 44a.9µ s % W r of «.11P 11 �4 .. a Lx4Frg n "{j' irtE UM, awn '-1v� h Y N7 I- i17 1; PC * �S i 7, ■ 1 'S 171 of re +.•i -111111 R it ow Y a sit 11 'PC lI1 all pp owe ala•4+Yial glair. :a:P x W •q fii 'MY.i •• .rtrf�r •!-1+r4R '1M. 1;.: �e +4xyi4lxx igit awl 'R.r:xi' w�rya..4 1�7= 7.F�i. Bras � >r.rt1Y Agile •p +••re 4l. dR: S7•Til'S:C Atr ,Rhllli> : 4tJJ W4 2 ',1trl# 1 .5Ar "• r+PN^S'13 1 .1.74. lYrfC 4 ;4!'d+rW Allay J Arta• p a� -fie 11 Awl 6.17 r AVIP., W2 `f • ? V at4=11 9i€Y 'fir a swrf's:Ch.' r.W ; : tirr • tic :4ri+..rati7At.'. Gitily v.naimokri R ,D £ .I.33HS :iISIHX3 114.711 W. +•414 pron.F .eaCEP.rMIP.'. P701 .01:r1 "ODISMS !F-1=- .11E t' -'] 11E3 OIFE l0.:.`■�-•---Y71r,-rr7 WW.,0 1:I P "1W m 4m. A1(R A�pb mmm4pp 146 • a Ata fra 131=Z 31= - P p y ii 11•171 74.7M ii VW 7 PeiVriWarrjE. P M P.PP L. Fi11P�-PC• P PAPP i MP= et *PPP IA M WPAI Poo .doll t+rrP�1. .Pp. PPP A M•171111==... • -• �-1ar1 e�s _•treR- MIAMI y p m • �-:-4-= c� i• FST Lee�_��rtr._� �efss eaM Me.,2 7.11 .:117 Ent= -11_x,- 1m7 MGM mrtm lf- ?• ..arc�.rr� TPOAPIC RPM .1.14 mb SUIPO/ APO M OW MVO c POPP. POP rem .aw1a°• CGS • F Inie TIVT9 0111ante P• M V sap= rim P a 11111".•PP~.q ' l P g�1NgeA wok maps mew vA•P.orii. IPA1. ��gYr�pi�i./ M�iiO'P6�P Fl���*1 iy7��i PS 0114mPP4� W W P41h4Pr 4P MOP Iti 1••PPLPI OW= bizooWgs vane C a A1�1i�.a N •etAO A1. 9 . WA y til „ao.APO A ti -ple MIA.* or mom in. 4l ^iY P M 1W q i0.•' -A'••••• A.o Lma P P'm'm PI fl i" w AMA P••., A In wr pow Kam AO .In I-XAM .OIN pa 1. 001a1 AP• AZ= = 4 oat •Wiamp A h JPrw ti LL VA RAO > PP MA WI 'DV ere ZL i. tern V \\ • I.1i4'+a /. 'mil Pre siQ-7A4,1 � enterell 4/1 99 .714171 141.L4.7q.Pv4A•e: "i1 DIP WA Pmt =f4 w 1 it -�L-11.1 PIPJY ast•pP Com PpPei7!!1 ie 711! 410.91 711 10. 78417 +i1 Fayy� ilt 114 mimosa i PI e in "��M PFlF7 1 Pe sec Ye'103 1914 a 1111 417 WO A•r ^ •fASgfP7 "ILIVLI +op map PPL!OK •It= �rP.r.a.. sodoo so Pt• _i w .nww P• grw .Imlw�g�tier���Prp PpulCa�n i'��"i oFFAII P .....Ii P. iaP91117 eR9;R#..RHp•q Y1 W 4=1 i4•leepS'11 Art PPP.1P17.001 W1ri.PCem qip, MF P. A.A# o..1= . NLQNIPomW C.,1y �L y1 •144 M PIPY61 +eePt 91. q t 11. W mi Pi P. PI11 11 memo 1.7 PrIP A IPPIPw11 nA61P9 14®•i..•aT4 A.1.PPAyP�1 iA 112+171 .•.lq FAi r4 le /1MPiVe."P ie F�a"it 4..•.44 Pier. earpereeterrer ar�reaw.am rival PME a° .01Weete 1•- Keel re pt.= re • zP11 F4 F ws�1P11 Fert'1aM�� OM AAA 4 AMUP4e1.4Wi(P PLO -PP 111 PIPIPPP p 144 +DPN 4tl=•Ir 4 r t � troW1 A WPM [ laeetll it 3116 .0.P• MEMO] W%u��y_� pQ�_(1���.I Iw 1 i7I.FyFeplm7�i�un�pae1�" 1�p�1F111rPM W W 0.f ••P N N 4m �Pq�'PPV �p1 i 4 Pa 17.1"vi�m�Pq� gY1{m11m PY 1111/ wP1PIAL weer y rime bel Leeteliae 1464 6.P' 4L4dd14Ie1ZL 11117/ sem rap w.-1_1111 aPPP#I ON 7 .77 P IPP•NA p n4w.�Fm�y®a�NY9.L1 L `wtl11 .y5 Pt =me Iawoo •{ 01/771M11 hlap -4,4 wrPTO 4n" 14111141N W A ae: rv'r�'°11 P' 7�L Fm �"ia11u�' !A 141114/ vvwP FP. =MA PA 111/1Pqs 0.m 4eve q•.y•11••+NW 2. 141 P P•e • mo.e•i ••4.-P•!.r. MALMOIts®a AIWA r-71.I17471APPO +oe 11YC13411 • 1 OP -74 aloes PPP ••q lli.PNn4 yN P4r/71PIA7migFrau .m PPP P Ato Fm APIA NAPA e+r1 141 Me p➢1PJ PLL - m1e1..aPro- ^�--s 41 •plm-71. 7114 114 P•e1 Pn {Srettlp ./ •••.••••• V:a.u. p to®i tP W RP .W Pm Ii4s� FSI •marri v1•w 4 q. Arra..l+..17 ^Q •7V P AP -111 ®417 WRPPL••IIMS,A At promo Fm Pq pp 11417 M TL I 1*U •P Fri _41 P .•119 1= "MAP 444 MP 0.1n Pm41P.114.I .A= 441= s•V.O 4111LA1i1.s:e'e' •Foviral ^a�pi11 aor •qpP Ve.•4yma i ism a:.1 p41 .-4,•1Ar�V114i] tl01N7100 40 3111A3 NUMB 40 .UNN3 Wei 1U9 fiLL eaNalA 06 =NI WIGS 9 00031 VC MOM 40 +71LNN au M 4 Lvn!!s Nom/mans [&IVHOao a10 UOlBMfpgf9 MAW twrordi P/P PP 4ti l 1...0 m= FP WM MAO IA AO Ida ow pepoupo �11 '1'l • t 1 1g ' ,4hAlittria 44 Ih. r. 6 0.5466. 629 rt it'll c 1 Fm[ -cul s. Location of Encroachment 14 I X7.147 I r#14 i - .0" it1 -14 t aFftvEcr. eli : al 1 hl : rill . illi tt Win" I is x : hl.RkMAIP_4P-- f:--- _ I IAS■q " '.- .- = -- -=-'''":";-- EtIrMIEMINEAdi'il ISIMilifillta "'-:.:,::eitio mak CROWS ALM- :t ji. soy tet_ _' - s .t _ ;a g . ' . " . . ' t '1 ' ' 7 Mat 2 "WEN -�" - - - �m S = — - •--- - -- •a .'. Gtrlit. AFRI' PENRFlA1MAA4'WM. gip iilligNii�6'--g jai • i ".:'- - i,-'1. iir11061011M Ai Mililliki JUI 0 ICCV. 0/Y ���a 'a I fill Z 0 i-- < 2re0 LL Z PROJECT OL. c'3 0- ('3 C LL 1 3(I3c (13 0_ L>% (0 c .E L a_ c E O U cn a) 0 a) DC d' CO CO LL LL CIU C 0 .(/) LO .D O Roc and Mary Gabossi L 0 c 0 cn 0 ca .0 O Q c co L O co c O O 4- co c 0 Representative: 20.22 Acres Property Size: State Highway 6 c'3 c 0 -o 0 0) c a 5 O ca ( c a 0 •� E 0 0 0 Q N 0 VICINITY MAP 39°35'60" N 39°34'OO" GJ 107°28'00' W WGSS4 107°27'00" W 107028`00" W 0 WGS84 107°27'00" W 1 m lo0a MT 0 •0aa t liFtS Prsite3 from TOPO?' @2000 W./Mower Productions (www•.topo.cum) Vicincty Map " = 2000' 39°35'Q0" N BACKGROUND -o ,--- 0 .1 O c .J 2 o_ c a. -f-� o 0 (13 p cn 0.. . o m c I :cn > O 0 > 0 '.4.••+ .4-, -0 '7.3 :ra. D E c = E o � � � a) .Cw oW O _ 5 c 5 L cf) Li_ E '1- Q O LO '- . 00 u) L.N (0 - - o._ o 0 i (fic�� w (,) u) 0 -0 c 0 = a) .� > c . _ 0_,u) co O `0 a) .c - O "Ci) Q ,_, zI--Q11,8 I.� I I g 1 1.0 O t` o C5 of o o T--0 o c 0 0 0 04- N 0 N N m N 0 KM1f A'J •f FW u) I- 1 0 ce cew E-- < u_0 >ce0 u)x 2001 Agreement Gabossi and Wagner to purchase 61 acres; 97CW162 to d z _ a) 7alc ca 0 -c 0 o E U 4 O ) 7 178 cn o a)0- (11 o u, .: 0) 0� a 0 0 -o0 -o 0 0 N 0 E E 0 0) co 0 0 Co -o C) 0 a) -CO D C6 w 00'-0 w (13 co `0 -— o _Q L 0 0 0 � 0 0) as - 0 c _ Lc 'E L .u) fLIF° C\IC6Q)0 (13 -o 0 0 0 4E' a) CD 0 0 N shares between a 0 LCD CO L0 V) 0 co _CD ASI 0 O c N U� c O 0 o w O .�-► co p _c _c 2, Q O Ci_ o 0 8 •ccic co > -F1) i;:,. cy3 c N _c -O7:5 N O OD.. �.. >, 2 aj �� O Q u)OO &.F,_"a O 5 X = = c = U W n c3 E C >, p N :7 -c ca W o- Q. d' 4— d- L- O ( co p - c� U .�g -#E, , O . co- (13 ``— c� � N co ''"' O � 77) N 1.0 O C� ,U .� O N • N C J p 2 o_ N p ,z O O - _a 4- c13 -0 —! = a� J a p >> `4 O , U) C 4- 4_ (2 4 - co Oj u) .a- c13 O O _ O CD _ L_ g3 -0 45 2 cL5 .17') = ca) .c.u) i 2 p o eco D o� O''c O 03 0 W LL 0 .Q C 0 U a) O L a 0 O N O O c O SITE CONSTRAINTS / 1/4 INTERS1 70 Explanation: f of I 1Qd1 1Di.043 Qd21 Oto_ Man Placed Fit! Stream Channel Alluvium Alluvial Fan Deposits 2007 Debris Flew Oder Recent Debris Flow Loess De. • as 1 Qt 1 Jm 1 Wes PPmt f +RC?ntl Terrace and Old Fan Alluvium Morrison Formation State Bridge Formation Maroon Formation. Schoolhouse Member Maroon Formation. Main Body 30 El malsmosi Irrigation Pathways (ditch & canal) Strike and Dip of Bedding in Degrees Exploratory Pit (hl -P Gectech,200B) 0 i 400 ft. Scale: 1 in. = 400 ft. Contour lnterial = 40 ft. i Town of New Castles Com • rehensive Plan Types of Uses Large lot single-family, working ranches/farms, ranchettes, open pastures and rural qualities characterize this area. Density Net densities are 10 or more acres per dwelling unit. Location These lands are situated in unincorporated Garfield County outside the urban growth boundary shown on the Future Land Use Map. Primary land -use jurisdiction lies with Garfield County. 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 residential densities are inappropriate in this area and should be directed to urban areas where municipal services and utilities can cost-effectively support density. Design Characteristics Large lot single-family and rural agricultural uses characterize these areas. Roads may be gravel or have paved surfaces but typically do not include curb/gutter or sidewalks. Rural trail systems such as the LoVa Trail may support non -motorized access, but lower traffic volumes in most locations allow non -motor access on roadways. Open space is on private and public lands. Active parks are usually not found in rural areas. 0 6L ns ti $ e0071 Mope 1 rnIONltrng May 25. 2009 o 73 c Z W 4-- < E .›, . o_ w W Q 00N CD �' CI) 044 0 0- aD W c �� 0) I cu a)— W "4=-;�, TD 0 C o CL .> 7 2 w c., . 5 0 c 0) < .c 2 .2 E 2 o �,.E `_ E -0 5o E o 0 Section 4-502 (D) Land Suitability Analysis • TI:oi E • O z L-Qo U '4v 0 - CO 9 0 N .r.., M o CO za) cu co co L. `(13 o 0. O -0 CD CO V U-~ QS Q) .CO � Q. .0. 0) � -0 a) a) o a) m 0 o � "� M 0 N E L -Q 1- Io 0- 0 00 - O N (i) L.. CI) Z o e v a) v LL O U ii co 0) L Z O� a) CO Cn >- -J Q Z Q I- 0 a CL Section 4-502 (E) Impact Analysis COMMENTS Z 0 u) u) 2 20 U 0 Z Z Z a J a a) U L -0 -C § .O N L-' (6 O -0 c ~ a) . (7) .Q _c ••� — -0 co o . ? (� -+--+ Q ; 2 u) -c fj. -2 � o as � ' � � c 0) 0 co O cn > a_ o V a) • c .c N O O O a) N sp 92 EM L.. r' (A r Q) (13 CO Q. ••C N C (6 J'E4 -3c .> O O Q) N �.. c O E O a) }' 2 O if c �'I) Q V(13r-OO. y p QO O•c 'in p r J ca) , if O O W a)c iii v) as Q) n ow EL a) O c c p p o o= cn o 'o co p O o_c 0H a) O 0 N CO E 7 . N '''' Q) 4) O a) . � p a) oCD�� CONS•� a) u) �'o) �0o �U).� i -�Q) >+ (a (a cn 'E 4-, i_ - cn +� a) 0) O N NCL a) a) c (u 2 = 46 -0 c L a) O c ci) __ N Q c a o) c D o X (o N a) .— Q- 73 cI V W e O7� O (6 N < c c") . ._ c .75 Q , u) +� (jj a) (il to c O1 O L O , p -0 O _ p p -Y (0 c3 o a0D", Q � 2 CLCDC�"C COMMENTS Z 0 co(f) 2 0 0 0 Z Z Z Q J ci_ OO di L N = 4— -p C C") Q C (1) O (S.12. c O d' (6 : Q ? .= Q L .673 o L C O O co O O p U �_ 1-,,343 6 c L N -o O N =� O a f a)"_ p O O 0 Q v) O O al N �O O 0)O E N CI) U = L Q O c to O D c o -a p o EZ co �cn -oL DL •>�Oo� a) co (13 ca. ❑ rc opo -�'E' N (i) _c Q (13O ( mc '13 D -pp (1) 9 C co (6 _c _QC13 ❑ >> o U Q O -� U Q O N o C6 a-- O p .O O O) -1-+ 'O N , L� o 0- �C co Vic.( o OF- w Qc c�� o L22 rTi O vy V) cti (n N- 0 - — 4-' 13 (13 (6O � Q U —f NO o ton CD 0 OU = al C -0 0 U ) 4c1 i 2 cuE ia3(to 8 _c,,.:E0 c (ti -ic-vi ,y) 0) 0 c .1:.... C.7 C D 4- 0-0 ? (1) Z 0 Z 0 U 0 0 U) Co C (13 (0 c O '7) (Ci• N •U C Q E O- O RI0 75 C c . Q L O C O Q N N •-c0 O o _o >, a) 0) -� C = C (13 C 0 E 0 u 0 CU N O O� CO_ C O' N O N C E -c � U � = 0 >,-o F- U (0 0. c LL O 0 O Q N 0) O O .c U CO (Z .c N a) s•,; c(0 o_ TD• (13 #U)' Q p co a)� .0 Q •- cl- LL W L.Z U O C L j C H O < to • 0 Z o O Q c • •— t) Q) (0 E 0 0) O O E O VJ a) U a) Q -o (6 0 N C E O L -o (0 a) a1) (0 U) U Q a) 0) a) ) 0 coO 0 cpN U structures. d. The Bowles Well (Permit No. a) .c a) L - C13 a L N c (6 C N (0 U4.- 0 C O C a) E L- Q) a) N N o To z a) u) O O 0 co E _ C O _c U 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 of the Final Plat. is 0 (13 -o coQ. a) (0 U a) O 0 -o O (0 O E co 4-1 4 4 0 u 4 4 41 -4-J D > 0 O co (0 U Q (0 0 To O 03 0 of historic use. 0 C •U) O c 03 • 0) CDX 1= O O O a) (13> O O (0 U_ O O a) O cc 3 Q) (I) 4.4 • 0) c 0_I l 4-- O O • Cid a) 'n L. L_ d) tt3 4g �m cisy ) Coi 4-4 ) :3 3 U7 a) a) (13 a) ') TIS :3 k''d E cm cis a z; •0 0 a) 0. "'"E U 0 0 466 4� c 0 0) a) co0 cti i t0 1Lo(tii asc V J 0 co as (1)�I E o ieciaration Shari address to and .Maintenance 0 0 0 ' 0 47.3 W�3 a.) (N.1 0 691 E 0 c�) is 0 0 (1) () 0.3 ( L() 0 0 • fi5 O N 0_ (0 a) _ ; (0 v�co L_ C U) (4 -0 c C) • a) o O) V 2 c,< C\ 0 O .o a) < .c O a) c c' Imo— OU u) O (0 (0 O U (0 W 45 -o 0 0) (0 0) 0) U coz 0 0I 0) 0 0 (0 as CL t3 as a L1. 73 U as a_ 0) -o ('3 0 0 0 0 co 2 0 to > 0 0 0 c. er, 2 co w L. o) cu 4-, E C 00 C-15 0 ‘L 'Z. 0 () (0 ° 2 o 4- 2 E TD E co L .9 4— 0 z 0) -0 _a a) E a) 4— (I) a) r:. (,) 0 0 ic) (3 z (13 co 171) E 0 0 co 2 ili O (� -� R3 1– c a) -c L N >, .0 (3 46 ,�-, O v O (13= 4= O c 0 c O wU�Eco .c0� °,v Quo L 2a)n �� a) a)� a)OE N • -O • c 0 N ❑ N 45 .c () Q N O 112 N _ co a) Q) _c c O 0) 0 .� +� .._. _ cn ' CV CO U CO s.... 5 4' E ..2 L N ^ Lf3 173 _ O ' N 4- k_c N Q- m 4-X c C to • r j, > 0 a) ' �' 1 c15 = 2 a) Q ' O O c v) ' U 0 L' L cO L L -o . Q. E N cn a Q 0. L • f-- 4- � � 15 CI � ' o ) Q r co a • ❑ ty: r is o + U) N . — 2 .0 > u) U '.) O L Q ,_, _ Q) sen L Q. Q) O 0 O n Q 4-% U) j, to a) ') (� CO N U O +� to V) (i O ,,_, U O Q -0 a) (a LL. c a) o C6 . - }, CO O as Z3 ; E L O O (l 4::, O O O N O .c ._ Q o Q)0) �-. Q) 01) Q Q c ° ° 0) c w c -+� g 0 a ) L c 0 U pa a) O O -0—C -C( 0 n� .� �O 0 O a) Q'( 0 • CU (1) 0U C)...''3 a). 0)c o 0 O L_c ) a a)o O > eO ON N> cc as a. QHJ Q�J a.. O 5c H U) a) Q Lri 6 f` 00 a) O O Q U c c (6 Uo E c J O U c co (13 Q to O0 E c L O C W O O -- ( �-, = a) c U) -C • L • U • LU) 0.. I = (13.1 i— a) O 4 CD - 0 1) - a) 4- c(I o s)P. • /( a) 3 A c.:p a O) jj O •L 3.3 T p ,5 n N P > CO 1, x... w ( CD O (D ?W), 0 CO E O >`) Q)'U :0¢. C 73 L (�3 a) -D > ' ._i +� EW i as LI. CO 03 co t S a) a) :.'. (o L.L. O +� r il3 c2 Q) to' E -o N e r -.:� • LT L } a) §-) 13 .� �) �- -o ,. a (� ..�� m a _ _ (.15 (0 'sem (a .0 9- # q c r C O n -a .0 0 U-0 a) ,'.1-; N E Q O Q (a Q j a) a) = O p ,_,a Tl-2.12 t O N N assurance 0 C O O 0 4=0. C to 0, tv E 0 0 w (o moa) .° off > = a3 y--• O 1') O) U y- (� t� ,I ( U c o_ N related to domestic use and fire J 0 0 a) m cm 51E a a.) r o R0.( 0.. ru ci t . U 4"'a -o c-: • C 'co.:� +.4 L.. to Ct) tr) , C o o x• I. C � 0 co c �,._• (/) 4O (J - - U' ' j cit C= . 0 C toZ N co:0ck c; �; cno U ®1•ti. ; • C o co • J o. tom. • � e tCi N(1)7135 o 0) 0 4--' 0, C x/ C Co' C) n CL _O: CD U "-C)__ O () a) t�3 ChiNt- to ets (13 f 4 ci N o cv 0 9 cin C) �� uC' � c� o •() N t {1' i . (NI 10 or)0) o •0 -('15 to a) 0 o �. �• Q) J f (? (•to O " L_" 6+,.. 4 CO ) U cal ay >, �� ? 0.. 70 (1) 0 0 C r - L. a. W (1) r-5 c 0) J) o c) '� .c- , (/).> ..r tli p :. ,f_-_, yup () _ w .L.- 5,..,�1 ; " _, • ,fl..:. () 'C;) () 4-4 cu• ) ( r° ac .sz. i.: --o ) P ; L^ .� - a); C C " C zt; o C\ 0 a (f)C.- a) , `J • 0 cl. O) C, ,o,... O .� t1-3 o :4.1 }-" U7 5.t `O p o `V• �Fas (. rte^ 0. S Zi; i)() . Z. 0) r- 5 0 c 0 .� .5 co 0 0) c Q) c 0) a)- 0 O O Q. 0 co a_ co (0 c UT O a) H a N O c E co 0) coc c 0 0 a) E to 0 c O) 0 0 4- O 0 (0 0 (6 co 0 .=0. (0 2 r c1) i S.. c p cm LI: CO .1 (o c -C ta) L. 0j 44 c 0 w 0 :'°50 0 as � 6 �) (!o yr, i I ( V J i1`r� ' � ,yy'r�. iV 4".t a,) i a t'ju) 0I 0 O 0 L (0 ..:. _ Q)._, 0 w 6,) 0' (0 fic o w) t/)== , 2 0 0Q) QJ �% L J • : ) W ', , () O ®E >°6 0 cQ 0 as V_ N c) N N (Ni Z 0 i-- < D Z W 0 ti W ceLL LL Q i- CO (I) z z RECOMMENDED p L O i O c CT al W CU 0 1) O0) 0.. O (o u) L CD Cto > O -0 1.12 �C ou)-c .cam Ec E .N a) a) — a) c� 5 .N u) 0D ow O O cn — O r O c a) Q ' -0— _c •� Q o a) CC 0E o�� a)o �� u) � 0 � N� co c (-)(D o f O O 0 E N O.— c0 - o- U 4— a) U D o c 'V4- O.0 .0 t o 0 0 C O -a U 4O o N (6 -O to u) �, 4- R1 in _ O ' cn o U O m E' (6 c u) > C O) a) :7, m a) Q„ (6 u) O -0 O a) +. .�, O :6 2, O Q c -O N O O .6 O O 0 0 46 0 a) E .Q a_ 4- a)Tcs ) ' > O O _O -c L 2D > _U al a)t'd u) E -o cc, -8 ..c CD a) a) Q O 0 D '� 0 O ate) a) U -0 L. .Q O Rf O Q c F'— a) a- p N Q N o �'= 03 Q. O 42 a) > a) a) _c • -.0-.) ..4g _c c >-, = o E E o c ca Q. U I— .o f— a) (n H L —c Q U § H 0 -o TD C9 9— a 0 .�J 715 4- O 0 a_ O Q L O a) C 0 a) C O y O0 'zero V atZI 4:Z4 y 0 V. i a O y • N y Q a a Z N (0 CD vt, v t r %3 Q m w 0) Section 7-403 Fire Protection Adequate Access Lanes Fire Lanes Water Sources for Fire Protection Fire Hydrants Installation by Applicant Maintenance Q) co0 u Q) (I) 0- O Q) ~ co Q) o 0) o Q) •-z O OU � a3 cit -2 4a)o J- (1) -z)10 L. '. o a� o o U 0 Q op U d W .<op C� Q op U Dedication of Public Land. Final Plat Requirements. Amount of Public Land Dedicated. 1. Road Dedications. 2. Park Dedication. 3. School Dedications. Payment In Lieu of Dedication of Public Sites. d Section 7-401 General Subdivision Standards Preservation of Natural Features. E cu0 Maintenance of Common Facilities. Domestic Animal Control. Q. c U d Lt.] Section 7-402 Subdivision Lots. Developable Lots. Lots Conform to Code Appropriate for Location. Appropriate for Use. N z E Q) 141 (t3 0 0 0 O O • • 0 CZ a) Q - o (�j d 0 p m N J .d ( o0 oZ .--•1 UQ o • :• .0 415o u.: Multiple -Unit Family Development Prohibited on Single Parcel of Land. 1