HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationSEP 0 8 2004
Robert M. Noone
rnm(ajnoonclaw.com
Joslyn V. Wood
jvwgnoonclaw.com
David P. Jones
dpj4noonelaw.com
1HE NOONE LAW FIRM
•
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 207
P.O. Box 39
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
'41)
S�r�l9y'I1
BL�`i�►I September 8, 2004
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Director
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone: (970) 945-4500
Facsimile: (970) 945-5570
Toll Free: (800) 813-1559
Re: Clark Subdivision Final Plat
Dear Mark:
I am pleased to submit the Final Plat for the Clark Subdivision in accordance with
Resolution No. 2002-89.
With respect to conditions Nos. 2 through l 1incorporated into the Resolution, I offer the
following comments:
Condition No. 2: Submitted herewith is the proposed Weed Management Plan pertaining to the
vegetation depicted on "Sheet No. 1- the Clark Subdivision Vegetation Plan" prepared by Gamba
& Associates, and is incorporated in the Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision at Section 5,
"Existing Foliage."
Condition No. 3: As discussed with you, the Planning Staff will calculate and advise me the --
precise amount of the Traffic Study Area fee to be paid and I will promptly deliver a check to
your office. The fire district fees have been paid, as evidenced by the receipt submitted herewith
and, as discussed, the School District fees will be calculated and paid upon completion oft e
ap_sal of the Property,
Condition No. 4: Please see the Resources Engineering, Inc. Report dated September 1, 2004 1
submitted herewith. Resource concludes that Clark Wells No. 2, 3 and 4 are capable of providing
water in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality to serve their permitted uses as described in
Well Permit Nos.61398-F, 61399-F and 61401-F, also attached, included with thReport.
Condition No. 5: See Section 6.1 of the Covenants, submitted herewith.
Condition No. 6: Section 3.6 has been amended accordingly.
Condition No. 7: We havelPen advised by the Garfield County Roaland Bridge Department
and the Planning Department that the driveway permits will be issued as part of the department
referral process following submittal of the Final Plat.
Condition No. 8: The CTL recommendations will be followed and adhered to at the time
building permit applications are submitted. ti/f4 (A-1-0 Cp y� Nc t
Condition No. 9: See Sections 16.1 and 16.2 of the Covenants.._
Condition No. 10: The November 28, 2000 and the May 1, 2002 Resource Engineering, Inc.,
Reports, bearing the seal of a certified engineer, are submitted herewith.
Very truly yours,
THE NOONE LAW FIRM
(qActiVte
By:
Robert M. Noone
RMN/j a
Enclosures
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
612163 10/08/2002 02:27P B1393 P996 M ALSDORF
1 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield )
At a special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in
the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 9th
day of September, 2002, there were present:
John Martin
Larry McCown
Walt Stowe
Don DeFord
Mildred Alsdorf
Ed Green
, Commissioner Chairman
, Commissioner
, Commissioner
, County Attorney
, Clerk of the Board
, County Manager
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - 89
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE
CLARK SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, John and Susanne Clark filed an application with the Board of County Commissioners
of Garfield County for approval of a Preliminary Plan for the Clark Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Garfield County Planning Commission reviewed the Clark Subdivision Preliminary
Plan application and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, based on the material submitted by the applicant, the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and the comments of the Garfield County Planning Department, this Board finds as follows:
1. That proper publication, public notice and posting was provided as required by law for the
hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners were
extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that hearings.
3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in
the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the County.
► ►��►I► 1111 IIllI 111111 11t1 Ill Elia Ill IIIA 1111 1111
612165 10/08/2002 02:27P B1393 P997 M RLSDORF
2 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
4. That all data, surveys, analysis, studies, plans and designs as required by the State of
Colorado and Garfield County have been submitted, reviewed, and found to meet all sound
planning and engineering requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Preliminary Plan of for the Clark Subdivision,
located in the unincorporated area of Garfield County described in the application, be approved with the
following conditions:
1. That all representations made by the applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before
the Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by
the Board of County Commissioners..
2. The applicant shall inventory and map any noxious weeds as listed on the County Noxious Weed
list and submit a weed management plan approved by the Garfield County Vegetation Director.
The weed management plan shall be included within the subdivision covenants.
3. The appropriate Traffic Study area fees in the amount of $384.00 per determined ADT minus the
appropriate discounts will be paid at the time of Final Plat. School fees and Carbondale Rural
Fire District impact fees, as to be determined, will also be paid at the time of Final Plat.
4. The applicant shall provide a water quality test for nitrates/nitrites, bacteria, and suspended solids
for all wells to be located on the property by the time of Final Plat. Additionally the applicant
shall obtain valid well permits per the decreed plans for augmentation., prior to Final Plat
approval and provide the following information:
1. That a four (4) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used;
2. A well completion report demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the
aquifer and the static water level;
3. The results of the four (4) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per
minute and information showing drawdown and recharge;
4. A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate
to supply water to the number of proposed lots;
5. An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100
gallons of water per person, per day;
5. The ISDS management plan done by Gamba and Associates dated February 18, 2002 shall be
included within the Subdivision Covenants.
6. Section 3.6 of the Subdivision Covenants shall be amended to state that the maximum height of
buildings within the subdivision will be 25 feet instead of 27 feet pursuant to Section 3.02.07 of
the Garfield County Zoning Regulations by the time of Final Plat.
7. The applicant shall obtain driveway penuits for all newly created lots from the Garfield County
Road and Bridge Department by the time of Final Plat.
111111IIIll 11111111111111111 II 1111111 IIL 111111111III
612165 10/08/2002 02:27P B1393 P998 M ALSDORF
3 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
8. The following recommendations made by CTL Thompson in their report dated January 21, 2002
shall be complied with:
• V - a) The irrigation ditches that will remain in use near the proposed homesites
shall be lined to prevent seepage to foundation areas, subject to approval the appropriate ditch
company.
U c) Where moderately expansive material is present at proposed footing elevations, mitigation in the
form of specially designed footings or over excavation of the expansive soil shall be instigated.
d) Utility trenches shall be sloped or shored to meet local, State, and Federal regulations.
c)e) A site-specific geotechnical study and design shall be completed for construction on each lot.
9. The applicant shall provide irrigation water to all lots within the subdivision pursuant to Section
9:51 of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant shall provide an irrigation plan for Staff
approval by the time of Final Plat.
10. The following reports shall bear the seal of a certified engineer:
a) The Resource Engineering water report submitted by Paul Bussone dated
b) November 28, 2000
c) Letter dated May 1, 2002 from Paul Bussone regarding the 4 hour pump test on Lot 1 of the
Clark Subdivision.
11. The following Plat notes shall be included on the Final Plat:
a. "No further subdivision of these lots shall be allowed."
b. "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners,
residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of
Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a
County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to
encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads,
livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or
otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more
of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations."
c. "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County
regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds,
keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other
aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn
about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County.
A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale
Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County."
d. "All structures shall have engineered foundations per CTL Thompson report dated January
21, 2002 recommendations."
e. "Each residential unit, including accessory dwelling units, will be required to have an
automatic fire sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13D, Standard for the
Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One and Two -Family Dwellings and Manufactured
Homes."
f. "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting will be
1 111111 11111 111111 111111 11111 111 11111111111111111111111
612165 10/08/2002 02:27P B1393 P999 M ALSDORF
4 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made
to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries."
g. "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to be
confined within the owner's property boundaries."
h. "All structures shall be within the defined building envelope provided on the Plat."
Dated this 7th day of October
ATTEST:
, A.D. 2002.
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Res d lution was ad
John Martin
Larry McCown
Walt Stowe
ted by tl3e'following vote:
, Aye
, Aye
,Aye
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing
Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for
said Garfield County, now in my office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at
Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 2002.
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
• •
CARBONDALE & RURAL
EIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
300 MEADOWOOD DRIVE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
RECEIVED FRO
DATE q6D�—
Account Total $
ail
Amount Paid $
Balance Due $
•
CARBONDALE & RURAL
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.
300 MEADOWOOD DRIVE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623 .,._.
RECEIVED FRO
(Aw
DATE
Account Total $ L-3/1
1
ail
Amount Paid $
Balance Due $
N0.
Q v�
4%1 DOLLARS
-�� )(' 1075
•
CARBONDALE & RURAL
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
300 MEADOWOOD DRIVE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ...._
RECEIVED FRO
=r,
Account Total $
Amount Paid $
Balance Due $
N0. •`
DATE
`-YGam,
I _ DOLLARS
x -S /01-S
1,30
13/I
• •
PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR
CLARK SUBDIVISION
LOCATED IN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Know All Men By These Presents that JOHN CLARK and SUSANNE CLARK, being the
owners of Clark Subdivision located in Garfield County, Colorado, and being desirous ofprotecting
property values and the health, convenience, welfare and use of the owners of Lots therein, do hereby
declare and adopt the following use and building restrictions, each and all of which shall be
applicable to and run with the Lots in Clark Subdivision as the same appear upon plat thereof filed
for record on , 2004, as Document No. in the office of the Garfield
County Clerk and Recorder, said restrictions being as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS. As used in these Protective Covenants, the following words, terms
and letter designations shall have the following meanings:
1.1 "Subdivision" shall mean Clark Subdivision.
1.2 "Association" shall mean the Clark Subdivision Homeowners Association.
1.3 "Lot" shall mean a lot in the Subdivision.
1.4 "Owner" shall mean the owner of a Lot in the Subdivision.
1.5 "ACC" shall mean the Architectural Control Committee for the
Subdivision.
2. CLARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
2.1 Each Owner shall automatically become a member of the Association.
2.2 The purposes and powers of the Association are as set forth in its Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws and include, but are not necessarily limited to, the
management, control and maintenance of all common areas and any common
irrigation system within the Subdivision.
3. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY. The property in the Subdivision is
intended to be developed for single family residential purposes only with all structures designed to
blend into and complement the natural surroundings.
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 1 of 13
3.1 No more than one (1) detached single family dwelling and accessory dwelling
unit shall be erected upon any Lot, except for one (1) attached or detached
garage on each Lot for not more than four (4) automobiles and one (1) barn
on each Lot for domestic animals. Any such separate accessory dwelling unit
shall be subject to the permitting requirements of Garfield County.
3.2 No building or structure intended for or adapted to business, commercial or
manufacturing purposes, nor any multiple family dwellings, shall be erected,
placed, maintained or permitted upon any Lot.
3.3 All structures shall be sited on each Lot within the platted building envelope.
The ACC shall approve its location within the building envelope so as not to
impede or restrict the view plane of other Owners and otherwise meet the
criteria set forth in paragraph 17.2 hereafter.
3.4 No structure shall be placed or located on any Lot in such a manner that will
obstruct, divert or otherwise alter the natural water drainage courses and
patterns beyond the building envelope to the impairment of adjacent Lots.
Likewise no landscaping or changes to the existing terrain shall be made
which shall obstruct, divert or otherwise alter such drainage.
3.5 The minimum size of each structure erected shall be not less than fifteen
hundred (1,500) square feet measured on the outside foundation walls,
exclusive of open porches, garages, carports or barns.
3.6 No structure shall be permitted on any Lot which exceeds twenty-five (25)
feet in height measured at any point along the natural grade line immediately
adjoining the foundation or structure.
3.7 No building shall be erected by means of other than new construction, it
being the purpose of this covenant to insure that old buildings will not be
moved from previous locations and placed upon a Lot without the prior
written approval of the ACC.
3.8 All structures shall be clad in natural materials such as wood, brick, stone and
shingles. Any stucco utilized shall be colored muted earthtones. All roofs
shall be of metal or other fire retardant materials. Any metal roofing materials
shall be non -reflective, and colored muted earthtones. Siding of all structures
shall be constructed of fire retardant materials or materials "treated" to be fire
retardant. United States Forest Service and Colorado State Forester Wildfire
Prevention guidelines should be incorporated into residential site planning
and design.
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 2 of 13
• •
3.9 No structure shall be placed or erected upon any Lot which is, ever has been
or could be made the subject of a specific ownership tax as now defined in
Title 42 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, nor shall structures constructed in
the fashion and manner as trailers be allowed.
3.10 Each structure shall be completed within eighteen (18) months from date of
commencement of construction with the approval of the ACC.
4. RESUBDIVISION PROHIBITED. The resubdivision of a Lot is prohibited.
5. EXISTING FOLIAGE. The existing foliage and vegetation on each Lot shall be
preserved in as near a natural state as possible, taking into consideration the United States Forest
Service and Colorado State Forester Wildfire Prevention guidelines. The weed management plan
attached as Appendix B shall be implemented to manage noxious weeds.
6. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Each residence shall contain at least one (1) fully equipped
bathroom and all sewage shall be disposed of by means of an individual sewage disposal systems as
shall be approved by the Colorado State Health Department and local health agencies having
jurisdiction thereof. Owners shall maintain such treatment facilities in good operating condition.
6.1 The Individual Sewage Disposal System Operation and Maintenance Guide
are attached hereto as Appendix A and incorporated herein by reference shall
govern the operation and maintenance of individual sewage disposal systems
within the Clark Subdivision.
7. NO TEMPORARY STRUCTURES. No structure of a temporary character, trailer,
basement, tent, shack, garage, barn or any other outbuildings of any description shall be used on any
Lot, except on a temporary basis not exceeding eighteen (18) months by the construction company
constructing a dwelling on a Lot.
8. NO COMMERCIAL USE. There shall not be permitted or maintained upon any Lot
or any part thereof any trade, business or industry serving members of the general public, except that
Owners may operate a home office or rent or lease their dwelling for residential purposes when not
required for the Owners' use. Renting or leasing of a dwelling may only be done for the entire
dwelling. No apartments or other divisible use of the dwelling shall be utilized by anyone other than
the Owner and any such use shall be deemed a commercial use and subject to immediate injunction
by the Association or other Owners.
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 3 of 13
• •
9. ANIMALS.
9.1 The ACC may require any Owner to remove any animal if, in the opinion of
the ACC, lands are overgrazed or the animal constitutes an annoyance to the
Owners of neighboring tracts.
9.2 All animals, including dogs and cats, must be kept within the boundary of the
Lot and under the control of the Owner. Each Lot will be permitted to have
up to one dog and puppies up to three months old.
9.3 Lots must be kept clean, sanitary and reasonably free from refuse, insects and
waste at all times.
9.4 All animals must be so maintained that they do not become a nuisance to the
neighborhood and do not run at large, endanger or harass other animals,
including wildlife, upon neighboring lands and public domain.
9.5 During construction, contractors and subcontractors shall be prohibited from
bringing dogs onto any Lot.
10. MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY.
10.1 The Owner of each Lot shall keep the same clear and free of rubbish and
trash and shall keep the structures thereon in good repair, doing such
maintenance as may be required for this purpose.
10.2 No noxious or offensive conduct or activity shall be carried on upon any Lot
or in any structure thereon which may constitute a health hazard, nuisance or
annoyance to the neighborhood.
10.3 Clotheslines, equipment, garbage cans, service yards, woodpiles or storage
areas shall be adequately screened by planting or construction to conceal the
same from view of neighboring lots and drives.
10.4 The outside burning of any trash, rubbish or other materials shall be
absolutely prohibited. Manufactured and custom outdoor barbecues and
fireplaces approved by the ACC shall be allowed.
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 4 of 13
• •
11. VEHICLES.
11.1 All motor vehicles not stored in an enclosed garage or screened from view
must be currently licensed and operational.
11.2 No vehicles, boats, campers, trailers, snowmobiles or other such recreational
vehicles or devices shall be stored or permitted to remain for more than seven
(7) continuous days on any Lot unless the same are stored in a garage or
screened from view.
11.3 No business vehicles shall be permitted which do not completely enclose
within the vehicle all machinery, equipment and other evidence of the trade,
craft or business other than the signs affixed to the vehicles advertising the
same unless stored in an enclosed garage or screened from view.
12. SIGNS. No billboards, signs or other advertising devices of any nature shall be
erected, placed, maintained or permitted, provided that this restriction shall not be construed to
prevent appropriate name and address signs and signs that advertise property for sale or rent insofar
as it is necessary to promote the sale and development of such properties.
13. EASEMENTS. To the extent necessary for utility service to the building envelope on
each Lot, each Owner shall have an easement and right-of-way in perpetuity within any shared
portion of a driveway for the erection, construction, maintenance and operation of wires, cables,
pipe, conduits, apparatus for the transmission of electrical current, telephone, television and radio
lines and for the furnishing of water, gas and sewer service or for the furnishing of other utilities,
together with the right to enter any such shared portion of a driveway for the purpose of installing,
maintaining and improving the same.
14. UTILITY LINES. No new gas lines, light and power lines, telephone lines or
television cable shall be permitted unless said lines are buried underground within the driveway
serving the subject Lot and at the Owner's expense.
15. DRIVEWAYS. All driveways in the Subdivision shall be private. Such driveways shall
be subject to an easement and right-of-way for ingress and egress for the installation and
maintenance of utilities as provided in paragraph 14 above. The cost of maintenance and snow
removal shall be funded by fees collected as assessments by the Association as provided in the
Bylaws thereof.
16. WATER.
16.1 Domestic. The domestic water supply shall be from individual domestic wells
which shall be constructed, maintained and operated by the Owner of the Lot
served by any such well. Such water shall be for domestic in-house use only
and the irrigation of grass, shrubs, trees or other foliage shall be only as
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 5 of 13
• •
permitted by the Association in accordance with the decree entered by the
Division 5 Water Court in Case No. 00CW292. The Association shall be
responsible for administering the decree entered by the Division 5 Water
Court in Case No. 00CW292 and all water shall be metered by water meters
approved by the Association.
16.2 Irrigation. Irrigation water for use on the Lots and the common areas from the
Needham Ditch shall be owned and operated by the Association. The amount
of water allocated to each owner, the extent and time of use, and all other
matters pertaining to irrigation water shall be as from time to time established
by the Association.
17. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. No improvements of any kind,
including, but not limited to, dwelling houses, garages, fences, swimming pools, tennis courts,
parking areas, drives, antennas, flagpoles, walks and every other type of improvement shall ever be
constructed or altered on any lands within the Subdivision, including the common areas, unless three
(3) complete sets of architectural plans and specifications for such construction or alteration are
submitted to the ACC and approved in writing prior to the commencement of such work. All
decisions of the ACC shall be in writing. One (1) set of such plans and specifications shall remain on
file and become a permanent record of the ACC. In the event the ACC fails to take any action within
thirty (30) days after complete architectural plans and specifications for such work have been
submitted to it, then all of such architectural plans shall be deemed to be approved. The architectural
plans and specifications shall be prepared by an architect licensed by the State of Colorado and shall
include (subject to such additional information as the ACC may require) the following:
A. Soils and Foundation Report, and Grading and Drainage Plan. Prior to the
issuance of a building permit by Garfield County, a lot Owner shall cause to
be prepared and submitted to Garfield County and the ACC a soils and
foundation report, an independent sewage disposal system design, and a
grading and drainage plan prepared by a professional engineer. All
improvements and structures shall be constructed in accordance with the
recommendations and conditions of such report and plan which are included
by Garfield County as conditions of the building permit or are made
requirements or conditions of the approval of the ACC.
B Materials and Landscaping. In its review of any proposed development
activity, the ACC shall evaluate, among other things, the materials to be used
on the outside of buildings or structures, including exterior colors, location
with respect to topography and finished grade elevations, and harmony of
landscaping with the natural setting and native trees and other vegetation
within Clark Subdivision. The ACC shall encourage "xeriscape" landscaping
which emphasizes the use of indigenous foliage and decreased water
consumption.
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 6 of 13
• •
C. Fencing. The ACC must approve all fencing prior to installation. Barbed
wire and chain link fencing shall be prohibited. Only wooden and metal
fencing shall be permitted within the Clark Subdivision, with limited
exceptions pertaining specifically to the protection of gardens from wildlife
damage, kennels, corrals, or other elements where a wooden or metal fence
would not serve the purpose desired, whether it is to keep animals in an
enclosed area or to keep wildlife out of an enclosed area. The type and
location of all fencing must be approved by the ACC. One basis for
consideration by the ACC of fencing will be how it affects wildlife. Fencing
shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height, shall not have more than
three (3) horizontal poles, and the bottom pole shall be at least sixteen (16)
inches off the ground. Wire fencing shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in
height, shall not have more than three (3) strands, and the bottom strand shall
be at least sixteen (16) inches off the ground.
D. Wildfire. The ACC shall follow the recommendations of the Colorado State
Forester wildfire prevention guidelines, specified by the pamphlet "Wildfire
Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface prepared by the Colorado State
Forest Service (CSFS #143-691), wherever practical, in granting approvals
for construction of residences and other structures submitted to it for
approval. The ACC shall, wherever practical, incorporate the guidelines set
forth in that pamphlet into the plans approved for lots in the Clark
Subdivision to protect the Clark Subdivision, and all of the buildings
constructed therein, from the danger of wildfire. The ACC will consider the
guidelines in the most current wildfire publication by the Colorado State
Forest Service.
E. Lighting. The ACC shall consider exterior lighting plans and will require that
all exterior lighting (with possible exceptions for lighting necessary for
safety) be directed towards the applicant's property and consist solely of
down lighting. It will also require that all lot Owners make every effort
possible to limit the use of exterior lighting at night. It shall encourage
Owners to build in such a fashion that all light sources not be directly visible
from outside of the Owner's property. The intent behind these considerations
is to preserve the rural character of the Clark Subdivision by limiting exterior
lighting as much as possible while maintaining a safe atmosphere. The
following are specifically prohibited:
(i) mercury vapor lights
(ii) driveway delineation lights located beneath foliage and utilizing
indirect low voltage lighting;
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 7 of 13
• •
(iii) visible light sources;
(iv) facade lighting; and
(v) blinking, flashing, or pulsing lights, holiday lighting excepted.
Fireplaces. Only one open hearth fireplace and other solid -fuel burning stoves
as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated
thereunder, or natural gas/propane burning stoves and appliances will be
allowed in any new dwelling unit to be constructed within the Subdivision.
Bears/Trash Removal. Only those trash receptacles certified by the North
American Bear Society, National Park Service, or the CDOW shall be used to
dispose of trash and there shall be no dumps or underground disposal of
refuse within the Subdivision.
17.1 The ACC may grant a reasonable variance or adjustment of these conditions and
restrictions in order to overcome practical difficulties and prevent unnecessary
hardships arising by reason of the application of the restrictions contained herein.
Such variances or adjustments shall be granted only in case the granting thereof shall
not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements of the
neighborhood and shall not defeat the general intent and purpose of these restrictions.
17.2 The ACC shall not be liable in damages to any person or association submitting any
architectural plans for approval or to any Owner by reason of any action, failure to
act, approval, disapproval or failure to approve or disapprove with regard to such
architectural plans.
17.3 Building Permits. An Owner may apply for a building permit from the Garfield
County Building and Planning Department at any time; provided, however, the plans
approved by the Building Department shall not differ in any substantial way from the
plans approved by the ACC. If the plans approved by the Building Department differ
in any substantial way as determined by the ACC, then all approvals of the ACC shall
be deemed automatically revoked.
17.4 Automatic Indoor Fire Sprinkler Systems. All new dwelling units constructed within
the Subdivision shall have automatic indoor fire sprinkler systems installed in
accordance with the Standard 13R promulgated by the National Fire Protection
Association.
17.5 Authority to Promulgate Rules and Regulations. The ACC may promulgate and adopt
rules and regulations necessary to implement these Covenants. These rules and
regulations may include submission requirements concerning the type of information,
reports, plans and specifications, and other information necessary to make an
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 8 of 13
•
informed decision regarding requests for development, modifications to buildings,
and the like.
17.6. County Approvals Required. Compliance with the ACC rules and regulations is not a
substitute for compliance with Garfield County land use regulations, and each Owner
is responsible for obtaining all approvals as may be required by Garfield County prior
to commencing construction.
17.7 The initial members of the ACC shall be:
John Clark
P.O. Box 50703
Santa Barbara, CA 93150-0703
Susanne Clark
P.O. Box 50703
Santa Barbara, CA 93150-0703
A majority of the ACC may designate a representative to act for it. Should a member
resign or become unable to act, the other members shall appoint a successor. Subsequent to the sale
of all Lots, one or more members may be replaced by written designation recorded in the Garfield
County Clerk and Recorder's office showing approval by a majority of the Owners.
18. COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS - ENFORCEMENT
18.1. Assessments. All Lot Owners shall be obligated to pay any assessments lawfully
imposed by the Association. To the extent the Association is responsible therefor,
assessments may be lawfully imposed for any items of common expense which may
include, among other things: expenses and costs of maintaining, repairing, and
plowing of roads within and accessing the Clark Subdivision; expenses for
maintaining, improving, and preserving the Association's common elements;
expenses of the ACC; and insurance, accounting, and legal functions of the
Association. Such assessments shall be deemed general assessments and shall be
borne pro rata by all Owners. The Association may establish contingency and reserve
funds for the maintenance and improvement of the Association's common elements
and any other anticipated costs and expenses of the Association to be incurred in
pursuit of its purpose. Contingency and reserve funds shall be in such an amount as
the Association may deem necessary and appropriate for the aforesaid purposes. Each
Owner shall be required to pay his pro rata portion of these funds. As used herein, an
Owner's pro rata portion of common expenses shall mean a fraction formed by the
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 9 of 13
• •
number of lots purchased and held by the Lot Owner (numerator) and the number of
Lots in the Clark Subdivision (denominator). The Association shall have the right
during any calendar year to levy and assess against all of the Owners a special
assessment for such purpose or purposes, in accordance with these Covenants, or the
Articles or Bylaws of the Association, as may be necessary. Such special assessment
shall be paid for in equal portions by the Owners obligated to pay such assessment
and shall be due and payable as determined by the Association.
18.2. Lien for Non -Payment of Assessments. All sums assessed by the Association,
including without limitation the share of common expense assessments chargeable to
any Lot Owner, any fines which may be levied on a Lot Owner, and unpaid utility
fees and assessments charged to a Lot Owner shall constitute a lien against such Lot
superior (prior) to all other liens and encumbrances, excepting only:
A. Tax and special assessment liens on the Lots in favor of any governmental
assessing unit.
B. All sums unpaid on a first mortgage of record, including any unpaid
obligatory sums as may be provided by encumbrance.
C. Each Owner hereby agrees that the Association's lien on a Lot for
assessments has hereinabove described shall be superior to the Homestead
Exemption provided by C.R.S.§38-41-201, et seq., and each Owner hereby
agrees that the acceptance of the deed or other instrument of conveyance in
regard to any Lot within Clark Subdivision shall signify such grantee's waiver
of the homestead right granted in said section of the Colorado statutes.
D. Any recorded lien for non-payment of the common expenses maybe released
by recording a release of lien executed by a member of the Association:
E. If any assessment shall remain unpaid after thirty (30) days after the due date
thereof, such unpaid sums shall bear interest from and after the due date
thereof at the maximum rate of interest permitted by law, or at such rate as is
determined by the Association, and the Association may impose a late charge
on such defaulting Owner as may be established by the Board. In addition, the
Association shall be entitled to collect reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in
connection with any demands for payment and/or collection of delinquent
assessments. To evidence such lien, the Association shall prepare a written
notice setting forth the amount of such unpaid indebtedness, the name of the
Owner of the Lot, and its legal description. Such a notice shall be signed by
one (1) member of the Association and shall be recorded in the Office of the
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 10 of 13
• •
Clerk and Recorder of the County of Garfield, Colorado. Such lien may be
enforced by foreclosure of the defaulting Owner's Lot by the Association in
like manner as a mortgage on real property, upon the recording of a notice of
claim thereof. In any such foreclosure, the Owner shall be required to pay the
costs and expenses of such proceedings, the costs and expenses for filing the
notice or claim of lien, and all reasonable attorneys' fees. The Owner shall
also be required to pay to the Association any additional assessments against
the Lot during the period of foreclosure, and the Association shall be entitled
to the appointment of a receiver to collect the same. The Association, shall
have the power to bid on the Lot at foreclosure sale and acquire and hold,
lease, mortgage, and convey same. The Association, at its election, and in
addition to any other remedies it may have at law or in equity, may also sue
an Owner personally to collect any monies owed the Association.
18.3. Enforcement Actions. The Association shall have the right to prosecute any action to
enforce the provisions of all of these Covenants by injunctive relief, on behalf of
itself and all or part of the Owners of the Lots within Clark Subdivision. In addition,
each Owner of Lot within Clark Subdivision, including the Association, shall have
the right to prosecute any action for injunctive relief and for damages by reason of
any violation of these Covenants. The prevailing party in any enforcement action
shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. The
Association shall be entitled to assess penalties for late payment of assessments due
the Association and to collect interest thereon at rates to be determined from time to
time by the Association but not to exceed 1.5 percent per month. After thirty (30)
days, written notice to any Owner of a violation of these Covenants, and the Owner's
failure to eliminate or cure said violation, the Association may levy, in addition to the
other remedies set forth herein, a penalty of $25.00 per day for every day the
violation exists or continues after the expiration of said 30 -day period.
18.4. Limitations on Actions. In the event any construction or alteration or landscaping
work is commenced upon any of the lands in Clark Subdivision in violation of these
Covenants and no action is commenced within two (2) years thereafter to restrain
such violation, then injunctive or equitable relief shall be denied, but an action for
damages shall still be available to any party aggrieved. This two-year limitation shall
not apply to injunctive or equitable relief against other violations of these Covenants.
19. INSURANCE. The Association may obtain and keep in full force and effect the
following insurance coverage:
A. Coverage for members of the Board and officers of the Association, including
committee members, against libel, slander, false arrest, invasion of privacy,
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 11 of 13
errors and omissions, and other forms of liability generally covered in officers
and directors liability policies.
B. Coverage against such other risks of a similar or dissimilar nature as the
Board deems appropriate.
20. GENERAL PROVISIONS
20.1 Covenants to Run. The benefits and burdens of all said covenants contained in this
instrument shall run with the title to all of the lands in the Clark Subdivision.
20.2. Termination of Covenants. In the event these Covenants have not been sooner
lawfully terminated pursuant to any applicable laws of the State of Colorado and
Garfield County, Colorado, and the provisions herein contained, these Covenants
may be terminated on January 1 of the year 2027 by a vote of seventy-five percent
(75%) of the votes entitled to be cast by the members of the Association. If these
Covenants are not so terminated, then they shall continue to be in full force and effect
for successive twenty-five (25) year periods unless, at the close of a 25 -year period,
the Covenants are terminated by a vote of seventy-five percent (75%) of the votes
entitled to be cast by the members of the Association at a meeting of the members
duly held. In the event of any such termination by the members, a properly certified
copy of the resolution of termination shall be placed on record in Garfield County,
Colorado, not more than six (6) months after the meeting at which such vote is cast.
20.3. Amendment of Covenants. These Covenants may be amended by a vote of seventy-
five percent (75%) of the votes entitled to be cast by the members of the Association,
said vote to be cast at a meeting of the members duly held, provided a properly
certified copy of the resolution of amendment be placed on record in Garfield
County, Colorado, no more than six (6) months after said meeting.
20.4. Applicability of Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act. Pursuant to C.R.S.
section 38-33.3-101 et seq., the Clark Subdivision is a common interest community
(a "planned community") and is, therefore, subject to all provisions of the Colorado
Common Interest Ownership Act ("CCIOA"). In the event of a conflict between the
Covenants and CCIOA, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the provisions of
the Covenants shall control.
20.5. Severability. Should any part or parts of these Covenants be declared invalid or
unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining covenants.
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 12 of 13
• •
20.6. Paragraph Headings and Underlining. The paragraph headings and underlining within
this instrument are for convenience only and shall not be construed to be a specific
part of the covenants contained herein.
20.7. Limited Liability. The Association and the Board shall not be liable to any part for
any action or for any failure to act with respect to any matter if the action taken or
failure to act was in good faith without malice. The Owners severally agree to
indemnify the Association and the Board against loss resulting from such action or
failure to act if the Association and the Board acted or failed to act in good faith and
without malice.
Dated this 8th day of September, 2004.
JOHN CLARK
By: '
Robert M. Noone, his Attorney -In -Fact
SUSANNE CLARK
By: ccA4
Robert M. Noone, his Attorney -In -Fact
Protective Covenants for Clark Subdivision
Located in Garfield County, Colorado
Page 13 of 13
• •
APPENDIX A
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDE
•
OPERATION and MAINTENANCE GUIDE
PREPARED BY:
Gamba & Associates, Inc.
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The following tips and suggestions are intended to increase the useful life of your engineered
sewage disposal system and to prevent disposal system failure due to neglect and abuse.
MINIMIZE THE LIQUIDS
Wastewater that enters the system can be minimized by practicing water conservation practices
within your home. The less wastewater you produce, the less wastewater there will be to treat
and dispose.
1. Repair leaky fixtures. Check the toilet by dropping food coloring dye in the tank
and see if it shows up in the bowl prior to flushing.
2. Wash clothes only when you have a full load.
3. Take short showers instead of baths. Don't turn on the shower all the way and
turn it off while lathering.
4. Install and use water saving fixtures and devices in your bathrooms, laundry
rooms and kitchens.
5. Do not let the water run while washing, shaving, brushing teeth, rinsing
vegetables, dishes, etc. Use a stoppered basin where possible.
6. Provide adequate drainage around the engineered system area to divert surface
runoff from higher ground during storms or winter snowmelt.
MINIMIZE THE SOLIDS
Septic systems are "anaerobic" treatment systems. Digestion of solid materials is very slow and
requires air or "aerobic" conditions to "disappear". The less material you put into the system,
the less often it will require pumping. A good rule to follow is:
"Don't use your septic system for anything that can be disposed of in some other
way"
• •
CLARK SUBDIVISION
February 18, 2002
1 Avoid using a garbage disposal. Throw out scraps and other garbage with the
trash.
2. Collect grease in a container rather than pouring it down the sink.
3. Minimize the disposal of paper products into the system. Non -degradable items
such as disposable diapers, sanitary napkins, tissues, cigarette butts and paper
towels are especially harmful to the system.
4. Only three things should go into the septic tank:
Human Wastes;
Toilet Paper; and
Water.
5. Ordinary household chemicals (bleaches, detergents & soaps) will not hurt the
bacteria in your system when not used in excessive amounts.
6. DO NOT DISPOSE OILS, PAINTS, THINNERS OR OTHER TOXIC LIQUIDS
INTO YOUR SYSTEM.
SEPTIC TANK ADDITIVES
Advertised chemical additives, bacteria, enzymes, etc. do not help solids breakdown in the
septic tank and should not be used to reduce the need for pumping the septic tank.
REGULAR INSPECTIONS
Septic Tank:
To inspect the septic tank, remove the manhole cover at the inlet end of the tank. Use a
shovel to push the scum layer away from the side of the tank and estimate it's thickness.
If the scum layer is 12" thick or more, arrange to have the septic tank pumped
immediately. Replace the cover and wash off the shovel and your hands.
For an average 3 or 4 bedroom residence, the pumping interval for the septic tank is
usually between 2 and 4 years. Annual inspection of the septic tank should become part
of your overall home maintenance routine.
Dosing Tank or Pump Station:
To inspect the dosing tank, follow the same instructions for the septic tank. However,
there should not be a scum layer or sediments inside the tank. Check to see if the water
level markings are consistent on the side of the tank. Variability indicates that the siphon
or effluent pump is not operating properly. If the water level is near the top of the
C:\Documents and Settings\Jaynie\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.1E5\3PGGHBJT\Septic System O&M for
Robert Noone.doc
3
o •
CLARK SUBDIVISION
February 18, 2002
markings, wait for the siphon or pump to operate and watch for problems. The siphon
has an overflow pipe in which the effluent will flow out of the tank by gravity. Should this
be occurring, have the tank pumped and check the siphon openings to see if they are
plugged.
Filter Mound or Trench:
Check the observation tubes regularly. Standing water near the same elevation as the
natural soil surface (or higher) may be an indication of trouble.
Look for seepage or excessive wetness near the base of the filter mound or trench area.
SUMMARY
A general inspection of the septic tank, dosing tank (or pump station), filter mound or trench
area should be made each year. These inspections are best made during the wet season of the
year. If these items are not routinely inspected, solids can carry over into the disposal areas
from the septic tank and clog the system resulting in system failure and health hazard risk. In
areas with potentially high ground water, the septic tank should be pumped during low water
months such as September, October, and November. Pumping during high water months may
cause the septic tank to float out of the ground.
C:\Documents and Settings\Jaynie\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.1E5\3PGGHBJT\Septic System O&M for
Robert Noone.doc
4
Name:
WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN
John and Susanne Clark
APPENDIX B
Physical Address of Property: 3523 County Rd. 103 Carbondale, Co 81623
1. Targeted weed Houndsto
2. Current amount of infested land (acres)
3. Amount of infested land to be managed
20.45 acres
9.83 acres
4. Describe the areas that you propose to treat. Be specific.
5. What methods of treatment will you use?
a. Herbicides. List product name and rate and timing of application.
b. Grazing. Describe grazing plan and timing.
c. Mechanical. Describe method. (mowing, cutting, pulling)
d. Alternative methods. What, when, and where.
e. Revegetation. What you plan to seed and when.
6. I plan to use the services of a professional weed control company.
Company name:
Gallagher Agr—Service
7. Additional information:
Sketch project area. Map must include weed species, Location and stand density. Also include any
irrigation ditches, roads, fences or buildings.
see Sheet 1, Clark Subdivision, Vegetation Map dated Nov. 30, 2001
iiiii■■■■■ R E S U R G E
•
•••••
1.i.1..
■■••M E N G I N E E R I N G I N C.
Robert M. Noone, Esq.
PO Drawer 39
Glenwood Springs CO 81602
RE: Clark Subdivision Well Nos. 2-4 Pumping Test and Water
Quality Analysis Results
Dear Bob:
September 1, 2004
At your request, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has investigated the water
quantity and quality of the Clark subdivision wells. Shelton Drilling Company drilled
Clark Well Nos. 2, 3 and 4 at the Clark Subdivision in early August (see Well Driller's
Completion Report, Appendix A). During the week of August 16th, 2004, Samuelson
Pump Company performed a four hour pumping test on each of these wells. Samples
were collected from each well and analyzed by ACZ Laboratories, Inc for their
compliance with State of Colorado drinking water quality standards. This letter
summarizes RESOURCE's evaluation of the data collected during these tests; it is
designed to satisfy the conditions outlined in Paragraph 4 of the Garfield Board of
County Commissioner's (BOCC) Resolution No. 2002-89. Paragraph 4 requires that the
wells be evaluated for their ability to serve water in appropriate quantity and of adequate
quality for their intended uses.
PUMP TEST ANALYSIS
The three Clark wells are intended to serve the following uses: ordinary household
purposes inside one single family dwelling and an accessory dwelling unit, the irrigation
of 2,500 square feet of lawn and garden and the watering of up to 6 horses. The peak
daily demand for each of these lots will be approximately 1,200 gallons.' The pump test
results for each of the three wells are evaluated in the context of these demands.
Clark Well No. 2, Lot No. 2
Clark Well No. 2 is located in the northeast quadrant of the subdivision. The well is
approximately 240 feet deep and the water level at the start of the pumping test was
178.8 feet below the top of the well casing. The well was pumped at a rate of 6 GPM for
the first 40 minutes of the test. This pumping rate resulted in minimal drawdown and the
well quickly established a dynamic equilibrium (i.e. groundwater recharge was equal to
the pumping rate). In order to test the capacity of the well, the pumping rate was
increased from 6 GPM to 10.5 GPM for the remainder of the 4 hour test. Upon
completion of pumping, the well's water level was at 179.2 feet, which indicates a total
drawdown of 0.43 feet. At the end of the test the water level was approximately 60.8
feet above the bottom of the well. Approximately 2,460 gallons were pumped during the
test.
1 This includes an assumption of 3.5 people per dwelling with a minimum consumption level of 100 gpcd,
11 GPD for each horse and one quarter inch per day application of water for irrigation.
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
909 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 ■ (970) 945-6777 • Fax [970] 945-1137
• •
Robert M. Noone, Esq. September 1, 2004
Page 2
RESOURCE evaluated Well No. 2's yield with the drawdown curve shown in Figure 1.
This figure indicates that drawdown, when shown on a logarithmic time scale, is
constant, or slightly decreasing, at a pumping rate of 10.5 GPM. The total drawdown
over the duration of the pumping test was minimal. However, the drawdown data does
not provide a clear indication of the well's ability to support a long term pumping rate of
10.5 GPM. RESOURCE monitored the ability of the well to recover after completion of
the pumping test. The well's recovery is shown in Figure 2. After four hours, the well
recovered by about 68%, to a depth of 178.9 feet. The remaining drawdown after four
hours of recovery was minimal (0.15 feet). The inconclusive results of the drawdown
curve, considered with the failure of the well to fully recover, indicates that the well may
be mining the aquifer at a pumping rate of 10.5 GPM.
The pump test results indicate that Well No. 2 can support a long term pumping rate of 6
GPM. As shown in Figure 1, at a pumping rate of 6 GPM, the drawdown curve is
relatively flat. This indicates that the well is being recharged at a rate that is equivalent
to pumping withdrawals, and that the aquifer is not being mined. A sustained yield of 6
GPM is sufficient to serve the stated uses for Well No. 2.
Clark Well No. 3, Lot No. 3
Clark Well No. 3 is approximately 185 feet deep and is located in the southeast quadrant
of the Clark subdivision. At the start of the pumping test the water level was 106.8 feet
below the top of the well casing. The well was pumped at a rate of 14.5 GPM for the
duration of the 4 hour test. After cessation of pumping, the water level in the well was
107.4 feet. In total, the drawdown during the test was 0.60 feet. At the end of the test
the water level was 77.6 feet above the bottom of the well. Approximately 3,480 gallons
were pumped during the test.
The monitoring results from the pumping test are shown graphically in Figure 3. Despite
the depletion associated with a 14.5 GPM pumping rate, the well recovered within 1
minute of the termination of pumping. Moreover, continued monitoring found that the
well recovered to a water level that was greater than when the pumping test started (see
Figure 4).
The pump test results for Clark Well No. 3 indicate that the well can support a long term
average pumping rate lower than 14.5 GPM. While the drawdown curve at 14.5 GPM
indicates the aquifer is being mined, the total drawdown was minimal (0.6 feet).
Additionally, the full recovery indicates that a lower pumping rate could be sustained
without negatively impacting the aquifer.. Using the existing pump test data,
RESOURCE estimated the transmissivity of the aquifer. Estimated aquifer transmissivity
and available drawdown were used to evaluate an appropriate long term pumping rate
for the well. Due to the limitations of this calculation, RESOURCE draws the
conservative conclusion that this well could support a maximum long term average
pumping rate of 5 GPM. At this rate, the aquifer would not be mined by Well No. 3. A
sustained yield of 5 GPM is adequate to support the uses intended for Well No. 3.
RESOURCE
NLINEERING I N C.
• •
Robert M. Noone, Esq. September 1, 2004
Page 3
Clark Well No. 4, Lot No. 4
Clark Well No. 4 is approximately 200 feet deep. The well is located in the southwest
quadrant of the subdivision. The well's initial water level was 94.0 feet. The well was
pumped at a rate of 14.5 GPM which resulted in a drawdown of 5.9 feet after 4 hours.
Upon completion of pumping, the water level in the well was 99.9 feet. Also, at the end
of the test the water level was approximately 100.1 feet above the bottom of the well. In
total, about 3,480 gallons were pumped during the test.
Figure 5 shows the drawdown curve for the pumping test. When time is displayed
logarithmically, water level in the well diminishes at an increasing rate. The slope of the
drawdown curve indicates that, at a rate of 14.5 GPM, the aquifer is being depleted at an
unsustainable rate. This conclusion is further supported by evaluation of the well's
recovery. After completion of pumping, the well did not fully recover. After four hours,
the well had recovered by 53%, to a depth of 96.8 feet.
Clark Well No. 4 is capable of supporting a long term average pumping rate lower than
14.5 GPM. RESOURCE estimated the transmissivity of this aquifer using the drawdown
curve. The aquifer's transmissivity was used in combination with the well's available
drawdown to estimate a sustainable long term average pumping rate. Based on the
limitations of the available data RESOURCE made the conservative assessment that
this well could support a maximum long term average pumping rate of 5 GPM. This
pumping rate would prevent permanent depletion of the aquifer and prevent the well
from drying up. The permitted uses for Well No. 4 would be adequately supported by a
5 GPM sustained yield.
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Garfield BOCC Resolution 2002-89, RESOURCE sampled each of the three
wells for water quality. The samples were analyzed by ACZ Laboratories, Inc. for the
following parameters: fecal coliform, total suspended solids and nitrates/nitrites. The
results of the water quality analysis are shown in Table 1, and discussed below.
Clark Well No. 2, Lot No. 2
The water quality analysis for Clark Well No. 2 was evaluated for its compliance with
State of Colorado water quality standards. ACZ's analysis did not detect fecal coliform,
nitrites or total suspended solids. Moreover, the levels of nitrates/nitrites and nitrates
encountered were well below the standard of 10 mg/L. The laboratory results for the
nitrates/nitrites test was flagged with an "H" qualifier. This qualifier indicates that the
sample was analyzed outside of the method's designated hold time. This data validation
exercise should not affect the quality of the analytical result. The level of nitrates, which
is calculated by taking the difference of the nitrate/nitrite and nitrite analyses, is 0.63
mg/L, this is well below the State standard of 10 mg/L. Clark Well No. 2 is in compliance
with State standards for the water quality parameters analyzed.
RESOURCE
ENGINEERING INC
• •
Robert M. Noone, Esq. September 1, 2004
Page 4
Clark Well No. 3, Lot No. 3
Clark Well No. 3 was analyzed for a series of water quality parameters mandated by the
Garfield County BOCC. The water quality analysis did not encounter fecal coliform or
nitrites. Total suspended solids (TSS) were encountered; however, they were found at
levels below the practical quantitave limit (PQL). The PQL is the concentration of a
constituent that can be reliably measured, within specified limits, during routine
laboratory operating conditions. This indicates that the levels of TSS in Well No. 3 are
minimal. Nitrates were present at a level of 0.34 mg/L; this is below the State water
quality standard. The results for the nitrate/nitrite analysis were flagged with an "H" by
the laboratory. The laboratory notes indicate that the sample was initially analyzed
within the hold time and then reanalyzed outside of the hold time. The reanalysis is for
quality control purposes and should not compromise the quality of the analytical results.
As discussed above, this qualifier is not of concern since no nitrites were encountered.
This well is in compliance with State standards for the parameters analyzed.
Clark Well No. 4, Lot No. 4
During the initial part of the pump test, Clark Well No. 4 was cloudy with suspended and
dissolved sediments. However, after 60 minutes of pumping the water's turbidity had
diminished. The water quality analysis did not detect fecal coliform, nitrites or total
suspended solids. Additionally, the levels of nitrates encountered were well below the
State standard of 10 mg/L. For the parameters sampled, the water quality of Well No. 4
is firmly in compliance with State of Colorado drinking water quality standards.
CONCLUSION
RESOURCE has reviewed pump test and water quality results for Clark Well Nos. 2, 3
and 4. These wells are intended to serve domestic uses including in-house, outdoor
irrigation and stock watering. The estimated peak day demand for each of the wells is
1,200 gpd. Based on the analyses above, RESOURCE concludes that Clark Wells No.
2, 3 and 4 are capable of providing water in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality to
serve their permitted uses.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
Graham J. Gilbert
Hydrologist
GJG/mmm
842-1.0
\\Gjg\clients\842\Correspondence\well_repo rt. doc
Michae .. Erion, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
RESOURCE
ENGINEERING INC
Pumping Time (minutes)
•
•
Ln Ln Lf) LO Ln
1,- a) M Ln
co 00 O) 0) 0)
1IL-
-
('u) lana- JeleM
L()
0)
L)
0)
0)
O
0
O
O
0
O
O e- (0 N in co
O 0 .- 0 N 0
0 O 0
(•}j) umopMeJQ lenp!seN
•
0
0
0
•
•
Drawdown
Pumping Time (minutes)
T
co ▪ M
O
Co
O
CD
O
N
O 0 0
T T T
(' )
18n91 Ja;BM
0
1!)
0
CD
O
T
0
0-
T
O
-0
0
T
• •
0
0
O
t0 M N T
O O O O O O
(4) uMopmeJa ienpisaa
O
Pumping Time (minutes)
O
O
O
O
O
•
•
O
O)
►-O (f)
O) O)
ti co
a) o)
() lana1 mem
O
O
0
0
0
•
•
0
N-
C, u) t1) N 14 c) '0
0 .- N cr)
(}j) uMopMeJQ ienp!sea
Water Quality Results for Clark Subdivision Pump Test
State WQ Standard
o
/
10
�
\
Well No. 4
o
I 0.44
0.44
22
Well No. 3
o
0.34
0.34 H
2/
Well No. 2
nI
oR%22
oe
Parameter
Fecal Coliform (#/100m1)
Nitrate as N, Dissolved (mg/L)
INitrate/Nitrite as N, Dissolved (mg/L)
Nitrite as N, Dissolved (mg/L)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
• •
• 1
APPENDIX A
WELL DRILLER'S COMPLETION REPORT
RESOURCE
Rug 13 04 05:52p Wayne Shelton
97027-3801
p.2
w
-
WELL CONSTRUCTION AND TEST REPORT
STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
APPROVAL Il GWS3I-91-03
L
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 61398-F ( cT Z
2
Owner Name(s): John & Susanne Clark
Mailing Address: 3523 County Road 103
City, State, Zip : Carbondale, Co. 81623
Phone # : 970-963-2025
WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED 1/4 Sec: 13 Twp: 7 S Range: 88 W
3'
NW 1/4 NE
DISTANCES FROM SEC. LINES
535 ft. from North Sec. line and 1480 ft. from East Sec. line OR Northing: Easting:
SUBDIVISION: Clark LOT: 2 BLOCK: FILING (UNIT):
STREET ADDRESS AT LOCATION
4.
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION ft. DRILLING METHOD Air Rotary
DATE COMPLETED: 8/12/2004 TOTAL DEPTH: 240 DEPTH COMPLETION: 240
5.
GEOLOGIC LOG
6. HOLE DIAMETER (in)
FROM (ft)
TO (ft)
Depth
Type of Material (Size, Color, and Type)
9.0
0
40
000-240
Volcanics
6.5
40
240
7. PLAIN CASING
OD (in)
Kind
Wall Size
From (ft)
To (ft)
7.0
Steel
0.240
-1
40
5.5
PVC
0.250
35
200
PERF. CASING : Screen Slot Size
5.5
PVC
0.250
200
240
Water Located: 200+
Remarks :
8. Filter Pack
Material :
Size :
Interval :
9. Packer Placement
Type :
Depth :
10. GROUTING RECORD
Material
Amount
Density
Interval
Placement
Cement
5 sks
6 gal/sk
10-40
poured
11. DISINFECTION : Type : HTH Amt. Used : 3 oz.
12. WELL TEST DATA : () Check Box If Test Data Is Submitted On Supplemental
TESTING METHOD : Air Compressor
Static Level : 178 ft. Date/Time Measured 8/12/2004 Production Rate 15 gpm
Pumping Level : Total ft. Date/Time Measured 8/12/2004 Test Length : 2 hours
Test Remarks :
13. I have read the statements made herein acrd know the contents thereof andttiattlicy are true to my knowledge. (Pursuant to Section 244-1-4 (I3Xa) CRS, the malting of false statements
constitutes perjury in the serwnd degree and is punishable asa class 1 misdemeanor.)
CONTRACTOR : Shelton Drilling Corp. Phone : (970) 927-4182
Mailing Address : P.O. Box 1059 Basalt, Co. 816 Lic. No. 1095
Name / Title (Please Type or Print)
Wayne Shelton / President
Signature .
`,
Date
8/13/2004
HUS', JJ U9 un:nep wane aneii.on
J f U J L! J V V a
r••-•
WELL CONSTRUCTION AN>EST REPORT
STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
FFFICEUSE ONLY
1.
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 61399-F (_0T3
2
Owner Name(s): John & Susanne Clark
Mailing Address: 3523 County Road 103
City, State, Zip : Carbondale, Co. 81623
Phone # : 970-963-2025
APPROVAL # GW531-91-03
WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED NE 1/4 Sec: 13 Twp: 7 S Range: 88 W
3"
NW 1/4
DISTANCES FROM SEC. LINES
1210 ft. from North Sec. line and 1685 ft. from East Sec. line OR Northing: Easting:
SUBDIVISION: Clark LOT: 3 BLOCK: FILING (UNIT):
STREET ADDRESS AT LOCATION
4.
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION ft. DRILLING METHOD Air Rotary
DATE COMPLETED: 8/6/2004 TOTAL DEPTH: 185 DEPTH COMPLETION: 185
5.
GEOLOGIC LOG
6. HOLE DIAMETER(in)
FROM (R)
TO (ft)
Depth
Type of Material (Size, Color, and Type)
9.0
0
40
000-185
Volcanics
6.5
40
185
7. PLAIN CASING
OD (in)
Kind
Wall Size
From (ft)
To (R)
7.0
Steel
0.240
-1
40
5.5
Steel
0.188
35
130
PERF. CASING
: Screen Slot Size
5.5
Steel
0.188
130
185
Water Located: 120 +
Remarks :
8. Filter Pack
Material :
Size :
Interval :
9. Packer Placement
Type :
Depth :
10. GROUTING RECORD
Material
Amount
Density
Interval
Placement
Cement
5 sks
6 gal/sk
10-40
poured
11. DISINFECTION : Type : HTH Amt. Used : 3 oz.
12. WELL TEST DATA : () Check Box [f Test Data Is Submitted On Supplemental
TESTING METHOD : Air Compressor
Static Level : 106 ft. Date/Time Measured 8/6/2004 Production Rate 15 gpm
Pumping Level : Total ft. Date/Time Measured 8/6/2004 Test Length : 2 hours
Test Remarks :
13- I have read the statements made herein and know the contents thereof and that they are true to my knowledge. (Pursuant to Section 24-4-1-4 (13Xa) CRS, the making of false statements
constitutes perjury m the second degree and is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor.)
CONTRACTOR : Shelton Drilling Corp. Phone : (970) 927-4182
Mailing Address : P.O. Box 1059 Basalt, Co. 162 Lic. No. 1095
Name / Title (Please Type or Print)
Wayne Shelton / President
Signature i
/
Amillk
Date
8/13/2004
_
t \l�ii1 ..d`1
Aug 13 04 05:52p
WayShelton
970427-3801
p.1
WELL CONSTRUCTION AND TEST REPORT
STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
APPROVAL # GWS3I-91-03
1.
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 61401-F (.....c. -r-47/
2
Owner Name(s): John & Susanne Clark
Mailing Address: 3523 County Road 103 \t
City, State, Zip : Carbondale, Co. 81623
Phone # : 970-963-2025
WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED
3.
NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec: 13 Twp: 7 S Range: 88 W
DISTANCES FROM SEC. LINES
1095 ft. from North Sec. line and 2150 ft. from East Sec. line OR Northing: Easting:
SUBDIVISION: Clark LOT: 4 BLOCK: FILING (UNIT):
STREET ADDRESS AT LOCATION
4.
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION ft. DRILLING METHOD Air Rotary
DATE COMPLETED: 8/4/2004 TOTAL DEPTH: 200 DEPTH COMPLETION: 200
5.
GEOLOGIC LOG
6. HOLE DIAMETER (in)
FROM (ft)
TO (ft)
De th
Type of Material (Size, Color, and Type)
9.0
0
40
000-200
Volcanics
6.5
40
200
7. PLAIN CASING
OD (in)
Kind
Wall Size
From (ft)
To (9)
7.0
Steel
0.240
-I
40
5.5
Steel
0.188
38
120
PERF. CASING : Screen Slot Size
5.5
Steel
0.188
120
200
Water Located: 120 +
Remarks :
8. Filter Pack
Material :
Size :
Interval :
9. Packer Placement
Type :
Depth :
10. GROUTING RECORD
Material
Amount
Density
Interval
Placement
Cement
5 sks
6 gal/sk
10-40
poured
11. DISINFECTION : Type : HTH Amt. Used : 5 oz.
12. WELL TEST DATA : () Check Box If Test Data Is Submitted On Supplemental
TESTING METHOD : Air Compressor
Static Level : 86 ft. Date/Time Measured 8/4/2004 Production Rate 15 gpm
Pumping Level : Total ft. Date/Time Measured 8/4/2004 Test Length : 2 hours
Test Remarks :
13. 1 have rend the statements made herein and Imow the contents thcreot and that they are true to my knowledge. (Pursuant to Section 24-4-1-4 (13)(a) CRS, the making of false statements
constitutes perjury rn the second degree and is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor.)
CONTRACTOR : Shelton Drilling Corp. Phone : (970) 927-4182
Mailing Address : P.O. Box 1059 B. 1t .. 81621 Lic. No. 1095
Name / Title (Please Type or Print)
Wayne Shelton / President
Signat ate
�r
8/13/2004
Form No.
GWS -25
APPLICANT
OFFICE OF THE TE ENGINEER •
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
�+ �+
818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
LIC
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 61398 -F
DIV. 5 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD
2 Block: Filing:
JOHN & SUSANNE CLARK
% ROBERT M NOONE ESQ
P 0 BOX 39
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-
(970) 945-4500
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL
Subdiv: CLARK
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTY
NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 13
Township 7 S Range 88 W Sixth P.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
620 Ft. from North
1380 Ft. from East
UTM COORDINATES
Northing:
Section Line
Section Line
Eastina:
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit
does not ensure that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from
seeking relief in a civil court action.
2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval
of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation
Contractors in accordance with Rule 18.
3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) on the condition that this well is operated in accordance with the John and
Susanne Clark Augmentation Plan approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 00CW292. If this well is not operated
in accordance with the terms of said decree, it will be subject to administration including orders to cease diverting water.
This well is known as the Clark Lot 2 Well.
4) Approved for a well on a residential site of 9.88 acre(s) described as lot 2, Clark Subdivision, Garfield County.
5) The use of ground water from this well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside one single family dwelling and an
accessory dwelling unit, the irrigation of 2,500 square feet of lawn and garden, and the watering of up to 6 horses.
6) The pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 15 GPM.
7) The annual withdrawal of ground water from this well shall not exceed 1.0 acre-foot.
8) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case
number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings.
9) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all
diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon
request.
10) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit (which is the decreed
locationg�Y
APPROVED
JSG
\Receipt No. 0525926A
State Engineer By
DATE ISSUED 07-28-2004
EXPIRATION DATE
07-28-2005
Form No.
GWS -25
APPLICANT
OFFICE OF THE ATE ENGINEER
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
LIC
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 61399 -F
DIV. 5 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD
Lot: 3 Block: Filing: Subdiv: CLARK
JOHN & SUSANNE CLARK
% ROBERT M NOONE ESQ
P 0 BOX 39
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-
(970) 945-4500
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL
r
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTY
NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 13
Township 7 S Range 88 W Sixth P.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
1315 Ft. from North Section Line
1650 Ft. from East Section Line
UTM COORDINATES
Northing: Easting:
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit
does not ensure that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from
seeking relief in a civil court action.
2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval
of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation
Contractors in accordance with Rule 18.
3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) on the condition that this well is operated in accordance with the John and
Susanne Clark Augmentation Plan approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 00CW292. If this well is not operated
in accordance with the terms of said decree, it will be subject to administration including orders to cease diverting water.
This well is known as the Clark Lot 3 Well.
4) Approved for a well on a residential site of 11.1 acre(s) described as lot 3, Clark Subdivision, Garfield County.
5) The use of ground water from this well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside one single family dwelling and an
accessory dwelling unit, the irrigation of 2,500 square feet of lawn and garden, and the watering of up to 6 horses.
6) The pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 15 GPM.
7) The annual withdrawal of ground water from this well shall not exceed 1.0 acre-foot.
8) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case
number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings.
9) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all
diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon
request.
10) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit (which is the decreed
location) 7, 4-e/o '
APPROVED
JSG
State Engineer
Receipt No. 0525926B DATE ISSUED 07-28-2004
By
EXPIRATION DATE
07-28-2005
Form No.
GWS -25
APPLICANT
OFFICE OF THE ATE ENGINEER•
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
LIC
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 61401
-F
DIV. 5 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD
4 Block: Filing:
JOHN & SUSANNE CLARK
% ROBERT M NOONE ESQ
P 0 BOX 39
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601-
Subdiv: CLARK
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTY
NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 13
Township 7 S Range 88 W Sixth P.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
1150 Ft. from North Section Line
2300 Ft. from East Section Line
UTM COORDINATES
Northing: Eastina:
(970) 945-4500
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit
does not ensure that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from
seeking relief in a civil court action.
2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval
of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation
Contractors in accordance with Rule 18.
3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-90-137(2) on the condition that this well is operated in accordance with the John and
Susanne Clark Augmentation Plan approved by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 00CW292. If this well is not operated
in accordance with the terms of said decree, it will be subject to administration including orders to cease diverting water.
This well is known as the Clark Lot 4 Well.
4) Approved for a well on a residential site of 10.56 acre(s) described as lot 4, Clark Subdivision, Garfield County.
5) The use of ground water from this well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside one single family dwelling and an
accessory dwelling unit, the irrigation of 2,500 square feet of lawn and garden, and the watering of up to 6 horses.
6) The pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 15 GPM.
7) The annual withdrawal of ground water from this well shall not exceed 1.0 acre-foot.
8) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case
number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings.
9) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all
diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon
request.
10) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit (which is the decreed
location ] 744i';/
}
APPROVED
JSG
State Engineer
Receipt No. 0525926C DATE ISSUED 07-28-2004
EXPIRATION DATE 07-28-2005
i
aug plan clark sub.842.wpd
• •
ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR WATER RIGHTS AND
PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION
CLARK SUBDIVISION
Prepared By:
Resource Engineering, Inc.
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
(970)945-6777
November 28, 2000
RESOURCE
ENGINEERING I N C.
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
WATER REQUIREMENTS 1
WATER RIGHTS 3
NEW WATER RIGHTS 3
Clark Lot 2 Well 3
Clark Lot 3 Well 3
Clark Lot 4 Well 4
AUGMENTATION WATER RIGHTS 4
PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP 2
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - WATER REQUIREMENTS TABLE
APPENDIX B - AUGMENTATION WATER RIGHTS
aug plan clark sub.842.wpd
RESOURCE
ENGINEERING INC
• •
INTRODUCTION
John and Susanne Clark are the owners of a 52 acre parcel at 3523 County Road 103 in Garfield
County (see Location Map, Figure 1). The property is in Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 88
West, 6th P.M. in Water Division 5, District 38.
The property is proposed for subdivision into four residential lots each with the potential for one
main residence, one accessory dwelling unit (ADU), minimal lawn and landscape irrigation and
watering of livestock.
There is one existing single family home on the property and it is served by Sherwood Well No. 1
(permit No. 20095) which is decreed for 0.11 cfs (50 gpm) in Case No. W-679. The land is also
served by the Needham Ditch in which the applicant owns 88 shares and which has been used
historically to irrigate about 12.6 acres on the 52 acres.
In addition there is a decreed plan for augmentation (81CW292) which covers specific domestic,
irrigation and livestock uses out of the Sherwood Well No. 1. The augmentation source is 0.5 AF
of adjudicated augmentation water (79CW97) represented by 5 shares of Park Ditch Co. leased
from the Carbondale Land Development Co. (CLDC).
The purpose of this report is to provide the necessary information to submit an application to water
court for water rights and a plan for augmentation for the three proposed Clark Subdivision lots not
already served by a well.
WATER REQUIREMENTS
Lot 1 of the proposed Clark Subdivision will be served by the existing Sherwood Well No. 1 and
the plan for augmentation in 81CW292 and the five shares of Park Ditch Co.
Lots 2 through 4 will have individual wells and will be covered by the augmentation plan described
herein. Each lot will have two single family homes (main residence and ADU), 2,500 s.f. of lawn
and landscape irrigation and up to six horses. The water requirements for each lot are shown in
the Table included in Appendix A. A total of about 0.99 AF/yr of diversions are required for each
aug plan clark sub.842.wpd
RESOURCE
•EEEE E N G I N E E R I N G INC
•
CLARK WELL
NO. 4
13
--Ss* 100
r
Y
•
CLARK WELL
NO. 3
CLARK
SUBDIVISION
687
\ A
CARBONDALE
2.1 MILES
l
T 7 S, R 88 W
DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2000
RESOURCE
rY�ENGINEE RING, INC.
SOO a OM° AC . as.DOD MEM CO TDI
WO) 141-777 • 190t MO) 141-1177
JOB NUMBER: 842-1.0
CLARK
SUBDIVISION
CHECKED BY: PSB
WATER RIGHTS
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1"=2000'
FIGURE
lot with 0.30 AF of consumptive use. Monthly diversions and consumptive use are shown in the
above mentioned table.
WATER RIGHTS
NEW WATER RIGHTS
Three new wells will be required; one for each lot 2 through 4. The date of appropriation for each
is October 4, 2000 by location of wells in the field and formation of intent to appropriate water for
beneficial use. Following is the additional information for each well.
Clark Lot 2 Well
Location: NW'/4 NE1/4, Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 6th P.M. at a point 620'
from the North line and 1,380' from the East line of said Section 13.
Amount: 0.033 cfs (15 gpm), conditional
1 .0 AF/yr
Source: Ground water tributary to Cattle Creek, tributary to the Roaring Fork River
Depth: 250 feet
Use: Domestic, irrigation and stock water
Clark Lot 3 Well
Location: NWY4 NEA, Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 6th P.M. at a point 1,315'
from the North line and 1,650' from the East line of said Section 13.
Amount: 0.033 cfs (15 gpm), conditional
1.0 AF/yr
Source: Ground water tributary to Cattle Creek, tributary to the Roaring Fork River
Depth: 250 feet
Use: Domestic, irrigation and stock water
aug plan clark sub.842.wpd
3
RESOURCE
ENGINEERING I N C
• •
Clark Lot 4 Well
Location: NW 'A. NEY4, Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, 6' P.M. at a point 1,150'
from the North line 2,300' from the East line of said Section 13.
Amount: 0.033 cfs (15 gpm), conditional
1.0 AF/yr
Source: Ground water tributary to Cattle Creek, tributary to the Roaring Fork River
Depth: 250 feet
Use: Domestic, irrigation and stock water
AUGMENTATION WATER RIGHTS
The augmentation water rights will be from two sources; 1) a water service contract with Basalt
Water Conservancy District (BWCD) for the non -irrigation season and 2) a contract with Carbondale
Land Development Company (CLDC) for Park Ditch water for the irrigation season.
A description of the water rights available under each contract are included in Appendix B.
Applications for contracts with BWCD and CLDC must be made simultaneous with or preceding the
water rights application with the water court.
PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION
The depletions to Cattle Creek, Roaring Fork River and Colorado River will be delayed significantly
from the actual time of pumping. Only upon completion of the wells and analysis of the well logs
can the actual delayed impact be accessed. Our experience suggests that because of the great
distance of the wells from Cattle Creek the stream depletions will be delayed by many months,
perhaps years, and the impact will be relatively uniform.
The contracts will provide sufficient amounts of replacement water to offset any reasonable stream
depletion schedule and call scenario.
aug plan clark sub.842.wpd
4
RESOURCE
■I••• E N G I N E E R I N G I N C.
• •
Total depletions are 0.90 AF annually for the three wells. For this plan for augmentation a BWCD
contract for 0.10 AF for the non -irrigation season and a CLDC contract for 0.60 AF for the
irrigation season are recommended. The BWCD contract water will augment the potential cameo
call in April while the CLDC water will augment the Cattle Creek irrigation season call.
Operation of this plan for augmentation will protect senior water users from injury.
Respectfully submitted,
R • RCE ENGINEERING, INC.
S• (3U`c,
aul S. Bussone, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
PSB/mmm
842-1.0
aug plan clark sub.842.wpd
5
RESOURCE
ENGINEERING INC
• •
APPENDIX A
aug plan clark sub.842.wpd
RESOURCE
ENGINEERING I N C.
0
EE
0)
o03
OZ
zw
> w
rely
CLW
w w
< Q
H
COJ
CO
Q
CO
0
0
N
N
w
m
w
0
Z
m
N
CO
O
0
11.0
t0
0
N
in
l6
(D
N
0
N
W
a)
0)
()
0
0
0)
Maximum Demand:
0)
u.
0
0..
0
•
000000000000
J J J J J
mmmm000000mm
r�(nr-rnrn(1)vNJ' r`n
0 00 000000 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO CD (D CD CO CD CD CO CD CD CD CO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000000000
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
000000000000
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O
0 0 0 0 N N CO 0.- 0 0 0
000000000000
O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
888888888888
O 00000000000
0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r-
(OD N- r � 0
0 00) 0)) 00 n
O O O 0 .- 0 0 0 O O
O 0 0 0 0 acid O 0 0 0
(D CD CD (D CO (D (D (O (O (O CD (D
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 8 00 0 0 0 00
O O O O O O O O O O O O
L
C
0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0000000
000000000000
000000000000
O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
0 0 0 01 CD V N 0 N- (t) 0 0
0 0 0 0 N CO CO (V 0 0 0
0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0
0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O
N- 0 r-- v V t- V t-- V' t`
(D CD CO CD CO (D CD CD CD CO (D CD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0
N W la
l0 — C T CT Q O> 0
�ri2Q-,-,<0)OZO
•
0)
Total Includes 5% Transit Loss
• •
APPENDIX B
aug plan clark sub.842.wpd
• •
Park Ditch and Reservoir Company
The Applicants shall obtain a perpetually lease 0.6 acre foot of historic consumptive use decreed
in Case No. 79CW097, Water Diversion No. 5 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "CLDC
water"). The 0.6 acre foot of adjudicated historic consumptive use is derived from water rights
decreed to the Park Ditch and Reservoir Company. The Park Ditch and Reservoir Company diverts
water from Cattle Creek under the following water rights:
TABLE 1
PARK DITCH WATER RIGHTS
Ditch
Decreed
Priority
Decreed
Adjudication
Appropriation
C.A.
Amount
No.
Location
Date
Date
(cfs)
Sec. 7
T7S
R87W
Park Ditch
9.0
221A
NW/SW/SE
06/26/1913
09/12/1904
1627
Park Ditch
4.1
232
NW/SW/SE
06/09/1916
07/01/1912
1821
Park Ditch
1.8
221A
NW/SW/SE
06/26/1913
09/12/1904
1627
Park Ditch
2.0
232
NW/SW/SE
09/05/1918
07/01/1912
1973
Landis Canal
(alternate pt.
of Park Ditch
see 80CW113)
130.0
718
NW/SW/SE
06/20/1958
07/29/1957
4613
Direct flow diversions under the shares in the Park Ditch and Reservoir Company are
supplemented by releases from Consolidated Reservoir. This reservoir operates under the
following decreed priorities.
TABLE II
CONSOLIDATED RESERVOIR WATER RIGHTS
Structure
Decreed
Priority
Decreed
Adjudication
Appropriation
C.A
Amount
No.
Location
Date
Date
Sec. 19
T6S
R87W
Con. Res.
595.0 AF
8B
NE/NE
02/15/1921
09/08/1898
2144
Con. Res.
285.6 AF
678
NE/NE
06/20/1958
09/01/1948
4613
Con. Res.
401.0 AF
754
NE/NE
11/05/1971
09/01/1948
5884
Historic use: The historic use associated with Applicants' 0.6 acre feet of historic consumptive use
was adjudicated and determined in Case No. 79CW097 in the District Court in and for Water
Division No. 5.
aug plan clark sub.842.wpd
• •
Basalt Water Conservancy District
Augmentation Rights
1. Information from previous decree for Green Mountain Reservoir:
a. Source: Blue River, tributary of Colorado River
b. Legal description: located approximately 16 miles Southeast of the Town of
Kremmling in Summit County, Colorado, and more particularly in all or parts of Sections 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, and 24 of Township 2 South, Range 80 West, and in Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29,
and 34, Township 2 South, Range 79 West of the 6th P.M.
c. Adjudication Date: October 12, 1955
d. Appropriation Date: August 1, 1935
e. Case No.: 2782, 5016, and 5017
Court: United States District Court, District of Colorado
f. Decreed Amount: 154,645 acre feet
g. Decreed Uses: in accordance with paragraph 5(a), (b), and (c) of the section
entitled "Manner of Operation of Project Facilities and Auxiliary Facilities" in Senate Document 80.
2. Information from previous decree for Ruedi Reservoir:
a. Source: Frying Pan River, tributary of Colorado River
b. Legal description: an on -channel reservoir located in Sections 7, 8, 9, 11, and
14 throughl8, Township 8 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. The reservoir is located in
portions of Eagle and Pitkin Counties.
c. Adjudication Date: June 20, 1958
d. Appropriation Date: July 29, 1957
e. Case No.: C.A. 4613
Court: Garfield County District Court
f. Decreed Amount: 102,369 acre feet (Originally decreed for 140,697.3 acre
feet; reduced to 102,369 acre feet in Case No. W-789-76)
g. Decreed Uses: generation of electric energy, domestic, municipal, industrial,
irrigation and stock watering
h. By decree of the Water Court in Case No. 81CW34, Ruedi Reservoir was
decreed a refill right in the amount of 101,280 acre feet, conditional. In Water Court Case No.
95CW95, 44,509 acre feet was made absolute.
3. Information from previous decrees for Troy Ditch and Edith Ditch rights:
STRUCTURE
PRIORITY
COURT
CASE
NO.
ADJ
DATE
APP
DATE
DECREED
AMOUNT
(CFS)
USE
(4)
AMOUNT SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR
RESERVED
AMOUNT
REMAINING (10)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
CFS
AF
Troy Ditch
(1)
370
3082
08/25/1936
05/01/1906
5.10
1
0.000
0.000
0.095
0.064
0.035
4.906
N/A
Troy Ditch
1st Enlg
427
3082
08/25/1936
05/01/1928
10.80
1
0.000
0.000
0.200
0.134
0.073
10.393
N/A
Troy Ditch
2nd Enlg
669
4613
06/20/1958
06/01/1942
6.20
I
0.000
0.000
0.115
0.077
0.042
5.966
N/A
Edith Ditch
353
3082
08/25/1936
05/01/1904
2.72
1
0.110
0.1320
0.050
0.000
0.018
2.410
N/A
Edith Ditch
1st Enlg
673
4613
06/20/1958
07/01/1946
3.23
I
0.000
0.000
0.060
0.000
0.022
3.148
N/A
Troy Ditch
Water
System aka
Lower
Headgate
(2)
W-
2281
15.5e
I,D,
M
C,P
0.110
0.1320
0.520
0.275
0.190
14.273
412.89
(1) Originally diverted from Mdler Creek. All othe s originally diverted from Frying Plan River.
Alternate point fo all priorities of Troy and Edith Ditches.
Combined amoun limited to 15.5 cfs and 453 AF of consumptive use, 300 AF of which can be stored.
I = Irrigation, D = Domestic, M = Municipal, C = Industrial and P = Piscatorial.
Transferred to Edith Ditch Well in Case No. 80CW 1 with 1.0 AF.
Transferred to three springs on Cap K Ranch in Case No. 82CW189 (1.29 AF assumed to be included).
Deeded to George Yates with 15.4 AF in 1983. 0.2 cfs and 10.60 cfs was included in Case No. 82CW357 for Ruedi South Shores
augmentation plan.
(8) Deeded to Joan Wheeler in 1987 for diversion at the Troy Ditch 1st and 2nd Enlargement (16.9 AF assumed to be included).
(9) Reserved for augmentation of Cap K Ponds with 5.52 AF. Case No. 91CW220.
(10) A total of 40.11 AF of the original 453.00 AF has been sold or transferred.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
In Case No. W-2281, Division 5, the Court decreed that 453 acre feet of annual
consumptive -use credits were available to these ditches, and that 300 acre feet could be stored in an
unnamed reservoir. The Basalt Water Conservancy District owns 412.89 acre feet of the 453 acre
feet, and makes the water rights available to contract allottees for use pursuant to an approved
substitute supply plan or decree of Court.
The Troy and Edith augmentation water can be delivered to the Frying Pan, Roaring Fork
or Colorado Rivers by by-passing water at the headgate on the Frying Pan River.
4. Information from previous decrees for Robinson Ditch rights:
a.
ROBINSON
DITCH
DECREED
AMouNT/
cfs
AMOUNT
OWNED BY
BWCD
(cfs)(''
5.00
1.21
CASE
NO. (2)
05/11/1889
06/15/1882
38
132
ROBINSON
DITCH
2.50
0.60
05/11/1889
04/15/1886
140
132
ROBINSON
DITCH
2.00
0.48
05/11/1889
11/15/1886
167
132
ROBINSON
DITCH
10.70
2.59
12/29/1903
04/25/1899
212C
1061
ROBINSON
DITCH
20.06
4.85
08/25/1936
04/25/1900
326
3082
(1) The BWCD owns 441 shares of Class 1 stock issued by the Robinson Ditch Company. The said 441 shares equal
24.16% of the total shares and are associated with 9.73 cfs of the 40.26 cfs decreed to the Robinson Ditch.
(2) District Court in and for Garfield County
b. Legal Description of Point of Diversion: The point of diversion as decreed is located
on the North bank of the Roaring Fork River one-half mile below the mouth of Sopris Creek in Section 11,
T. 8 S., R. 87 West, 6th P.M.
c. Historic Use: Irrigation of approximately 137.2 acres of hay and pasture under
BWCD's interest in the Robinson Ditch water rights. In Case No. 93CW319, the Court decreed that 360
acre feet of annual consumptive -use credits are associated with said irrigation. In that case, the Court also
decreed a change of use of BWCD's Robinson Ditch rights to include augmentation. BWCD makes the
credits available to contract allottees for use pursuant to an approved substitute supply plan or decree of
Court.
5. Information from previous decrees for Favre Domestic Pipeline:
NOTE: This water right is used only for Blue Creek depletions.
a.
CASE
NO.2
FAVRE DOM. PL.
SP. NO. 1
0.50
06/20/1958
08/11/1937
649
4613
FAVRE DOM. PL.
SP. NO. 2
0.50
06/20/1958
04/15/1912
666
4613
(1) Amount: Each spring is decreed for 0.50 cfs, but the use of both has a combined limit of 0.50 cfs. (2)
District Court in and for Garfield County
b. Legal Description:
i. Favre Domestic Pipeline - Spring No. 1: Located at a point whence the E'/4 corner,
Section 34, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M. bears South 34°26' East,
890.9 feet.
ii. Favre Domestic Pipeline - Spring No. 2: Located at a point whence the E% corner,
Section 34, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M. bears South 37°24' East
721.4 feet.
c. Source: Blue Creek, which is tributary to Roaring Fork River
d. Decreed Use: Domestic and augmentation
e. Historic Use: BWCD owns the Favre Domestic Pipeline right. The Springs
historically provided a majority of the domestic water supply for El Jebel, a community of 364 EQRs,
consisting of 291 single family residential units (mostly mobile homes), irrigation of 12.5 acres of lawn and
landscape, and commercial development. In Case No. 93CW319, the Court decreed that 142.82 acre feet
of historic consumptive -use credits were available to Blue Creek as a result of such historic use; and that
67.2 acre feet of historic consumptive -use credits were available to the Roaring Fork River as a result of
such historic use. In 93CW319, the Court also decreed a change of use of said credits to include
augmentation. BWCD makes the credits available to contract allottees for use pursuant to an approved
substitute supply plan or decree of Court.
1--
U
EE
(1)
O 0
> F-
U z
Z
> W
ir
W 5 w
N
ow i)
c
W W
1-
0 0
0
m
CC
5
0
O
O
N
w
CO
W
0
z
m
N
0
O
0
Water User :
U1
N
0
.0)
a
lU
U
N
0
0N)
.0)
w
0
O
O
Maximum Demand:
d
U
•
000000000000
000000000000
J J J J J J
m m m in 0 0 0 U 0 0 m in
LO r- CD rn U) v ()
.- o o o o CO N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 o
66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
O 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 N •- I- U) (O V 0 0
0 0 0 0 N N (V 0 0 0
O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0) 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•
6)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O or) (O V N 0 (- U) 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m a r in w E E
cV= maU_0 7C T Q°>
- -3-3)--,u2<2aU0Z0
01
Total Includes 5% Transit Loss
N
(O
Et' R0
ENGINEERINGMEME
I N C.
Ms. Kim Schlagel
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
RE: Clark Subdivision
Dear Ms. Schlagel:
•
May 1, 2002
On April 30, 2002 Resource Engineering, Inc. supervised a 4 hour pump test of the existing
well serving Lot 1 in the proposed Clark Subdivision. The existing well is decreed as
Sherwood Well No. 1 and carries permit No. 20095.
The well is completed in sandstone formation at a depth of 222 feet.
Static water level was 146.7' prior to pumping. Total drawdown after 4 hours of pumping
at 17.5 gpm was Tess than one foot (10 3/4"). Recovery occurred within 3 minutes. A copy
of the data is attached.
The well exhibited the ability to provide a reliable physical water supply for the proposed
uses which include a single family home, an ADU, 2,500 s.f. or irrigation and up to 6
horses. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the well has served the existing home
and amenities for many years.
It is also our professional opinion that the proposed Clark Lots 2, 3 and 4 Wells can be
completed in the same aquifer and obtain similar water yields, that is 15 gpm and 1.0
AF/year. The proposed wells are located approximately 600 feet apart and should not
create any well to well interference.
Therefore, it is our conclusion based on the pump test and an evaluation of local geology
that is reliable physical water supply is available to all four lots in the Clark Subdivision as
proposed.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
aOv%� °pu���
,
a S. Bussone, P.E. °° c-�oisrF4� °,
Water Resources Engineer * o 1Q 1 r,
&J.
I;U/'J°e1Al�;„
`.OF CO%-®
PSB/mmm
842-1.0 ks pump test.842.wpd
CC: Robert Noone, Esq.
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
Rflc f-`. r-ilrirari ri 4sir ni is f -n fq1 R(-11 fQ7n1 d/I =-7r-1i (en= .1.1 .7)-7
Apr 30 02 09:24p Samu son Pump Co, Inc. 97047-9448 p.1
1 .
Name /
Address
WELL TEST REPORT
c���cp C Gr�t C/a1-2
Date
Well Log Depth
Casing Size f
Water Level //-/Z1 " 7
Draw Down E' li> —
Pump Setting Production i-?.
/70- 7
Test Pump
DRAWDOWN
RECOVERY
TIME
MIN.
LEVEL
GPM
TIME
MIN.
LEVEL
1(-) '' O
0
/
l L/- 7
0
/447-,7-7/9
1
`'��
1
! t% f . July
22
i/C-7f-1,/Y
3
�` .
� !,'l'"iIi
3
/ejrf,-,7 We
4
/4/7'1-/3fy
4
1,4-73/Y
5
—
5
/4/6 %."/1
6
_---
6
8
.---
J ^- :
a
10,
/U7 3
;r;./j7.•9—
10
12
12
15
------
15
21112-
Jv4-i/2-
20
30
1 CI7- % Y:
30
40
1y-)-s��
40
50
-�-- �
50
1I;0o
80`74f
it/-7-'i
It/ -7-3i
60
Ib3
/L'-7-5
/�.; U b
We /j. g
ILO -S%y
1.; 0 0
180
/C/7 - G
4. 9>pro
7/ i sV'
ROBERT M. NOONE
rmti noonclaw.com
DAVID P. JONES
dpi;noonclaw.com
HE NOONE I1AW FT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1 001 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 207
PO Box 39
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81 602
I,,
January 25, 2005
Mark Bean
Building d Planning
Garfi9ld County
109e Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Clark Subdivision Appraisal
Dear Mark:
M
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-4500
FAcsTMILE: (970) 945-5570
TOLL FREE: (800) 813-1559
KATIE ROADCAP, PARALEGAL
Enclosed is the appraisal for the Clark Subdivision by High Country Appraisal
Associates, dated January 20, 2005. Based on this appraisal and the formula set forth in section
9:81 in the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County we calculate the Clarks' payment, in lieu
of land dedication, to be $987.18.
Appraised value = $860,000.00
860,000/52.27 = 16,453
16,453 x 0.020 = 329.06
329.06 x 3 = 987.18
Acres = 52.27
Land Dedication Standard = 0.020
Number of Units in Subdivision = 3
Payment = $987.18
Please review the Appraisal and advise whether you agree with our calculation of the
amount due. Also, please advise what the road impact fees will be for the Clark Subdivision.
Very truly yours,
THE NOONE LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation
By:.
Robert M. Noone
RMN/kr
enclosure
cc: John and Susanne Clark
UGs 1 COUNTRY A.PPR,A\.USA.IL, ASSOCIATES
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
est. 1979
January 20, 2005
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
The Noone Law Firm
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 207
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: CLARK SUBDIVISION
3523 County Road 103
Part of Section 13, T. 7 S., R. 88 W. of the 6th P.M.
Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Noone:
ECEIVED
JAN 2 8 2.005
L.D COUNTY
& PLANNI v
At your request I have inspected the above referenced property for the purpose of
estimating the market value of the fee simple estate interest, excluding the impact on value
of any existing or ongoing subdivisions or subdivision applications, as well as any physical
improvements made or required to be made in connection with subdivision of the
property. The property is an approximately 52.27 -acre parcel, currently improved with
one single-family dwelling, carport, detached garage, barn, and miscellaneous sheds. The
appraisal will not include any value contribution from these various improvements.
This 31 -page appraisal report communicates the results of a complete appraisal of the
subject property. This is a summary appraisal report, which is intended to comply with
the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards
of Professional Practice for a summary appraisal report. As such, it presents only summary
discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to
develop the opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning,
and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. The depth of discussion contained in this
report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated below. The
appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized use of this report; any and all third parties are
cautioned against relying upon the conclusions and opinions herein for any other than the
stated purpose.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY: The subject property is located on the north and
west sides of Garfield County Road 103 in eastern Garfield County. It contains an area of
approximately 52.27 acres, and its street address is 3523 County Road 103, Carbondale,
Colorado 81623. The property's owners of record are John and Susanne Clark. The
2005012
1372 Main Street, P.O.Box 7 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 963-1480 FAX (970) 963-1068
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 2
property is identified by Garfield County parcel number 2393-131-00-236, and by
schedule number 011635. The legal description of the property is attached at page 19.
OBJECTIVE OF THE APPRAISAL: The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market
value, as defined herein, of the fee simple estate interest in the subject property, treating it
as "raw land" without any level of subdivision approval and without any physical
improvements made to the property in connection with a subdivision. In addition, the
value estimate does not take into account any of the building improvements located on
the property; this is a valuation of hypothetically vacant land. The fee simple estate is
defined as "absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate subject only
to the four powers of government" by the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Second
Edition.
Market value is defined as "the most probable price which a property should bring in a
competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and
seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by
undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified
date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under the conditions whereby:
a. buyer and seller are typically motivated;
b. both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he
considers his own best interest;
c. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
d. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
e. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold
unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by
anyone associated with the sale."
Exposure time, as referenced in "c" above, is estimated at 12 to 18 months.
PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL: It is my understanding that the appraisal is required as
evidence of value for school impact fee purposes, in connection with a proposed
subdivision of the subject property. The intended users of the appraisal report are the
client, the owner of record, and Garfield County, Colorado. The appraisal is not intended
to be used by any other party, or for any other purpose.
SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL.: The scope of this appraisal includes a physical inspection
and photographing of the subject property, conducting an inspection of all comparable
sales used, and ascertaining the characteristics of the area and neighborhood. Data
pertaining to the subject property has been obtained from my physical inspection, public
2005012 High Country Appraisal
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 3
records, and the client. I inspected the property for the purpose of this appraisal
assignment on January 12, 2005.
The scope of this appraisal includes investigation of applicable zoning and planning
information, and development of a conclusion of highest and best use. Comparable sale
data is collected from sources that include, but are not limited to, Realtors, buyers, sellers,
attorneys, and the applicable Multiple Listing Service. All market data has been confirmed
with a party to the transaction, a Realtor or attorney involved in the sale, Multiple Listing
Service published (or electronically transmitted) data, and/or an appraiser who is believed
to constitute a reliable source.
The sales comparison approach is used to estimate the value of the subject property, based
upon comparison with sales of vacant land with similar potential in the subject area. This
approach is typically the only applicable indicator of value for vacant land. The cost and
income approaches are not considered applicable, and are not used in estimating the
value of the subject property.
AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DATA: The subject property is located in the lower
portion of western Colorado's Roaring Fork River valley. The area includes the town of
Carbondale and the city of Glenwood Springs, which define the southeastern and
northwestern ends of the area, respectively.
Colorado Highway 82 is the primary highway artery serving the area. It provides access to
the Aspen area, 30 miles southeast of Carbondale, and terminates in Glenwood Springs at
Interstate Route 70, 12 miles northwest of Carbondale. Interstate 70 is the major east -west
highway in Colorado, providing access to Denver and Grand Junction. Highway 82
provides access to U.S. Highway 24 and the upper Arkansas River valley between May
and November via Independence Pass. Colorado Highway 133, which intersects
Highway 82 near Carbondale, provides access to the North Fork valley of the Gunnison
River, and to the city of Delta, to the south. Local bus service is available between Aspen
and Glenwood Springs. Intercity bus service (Greyhound) is available in Glenwood
Springs, as is rail passenger service (Amtrak). Regularly scheduled airline service is
available at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, 27 miles southeast of Carbondale, and at the
Eagle County Airport, about 25 miles east of Glenwood Springs.
The Carbondale/Glenwood Springs area has been one of the fastest growing portions of
the Roaring Fork Valley, the result of unsatisfied demand from nearby Aspen and Pitkin
County and the area's proximity to those resort area, combined with the attractiveness of
the Glenwood Springs area and the White River National Forest as a tourist destination.
Population figures for the Roaring Fork Valley are presented in the following table:
2005012 High Country Appraisal
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 4
Roaring Fork Valley Population Figures
1980 1990 % Change 2000 % Change
Aspen 3,678 5,049 37.3% 5,914 17.1%
Snowmass Village 999 1,449 45.0% 1,822 25.7%
Pitkin County 10,338 12,661 22.5% 14,872 17.5%
Basalt 529 1,128 113.2% 2,681 137.7%
Garfield County 22,514 29,974 33.1% 43,791 46.1%
Carbondale 2,084 3,004 44.1% 5,196 73.0%
Glenwood Springs 4,637 6,561 41.5% 7,736 17.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Carbondale's population grew from 736 in 1970 to 2,084 in 1980, an increase of 183.2%;
As shown, population increased 44.1 % during the 1980's, and the rate of increased
reached 73.0% for the 1990's. Garfield County population grew at a rate around 65% to
75% of that experienced in Carbondale. Basalt population statistics reflect substantial
increases due to annexations; actual population growth in the Roaring Fork valley portion
of Eagle County, which includes most of the Town of Basalt, is in the range experienced
by Carbondale and Garfield County. The population growth potential of Carbondale and
its environs remains substantial. The mid -valley area is strongly influenced by rapid
economic growth in the Aspen/Snowmass resort area. A limited supply of private lands
and restrictive zoning codes in Pitkin County have forced workers in Aspen and
Snowmass to down -valley locations. As a result, the rate of population growth in the
mid -valley area is higher than in Aspen or Snowmass. As previously noted, this pattern of
growth has slowed at this time.
The area's economy is based primarily on tourism and construction trades, on its role as a
"bedroom community" serving low to middle income persons employed in the Aspen
area, and increasingly on affluent retirees and "lone eagle" businesses. The economic
impact created by the Aspen area is heightened by the very limited inventory of affordable
housing in Pitkin County. The area does not have any large industries or small grouping
of major employers, but does have many small commercial/industrial uses that tend to be
related to the construction industry. During the 1990's, these were a major factor in
unprecedented levels of economic activity in the area. Government and services are other
significant employment sources.
The mid -valley area experienced very rapid growth in residential construction between
1974 and 1980, and again between 1987 and 1990. Residential value levels increased
2005012 High Country Appraisal
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 5
rapidly during those periods, with a stretch of stable population and declining values in
the interim. Due to the housing situation in Pitkin County, growth pressures are
substantial and create a boom economy when effective demand is present. The area
experienced steady moderate growth from early 1990 to late 1992, with increasing activity
through 1993 and early 1994. By late summer of 1994, growth in the mid -valley area was
occurring at boom levels, with rapidly increasing property values. Activity slowed during
the winter of 1994/95, but resumed at unprecedented levels until mid -2001. The national
economic slowdown and political uncertainty of late 2001 were exacerbated in 2002 by
corporate scandal, and the national economy remained in recession through late 2003.
Developers adapted quickly, and additions to inventory have been very limited since
2001, preserving a reasonable market balance. 2004 showed signs of increased demand,
although not yet at a level that will drive values significantly upward.
Neighborhood shopping facilities are available in Basalt, EI Jebel and Carbondale, and
regional facilities are located in Glenwood Springs and Aspen. The public schools in the
mid -valley area are part of the Roaring Fork School District, and private school
opportunities are available in Carbondale and Aspen. Colorado Mountain College, a
junior college located northwest of Carbondale, offers a wide variety of adult education
programs, and has attendance centers in Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. Good
hospital facilities are available in Aspen and Glenwood Springs. Police protection is
provided by municipal and county forces as applicable, and fire protection by volunteer
departments.
Climate, environment and abundant recreational opportunities are major elements in the
area's economy. Winter sports facilities include the four Aspen ski areas and the Sunlight
ski area, excellent nordic skiing opportunities that include groomed trail systems in the
Glenwood Springs and Carbondale areas, and the Hot Springs Pool in Glenwood Springs.
The area is surrounded by the White River National Forest, which offers exceptional
scenic beauty, and hiking, camping, hunting and off-road biking opportunities. The area's
rivers, including the Frying Pan, Crystal, Roaring Fork, and Colorado, are noted for
excellent fishing and white -water boating. These environmental and recreational
attributes are the primary reason for the strength of the area's tourism -oriented economy.
The subject neighborhood is commonly known as Missouri Heights. It is located above
the Roaring Fork River valley, generally west of Basalt Mountain in Eagle County, and
north and east of the Crystal Springs and Cattle Creek areas of Garfield County.
The neighborhood's primary roads include Upper Cattle Creek Road, which provides
access to EI Jebel, and Garfield County Roads 100 and 103, which provide access to
Highway 82 between EI Jebel and Carbondale. Garfield County Road 102 (Fender Lane
in Eagle County) is the major east -west road within the neighborhood. County Roads 112
and 113 provide access to the Crystal Springs and Cattle Creek areas to the west. County
2005012 High Country Appraisal
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 6
Road 113 also continues north to Cottonwood Pass, a lightly traveled route to Gypsum in
the Eagle River valley.
The neighborhood contains a mix of agricultural and single family residential uses. It
includes several subdivisions with lot sizes ranging from two to ten acres, as well as a
significant number of luxury homes on sites of 10 to 200 acres. Most of the transition to
residential use has occurred within the past 25 years. While there are still several active
agricultural properties within the neighborhood, these uses will probably undergo
transition during the next two decades.
The neighborhood's primary amenities are its superb views of the Elk Mountains to the
south and its generally rural character, in combination with reasonably good proximity to
shopping and services, and predominantly paved road access. Although both Garfield
and Eagle Counties may be expected to seek to preserve the generally open nature of the
neighborhood, it is likely that growth pressures will result in additional transition. The
subject neighborhood has demonstrated substantial appeal to the mid -to -upper-income
low-density residential market. The subject neighborhood's positive attributes are likely to
continue to have substantial appeal to that market.
The neighborhood has average linkages to employment centers, schools, public
transportation, shopping, entertainment and other community resources. Overall market
appeal is considered good. Property values increased at generally rapid rates prior to the
current economic slowdown; although values have been generally stable since mid -2001,
I anticipate a return to significant value appreciation as the national economy recovers.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located on the north and west sides of
Garfield County Road 103 about 3.5 miles north of its intersection with Colorado
Highway 82, and about 3/4 mile west of its intersection with County Road 100. The east
side of the property has 304.48 feet of frontage on the west side of the county road; the
southern edge of the property has 794.91 feet of frontage on the north side of the same
road. A survey of the property (Clark Subdivision Preliminary Plat) by Gamba &
Associates, Inc., of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, dated February 1, 2002, indicates that
the property contains an area of 52.27 acres. A topographic map showing the subject
property, with parcel boundaries identified, is attached at page 21; this map shows that the
parcel is somewhat irregular in shape. A three-dimensional topographic map is also
attached. The property is bounded on the east by private property and the county road,
on the south by the county road, on the west by private property (Cedar Ridge Farm), and
on the north by public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
The property slopes gently downward from northeast to southwest, from a high point of
approximately 7,040 feet above sea level at its northeast corner. The lowest portion of the
property is along its westerly boundary, which generally follows the Park Ditch, at an
2005012 High Country Appraisal
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 7
elevation slightly under 6,840 feet. The parcel's maximum east -west dimension is about
1,500 feet, and the maximum north -south dimension is about 2,000 feet.
The property is approximately evenly divided between cleared irrigated meadow and
pinon/juniper forest. , of which about 190 acres is irrigated with high seniority water
rights. It appears to be completely fenced, including extensive wood rail fencing along
the eastern boundaries. The property includes site improvements associated with an
existing residence, including a gravel driveway, lawn areas, and limited landscaping.
View amenity is very good from most of the property; views to the south are partially
obscured along the extreme southern portion of the property.
Domestic water for this property is provided by a permitted drilled well. The property
reportedly uses a single septic system for sewage disposal. Electricity and telephone
service are available and connected. The property includes irrigation water rights that
have historically been used to irrigate about 25 acres of its total land area. These rights
consist of 52 shares in the Needham Ditch. These are fairly senior rights for the
neighborhood, and would typically provide a reliable supply of irrigation water until early
summer.
I have not been provided with a copy of a title insurance policy for the subject property.
The previously referenced preliminary plat does not indicate the presence of any existing
easements, encroachments, or encumbrances. I have assumed that no detrimental
conditions exist. I have not been provided with the status of mineral rights ownership for
the property; there is no history of mineral rights ownership, or lack thereof, having any
impact on value in the subject neighborhood.
There are no FEMA flood insurance maps printed for the area of the subject property; no
portion of the property, as a result, is within a designated flood hazard area. There is no
obvious physical evidence of flood hazard on the property; this is typical of the area.
No evidence of any problems relating to hazardous substances on or in the subject
property was noted during my inspection. I have no expertise in the detection or
identification of such substances. The property's historical use would not indicate any
abnormal potential for the presence of such substances, and it is assumed that no adverse
environmental conditions or hazardous materials exist on the property.
BUILDING DESCRIPTION: The subject property is improved with a single family
residence, reportedly built in 1964, a carport, a detached garage, and miscellaneous barns
and sheds. Any value contribution related to these improvements is not considered in this
appraisal. For this reason, the following description is very brief.
2005012 High Country Appraisal
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 8
The residence, according to public records, contains 3,974 square feet of heated living
area and a total area of 4,870 square feet, including basement and enclosed porches. It
reportedly has four bedrooms and three bathrooms, and is believed to be in average
condition. I have not made either an exterior or interior inspection of the subject
buildings.
HISTORY: The subject property is owned by John and Susanne Clark. They apparently
acquired the property on September 30, 1987, for an indicated $375,000; this transfer was
by deed recorded in Garfield County in book 722 at page 145. The owners are in the
process of creating a low-density four -lot residential subdivision, with one lot to include
the existing home and outbuildings. Nothing related to this subdivision of the property is
considered in this appraisal.
ZONING: The subject property is zoned Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density, which is
the typical zoning in the neighborhood. This is an agricultural/residential zoning
classification involving a minimum lot size of 2 acres. Uses permitted by right include
single family residential and agricultural uses. Maximum lot coverage is 15%, and
maximum building height is 25 feet. Two off-street parking places are required for each
residential unit. The County's master plan calls for lower than permitted density (one unit
per ten acres or more) in areas lacking sewage treatment facilities; the subject parcel lacks
such facilities. The existing uses of the subject property as of the date of appraisal appear
to be in conformance with applicable laws.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Highest and best use, as defined by the Dictionary of Real
Estate Appraisers, is "the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved
property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasibleand
that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are
legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum profitability."
It is implied in this definition that the determination of highest and best use takes into
account the contribution of a specific use to the community and community development
goals as well as the benefits of that use to individual property owners.
The subject property is physically suited for many uses, including permitted uses such as
agriculture and single family residential use. Agriculture is not a financially feasible use of
the property, as it cannot provide an acceptable return on investment, in part due to its
small size, but primarily due to property values in the area. The property's physical
attributes make it attractive for an exempt subdivision into two parcels, and for low density
residential subdivision into a maximum of five parcels. Neither of these options would
involve any significant infrastructure expense; the latter would require approval through
Garfield County's subdivision review process, which involves significant time and
expense. The higher density use would also require the sharing of two wells between a
2005012 High Country Appraisal
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 10
maximum of five lots, and/or acquisition of water rights or approval of a water
augmentation plan sufficient to obtain permits for up to four additional individual wells.
Based upon the property's location, physical characteristics, and applicable planning and
zoning considerations, it is my opinion that the highest and best use of the property as if
vacant is for gentleman's ranch use, as is, with immediate potential for single family
residential subdivision, involving a density level between two lots (exempt subdivision)
and four lots. An analysis sufficiently detailed to make a reasonably supported
determination of which of these alternatives is more profitable is beyond the scope of this
appraisal assignment. Based on my experience in the area, I consider it likely that the
present worth of each alternative would favor the exempt subdivision concept due to the
cost, risk and absorption time inherent in higher density subdivision.
APPRAISAL PROCESS: The sales comparison approach will be used to estimate the value
of the subject property, as is, based on a comparison with sales or contracts of similar
acreage property. This is the only approach typically considered applicable to the
valuation of vacant, or effectively vacant, land. The cost and income approaches are not
considered applicable to the subject parcel, and are not used.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH: In estimating the value of the subject property, I have
analyzed five sales or contracts of the most comparable properties located in the subject
area. I have used dollars per acre as the unit of comparison.
The comparable sales are summarized in the table on the facing page. My comparison of
each sale with the subject parcel is presented on attached adjustment grids, beginning at
page 24, and sale location is depicted on an attached sale location map (Page 23). The
following narrative presents summary information for each sale used in estimating the
value of the property, and a description of adjustments made on the attached adjustment
grids.
Sale 1 is the Callicotte Ranch property; it is located on the west side of County Road 103
about 1 mile southwest of the subject property. This ranch was sold out of an estate by
highly motivated and, in my opinion, uninformed sellers (The Estate of Stephen H.
Callicotte) for $1,642,600 cash to the seller. It was purchased by Rocky Mountain
Mansions 111 LLC. It included older improvements in poor condition, and had relatively
minor environmental concerns. This is the most recent ranch sale in the subject area.
Zoning was identical to the subject. The buyer is attempting to subdivide the property at a
density of about four acres per unit. I have adjusted the sale price upward 25% to reflect
seller motivation, resulting in an adjusted price of $11,403 per acre. I have made a 5%
upward adjustment to reflect changing market conditions between the sale date and mid -
2001, resulting in an adjusted unit price of $11,973 per acre. The subject's smaller size
would typically command a higher unit price. It has a larger percentage of irrigated area.
2005012 High Country Appraisal
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 11
An upward adjustment is made to reflect the impact of the sale's environmental
conditions. After adjustment, this sale indicates a unit value for the subject property of
$16,762 per acre.
Sale 2 is a recent sale of a slightly smaller parcel in the Spring Park Mesa area, located
mostly in Eagle County, on the county line, about three miles east of the subject property.
The property was sold by Christopher Berry, through Morris & Fyrwald Real Estate, for
$450,000 cash to the seller. Recording data is not available from either county; the sale
was verified with Greg Hunter, the selling Realtor. The parcel has gated private road
access from Upper Cattle Creek Road. It enjoys very good view amenity, and included a
permitted well. The property has no irrigation water rights. Zoning in Eagle County is
Resource. In comparing this sale to the subject property, I have made an upward
adjustment for the subject's superior accessibility. The subject's larger size would
typically command a lower unit price. Its water rights add value by comparison. This
sale, after adjustment, indicates a unit value for the subject property of $14,827 per acre.
Sale 3 is a very recent contract for sale of the remaining 144.77 -acre Douglas Cerise
Ranch, located about 2,000 feet south of the subject property at the end of County Road
105. The sale price is less than the $2,800,000 asking price, but is confidential at this
time; details have been verified with the seller, Cassie Cerise. Closing was tentatively
scheduled for early February of 2005. This property offers excellent privacy and views,
and is about 60% irrigated. The property includes a small cabin that does not contribute
to value. Aside from size, it is highly comparable to the subject property. In comparing
this sale to the subject, I have made a 1 5% upward adjustment for size; the subject's
smaller size would typically command a higher unit price. The subject has an inferior
percentage of irrigated area. The subject improvements are inferior. After adjustment, this
sale indicates a unit value for the subject property of less than $21,855 per acre.
Sale 4 is a current contract for sale of a 35.00 acre parcel located on the Rimledge road,
west of County Road 100 and just under two miles southeast of the subject property. The
property is being sold by Tarrson Trust through Frank X. Taverna Real Estate. The sale
price will be slightly less than the $575,000 asking price; terms will be cash to the seller.
Closing is scheduled for March 2, 2005; this information was verified with Frank Taverna.
This parcel lies on either side of a private road connecting a residential area known as
Rimledge with County Road 100. It has generally moderate south and southwest -facing
slopes, and very good view amenity. It does not include a well; water rights are
comparable to the subject property. In comparing this sale to the subject, I have first
made a downward adjustment for size; the subject's larger size would typically command
a lower unit price. Its well adds value by comparison. It is otherwise comparable without
adjustment. After adjustment, this sale indicates a unit value for the subject property of
less than $15,608 per acre.
2005012 High Country Appraisal
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 12
Sale 5 is the 102.50 acre Cedar Ridge Farm, located on County Road 103 adjoining the
subject property on the west. The buyer, Cedar Ridge Farms LLC, planned to occupy the
property as a gentleman's ranch and continue operating the equestrian facility on the
property. The sale was from Sandra Smith at a price of $2,650,000 cash to the seller. The
property included extensive improvements with an estimated contributory value of
$725,000. The property's zoning was identical to the subject. In comparing this sale to
the subject, I have first made a 23% upward adjustment to reflect changing market
conditions, resulting in an adjusted unit price of $31,800 per acre. The subject's smaller
size would typically command a higher unit price. It has a smaller percentage of irrigated
area. A large downward adjustment is made to reflect the value contribution of the
extensive improvements on the sale property. After adjustment, this sale indicates a unit
value for the subject property of $25,758 per acre.
These five transactions, as adjusted, indicate a range of unit value for the subject property
of $14,827 per acre to $25,758 per acre. Sales 2 and 4 are the most comparable in size;
Sales 1, 3 and 5 are highly comparable in location. Based on this analysis, it is my
opinion that the subject has a unit value of $16,500 per acre. Based on the size of the
subject property, this approach indicates a market value of $860,000 (rounded).
RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE: The sales comparison approach has
been used to estimate the value of the subject land at $860,000, based on a comparison
with the best available sales of similar properties. This approach is typically the only one
considered reasonably applicable to the valuation of vacant land.
The cost and income approaches were not applicable to this appraisal problem, and were
not used.
Based upon the facts and data set forth in this appraisal report, it is my opinion that the
market value of the fee simple estate interest in the subject land, subject to the
certification, assumptions and limiting conditions contained in this report, as of January
12, 2005, is:
EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($860,000)
Based on the exposure time for comparable sales considered in this appraisal, and upon
current market conditions, marketing time for property such as the subject, as of the date
of appraisal, is estimated at six to eighteen months, assuming offering at a price within 5%
to 10% of the appraised value set forth above.
This appraisal is made for the purpose of estimating "raw land" value for use in
determining a school impact fee assessment in connection with a proposed subdivision of
2005012 High Country Appraisal
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 13
the property, and thus does not reflect the value of any land use approvals related to the
subdivision or any existing building improvements. The "as -is" market value of the
property as of the date of appraisal would likely be higher than the value estimate set forth
above.
Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully Submitted,
William K. Gray, MAI
Certified General Appraiser
Colorado License Number CG01313605
2005012
Mr. Robert M. Noone, Attorney
January 20, 2005
Page 14
Certification
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, ...
the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and
limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and
conclusions.
I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no
personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with
this assignment.
My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined
results.
my compensation is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or
direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a
stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this
appraisal. The appraisal assignment is not based on a requested minimum valuation, specific valuation,
or the approval of a loan.
my compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or
conclusions in, or the use of, this report.
my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in
conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.
no one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report.
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions
were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of
Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
I certify that the use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to
review by its duly authorized representatives.
As of the date of this report, I, William K. Gray, have completed the requirements under the continuing
education program of the Appraisal Institute.
As of the date of this report, my state certification has not been revoked, suspended, canceled, or
restricted.
January 20, 2005
William K. Gray, MAI \
Certified General Appraiser
Colorado License No. CG01313605
Expiration Date 12/31/06
2005012 High Country Appraisal
2005012
Subject Photographs
Looking West at Subject Property from County Road 103
Looking North at Subject Property from County Road 103
15
High Country Appraisal
2005012
Subject Photographs
Looking Southeast at View from Subject Property Driveway
Looking Northwest along Driveway at Subject Property
16
High Country Appraisal
2005012
Subject Photographs
Looking Northwest at Southern Portion of Subject from County Road 103
Looking North along County Road 103 past Subject Property
17
High Country Appraisal
2005012
Subject Photographs
Looking Southwest along County Road 103 past Subject Property
Looking East along County Road 103 past Subject Property
18
High Country Appraisal
2005012
Legal Description
a o
a u O C aa c o ■M' .7,-
O ,,r-:
-° O_ WrnC
~a
aU p''03U'S o T.LN«$ O NO/ .O 'h0
IO0 0 'r' .
O io
aw C 2 0 a+ O r •S U 0 v 0QL 2 z to 8 81 O w}yOO 0 ° O
0
O„,„•••.• CN °0 LU« O° O 7L ^ O 6 Z M
p ... LaO U O C� 5OpC
�,o �'�' oap a oirno Qo O'O3L ".sp
p..
O w r` Ot C :-T C r".9) ,°! 10 0 . O
'13 i p C v)"' 2$ C T= OmM g
O 'O M p U t/ p 0 O t0 I" 'p a U °n C..O- 1 0 p - r-... 07) Z O t0
` 0 l o M N tt. m .- ap vie
) fD "16 743±--
-5 a>. GM gL+N O pp> O O,p ccOtr7 qO V MZ
C , ' .. O C7 Q1 r o 0 6 4J N o
a�10° 13 ;7) .0 ° a N 2 ='N' n 5
5 v ` o ° c0 ..... (4,1„) In
0tO C-5 tki w O
.O_
N O 18 41
O ° 5 =; o, N O n L M=
w 3• C O C O LU O .. L
f` U 4- O
°.c tR^ o2L g `p'_1 o5vt u d8 q L ong
» r q • S.' N p g C 01 O ''' a) 3~ U
0 all°Vi .. bil O
CO .0 O • . Q1 C1 i0
O O . O 44
Vo o vE03 5
Et^S v o $ outP—0 . N« i0M g a A C ° 5 5° y^o
•
— 0
$
co Sio 4'2to1°'w L 3 32O .«o i «� ■-
po
cC(4u T 00+a►O O 2y Cm u) uo .. ; , 'n
q �-c 0 al.,. SP
to•r, ^ q°aON' .. Oj
tN` o
}q° 5 1 NOtUN w 2 .1 8 .s
faO #N g�M O.ra O O
3cSaO=C C�p $JMPoi w■VO 0
5 V °On••••$ 30 v) V LO 0
r'q Lei C Ki • Z CD OLtLv«~zp N VC1n.L
T°U«0tMaMo0 0 o U UV aC °, l 0 N O3U C Mofyt .0 L OoM.. o
niSCj1'W
o 1c3 °v)vm
3 )p r C.:. qo50°t
10 c C O O.'p N Op
0 0 0 •- 0 Li -N # o oO0 Co o_ pC 0 0
« o 03pC �
5 4 j °t 0 0 "' a O o N ' 0te:`oa
..Z'1
aa•030t.a .,.°ao a Ep • +z.5
0—= N M tO v! Nt Oo�:C63120P 0 0AU 6210 b
^O o' 3°1 Oa10 u
13 p LCr`CC_ O CM O --:y L O� 05'''' Lat
gww YOr0 •OLNC0U OYI .^2T "a f.,4, 0, 7,.; n -'/ .. pU[O °L CY pN.^
M Cr, . ...z
to) U 0• " IV ; 3 a_ Of 0 O.o 0 to7 2 O•C
N O .° n ,_V)rO.pU C n N
L° VV1 S N ° « M 5 Z
a pc O°U p UO Z p
oaa CC ..NOma in a.L • o L.1
f.$ogN =on: o C1.
°v :415
F.S w._ , q U fV .. t0 7 -0 O /.o O
V p O O° ai U UN° C C
C
2ii_� �gPoW3n�2t�_��a°o3gZa
'v o ao m p rJ ^ p o v " t v1 a a`o 0 a h w
C .. 2 0 N N C 01 _ W c" Q to q O L 1.) N
•v V) to 3 O U '.' n
O 0 O von -
0 q C N W Otp .r3. h 0 tt q n 0 .' o .. LV 3 O
0 iN aD - ;M O �N 1" 974 J.r3
c 0 °' N,- I V) i1 a I P 0 a ° C$ .- z- [
` c o C- M C in U r N J V ° co C O
C O C .+ N _
O. Q O 0 . t0 Oto 01 .° P • a° C C1 0 0 0* 0 . N O
<U G mzvi y0,' z aarJ ° L._ Q..- .°
19
High Country Appraisal
1
--Th— •11
--- 1 0
171 \\ I p� ii m
'� I I. I �j , ,1N 1 N o
\ , I , ,f_______.,1_,... = ^ --.(I _..''a 1.0'0 1 ��I G� 0
y_ — i .
i /1 ({--/ 1`'I -- .tA I N "Ki -1 r I .� o ::; < t:.
1 -
I l %:. '~ •I_1°
AI. 2,o /�Te s
m
a° L \ is a.„:,:
:! t
N v I”' iii
•
r
• i,
149
4,4
•
d :,a (
)
1
k:421 _HIOVa -L .,
°daa," i• i OD Q'Ia142UV9
r l � a 1` 1.I
Cr '
0
�o N
Y
'0G-+, (t� -- g . = -
�- W I- s \1 —I-
-- -- yN9�`I
--11 1 ',� o —
1
•
4
T
I0. -0-T
-"• r�
aWE'
Ja
tei
\ V
I
ly2t,. .I�
�h I
4
y3tio, — Vl;-o
•
2005012
Location Map
20
High Country Appraisal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
wsor so.5^ i
2005012
Site Plan
21
High Country Appraisal
2005012
22
View of Subject Property
Looking North at Three-Dimensiona
High Country Appraisal
m
O
1 I ft I
I ; 11 � Q)) \\ /in I y`� rn
// 00 ill `.- N 4:1? N
is
( --J l Ifro - t1 I—!� //`_o I
fm
' �= a
I
I l\a
®SIT
nti
m h
N h
0
tf1
—
0
m
o
470
V
-r
N
f 3 i
4
a!
•
0
6
— +
—o
b 3 v
O0
n►_ r
0 • ,+ N�
`N
- C
CO
N
CO., tv
0
N.
a
�,
• N
m
i- + — +
v •-
(NI
N IY =
1
1.... 0)
WS.
ODS
//)" :•..,: i - i
1{ y �P \\ t
.fit_2:-.2:_,,...s___ � ` -,
^S
ul
N �~•
co
=
0
a
•-•N. m�
2005012
Comparable Sale Location Map
23
High Country Appraisal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2005012
Sales Comparison Analysis - Clark Property
Property
Subject
Sale 1
Sale 2
Sale 3
Address
3523 County Road '
2369 County Road '
Spring Park Mes
1234 County Road '
Cash Equiv. Sale Price
$9,12; $12,35( <$19,34
Motivation Adjustment
25% 0% 0%
Adjusted Price
$0
$11,40: $12,35E <$19,34
Sale Date
Market Conditions Adjustme
01/12/0. 03/20/0 11/30/0, Contrac
5% 0% 0%
Adjusted Price
$0 $11,97; $12,35( <$19,34
Location
Missouri Heights Missouri Heights Missouri Heights Missouri Heights
0% 10% 0%
Size
52.27 Acres 180.073 Acres 36.421 Acres 144.77 Acres
20% -10% 15%
River Frontage
None None None None
0% 0% 0%
Topography/Views
Mod.Nery Good Mod.Nery Good RollingNery Goc RollingNery Goc
0% 0% 0%
Utilities
E, T, Well, Septi E, T, Well, Septi E, T, Well E, T, well
0% 0% 0%
Zoning
A/R/RD A/R/RD Resource A/R/RD
0% 0% 0%
Water Rights
Average; 50% Ir Average; 19% Ir None Good; 60% Irrig.
10% 20% -2%
Improvements
None House, sheds None Cabin
0% 0% 0%
Other
None Landfill, clean-ur None None
10% 0% 0%
Net Adjustment
0% 40% 20% 13°/d
Indicated Value for Sut
$0 $16,76: $14,82" <$21,85
24
High Country Appraisal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2005012
Sales Comparison Analysis - Clark Property
Property
Subject
Sale 4
Sale 5
Address
3523 County Road 103
N/S Rimledge Road
3059 County Road 103
Cash Equiv. Sale Price
<$16,429
$25,854
Motivation Adjustment
0%
0%
Adjusted Price
$0
<$16,429
$25,854
Sale Date
Market Conditions Adjustment
01/12/05
Contract
0%
09/30/99
23%
Adjusted Price
[ $0
<$16,429 $31,800
Location
Missouri Heights
Missouri Heights Missouri Heights
0% 0%
Size
52.27 Acres
35.00 Acres 102.50 Acres
-10% 10%
River Frontage
None
None None
0% 0%
TopographyNiews
Mod.Nery Good
Mod./Very Good ModerateN. Good
0% 0%
Utilities
E, T, Well, Septic
E, T E, T, Wells, Septic
5% 0%
Zoning
A/R/RD
A/R/RD A/R/RD
0% 0%
Water Rights
Average; 50% Irrig.
Average; 50% Irrig. Good, 70% Irrig.
0% -4%
Improvements
None
None House, Apt., Arena
0% -25%
Other
None
None None
0% 0%
Net Adjustment
0%
-5% -19%
Indicated Value for Subject
$0
<$15,608 $25,758
25
High Country Appraisal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
General Underlying Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This appraisal report has been made subject to the following assumptions and limiting
conditions:
1. It is assumed that the legal description as obtained from public records, or provided by
others, is correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in nature, and title to
the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated.
2. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable, but the author(s) assume
no responsibility for its accuracy. Responsible ownership and competent property
management are assumed.
3. Unless otherwise stated, the property is assumed to be free and clear of any or all
detrimental liens, encumbrances, easements, encroachments, or environmental
violations/hazards. The author(s) make no representation as to the conformance of
existing or proposed improvements to applicable zoning or building codes.
4. The plot plans, sketches, and exhibits in this report are included only to assist the
reader in visualizing the property. The author(s) have made no engineering survey of
the property; all engineering is assumed to be correct.
5. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been
complied with unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in this
appraisal report.
6. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy or other legislative or
administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental, or private
entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which
the value estimates contained in this report are based.
7. The integrity of the site is assumed to be adequate to support any described
improvements. It is assumed that there are no toxic or otherwise hazardous materials
within the site or the improvements that would reduce utility, development potential,
marketability, or value. All improvements are assumed to be structurally sound unless
otherwise noted.
8. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not carry with it the right of
publication. This report is intended for the sole and exclusive use of the client and
intended users as identified herein. This report may not be used for any purpose by
any third party without the express written consent of the appraiser, and then only
with proper qualification.
2005012
26
High Country Appraisal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
General Underlying Assumptions and Limiting Conditions (cont'd)
9. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the By -Laws and Regulations of
the Appraisal Institute. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report
(especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the author(s), or any reference
to the Appraisal Institute or the MAI designation) shall be disseminated to the public
through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior
written consent and approval of the author(s). All appraisals are subject to review by
the Appraisal Institute upon request.
10. The author(s) herein, by reason of this appraisal, are not required to give future
consultation, testimony, or be in attendance in Court with reference to the property
in question unless arrangements have been made prior to the preparation of this
report.
The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and
improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate
valuations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other
appraisal, and are invalid if so used.
12. Unless otherwise stated, personal property and/or intangible assets are not included
in the value estimate set forth in this appraisal report.
13. Many types of appraisal analysis require the formulation of financial projections.
The achievement of any such projections will be affected by fluctuating economic
conditions and is dependent upon the occurrence of other future events that cannot
be assured. As a result, actual events may well vary from projections, and such
variations may be material.
14. Except as discussed in this report, the author(s) take no responsibility for, and reach
no final conclusions regarding, indirect costs of a project based on political
processes, including planning and other government functions, whereby changes in
standards of construction, density, etc. can occur; indirect charges for highways,
education, or other items that can be charged to a project; or various moratoria that
can delay a project. Governmental processes can change suddenly and
substantially affect costs and values, and users of this report are cautioned to make
their own inquiry and apply their own judgement regarding these matters, as
applicable.
15. The author(s) profess no expertise in law, macroeconomics, or any field of
specialization other than real estate appraisal, and base all considerations of the
future (such as inflation rates, vacancy factors, absorption rates, etc.) upon
reasonable analysis of data and opinions of others, to derive usable opinions only
for the purpose of customary appraisal analyses. The author(s) assume no
responsibility for predicting actual events.
2005012
27
High Country Appraisal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
General Underlying Assumptions and limiting Conditions (cont'd)
16. This appraisal report and the value stated herein shall not be used or relied upon to
solicit investors or limited partners for any real estate syndicate, real estate
investment trust, limited partnership, nor any State or Federal Securities and
Exchange Commission registrations.
17. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the
boundaries or property lines of the subject property and that there is no
encroachment or trespass unless otherwise stated in this report.
18. Any proposed improvements are assumed to be completed in a good workmanlike
manner in accordance with the submitted plans and specifications.
19. The appraiser is not qualified to detect hazardous waste and/or toxic materials,
including fungi or microbes commonly known as mold. Any comment by the
appraiser that might suggest the possibility of the presence of such substances
should not be taken as confirmation of the presence of hazardous waste and/or
toxic materials. Such determination would require investigation by a qualified
expert in the field of environmental assessment. The presence of substances such
as asbestos, fungi, microbes, urea -formaldehyde foam insulation, or other
potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The
appraiser's value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such
material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value unless otherwise
stated in this report. No responsibility is assumed for any environmental
conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover
them. The appraiser's descriptions and resulting comments are the result of routine
observations made during the appraisal process.
20. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the subject property is appraised without a
specific compliance survey having been conducted to determine if the property
complies with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The
presence of architectural and communications barriers that are structural in nature
that would restrict access by disabled individuals may adversely affect the
property's value, marketability, or utility.
21. The value estimate set forth herein relies in part upon data provided by the client,
client's representatives, owner, owner's representatives, professional consultants,
and/or other available sources. It is the responsibility of the client to carefully read
the appraisal report, and advise the author(s) of any errors or omissions of which
the client is aware, prior to using the report or making it available to any third
party.
2005012
28
High Country ,Appraisal
Qualifications
of
William K. Gray, MAI
Certified General Appraiser
Education & Professional Advancement
Licensed by Colorado as a Certified General Appraiser (License CG01313605, exp. 12/31/06)
Member, Appraisal Institute - MAI #5936 (Designation awarded 1979)
Associate Member, Aspen Board of Realtors
Kettering University (fka General Motors Institute), Flint, Michigan; Bachelor of Mechanical
Engineering - 1968
Appraisal Courses
Course 1-A AIREA 1973
Course 1-B AIREA 1974
Course 2 AIREA 1975
EDUCARE Educare, Inc. 1976
Course 6 AIREA 1977
Litigation Valuation Appraisal Institute 1992
Course 400 Appraisal Institute 2003
Course 410 Appraisal Institute 1997 (most recent)
Course 420 Appraisal Institute 1997 (most recent)
Course 430 Appraisal Institute 2000
Course 510 Appraisal Institute 1997
Course 520 Appraisal Institute 2000
Continuing education courses and seminars - average 20 hours/year including appraisal courses,
1981 to present
Appraisal Institute Ethics panel assignments - 1988 to present
Experience
Managing Partner, High Country Appraisal Associates, Carbondale, Colorado - 1979 to present -
50% non-residential 1979-1982, 90% non-residential 1982 to present.
Self -Employed Appraiser, Carbondale, Colorado - 1978-1979 - 80% residential.
Staff Appraiser & Market Analyst, Pomeroy Appraisal Associates, Inc. - Syracuse, New York -
1972-1978 - 80% non-residential.
Appraisal experience in a wide range of property types, including single family residential,
multi -family residential, hotels/motels, commercial and industrial properties, office buildings,
condominiums, ranch and recreational land, and athletic/racquet club facilities
Court Experience
Testified as an expert on real estate values before courts and commissions, to include Federal
Courts, Colorado District Courts, and New York State Supreme Court
2005012
29
High Country Appraisal
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Qualifications of William K. Gray, MAI (cont'd)
Teaching Experience
Instructor - Real Estate Appraisal, Income Property Appraisal
Onondaga Community College, Syracuse, New York (1975-1978)
State University of New York, Morrisville, New York (1976-1978)
Colorado Mountain College, Glenwood Springs, Colorado (1979-1988)
Representative Clients
Private owners, attorneys, developers; Alpine Banks of Colorado, Boston Safe Deposit & Trust
Company, Vectra Bank (Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company), Bank of Colorado - Western
Slope, U.S. Bank (Colorado National Bank), Wells Fargo Bank, The Money Store, Colorado
Federal Savings Bank, First Western Mortgage Corporation, Community Banks of Colorado,
Zions First National Bank; Counties of Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin; Cities/Towns of Aspen,
Basalt, Carbondale, Eagle, Glenwood Springs; U.S. Forest Service, U.S. General Services
Administration, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Postal Service; Colorado Division of
Wildlife; Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Association (CIRSA).
Approved By: Numerous lenders, U.S. General Services Administration, Colorado Department of
Transportation.
2005012
30
High Country Appraisal
Appraiser's License
Thi
through 2006
CO013136O5
ek
*tatet p �' Rr a ii n Ilei Not Transferable
DEPARTMENT OF RE ULATORY AGENCIES December thirty-first
CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER.i:+ n +u **
* 1 !'• k l- a * * * * * * * * *
This is to certify that th rson shown �. has hero du n i S�ilorddlt1br thegillt ndar }titr�lsl
res Dece
of January 20004
WILLIAM K GRAY
P0 130X 7
1372 MAIN ST
CARBONDAL.E, CO 81623
r thirty first, 2006
Authorised by the Board of Real Estate Appraisers, WITNESS by my
hand and official seal al Denver. Colorado this 1st day.
Program Administrator
2005012
31
High Country Appraisal
October 25, 2004
Robert M. Noone
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 207
P.O. Box 39
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Re: Clark Subdivision Final Plat
Dear Bob:
Garfield County
BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT
After reviewing the Clark Subdivision Final Plat submittal with Carolyn Dahlgren,
Deputy County Attorney, we have identified some additional information that needs to be
submitted prior to presenting the plat to the Board of County Commissioners for
signature. The following issues need to be addressed:
Condition No. 3: As you noted in your cover letter, we need an appraisal of the
property, no older than two years, that can be used to establish a per acre value of the
property prior to subdivision.
Condition No. 7: After talking to the Road and Bridge Department, we have agreed that
it is appropriate to issue driveway permits for roads that have been approved as a part of a
subdivision preliminary plan You should be able to obtain the driveway permits now
and submit them as required by the condition of approval.
Condition No. 9: This condition required that the irrigation water plan to each of the
lots. As it is written, it appears that the HOA could allocate no water to one or more of
the lots. The language needs to guarantee a starting minimum of amount to each lot,
which may be modified upon agreement by full agreement of all of the homeowners once
all of the lots have been sold. Someone needs to evaluate the areas to be irrigated and
establish a basic amount for each lot, prior to the purchase of the first lot.
If you have any questions about the issues noted, feel free to call or write to me, at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
Mark L. Bean, Director
Building & Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470