HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationSKETCH PLAN APPLICATION
CEDAR RIDGE FARM SUBDIVISION
NOVEMBER 30, 1981
Submitted to:
Owner:
Project Manager:
Garfield County Planning Dept.
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
945-8212
Ms. Sandy Smith
Cedar Ridge Farm
3059 - 103 Road
Carbondale, CO 81623
963-3507
Mr. Jim Curtis
Real Estate Affilites
300 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
925-4530
SUBDIVISION SUMMARY FORM
Garfield County
Date.
Subdivision Name.
Cedar Ridge Farm
Location
Type of Subdivision
Request for Exemption
Sketch Plan
Prelimninary Plan
Final Plat
Filing
of Subdivision: TOWNSHIP T.7S RANGE R88W SEC. 12 SW 1/4
SEC. 13 NW 1/4
Owner(s) NAME
ADDRESS
Subdivider(s) NAME
ADDRESS
Designer NAME
ADDRESS
Ms. Sandy Smith, c/o Cedar Ridge Farm _ _
3059 - 103 Road, Carbondale, CO 81623
Mr. Jim Curtis, c/o Real Estate Affiliates
300 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
Number of
Type of Subdivision Dwelling Units
(X) Single Family 7 lots
( ) Apartments
( ) Condominiums
( ) Mobile Home
( ) Commercial
( ) Industrial
N.A.
N.A.
Dedicated
Reserved
Dedicated
Reserved
Private Open Areas
Easements
Other (specify)
Lot 8 - Pasture
Street
Walkways
School Sites
School Sites
Park Sites
Park Sites
to be retained by owner
Total
Area % of
(Acres) Total Area
56 55%
-4-6--
45%
102 100%
Estimated Water Requirements 80 cal/day/house — ___ Gallons/day.
Proposed Water Source individual wells
Estimated Sewage Disposal Requirement 350/gal/day%houseGallons%day.
Proposed Means of Sewage Disposal individual_ septic system
ACTION:
Planning Commission Recommendation
Approval ( ) Disapproval ( )
Remarks
Date , 19
Board of County Commissioners
Approval ( )
Remarks
Date
Disapproval ( )
, 19
1
APPLICATION SUMMARY
This application is for Sketch Plan approval of an 8 lot subdivision
for the 102 ac. Cedar Ridge Farm property. The application is not
requesting a PUD filing as no variance from the "Garfield County
zoning code is being proposed.
The property is located in the Crystal Springs area along Route 103
as shown on the Vicinity Map on the following page. The property is
zoned A/R/RD (Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density) with a 2 ac.
minimum lot size.
The subdivision is proposing 7 single-family lots ranging from 5 to
17 acres, and a 8th lot (46 ac.) containing the existing irrigated
pasture land that will be retained by the owner. No homesite
development is proposed for the pasture parcel. A lot summary is
given below:
Lot Summary
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 8
5.7 ac.
5.5 ac.
5.0 ac.
6.5 ac.
7.3 ac.
9.0 ac.
17.0 ac.
46.0 ac. (Pasture, retained by owner)
102.0 ac.
Vicinity Map
Scale: 1"= 2000"
2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Existing Conditions drawing on the following page illustrates
the major physical features of the property.
The dominate feature is the central irrigated pasture which is
surrounded by sloping hillsides of unirrigated scrub oak and pinon
pine. The property is divided by an existing dirt road leading to a
neighboring house, and by a well -formed drainage channel which
follows the road. Existing structures on the property include a
small house and barn, and several corrals at the north end of the
property.
x101-4 carr mortem
G,g6.J. Rllp&e- F ly
goote, 10',
111,7e -rill 102- ac..
Z.cnirg 4/ -/r1'
3
SUBDIVISION PLAN
The Subdivision Plan drawing on the following page illustrates the
proposed plan. A full-scale drawing of the Subdivision Plan is
enclosed in the Appendix.
The design objective of the plan is primarily two -fold:
1. To create rural large lots with an equestrian orientation.
2. To preserve the large central irrigated pasture.
As illustrated, the lots and homesites are located on the unirri-
gated hillsides while the central pasture is preserved. Lots 1-6
range from 5-9 acres and are proposed for new homesites. Lot 7 is
17 acres and includes the existing house and barn. Lot 8 is 46
acres and includes the pasture area which will be retained by the
owner and is not proposed for hornesite development.
The technical aspects of the subdivision are addressed below.
Water & Sewage
Lots 1-6 are proposed to be serviced by individual wells and septic
systems. Lot 7 containing the existing house and barn is already
serviced by a well and septic system.
i
/
...
ti 1 .------- ,q9 /1 1 1
—,, 1 i 1
1
.• \ 4) !
\ \ _
\ \ ( 6,)
\ \ t, ,.c.
\ \ 1 I
\ \ i
„,
0 \ \ \
ket 7 \ I \
\ \ I I \
I7.'o.
r
r.
lr •
• -1
1
•
1-cir
Paeovre.
44..o
Lot
• 7 AU.
t.Ot .5
j,171- 12 5,0
1-af• 4 &.
Lot ;
Lor 43.0
Lot. 7 I7.
Lot S 46,0 tParUr&
102-.0 AC d •
•
--t. \
\ i
\ .
N
\ \ 1
/ \ 1 1
i '1
\
c-1:72s4z 1241:7- r-AFN&
rroprxt-Ed lozaw.
Zortiri t/
4
Water!
Based on a pre -application conference with Mr. Davis Farrar, he
requested the applicant examine the feasibility of a central water
system. The applicant has examined a central water system and feels
it is unnecessary and too complex and expensive for the proposed
large lot rural. subdivision. Engineering cost estimates have
indicated a central water system and distribution piping could cost
from $60,000 to $75,600. This cost does not include the additional
cost to establish and administer to a legal entity responsible to
operate the central system. The applicant feels this cost burden is
unnecessary for rural large lots ranging from 5 to 17 ac. when
proper well installations are allowed by and in compliance with
zoning.
In proposing individual wells for the large lots, three technical
issues are specifically addressed:
1. Physical and legal water sypply
2. Fire protection
3. Potential well -septic contamination
Physical and Legal Water Supply
Attached in Appendix A and B are letters from Mr. Scott Fifer,
hydrologist, Schmueser & Associates, Glenwood Springs, and Mr. Tam
Scott, water rights attorney, Aspen, expressing their opinion about
5
the feasibility of attaining a suitable physical and legal water
supply for the subdivision.
Mr. Fifer, hydrologist, has examined the feasibility of a physical
water supply based on an analysis of the geology of the area, a
review of existing wells in the area, and a review of technical
water resource reports applicable to the area. As indicated in his
letter, Appendix A, it is Mr. Fifer's opinion that a suitable ground
water supply is available to service the subdivision by individual
wells. In fact, the existing well on the property located south of
the barn has been test pumped for 24 hours with a substained yield
of approximately 52 gpm.
Mr. Scott, water rights attorney, has examined the feasibility of a
legal water supply based on an analysis of water rights appurtenant
to the property and existing augmented water rights available for
purchase by the applicant. As indicated in his letter, Appendix B,
it is Mr. Scott's opinion that a suitable legal water supply can be
obtained for the subdivision.
‘,./1\ ah" r..._ t : r-- jk A.Vq; / b /e co r• v r ok,s e ?
Un lass i4)' t �wne -t e f :?
e�r�rQn+ cxva;0.lilC .
6
Fire Protection
In compliance with the subdivision standards, each lot will be
convenant to install at least a 1,000 gallon minimum capacity water
cistern. County standards presently require a minimum capacity 500
gallon cistern: but the applicant will convenant greater than the
adopted standard to a minimum 1,000 gallon cistern for increased
safety.
The applicant will also covenant fire access easements to each
individual lot cistern. Therefore, the fire department is
guaranteed access and use of all the cisterns in the subdivision.
In total, this represents a 7,000 gallon water storage availability
for fire protection.
Well -Septic Contamination
Well -septic contamination can be avoided by proper well and septic
site location and design. Proper design involves locating the well
uphill along the flow of ground water from the septic -leach field
area, and maintaining at least the required minimum 100 ft. separa-
tion between the well and septic area. This insures that the ground
water flow being drawn by the well is always uphill and sufficiently
separated from the septic area to eliminte direct contact and
potential well contamination. The proposed lots are easily large
enough for all wells to be located uphill and sufficiently separated
from the septic -leach field areas to avoid potential contamination.
7
Sewage
Attached in Appendix C is a letter from Mr. Rick Kinshella,
engineer, Ponderosa Engineering, Inc., Glenwood Springs, expressing
his opinion about the suitability of individual septic systems for
the subdivision.
Mr. Kinshella feels individual septic systems are
possible based on his review of SCS soils information for the
property, and a site inspection of the property. As stated in the
letter, on-site testing will need to be completed prior to
Preliminary Plat to determine the technical design requirements for
the individual systems.
Road \-
The subdivision proposes to utilize the existing dirt road on the
property. The existing road is in good shape and is basically level
with no steep grades. The road will continue to be a private road
with the maintainance and upkeep responsibility borne by the
applicant. The applicant has the necessary easements to use the
road as planned
The applicant understands that it is the standard policy of the
county to publicly dedicate roads, but in this case it seems
inappropriate for the county to assume the maintenance and cost
responsibility for a road that is essentially an extended driveway
for a few homesites.
8
Fire Protection
See water supply statement.
Other Utilities
The subdivision will be serviced by electric and telephone under the
standard service agreements of the respective utility.
Schools/Parks Dedication
In compliance with Code, the applicant proposes to pay 5% of the
full market value of the gross land area in the final plat at the
time of final plat submission to meet the subdivision's public
dedication requirement.
Setbacks and Easements
The subdivision shall comply with all setbacks and easements
requirements of Code.
Miscellaneous Sketch Plan Items
A. Property Boundary Survey: See Appendix D.
For application convenience, a xerox reduction of the property
boundary survey is presented. The survey was done by Scarrow
& Walker Inc. (KKBNA) in 1976 and the full size survey is
available from Real Estate Affiliates.
9
B. Disclosure of Ownership. See Appendix E.
The relevant excerpts of the title insurance policy for the
property is enclosed. The full title insurance policy is
available from Real Estate Affiliates.
C. Property Mortgagees: See Appendix F.
The only mortgagees of the property are Norman E. & Mary N.
Sherwood who are beneficiaries of a deed of trust recorded in
Book 487 at Page 853 of the Garfield County Records. The deed
of trust held by the Sherwoods does not prohibit subdivision of
the property and the Sherwoods will be notified of the
subdivision prior to Preliminary Plat.
D. Development Costs
The applicant shall bear all development costs for the
subdivsion.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
November 11, 1981
Jim Curtis
Real Estate Affiliates
300 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Jim:
sA
SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES
201 CENTENNIAL STREET
SUITE 306
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
(303) 945-5468
Pursuant to your request, we have examined the availability of groundwater
supplies near the proposed Cedar Ridge Farm Subdivision. The purpose of our
investigation was to determine if a suitable physical water supply exists to
support the development. Our investigation included an analysis of surounding
geology, a review of existing wells in the vicinity including examination
of test well pump data and well logs, and a review of numerous technical water
resource reports appurtenant to the area.
The proposed Cedar Ridge Farm subdivision is located on a basalt plateau
between the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek, approximately 4 miles northeast
of Carbondale, Colorado. The basalt cap typically exhibits fracturing and
jointing which facilitates weathering, erosion and water percolation. This porus
material readily transports water and is a significant local aquifer to
numerous area residences. ,Recharge to the aquifer primarily results
from infiltration of spring snow melt. Some recharge occurs from flood
irrigation of nearby hay and pasture land.
Underlying the basalt cap is the Maroon Formation, an interbedded
layering of siltstones, claystones, conglomerate and limestone. This material
is generally calcareous and relatively resistant to erosion. The formation
has a low permeability and is not considered a good water bearing aquifer.
An examination of data from seven wells in the near vicinity of Cedar
Ridge Farm indicates a good dependable water supply is available. The wells
average 190 feet total depth with a water depth of approximately 110 feet.
Water yields averaged 20 gallons per minute (gpm). In addition, on April
23, 1981, a well was drilled in Lot 7 on the northern end of the proposed
Cedar Ridge Farm Development. A review of the well log revealed it was
drilled in the basalt bedrock for a total depth of 140 feet. The static
water level was encountered at 86 feel. A 24 hour pump test of 20 to 48 Qom
showed no appreciable drop in water level following the second hour of pumping.
The water level dropped 3 feet initially but remained relatively constant for
the duraLion of the test.
The results of the pumping test and available data from nearby wells lead
us to believe that there is ample underground water to support a development
the size of Cedar Ridge Farm. Water could be supplied by a central water
system utilizing the existing well or a series of seven smaller individual
November 11, 1981
Jim Curtis
Page Two
wells. In either case, the relatively small withdrawals for this development
will not cause a perceptible drop in the water table as a whole. There should
be no material damage to existing wells in the vicinity.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER & ASSOCIATES
/ J
R. Scott Fifer
Hydrologist
RSF/ln
APPENDIX B
FITZHUGH SCOTT 111
ATTORNEY AT LAW
117 SOUTH SPRING STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (303) 925.1216
November 19, 1981
Ms. Sandra Smith
3059 103 Road
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
Re: Cedar Ridge Farm subdivision
application (legal water supply)
Dear Sandra:
As requested, I have been consulting with Scott
Fifer of Schmueser & Associates and Jim Curtis of .Real
Estate Affiliates (Project Manager) with regards to your
subdivision application in connection with Cedar Ridge
Farm and the legal aspects of your water rights and
the proposed water supply system for the project.
Based on my review of your subdivision proposal
and existing water rights and associated matters, I can
state that you are in a good position to satisfy all of the
requisite legal requirements for a water supply system that
would be appropriate for the proposed project.
Your existing rights consist of 7.5 shares of Park
Ditch Company, which have a consumptive use value of
approximately 69 acre feet per year, with which you have
been irrigated approximately 46 acres of pasture land.
The consumptive use of water attributable to your
existing well and/or new well(s) would be approximately
1 acre foot during the irrigation season and one-half
of an acre foot during the non -irrigation season.
As stated in the application, there is in existence on
your property a well which is capable of a sustained yield
of 52 gpm, which well is covered by permit No. 107036.
This original permit was for an exempt (15 gpm) type well.
We have a pending application with the Water Court and
Ms. Sandra Smith
November 19, 1981
Page 2
the State Engineer's Office requesting approval for the
expanded use of that well in accordance with its actual
productive capabilities and relative to the additional
beneficial uses, other than domestic. The productive
capacity of this existing well is indicative of good
potential for additional wells, should same prove to be
desirable or necessary for the subdivision water supply.
The water supply system for the subdivision would
be either central (supplied by the above mentioned
existing well) and/or consist of several new wells which
would serve several lots each.
The legal arrangement for augmenting the existing
well and/or new well(s) would be by way of either
(a) acquiring by purchase approximately one acre foot of
Colorado Land Development Corporation augmentation water
in order to augment the junior water wells during the
irrigation season, coupled with approximately .5 acre
feet of water from Ruedi via a long term renewable contract
through the Basalt Water Conservancy District for winter-
time augmentation purposes. In this last respect, I
would note that some well augmentation plans have been
approved prior to yours without reference to wintertime
augmentation; therefore, this suggestion should not be
viewed necessarily as a strict legal requirement but as my
recommendation for an improved format of augmentation; or
(b) by way of filing a separate augmentation plan whereby
you would dry up about one-half an acre of irrigated land
and forego the requisite amount of diversions at your Park
Ditch take-out in order to balance the consumptive use of
the wells during the irrigation season, when they would
be out of priority part of the time. The wintertime
aspects of this augmentation plan would be the same as
above.
I would point out that in Water Court action No.
79CW97 in connection with the application of the Carbondale
Lane Development Corporation it was decreed that Park Ditch
water was appropriate for domestic, augmentation, exchange
and all other beneficial purposes and that the dry -up of land
based on a formula of 1.5 acre feet consumptive use per acre
was approved in connection with the summertime augmentation
scheme further specified in that action. Also, there has
been at least one other case wherein new water wells were
Ms. Sandra Smith
November 19, 1981
Page 3
the subject of an augmentation application in which
CLDC augmentation water was approved without opposition
as the _ummertime augmentation water to support the
junior wells, when they would otherwise be diverting
out of priority and subject to a Cattle Creek call.
Therefore, based upon all of the above considerations,
it is my opinion that the sources of supply of water
appurtenant to your property are physically and legally
adequate to support the proposed Cedar Ridge Farm sub-
division project.
Please let me know if you have any questions
concerning these observations.
Yours v ruly,
•c
Fit hugh Scott III
FS/jeo
cc: Jim Curtis
Scott Fifer
APPENDIX C
PONDEROSA ENGINEERING, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS
October 30, 1981
Mr. Jim Curtis
Real Estate Affiliates
300 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
1512 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 220
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
(303)945-6596
RE: Cedar Ridge Farm Sketch Plan - Suitability of On -Site Sewage
Disposal Systems
Dear Mr. Curtis:
As your request, I have reviewed available SCS soils information
and made a site visit to determine the suitability of the use of
on-site sewage disposal systems for the seven lots in the proposed
Cedar Ridge Farm subdivision.
It is my professional opinion that it will be possible to con-
struct on-site systems on each lot; however, steep slopes, very
rocky terrain, soils with rapid permeability or soils with slow
permeability appear to exist in various locations throughout the
proposed development. These conditions could make the construction
of conventional septic tank-leachfield systems difficult and could
in some case require the installation of engineered systems.
I would recommend that prior to preparation of the Preliminary
Plat submittal to Garfield County a profile hole be dug in
several locations and percolation tests be performed to determine
exactly what conditions exist on the site and what measures will
be necessary to provide systems which will comply with the Gar-
field County Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations.
Sincerely,
Rick Kinshella, P.E.
RK/mlr
AP=ENDIX D
LOT 6
(Sec /e)
l0'
LOT 7
(se° /e)
ece.
N/e•/e'ra-w
Sto.4 r
LOT /6
(sec. /e)
COT 4
(Sec /3)
N/ta 38'49
77 7 S., R. 88 1 ✓. OF THE 6Tf/ /P PI
NE %a h/ /4
s 2f•OB'o4"E
a/e 23'
(Sec /2)
30/ ; 48'04' E
2t 30'
303.3,' 3
P33 62 E
S e32.O''Oe"E
"47:,..""" 'se-.. nei•esii'..t
LOT 8
(Set /2)
LOT 3
CS., /3)
/02-56 1c
LOT /5
(Sec /3)
X33
"8;6°°:S` .E
$
S r/•96<�'s'
Sl
501.oi4/e'43"e
s
LOTS'
m s /les si3 a (see /3)
r
3 �!•d1't3"N
s o4.54'u"c
SC.9[E /••GL1J.
f e•`2 o3i'E
sSSVs :e3v c
LOT /3
(Sec /3')
A 3 •3o'Sr •t
i St's°bo '"t LOT /4
(Sec /3)
s v't
N/O;/J30`e�w
Ns e'er"/+
LOT 8
(sec /3)
e O O'
/�I�3OrOedi.•. �•
2i L O T 7
(sec /3)
UI %
NOrE'
['Jena', deny... ,Ad 4, • 4, e .•y/eJ
.rifA .e be• (Np
CaOre
•10 JP
5044E
- e .0 Etcr
tdeswl.s,Q le SAC
.v o
4'aereY4e3
ear 440
GCEnh'00.0 SAC,.
rj,
APPENDIX E
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation of Missouri, herein called the Company, for
a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in
Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or
interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and
charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedule A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of
the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the
time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability
and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy
or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or
policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by
an authorized officer or agent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become
valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws.
This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date."
Issued by:
COLORADO WEST TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY
818 Colorado Avenue, Suite 101
- P. O. Box 925
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-2271 or 945-2272
r.j,
\Ks114`1-7
• 0;`EtPBUAIE'C•o
ATTEST:
J'. C1.
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
By:
j'Y,41-?}%<) , -/3.1-n-(-(.4?/".1
i luthorizcd Officer or Agent
Z.167-4_
/President.
Secretary.
P:
c Kw7.1 _ «r r . - :ro =f3 - - : =v� - ,-;1 -<;.�. �.:A . .,=_.._.._�:� t;�-. ,�4?_ '4=. Vii' '
C1IRB: S -I-75
r 2880
SCHEDULE A
I.
Effective Date: April 3, 1981 Case No. Gin o -SJ
8:00 A.M. Premium: Owners $1525.25
Loan 20.00
i. Policy or Policies to be issued: Tax Certificate 10.00 ►. —1 A. ALTA Owner's Policy Amount S 778,500 _00
Propose ns red:
Saner mith
1 B. ALTA Loan Policy Amount S 175, 000, 00
Proposed Insured:
Joe L. McClung and Judith J. McClung
IC. Amount S
1
I.
The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is a fee simple, and title thereto is at
the effective date hereof vested in:
I
Joe L. McClung and Judith J. McClung
I. The land referred to in the Commitment is described as follows:
1
1
1 SEE ADDED PAGE
1
1
1
1
1
1 5/7J81 nun SCHEDULE A - PAGE 1 - NO Page
. 2881
SCHEDULE A
PARCEL A
ADDED PAGE
G-05-159-81
LEGAL
A parcel of land situated in the SW'4 of Section 12 and the N1/2 of Section
13, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian,
described as follows:
Beginning at the Quarter Corner common to Sections 12 and 13 in said
Township and Range,
thence S.84°16'22" E. along the Section line between said Sections
12 and 13, 210.00 feet to a point in the center of the Park Ditch;
thence along the centerline of said ditch S.16°07'31" E. 40.35 feet;
thence S.
thence S.
thence S..
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
thence S.
26°17'50"
34°58'50"
21°25'52"
09°41'43"
14°07'35"
12°03'17"
73°54'25"
01°31'14"
05°28'32"
21°16'33"
64°12'36"
52°13'39"
10°49'10"
26°39'52"
18°20'39"
27°01'44"
39°23'09"
02°53'08"
E.
W.
W.
E.
E.
E.
W.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
W.
76.58 feet;
179.02 feet;
97.27 feet;
57.78 feet;
322.35 feet;
139.33 feet;
138.94 feet;
294.00 feet;
109.40 feet;
67.58 feet;
116.10 feet;
95.46 feet;
116.53 feet;
157.36 feet;
70.39 feet;
142.09 feet;
143.24 feet;
96.14 feet to a point on the Northerly right-of-way
line of County Road No. 103;
thence along said right-of-way line, 59.31 feet along the arc of a
curve to the right, having a radius of 1044.57 feet the chord of which
bears: S. 81°47'25" W. 59.30 feet;
thence S. 83°25'00" W. 115.08 feet;
thence 116.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a
radius of 741.22 feet, the chord of which bears S. 78°55'16" W. 116,20
feet;
thence 230.70 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a
radius of 423.13 feet, the chord of which bears S. 58°48'21" W. 227.86
feet;
thence 90.93 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius
of 408.67 feet, the chord of which bears S. 36°48'42" W. 90.75 feet;
thence leaving said right-of-way line N. 89°16'381' W. 32.34 feet;
thence S. 01°06'40" W. 492.34 feet to a point in the center of said
Park Ditch;
SEE ADDED PAGE
Page 2
SCHEDULE A
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
thence
common
S.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
S.
s.
s.
s.
s.
S.
N.
to
79°54'59"
06°38'19"
73°01'11"
54°06'22"
10°48'08"
12°35'49"
18°16'24"
00°19'40"
88°12'04"
10°24'04"
77°29'14"
27°08'04"
01°18'01'
03°51'39"
45°01'08"
03°42'58"
87°58'57"
Sections
w.
w.
w.
w.
w.
w.
w.
E.
W.
w.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
w.
E.
ADDED PAGE
G-05-159-81
LEGAL
105.66 feet along the center of said ditch;
240.30 feet;
409.45 feet;
675.91 feet;
313.56 feet;
1436.10 feet;
529.17 feet;
456.51 feet;
174.20 feet;
591.49 feet;
737.75 feet;
412.25 feet;
122.39 feet;
233.82 feet;
273,91 feet;
76.44 feet;
762.34 feet more or less to the Quarter Corner
12 and 13 in said Township and Range, the point of
parcel lying in Lot 7 of
beginning. Except that portion of said
Section 13, said Township and Range
ENDORSEMENT
Attached to and forming a part of
COMMITMENT No G-05-159-81
Issued by
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
The effective date of the above numbered Commitment is
hereby changed to May 18, 1981 at 8:00 A.M..
SCHEDULE B
Section 1
Item (d) 1. Is hereby deleted.
This endorsement is made a part of the policy or commitment and is subject to all the terms and
provisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it
neither modifies any of the terms and provisions of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements, if
any, nor does it extend the effective date of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements or
increase the face amount thereof.
DATED: Play 19, 1981
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
/-
�\xsu'
\-\` ••_... :ems �'//7;‘
Z _
,/t-opokATf..:,a
k"-'y'i : s,� President.
ex:. 411 'iarj
Authorized Signatory
cp
Note: This endorsement skill not be valid or
binding until countersigned by an authorized
signatory.
)RM 3594 r7-10-70
ATTEST:
Secretary.
APPENDIX F
DENVER, COLORADO OFFICE
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
SUITE 2900
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE (303) 575-8000
TELECOPIER (303) 575-8261
BILLINGS, MONTANA OFFICE
SUITE 1400
175 NORTH 27TH STREET
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
TELEPHONE (406) 252-2166
TELECOPIER (406) 252-1669
FREDERICK F. PEIRCE
(303) 925-3476
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476
November 10, 1981
Mr. James Curtis
c/o Real Estate Affiliates
300 East Hyman Avenue
Crystal Palace Building
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Jim:
WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
TELEPHONE (202) 466-7340
TELECOPIER (202) 466-7354
LARAMIE, WYOMING OFFICE
HOLLAND & HART & KITE
A WYOMING AARTNERSHIP
618 GRAND AVENUE
LARAMIE, WYOMING 82070
TELEPHONE (307) 742-8203
TELECOPIER (307) 792-7618
Pursuant to your request, I reviewed the closing
documents and other relevant information in my possession
pertaining to Sandra Smith's purchase of the Missouri
Heights property from Joe McClung. These documents
indicate that the only current lien holders for Parcel A
(as described in the Option and Purchase Agreement between
the McClungs and Sandy Smith) are Norman E. Sherwood and
Mary N. Sherwood who are beneficiaries of a deed of trust
dated August 17, 1976 and recorded in Book 487 at Page 853
of the Garfield County Records.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me
know.
Very truly yours,
/
Fre, Brick F. Peirce
for HOLLAND & HART
FFP/ljc
cc: Sandy Smith
1 •
CARBONDALE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
300 Meadowood Drive
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
(303) 963-2491
Feb. 22, 1982
Mr. Davis Farrar
GARCO PLANNER
2014 Blake Ave.
Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81623
Dear Davis,
I have reviewed the sketch plan for Cedar Ridge Farm Sub -division,
as per your request. I would like to offer the following recommen-
dations to you regarding Fire and Emergency Medical Services.
First of all I would recommend that two 4,000 gallon water cisterns
be installed for "Fire Dept. Use Only." With the portable water
supply capabilities of the Carbondale Fire Dept., I feel that these
two cisterns will be an adequate water wupply. The exact speci-
fications as far as connections, exact locations, etc. are available
to the developer from my office.
In the interest of long range planning, I would recommend that, in
the future, all developers in the Missouri Heights portion of
Garfield County be required, by your office, to make certain
concessions and contributions to the Carbondale & Rural Fire Pro-
tection District. The principle item being a $ .500.00 per lot
contribution to a Building & Equipment Fund to be administered by
the Fire Protection District. This fund would be used to construct
two strategically located fire stations on Missiouri Heights. This
fund would also be used to purchase two new pieces of fire apparatus
to be housed in these stations.
This plan would insure that the Emergency Services needed to serve
Missiouri Heights in the years ahead would grow proportionatly
with development. This plan would also generate the necessary
funds needed by the Fire Protection District to carry out it's
responsibilties of Ambulance Service and Fire Protection for the
rapidly developing Missiouri Heights area.
It should be noted that part of the proposed Cedar Ridge Farm is not
currently within the boundries of the Fire Protection District.
The procedure for annexation to the District is the burden of the
developer and should be handled between the legal councils of both
Cedar Ridge Farm and the Carbondale Fire District.
If you have any questions feel free to contact me at 963-2491.
Sincerly,
Ron Leach, Carbondale Fire Chief
11 GARFIELD COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
2014 BLAKE AVENUE
December 28, 1981
Jim Curtis
Real Estate Affiliates
300 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Curtis:
PHONE 945-8212
I am writing regarding your sketch plan for Cedar Ridge Subdivision.
The Garfield County Subdivision Regulations require that you submit
information on geologic characteristics, soils types, and presence
of any radiation hazards on the property. This is detailed under
Section 4.01.01, Page 17 of the Subdivision Regulations.
I will schedule your application with the Board of County Commissioners
for referral to the Planning Commission as soon as I receive the above
requested information.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Davis S. Farrar
Planner
DSF/lw
OTS edarJ4,6 is o6// /-ed
f4746,c/-/a9--e_ dU�/o,22-e/
ZoO
Guoi/c- re/, / Qlol �e�
/7� auZ/lc✓9z _ /1/751-13
_5'
W/l'ah.#/-7
/na�G��2.0/
G9J•-�myrJ/,
69',771/Z//96?.o/ 64,//-d