Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 10.11.1995PC 10/11/95 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Preliminary Plan for the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision. APPLICANT: Norm Clasen (Spring Creek Land Co.) ENGINEER: High Country Engineering; Zancanella & Associates, Inc., Engineering Consultants LOCATION: A tract of land located in the eastern 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 1, T6S R92W and the western 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 6, T6S R91W of the 6th P.M.; approximately two (2) miles northeast of Silt; north of CR 214 (Peach Valley Road). SITE DATA: 77.5 Acres WATER: Shared Wells (Grouped) SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) ACCESS: Single access from CR 214 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: North: O/S South - East - West: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is located in District C - Rural Areas/Minor Environmental Constraints as designated by the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's Management Districts Map. H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The property is located on the north side of CR 214 in an area where agriculture has been the dominant, historical land use. Several old corrals and dwelling units are located along the frontage of CR 214. The remaining portion of the property is in native vegetation including meadows, grasses, sage, cottonwoods, pinion and juniper. The topography is varied with relief on the property ranging from 5565 feet at its southern boundary (CR 214) up to 5825 feet near the northern edge of the property, a total relief of 260 feet. Slope ranges from slight to steep with some slopes in excess of 25%. The Roseman Ditch traverses the southern and western portions of the property. See vicinity map on page / B. Adjacent Land Uses: The primary activities in the area are predominantly agricultural (farming, ranching) with a number of single family homesites located in the vicinity. BLM owns land directly north of the applicant's property. C. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing a twenty (20) lot subdivision of the 77.5 acre development parcel, which is specified to be built in two phases. The size of the lots will vary from 2.1 acres to 5.1 acres, with approximate, net density being 3.6 acres/du. The applicant has an option parcel of 39.9 acres which, if • 1 developed at a later time, would have a total of nine (9) lots, ranging in size from 2.3 acres to 7.4 acres; approximate net density would be 4.4 acres/du. The option parcel is not being considered with this application. See sketch map, page /10. . D. Background: A sketch plan application was submitted to staff in March, 1995, and reviewed by the Planning Commission at the April, 1995 meeting. The Preliminary Plan has been adjusted, essentially creating (3) additional lots and realigning and lengthening the interior road. III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Stated contracts with West Divide Water Conservancy District would probably be sufficient to mitigate any injury to decreed water rights; cannot comment on the adequacy of the water supply without a re detailed engineering/geotechnical study. See letter attached on pages. B. Garfield County Road and Bridge: Stated concerns about runoff from site affecting CR 214 and CR 262; no specified ROW width on plans; trouble understanding why no traffic study was conducted on CR 214; concerned with traffic speeds and sight distances on CR 214 in vicinity of proposal. See letter attached on page / . C. Division of Wildlife: Stated property is critical deer habitat; elk are known to frequent the site; noted the plan does not address wildlife and the associated impacts from the development, nor does it specify covenants. DOW requests: property owners be required to kennel dogs; wire fences for pastures be constructed according to DOW specifications; property owners be required to provide their own fencing to protect haystacks; prospective property buyers be advised that the DOW is not e for game damage to gardens and ornamentals. See letter attached on pages . D. Bureau of Land Management: Concerns regarding access easement to BLM lands possibly creating unauthorized and unwanted uses of public lands which already have access via existing county roads; concerned with potential OHV use by subdivision residents creating unwanted effects on soils, visual quality, vegetation, archeological/paleontological resources; recommends construction of a boundary fence along the applicant's northern boundary as a condition of approval; hunting is allowed on public lands adjacent to the proposed subdivision; coal minerals underlie the proposed subdivision that lies within Section 6 (T6S R92W) under lots 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10, of which all rights are reserved to the United States; co cerned project will impact deer winter range. See letter attached on page 11'1 . E. Garfield County Regulatory Staff: Concerns regarding the conformance of the application to applicable county standards; concerns with proposed water system; concerns regarding the length of the cul-de-sac; concerned with the multiple traffic entrances to CR 214; stated no impact fee in place to mitigate the effects of the subdivision on roads; concerned with use of ISD systems. See letter attached on page F. Colorado State Forest Service: Comments regarding wildfire hazard and mitigational steps that can be taken. See letter attached on pages ?j I ' liV.. G. Garfield County Planning Commission: Minutes from April 12 1995m eeting where Sketch Plan was discussed. See minutes attached on pages �,3 • , H. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: No response, to date. Oft -r U.S. West Communications: Would like a final plat sent to Land Developers Agreement Group. See letter attached on page Zi . ce.wes RN) J. Colorado Geological Survey: Cited concerns regarding drainages on-site which can carry sizeable flood and debris flows during infrequent, heavy rainstorms; noted moderate to severe geological constraints to development; suggested that only the • • most level terrain be used for building sites; suggested care be taken to design and maintain roads and drainage structures; recommended lining of the on-site irrigation ditch; recommended that all building sites be investigated by a qualified engineer for potential of necessity to be engineered. See letter attached on page/4. 30 . K. Burning Mountains Fire Protection District: Recommended that, if on-site ponds and access to them are not upgraded, installation of appropriate hydrants on the domestic 3 water system should occur. See letter attached on page• 51, . L. Kenny Frost - Native American Consultant: Gives Native American and cultural clearance as no above ound archeological sites were identified. See letter attached on pages M. Public Service of Colorado: Requests 12 to 15 foot front lot line easements for joint trench facilities; easements given for utility crossing of irrigation ditch; access to Lot 17 must include access and utility easements. See memo attached on page 3r . IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1. Roads: The proposal specifies a single, interior cul-de-sac, approximately 4200 feet in length, terminating in a circle with a radius of 50 feet. The creation of the three (3) additional lots and the subsequent realignment of the interior roadway, has increased its length approximately 525 feet from the length specified on the sketch plan (3675 feet). The proposal calls for developing the roadway to two different standards, based on predicted vehicle per day (VPD) estimates. Accepted VPD estimates, generated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), predict, for one (1) rural, single family dwelling, an average often (10) vehicular trips per day. The initial 2400 feet of the roadway, which will serve as the only access and egress for all of the interior lots of the subdivision is required, by County Subdivision Regulations, to be built to Rural Access standards, again based upon the VPD estimates. The Rural Access standards and the Proposed Standards are as follows: Rural Access: VPD: 101 to 200; 50 foot ROW; 11 foot lane width; 6 foot shoulder width; 6 foot ditch width; 2% cross slope; 5% shoulder slope; 80 foot curve radius; maximum grade: 10%. Proposed Standards: VPD: 180; 60 foot ROW; 11 foot lane width; 2 foot shoulder width; 6 foot ditch width; 2% cross slope; 2% shoulder slope; greater than 80 foot radius; no greater than 5.1% grade. The remaining 1800 feet of roadway, serving nine (9) lots (two lots will have direct frontage and access to CR 214), is being designed to meet semi -primitive standards, more or less. A significant roadcut is proposed for station 36+00 to 39+50, presumably affecting location of driveways accessing lots 11 and 12. Semi -Primitive Standards: VPD: 21 to 100; 40 foot ROW; 8 foot lane width; 2 foot shoulder width; 4 foot ditch width; 2% cross slope chip/seal surface; 5% shoulder slope; 50 foot curve radius; maximum grade: 10%. Proposed Standards: VPD: 90; 60 foot ROW; 8 foot lane width; 2 foot shoulder width; 4 foot ditch width; 2% cross slope chip/seal surface; 2% shoulder slope; 50 foot radius; no greater than 6.4% grade. (All roads are proposed to be chip/seal surfaced) These proposed standards are adequate, given predicted VPD counts; however, if the Option Parcel is ever developed, the roads throughout the entire subdivision would be required to be upgraded to the next corresponding standard. For instance, semi - primitive roads must be upgraded to rural access standards, likewise, rural access must be upgraded to secondary access standards. These improvements would be the responsibility of the developer and/or the Homeowner's Association. Traffic Study: The applicant's engineers conducted a study to determine the effect of the additional traffic generated by the proposal on CR 242, but did not assess the impact on CR 214, the road which directly accesses the property. Reasoning was given that, m the opinion of the engineer, CR 242 would offer the most direct access to Highway 6 which is considered to be the quickest route to Interstate 70. Therefore, the impacts to CR 214 are not well understood. The peak hour, two-way flow observed during the traffic study was 24 VPH and the projected peak hour, two-way flow is estimated at 55 VPH. This represents an increase of 2.3 times (230%) the current peak volume. The conclusion suggested that there would be no significant effect on the safety or delay on CR 242 caused by this proposal The study draws no conclusion as to how CR 214 would be affected. Staff suggests that some adverse effects will be associated with these additional vehicles using the roadway. Again, it is difficult to predict how CR 214 will be affected since no direct study was conducted. Potential Runoff. The intersection of CR 214 and CR 262 has historically been plagued with debris flows associated with heavy rains and, according to County Road and Bridge, this situation may become aggravated due to an inadequate drainage plan. In fact, a site visit by staff in August identified a very recent debris flow event at the above mentioned intersection. Staff recommends the drainage plan be upgraded to take into account the potential of significant debris flows which could occur on and across this property. The engineering study attempted to assess the size of the respective drainage basins which could contribute flow to or across the property, but failed to identify the la gest basin, located to the w st and northwest. See the Drainage basin Designation Map, attached on page 3 fr . As can be seen by the Map, drainage basin "A" does not accurately portray the basin as it exists. It would be quite coincidental that this drainage basin corresponds exactly with the property line. The staff site visit indicated the potential for sizeable past flows which would have flowed across the western portion of the applicant's property, probably along the western property line, approximately 500 feet south of the northwest comer of the property. It is difficult to predict the amount of flow without knowing the area of the drainage basin and other physical data; however, the neighbor to the west indicated (verbally) that a past flow caused significant damage to the property in question. Staff recommends further computations are needed to adequately assess this potential. Lots 1, 2, 3, 16 and 18 appear to be in the direct path of a flood event originating from this drainage basin. The interior roadway crosses the Roseman Ditch and an easement from the Ditch Company, for this crossing, will be necessary prior to consideration of the Plan. 2. Water Supply: There are a total of four (4) wells on-site for domestic water. Water for at least 17 of the lots will be supplied from a central well. Lot 1 will continue to use an existing well and lots 19 and 20 will share an existing well. If it is later found that the existing wells are insufficient to supply water to these lots, they (lots 1, 19 and 20) will be added to the central system. However, the proposal does not discuss this possibility and what it might entail. A pump test was conducted June 16, 1995 on the central well to determine the long- term, safe yield of the this well. The static water level was 73.17 feet below the top of the well casing and total depth of the well is 160 ft. After 220 minutes of pumping, the well stabilized for the remainder of the test (17.5 hours). The test was conducted .4. at a pumping rate of 23 GPM and, in the opinion of the engineer conducting the test, this pumping rate could be sustained indefinitely as the water in the well would remain above the pump intake. Recovery data for the well indicated the well recovered at a rate faster than the drawdown rate. In an effort to determine the adequacy of the well system, the applicant's engineers assumed the development will have the following criteria: 3.5 people per dwelling unit; 100 gallons of water per person, per day; 1000 sq. ft. irrigation of lawn and garden; Based on these assumptions, July is expected to be the peak demand month for water, using an estimated 0.98 acre-feet. These estimates indicate the completed development of twenty (20) units will require a larger instantaneous peak demand than can be provided by the well alone, expected to be 50 GPM. On-site storage will, therefore, be required to adequately supply water during peak demands and water for fire fighting. The engineers recommend the construction of a second well to provide mechanical reliability to the system, scheduled to come on-line when the subdivision reaches 75% build -out. This phased water system would serve up to six (6) of the new lots and there are no plans for storage for fire fighting purposes. In the interim, water for fire fighting is slated to come from the on-site ponds. Phase 1 of this water system would serve lots 3, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, with the remaining lots being served when Phase 2 of the water system is constructed. A 60,000 gallon water storage tank is proposed as part of Phase 2, supplying peak demand and fire fighting water, planned to be built on lot 9. Annual water usage is estimated to total 9.23 AF/year when completely developed. The pump test was conducted in late spring, at a time when water was flowing in the irrigation ditch and the applicant's engineer speculated that the fast recovery rate of the well was influenced by water flowing in the ditch and from the nearby seeps. This seems to indicate that, when water is not flowing in the ditch, the water table will probably be encountered at a lower depth. The physical location of the ditch on the property in question could cause a temporary elevation of the nearby water table affecting the hydraulic characteristics of the tested well. Likewise, the static water level in the tested well may also decrease when water is not flowing in the ditch. If this is the case, the water table will be located deeper in the well and the amount of available drawdown water in the well would decrease accordingly. Staff recommends further pumping tests be conducted at a time when water has been absent from the on- site irrigation ditch (Roseman Ditch) a minimum of sixty (60) days, in order to allow the water table to return to its more -natural level. A transmissivity test should also be performed to gauge the rate of water movement through the [alluvial] aquifer in an effort to better determine aquifer and groundwater characteristics. Water Quality: A water quality analysis was performed; however, a copy of the final analysis was not provided to staff. A cover letter, attached on page 3 indicates high concentrations of sodium and sulfate in the pump tested well. the applicant's engineer recommends the use of an in-house Reverse Osmosis type water treatment system to adequately remove the dissolved minerals. Augmentation Water: The applicant has received a water allotment contract for augmentation water from West Divide Water Conservancy District and has submitted an augmentation plan to provide a legal, adequate supply of water to the proposed subdivision. The augmentation plan includes four (4) wells, but only one (1) well has been pump tested. It is not clear from the proposal that the existing, individual wells are included in the application or if these are new wells. At a minimum, some proof of the legal right of the exist' g wglls to be used needs to be provided. See water contract attached on pages 3. Sewer: The proposal specifies the use of ISDS for each lot. The Soil Conservation Service has identified three (3) classes of soils, on-site. First, the torriorthents, are chiefly rock outcrops with thin to deep soils over sandstone or shale bedrock. Torriorthents, if deep enough, can be well -drained, if too shallow, percolation rates will be hindered by lack of sufficient soil and permeability of the bedrock. Second, the Olney loams, tend to be deep, well -drained soils. These soils, have moderate restrictions concerning the use of ISDS, chiefly due to slow percolation rates. Finally, the Heldt clay loam soils tend to be deep and well drained also. The Heldt clay loams have severe restriction concerning the use of sanitary facilities, primarily due to the high clay content, causing slow percolation. Given the various types of soils and their relative depths, it may be necessary to require engineered ISD systems. In fact, percolation test data gathered on-site indicates percolation rates that will, most likely, require engineered systems. A total of five (5) test holes were surveyed, yielding the following data, reported in minutes per inch (MPI): #1 Lot 14 #2 Lot 11 #3 Lot 11 #4 Lot 13 #5 Lot 5 80 MPI; 86 MPI; 6 MPI; 68 MPI; 15 MPI. The Colorado Department of Health requires the engineering of ISD systems when percolation rates are quicker than 5 MPI or slower than 60 MPI. As can be seen by the above data, engineered ISD systems for some, if not most of the lots, are indicated. The exact, site specific conditions are not known and a detailed soil analysis will be necessary for each lot. Furthermore, County guidelines regarding setbacks from the existing irrigation ditch will be necessary to protect the water quality of the ditch, especially if it is to remain unlined 4. Lot Design/Development: Excepting the three (3) existing homesites (Lots 1, 19 and 20), no building envelopes are identified on the Preliminary Plan. Design of the lots seems to have been conducted in a way to satisfy the two (2) acre minimum lot size for the A/R/RD zoning district, thereby creating at least one (1) lot that is poorly designed. Lot 17 accesses the common drive via a twenty-five (25) ft. wide "flagpole" and has building areas that must be below the irrigation ditch to not result in some significant cut slopes and requiring an easement from the owner of the Roseman Ditch if it is to be crossed. Driveways and building envelops should be designed in a way to minimize cuts into slopes of excessive degree and should be designed to minimize erosion. If the proposed subdivision will be built in phases, as specified by the proposal, then building on the lots shall only occur when water is provided to them. This would allow Phase 1 construction on Lots 3, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. 5. Fire Protection: The Burning Mountains Fire Protection District has responded requesting that the two existing ponds within the subdivision be up -graded and one (1) dry hydrant, at least 2.5 inches in diameter, be installed at each pond with an adequate access for fire trucks provided. The District further requests the first dry hydrant be installed before housing construction begins and the second hydrant by the time half the lots are developed. Staff recommends the roads within the subdivision be built to secondary access standards to further allow access to emergency vehicles. This would also allow for an easier transition for road improvements if the Option Parcel is developed at a later time. A 60,000 gallon water storage tank is proposed for the development, which could supply up to 500 gallons per minute for two hours for fire fighting purposes, but is slated to be constructed during Phase 2 of the development. 6. Zoning: All proposed lots meet the required two (2) acre minimum as specified by the A/R/RD zone district. All building envelopes will be required to adhere to setbacks as specified in Section 3.02 of the Zoning Resolution. . 6- 7. Slope: The placement of building envelopes may be difficult when considering slope and ISDS constraints. Initial slope calculations at various points on the Preliminary Plan indicate a potential problem for building envelope placement. When compensating for setbacks of the building envelope and the placement of the ISDS which will be required for each envelope, cuts into hills that are already at or near 25% slope will further steepen the slope. State and County regulations specify that no ISD systems are allowed on slopes in excess of 30%. 8. Option Parcel: An optional development parcel is available to the applicant and, in order to make an informed decision, it is necessary to consider the option parcel at this time. The option parcel is 39.9 acres in size and is currently proposed to be divided into nine (9) lots. If the present subdivision is approved and fully developed, it is conceivable that the option parcel will be developed at a later date. All the impacts discussed earlier will apply to the option parcel, perhaps even exaggerating existing problems. If the Preliminary Plan is approved, as is, and the option parcel developed later, the proposed cul-de-sac will be lengthened an additional 1950 feet, further hindering access in normal and emergency situations. The increased traffic generated would thus increase the width of road and ROW requirements for the present proposal. The central water system, as designed, is represented as capable of supporting the aggregate twenty (20) lots of the current proposal. No provisions are discussed concerning water supply to the nine (9) option parcel lots. If developed, any water system proposed to serve these additional lots could potentially impact the hydraulics of the original water system. This proposal needs to be considered in a holistic manner so that proactive planning and mitigation of foreseeable issues can be provided. 9. Compatibility With the Comprehensive Plan: Section 4:33 of the Subdivision Regulations requires review of an application based on compatibility with various planning criteria, including the Comprehensive Plan. The following section addresses the compatibility, or lack of compatibility, with the Plan. Agriculture: (Policies: All) The subdivision may have impact on and from adjacent agricultural uses by its potential incompatibility. Impacts from agricultural uses; noise; odor; etc., will be experienced in the subdivision. The use of 22 shares of water from the Roseman Ditch will divert water from agricultural to domestic use, causing further impact and potential decline of agriculture in the vicinity. Housing: (Policies: 2a; 3; 4b; 5; 6) Existing, platted subdivision lots currently exist in the area of the proposed subdivision, with current build -out estimated at an average of 53%. Conventional zoning, not PUD, is being employed. There are no provisions for low and moderate income housing (stated) within the subdivision application information. The subdivision is situated away from incompatible, non- residential uses such as light industry and commercial centers. No building envelopes are specified on the Preliminary Plan, therefore, no information exists as to how the buildings will be designed to use solar aspect or other energy efficient designs. Recreation/Open Space: (Policies: 4) The proposed development includes provisions for access to adjacent BLM lands. Transportation: (Policies: 2; 3; 6; 7; 8) County regulations do not have any provision for off-site improvements to County roads. The applicant is limiting traffic to one intersection. Connections of roads within the subdivision are not consistent with County road plans. Roadway design is targeting a specific, projected traffic load. Roadway design may create congestion in an emergency situation. • • Water and Sewer Service: (Policies: 1; 2; 3) It is not clear that legal, adequate and dependable water sources exist for this proposal. The development could not feasibly connect to any existing water/sewer system. Soils on-site are constrained in their use for ISDS. Environment: (Policies: 1; 4; 5; 6; 7; 9) There are slopes on the parcel which are in excess of 25%. Mitigation of erosion by development of the property is required. Mitigation of slope, potential rock -fall or mudflow and slow percolation of soil will be necessary. Areas within the proposed development are susceptible to very slow percolation rates. Depending on design of building envelopes, the potential for removal of vegetation and cut and fill activity is high, causing visual degradation. The County will encourage the development of land with minor or no environmental constraints prior to development of areas with moderate or severe constraints. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper publication and public notice and posting were provided as required by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing. 3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in general compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the County. 3. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. 4. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State of Colorado and Garfield County have been submitted and, in addition, have been found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. V. RECOMMENDATIQN Staff recommends a CONTINUANCE for this proposal to allow the applicant sufficient time to address the issues and concerns raised during the consideration of this Preliminary Plan application. If the Commission feels that all issues and concerns have been adequately addressed and answered by the applicant, then conditional approval, based on the conditions listed below, is advised. 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless stated otherwise by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Homeowner's Association shall be incorporated in accordance with Colorado Revised Statute requirements. 3. The applicant shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements Agreement addressing all on-site improvements, prior to the submittal of a final plat. 4. The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all roads, bridges, utilities, fire protection, improvements, signage and drainage structures prior to the submittal of the final plat. 5. That all proposed utilities shall be placed underground. 6. That all cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native grasses and shrubs with adequate weed control. All revegetation shall be in accordance with the applicant's revegetation plan. Revegetation and landscaping shall be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. In addition, adequate security shall remain in place for a period of two (2) years to guarantee the survival of all plantings. 7. That the applicant shall demonstrate that procedures are established for the maintenance of all roadways and bridges, including snow removal, through the Homeowner's Association. 8. That the applicant shall pay $200 per lot in School Impact Fees prior to the approval of the Final Plat. 9. That the following plat notes shall be included on the Final Plat: a. The recommendations of the Colorado State Forester and U.S.F.S. wildfire prevention guidelines shall be followed in the construction of all structures. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare and submit a soils and foundation report, an I.S.D.S. design, and a grading and drainage plan prepared and certified by a professional engineer. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such measures which shall be a condition of the building permit. c. Certain lots may require pumps to increase residential water pressure. 10. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Applicant shall submit an approved augmentation plan providing for a legal water supply for the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision development. Said augmentation plan, together with the West Divide Water Conservancy District Allotment Contract and the water rights associated with the wells, together with well permits, and shares from the Roseman Ditch shall be transferred by the developer to a homeowner's association which shall have the power and the duty to enforce compliance by lot owners with the terms and conditions of the augmentation plan. Appropriate Protective Covenants shall further require compliance with the terms and conditions of the augmentation plan. 11. That the applicants shall prepare and submit protective covenants, articles of incorporation and other Homeowner's Association documents including by-laws will be submitted for review by the County Attorney prior to the approval of the Final Plat. 12. That the plat and covenants will provide that there will be no resubdivision of the lots. 13. That all roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards in effect at the time of submittal of the Final Plat. 14. The Final Plat shall identify building envelopes that are in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and less than 40 % slope. 15. That a plat note requiring staking and certification by a R.L.S. verifying building location within approved envelope. This requirement shall be incorporated into the restrictive covenants. 16. That adequate easements for wells, waterlines and other attendant facilities and utilities shall be provided on the Final Plat. _9 17. That ten (10) foot perimeter easements on each lot should be provided for utility purposes. 18. The applicant shall provide road signage in accordance with the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control. These should be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. . _ , e e . _ _epiee of quit r aim d eds.from_adjacent land owners. 20. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit approved plans (by Colorado Department of Health) for the proposed community water system. 21. All requirements of the Road and Bridge Department contained in their memo shall be considered conditions of approval. /Sr► 1 -FN 22. The applicant should consi er�U A e s� dogs. L Do O tf-rDb o 2 kt,--M ; t,S restrictions and further limitations on roilvaL/At 6 OF ,Nk MK"- SCAN 0/VD 23. Final approval is contingent on receivmg a letter of approval from the Burning Mountains Fire Protection District. 24. Final approval contingent on receiving the required easements from the owner(s) of the Roseman Ditch. pi/ Ast.,z, Dri,a oP, /1, l Ng/675 �- Frore6Ej(V SigeET)- giv-Jj) lecqikiecriAw/3„? 1>41/1 WFLL-�N 4:-.-� eA_9/i/i6b44,A),e �rt����'�' r�`�✓ AN( iGTEN rld,./ 6,v � _ C�rE2 W "�gt g coir_/�r,7�� Rk:). FEC;c'ic 61-vCtp(S(TEL-T-12, -' PLAT Na C Z5, 1 --(AY sc A /v CCP r -°•C A/e) sts2-6-./0 6` Aim/ Ats /�,fc, /Uipl ►4U 42, Pc{ tiAP SAT ,4 e_q-776‹(1c6R�t/1Rv)—(11'10gre -` 1) 76Pi44 27 A nFnei,�� c�F P�1�slni& l`� wd pc, s,C) p 5111m.CD val is L.tr nei\i . Arc ,avD5 laNAM- 1467/6J!1 Jarlrst ScCAi9 Y N P C. lit 111 "/ 1' 80/ WARE \ DE \t 111 ' I( , • , ,,,) :,., • .( ' , ,.) lc ' ,1,./)/.'''\‘\'''.:( '1)'i,, 1 —"_„-- c , _i• si, • , -, • , 0 , , '(( i. ,,)--..\:>•,` , , '• I .:, -),,./ , \ .,, , ... , • , j ( () 1.k__ r , , /1,, ,;:i) 1,,''));•/!' ,,',.,'/I.1 -11.,,o, • ii • •; i, , • . -.• , • ' , }‘,• '„ ). ', ,',Ii. V'1, \ • , I-,i..,-il- : 14 . - . 1. • ' .‘ , ''"'"' 8 ------,-- l' t , I orMS 0" Wf? 1- ..----qt i .,,-- , ,, V _::-,.-k,,\ • .' \ .1 01-1 e.s.' wE ERN N11/4 VICINITY MAP •• • • STATE OF .cqc. OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources s' 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 ('hone (303) 866-3501 FAX ( 303) 866-3589 Mr. Mark Bean, Planner Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 80601 1. August 17, 1995 4*24 • i� +Y' 1 � . '. 18 7 6% Roy Romer Gt vernor Lune, S. Lor hhead Executive Director Dial D. Simpson Slate Engineer RE: Cedar Hills Ranch, Preliminary Plat E1/2 NE1/4 Sec. 1, T. 6 S, R. 92 W, and W1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 6, T. 6 S, R. 91 W, 6th P.M. Water Division 5, Water District 39 Dear Mr. Bean: We are in receipt of your subdivision referral to subdivide approximately 77+ acres into 20 residential lots, located about three miles east of Rifle, Colorado. The proposed water supply is either central well and/or individual wells on the lots which wells are to be included in the West Divide Water Conservancy District's substitute supply plan until a permanent plan for augmentation is approved by the Water Court. Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), C.R,S., the State Engineers Office offers the following opinion for your consideration regarding material injury to decreed water rights and the adequacy of the proposed water supply of the subject subdivision. i , Our records show that the ground water in the subject area is tributary to the Colorado River System, which is over -appropriated. The substitute water supply plan issued to the West Divide Water Conservancy District (District) is reviewed and renewed by our office annually. If the applicant obtains West Divide contracts or a decreed plan for augmentation for the proposed uses and well permit(s) are issued from our office, it is unlikely that injury will occur to decreed water rights. 2. We are unable to comment on the adequacy of the water supply without an engineering or geotechnical study documenting the physical availability of ground water for the proposed uses. As outlined in the statutes, Section 30-28-133(3)(d), C.R.S., the applicant is required to submit adequate evidence that a water supply that is sufficient in terms of • 1 Mr. Mark Bean Page 2 August 17, 1995 quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of water. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office or Mr. Orlyn Bell of our Division office in Glenwood Springs at 945-5665. KM/km cedarhills.sub cc: Orlyn Bell, Div. Engineer James R. Lemon, Water Commissioner 1. IMO Sincerely, 14.10-4 Mr. Kris Murthy Professional Engineer Ift NM • • SEP -26-1995 13:51 FROM GARFIELD CO ROAD 2. BRIDGE TO 9457725 P.02 GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. 130X 2254 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-2254 Phone 945-6111 DATESeptember 26, 1995 TO: Mark Bean FROM King RE: Cedar Hills Ranch The drainage plan doesn't adequately address potential runoff oroblems and the potential effect on CR214. The ridge line running parallel to CR214 annually is subject to flash flooding the roadway intersection of CR214 & CR262. Just 3 wpRks ,;100 wFA.7. inundated hy a mud and dAhrls flow and ha., annually for several summers. Tho road appoars to bo funnoling all the runoff down to 5.tz inter.section with CR214. With one of the pipes on the udder end of the project being spec. at 36" diameter, it would appear the onginoors fool at somo time there could bo significant water coning down the ditches. This part of CR214 is rolativoly flat, h considoration boon given to the effect or further disposal of this runoff onto adjoining property. The boundary survey doesn't identify a R --OW width. With the school d5strict buying land in the area, development and future traffic could need an expanded R -O -W. This protect dire(.7.L1Y accesses CR214 (average width 18 ft.) and is approximately halfway between CR235 (average width 19 feet) and CR262 (averagc, width 20 foot) both of which accost; state HIghway 6 & 24. T don't understand why there was not 0 traffic study done on CR214 since it will get all of the traffio, which could he children going to school at Silt elementary or Rifle high and adult.z working at points east. Our traffic count show that 60% of the traffic is driving faster than /40 MPH near th0 entrance to the proposed subdivision. This entrance lies et the bottom of a hill which limits the site distance for vehicles pulling out onto CR2111. cedar TOTAL P.02 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORIl1NITY EMPLOYER Perry D. Olson, Director 606 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 1. • March 30, 1995 0584 216 Road Rifle, CO 81650 Mr. Dave Michaelson Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Dave: REFER TO OF For Wildlife - ForPeople I have reviewed the Cedar bills Subdivision sketch plan that you sent me. This is a low elevation site with a southern exposure and thus, important to wildlife, especially during the winters. This is critical deer winter range and up to one hundred and sixty elk also frequent this property. The plan did not address wildlife and the associated impacts from the development, nor did it specify the covenants. The Division of Wildlife requests the following: 1) Property owners required to kennel dogs 2) Wire fences for pastures be constructed according to DOW specifications 3) Property owners be required to provide their own fencing to protect haystacks 4) Prospective property buyers be advised that the DOW is not liable for game damage to gardens and ornamental flowers, shrubs, and trees Thank you for requesting our input. Respectfully, Don Crane District Wildlife Manager DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESO RC , James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chair n ouis F. Swift, Vice -Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., MembAek E Mir er, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member William R. Fiegber r • Mark LeValley, Member • • March 28, 1995 Mr. Dave Michaelson Garfield County Planning Commission 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Michaelson: ii j),77. 4 -7)9.F1),„ f. c 01. t" 1't1 .i ; i [: ?; 1785g (7-880) In response to your request for comments regarding the proposed Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision, I offer the following statements for your scheduled April 12, 1995, Planning Commission review of the sketch plan. The entire northern edge of the 120 acre tract is adjacent to public lands administered by this office. Current uses on the BLM include livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation such as hunting, horseback riding, and hiking. 1. 1. Ownership of land adjacent to BLM-administered public land does not grant the adjacent landowner(s) any special rights or privileges for the use of the public lands. 2. During staff review, it was noted that the proponents propose a 50 foot access easement between lots 3 and 4 that would "provide permanent riding and hiking trails ... to the BLM". The proposed 50' easement would likely attract or encourage recreational use, mainly from subdivision residents, and there could be negative impacts from such use. Such an easement could result in the unauthorized proliferation of trails by both nonmotorized and motorized users, trash dumping, disturbance of wildlife and firewood cutting. Public access to the affected public lands is already available from existing county roads in the vicinity and the need for additional public access is not apparent. Any developed trail system from the subdivision onto adjacent public land would require prior approval from this office, and such approval is uncertain at this time. 3. I am concerned with increased OHV use on public lands from subdivision residents and the effects such use could have on the landscape (erodible soils, visual quality, vegetation) and any archeological or paleontological resources that may exist in the area. The proponents should be aware of the location of property boundaries to ensure no encroachment occurs on public land. To help control such impacts on the adjacent public land, I recommend the construction of a boundary fence along the proponent's north boundary as a condition of approval. Such a fence would ensure no encroachment occurs on public land, and help control livestock. The fence should be constructed to allow for easy passage by big game, i.e. less than 42" in height with a 10" kick space between the top 2 wires. 4. The owners should be advised that the adjacent public land has current permits for livestock grazing. Under Colorado statutes, it is the owners' responsibility to construct, and maintain in good condition, a lawful fence protecting their property in order to recover any damages from trespass livestock. Again, a continuous fence built to the above standards along the subdivision/BLM boundary is recommended to resolve the potential use conflicts. 5. Adjacent public land is open to hunting and other dispersed recreation activities. The proponents should be aware that hunting and other recreation uses are allowed on BLM-administered land. • • 2 6. The County and the subdivision proponents should be made aware that coal minerals underlying all of the proposed subdivision that lies within Section 6, (T6S, R92W, Sixth P.M.) are reserved to the United States. This subsurface ownership underlies portions of proposed lots 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10, and all lots proposed in the Option Parcel. According to the records available at this office, no leases have been applied for or issued for coal within the federal coal reserve. 7. Any roads, trails, paths, or utilities (water, electric, phone or otherwise) crossing BLM would require right-of-way (ROW) permits from this office. An environmental assessment report would be completed as a part of the ROW permitting process. 8. The proposed subdivision lies within crucial deer winter range. Encroachment of homesites and people on big game winter ranges can have a profound effect on game herd populations and health. In closing I ask for your consideration in these matters in regards to the pending Sketch Plan for the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, please contact Jim Byers of this office at 945-2341. Sincerely, 1. Michael S. Mottice Area Manager JBYERS:CO1423/1000/CEDARHLL.LTR • • MEMO TO: DAVE MICHAELSON, PLANNER FROM: DON K. DEFORD, COUNTY ATTORNEY RE: DATE: March 28, 1995 CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN I have had an opportunity to review the plat and associated documents relative to the Cedar Hills Subdivision sketch plan. I have the following comments: 1. It is impossible to determine the type of domestic water system proposed for this subdivision. The introductory letter indicates wells will be serving clusters or groups of homes. That type of arrangement would create many central water systems subject to County standards. The text of the proposal indicates that each house will have its own well and water .storage. That proposal would result in 26 individual wells with 26 storage tanks. Fire Department review of either proposal is critical. 2. As submitted, the proposal sets forth a single culdesac road of almost 2/3 of a mile in length. That clearly exceeds County regulations and will need specific approval of the fire district. 3. As drafted, the proposal sets forth a lot denominated as Tract A. That tract is less than the minimum size permitted by zoning in this district and must be eliminated from further proposals. 4. As submitted, this proposal would result in access to a County road by the subdivision, as well as additional individual lots. While legally permitted, the Planning Commissioners should be aware of the multiple traffic entrances to County Road 214. 5. As with other County roads, we have no road impact fee system in place to mitigate the effects of this subdivision. Therefore, at this juncture, the 26 lots would come into existence without payment of their proportionate share for eventual improvements to County Road 214. At some point, such improvements will be required, if further development occurs along this County road. Unless a system is put in place at this time, the County will encounter the same difficulties currently existing in the eastern end of the County concerning collection of impact fees for roads deteriorating and subjected to excessive use. • • DAVE MICHAELSON PAGE TWO MARCH 28, 1995 6. As proposed, the subdivision would create 26 individual sewage disposal systems. In spite of the position of the Department of Health, this proposal must be submitted to that Department at the time of preliminary plan. For the foregoing reasons, comments from the State Engineer and the State Department of Health are critical in evaluating this subdivision proposal. Additionally, strict compliance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations should be expected regarding water storage, fire department approval and road system improvements. DKD:mis • gie ZD • • April 5, 1995 Dave Michaelson Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 FOREST SERVICE State Services Building 222 S. 6th Street, Room 416 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone (303) 248-7325 Re: Cedar Hills Subdivision Wildfire Hazard Review Dear Mr. Michaelson, I have reviewed the Sketch Plan Report for the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision, submitted by the Spring Creek Land Company, and visited the site on April 4th. When evaluating a site for wildfire hazard, I concentrate on vegetation, topography, water supply, and access. These points are addressed in the following comments. Vegetation in the proposed subdivision ranges from irrigated '•pasture to a mature pinyon -juniper woodland, interspersed with small openings of sagebrush and grass. Cottonwoods line an irrigation ditch and some of the drainages above the pasture. Topography consists of a gently sloping sidehill cut by a series of shallow drainages flowing roughly southwest. Slopes range from nearly level to 30%. Several rock outcrops within the proposed area would act as effective fuelbreaks, as well as the proposed road system. The proposed subdivision is in an area that has been mapped as low, medium, and high hazard for wildfire. The pasture area is low hazard (lots 1, 2, 13, 14, and parts of lots 16 and 17). Medium hazard exists in the sagebrush and sparsely forested areas. The high rating is limited to the steeper ground of this parcel, where the pinyon -juniper is more dense. Although fires in the pinyon -juniper type are common, they are usually confined to single trees or small groups of trees, and are generally easy to control. In sagebrush, fires are usually of low to moderate intensity and are likewise fairly easily controlled. Of primary concern in this proposed subdivision are any areas over 30% slope and the more densely vegetated drainages. Under favorable burning conditions, a fire occurring in one of the steep gullies would intensify due to the "chimney" effect of the topography and slope. Structures located in or at the head of such drainages would be especially vulnerable to damage from wildfire. The applicant has stated that water supply for firefighting will be provided by two ponds on the property that are fed from both the seasonal irrigation ditch and springs. The ponds appear to have a fairly dependable supply of between 20,000 and 50,000 gallons each, and have good access for fire department vehicles. The applicant has also stated that one or more cisterns will be located on the upper reaches of the property (lots 16-21) for use in firefighting. In regard to access, CSFS standards are for subdivisions to have dual ingress/egress points, which is not provided for in this proposal. Dual ingress/egress can be an important factor in providing safe evacuation in case of wildfire; however, this access is not always practical. To help alleviate this problem, it is recommended that turnouts be located every 750 feet along roadways to provide adequate emergency vehicle access. My specific recommendations to further mitigate wildfire hazard for this proposed subdivision are: -Structures should not be located in or at the head of drainages. -Remove all vegetation within ten feet of all structures. This area should be maintained in the future as low groundcover such as mowed grass. -Brush or trees within 30 feet of homes should be thinned, if necessary, so that remaining clumps are no more than 10 feet wide. Down dead material and small, brushy trees that would act as "ladder fuels" should be removed to reduce the chances of a crown fire. -All lots located above the irrigation ditch should have a water storage facility accessible to fire department vehicles, with a minimum storage capacity of 1,000 gallons per structure. -Roof coverings should be of non-combustible materials. Shake -shingle roofs are a documented source of ignition in a wildland fire situation, and should be avoided. The above recommendations are covered in more detail in the CSFS publication "Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface" which was provided to Norm Clasen at the time of the site visit. Thanks for the opportunity to review this proposal. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please call me at 248-7325. Sincerely, 47; Kelly Rogers Asst. District Forester cc: Burning Mountain FPD Norm Clasen GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 12, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT Jim Snyder Herb Nelson Steve Anthony Dick Stephenson Anna Price Cheryl Chandler Stacy Ehlers Calvin Lee STAFF PRESENT Mark Bean, Director Don DeFord, County Attorney Dave Michaelson, Planner Meeting called to order. Roll call taken with John Foulkrod and Philip Vaughan absent. Carter Jackson and Bill Kight reported on the Open Space/Trails Committee. Mr. Jackson told the Commission that the Committee has developed a mission statement. Dave Michaelson told the Commission that the Open Space/Trails Committee will be submitting an application for GOCO funds. Don DeFord, County Attorney discussed the letter he has written to the City Attorney regarding the alternate route on Midland. The City Attorney and the City Council have told Mr. DeFord that the city plans on annexing the property that lies in Garfield County. Mr. DeFord's recommendation is not to act and discuss this further. Herb Nelson moved to table the motion until the next meeting. Stacy Ehlers seconded. Motion passed by voice vote. Public Meeting for a Sketch Plan Review for Southgate Subdivision, located north of State Highway 82, two miles south of Glenwood Springs Town Center. Applicant: Southgate Homesites Limited Partnership (Robert Chatmas, General Partner). Dave Michaelson entered the following exhibits into the record: a. Staff Report b. Application Mr. Michaelson summarized the project. The property currently includes a single family residence on the western edge of the development, which would be excluded from the development plan. The applicant has proposed to develop eight single family dwelling units. The property would be accessed from a former BLM right-of-way which provides access to SH 82. Water and sewer would be provided by the City of Glenwood Springs. Review agencies comments included the City of Glenwood Springs, Glenwood Springs Department of Emergency Services, Garfield County Attorney and Division of Wildlife. Issues and concerns included soils/topography, including rockfall, debris flow, moisture sensitive soils, and overall mitigation plan, lot and block design, zoning, roads, open space and water and sewer. The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one year from the date of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission within this period, the applicant shall submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Division for review and comparison with the original application. Robert Chatmas and Dean Moffat addressed the commission and discussion regarding the issues -Z3 • of rockfall, annexation into the City of Glenwood when the property becomes contiguous, zoning of the property, density, upgrading of water line, access, fire protection, commercial versus residential development, and visual quality. Comments from the planning commission included roads, access, traffic, rockfall, legal liability, and wildfire protection. 4 Public Meeting for a Sketch Plan Review for Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision, located approximately 1/2 mile north of I-70 and approximately four miles west of New Castle. Applicant: Norm Clasen Dave Michaelson entered the following exhibits into the record: a. Staff Report b. Application Mr. Michaelson summarized the proposal. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 77.50 acre parcel into 17 dwelling units. The application and mapping also included an option parcel of 39.9 acres with eight dwelling units. The applicant intended on developing the two parcels together and having one homeowner's association. Access would be from a single roadway off of CR 214, with total cul-de-sac length of 3675 linear feet. The option parcel would be accessed from an extension of a cul-de-sac. Water would be provided by grouped wells and sewer by ISDS. Review agencies that have commented on the development included Division of Wildlife, Garfield County Attorney's Office and the Bureau of Land Management. Issues and concerns included soils/topography, lot and block design, zoning, roads, and water and sewer. Sketch Plan comments are purely informational. Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one year from the date of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission within this period, the applicant shall submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Division for review and comparison with the original application. Norm Clasen addressed the commission and discussed outcrop, alignment of the trail, fencing, easements, drainage, covenants, access, wildlife migration, water wells, grouped wells, cul-de- sacs, building envelopes, deed restrictions for the park area, Herb Nelson commented that supposedly there are Indian burial grounds and artifacts on the property. He suggested that the applicant meet with Kenny Frost and discuss these issues. Other comments included culverts, drainage, ditches, fencing along the ditches, traffic, road impact fee issue, mitigation to several areas of CR 214, and cul-de-sacs. Don DeFord told the applicant since he is going to use the grouped wells, they qualify as central water system and at Preliminary Plan will have to have the design to meet County standards and easements will have to be shown for the systems. Mr. DeFord recommended that the applicant start working with the State Water Engineer regarding the wells and the system. Public Meeting for a Sketch Plan review for Petts/Holmes Subdivision, located approximately seven miles northeast of Carbondale. Applicants: Robert Petts and Cathleen Holmes. Dave Michaelson entered the following exhibits into the record: a. Staff Report b. Application Mr. Michaelson summarized the project. The property is located along the Eagle County/Garfield County line, south of Coulter Creek. This parcel was part of a subdivision exemption application presented the Board in 1994. The applicant has requested an exemption to allow the division of an 89 acre parent parcel into four parcels of approximately 72.6, 7.5, 6.7 and 2.3 acres in size. • The Board denied the request and granted only a single split of 14.2 acres in size (merging the proposed 7.5 and 6.7 acre proposed parcels). The request to divide the 2.3 acre parcel was denied due to issues regarding the compatibility of the smaller parcels with the adjacent large -lot agricultural uses in the vicinity. Due to the denial by the Board, the only method for dividing the 2.3 acre parcel through subdivision. The remaining 74.78 acre parcel is proposed to be split into two parcels of approximately 2.3 and 72.5 acres in size. Issues and concerns included soils/topography, lot and block design, zoning, roads, water, sewer, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Sketch plan comments are purely informational. Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one year from the date of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield County Planning Commission within this period, the applicant shall submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning Division for review and comparison with the original application. Robert Petts addressed the commission, showed maps showing the property, and the County road that subdivides the property. Issues discussed included compatibility with adjacent properties and zoning, letters from adjacent property owners, and future lot splits. Public Hearing for a Preliminary Plan for Sierra Bluffs Preliminary Plan #1, located south of Silt. Applicants: Wayne Cooley and Barton Porter. Don DeFord, County Attorney, asked how the adjacent property owners were identified. Wayne Cooley said he took a survey and the owners he wasn't sure of, he came to the Assessor's office. Mr. DeFord asked when the mailing occurred. Mr. Cooley said they were mailed to every property owner identified and the property was posted visible from a county right-of-way. Mr. DeFord determined that notice was adequate and the hearing could proceed. Dick Stephenson swore in all persons wishing to speak at this hearing. Dave Michaelson entered the following exhibits into the record: a. Return Receipts b. Proof of publication c. Staff Report d. Revised Blueline Mr. Michaelson summarized the project. It is 75.02 acres and is a resubdivision of Lot 10 & 11 of the Sierra Vista Subdivision. Originally, the applicants proposed 7 single family lots. On Friday at 4:00 p.m., the applicant's engineer called and said that they were pulling the Sierra Pinyon project be pulled and that three lots be taken through the subdivision process. Mr. Michaelson and Mr. DeFord determined that the noticing was sufficient because less lots are being proposed. The applicants propose to subdivide the property into three lots. Two exempt wells will be used to serve the dwellings. Sewage disposal will be through ISDS. Access will be provided directly from County Road 331, with several easements platted with the original Sierra Vista Ranch. Review agencies that have commented on the project included Division of Water Resources, Southside Soil Conservation District, and the Colorado State Geologist. Major issues and concerns included comprehensive plan compliance, soils/topography, road/access, fire protection, floodplain, wastewater, zoning, lot design and adjacent property owner comments. Mr. Michaelson commented that the adequate legal supply of water has not been documented and that is a very serious issue. Staff recommended approval with 11 conditions. -Z� • • Discussion was held regarding the issues of fireplaces, fencing, revegetation, water storage tanks, drainage, access, road standards, culverts, fireplace restrictions, dog limits, quantity of water available, and covenants or deed restrictions regarding the further splitting of the property. Wayne Cooley and Barton Porter commented to the Commission on various issues, regarding access, water, roads, utilities, drainage, Bill Collins, Collins Drilling discussed the water source and pumping tests. Nancy Bailey, John Bailey, Steve Davis addressed the Commission regarding the water, impact on adjacent owners water supply, wildlife, traffic, fire protection, building envelopes, water table, and dog limits. Herb Nelson moved to approve the Preliminary Plan based on recommendations of staff with the condition of fireplaces in #11-1 and fencing wording be changed as earlier recommended and #10, that the road be required to be a semi -primitive road with a 40' right-of-way, that there be deed restrictions placed on the lots so that they cannot be further subdivided and that the approval is conditional based upon well test results be turned in and that they meet all the County requirements for potability. Jim Snyder seconded. Motion passed 5-2. Public Hearing for a PUD Zone District and Text Amendment of the Riverbend PUD and Sketch Plan for the Riverbend by the River Subdivision. Applicant: RB Homes. Cheryl Chandler was appointed a voting member. Mark Bean summarized the project. A portion of this tract of land is used as the sewage treatment facility for the Riverbend Subdivision and the rest of the area is unimproved land that had been used for agricultural purposes. The majority of the land outside of the existing Riverbend Subdivision is either used for crop land, grazing or unimproved open space. One exception is a house built on a portion of the unplatted PUD that was designated for single family use. The applicants have requested an amendment to the Riverbend PUD Plan for a portion of the property presently shown as being Utility Facilities and Open Space and Agricultural Land on the PUD plan approved in 1977. The proposed plan amendment and zone district text amendment would created the following three new zone districts in the Riverbend PUD; Single-family; Two-family and Open Space/Parkland zone district. The proposed subdivision will have 11 single family lots and five two family dwelling lots on the 10.61 acre tract. Water and sewer would come from a privately owned system , which also serves the existing Filings 1 and 2 of the Riverbend Subdivision. Access would be a 50 ft. wide 890 ft. long, loop road off of CR 335. The applicant has proposed to modify the existing Riverbend Subdivision covenants to include this development. Major issues included PUD zoning, comprehensive plan, sewage disposal, sketch plan, PUD plan and text amendments. Planning staff noted that the future land use pattern in the New Castle area to be a yet to be defined in the present Comprehensive Plan. The area in question at this time has Comprehensive Plan designations based on thoughts and philosophies prevalent in 1980 and 1984. It is in an area that will impact the Town of New Castle in terms of roads, water and sewer infrastructure. Basing a decision on ideals and philosophies that are ten years old is difficult for staff and arguably unfair to both an applicant and the general public concerned about the proposal. Although no actual land use and density definitions for this region have not been developed, goals and policies for the County as a whole, previously approved by the Planning Commission encourage urban uses to locate adjacent to existing communities. Until there is a better definition of how the Riverbend area is going to develop in relation to the New Castle area, we have to rely on the 1984 goals, policies and objectives to make a recommendation. Added to the comprehensive plan issue is the need to legitimize the ownership of the tract of land in question. The homeowners in the Riverbend subdivision have been offered the property for their ownership, operation and control. They have declined the offer. It appears that the County did not require that the developer turn the property over to the homeowners, which has resulted in the private ownership of the water and sewer system from the beginning. There has been a poorly defined PUD, that needs to be resolved as far as the intent of the open space/agricultural designation. This proposal would be able to clear up the illegal lot and put some better definition in a portion of the PUD, if the Planning Commission agreed with staff that the open space/agricultural area • • is a transition designation. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Riverbend by the River PUD plan and the amendment with 4 conditions. Tim Thulson, attorney, Debbie Duley, planner with Schmeuser Gordon Meyer and Steve Boat addressed the Commission and commented on ownership of the water system, multi family units, water and sanitation district, aeration of the ponds, and reclamation of the ponds. Calvin Lee told the Commission that he and Debbie Duley are very good friends and if anyone feels that he has a conflict of interest, he would be more than willing to discuss it. Members of the Commission and the applicant said they had no reason to believe Mr. Lee had a conflict of interest. Comments from members of the audience included rental units, lot sizes, density, homeowner's association, easements, regionalization, expansion of the sewer facility, and consolidation of the systems. Discussion from the Commission included fireplaces, dog limits, open space, gross density vs net density, and compatibility with comprehensive plan. Calvin Lee moved to recommend approval of the PUD as submitted, including the multi family and new conditions of the fireplaces, 1 dog limit and sewage treatment facility revegetation. Jim Snyder seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Dave Michaelson told the Commission that fireplace restrictions need to be drafted, and Mark Bean discussed the issue of manufactured homes, and growth meeting scheduled for May 26th at Vail. Meeting adjourned Respectfully submitted, Stacy Ehlers SE/sa STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-2611 FAX (303) 866-2461 September 6, 1995 i. SEP . i i 1995 LeA -iCa_l., r Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 D GA -96-0002 joip1111171riti )EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Roy Romer Governor lames 5. Lochhead Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Vicki Cowart State Geologist and Director Re: Proposed Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision -- West of Newcastle and North of Peach Valley Road (C.R. 214), Garfield County Dear Mr. Bean: At yotir request and in accordance with S.B. 35, we have reviewed the materials submitted for and made a field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision indicated above. The following comments summarize our findings. (1) The general geology of this site consists of older alluvial (stream -deposited), colluvial (mass wasted down slope by gravity), and loess (wind -deposited) deposits which overlie predominantly sand and shale bedrock of the Wasatch Formation. The area is on the south side of the Grand Hogback and drainages originating on it have downcut through these materials and form small ravines and drainageways which dissect the parcel. These drainages can carry relatively heavy flood and debris flows during infrequent heavy rainstorms that occur in the area. (2) The geologic constraints to development of this parcel as planned are moderate to severe, but will be easily surmountable if taken seriously in road -construction plans, structural designs, and locations for structures and other improvements. We strrongly recommend that only the most nearly (naturally) level parts of the proposed lots be used as building sites. The proposed road layout as shown on the submitted topographic map is reasonable considering overall terrain conditions, but the kinds of materials that it will traverse will almost undoubtedly contribute to abnormally high maintenance costs for it. Extreme care should be taken to adequately maintain all drainage -control structures, roads, and driveways in the subdivision. (3) The irrigation ditch which crosses the parcel should be adequately lined so that slopes • • Mr. Mark Bean September 6, 1995 Page 2 below it are not destabilized by excessive infiltration of surface moisture. The same precaution should be taken with respect to landscaping irrigation. (4) Because of the variable "soils" conditions indicated in (1), we recommend that each building site be investigated by a qualified soils and foundation engineer. It is reasonable to anticipate that specialized foundation designs will be necessary for many, if not all, of the lots. If the recommendations made above are followed and made conditions of approval of this subdivision, then we have no geology -related objection to it. Si .cerely, es M Soule ngineering Geologist evils 3 O Board Ross Talbott - Chairman William Montover Sean Mello Tom Voight Gordon Witzke Burning Mountains Fire Protection District Box 236 Silt, Co 81652 y, SEs' 1 • 1995 vl1 U7Y 1 1.�� 7r Don Zordel - Chief Stu Cerise - Assist. Chie September 12, 1995 Rh; Cedar Hills Ranch To Whom It May Concern: After reviewing the plans, I see no sketches of the ponds or dry hydrants that were discussed for fire protection. If these ponds are not going to be upgraded and dry hydrants put in, along with truck access to them, the owner needs to put in fire hydrants on the domestic water system. This will require 6 inch mains and a hydrant so that no house is ever more than 500 feet from a hydrant. Thank you, Donald L. Zordel, re Chief Burning Mountains FPD DLZJms 3/ .00 Board Ross Talbott - Chairman William Montover Sean Mello Tom Voight Gordon Witzke • . Burning Mountains Fire Protection District Box 236 Silt, CO 81652 .�' AUG22,995' f 9(yji JLh L i LD'Ca:"`I Y Don Zordel - Chief Stu Cerise - Assist. Chief August 22, 1995 Subject: Ceder Hill Subdivision on 214 Road To Whom It May Concern: The two ponds within the subdivision should be up graded and one dry hydrant installed at each pond with a large enough turn around for fire trucks to have easy access to them. The first dry hydrant should be installed before housing construction starts and the second by the time half 'the lots have houses on them. Hydrants should be at least 2 1/2". Thank you, `/ r Don Zor District Chief, BMVFD DZ/ms • X1'L11t 1 ro t Native. Atnevican, Consultant P.D. ox. 1257 Glenwood. 8prii- is. CoEotad o 9[£i August 20, 1995 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Commission 109 8th street, Suite 303 Glenwood Spri ngs, Colorado 81602 Dear Mr. Bean: The proposed Cedar Hill sub -division is located just north of county road 214 in the NW 1/4, Sic. *6 of T. 06 S., R. 91 W of the 6 p.m. NE1 /4 of Sec. 1 T.6 S., R. 92 W. of the 6 p.m., in Garfield County in the State of Colorado. A surface resource inventory and Native American consultation for the project was conducted by Kenny Frost, Native American consultant and a member Of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. The purpose is to aid in the identification of any Native American sacred sites and/or any archaeological sites. rr?I Frog:?Ke(?i' The proposed Cedar Hill sub -division area survey is located just north of C.R. 214 with an approximately 5700 feet in elevation. This parcel of land totals approxi motel is 77.5 acres and privately owned by Mr. Clasen. As there are no rie.wl y constructed road or trails within the 'survey area, primary disturbance in the area are games trails made by animals. SY ��}ttfLr Yr r'Til 'r 'c�t'h 7 This area in and around the proposed Cedar Hill s,ub-division is within the heart of Ute Territory and was used as camping area by the Utes in the spring and ww.vi nter months as they traveled across the Flat Tops 1 n the Summer. Farming %dere some of the activities that took place in the late 1800's to present. The field survey %r/as conducted by myself, Beth Giles, an archaeologist, and Mr. Norm Clasen. The terrain has small hill:/, plants such as juniper, dative grays and sage brush can be found on the survey site. 33 • • • The above the ground surveil, Hatry'e American and cultural clearance has been given fur approval on the Cedar Hill 3 ub-division as 110 31 te3 were found. if you have any questions, please feel free to call me at the number listed above on the first page of the report. fICerely Your3, Kenny Native American Consultant alb 3d/ '11 • 1 MEMORANDUM TO: SUBDIVISION REVIEW AGENCIES FROM: MARK BEAN DATE: JULY 31, 1995 RE: CEDARS HILLS RANCH PRELIMINARY PLAN RIVERBEND FILING #5 ., A AUG 0 3 1995 1 GAF -FIELD c(x 1-Y Enclosed is a copy of the CEDAR HILLS RANCI-I AND RIVERBEND FILING #5 PRELIMINARY PLAN submittals. Per the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984 and C.R.S. 30-28-136, 1986, as amended, these documents are provided to you for your review and comment. The Preliminary Plan will be reviewed by the Garfield County Planning Commission on September 13, 1995. In order to have your comments meet the statutory requirements your comments need to be received by this office no later than 21 days after your receive this packet. I appreciate your help. If you have any questions or concerns about this submittal, please feel free to give me a call. ,4('f'2S1 76 Jii16- IL) /%- C) /}1 U;I r A r vl --e:_t ti) LIT/ vc.l_ CJ JA. -42.) .e 1— 1J ✓' J lC/ l C_/2 , /it f> S FUS ?�//moti — E:.r�s ntu�,Ts ✓nu.s7- 13:x. Li /VJ L!rc.,Tl,.fir c J CiZuSS :7_3n4..tyLs Lo 13ui�n_ o,J Lit T _ALVA y /lo,/ A -dna _ ) Fi n- __1 LJ ,;v` 7712_17 L 11 2-P-11 r-Qti A, 7" Lo c2 4 3s= 1 r /--'�--=;�. -% 511L1- -.A1. Ili`•\\ , \ ( r _ ,i\), l I\ . ` "\` }fir ` lsir \ ., •`\- -j ))i�l 1 , 1 STRICTURE IRRIN TION 1)I - V� \�� �� / /If \- - .r V ,\ • Js>T. • 18111-I x "aiiJo 5532.5 - ftilr - WRING CMEDI LINO CO. LLC GNIIEiO COUNTY. CCLCMDO C®AFI l i8 RO CH MANAGE MEM WARE AND HINDS DITCH HON COMM tlCOQIM MO= A 111pA Iin10 pQ TNI 02. PON CIL Tp2 DATE //II/VI nr. #ICIASL r� MO -14 !0 4011037/10 - NOUYN01$30 NISYB - r 1. 0 ■ �q.,nv,.r}gyN11fc�Tr;�,W„'On1M911�- � �-r�•d64' Vx TF'T'P R7xrx• ww,NwT"T4"�Dii �dTs JITSi+MIM� P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 • • Z4NC4NELL4 4141) 4SSOCI4TES ENGINEERING CONSULT4INT5 August 1 1 , 1995 Norm Clasen Cedar Hills Ranch P. O. Box 1155 Basalt, Co 81621 Re: Water Quality Test Results Dear Norm: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax t5,.1995 Gin' Enclosed is a copy of the results of the water quality tests performed on Cedar Hills Ranch ,,Well #3 on June 17, 1995. The high concentrations of sodium and sulfate are not unusual for this area. These parameters exceed the State's recommended standards. We recommend that you notify the potential lot purchasers of the potential problem. An in house R.O. type water treatment system should adequately remove the dissolvbed monerals in the water for drinking purposes. The high turbidity is typical of a new well that has not been pumped on a regular basis and will generally lessen as the well is used. The high turbidity can be treated if necessary with a cartridge filter system. If you have any questions, please call our office at 970-945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. Terri L. Lance Geologist cc: Mark Bean TLL\96213 -31- • 09 ;'8 ' 06 : 45 ID : ? ONCONFI..I .0 & ASSOC;I OTES FOX 303-945-1253 WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT P. O. BOX 1478 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650--147B 625-1887 Officers President 876-2821 Kelly Couey 4745 C.R. 315 Silt, CO 81652 yiee Presldgnt Samuel B. Potter 0598 G.R. 323 Rifle, CO 81650 Treasurer l Werne 5tarbuck 3106 C. R. 342 Silt, CO 81652 Ser.rr,tgryLattr ManAger 625-1807 Russell George, Attorney stuvef 1G Georpe, P.C. P. 0. Box 907 Rifle, CO 81650 August 14, 1995 1. Norm C .sen P. O.' ox 1155 Bas. t, CO 81621 Dear Mr. Clasen: PAGE Board of Directors Kelly Covey 4745 C. R. 315 Silt, CO 81652 William M. 2ilm 0090 Sunlight Dr. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 LsVerne Starbuck 3106 C.R. 342 Silt, CO 81652 Gregory Durrett 926 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Sem+rel B. Potter 0598 C.R. 323 Rifle, GU 81650 On August 9, 1995, the Board reviewed your application for a water allotment contract anc] approved it contingent upon your providing the following: 1. Annexation into the district 2, Providing the District with the name and address of the central system owner 3. Preparation of an augmentation plan When the above requirements executed. Sincerely yours, Russell George Attorney/Water Manager AO,/ O Zancanella & Associates have been met your contract will be 09./28 '95 06:46 ID : ZANt'ANELLA a ASSOCIATES FAX : 30` -945-1253 PACE 3 JUL-24-1995 i1!5 FRr i uuER & GEORGE= P.C. 1. TO 5451253 P.02 ADDENDUM ,f CONTRACT jf HAP 1'!) ,j DATE DIVIDED ADDENDUM West Divide Water Conservancy District Wutelr Allotment Coutrut:l: TATS ADDENDUM by and between the underaignad parties hereto Ls intended Lp 6a on intogro1 putt of that curtuln Water 4110trn nt C!ctitcr'o t - (hereinafter called "Contract") between Said purtioa dined \ i 2_b Go watch this Addendum 4hill be attached end br"c:uwo u puri no if fully act forth in said t:orttracr. 1, rt i4 the intent- of the Applicen herein to oubdivirlo oe otherwise di vide the 1.indi to he sur'vad hy Lim w.iLur obLi iced pursuant to tho contract. 2. It is this, itttant of the: Applicant heroin to divide Lltcr crater and rights Elrtd obligations derived from the Contract: between laud among the parcels so subdivided (JP divided. • 3. The District: etcknowledLes the foregoing LnLt.'ntiuue) of Applicant and approvers tied accepts sante, sub.luct: to, t:hu conditions set forth Itorein, 4. Applicant shell be reguirod to filo in application in wi"itri.ttij to District: for each snbdi.vis.Lon or division nett:irt}, larch tlta legal description of tho new pencil, tho num° and 'address of tho porson responsible for compi 1 sacra with this nprc:c:moni: with r'taeipect Lo uid now parcel, and Ltto porLi(n of t:tie wetter being the subject. huruuL trhiutt is to l.i cttitif{;tte7d Lo Ea id new ilarct'1. 5. Said application chail be fi 1e,1 c.,t tho feral the District. ltx•nvi toil {,y ta. Applicant; ah;tl.t submit, with oniti npp.tie-at1441, bila tA)rrec:L iici required by tet: DiNtrit:t lot j,r'ctc_c:;,nitt{; the application for division. 7. !]Rope the division shall Lo blipr::vc;d by L1,tt f►iwt.rS.t.a , aaa.d application must also bear the tngnaLure of the liropolied LuCC.tmior t.o applieout- ctllct silt( to a:auuwu ,and liu bound by dict tunes and conditions of t.ht- Contr'ttct and this Addendum. ti. Upon sral1;at'.9cr.ury cumpl ittrti:e by Applicant" mid 1.tLa s,uCCctntlor with Che fQru{luing ruclulLuwcLit::, Ditit.ra.ct shall approve the division and talttail give: mattes thereof LL' bath Applicant and Said aucctrsiwr. 9. Upon such tipp(uval hy 1)i.:tt r.ir.r:, the Contract shall he deemed to he divided. Applic.ttttt ttltt,11. ttt:rr_ aLer ho tt'sponstble of '4 -34- • • 09.23 '95 06:46 III : 2 iNC(1NELLc & ASSOCIATES RV:202-945-1252 3c 3-945-1253 PAGE 4 JUL_-241-1995 11;36 F•RI ,JtQUER & GEORGE P.C. TO 9451253 P.03 4ea1. Divide Water Conservancy 1llta1rict ADDENDUM Watar Allotment Contract Addnndum CONTRACT t9 Page. 2 of 2 DATE DIVIDED 1. for purfortnttnc:e of t ha Contract only a :Jame '::Mites Co the remainin8 undivided portion. The ;.a;rccouttor rthall thereafter Do responsible for pctr('utw.(ULU ul LLo (A„t(:r.u.L util.y ab st]re relates to the divided portion. A breach by ono party to a divided contract shall be dumucd to be a broach only o1L' that portion of the t;Antracc Cor which that pult:y lb; rt ponsiible and shall 110 be dctntnoc.l to be a broach crf the portions of the Contract for which other non-du.fault iii prirLic9 are responsible. 10. Afet:r one or inure such diviuion:; have bean made of the Cont:reel and the water and i.tiyltts and responsibilities relating thereto, the Contract shall be dammed to be enforceable and to extet in counLer•purt a. Thar.' sho1.1 be its many counter- parts as there are diviwiotte of the Contract, Each counter- part tnCc:thor with thin Addendum end t:a} at:her with the ebovct-.mentioned Application and asst.0 pl:lon and approval, doc'.uwontsy shall, consLituve the entire ngreetuertt between Dit Lrict and each party rccspbneiblo for performance of; each counterpart and * hall het ['hiding and enforceable separately from other counterparts. SIGNATURES of the Parties hereto: Applicant; STATE Ob' COLORADO ) iia. =WV O1.' GARFIELD ) 1'ne fore:guit'tg Addtsnduritwas tst':Icnuwlut)F1utt I,t;fure top on Litt.; 26 cloy Of �fu r 19951.41 Tor:- Lanc7o Wi [none my hand thiel. official 6e'11. My CouultiNjf)tl Exttitut; Nlort:lh H Not -Ly kepub1ic. AA -4 ---TLP l9 9 cj C)R IJE;k AttAr n Kiraring by Lite Bawd of Di ro:•.i.u: s ;,f Ott! L ii I)i.v fele* Watur Zcx,exu�ancy l�lt:ti1ct OR tai* above., Addra dun, it: is h reby OldIP4,FD Uric mid Addo Klatt Its Ey:ani J and a LCpL8i as part of thm orit;intit GIxiex' £Lloimoiit CrinL�.nck 'oft::•rrod in 11', 1n by tie District. A1IJ ST: Socrcrtery WMT i)iVlltl, LJA't'ii'E; CONSERVANCY DIS`t'RTCT By: Dato: 19 2 of 2 Preui.dent l i]'I fll_ P.0.3 09/28 '95 06:47 ID:ZANCONELLA & ASSOCIATES FAX:303-945-1253 contract_ No. 11,11) I I) 1),i1 e Act 1V,11 et! . APPLICATION AND DATA FORM 1() LEASE WATER FROM WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT A. APPI,1 CANT Name Address P.0. fiox 115 Basalt, Cn 10621 Telephone Number 970/ 927.7.*J43, Authorized Agent or Representative N. sAI'I:j UiGNI' ()NII Il'l' A 1111, 1 CANT ()1 12 C(`41,11' 111 1 I h 1,111(•11 IN/01 I Type c) 1 t;t_rtietitru ()r N1 (1111 Wolh; PAGE Locati.on nt PoInt of Diveruion ?Jil:?ui!di ) A 0!..t.dt:h(ld Water Court Case NO. . . Well Permit 1. C. INTENDED USE OF LEASED WATER, Location of Area ot Use 01 Township 6 South Rancla„.92,Most_Section_l_and.Wi. NW:l...of_Townhip 6 South Dos61iption of Ut;(2 • DOMQ 1.1 C a . CTLYAMIJM 14, Range 91 Wei. Setc. Number of 0wel 1 .1 nq t1Iits 20 TOtal Acreage Proponed Potable Wator SysLom Tho Water sys Lem wi 1 1 serve up to twenty singlc family units from o contrill waLor sywilom. Pintio:;ed tv,i;;1 i• T 1 i 1 iii:11'111 1 r Projected Monthly Volume of koaued Water Needed In nalIons: aim._ 0.67 Vol.). r. J 1 junc fl '7)6 Mil Auci . , 07 Nov . _11_6.4 I:)oc Annual Total Gal 1 ons Maximum Inntantaneous Demuud 1). OTNER 1nmAuvr3 Ti41-1,7"1+ A[.>I0.70 0 1 'Y_.0 9,3... 04:71...n.7 3 Acre Veyt- • 9 , *..). 3 / 1 (>1 At,tut,. (»• iv 09/28 '95 06:47 s. • • 10: ZANCANELLA & ASSOCIATES FAX :303-:945-1253 PAGE Contract ! Map ID 0 Date Activated WEST DIVIDN WA'T'ER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Water Allotment Contract Name of Applicants Norm Clasen Quantity of water in acre feet ,9.23 ApPllcant, hereby applies to the West Divide Water Conservancy District, a political subdlvlulon of the State of Colorado, organized pursuant to and existing by virtue of C.R.S. 1973, 37-45-101., et dhq., (hereinafter referred to aa the "District") for an allotment Contract to beneficially and perpetually ueo water or water tights owned, leased, or hereafter acquired by the District. By execution of thlu application, and subsequent delivery and use of water, Applicant hereby agrees to the following terms and conditions: 1. Water licjhtat Applicant- shall own water rights at the point of cflvera`Ion heroin lawfully entitling Applicant to divert water, which will be supplemented by water Teased herein, If Applicant intends to divert through a well, it must be understood by Applicant that no right to divert exists until a valid well permit is Obtained from the State Engineer. 2. uantityj Water applied for by the Applicant in the amount set ort Above shall be diverted at Applicant's point of diversion from the District's direct flow water rights, and when water is unavailable for diversion pursuant to administration .by the Colorado State Engineer during perloda when said direct flow water right le not in priority, the District shall release Por the use of Applicant up to said quantity in acre -feat per year of storage water owned or controlled by the District. It ie understood that any quantity allotted from direct flow, eteraye or otherwise, to the Applicant by the District will be limited by the priority of the District's decrees and by the phyaioal and legal availability of water from District's sources. Any quantity allotted will only be provided no long an water is available and the Applicant fully complies with al) of thu Lerma and conditions of thlu contract. The District and the Applicant rocuynlze that some of the nietrict'e decrees may be le the name of the Colorado River Water Conservation bistrlct, and the ability of the District to allot direct flow rights to the Applicant may bo dependent on the consent of the Colorado River Water Conservation District. If et any time the Applicant determines it raquiree less water than the amount herein provided, it may ao notify the Dietrlct in writing, and the amount of water allotted under this contract shall be reduced permanently in accordtnee with ouch notice. Rates nhall be adjusted accordingly in followlny water yearn only. 3. Beneficial use and Location of Beneficial Use: Any and all water allotted Applfeantyby te hbistrfeEEal)aTi- a used for the following beneficial use or uses: Municipal, domestic and related usee, or irrigation and commercial (except to the extent that. Ruedi water may not be available for irrigation and commercial aa those terms are defined on page 5 of Contract No. 2-07-70-W0547 between the United States and the West Divide Water Coneervancy District), Applicant's beneficial use of any and all water allotted ehall be within or through faailltieas or upon land owned, leased, operated, or under Applicant's control. 4. Decrees and Delivery: Exchange releases made by the District out of storage from meds Reservoir, or other works or facilities of the District, or from other oourcee available to tha District, shall be delivered to the Applicant at the outlet works of oaid storage facilities or nt the decreed point of -1- • • 09/28 '95 06:48 I D : ZON ONELLN 3 03SOC I OTES FOX :303-945-1253 PPOE 1. diversion for pail other sources, an -1 release or delivery of water et such outlets or points shell constitute performance of the District's total obligation. Delivery of water by the District from Ruedi Reservoir shall ba subject to the District's loaae contract with the United States bureau of Reclamation. Releases from other faoilitioe available to District shall bo uubjoct to the contracts, lawn, rules, and regulations governing releaeoa therefrom. Furthorrnoro, tho District hereby exprooely r000rveu the right to store water and to make exchange releases from structures that may be built or controlled by the Dlutrict in the future, so long as the water service to the Applicant pursuant to this agreement, is not impaired by said action. Any quantity of the Applicant's allocation not delivered to or used by Applicant by the end of each water year (October 1), shall revert to the water supplies of the District. Such reversion shall not entitle Applicant to any refund of payment made for such water. Water service provided by the District shall bo limited to the amount of water' available in priority at the original point of diversion of the District's applicable water right, end neither tho District, nor those entitled to utilize the District's decrees, may call on any greater amount at new or alternate points of diversion, The District shall request the Colorado State Engineer to estimate any conveyance losses between the original point and any alternate point, and ouch eatimato shall be deducted from thle amount in each case. The Dletrict, or anyone using the District's decrees, may call on any additional sources of supply that may be available at an alternate point of diversion, (though not at the original point of diversion) only au against water rights which are junior to the date of application for the alternate point of diversion, 5. Alternate Point of Diversion and Flan of Augmentation: Decrees for alternate po1nta oT Tver�eian of the Diatrictra water rights or storage waEnr may be required in order for Applicant to use the water service contemplated hereunder. Obtaining such decree is the exclueive reeponuiblli.ty of Applicant. The District resorvou the exclusive right to review and approve any conditions which may be attached to judicial approval of said alternate point of diversion as contemplated or necessary to serve Applicant's facilities or lands. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be solely responaible for the procedures and legal and engineering costa necessary for any changes in water rights contemplated herein, and further agrees to indemnify the District from any costa or losses related thereto. Applicant is solely responsible for providing works and facilities neceeeary to obtain/divert the waters et oaid alternate point of diversion and deliver them to Applicant's intended beneficial 000. Irrespective of the amount of water actually transferred to the Applicant's point of diversion, the Applicant shall make annual payments to the District based upon the amount of water allotted under this agreement. In tho event the Applicant intends to apply for an alternate point of diversion and to develop an Augmentation plan and institute legal proceo.lingn for the approval of ouch augmentation plan to allow the Applicant to utilize the wator allotted to Applicant hereunder, the Applicant shall give the District written notice of such intent, In the event the Applicant develops and adjudicates its own augmentation plan to utilize (:ho wator allotted horounder, Applicant shall not be obligated to pay any amount under paragraph 1B below. In any event, the District shall have the right to approve or disapprove the Applicant's augmentation plan and the Applicant shall provide the District copies of ouch plan and of all pleadingn and other papers filed with the water court in the adjudication thereof. 6. Contract Pnymenti Non-refundable, onto time administrative chargo,"in the amount determined by the Board of Direotore of the District from time to time, shall bo submitted with this application for considoration by the District. -2- • • 09.23 '95 06:49 ID : Z(INCANELLA G ASSOCIATES FAQ'; : 803-945-1253 PAGE 3 ,f. Annual payment Co' the water service deacrlhed herein shall to determined by the hoard of Directors of the District at a per acre-foot rate. The initial annual payment Shall be made, in full, within thirty (JO) days after the ,late of notice to the Applicant that the initial payment is due. Said notice will advise the Applicant, among other thin.7ea, of the water delivery year to which the initial payment aha11 apply and the price which is applicable Lo that year. Annual payments for each year Lhereefter shall be due and payable by the Applicant on or before each daneurry A. if an annual payment: 10 not made by they due date, written notice thereof will be sent by the Watt -let to Lhu Applicant at such address, ria may be designated by the Applicant in writing. (If no address hao been ao deelenated in writing, then said notice shall be Dent to Applicant's adelruse set forth herein. Water use Eor any part of a water year shall require payment fur the entire water year. Nothing herein nhall he construed so as to prevent the District from adjusting the annual rate in its solo disetetiOn for future: yearn only. 1t payment in not made within len (11)) day:3 after the date of said written notice, Applicant stern uL biutciet'u uule option have no further right, title of intereul under this contract without further notice and delivery may be immediately curtailed; and Lllo allotment of water, au herein mach!, may be Lrane erred, leaned, or otherwise disposed of at Lhu discretion of Lhe nnard of Directors of the Din1riet. 7. Security: As security to Lhe District, the foregoing covenant of annual paymenle In advance of water delivery, will be fully met by annual hudyet and appropriation of funds from such aourcea of revenues as may bo legally available to the Applicant. As additional security to the District, the Applicant will hold harmless the Idot:r1ct and any person, corporation, quasi-clovernmental entity, or other ejuverlunenLal entity, for discontinuance in service due to the failure of Lhe .T}pplicant to maintain the payments herein contemplated on a current bask. Applicant agrees to defray any nut -of -pocket; expenuccl incurred by tha Dieltr1ct in connection with Lhu allotment or water rights hereunder, including, but not .limited to, telneburueme:nL of legal and eneineeriny costs Incurred in ceeeect.Jon with any water rights and adjudication noceivary to allow Apl.licant'1 Duo of suuh allotted water rights. 8. _Asal9nment.__ This agreement shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, eucceanore or assigns of the paciiou hereto, except that no eusienmenl ohall be permitted in the event the water right allotted hereunder is Lo be euee] fur the benefit of land which w11.1 be 0ubdlvided or otherwlue hu1ti or owned in separate, ownership lnlarenl:n by two (2) or more entire of the water right allotted hereunder. In nn event ulurll the owner of a portion, but lune than all, of the Appilennt'u property to be served under thle oontrect, have any tights hereunder. Any assignment of the Applicant's rights under this contract shall bo subject to, and must comply with, ouch requirement9 as the District may hereafter adopt regardin9 assignment of contract rights and the assumption of Contract obi iyotlunu by aaaigneea and 5uceocsors. Nothing herein ohall prevent euccenoor, to a portion of Applicant's property from applying to the nlutrict for individual and separate allotment contra4Lc. 9. Other Rubes; Applicant shall be bound by the provisions or Ehe 'Watr•r'i'iinservaney ACL of Coloradoi by the rules and regulatione of the board of Directors of the District, and all amendments thereof and supplements thereto artd by all other applicable law. 11). ope,ratlon and Maintenance Agreemesntt Applicant *hall enter inrii a," i -Operal:liiit chit Miiinhiiiilni:e ATi ee:meilt" with the District under terms; ,and cnn.i1tlenn determined by the hoard of Directors of the l.)intrl.ct, I1 and when, the Hoard of Bald I)luLrlcl -3- • • 09'28 '95 06:49 10: ZANCANELLA & ASSOCIATES FAK:303-9L15-1253 PAGE 9 deterrnlnee in its sole discretion that such an agreement is required. Said ayreement may contain, hut shall not be limited to, provlalons for additional annual monetary consideration for ext•ene1on of Dietriot delivery servlcee and for• additional administration, operation, and maintenance coats/ or for other coBLs to the D1t1trlel which may arine through serviuos, modo uvai1ahlu to the Applicant• 11. r,'h_ahge_ tat Dee: The nist:ricL ruvervea the exclusive right to review, reapJiroo ve r dia,approve any prupoe3ed change in use of the water allotted hereunder. Any use other then that set forth herein or any lease or sale of the water or water r1yhtta allotted hereunder without the prior written approval of the District shall be deemed to be a material broach of this contract. 12. tloe and Pince of tlsel Applicant eyreee to urto Lhu water in the manner Llie tiropecty described in the documents submitted to the District at the time titin agreement is executed (said documents are incorporated herein by Lille reference thereto), or in any open,tion and maintenance oyreement provided by Applicant. Any use other than as sot forth thereon or any leasee or sale of the water or water ri.lhte herein, other than se permitted in paragraph B above, cha.11 be deemed Lo be a material breach of this agreement. 13. 'title; 1t iu understood and .aareecl that nothing herein shall. he Tnterpreted to give the Applleaut any equitable or legal fee title intertest in or to any water or water tights referred to heroin. 14. Conservation: Applicant (shat] urie commonly t• accepted conservation practieeta with respect to the water and water rights herein, and hereby egrues to be bound by any conservation plan adopted hereafter by the District for Ice of District owned er 4nntrolled water or water riyh1u. 15. Restrictions: Applicant shall restrict: ',Heti as follows (unlesu iipocrirc waiv'era ore appended to Lhia ayreemeet). Violation of these restrictions shall be deemed Lo be a material ,breach of this agreement. Use Annual M ximum Divoroion ilounelaold I)ome)tic (includes lawn) bive;;Lock (cattle) Irrigation 1/3 acre foot l -- 3 acre feet 1 acre Lout/) 00 head 2 ! ,cert tact/ar:re 16. Well Permit: If Applicant intends to divert through a well, then Applicant must provide to District a copy of Applicant's valid well permit before Diotrict is obligated to deliver any water hereunder. 17, eeprcoentations; By executing this agreement, Applicant eyr,ees that he is not relying on any legal or engineering advice that he may believe he has received from the Diestrict. Applicant further acknowle,4ns that he has obtained all necessary legal and engineering advice from his own soureoe other than the District. Applicant further acknowledges that the District makes no guarantees, warranties, or aaeureneee whatsoever about the quantity or quality of water available pursuant to this agreement. 'Should the niatrict he unable to provide the water COntracled for herein, no dancayea may be ast;eesed against the District, nor may Applicant oht•nln A refund !rem the rafetrict. 10, Cnntn of W;,tu, ('curt 1' 1 In•J !;bunt.( the I7i,t1 r Icl. ie itn own dlectetioit;- chuuOu'Lo' inc:lu.lu eppl lcan1'u contract herein in a water court filing Cor alternate point of tllveculon Or plan of augmentation, then Applica,at hereby agree© to pay to the District, when tteuessed, an additional fee reprcrentinri the nistriet'e actual and reasonable costs lead Cines for APpl1c:ant'u abate of the proceeding. J V � 09.25 '95 06:50 • 1 ID:ZANCANELLA . ASSOCI('TES FllX:303-945-1253 PAGE 10 19. Binding Agreements Thin Agreement shall not ba complete nor bTaLng Upon tFe p skrict unions attached hereto In the form entitled "Application tor Purchase of Waters from the West Divide Water Conservancy District" fully completed by Applicant and approved by the District's engineer. Said attachments shell by this reference hereto be lneorpocatud into the terms of this agreement. 20. Warntrj s I'1` IS THE SOLE 1II:SPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO 0W1tXT4--h VTLIU WELL PERMIT OR O'rIIi:R WATER RIGA' IN ORDER TO DIVERT WATER, INCLUDING THE WATER ACQUIRED) UNDER Tl1IIl CONTRACT. I'2 IS THE CONTINUING DUTY OF THE APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN THE VALIDITY OF THE WELL PERMIT OR WATER RIGHT INCLUDING FILING I0R EXTENSIONS OF PERMITS, FILING WELL COMPLETION REPORTS, FIDINO STATEMENTS OF BENEFICIAL USE, OR OTHERWISE LAWFULLY APPLYING THEWATER TO BENEFICIAL USE ON A REGULAR BASIS Wx tWOT WASTE. APPLICANT' „' ny APPLICANT AODRESSr P.O. I3ox 1155 13 t 't 1 t: , CO 81621 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) Ba. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before mo on thin 26 day of July . . , 19.9.,5 by'. el i Lan .:2 Witness my hand and official seal_ My commission expires: Meir 711 8, 19W))3n ---1- My "1'(Ih1{sr' ORDER AC Ler a hearing by thu Board uC Directors or' the We{it Divide Water Conservancy District on the above application, it is hereby ORDERED that said application be granted and thin c(ntncct nhall he and in accepted by Lho Diotrict. WEST (DIVIDE WATER COIJ:.LRVANCY Dlr.'I'1lICT 13y ATTEST; PrevTcient .acre cry Date This contract includes and in subject to the termn And conditions of the following documents which must accompany Ibis contract: 1. Map showing location of poinL of. diversion (uso (nap provided) 2. App.licatior, and Data Farm lul ly completed had olyned 3. Other -5- 09/2- '95 06:50 • ID:ZANCANELLA k ASSOCIATES FAX:303-945-1253 PGE 11 APPENDIX A The Cedar Hills Ranch Weil 111 is located at a point whence the SE 1/4 of the NE %4 of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the Gth P.M. bears a distance of North 22° 58' East for a distance of 2635.34 feet, The Well can be approximately plotted 2310 feet from the North Section Line and 1264 feet from the East Section Line. The Cedar Hills Ranch Well #J 2 is located at a point whence the SE 1/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. boors a distance of North 09° 02' 25" East for a distance of 2190.14 foot. Tho Wall can be approximately plotted 2161 feet from the North Section Line and 363 foot from the East Section Line. Tho Cedar Hills Ranch Well /13 is located at o point whence tho SE '/ of the NE 'A of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the Gth P.M. bears a distance of North 22° 18' 23" East for a distance of 2475.21 feet. The Well can be approximately plotted 2283 feet from the North Section Line and 951 feet from the East Section Line, The Cedar Mills Ranch backup well is located at a point whence the SE 1/4 of the NE %. of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. bears a distance of North 21° 18' 26" East for a distance of 2563.01 feet. The WeII can be approximately plotted 2381 feet from the North Section Line and 942 feet from the East Section Line. 1