HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationEDWARD MULHALL, JR.
SCOTT BALCOMB
LAWRENCE R. GREEN
TIMOTHY A. THULSON
DAVID C. HALLFORD
CHRISTOPHER L. COYLE
THOMAS J. HARTERT
CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER
ANNE MARIE MCPHEE
AMANDA N. MAURER
DEBORAH DAVIS*
SARA M. DUNN
ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN
NEW YORK AND MISSOURI
• •
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. 0. DRAWER 790
818 COLORADO AVENUE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
Telephone: 970.945.6546
Facsimile: 970.945.8902
-;; x .balcombgreen.com
�:_:
JUL 3 0 2004
t fit. 4.L1?
COUNTY
Y
BUILDING I& NLANN!,;u1y 30, 2004
VIA HAND DELIVERY TO:
Fred Jarman, Senior Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8`'' Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision
Dear Fred:
OF COUNSEL:
KENNETH BALCOMB
JOHN A. THULSON
I have enclosed with this letter two copies of a completed Application for a Text
Amendment to the Blue Creek Ranch PUD Zoning Resolution which I have revised to contain a
request for two zone text amendments:
1. The first requested amendment will recognize that the existing accessory dwelling
unit on Lot 1 is an allowed use; and
2. The second requested amendment will make it clear that the definition of "barn"
as a use by right within the Private Common Open Space Zone District includes up to four (4)
storage barns as described in the Application.
The Application contains the following:
1. The completed Text Amendment to Zone District / Zoning Resolution Application
form.
2. Attachment A, which describes the requested amendment with regard to the Lot 1
ADU and which includes a copy of my letter to you dated June 22, 2004 in which I first raised this
issue, as well as a copy of Resolution No. 2002-82.
• •
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Fred Jarman
July 30, 2004
Page 2
3. Attachment B, which describes the requested amendment regarding the storage barn
and which includes two sheets of architectural drawings of the proposed storage barns.
4. A statement from Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC authorizing me to submit and
pursue this Application on its behalf.
5. A copy of the Deed by which Blue Creek Land Holdings took title to the Blue Creek
Ranch property and a copy of the Garfield County Assessor's map showing the Blue Creek Ranch
property.
6. Our check in the amount of $300.00 which we understand to be the applicable base
fee for this Application.
I look forward to working with you as this Application is processed. As always, I am at
your convenience to answer any questions you may have or to provide you any additional
information you may require.
LRG:bc
Encls.
cc: Gavin Brooke, via facsimile 704-9006
Very truly yours,
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
Lawrence R. re
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470
www.garfield-county.com
Text Amendment to Zone District / Zoning Resolution
GENERAL INFORMATION
(To be completed by the applicant.)
➢ Name of Applicant (Property Owner): Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC
➢ Address: 3220 County Road 100 Telephone: (970) 704-9006
➢ City: Carbondale State: Colorado Zip Code: 81623 FAX: (970) 704-9006
➢ Name of Representative, if any (Planner, Attorney, etc):
Lawrence R. Green, Balcomb & Green, P.C.
➢ Address: P.O. Drawer 790 / 818 Colorado Avenue Telephone: (970) 945-6546
➢ City: Glenwood Springs State: CO Zip Code: 81602 FAX: (970) 945-9769
➢ Specific Section of County Zoning Resolution of 1978 or PUD to be amended:
1. The underlined portions of Garfield County Resolution No. 2002-82 dated
September 12, 2002. The language to be interlineated is reflected at Paragraphs
(1) and (2) of Attachment A.
2. Modify Paragraph 20 of Resolution No. 2002-82 to clarify that "Barn" as a use
by right in the Private Open Space Zone District includes up to four (4) storage
barns for the storage of private personal property to be owned as Common
Elements by the Homeowners Association, as well as traditional agricultural
barns.
➢ Purpose for the proposed text amendment:
1. Is reflected at Paragraph (3) of Attachment A.
2. Is reflected at Paragraph (2) of Attachment B.
➢ Doc. No.:
➢ Planner:
STAFF USE ONLY
Date Submitted: TC Date:
Hearing Date:
• •
I. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
This Application applies to owners of real property in Garfield County who desire to 1) amend, add, or delete
specific text in the County Zoning Resolution, and 2) amend, add, or delete text of an approved zone district
in the Zoning Resolution or an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD).
As a minimum, specifically respond to all the following items below and attach any additional information to
be submitted with this application:
1. Submit a cover letter containing a detailed narrative describing the proposed amendment to an
approved zone district including an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) or text of the
Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. This narrative should describe the overall purpose of
the amendment and the specific sections of the resolution are to be amended.
2. Submit a copy of the deed, legal description, and copy of the County Assessor's Map of the
real property, owned by the Applicant in Garfield County, which will be affected by such change.
3. If you are acting as an agent for the property owner, you must attach an acknowledgement
from the property owner that you may act in his/her behalf.
4. Submit payment of the $300.00 Base Fee: Applicant shall sign the "Agreement for Payment"
form and provide the fee with the application.
5. Submit 2 copies of this completed application form and all the required submittal materials to
the Building and Planning Department. Staff will request additional copies once the application
has been deemed technically complete.
11. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
(An amendment to an approved zone district or text of the Zoning Resolution is considered a two
step process because it is first reviewed by the Planning Commission which makes a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissions. The following steps outline how the Text
Amendment application review process works in Garfield County.)
1. Submit this completed application form (pages 1-4), base fee, and all submittal requirements to
the Garfield County Planning Department. It will be received and given to a Staff Planner who
will review the application for technical completeness.
2. Once the application is deemed technically complete, the Staff Planner will send you a letter
indicating the application is complete. In addition, the letter will indicate the dates and times
scheduled for your request to be heard before the Planning Commission during a public
meeting (no notice required) and the Board of County Commissioners during a public hearing
(notice required). The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners to be considered during a properly noticed public hearing. Staff will
send you the appropriate "Public Notice Form(s)" indicating the time and date of your public
hearing and will provide you with a Staff Memorandum regarding your request. (If Staff
determines your application to be deficient, a letter will be sent to you indicating that additional
information is needed to deem your application complete.)
3. It is solely the Applicant's responsibility to ensure proper noticing occurs regarding the public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. If proper notice has not occurred, the
public hearing will not occur. Notice requirements are as follows:
• •
a. Notice by publication, including the name of the applicant, description of the
subject lot, a description of the proposed amendment and nature of the hearing,
and the date, time and place for the hearing shall be given once in a newspaper of
general circulation in that portion of the County in which the subject property is
located at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of
such hearing, and proof of publication shall be presented at hearing by the
applicant.
4. The Applicant is required to appear before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners at the time and date of the public meeting / hearing at which time they will
consider the request. In addition, the Applicant shall provide proof at the hearing before the
Board of County Commissioners that proper notice (publication) was provided.
5. Once the Board of County Commissioners makes a decision regarding the request, Staff will
provide the Applicant with a signed resolution memorializing the action taken by the Board.
Following the Boards' approval, this office will make the approved changes to the Zoning
Resolution.
I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information which is
correct and accurate to the best of my kno -dge.
ature of applicant/• ner)
19a p / L -Z --c,0 le
Last Revised: 06/08/2004
i/30/0
Date
• •
Attachment A
to
Text Amendment to PUD / Zoning Resolution
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Unit on Lot 1, Blue Creek Ranch
Dated June 24, 2004
1) The first paragraph below the Resolution's caption should be amended to read as
follows:
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County,
Colorado, received a Preliminary Plan and Planned Unit Development
(PUD) application from WindRiver, LLC to develop the Blue Creek Ranch
property by subdividing the 81 acre site into 48 residential lots, plus the
ADA on Lot 1, of which nine (9) lots shall be developed with deed -
restricted affordable housing units and rezone the site from A/R/RD to
(PUD); and ... .
2) The paragraph below Paragraph 5 on page two of the Resolution should be amended
to read as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Garfield County, that based on the determination of
facts set forth above, the subdivision (Preliminary Plan) and Planned Unit
Development request is approved to allow for development of the Blue
Creek Ranch Property by subdividing the 81 acre site into 48 residential
lots, plus the ADU on Lot 1, of which nine (9) lots shall be developed with
deed -restricted affordable housing units and rezoning the site from
A/R/RD to (PUD) with the following conditions:
[... conditions follow...
3) Purpose for the proposed text amendment: To correct a scrivener's error which
occurred in the drafting of the above -referenced Resolution. The error referred to was
the statement that the 81 acre site was to be subdivided into 49 residential lots instead
of 48 residential lots plus an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on Lot 1. The statement
Applicant seeks to correct does not accurately reflect the PUD/Preliminary Plan
Application's (the "Application") requested approval for the existing ADU on Lot 1.
See, for example the statement on page 3 of the Application which says: "Lot 1 also
includes an existing accessory dwelling unit." See, also, Sheet 3 of the Application,
entitled "PUD Map," which clearly depicts the existing main house and outbuildings,
including the "residence" on Lot 1. Additionally all of the unit counts throughout the
Application assume 49 units, which includes one unit for each of the 48 proposed
lots, plus the existing ADU on Lot 1.
Similarly, the staff acknowledged the Application was seeking approval for the
existing ADU on Lot 1. See, for example, Page 19 of the Staff Report dated July 10,
2002. All discussion by the staff and the Applicant at the various public hearings on
the Application likewise acknowledged the existence of the ADU on Lot 1.
N:ACoate\Cli
Aline Creek Lot 24\Attachment to Text Amendment to Lone District.doc
• •
t
R
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Blue Creek Ranch
Dear Madam or Sir:
We own the property in Garfield County, Colorado known as Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision which
was granted Final Plat approval by the Board of County Commissioners on February 18, 2003. The
PUD for Blue Creek Ranch was approved in Garfield County Resolution No. 2002-82.
Minor ambiguities in the zone text language of Resolution No. 2002-82 have now come to our
attention. We therefore desire to request two minor text amendments to Resolution 2002-82 in order
clarify those ambiguities. We hereby authorize Lawrence R. Green and his firm, Balcomb & Green,
P.C., to submit and prosecute an application for a text amendment to Garfield County Resolution
No. 2002-82 on our behalf. Please correspond directly with Mr. Green on all matters regarding the
referenced application.
Very truly yours,
BLUE CREEK LAND 0 1 i GS, LLC
Gavin Brooke, Authorized Representative
3220 County Road 100 * Carbondale, CO 81623 * Phone: (970) 704-9007 * Fax: (970) 704-9006
07/30/2004 15:58 FAX 9709454784 LTG-GLENWOOD SPRINGS
1 111111 11111 111111 VIII 11111111111111111111111f111111
97 ALSDORF
1 1of 4 R 20 ee 0®3ARFI
78 0 10 E D COUNTY CO
QUIT CLAIM DEED
THIS DEEM, made this 28th day of September
WILLIAM J GILLIGAN AND .IAYNE M. GILLIGAN
grantor, wI' se street address is:
3400 ADAM: ROAD, OAK BROOK, IL 60523
County of _ , State of Illinois
of Ten Doll Irs and other good and valuable consideration " Dollars in hand paid,
hereby sell; and quitclaims to:
BLUE CREF { LAND HOLDINGS, L.L.C., A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
•
•
, 2000 between
, for the consideration
grantee. wi Ise street address is:
19351 HIGH"'JAY 82, CARBONDALE, CO 81623
County of °arfield
described v ater rights:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF
State of Colorado
, the following legally
Appurtenar to:
SEE EXHIBi i "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF.
Sign ,day
WI L71tA.[vt J e17
rst above writen.
JAYNE M.C: IGAN
State of Illi-,ots
County of &IL
)ss.
The forego ng instrument was acknowledged before me this 28th
2000 by WILLIAM J. GILLIGAN AND JAYNE M. GILLIGAN
Witness m'. hand and official seal.
My comm; sionx re,__`�„�
EAL
Ft TA M Wil ifrkeco[1
t'IO-riorr yi1C '?1 f,i5 '',s it :.10016
M\ CO -16::`50'x:..; ar'IHERv,,:191
04
<�*►,
i.r.rs,,.tivo.v
2
Form WATERLOG" (6.8-99)
d Return to:
day of September
04,44e
Nnrar , Pnhlir
A8 rn UsTriG$
OAC /.etae Ce..tirl - /oK S/�erw�e.: Rc0
/Uor±& rook L L to ooh 1-
/Wel 14r -141Q r S:Aili'Pr
Zj002/005
07/30/2004 15:58 FAX 9709454784 LTG-GLENWOOD SPRINGS 0003/005
•
1II11111111 111E
11111111111111111111111111111I1111
reel09/209.00.02GRFIEL1D CTY CO
EXHIBIT "A"
WATER RIGHTS
•
1. 26 /150`h of all right, title and interest originally acquired by T.O. Ranch
Co npany of Colorado in and to Basin Ditch No. 45, under original Priority Nos.
49 ,nd 108, that being an amount of 0.176 c.f.s. in each priority, and 26.51150'h
intt rest in 33.2 c.f.s. under Priority No. 294, that being 5.865 c.f.s, (said original
intk rest in T.O. Ranch Company of Colorado being an undivided 1/5 interest in
ant to said Priority Nos. 49 and 108).
2. An.undivided 11/381h interest in and to all right, title and interest originally
acc uired by T.O. Ranch Company of Colorado in and to Middle Ditch No. 68,
un<er original priority No. 83, that being 0.96 c.f.s., (said original interest of T.O.
Ra ch Company of Colorado being an undivided 2/3 interest therein).
3. 37, ?6`h interest of all right, title and interest originally acquired by T.O. Ranch
Co npany of Colorado in and to Lower Ditch No. 21 under original priority No.
23. that being 0.365 c.f.s., (said original interest of T.O. Ranch Company of
Co :orado being an undivided one-half interest in and to priority No. 23). and a
45; :, 34th interest as to priority No. 721, that being 3.996 c.f.s., (said interest being
the entire original interest acquired by T.O. Ranch Company of Colorado).
4. Un ierground water rights in "T.O. Well," identified as Colorado State Engineer's
No 10560, with priority date of June 5. 1961. described in Case No. W-849, in
the District Court in and for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado, estimated to
be 1.11 c.f.s.
AL of applicant William J. Gilligan's right, title and interest in and to the
C.( .Cerise Gilligan Ditch, decreed for 3.0 c.f.s. in Case No. 90W196 in Water
Di• ision No. 5 on August 31, 1992, with an appropriation date of February 20,
I9" 8.
07/30/2004 15:58 FAX 9709454784
1of 111111 ILII 111111VIII111111111IIIItIII1111I11l1111
370004 RR929 000D0.00a ARFIELD COUNTY OSDORF
LTG-GLENW001) SPRINGS Z004/005
EXHIBIT 8
•
A PARCEL F LAND SITUATED IN THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT LOTS 1, 2, 6, 7, 11
AND THE N-^RTHEAST QUARTER SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH,
RANGE 87 -EST OP THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SAID
PARCEL IS LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82, EASTERLY OP
GARFIELD 'OUNTY ROAD 100 AND NORTHERLY OF THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN
RAILROAD .IGHT-OF-WAY, AND IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING' AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SECTION 31,
THENCE SG''TH 00 DEGREES 55'02" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1197.02 FEET TO THE
INTERSECT ON OF SAID COUNTY ROAD 100 EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT -OF- AY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE EA'TERLY ALONG SAID STATE HIGHWAY SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING]
NORTH 81 '•EGREES 01'05" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 7.29 FEET TO THE POSITION FOR
COLORADO .EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CDOT), MONUMENT 529 OF PROJECT NO.
CX(FC) 24 0082-26 (MISSING), (SAID POINT IS MARKED BY A WITNESS CORNER
MONUMENT, A 5/8" STEEL ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED BUETTNER 13166 WC, AT
A DISTANC OF NORTH 81 DEGREES 01'05" EAST, 2.00 FEET FROM THE CDOT MONUMENT
POSITION, SAID WITNESS CORNER MONUMENT IS LOCATED AT THE BASE OF A WIRE
FENCE);
THENCE NO TH 81 DEGREES 01'05" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 120.91 FEET TO A COOT
MONUMENT 30 OF SAID COOT PROJECT;
THENCE NO'TH 72 DEGREES 01'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 188.81 FEET TO THE COOT
MONUMENT 31 OF SAID PROJECT;
THENCE SO TH 84 DEGREES 43'15" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 401.16 FEET TO THE CDOT
MONUMENT 32 (MISSING NOW MARRED WITH A 5/8" STEEL ROD AND YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
MARKED BU-iTTNER 13166), OF SAID PROJECT;
THENCE SO'"TH 78 DEGREES 30'40" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 382.98 FEET TO A WIRE FENCE
CORNER;
THENCE DE-ARTING SAID STATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 00 DEGREES 35'23" WEST, A
DISTANCE F 1834.33 FEET ALONG A WIRE FENCE TO A PENCE CORNER;
THENCE SO"TH 89 DEGREES 16'38" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 231.46 FEET TO A FENCE
CORNER;
THENCE SO"TH 00 DEGREES 10' 42" EAST A DISTANCE OF EAST, A DISTANCE OF 785.71
FEET ALON' A WIRE FENCE TO A INTERSECTION WITH THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE
WESTERN R.ILROAD NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT OP INTERSECTION BEING
WITHIN TH; ROARING FORK RIVER;
THENCE WE:TERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING LOCATED
WITHIN TH7 ROARING FORE RIVER THE FOLLOWING:
SOUTH 80 i'aEGREES 27'41" WEST, A DISTANCE OP 230.73 FEET;
SOUTH 83 : :EGREES 46'38" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 96.97 FEET;
SOUTH 84 ..EGREES 11'43" WEST A DISTANCE OF 99.20 FEET;
SOUTH 84 :':EGRESS 12'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 99.74 FEET,
SOUTH 84 k1EGREES 12'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 99.08 FEET;
SOUTH 84 TEGREES 12'45" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 103.09 FEET;
SOUTH 84 );EGREES 06'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 97.41 FEET;
SOUTH 84 TEGREES 09'08" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100.70 FEET;
SOUTH 84 S..EGREES 53'34" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 96.53 FEET;
SOUTH B6 ['F.GREES 56'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 93.61 FEET;
NORTH B9 tEGREES 35'50" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 93.75 FEET;
NORTH 86 TEGREES 21'01" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 94.46 FEET,
NORTH 82 S."EGREES 59.43" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 94.93 FEET;
NORTH 79 kEGR£ES 59'43" WEST A DISTANCE OF 95.24 FEET;
NORTH 77 TEGREES 47'12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 97.04 FEET;
NORTH 77 TEGREES 19'56" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 99.76 FEET;
NORTH 77 :EGRESS 10' 16° WEST, A DISTANCE OF 86.35 FEET TO A INTERSECTION WITH
THE EASTE]SLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OP GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD 1007
THENCE N0;'THERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGRT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
CURVES)
THENCE NO]'TH 36 DEGREES 10' 38" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 92.37 FEET;
THENCE AL'.NG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 145.86 FEET, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING
340.27 FE T, THE CENTRAL ANGLE IS 24 DEGREES 33' 37", THE CURVE LONG CHORD
BEARS NOR'H 24 DEGREES 23' 49" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 144.75 FEET;
THENCE NOJ`TH 12 DEGREES 07' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1490. 00 FEET;
07/30/2004 15:59 FAX 9709454784
IIIIII1111111111111111 11111 lllllllllllll
III 1111
670001 09/29/2000 11:y02A 01209 P700 M ALSDORF
4 of 4 R 20.00 0 0.91 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
LTG-GLENWOOI) SPRINGS 2005/005
EXHIBIT 8
•
THENCE ALCNG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 296.07 FEET, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING
1462,39 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE IS 11 DEGREES 36' 00", THE CURVE LONG CHORD
HEARS NOR' 06 DEGREES 19' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 295.57 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 30' 40" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 727.56 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF 10EGINNING.
COUNTY OF 2ARFIELD
STATE OF COLORADO
•
•
K E - K
/ V / S / 0 N
0 •
EDWARD MULHALL, JR.
SCOTT BALCOMB
LAWRENCE R. GREEN
TIMOTHY A. THULSON
DAVID C. HALLFORD
CHRISTOPHER L. COYLE
THOMAS J. HARTERT
CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER
ANNE MARIE MCPHEE
AMANDA N. MAURER
DEBORAH DAVIS*
SARA M. DUNN
ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN
NEW YORK AND MISSOURI'
• •
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. 0. DRAWER 790
818 COLORADO AVENUE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
VIA HAND DELIVERY TO:
Telephone: 970.945.6546
Facsimile: 970.945.8902
www.balcombgreen.com
June 22, 2004
Fred Jarman, Senior Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8`h Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision
Dear Fred:
OF COUNSEL:
KENNETH BALCOMB
JOHN A. THULSON
I am writing to follow up on our discussion of Tuesday, June 8, regarding Blue Creek
Ranch Subdivision and an ambiguity in the approvals of that project.
As I told you on the telephone, a prospective purchaser of Lot 1 of Blue Creek Ranch
asked the developer to make a representation and warranty that the existing accessory dwelling unit
("ADU") on that lot is a lawful use. Prior to advising my client to make such a representation, I went
back and reviewed the approvals for the subdivision related to that issue. Unfortunately, I discovered
that there were inconsistencies in the approvals related to the existing ADU on Lot 1.
The PUD/Preliminary Plan Application clearly indicates and sought approval for the
existing ADU on Lot 1. See, for example, the statement on page 3 of the Application which says:
"Lot 1 also includes an existing accessory dwelling unit." See, also, Sheet 3 of the Application,
entitled "PUD Map," which clearly depicts the existing main house and outbuildings, including the
"residence" on Lot 1. Additionally, all of the unit counts throughout the Application assume 49
units, which includes one unit for each of the 48 proposed lots, plus the existing the ADU on Lot 1.
Similarly, the staff acknowledged that the Application was seeking approval for the
existing ADU on Lot 1. See, for example, page 19 of the Staff Report dated July 10, 2002. All
discussions by the staff and the Applicant at the various public hearings on this Application likewise
acknowledged the existence of the ADU on Lot 1.
• •
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Fred Jarman
June 22, 2004
Page 2
The inconsistency that concerns me, however, starts with Resolution 2002-82 approving
the Preliminary Plan and PUD Application which, in the "[n]ow, therefore" paragraph, granted
approval for the subdivision of the property into 49 lots and not 48 lots, plus the ADU on Lot 1.
Unfortunately, the Final Plat Application did nothing to clarify this mistake. The approved Final Plat
reflects the subdivision of the property into 48 lots and does not acknowledge the existence of the
ADU on Lot 1. Furthermore, the last sheet of the plat, entitled "PUD Plan," does not acknowledge
the existence of the ADU on Lot 1.
Given these inconsistencies, my client does not want to sell Lot 1 and pass whatever
uncertainty exists regarding the status of the ADU onto a third party. We, therefore, request that the
approvals of Blue Creek Ranch be clarified to reflect that the existing ADU on Lot 1 is an approved
use. I suggest one of the following alternatives:
1. I believe a letter from the County simply stating that the existing ADU on Lot
1 is an allowed use would be sufficient.
2. Alternatively, I suggest that we submit and obtain approval of an amended
Final Plat of Lot 1, which would simply add a plat note reflecting the approval of the
ADU on that lot.
Please consider this matter with other members of the County staff and let me know your
views on how best to proceed. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
By
Lawrence R. Green
LRG:sv
cc: Gavin Brooke, via facsimile 704-9006
1h- 1 ELL UUUN I Y ,,"0-.-:577;44 /141
11/0//0L 110:b1am P. ouz
• •
11111111111111111111111111111011111111 111 11111 1111 1111
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P 81387 P101 M ALSDORF
1 of B R 0,00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County,
Colorado, held in the Comrnissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building, in
Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 5th day of August, 2002, there were present:
John Martin , Commissioner Chairman
Larry McCown , Commissioner
Walt Stowe , Conunissioner
Don DeFord , County Attorney
Mildred Al.sdorf , Clerk of the Board
Ed Green , County Manager
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-82
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY
PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR WINDRIVER
DEVELOPMENT, LLC
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado,
received a Preliminary Plan and Planned Unit Development (PUD) application from
WindRiver, LLC to develop the Blue Creek Ranch property by subdividing the 81 acre
site into 49 residential lots, of which, nine (9) lots shall be developed with deed -restricted
affordable housing units and rezone the site from A/R/RD to (PUD); and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2002, the Garfield County Planning Commission
amended the Proposed Land Use District Map of the Garfield Comprehensive Plan of
2000 for the subject property from Low Density Residential (10+ ac/DU) to High Density
Residential (<2 ac/DU) by a 7 to 0 vote; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2002, the Garfield County Planning Commission
forwarded a recommended of approval with conditions to the Board of County
Commissioners for the PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan requests by a 7 to 0 vote;
and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the 5th day of August 2002 upon
the question of whether the above-described Preliminary- Plan and PUD should be granted
�U,
11111111111 [1f1111111111111111119111111111111111111 411,
610821 09/17/2002 03:21.P 81387 P102 M ALSDORF
2 of 8 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity
to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Preliminary Plan and PUD; and
WHEREAS, the Board closed the public hearing on. the 5th day of August 2002 to
make a final decision.; and
WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at
the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of facts:
1. Proper public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board
of County Commissioners.
2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete;
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties
were heard at that hearing.
3. The application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4:00 of the
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended.
4. The application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4.00 of the
Zoning Resolution regarding Planned Unit Developments in the Garfield County.
5. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that based on deter i.nation of facts set
forth above, the subdivision (Preliminary Plan) and Planned Unit Development request is
approved to allow for development of the Blue Creek Ranch property by subdividing the
81 acre site into 49 residential lots, of which, nine (9) lots shall be developed with deed -
restricted affordable housing units and rezoning the site from A/R/RD to (PUD) with the
following conditions:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval,
unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
2. Due to the fact that the water system for Blue Creek Ranch PUD is a merged system
with the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision, the Applicant shall incorporate
language addressing the interaction between the two Homeowners Associations in the
Blue Creek Ranch By -Laws indicating the responsibilities of both Associations for
the shared water system.
3. The Applicant shall include the following recommendations of the Division of
Wildlife included within their letter dated May 13, 2002 (Exhibit V to Public Hearing
dated 8/5/02) within the Homeowner's Association covenants and provide procedures
L„-,Rr 1GLL l..J�J�V I 1
J ! YJJOT JT ! VJ
1111111111Ii 11111111111111111111 II II11111111111111
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P B1387 P103 M ALSDORF
3 of 8 R 0.00 D 0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
for their enforcement by the HOA:
11l YJ/IYJr. uI(J'}
•
a) Dogs and cats shall be prevented from running at large.
b) Wire fencing shall be held to a minimum with a maximum height of 42" with
no more than 4 strands and a 12" kickspace between the top two strands. Rail
fencing should be held to a maximum height of 42" with at least 18" between
two of the rails. Mesh fencing is strongly discouraged. Privacy fencing may
be allowed in the residential clustered areas within building envelopes only.
c) The Applicant shall use bear -proof trash cans.
4. The Applicant shall include the following recommendations of the Division of
Wildlife within the Homeowner's Association covenants as recommendations for
homeowners to consider regarding the presence of wildlife on the property:
a) Bird feeders should be string up from the ground with a seed catchment and
humming bird feeders are not mounted on windows or the siding of the
houses.
h) Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be Left
outside,
c) B,BQs should be securely housed in the garage or other indoor structure when
not in use.
d) Eliminate the planting of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs to
discourage bears, and other wildlife from feeding.
e) Maintain as much of the existing vegetation as possible.
5. The Applicant shall conduct a weed inventory and provide the locations on a map. In
addition, the Applicant shall provide a weed management plan for the inventoried
noxious weeds. This information shall be sent to and reviewed by the Garfield County
Vegetation Department prior to Final Plat.
6. Common arca weed management -The Open Space Plan lists various areas of the site
as conservation easements, private open space, general open space, public parks,
public trail, or CDOT dedication. The Applicant shall designate entity or entities that
will be responsible for weed management in each of these areas including roadways
in the project. The Applicant shall submit this information to the Garfield County
Vegetation Department for review prior to Final Plat.
7. Weed management by the Homeowners .A gor,,- fern and eachindividual lot owner
shall be addressed in the covenants.
8. The Applicant shall provide a map or narrative, prior to final plat that quantifies the
area, in terms of acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and
utility disturbances. The Applicant shall follow the revised Revcgetation Guidelines
from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) as to
the following:
l.�l-1Rr IGLL ��U IJIV I T
O r V OO -f O' -F i U 11id-,o/(tdc Y.
i iniii uiii uiiii 111111 ilii mi Mil 111 11111 1111 1111
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P 81387 P104 M ALSDORF
4 of 8 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIFLD COUNTY CO
•
a) Plant material list.
b) Planting schedule.
c) A map of the areas impacted by soil disturbances (outside of the building
envelopes).
d) A revegetation bond or security shall be submitted at Final Plat and
appropriate language regarding its release shall be included and discussed in
the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (STA).
e) Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
f) A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
g) A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit
exposed for a period of 90 days or. more.
9. The Applicant shall include estimates for the reclamation efforts. The estimates
should include costs for seeding, mulching, and other factors that may aid in plant
establishment.
10. The Applicant shall provide a detailed analysis regarding the outlet flow from the
existing pond regarding detention storage releases by the time of Final Plat.
11. The Applicant shall provide a signed copy of an agreement with St. Finnbar Raneh.
regarding the relocation of the `lower ditch' within the property by the time of Final
Plat.
12. The Applicant shall be allowed to reduce the Garfield County Street and Roadway
design standards in designing the internal road network as well as the access points
into the PUD from CR 100 as part of the Planned Unit development. As such, all
roads and rights-of-way within the subdivision shall be designed to no less than a
width of 50 feet in accordance with the Secondary Access classification as defined in
Section 9:35 of the Garfield County Subdivision regulations.
13. The Applicant shall place additional straw bales in the drainage ditch along County
Road 100 between Ponderosa Pass Road and the Blue Creek Ranch drainage, and
along County Road 100 between Bristlecone Drive and the Blue Creek drainage.
Construction documents shall reflect these changes by the time of Final Plat.
14. The Applicant shall provide an inspection, maintenance, and pumping plan for the
proposed septic tanks of the sewer system to be reviewed and approved by the
Planninv 1T ,i-h-nent. This plan shall be included within the subdivision covenants
and provided to the Garfield County Building and Planning Depaitment at Final Plat.
15. Prior to the operation of the wastewater treatment facility, and consistent with the
requirement imposed by the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, the Applicant shall obtain a discharge permit which shall specify the
"final conditions and limitations of the operations of the facility." This permit shall be
submitted to the Garfield County Building and Planning Department prior to the
•
1 III11111111111111 IIlI1I 1111 IIII II 11111111 IIII 1111
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P B1387 P105 t1 ALSDORF
5 of 8 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Garfield County Building Department
for any residential lot on the property.
16. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval as stated in the letter
from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to Blue Creek Land
Holdings, LLC dated November 21, 2001 and included as Appendix 8 in the
application materials (See "Exhibit H" submitted for the public hearing before the
BOCC on 8/5/0), as the same may be modified or superceded by any final discharge
permit issued by the Department for the subject facility. Further;
a) This site approval will expire one year from November 21, 2001 if the
construction of the project has not commenced by that date. If expiration
occurs, you must apply for a new site approval. Construction is defined as
entering into a contract for the erection or physical placement of materials,
equipment, piping, earthwork, or buildings that are to be part of a domestic
wastewater treatment works.
b) The design (construction plans and specifications) of the treatment works
must be approved by the Division prior to the commencement of construction
and all construction change orders initiating variances from the approved
plans and specifications must be approved by the Division.
c) The Applicant's registered engineer must furnish a statement prior to the
commencement of operation stating that the facilities were constructed in
confonnance with the approved plans, specifications, and change orders.
17. The Applicant shall provide nine (9) deed -restricted affordable housing lots within
the PTJD. Four (4) of such lots shall be deed -restricted and the units upon them shall
be constructed by the Applicant, and sold in accordance with all applicable provisions
of the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines as codified in Section 4:14 of
the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. While the Applicant has eommnaitted to the
construction of four (4) affordable housing units, the Applicant shall demonstrate to
Staff and the Board of County Commissioners how the five (5) remaining deed -
restricted lots are to be sold and developed.
18. All nine (9) lots approved for deed -restricted affordable housing units are to be "for -
sale" units. The Applicant shall construct four (4) of the units as deed -restricted
affordable housing units pursuant to the Garfield County Housing Guidelines in the
Garfield Zoning Resolution. The five (5) remaining lots approved for deed -restricted
affordable housing units are to be constructed by future lot purchasers who qualify for
those lots in accordance with the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines.
The Applicant shall present further details to the Planning Department as to the
proposed nature of how the .remaining five (5) deed -restricted affordable housing lots
are to be sold within the regulatory parameters of the Garfield County Affordable
Housing Guidelines. This language shall be provided at the time of Final Plat.
I 111111 11111111111 11111111111111 111111 1111111111111
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P 01387 P106 M ALSDORF
6 of 8 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
•
a) Specifically, the Applicant shall provide a detailed proposal for how the five (5)
affordable housing lots which will not be constructed upon by the Applicant will
be sold in a manner which will address the regulatory intent of the AH
Regulations.
b) All nine (9) affordable housing units shall be included within the homeowners
association for the PtJD. However, the Declaration of Covenants shall include
adequate provisions to assure that the affordable housing units will never be
unduly burdened by a disproportionate share of fiscal responsibility required for
the overall maintenance of the common facilities and roads throughout the PTJD
to the satisfaction of the Garfield County Planning and Attorney's Office at the
time of Final Plat.
19. In addition to other required conditions of approval, the Applicant shall include the
following plat notes on the Final Plat:
a) "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-1.01, et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities,
sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal
and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a
healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights,
mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on. public roads, livestock on public
roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or
otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any
one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent
agricultural operations."
b) "A11 owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law
and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation
ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using
property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining
property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights
and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good
introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small
Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in
Garfield County."
c) "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior
lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except
that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the
property boundaries."
d) "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential. unit and the dog shall be
required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries."
e) "Each lot shall have a maximum of 2,500 square feet of irrigation land from
I�NrCr ICL Li ICU L)IN 1 7
1111111111111111111111111 IHi1I Jil 11111 111! 111
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P 81387 P107 M ALSDORF
7 of 8 R 0,00 D 0,00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO
domestic water system."
Llru(ruc lu:slam r. uuc;
•
f) The Applicant shall place a plat note on the Final Plat that would make the
potential purchasers aware of the possibility that the Roaring Fork River is a
dynamic stream and the current channel could move from its present position.
The Applicant shall depict the following items on the Final Plat:
1. The 100 -year flood way;
2. The 100 -year flood fringe;
3. The building envelopes for all lots in the development; and
4. The elevation for each building envelope at 1 foot above the base flood
elevation.
01
O
20. The Applicant shall delete "greenhouse" from the "Uses By Right" in Private Open
Space areas as defined in the application.
21. The Applicant shall obtain and provide the County with the necessary well permits
for the Appaloosa and Arabian Wells located on the Aspen Equestrian Estates
Subdivision as issued by the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources at the
time of Final Plat.
22. Impact fees shall be paid to the Carbondale and rural Fire Protection District prior to
finalization of the final plat. The Applicant shall provide a receipt to the Planning
Department proving a payment has occurred.
23. The Applicant shall either provide a land dedication or pay cash -in -lieu for the
required School Impact Fees at the time of Final Plat. This payment shall be made to
the Garfield County as part of Final Plat.
Dated this 16th day ofSeptember., A.D. 2002.
ATTEST:
GARFI.ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF
COM ►. TONERS,
GA; IE.LD COUNTY,
CO
•
I 111111 11111 111111 111111 1111 1111 11111111.11 Hill 1111 1111
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P 81387 P108 M RLSDORF
8 of 8 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by
the following vote:
John Martin
Nay
Larry McCown
Aye
Walt Stowe
Aye
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the
Board of County Comrnissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby
certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the
Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my
office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 2002
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
• •
Attachment B
to
Text Amendment to PUD / Zoning Resolution
Regarding Definition of "Barn", Blue Creek Ranch
Dated: July 30, 2004
1) Requested Text Amendment: Modify Paragraph 20 of Resolution No. 2002-82 to
clarify that the definition of "Barn" as a use by right in the Private Open Space Zone
District includes up to four (4) storage barns for the storage of private personal
property to be owned as common elements by the Homeowners Association, as well
as traditional agricultural barn. The interior of each of such storage barns will be
divided into separate storage units. Each unit will then be assigned to a specific Lot
within Blue Creek Ranch and the owner(s) of each such Lot will have the ability to
store his or her personal property within the designated unit. Cost for maintenance of
the storage barns will be paid as part of the Lot owners' common assessments to the
Association. Neither the Association nor any individual Lot owner may rent out or
make any storage unit available for use by any third party.
2) Purpose for the Proposed Text Amendment: Since submittal of the PUD Application
for Blue Creek Ranch, the Applicant's development plan for this Subdivision has
emphasized cluster residential development, on relatively small lots, with large
expanses of open space between the residential clusters. Consistent with that plan,
the Applicant has always anticipated the construction of up to four (4) storage barns,
to be owned as common elements by the Homeowners Association, with each barn
containing individual units which would then be assigned to the owner(s) of each Lot
within Blue Creek Ranch. The Lot owners will then have a place to store their
personal property without cluttering up their porches, garages, or yards with their
belongings.
The Applicant has always understood that the use of the word "barn" as a use by right
within the Private Common Open Space Zone District included these storage barns.
The storage barns will be constructed to look like a traditional agricultural barn (see
Sheets Al and A2 attached hereto) and the sole purpose of the barns is storage of
personal property of Lot owners, not habitable space.
The storage barns were shown as "shared amenities" within the PUD Application,
see, e.g., Figure 1 and Figure 2 of the March, 2002 Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit
Development and Preliminary Plan Application.
It was not until the Applicant applied for a building permit to construct the first of the
storage barns that it learned that the County did not understand that the storage barns
as described herein were intended to be included within the definition of a "barn" as a
use by right within the Private Common Open Space Zone District. The purpose of
this Zone Text Amendment is to make it clear to all that up to four (4) storage barns,
as well as traditional agricultural barns, are within the definition of "barn" as a use by
right within the Private Common Open Space Zone District of Blue Creek Ranch.
N:\Coyle\Clients\Blue Creek Lot 24\Atta meoito. Text Amendment to lout District Exhibit 13.doe
Zit
t=o
I
vl
v 4.714Ml.,
•
1
w
>Zr
x
• \
e• l
Iw/�31�~•7♦
1
•
..
�•!
03
BLUE CREEK STORAGE BARN
•
!i2 i, :42•r�tl
i
C
evIgl-f VA07 -relts5
w
%,.
N r l_tt____
L
-.111-
.
.
1)
fi
\
s i
AAli-, (V
24'-'47.c.
o f ,
jk�
-I
MI
t
b
-
IV
4.
11
•
1
C )
t
s
M
-NN
`-
�
-$4
Lk
t
I �,
-
44415L- Gin
TEKss
--y
2-x6 Si -1i lticr,
r,(Str
FOR : WIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT
BY : GAVIN BROOKE (303.859.0445)
SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-O"
7°
0
2
P,
•
1
Z-jt 3 5 "SS��! �loSSI�
•
IU •i
IN .•
N
773
•
BLUE CREEK STORAGE BARN
0,
FOR : WIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT
BY : GAVIN BROOKE (303.859.0445)
SCALE : 1/8" = 1'-0"
• •
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Blue Creek Ranch
Dear Madam or Sir:
We own the property in Garfield County, Colorado known as Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision which
was granted Final Plat approval by the Board of County Commissioners on February 18, 2003. The
PUD for Blue Creek Ranch was approved in Garfield County Resolution No. 2002-82.
Minor ambiguities in the zone text language of Resolution No. 2002-82 have now come to our
attention. We therefore desire to request two minor text amendments to Resolution 2002-82 in order
clarify those ambiguities. We hereby authorize Lawrence R. Green and his firm, Balcomb & Green,
P.C., to submit and prosecute an application for a text amendment to Garfield County Resolution
No. 2002-82 on our behalf. Please correspond directly with Mr. Green on all matters regarding the
referenced application.
Very truly yours,
By:
OLDINGS, LLC
avin Brooke, Authorized Representative
3220 County Road 100 * Carbondale, CO 81623 * Phone: (970) 704-9007 * Fax: (970) 704-9006
•
•
ESTRIAN
0.
GRANDE W E s -
KE-KIERN
IVISION
0 •
I rJ,i r I le, IN I 1/ 7 aY
U7/30/Z004 15:515 FAX 9709454784
t4 111111
11111111111111111111111 1111111111111111
i 17ef 4 R70001 8/20/2000 20.00 0 0,030 GARFIELD COD7 M SOORF
UNTY CO
LTG—GLLN1NUU1 SPRINGS
•
QUIT CLAIM DEED
THIS DEE), made this 28th day of September
WILLIAM J. GILLIGAN AND JAYNE M. GILLIGAN
grantor, w1-3se street address is:
3400 ADAM! • ROAD, OAK BROOK, IL 60523
County of _ , State of Illinois
of Ten Doll Ts and other good and valuable consideratio Dollars in hand paid,
hereby sell; and quitclaims to:
BLUE CREE K LAND HOLDINGS, L.L.C., A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
, 2000 between
, for the consideration
grantee. wl ase street address is:
19351 HIGH' VAY 82, CARBONDALE, CO 81623
County of iarfield , State of Colorado
, the following legally
described v.ater rights:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF
Appurtenr to:
SEE EXHIBi#"B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF.
Sign
WI
JAYNE M. G IGAN
first above writen.
State of Ibiaois
County of
/ //
)ss.
The forego rig instrument was acknowledged before me this 28th
by WILLIAM J. GILLIGAN AND JAYNE M. GILLIGAN
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commi sionx e rr
orilt:IA,f_ SEAL
p.'TA M. We?fdec
ttpTggv llc 71 r rF ,., It tI oo
he cm;
Form DATER. 0C( (6.8-99)
d Return to:
day of September
Nnran P,,,rthiir 1 r-
4.4n� yndtAS ries /
ON e. Jatie bne..t4 r — /./O0 SAerme, pep
4006
� A u r Sc) . //
.57,MR741,
i
1000 2/00 5
07/30/2004 15:58 FAX 9709454784 LTG-GLENWUOD SPRINGS WQ.j003/005
ALIP9/1219N211M1121191116$81116091
2 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.02'ARRFIELD COUNTY CO
EXHIBIT "A"
WATER RIGHTS
•
26. /150th of all right, title and interest originally acquired by T.O. Ranch
Co npany of Colorado in and to Basin Ditch No. 45, under original Priority Nos.
49 .nd 108, that being an amount of 0.176 c.f.s. in each priority, and 26.5/150'h
into rest in 33.2 c.f.s. under Priority No. 294, that being 5,865 c.f.s, (said original
inti rest in T.O. Ranch Company of Colorado being an undivided 1/5 interest in
ant to said Priority Nos. 49 and 108).
2. An undivided 11/38'h interest in and to all right. title and interest originally
acc,tired by T.O. Ranch Company of Colorado in and to Middle Ditch No. 68,
unt'er original priority No. 83, that being 0.96 c.f.s., (said original interest of T.O.
Ra ch Company of Colorado being an undivided 2/3 interest therein).
3. 37, 76th interest of all right, title and interest originally acquired by T.O- Ranch
Co npany of Colorado in and to Lower Ditch No. 21 under original priority No.
23.:that being 0.365 c.f.s., (said original interest of T.O. Ranch Company of
Co orado being an undivided one-half interest in and to priority No. 23). and a
45: !34th interest as to priority No. 721, that being 3.996 c.f.s., (said interest being
the:entire original interest acquired by T.O. Ranch Company of Colorado).
4. Un lerground water rights in "T.O. Well," identified as Colorado State Engineer's
No 10560, with priority date of June 5. 1961. described in Case No. W-849, in
the District Court in and for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado, estimated to
be 1.11 c.f.s.
5. Al::of applicant William J. Gilligan's right, title and interest in and to the
C.( .Cerise Gilligan Ditch. decreed for 3.0 c.f.s. in Case No. 90W196 in Water
Di-ision No. 5 on August 31, 1992, with an appropriation date of February 20,
19 S.
Uf/iU/2004 15:525 NAA 9709454784
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 II 11111
37000of 4 09/29/2000 D.00-GARFIELD C 81209 OUNTY ALSDORF
LTG-GlLNW00ll SPRINGS 4004/005
EXHIBIT 8
•
A PARCEL ,F LAND SITUATED IN THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT LOTS 1, 2, 6, 7, 11
AND THE N?RTHEAST QUARTER SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH,
RANGE 87 .BEST OP THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SAID
PARCEL IS LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82, EASTERLY OP
GARFIELD 'OUNTY ROAD 100 AND NORTHERLY OF THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN
RAILROAD .IGHT-OF-WAY, AND IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCIN.. AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SECTION 31,
THENCE SO"TH 00 DEGREES 55'02" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1197.02 FEET TO THE
INTERSECT'ON OF SAID COUNTY ROAD 100 EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT -OF- AY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE EATERLY ALONG SAID STATE HIGHWAY SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING:
NORTH 81 :'EGREES 01'05" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 7.29 FEET TO THE POSITION FOR
COLORADO>EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CDOT), MONUMENT 529 OF PROJECT NO.
CX(FC) 24.0082-26 (MISSING), (SAID POINT IS MARKED BY A WITNESS CORNER
MONUMENT, A 5/8" STEEL ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED BUETTNER 13166 WC, AT
A DISTANC OF NORTH 81 DEGREES 01'05" EAST, 2.00 PEET FROM THE CDOT MONUMENT
POSITION, SAID WITNESS CORNER MONUMENT IS LOCATED AT THE BASE OF A WIRE
FENCE);
THENCE NO`.TH 81 DEGREES 01'05" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 120.91 FEET TO A COOT
MONUMENT 30 OF SAID COOT PROJECT;
THENCE NO TB 72 DEGREES 01'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 188.81 FEET TO THE CDOT
MONUMENT 31 OF SAID PROJECT;
THENCE SO-TH 84 DEGREES 43'15" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 401.16 FEET TO THE CDOT
MONUMENT 32 (MISSING NOW MARKED WITH A 5/8" STEEL ROD AND YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
MARKED BU'='TTNER 13166), OF SAID PROJECT;
THENCE S0''TH 78 DEGREES 30'40" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 382.98 FEET TO A WIRE FENCE
CORNER;
THENCE DE.-ARTING SAID STATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 00 DEGREES 35'23" WEST, A
DISTANCE F 1834.33 PEET ALONG A WIRE FENCE TO A PENCE CORNER;
THENCE SO''TH 89 DEGREES 16'38" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 231.46 FEET TO A FENCE
CORNER;
THENCE SO'STH 00 DEGREES 10' 42" EAST A DISTANCE OF EAST, A DISTANCE OP 785.71
FEET ALON' A WIRE FENCE TO A INTERSECTION WITH THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE
WESTERN R:..ILROAD NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING
WITHIN TH; ROARING FORK RIVER;
THENCE WE'.`TERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING LOCATED
WITHIN T8' ROARING FORK RIVER THE FOLLOWING:
SOUTH 80 r-EGREES 27'41" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 230.73 FEST;
SOUTH 83 .:EGREES 46'38" WEST, A DISTANCE OP 96.97 FEET;
SOUTH 84 ,.EGREES 11'43" WEST A DISTANCE OF 99.20 FEET;
SOUTH 84 :'.EGREES 12'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 99.74 FEET;
SOUTH 84 NEGREES 12'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 99.08 FEET;
SOUTH 84 %EGREES 12'45" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 103.09 FEET;
SOUTH 84 NEGREES 06'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 97.41 FEET;
SOUTH 84 NEGRESS 09'08" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100.70 FEET;
SOUTH 84 `..EGREES 53'34" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 96.53 PEET;
SOUTH 86 NEGREES 56'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 93.61 FEET)
NORTH 89 NEGREES 35'50" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 93.75 PEET;
NORTH 86 ;EGREES 21'01" WEST, A DISTANCE OP 94.46 FEET;
NORTH 82 ;,=EGREES 59'43" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 94.93 FEET;
NORTH 79 'EGREES 59'43" WEST A DISTANCE OF 95.24 FEET;
NORTH 77 NEGREES 47'12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 97.04 FEET;
NORTH 77 I .EGREES 19'56" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 99.76 FEET;
NORTH 77 :?EGREES 10' 16" WEST. A DISTANCE OF 86.35 FEET T0. A INTERSECTION WITH
THE EASTE7:LY RIGHT -OP -WAY OF GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD 1001
THENCE N0;"TKERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGRT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
CURVES:
THENCE NOrTH 36 DEGREES 10' 38" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 92.37 FEET;
THENCE ALrNG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 145.86 FEET, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING
340.27 FE:'T, THE CENTRAL ANGLE IS 24 DEGREES 33' 37", THE CURVE LONG CHORD
BEARS NOR 14 24 DEGREES 23' 49" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 144.75 FEET;
THENCE NO7'TH 12 DEGREES 07' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1490. 00 FEET;
07/30/2004 15:59 FAX 9709454784
1 Iltlll 1111 1111111 11111 1111 IIII 111111111 1110E111
1111
570001 09/29/2000 11:A2A 81209 P700 11 ALSDORF
4 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.01 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
LTG-GLENWOOD SPRINGS 2005/005
EXHIBIT B
•
THENCE ALCNG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 296.07 FEET, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING
1462.39 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE IS 11 DEGREES 36' 00". THE CURVE LONG CHORD
BEARS NOR'I* 06 DEGREES 19' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 295.57 FEET;
THENCE NOF'3'H 00 DEGREES 30' 49" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 727.56 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF EEGINNING.
COUNTY OF ,ARFIELD
STATE OF COLORADO
BLUE CREEK RANCH
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
SKETCH PLAN
SUBMITTED BY:
WIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT, LLC
19351 Highway 82
Carbondale CO 81623
(970) 704-1165
September, 2000
(RECEIVED CEP 1 3 nogX535
Sketch ?Ian
Preliminary Plan
Final Plat
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM
SUBDIVISION NAME: BLUE CREEK RANCH PUD
OWNER: William and Jayne (;illigan (nnt the applicant)
ENGINEER/PLANNER/SURVEYOR: Sopris Fngineering/Davis Horn, Inc.
LOCATION: Section 3 Township 7S Range
WATER SOURCE: Utilitize wells to develop central water system
SEWAGE DISPOSAL METHOD: Package Plant
87W
PUBLIC ACCESS VIA: County Road 100
EXISTING ZONING:
A/R/RD
EASEMENTS: Utility
Holy Cross, Rocky Mountain Natural Gas (see title pnlir-y)
Ditch Yes - See Title Policy
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA:
(1) Residential Number Acres
Single Famiy 41 81
Duplex 0 0
Multi -family 0 0
Mobile Home 0 0
(2) Commercial Floor Area Acres
0 sq.ft. 0
(3) Industrial 0 sq.ft. 0
(4) Public/Quasi-Public
(5) Open Space/Common Area 30
TOTAL:
PARKING SPACES:
'es idential 104
APPLICATION FOR A ZDNE DISTRICT AMENDMENT
Garfield County, Colorado September 12 ,'Dc 2200
APPLICANT:
Wind River Development LLC
ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 19351 SH 82, Carbondale CO 81623
(send correspondence to Glenn Horn, Davis Horn, Inc., 215 S. Monarch #104, Aspen CO
81611
Proposed Zone District Amendment from: A/R/RD
to: PUD
Lot Size: 81
14'
C. Applicant's Signature
In support of this zone district amendment application, the petitioner must submit all of the
following information:
1. Zone District map of subject property
2. Letter from the applicant stating the proposed zone district amendment and the reasons
justifying the zone district amendment
3. List of owners of adjacent property and their addresses as listed in the County Assessors
office, including owners of property separated by public right-of-way
4. Fee of 5450.00 - payable to the "Garfield County Treasurer"
5. Vicinity map showing relative location of the property
6. Legal description or copy of the deed to the property
7. Letter of consent from owner(s) of property if other than applicant
PLANNING TEAM
APPLICANT
Wind River Development LLC
AceLane
Robert M. Cumming, Jr.
19351 State Highway 82
Carbondale CO 81623
(970) 963-0744 (Phone)
(970) 963-9833 (Fax)
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Design Workshop
120 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-8354 (Phone)
(970) 920-1387 (FAX)
PLANNING
Davis Horn Inc.
Glenn Horn MCP
215 S. Monarch, Suite 104
Aspen CO 81611
(970) 925-6587 (Phone)
(970) 925-5180 (FAX)
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
Sopris Engineering LLC
Mark Butler, P.E.
Yancy Nichol P.E.
502 East Main Street
Suite A3
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311 (Phone)
(970) 704-0313 (FAX)
WETLANDS ANALYSIS
Andrew Antipas LLC
Ecological & Environmental Consulting
0285 Crystal Circle
Carbondale CO 81623
(970) 963-8297
WILDLIFE
Naturetech Consulting Services Corp.
Steve Dahmer
2128 Railroad Avenue
Rifle CO 81650
(970) 625-8553 (Phone)
(970) 625-8073 (FAX)
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
Zancanella & Associates
Tom Zancanella, P.E.
POB 1908
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
(970) 945-5700 (Phone)
(970) 945-1253 (FAX)
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS
HP Geotech
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-7988 (Phone)
(970) 945-8454 (FAX)
LEGAL COUNSEL
Patrick & Stowell, P.C.
Kevin Patrick, Esq.
730 E. Durant Avenue, Suite 200
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-1028 (Phone)
(970) 925-6847 (FAX)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents i
List of Figures ii
List of Appendices iii
INTRODUCTION 1
I. EXISTING CONDITIONS 4
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8
Tree Farm/Nursery 8
Cluster Residential 10
Large Lot Residential 10
River Front Conservation Area 11
III. LAND USE APPROVALS 12
Section 4, Planned Unit Development Standards 12
Table 1 - Blue Creek Ranch PUD: Land Uses 23
Sketch Plan Subdivision 28
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2
Figure 2 Blue Creek Ranch: Existing Conditions 5
Figure 3 Blue Creek Ranch: Existing Conditions/Topography Map 6
Figure 4 Blue Creek Master Plan: Site Analysis 7
Figure 5 Blue Creek Master Plan: Conceptual Site Plan 9
ii
1
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
Appendix 9
Appendix 10
Appendix 11
Appendix 12
Appendix 13
Title Policy for Gilligan Property located at 3220 County Road 100, Carbondale Co.
September 5, 2000 Memorandum from William and Jayne Gilligan authorizing Wind
River Development Company LLC (applicant) and Davis Horn Incorporated to
prepare and submit a land use application
August 31, 2000 Memorandum to JeffLaurien authorizing Wind River Development
Company and Davis Horn Incorporated to prepare and submit a land use application
September 11, 2000 letter from Mark Butler P.E., of Sopris Engineering
September 7, 2000 letter from Andrew Antipas addressing Wetlands
September 6, 2000 letter from Steve Dahmer of Nature Tech Consultant Services
Corp. addressing Wildlife
September 8, 2000 letter from Zancanella and Associates, Inc
The owners of properties within 200 feet of the subject site as listed in the Garfield
County Assessor's Office records on September 11, 2000.
September 12, 2000 letter from Patrick & Stowell addressing the legal water supply.
Preliminary Geotechnical Study ofProposed Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision prepared
by HP Geotech
September 7, 2000 letter from Patrick & Stowell which demonstrates legal access to
the Blue Creek Ranch from County Road 100.
Colorado Division of Wildlife WRIS Data Checklist which provides an inventory of
on site wildlife.
USDA Soil Conservation Service soil designations with interpretation tables.
iii
INTRODUCTION
This application requests Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Sketch Plan approval for the Blue
Creek Ranch which is located at 3220 Catherine Store Road (CR 100). Figure 1 is a vicinity map
depicting the location ofthe Blue Creek Ranch. Wind River Development LLC (applicant) is seeking
land use approvals for a tree farm/nursery and 41 single family detached dwelling units.
The subject site is currently owned by William and Jayne Gilligan (owner) as demonstrated by a
current title policy which appears as Appendix 1. Appendix 2 is a September 5, 2000 Memorandum
from William and Jayne Gilligan authorizing Wind River Development Company LLC (applicant) and
Davis Horn Incorporated to prepare and submit a land use application for the subject site.
The owner has contracted to sell the subject site to Andrew "Ace" Lane. Lane is a partner in Wind
River Development, LLC. Appendix 3 is a August 31, 2000 Memorandum to Jeff Laurien
authorizing Wind River Development Company LLC and Davis Horn Incorporated to prepare and
submit a land use application for the subject site. Davis Horn Incorporated represents Wind River
Development LLC in this land use application.
This application is addressed in the following sections.
I. Existing Conditions;
II. Project Description; and
III. Land Use Approvals.
Page 1 of 29
FIGURE 1
Vicinity Map
1
1
1
1
I8
U
I.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section of the application addresses existing conditions. As depicted by Figure 2, a current
survey of the Blue Creek Ranch, the subject site contains approximately 81.66 acres and is improved
with a single-family house and accessory agricultural buildings. The subject site is bordered by State
Highway 82 (SH 82) frontage road and SH 82 to the north, the Cerise property to the east, the
Roaring Fork River to the south, the St. Finnbar and Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivisions and the
Catherine Store to the west.
Figure 2 shows the owner also owns an 18 acre parcel on the north side of SH 82 which is subdivided
from the subject site by SH 82. Development of the 18 acres on the north side of SH 82 is not
proposed in this land use application.
The subject site is currently zoned Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (A/R/RD). Agricultural
uses, guiding and outfitting, parks and single family dwelling units are uses by right in the zone. The
minimum lot area permitted in the A/R/RD zone is two acres.
Figure 3 is the Blue Creek Ranch: Existing Conditions/Topography Map of the subject site prepared
by Sopris Engineering. The map depicts topography, structures, vegetation, and the 100 year
floodplain. Figure 3 shows the northern third of the property is generally a flat irrigated pasture. The
center third of the property is heavily wooded and is partially developed with a house, pond and
accessory buildings. The southern third of the site is also heavily wooded and predominantly
wetlands and floodplain. Blue Creek traverses the site form east to west to the south of the existing
improvements. There is a pond located just to the southeast of the existing buildings.
Figure 4, the Blue Creek Master Plan: Site Analysis identifies the following three sections of the site:
Page 3 of 29
• No Development Constraints - This area is outside of wetlands and flood plain and
is not impacted by steep slopes.
• Limited Development Constraints to be Field Verified - This area is not impacted
by steep slopes and is free of wetlands, but may be unsuitable for development due
to floodplain hazards. Due to the scale of the Flood Boundary Maps, Floodway
Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Garfield County, Colorado,
Unincorporated Areas, it is difficult to determine the floodplain boundaries in this
area. The applicant's engineers and surveyor suspect the Flood Boundary Maps may
be inaccurate for this area because the area mapped as in the floodplain has a higher
based elevation than the area mapped as outside the floodplain.
To resolve this issue, the applicant is preparing a site specific floodplain analysis by
a professional engineer to determine the precise floodplain boundaries. The applicant
will present the preceding information to the Garfield County Floodplain
Administrator for a determination of the floodplain boundary in accordance with
Section 6.08.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution.
• Development Constraints - This area is impacted by wetlands, floodplains or steep
slopes and is not suitable for development.
Page 4 of 29
NN — — N r N N N — N N — — i — r■w — — -
GARF I eL9 COIA,V R0A0 00
/
�•. WESi IE Ir,OVERNM€tJT lCi 2
09 t,
;p;iic 0jN3, CPO 10)t h iOO4181
>8'
• ANS
A
rZ
INN NMI 11111 NM 11111 nil NM NM IMO Ell NIS 11111 11111 11111 N111 ION
ISVIOliasPor
0Z0/1 IIVZ .10 30 1,431Z17
xv. 4c.,401, ozW,zz 211110N317011.1Z
----.
• g
: g
• 1I4 ,e• /01,
g.g.;
Agg
'74
....... . ..... . .................... . ....... . .. ..... .................... /
e?,
..... .....
d3Z14 NZOi 914:100Z
Nit,l4 00013 8030 001 30080 0300
e
Con
Id
•
1301
so
ON AVMHOIH 31V1S
8
IT
N MI NM E w M— r— — —— MO M M MI NM all -
as
og
03
a
to
1
ex -go I
8g
2 Q
ON3O31 SNOIIIONO3 ONLLSIX3
3T1 - ONR SHNIONI SI idOS
i
AO i saaxs
cn rao OARING FGR1C =iii
RIVER Gm owrso �� ammo r,yri
Pal
�'�C"��►=• moos�,.a���''a so um so & RIO GRANDE
WeS�+rrr'� �'_ . TERN RAILROAD
(200.0' ROW)
0
JO 'IDD?3Vd V
LINE TABLE
!wo
wvo
aaaawaap-w4
k
.4
4ttC)1
5`t c't
5V g
' a
,coo �
ov
',vo too 'o°,
�
y
i2
"t5
rot
77
N 80'37'19" /
N 78'24'48" /
�2
wt.
v
41
77
FS 8676'38"
S 85”46'34" A
S 88'Z8'3e' A
S 83.3/'32^ W
S 8475'58- s
w
S 83'09 "O2' .�
S 83'54'07"
S 83'34'35' 1
5
ga
y l
7
1
ex -go I
8g
2 Q
ON3O31 SNOIIIONO3 ONLLSIX3
3T1 - ONR SHNIONI SI idOS
i
AO i saaxs
cn rao OARING FGR1C =iii
RIVER Gm owrso �� ammo r,yri
Pal
�'�C"��►=• moos�,.a���''a so um so & RIO GRANDE
WeS�+rrr'� �'_ . TERN RAILROAD
(200.0' ROW)
0
JO 'IDD?3Vd V
111111 all I MI NM NS MI NS I S EN M 111111 En 1 I
IN3WdO13A30 2I3Al I NIM
NV1d m31SVW )13323O 3M9
03 0131d2IVO
0
00
•
V/
z
0
cn
m
z
6
it +
r\\&%„__
whirr \
/ /
/ / / /
/
/ / /
/ /
4. 4SE
II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 5 is the Blue Creek Master Plan: Conceptual Site Plan. The project is divided in four separate
areas as described below. The four sections of the property are addressed from the north side of the
property to the south. � ��� �� r/ uh 1
Tree Farm/Nursery
Figure 5 shows the applicant proposes developing a tree farm/nursery on the northern section of the
property which contains approximately 18.5 acres of land. The tree farm/nursery is designed to
encompass and shelter the 20 dwelling unit housing cluster on the north, east and west sides. The
existing large cottonwoods will shelter the housing cluster on the south side.
All of the land in the tree farm will be open space with the exception of approximately 8,000 square
feet in the northwest corner of the property which will be gifted to the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) to expand the existing Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) park and ride
lot and approximately 5,000 square feet on the south side of the tree farm/nursery which will be used
as a tree farm/nursery storage and staging area.
The applicant has met with RFTA to discuss the possibility of expanding the existing park and ride
facility on the subject site and RFTA is interested in pursuing this proposal. As part of the Plan, the
applicant proposes landscaping the existing park and ride facility which is located on the north side
of old SH 82. The applicant will provide bike racks and bicycle storage lockers at the RFTA bus stop
to encourage local residents in the site vicinity to ride to the RFTA bus stop. The tree farm/nursery
will contain a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees. The 500 lineal foot depth of the tree
farm/nursery open space parcel will screen the proposed residential development from SH 82.
Page 8 of 29
111111 111111 111111 11111 NMI NM INN EN 11111 MO NO 111111 11111 11111 MI IIIN INS
11431A1d013A301:13AINCINIM
NV1d taLSVIN )1331:13 3n1e
AiNnoo 0731ANVO
00Ve10100
0
0
0
m
'a
c
(i)
rn
--1
r-
The applicant will dedicated a 50' wide piece of land along the east side of County Road 100 and
develop a trail to provide access between the Roaring Fork River and the RFTA park and ride. The
trail will provide a safe way for bikes and pedestrians to travel along County Road 100.
Cluster Residential
The applicant is proposing to develop 20 community oriented, single detached family dwelling units
(see Figure 5). These 20 single family dwellings will be clustered on approximately 4.3 acres
surrounded by the tree farm/nursery and open space on three sides and existing cottonwoods on the
fourth side.
The houses will vary between 800 and 2,000 square feet in size. The housing clusters will circle a
small oval shaped landscaped commons. Vehicles will be parked to the east and west of the housing
clusters in a landscaped parking area. The dwelling units will be only be accessible to pedestrians and
non -motorized vehicles. The paved internal circulation system will be designed to provide for
emergency vehicle access.
Eight ofthe 20 community oriented dwelling units will be deed restricted affordable housing sale units
in accordance with the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines. The remaining 12 units in
the community housing cluster will be free market dwelling units. Due to the limited size of the units
it is anticipated that the free market units will be occupied primarily by locals.
Large Lot Residential
Figure 5 shows the middle section of the site will be improved with 20 large lots in addition to the
existing single family house. The lots will be located on approximately 26 acres of land. Most of the
lots will vary in size between approximately 3/4 of an acre and 1.5 acres. Two of the lots (13 and 14)
are somewhat larger, approximately 2 acres in size. Improvements will be limited to designated
building envelopes.
Page 10 of 29
The larger lot residential area will be separated from the community oriented housing area by open
space, an existing pond and a two to three acre site to be improved with a waste water treatment
facility. A new pond is also proposed in this area between lots 12 and 14 (see Figure 5).
Lots 1-5 are located within the Limited Development Constraints Area depicted on Figure 4. This
area is shown as floodplain on the Flood Boundary Maps, Floodway Maps and Flood Insurance
Rate Maps, Garfield County, Colorado, Unincorporated Areas and Figures 3 and 4. As
previously mentioned the applicant is preparing a site specific floodplain analysis by a professional
engineer to determine the precise floodplain boundaries. The applicant will present the preceding
information to the Garfield County Floodplain Administrator for a determination of the floodplain
boundary in accordance with Section 6.08.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution.
In the event it is determined that Lots 1-5 are located within the floodway, the lots will be either
eliminated or relocated. Typically, the floodplain analysis would be completed prior to submission
of a land use application. However, due to the timing Constitutional Amendment 24, it was not
possible to complete this analysis prior to submission.
River Front Conservation Area
Approximately 20 acres of land on the north side of the Roaring Fork River will be restricted as open
space. There will be no improvements with the exception of the construction of a pond and a gazebo
picnic facility. Development of the open space will be prohibited by placing the property in a
conservation easement.
The applicant will dedicate a fisherman's easement for the length ofthe River frontage to make it easy
for local fisherman to fish the Roaring Fork River. Additionally, the applicant will dedicate and
improve a small community park just east of County Road 100 and north of the bridge. The park may
be utilized as a boat launch for rafters and boaters.
Page 11 of 29
cit
III.
LAND USE APPROVALS
The applicant is seeking PUD and Sketch Subdivision approvals. This section demonstrates
compliance with the PUD Standards and Requirements and the Sketch Plan Subdivision standards.
First the PUD Standards and Requirements are addressed and then Sketch Plan Subdivision
standards.
Section 4
Planned Unit Development Standards
This section of the land use application demonstrates compliance with the Garfield County PUD
standards, section 4 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution.
Section 4.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution states that:
"The purpose of a PUD is to permit greater design flexibility and, consequently more
creative and imaginative design for development than generally possible under
conventional zoning and subdivision regulations. It is intended that PUDs shall be
planned to insure general conformity both in substance and location, with goals
and objectives of the master comprehensive plan through integrated development.
(emphasis added).
Section 4.04 of the Zoning Resolution indicates that "no PUD shall be approved unless it is found by
the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's Master/Comprehensive
plan(s)" (emphasis added).
The subject site is located within the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Study Area I. The
Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Area 1 map designated the subject site within the Low Density
Residential District. Land use densities of one dwelling unit per ten acres are proposed for the
District. Section IV of the Comprehensive Plan notes that "the Land Use Map does not have the
Page 12 of 29
same regulatory authority or legal implications of a traditional land use map." It is further noted that
"County Comprehensive Plans are advisory only, neither legislative nor judicial in nature, nor the
equivalent of zoning, and not binding upon the zoning discretion...."
It is important to consider the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan in its entirety when evaluating
the Blue Creek Ranch PUD for "general conformity" with the Plan. This means the PUD must be
evaluated based upon the goals, objectives and policies in combination with the land use map.
This section demonstrates that the Blue Creek Ranch PUD is in general conformity in both substance
and location with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. Goals, Objectives and Policies appear
in bold followed by discussion.
Housing Objective 2.1 - To encourage adequate, integrated housing at a reasonable
cost to residents throughout Garfield County
The Blue Creek Ranch PUD proposes to develop 20 community oriented clustered single family
detached dwelling units. Eight of the dwelling units are deed restricted to the Garfield County
affordable housing guidelines as sale units. Due to the limited size of the other 12 dwelling units, they
will probably be desirable for local families.
Housing Policy 2.1- The County, through the development of regulations, shall provide
for low and moderate income housing types by allowing for mixed multi -family and
single-family housing in appropriate areas throughout the County.
The Blue Creek Ranch PUD site plan is designed to preserve undeveloped land surrounding the
proposed development. Figure 5 shows that more than 20 acres of undeveloped land will be
preserved to the south of the large lot single family dwellings and approximable 18 acres of tree
farm/nursery land will surround the cluster residential development on three sides. The tree/farm
nursery will separate the cluster residential development from the commercial uses located on the
northwest corner of SH 82 and County Road 100.
Page 13 of 29
Transportation Objective 3.1 - To encourage the development of a regional public
transit system that respects the interaction between emerging land use patterns and
travel behavior in the Valley.
The Blue Creek Ranch is an ideal location for transit oriented residential development consistent with
this transportation objective. The site is located at the intersection of two major roads and adjacent
to a RFTA park and ride lot. Land will be dedicated to CDOT to increase the size of the park and
ride. Blue Creek Ranch PUD residents will be able to walk or ride bicycles to the RFTA stop.
Transportation Objective 3.2 - To encourage the use of modes other than the
automobile.
The Blue Creek Ranch PUD will encourage other modes of transportation by developing a
bicycle/pedestrian trail on the east side of County Road 100 and dedicating the trail to Garfield
County. The proximity of Blue Creek Ranch PUD to the RFTA bus stop will encourage residents
to utilize transit. As previously mentioned, the applicant will dedicate land to CDOT for a RFTA for
a park and ride and build and landscape the parking lot.
Transportation Policy 3.2 - Developments are encouraged to integrate bikeways,
pedestrian circulation patterns and transit amenities into project design.
The applicant is proposing to develop and dedicate a bicycle/pedestrian path on the east side of
County Road 100.
Recreation and Open Space Goal - Garfield County should provide adequate
recreational opportunities for County residents, ensure access to public lands consistent
with BLM/USFS policies and preserve existing recreational opportunities and
important visual corridors.
The applicant is proposing the dedication of a fisherman's easement along the entire Roaring Fork
River frontage (approximately 2,100 feet). This easement is in an ideal location for fisherman because
it is easily accessible to County Road 100.
Recreation and Open Space Objective 5.2 - The County will support and encourage the
Page 14 of 29
creation of open space, through the development and implementation of zoning,
subdivision and PUD regulations designed to retain and enhance existing open space
uses.
The applicant has identified environmentally sensitive lands on the property and preserved these areas
as open space through the utilization of the flexibility available in the PUD regulations. Additionally,
approximately 18 acres of land will be maintained in agriculture as a tree farm/nursery. The open
space and agriculture on the subject site would probably not be preserved if the site was developed
based as a traditional subdivision.
Recreation and Open Space Objective 5.4 - Rafting and fishing access will be strongly
encouraged during the development review process.
As noted in the project description, the applicant is proposing to dedicate and develop a small
community park for fisherman and boaters. A boat launch will be provided in the southwest corner
of the property adjacent to County Road 100 and the Roaring Fork River.
Recreation and Open Space Objective 5.5 - Visual corridors are considered and
important physical attribute of the County and policies will reflect the need to carefully
plan these areas.
The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Study Area I: Visual Corridor Map identifies the subject
site as being located within a significant visual corridor. Figure 5 shows the applicant has planned
the PUD so the scenic views from SH 82 are not compromised. The cluster residential development
will be entirely screened from SH 82 by the tree farm/nursery. The large lot residential area is located
approximately 1,600 lineal feet from SH 82. The residences will be screened by the tree farm/nursery
and the large trees on the property. Development of the site as a PUD is far more consistent with this
objective than as a traditional subdivision.
Recreation and Open Space Objective 5.6 - In order to encourage public access to
rivers, streams and public lands, the County will be receptive to incentives, consistent
with an overall program approved by the Board of County Commissioners, for
developments that propose public access to these amenities.
Page 15 of 29
As noted the applicant will dedicate a fisherman's easement and a small community park for fisherman
and boaters.
Open Space and Trails Goal - Garfield County shall develop, adopt and implement
policies that preserve the rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley, existing
agricultural uses, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in a mutually
beneficial manner that respects the balance between private property rights and the
needs of the community.
The Blue Creek Ranch PUD proposes a balance between private property rights and preserving the
rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley. Environmentally sensitive lands on the site are preserved,
recreational opportunities are enhanced and the applicant is still capable of utilizing private property
rights.
Policy 5.1(A) - All projects approved adjacent to existing agricultural uses shall be
required to mitigate any adverse impacts. These mitigational measures shall include
some or all of the following:
a) Appropriate buffering of building envelopes from common property
boundaries;
b) The use of open space to provide additional buffering;
c) Dog restrictions, including limiting the number of dogs and requiring
kenneling, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The Blue Creek Ranch PUD will provide landscape screening between the site and adjoining
properties. All dogs will be kenneled.
The Blue Creek Ranch PUD has identified environmentally sensitive lands. On-site development has
been clustered to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. The applicant proposes prohibiting
development of 20 acres along the Roaring Fork River with a conservation easement.
Water and Sewer Services Objectives 7.1 and 7.5 -
Objective 7.1- Development in areas without existing central water and sewer
service will be required to provide adequate and safe provisions for these
services before project approval.
Page 16 of 29
Objective 7.5 - Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of
private water and sewer systems.
Policy 7.1 - All development proposals in rural areas without existing central
water and/or sewer systems will be required to show that legal, adequate,
dependable and environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can
be provided before project approval.
The applicant is proposing to develop a Metropolitan District to serve the subject site with water,
waste water disposal and to maintain streets and open space.
Natural Environment Goal - Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that
recognizes the environmental sensitivity of the land, does not overburden the physical
capacity of the land and is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of
Garfield County.
Objective 8.2 - Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical
feature of the land and design projects in a manner that is compatible with the
physical environment.
Objective 8.3 - Garfield County will ensure that natural drainages are protected
from alteration.
Objective 8.4 - River -fronts and riparian areas are fragile components of the
ecosystem and these areas require careful review in the planning process.
Objective 8.6 - Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological
resources and critical wildlife habitats are protected.
Policy 8.3 - Natural drainage patterns will be preserved so the cumulative
impact of public and private land use activities will not cause storm drainage
and flood -water patterns to exceed the capacity of natural or constructed
drainage -ways, or to subject other areas to an increased potential for damage
due to flooding, erosion or sedimentation or result in pollution to streams, rivers
or other natural bodies of water.
Policy 8.4 - The County will require development with river frontage to address
the issue through physical design in a way which will protect fragile wetlands
and scenic resources and protect floodplains from encroachment.
The applicant has identified natural drainages, wetlands, and environmentally sensitive areas
consistent with the preceding goal, objective and policies. These areas are protected as part of the
PUD Plan.
Page 17 of 29
Section 4.07.02 Off Street Parking
(1) It is anticipated that each residential dwelling unit will require two off-street parking spaces.
(2) Five to ten spaces may be needed for the tree farm/nursery. Figure 5 depicts an area to be
uses for parking on the north side of the tree farm/nursery storage facility.
(3)
Joint use of the parking spaces is not proposed.
Forty parking spaces are provided in two parking lots for the community oriented housing. Parking
for the larger lot residential area will be provided in individual driveways and garages. Four parking
spaces per unit are proposed.
Section 4.07.03 Site Plan Criteria
(1) The proposed agricultural and residential land uses in the PUD are consistent with the
agricultural/residential land uses in the site vicinity. The tree farm/nursery is planned to
screen dwelling units and the tree farm/nursery storage area from State Highway 82.
The proposed RFTA park and ride lot is located in the northwest corner of the property
adjacent to the existing park and ride lot. The Catherine store is located across County Road
100 from the park and ride.
(2) The streets in the Blue Creek PUD will be private roads classified as Rural Access roads. All
roads will meet the Garfield County Street and Roadway design standards. Refer to
Appendix 4, a September 11, 2000 letter from Mark Butler P.E., of Sopris Engineering.
Appendix 4 addresses road design and includes a cross section of the proposed internal road
system.
Page 18 of 29
(3)
Due to the limited traffic in the PUD, it will be easy for bicycle riders to ride their bikes on
the local streets. A bicycle and pedestrian trail is proposed for the east side of County Road
100.
Parking areas are depicted on Figure 5. All parking will be adequately screened. The
Conceptual Site Plan shows there will be adequate circulation and separation of parking for
safety.
(4) Approximately 48 acres or 58 percent of the site will be open space. The 18 acres tree
farm/nursery will be limited use open space. The applicant has identified environmentally
sensitive lands and the site plan has been designed to avoid such areas as defined by the
applicants environmental consultants. Refer to Appendix 5, a September 7, 2000 letter from
Andrew Antipas which addresses wetlands areas on the site and Appendix 6, a September 6,
2000 letter from Steve Dahmer ofNature Tech Consultant Services Corp. which presents an
evaluation of the on site wildlife.
(5)
The applicant is proposing free-market large lot single-family detached housing and clustered
single-family detached housing oriented around an non -vehicular circulation area. Eight of
the 20 clustered housing units will be deed restricted affordable housing sale units. As
indicated in # 4, there will be ample open space.
(6) The large lot housing area will have ample privacy between units due to the dense trees. The
clustered housing will have privacy from off the site, however is not designed for privacy
between units. The housing fronts on a landscaped commons area. Privacy may be provided
in the backyards by the installation of landscaping for screening.
Page 19 of 29
(7)
A bicycle and pedestrian trail is proposed on County Road 100. Figure 5 shows an access
easement is proposed between Lots 14 and 15 to provide access for PUD residents to the
river front area.
(8) The applicant proposes centralized water and waste water facilities to serve the PUD. A
district will be created to serve the PUD. Water and waster water disposal are addressed in
a September 8, 2000 letter from Zancanella and Associates, Inc (see Appendix 7).
(9) No slopes in excess of 40 percent will be disturbed.
(10) The applicant anticipates creating a Metropolitan District to provide water, waste water
disposal, maintenance of common open space, trails and streets.
Section 4.07.04 Height
Maximum building height will be limited to 25 feet as defined by the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution.
Section 4.07.05 Setbacks
The applicant will establish building envelopes for all the larger lots. All building will be
restricted to the designated building envelopes.
The clustered housing will have minimum front yard setbacks from the internal circulations
system and minimum setbacks between units.
Section 4.07.06 Residential Density
The applicant is proposing an overall density of one dwelling unit per 1.97 gross acres.
Page 20 of 29
i
1
1
1
s
1
1
1
1
t
1
r
1
1
1
1
Section 4.07.07 Minimum Acres in PUD
The PUD includes 81.66 acres which is in excess of the minimum number of acres which may
comprise a PUD.
Section 4.07.08 Land Uses Permitted
A tree farm/nursery (nursery) and single-family dwelling units are uses permitted in the
A!R/RD zone district (Section 3.02.01)
Section 4.07.09 Common Open Space
As previously noted, approximately 48 acres or 58 percent of the PUD will be designated as
open space. The tree farm/nursery will probably be designated as limited use open space.
The tree farm/nursery represents approximately 37 percent (18 acres) of the total open space
in the PUD which is consistent with Section 4.07.09.
Section 4.07.10 Timeshare Fractional Fee
Timeshare and fractional fee ownership is not proposed.
Section 4.07.11- 4.07.15 Affordable Housing
The subject site is located within Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's Study Area I.
Therefore, affordable housing requirements are applicable. The applicant proposes that eight
of the clustered single family dwelling units be subject to affordable housing sale unit deed
restrictions.
Page 21 of 29
A total of 41 dwelling units are proposed to be located in the PUD. Section 4.07.15.01 (1)
requires a minimum of 10 percent of the housing mix in the PUD to be affordable housing
units. The applicant proposes eight affordable housing units which is 19.5 percent of the
housing mix.
Section 4.08.05 (1) Statement of Ownership and Written Consent to Submit
This information has been previously addressed in the "Ownership and Authorization to
Submit a Land Use Application" section of this application.
Section 4.08.05 (2)(a) Number of Dwelling Units and Overall Area
As depicted on Figure 5 a total of 41 dwelling units are proposed. The concept is addressed
in the Project Description section of this application. The site includes approximately 81
acres.
Section 4.08.05 (2)(b) Common Open Space
As previously noted, approximable 48 acres or 58 percent of the PUD will be designated as
open space. The tree farm/nursery will probably be designated as limited use open space.
The tree farm/nursery represents approximable 37 percent (18 acres) of the total open space
in the PUD which is consistent with Section 4.07.09.
Section 4.08.05 (2)(c) Land Uses and Acreage
Table 1 identifies land uses and acreage proposed for each use.
Page 22 of 29
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 1
BLUE CREEK RANCH PUD: LAND USES*
Land Use
Acres
/ve'ke
rr
Open Space
Common Open Space
Limited Use Open Space*
Cluster Residential
Large Lot Residential
Waste Water Plan
1- RFTA Park & Ride Lot
Total
48.0
30.0
18.0
4.3
26.0
2.0
.3
80.5
Tree farm/nursery will be a limited use open space area
Forty-one residential lots and single-family dwelling units are proposed. One unit per
structure.
Approximately 10,000 square feet of non-residential storage is proposed to service the
tree farm/nursery.
Forty off-street parking spaces are proposed to serve the cluster residential development
and one space per 600 square feet of floor area is proposed for the large lot residential
development.
Total proposed density is 1.96 dwelling units per acre.
Source: Davis Horn Incorporated, September 2000
Section 4.08.05 (2)(d) Major Internal Circulation Systems
Figure 5 depicts the internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation system for the Blue Creek
PUD.
Section 4.08.05 (2)(e) Land for School Sites
The applicant is not proposing to dedicate land for a school site at Blue Creek Ranch. The
applicant will pay cash in lieu of land, if required.
Page 23 of 29
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Section 4.08.05 (2)(f) Commercial and Industrial Uses
Commercial and industrial uses are not proposed within the PUD.
Section 4.08.05 (2)(g) Utilities
Provision of utilities is addressed in Appendix 4, a September 11, 2000 letter from Sopris
Engineering, LLC.
Section 4.08.05 (2)(h) Development Restrictions
Uses by Right: Nursery/tree farm, greenhouse, orchard, customary accessory uses and
buildings including buildings for shelter or enclosure of persons, single-family dwelling and
customary accessory uses, park and ride lots
r h,
Large Lots Minimum Setbacks: All structures shall be located in building envelopes identified
in on Final Plat.
The following standards apply to designation of building envelopes.
(1) Front Yard: Local Streets 20 feet from lot line
(2) Rear Yard: 5 feet from lot line
(3) Side Yard: 25 feet from lot line
Cluster Lots Minimum Setbacks
(1) Front Yard (facing courtyard commons): 5 feet
(2) Rear Yard (facing parking open space): 10 feet
(3) Side Yard: 5 feet
Maximum Height of Buildings: 25 feet
Page 24 of 29
1
t
f
1
M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Section 4.08.05 (2)(i) Phasing
It is anticipated that the PUD will be built in one phase.
Section 4.08.05 (3) Vicinity Map
Refer to Figure 1, Vicinity Map.
Section 4.08.05 (4) Site Plan
Refer to Figure Blue Creek PUD: Conceptual Site Plan.
Section 4.08.05 (5) Topographic Map
Refer to Figure 3, Blue Creek Ranch: Existing Conditions/ Topography Map.
Section 4.08.05 (6) Legal Description
Refer to Appendix 1, title policy.
Section 4.08.05 (7)(a) PUD Objectives
The Blue Creek Ranch PUD objectives are listed below.
1. Identify and preserve environmentally sensitive lands unsuitable for development such
as wetlands and areas prone to flooding.
2. Enhance the SH 82 visual corridor by screening residential development from SH 82
with existing vegetation and by cultivating a tree farm on the north end of the property.
3. Develop clustered community oriented single-family detached housing surrounding
common courtyards separated from motor vehicle traffic.
4. Limit large lot single-family detached housing to building envelopes which are carefully
selected to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and existing trees.
5. Preserve land along the Roaring Fork River as common open space.
6. Develop a Metropolitan District to provide water, waste water disposal and for
maintenance of roads and common open space.
7. Work with RFTA and CDOT to develop a well landscaped park and ride lot on the site.
Page 25 of 29
1
1
1
1
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8. Develop and dedicate a bicycle pedestrian trail along County Road 100 from Catherine
to the Roaring Fork River.
9. Improve public access to the Roaring Fork River for fisherman and boaters.
10. Create a street system with low traffic volumes which provides safety for pedestrians
and bicycle riders.
Section 4.08.05 (7)(b) Development Schedule
The applicant anticipates developing the subject site in one phase. Development will be initiated
in the spring following final Garfield County land use approvals. The applicant anticipates
installing roads and utilities to the large lots and selling lots. Currently, the applicant intends
to build all of the cluster housing and offer the units for sale.
Section 4.08.05 (7)(c) Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
It is pre -mature at this time to identify all the covenants and restrictions for the Blue Creek
PUD at this time. At a minimum the applicant plans to include the following restrictions.
1. Development of all residential units will be restricted to designated building
envelopes.
2. Lawn irrigation will utilize non -potable water.
3. All development will comply with standards in the Blue Creek Ranch Garfield
County land use approvals.
4. Dogs will be kenneled.
5. Fencing will comply with DOW recommendations.
Section 4.08.05 (7)(d) List of Owners within 200 Feet
Appendix is a copy of the owners of properties within 200 feet of the subject site as listed
in the Garfield County Assessor's Office records on September 11, 2000.
Section 4.08.05 (7)(e)(i) Legal & Physical Water Source
Refer to Appendix 7, a September 8, 2000 letter from Zancanella and Associates, Inc. which
Page 26 of 29
describes the legal and physical water supply. Refer to Appendix 9, a September 12, 2000 letter
from Patrick & Stowell addressing the legal water supply.
Section 4.08.05 (7)(e)(ii) Waste Water Treatment
Refer to Appendix 7, a September 8, 2000 letter from Zancanella and Associates, Inc. which
describes the plan for waste water disposal.
Section 4.08.05 (7)(e)(iii) Storm Drainage
Refer to Appendix 7, a September 8, 2000 letter from Zancanella and Associates, Inc. and
Appendix 4, a September 11, letter from Sopris Engineering LLC which addresses storm
drainage.
Section 4.08.05 (7)(e)(iv) Natural Hazards
Floodplain hazards are the only natural hazards affecting the subject site. As previously
indicated in this application, the applicant will be conducting site specific flood plain studies to
verify existing floodplain mapping. The site plan may be modified based upon new field data.
The applicant intends to mitigate floodplain hazards by avoiding the development in the
floodway. Any development proposed in the flood fringe will be fully mitigated based upon the
recommendations of a licensed engineer.
Appendix 10 is a Preliminary Geotechnical Study of the subject site prepared by HP Geotech.
Section 4.08.05 (7)0) Legal Access
Appendix 11 is a September 7, 2000 letter from Patrick & Stowell which demonstrates legal
access to the Blue Creek Ranch from County Road 100.
Page 27 of 29
Section 4.08.05 (7)(g) Wildlife
As noted in this application, the applicant is seeking to preserve environmentally sensitive
portions of the site. Appendix 5 is a wetlands investigation prepared by Any Antipas and
Appendix 6 is a wildlife assessment prepared by Naturetech Consultant Services Corp.
Appendix 12 is a Colorado Division of Wildlife WRIS Data Checklist which provides an
inventory of on site wildlife.
The applicant will follow Antipas' and Dahmer's recommendations.
SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION
This section demonstrates compliance with Section 3:30 of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield
County.
Section 3:32
Sketch Plan
Figure 5 is a copy of the Blue Creek Master Plan: Conceptual Plan.
I�-IANJff__�-�1P�
A. The a name of the Subdivision appears on Figure 5.'7-7
B. Location, boundaries and legal description appears on the Blue Creek Ranch Survey,
Figure 2.
C. The Names, addresses and phone numbers ofthe owner, applicant, planner and engineer
appear on the title page of the application.
D. The date of sketch map preparation, map scale and symbol designating due north appear
on Figure 5.
E. Figure 3 is a topographic map of the subject site.
F. The general location of all existing and proposed lots streets, alleys, easements, road
rights-of-way , irrigation ditches water courses on the site are depicted on Figure 3.
G. Natural and man-made features are depicted on Figure 3.
H. Figure 1 is a vicinity map of the proposed site area.
Page 28 of 29
I. Table 1 presents a land use breakdown of the project which includes all the requested
land use data.
Section 3:40
Supplemental Information
A. The source and amount of water is addressed in Tom Zancanella's letter which is found
in Appendix 7.
B. The proposed type of sewage disposal is also addressed in Tom Zancanella's letter
which appears as Appendix 7.
C. The USDA Soil Conservation Service soil designations with interpretation tables is in
Appendix 13.
D. Site drainage is addressed in Tom Zancanella's letter (Appendix 7) and Sopris
Engineering LLC letter (Appendix 4). If drainage recommendations are adhered to
there will be no impact upon lakes and streams in the site vicinity. The applicant will
avoid disturbing steep slopes.
E. Radiation hazards are addressed in Appendix 10. The Preliminary Geotechnical Study.
Radon gas is sometimes a hazard in the Roaring Fork Valley. Standards procedures will
be followed to test for radon gas. Mitigation may be necessary.
G. Utilities areas addressed in Sopris Engineering's letter (Appendix 4).
Page 29 of 29
BLUE CREEK RANCH
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
APPENDIX
From Land Title Guarantee Company
Wed Aug 30 14:42:44 2000 Page 4 of 11
landTitle Qarantee 03 pang
YOUR CCNTACSS
Date: 08-30-2000
Property Address:
3220 COUNTY ROAD 100 CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Buyer/Borrower:
ACE LANE
Seller/Owner:
WILLIAM, GILLIGAN AND JAYNE M. GILLIGAN
Our Order Number: GW234155-3
>'AYAYX X>X>%Y'FYfYl> **,X***YYf*>X*YI%f%F>X%F>Y* YFi$>k>Y*** xrfi>Y*** }>i>XiYlYiYf>k*>Y***YA**4Ylr ***
Note: Once an original commitment has been issued, any subsequent
modifications will be emphasized by underlining or comments.
YXYXYX****YXYXYX*>X>X>XYXYf>***YFYXYXYXYf>X***YXYX***YXY{**%XYXYXYf YXYX***YX***SX>X>XYXYXYX*********
If you have any inquiries or require further assistance,
For Closing Assistance:
Janice L. Johnson
533 E. HOPKINS #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
Phone: 970-925-1678
Fax: 970-925-6243
EMail: jjotmson@ltgc.com
please contact one of the numbers below:
For Title Assistance:
Glenwood Springs "GW' Unit
817 COLORADO AVE. #102
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
Phone: 970-945-2610
Fax: 970-945-4784
ESTI MATECFIITLE FEES
Alta Owners Policy 10-17-92
Tax Certificate
$7,238.00
$15.00
TOTAL
$7,253.00
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER!
APPENDIX 1
From Land Title Guarantee Company
Wed Aug 30 14:42:44 2000
Page 5 of 11
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
ALTA COMMITMENT
Our Order No. GW234155-3
Schedule A Cust. Ref.:
Property Address:
3220 COUNTY ROAD 100 CARBONDALE, CO 81623
1. Effective Date: August 11, 2000 at 5:00 P.M.
2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured:
"ALTA" Owner's Policy 10-17-92 $4,312,500.00
Proposed Insured:
ACE LANE
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
A Fee Simple
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in:
WILLIAM J. GILLIGAN AND JAYNE M. GILLIGAN
5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED PAGE(S) FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION
rival Lana iitie uuarantee Lompany
Wed Aug 30 14:42:44 2000
Page 6 of 11
Our Order No. GW234155-3
LJB4L DEBCF1P1KN
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT LOTS 1, 2, 6, 7, 11
AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH,
RANGE 87 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SAID
PARCEL IS LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82, EASTERLY OF
GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD 100 AND NORTHERLY OF THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SECTION 31,
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 55'02" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1197.02 FEET TO THE
INTERSECTION OF SAID COUNTY ROAD 100 EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82, THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID STATE HIGHWAY SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE
FOLLOWING:
NORTH 81 DEGREES 01'05" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 7.29 FEEl TO THE POSITION FOR
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CDOT), MONUMENT 529 OF PROJECT NO.
CX(FC) 24-0082-26 (MISSING), (SAID POINT IS MARKED BY A WITNESS CORNER
MONUMENT, A 5/8" S PEEL ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED BUETTNER 13166 WC, AT
A DISTANCE OF NORTH 81 DEGREES 01'05" EAST, 2.00 FEEL FROM THE CDOT MONUMENT
POSITION, SAID WITNESS CORNER MONUMENT IS LOCATED AT THE BASE OF A WIRE
FENCE);
THENCE NORTH 81 DEGREES 01'05" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 120.91 141,E1 TO A CDOT
MONUMENT 530 OF SAID CDOT PROJECT;
THENCE NORTH 72 DEGREES 01'13" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 188.81 FEEL TO THE CDOT
MONUMENT 531 OF SAID PROJECT;
THENCE SOUTH 84 DEGREES 43'15" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 401.16 FEET TO THE CDOT
MONUMENT 532 (MISSING NOW MARKED WITH A 5/8" S PEEL ROD AND YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
MARKED BUETTNER 13166), OF SAID PROJECT;
THENCE SOUTH 78 DEGREES 30'40" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 382.98 FEET TO A WERE FENCE
CORNER;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID STATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 00 DEGREES 35'23" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 1834.33 FEEL ALONG A WIRE FENCE TO A FENCE CORNER;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 16'38" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 231.46 FEET TO A FENCE
CORNER;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10' 42" EAST A DISTANCE OF EAST, A DISTANCE OF 785.71
FEEL ALONG A WIRE FENCE TO A INTERSECTION WITH THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE
WESTERN RAILROAD NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING
WITHIN THE ROARING FORK RIVER;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING LOCATED WITHIN
THE ROARING FORK RIVER THE FOLLOWING:
SOUTH 80 DEGREES 27'41" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 230.73 FEET;
SOUTH 83 DEGREES 46'38" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 96.97 FEET;
SOUTH 84 DEGREES 11'43" WEST A DISTANCE OF 99.20 FEET;
SOUTH 84 DEGREES 12'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 99.74 FEET;
SOUTH 84 DEGREES 12'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 99.08 FEET;
SOUTH 84 DEGREES 12'45" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 103.09 FEEL;
SOUTH 84 DEGREES 06'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 97.41 F"EEI;
SOUTH 84 DEGREES 09'08" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100.70 FEEL;
rrorn LdflU Imre 'juarantee Lompany
9Yea Aug SU 14:4L:44 LUUU
Nage 7 of 11
Our Order No. GW234155-3
LE4LD6Pi1W
SOUTH 84 DEGREES 53'34" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 96.53 FEET;
SOUTH 86 DEGREES 56'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 93.61 FEEL;
NORTH 89 DEGREES 35'50" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 93.75 FEET;
NORTH 86 DEGREES 21'01" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 94.46 FELT;
NORTH 82 DEGREES 59'43" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 94.93 FEET;
NORTH 79 DEGREES 59'43" WEST A DISTANCE OF 95.241'EEI;
NORTH 77 DEGREES 47'12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 97.04 FEET;
NORTH 77 DEGREES 19'56" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 99.76 FEET;
NORTH 77 DEGREES 10' 16" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 86.35 FEET TO A INTERSECTION WITH
THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD 100;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
CURVES:
THENCE NORTH 36 DEGREES 10' 38" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 92.37 FEET;
THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LFET 145.86 FEET, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING
340.27 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE IS 24 DEGREES 33' 37", THE CURVE LONG CHORD
BEARS NORTH 24 DEGREES 23' 49" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 144.75 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 12 DEGREES 07' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1490. 00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT 296.07 FEET, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING
1462.39 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE IS 11 DEGREES 36' 00", THE CURVE LONG CHORD
BEARS NORTH 06 DEGREES 19' 00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 295.57 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 30' 48" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 727.56 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
STATE OF COLORADO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
rrom Land title Guarantee Company
Wed Aug 30 14:42:44 2000 Page 8 of 11
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B-1
(Requirements)
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Our Order No. GW234155-3
Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be
insured.
Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit
1. WARRANTY DEED FROM WILLIAM J. GILLIGAN AND JAYNE M. GILLIGAN TO ACE LANE
CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
From Land Iitle Guarantee Company
Wed Aug 30 14:42:44 2000
Page 9 of 11
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B-2
(Exceptions)
Our Order No. GW234155-3
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed
of to the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Rights of claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and
inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by Law and
not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or
attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for
value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land.
8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. THE EF1ECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY,
FIRE PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY
WATER SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA.
10. WATER RIGHTS OR CLAIMS TO WATER RIGHTS.
11. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES
AS RESERVED IN UNTIED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 11, 1894, IN BOOK 12
AT PAGE 333 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 1915 IN BOOK 71 AT PAGE 603.
12. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 11,
1894, IN BOOK 12 AT PAGE 333 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 1915 IN BOOK 71 AT
PAGE 603.
SEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRAN TED TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC IN INSTRUMENT
�! RECORDED FEBRUARY 18, 1972 IN BOOK 427 AT PAGE 292 AND RECORDED OCTOBER
30, 1984 IN BOOK 659 AT PAGE 260.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
From Land Title Guarantee Company
Wed Aug 30 14:42:44 2000 Page 10 of 11
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B-2
(Exceptions)
Our Order No. GW234155-3
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed
of to the satisfaction of the Company:
14. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS IN
INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 19, 1961 IN BOOK 337 AT PAGE 236.
15. \EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR PIPELINE AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT
RECORDED MARCH 14, 1962 IN BOOK 340 AT PAGE 26.
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR,
RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND
ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT' UNDER CHAPTER 42,
SECTION 3607 OF THE UNl'1'ET) STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES
NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HANDICAPPED PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT
RECORDED APRIL 07, 1969, IN BOOK401 AT PAGE 28.
17. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED APRIL 22,
1980 IN BOOK 547 AT PAGE 284.
18. ALL ACCESS RIGHTS TO HIGHWAY NO. 82 AS CONTAINED IN RULE AND ORDER RECORDED
FEBRUARY 28, 1995 IN BOOK 932 AT PAGE 775.
19.. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR THE BASIN DITCH AND THE MIDDLE DITCH AND
ALL LATERALS THEREOF.
20. ANY QUESTION, DISPUTE OR ADVERSE CLAIMS AS TO ANY LOSS OR GAIN OF LAND AS
A RESULT OF ANY CHANGE IN THE RIVER BED LOCATION BY NATURAL OR OTHER THAN
NATURAL CAUSES, OR AL fERATION THROUGH ANY CAUSE, NATURAL OR UNNATURAL, OF
THE CENTER THREAD, BANK, CHANNEL OR FLOW OF WATERS IN THE ROARING FORK
RIVER LYING WITHIN SUBJECT LAND; AND ANY QUESTION AS TO THE LOCATION OF
SUCH CENTER THREAD, BED, BANK OR CHANNEL AS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION MONUMENT
OR MARKER FOR PURPOSES OF DESCRIBING OR LOCATING SUBJECT LANDS.
21. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR COUNTY ROAD 100.
22. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY PLAT
DA 1'E7) JULY 12, 2000 PREPARED BY LOUIS BUETTNER.
JIM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
From Land Title Guarantee Company
Wed Aug 30 14:42:44 2000
Page 11 of 11
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Required by C.R.S. 10-11-122
A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district
B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained from the County
Treasurer's authorized agent
C) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may
be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or
the County Assessor.
Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the
clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of
at lease one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not
conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which
space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document.
Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that 'Every
title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording
whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal
documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee
Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the
legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title
Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued.
Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available(typically by deletion
of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be
issued) upon compliance with the following conditions:
A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which
includes a condominium or townhouse unit
B. No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material -men for purposes of
construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months.
C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un -filed
mechanic's and material -men's liens.
D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.
E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to
be purchased within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain
coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information;
financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the
appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and,
any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid
information by the Company.
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured
has contracted for or agreed to pay.
Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the
coverages referred to herein unless the above conditions are fully satisfied.
If
P-11-00 06.42 FROM = _78ERT M NOONE PC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WIN DI
OEVEI.q[!ME
;AJ7gC4•0.•C i.v¢r OK.
MEMORANDUM
September 05, 2000
To'
From:
Re:
Jeff taurisn
William & Ja lF,.
Slue Creek
Dear Jeff,
1 authorize W1ndRlvo,
Carbvndale, Colored;
- ,A) :r6_oazlftD $I tg..• (INT - tAtAIL "'J.�i1vs».r
• C Yril; a Ftl, _C to d;l,tnip; a land use
This letter authorizes Davis Horn, Incorporated to prepare and submit a
behalf.
Yours truly,
Willram ). 'Gilligan
Jane Gilligan
RMCfvb
application for our property in
land use application on our
APPENDIX 2
09/09/ tt
SAT 18:27 FAX
.11 Ni VER
DEVELOPMENT, LLC
d e psi OR, — pnr. lir. 40jor — PnoNI FAX !ril4a/s. — MOBILE 6/11,-tp 6f — Ew'u ma t v+wc
IEMORANDUM
lust 31, 2
t Jeff Leurien, Garfield County — 109 Eighth ►t, Suite 303? Glenwood Springs, CO 91601
orr: Andrew "Ace" Lane - 19351 Highway 82; Carbondale, CO 81623
!: Blue Creek hand, P.U.D. — 3220 County Road; Carbondale, CO 81623
C sat Jeff,
1 afthorize WindRiver DDvelcpnent Company, LLC to submit a land use application for the property we
a 15 purchasing in Carbondatt, akr do (see enclosed submittal letter).
T its letter authorizes Davis Horn, incorporated to prepare and submit a land use application on our
t sing.
1 ):1r9 truly,
1
thaw "ase' Lane
f frit/Mb
APPENDIX 3
Q00z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Davis Horn Monarch,
215 South Suite 104
Aspen, CO 81611
September 11, 2000
Re: Blue Creek, Sketch Plan - Engineer's Report
SE Job No. 20089.01
Dear Glen:
This letter comprises an engineering report for the Sketch Flan Application to Garfield County,
Introduction
The site is approximately 82 acres covering the area north of the Roaring Fork River, south of State Highway 82
and directly east of County Road 100_ The northern third of the property is generally flat open sprinkler irrigated
pasture. The center third is partially developed; including one home site with several out buildings that have access
off County Road 100, a snaalI livestock corral, and a 1.65 -acre pond_ The southern third is generally wetlands,
drainage ditches, and covered areas. The site generally drains to the southwest at approximately a 1.0% slope. A
portion of the southern third of the property lies within the 100 -year flood plain.
The proposed project would add a tree nursery where the open pasture is located on the northern third. Twenty
community -housing units are proposed just north of the existing house. Twenty single-family home sites would be
developed on the southern half, in the existing open areas. The flood plain maps used for this layout were a small
scale and were not verified. We believe fifteen are outside of the wetlands and 100 -year flood plain, 5 are possibly
in the flood plain. These will be verified and adjusted if needed.
Water Supplst
A central water distribution system is proposed using on site wells. Any water system would be designed to meet
the requirements of Garfield County and the State of Colorado.
Sanitary Sewer System
A centralize sewage waste water disposal system is proposed for the project. Zancanella & Associates Inc. will
address the waste water system in more detail in a separate report.
Utilities
Overhead electric and underground gas lines are available along the north and the east property lines. The gas and
electric serving the project would be constructed underb ound along prescribed easements.
Drainage
The northern half of the site generally drains to the pond in the central of the property or to the western property
line. The outlet of the pond drains to the wetlands area directly south of the pond. The wetlands drain to the west
at about 0.55 slope. County Road 100 forms a barrier to the west forcing the drainage to the south along the road
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, C0 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313
SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC
civil consultants
APPENDIX 4
1 SE. JOB 99089.01
September 7, 2000
Page 2
to a 2.8' by 6' box culvert under County Road 100. The storm water on the southern half of the site collects in the
irrigation ditches that flank the low laying pasture and wetland areas. The drainage runs south and west toward the
Roaring Fork River on the south end of the property or through one of two culverts under County Road 100.
The proposed development will have no or very little impact on the historical drainage patterns. Irrigation and
drainage ditches will be maintained. Any required retention/detention to attenuate the difference in post
development runoff and pre development runoff will be accomplished by using the pond or wetlands for detention
and percolation.
Actual storm water and snowmelt volumes from offsite will be minor, however all flows will be routed to fol}ow
historic drainage paths. Compliance with Garfield County Regulations regarding drainage will be adhered to. The
future design grading and drainage plans documents will insure that the contractor use best management practices to
insure that any potential erosion or sedimentation is prevented.
Road Design
Site access to the proposed project would be provided via the existing entrance to the existing house. Two
additional entrances would provide access from Country Road 100. The first new entrance would be located
approximately 400 feet south of the frontage road on the south side of State Highway 32 This road would be the
main access to the nursery and would loop paste the affordable housing units to the existing entrance. The second
new entrance to the property would be located approximately 550 feet south of the existing entrance. This entrance
would serve as the main entrance to the 20 single-family lots and would loop to connect to the existing entrance.
On site roads would be classified as Rural Access with a minimum right of way of 50' and minimum width of 11
feet lanes. The proposed on site roads would be gravel surface, see attach Exhibit A road section detail All road
designs would meet the Garfield County Street and Roadway design standards. The Preliminary Plan will detail
and specify all road designs.
If you have any questions or need any additional information please give us a call.
Sincerely,
SOPRIS ENGINEERING
1f�f
Mark A. Butler, P.E.
1 Project Engineer
Cc; Rob Cummings
1
1
1
uo
C
Do
}
0
0
0
i
i
1
0
SHOULDER DITCH 18" DEPTH MINMIM
IM
30V.M1)3 73' tfeiD
TOTAL P.03
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
Andrew Antipas
Ecological & Environmental Consulting, LLC
9/7/00
Mr. Glenn Horn
Davis Horn, Inc.
215 South Monarch
Aspen, CO 81611
Reference: Wetland Investigation and Delineation of Blue Creek Ranch
Dear Mr. Horn,
r4.
A wetland investigation and delineation was completed at Blue Creek Ranch by
Andrew Antipas Ecological & Environmental Consulting, LLC on August 8,
2000. Approximately 5.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were delineated within
the limits of the project area. In addition to vegetated wetlands Blue Creek and
the pond are considered "Waters of the United States" and fall under the Army
Corps of Engineers jurisdiction.
Wetlands are typically defined as areas that under normal circumstances
support hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is the regulatory agency that has jurisdiction
over wetlands. The ACOE reviews wetland delineations, issues permits, and
insures that Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is adhered to. It is the
responsibility of the Project Sponsor to determine if wetlands are present and
to acquire the necessary permits from the ACOE if impacts are unavoidable.
Methods
The routine criteria as described in the Airily Corps of Engineers 1987
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) was used to identify and
delineate the wetlands on site. The 1987 manual utilizes the three parameters
of vegetation, soils, and hydrology to identify and delineate wetlands, and
requires that these parameters be determined during the growing season.
Classification of wetlands follows Cowardin et al. (1979).
Weber's Colorado Flora of the Western Slope (1987) was the primary talonosaic
reference, and plant species nomenclature and wetland indicator status follow
Reed (1988) for the intermountain region (Region 8).
Hydrophytic (wetland) species are those with an ind for status of OBL
(obligate wetland), FACW (facultative wetland), or FAC (facultative). Species
listed as FACU (facultative upland) or UPL (obligate upland) generally do not
occur in wetlands. Some species are not considered to be reliable indicators of
wetland or upland conditions; these are marked NI (no indicator).
0285 Crystal Circle, Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-8297 aantipas@sopris.net
APPENDIX 5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
All soil characteristics reported here reflect field determined conditions in the B
horizon or the greatest depth above an impermeable layer. The Soil Survey of
Aspen -Gypsum Area (1992) and the regional hydric soil list were also utilized
during the investigation. A field data sheet and wetland map are attached to
this letter.
Updated versions of the wetland map provided by Sopris Engineering, Inc.
should include the channel for Blue Creek and all of the irrigation ditches on
the property. Active irrigation ditches do not fall under the Army Corps
jurisdiction, while abandoned ditches due fall under Corps jurisdiction.
Results
The majority of the 5.4 acres of the vegetated wetlands delineated on Blue
Creek Ranch are associated with Blue Creek. These "fringe" wetlands were still
inundated or saturated with water in August which was surprising given the
summer's extremely dry conditions. During wet years, the areas inundated with
water would be much greater. However, it should be noted that some of the
surface inundation observed may be the result of flood irrigation practices on
the neighboring ranch.
Dominate wetland vegetation consisted of sedges, wetland grasses, alder, and
coyote willow. Large cottonwood trees can be found all along the water course.
Hydric soil colors were identified during soil testing confirming the Aspen -
Gypsum soil survey. Wetland areas adjacent to the pond were dominated by cat
tails. Cat tails are an aggressive species that out competes more desirable
wetland species such as soft stem bull rush or water sedge. Over time, cat tails
will dominate wetlands throughout the study area. It would be advisable to
develop a management plan which reduces the amount of cat tail vegetation on
site.
No wetlands were observed along the Roaring Fork River, or the large pastures
located between Blue Creek and the Roaring Fork. However, the riparian
vegetation is well developed along certain portions of the river corridor. These
areas are important wildlife habitat and should be avoided if at all possible.
Wetland Functions
Wetlands enhance the quality of life for all living things. The ability of a
wetland to perform certain functions often determine the value of that wetland
to society. Unfortunately, these values do not always correspond to what is
best from an ecological perspective.
Examples of wetland functions include: primary plant production, organic
export, sediment deposition, nutrient/toxicant retention, and water storage.
Adequate scientific evaluation of wetland functions is a time-consuming and
complex process. However, it is possible to infer certain functions based on the
visibly apparent characteristics of a wetland.
The wetlands identified in this report are hydrologically connected to Blue
Creek which crosses the study site. The wetlands on Blue Creek Ranch are
positioned to filter sheet flow during rain storms and spring snow melt which
exceed the banks of Blue Creek. This filtering removes sediment and nutrients,
reducing soil erosion and enhances water quality of neighboring streams and
rivers.
Some of the wetlands on the eastern edge of the property are in a slight
depression and may contribute to groundwater recharge which maintaining
water levels in the drainage of Blue Creek, which is ultimately connected to the
Roaring Fork and Colorado River Drainages.
The cumulative worth of all wetlands and their contribution to the regional
environment cannot be overstated. However, it is apparent that this area has
been regularly disturbed for over 100 years as a result agriculture activities.
Wetlands identified in this report, have a moderate to high value to wildlife
and society.
Summary
Seasonally saturated palustrine emergent wetlands are present within study
area. These wetlands are hydrologically connected to Blue Creek. Blue Creek
and the pond are "Waters of the United States" and fall under the jurisdiction
of the Army Corps of Engineers.
If it is determined that the proposed project will disturb wetlands, a
Department of the Army Section 404 permit and State water quality certificate
(Section 401) will be needed. Therefore, it is recommended that a pre -
application conference be held with the Aiuiy Corps of Engineers to review the
proposed project prior to submitting the permit application.
If you have any questions or require additional information please do not
hesitate to call. Thank you for the opportunity to provide ecological consulting
services.
Very truly yours,
Andrew Antipas, man
Literature Cited
er
Alstatt, D.K., and D. Moreland. 1992. Soil Survey of Aspen -Gypsum Area,
Colorado. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 260pp +
appendices.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Department of the
1
1
t
1
1
r
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program FWS /OBS -
79 / 31, 103 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Kollmorgen Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of
Kollmorgen Corporation. New Windsor, NY.
Reed, P.., Jr., 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands:
Intermountain (Region 8). US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report.
Webber, WW., 1987. Colorado Flora: Western Slope. Colorado Associated
University Press. Boulder, Colorado. 530pp.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Field lavertigstor(s): P s
?reject/Sac e LA e Cc e, K cJ
Stalc
C_ County: G C'42
Township:
sample Lamson tin): (31v Ce e �� Pols-ems -tt, ra 1 14 w t , ; .
S osr‘�
Check Primary Wetlanr Doman Caidance Maaaa):
Has o
Do h� gym '. Soils, or Hydrology Been Disturbed? bed? Y mod x 14x7 Corps of Engineers Method
y� area a pottostiai problems area? Prevail at t No X plc Location, Y� X N.
ibe Disturbance / Problematic Features:
%-.• a v,
Datm S— 8 - O 0
Sample ID:
•
DOMINANT VEGETATION
Percentage OBL, FACW, or FAC species (acriutrueg FAC-)
SOILS
Mapped S R��� rv, °l� T
-- - amoolnk SabgrooF
Itssults ofFAC-neural Test
Horizon / Depth
Mattis Color (moot)
—�-- Mart unit Toted on a local hydric sad list?
Wink X Sack �or
Clpresent?
eyed or Lair -aroma colon?
Mapped Series/Plum Confirmed in Field?
ltasnarlms
Maw nnit fisted as the national hydric sod Sat?
Sesquiaxide Concretions?
Riiih Organic A-iori:on is Sandy Soils?
O / sparse Horizon?
Aquic'pe aquic miters regime?
HYDROLOGY
Depth aground surface iman ation Cinches
X
X
Primary karat:: ) fti v 1 E Depth to Free Standing
Srnnd '^'�"2 o Waren �) — 5 y RFiLC
41Y Indicators R or more
Observed Inundation
SaturateUpper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Una.
Seeming Deposeh
Wetland Drainage Pattern
Oxidized Ithiampberes within 12 Lathes
Water4eaioed Leaves
FAC -neutral Test
Hydrologic Field Data (rate specific)
LlI S}-pf} L
Lmarla:b've c�ee� fps �K•,rifocid tvno&kCC
JURISDICTIONAL DETIERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Hydrophytic Vegetation Nesbit?
Hydric Soas Present?
Wetland Hydrology Freund?
Additional comments:
Yes X. No
Yes k No
Yeses_ No
Is this sample location within a we land? Yes x No
Wetland Classification:'PAl v 54-r n E Q tin e ry'
P0.1 v k -r, n scrub slArvto
OQP`n ik
as as a um on NE a am ' an am me I 41111 M 11. ON IS
NATURETECH CONSULTANT SERVICES CORP.
2128 Railroad Ave., Ste. 201, Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-8553 • FAX 625-8073 • Email: NTCS1@sopris.net
Davis Horn Inc.
Attn: Glenn Horn
215 S. Monarch #104
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Glenn:
September 6, 2000
This letter shall serve as a statement of opinion for the Blue Creek Ranch property. These comments are
based on my experience and observation on the site, observations and work on other sites in the area. The
anticipated direct and indirect impacts of the proposed development to wildlife on this property include-
habitat
ncludehabitat loss from construction of roads and buildings and ancillary impacts due to increased human use on
the site.
Big game use of the property is likely very limited due to its proximity to existing developments and
heavily -used roadways, as well as the current overgrazed condition of the property. The bulk of current
wildlife use is from a wide variety of non -game bird species, small mammals and wetland -oriented fauna
such as ducks, geese, muskrats and perhaps beavers, though the latter is not likely given the condition of
woody vegetation on the property. The tall, mature trees on the property and its proximity to the Roaring
Fork River does make this a prime location for roost sites for wintering Bald eagles.
That being said, the habitats located on the parcel are severely degraded due to intense season -long
overgrazing by cattle, which has clearly been taking place for a number of years. Noxious weeds are a
significant problem throughout the property and woody vegetation is nearly all over -mature, decadent and
in varying stages of decay. As a wildlife habitat for any species, thisparcel, in its current condition, is of
limited value at best.
Given the presence of significant water rights, the presence of wetlands and the expected removal of
grazing livestock from the property, there are a number of management options which could create a
complex mix of habitat types and in return attract a vibrant and flourishing wildlife community to the
property, even in conjunction with the proposed development. However, it will be critical to carefully
coordinate construction activities and post -construction human use for the residential development with
habitat restoration in order to be successful.
In particular, increased traffic, noise, dogs and other human intrusions must be planned and implemented
carefully throughout construction and upon completion of the project in order to maximize wildlife
benefits. I would recommend that dogs be regulated with a leash covenant and never be allowed to run
freely on the parcel, both during construction and for homeowners thereafter. Physical harassment of
wildlife by roving dogs and the resultant negative effects including severe injury, death and abandonment
of habitat has been well documented, and noise disturbance even by restrained dogs has been shown to
cause total abandonment of habitat by some_ wildlife species. Cats are another concern, particularly if they
are allowed to roam freely in a productive bird -nesting area. Given the potential for a wide variety of neo -
tropical migrant bird species to use this wide riparian area, particularly if the vegetation is properly
managed, free -ranging felines could be a problem here, and I would recommend indoor cats only.
APPENDIX 6
Post -construction human use in the area should also be regulated. Construction of nature trails or bike
paths should be carefully planned to avoid critical nesting areas, particularly around the wetlands. On
roadways accessing the homesites, strict speed limits should be established and enforced, and roads should
be designed to discourage excessive speeds. A homeowner brochure should also be created which would
introduce new homeowners to the various aspects of living in close proximity to wildlife, what to expect,
how to behave, how to deal with problem wildlife and tips on biology and habitat needs and how they can
participate in enhancing wildlife viewing opportunities around their homes. Such an introduction to new
homeowners would alleviate many potential problems in the future and ensure your initial planning efforts
come to fruition over the long-term.
Sincerely,
Z21,Z
Steve D. Dahmer
NatureTech Consultant Services Corp.
Director of Ecological Operations
P.O. Box 1908
1 005 Cooper Ave.
lenwood Springs,
CO 81602
/`<\
Z/4NC4NELL4 AND 4S50C14 TES, INC.
ENGINEERING CONSULT414TS
September 8, 2000
Mr. Ace Lane
Mr Rob Cumming
c/o WindRiver Development
19351 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
Re: Blue Creek Ranch - Water Supply Investigations
Dear Mr. Lane and Mr. Cumming:
(970) 945-5700
(970) 945-1253 Fax
This report presents the findings of the water supply investigations performed by
Zancanella and Associates, Inc. for the proposed Blue Creek Ranch subdivision.
Information contained in this report addresses the estimated future domestic water uses,
the proposed legal and physical water supply, wastewater disposal, storm drainage, and
a preliminary review of the natural hazards for the subdivision.
Water Requirements
Table 1, attached, presents the estimated water uses for the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
subdivision. We have assumed that each EQR will represent 3.5 people using 100 gallons
of water per person per day. Water will be diverted to irrigate up to 2,500 square feet of
lawn at each "Medium Density" residence and up to 3,500 square feet of lawn at each
"Luxury" residence.
It is proposed that approximately 15 acres of tree farm will be irrigated. The tree farm
irrigation requirements will be met with diversions from the Basin Ditch and Middle Ditch.
The tree farm irrigation requirements are not included in the water requirements for the
central water system serving the subdivision.
Table 1 presents the diversions and consumptive use for the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
subdivision.
Legal Supply
As can be seen from the attached Table 1, the subdivision will divert an average 30.78 AF
annually, and consumptively use 7.79 AF. The peak month of June would require a
continuous average diversion of 30.48 gpm. The subdivision is located within Area A of the
Basalt District and will be eligible for the Basalt District temporary exchange plan approved
by Garfield County and the Colorado Division of Water Resources. An application will be
filed with the Basalt District to obtain a water contract for 32 AF, including transit losses.
As previously mentioned, irrigation requirements for the tree farm area will be met with
APPENDIX 7
diversions from the Basin Ditch and Middle Ditch. We understand that WindRiver
Development owns rights in both of these ditches.
Physical Supply
WindRiver Development has also retained the services of Zancanella and Associates, Inc.
to evaluate the potential for drilling and subsequent development of a water supply for the
proposed Blue Creek Ranch subdivision. Based on the location of the subdivision, the
underlying geology, and our experience with nearby subdivisions and their associated
wells, we would expect that wells could be constructed at the Blue Creek Ranch to provide
and adequate supply to meet peak system requirements for the subdivision. We propose
to perform a minimum of a 24 hour pump test prior to submittal of the preliminary plat.
As previously mentioned, irrigation requirements for the tree farm area will be met with
diversions from the Basin Ditch and Middle Ditch.
Fire flow requirements for the subdivision will be provided by the use of a 250,000 gallon
storage tank with a pump pressure boosting station. Bill Gavette with the Carbondale
Rural and Fire Protection District has indicated that the fire flow required for a similar,
nearby subdivision was 1500 gallons per minute for two hours. The proposed water
system improvements including the storage tank, booster pumps, and distribution system
have been designed to meet this requirement. Water quality testing will be performed
assuming that there will be a central community water supply system as defined by the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Wastewater Disposal
It is proposed that the wastewater requirements of the Blue Creek Ranch subdivision be
served by the construction of a centralized wastewater treatment plant. The proposed
wastewater treatment plant is to be constructed by WindRiver Development and will be
designed to meet current Colorado Department of Health and Environment guidelines.
We anticipate providing a system that will provide nutrient removal to protect the long term
health of the Roaring Fork River. An approved plant site application and a Colorado
Wastewater Discharge Permit will be required prior to final plat approval. The plant will be
located within the 100 year flood fringe area of the Roaring Fork River and will require a
county flood plain development permit.
Storm Drainage
The historic drainage patterns on the property will need to be reviewed. In accordance with
Garfield County regulations, the drainage design should be based on the 25 year post
development peak flows. Adequate water courses will need to be provided to convey the
offsite drainage through the property.
Natural Hazards
There are no potential avalanche or land slide hazards associated with this property. The
2
existing 100 year flood plain mapping will be reviewed and considered during the design
of the proposed lots. All building envelopes will be located out of the 100 year floodway.
Any building located within the 100 year flood fringe will be constructed so that the finish
floor will be a minimum of one foot above the designated 100 year flood plain. Flood plain
elevations and high water table elevations will limit the construction of basements and
crawlspaces.
If you have any questions, please call our office at (970) 945-5700.
Very truly yours,
Zancanella and Associates, Inc.
/L LCC -tet 11Q\
Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Scott Miller, Patrick & Stowell, P.C.
:Glen Horn, Davis Horn Incorporated
\\Fred\z&a jobs\20000120729 Blue Creek Ranch\GARBIueCrk.wpd
3
Blue Creek Ranch P.U.D. Estimated Water Requirements
t0 t0 (0 N Ont a) 0 m S m iD 8
6666 W c n n N 66
00040 n O N 0) M 0 W W 0
o O O M M n t0 0 0 CO O 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n
S S S S S S S S S S 0 0 0
666666666666 0
S 8 8 S 8 o o S O S S S O
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0
O S S N N 03 0 S 3 0 S n
O O O O ,- _.- O O O O 0 01
N N N N N N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O N
o dd 666 O 66 O O O O
n O n n n nO n n n n N
00
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
W M CO Q n (0 o N b
M R C O 7 W O
M M M 6 0 O 04 M N 10 M M 01
�- •- N M N N
O N O 3 f80 O S N W m r Sco
n
m .- O
r tV M Q 6t7 (V N M
S S O S O S S S S S O O O
O O O O O O o O O O O O O
S 8 O S o o O S S S 8 S O
666666600666 0
S O 0 0 N O (ss; O W O
O 0 0 0) M N M O W
6666'- P404 — .-; O O O 01
000000000000 0
O M 4 M Q M O V M 7 M C o 66060600666
0 (0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0
N < M Q M O Q M Y
L
0
g
r
a �
c
0
0
YI
E
z
December
20729/egr.123
ZANCANELLA & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
State of Colorado
ss AFFIDAVIT OF JANET RACZAK
County of Pitkin
I, JANET RACZAK, Affiant, being of lawful age and duly sworn upon my oath, do depose and
state as follows:
1. On September 6, 2000, I visited the Garfield County Assessor's Office to review the records of
land owners within 200 feet of the subject who were to receive Notice for the Blue Creek Ranch
PUD land use application.
2. Based on my research the most list of property owners names and addresses was provided to
Davis Horn, Incorporated on behalf of their client Wind River Development, for use in the public
noticing process.
3. I made a good faith effort to obtain an accurate list of the names and addresses of the land owners
within 200 feet to the subject parcel (see Exhibit "A").
FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
• XCL 9/210°
net L. Raczak Date
APPENDIX 8
1;
G
BLUE CREEK RANCH LAND USE APPLICATION
List of Owners within 200 feet of Subject
Subject Site: Parcel No. 2391 311 00 011
Owners: Wm. J. & Jayne M. Gilligan
3220 County Road 100
Carbondale CO 81623
2391 312 00 023
Aspen Equestrian Estates
719 5th Avenue
Miami Beach FL 33139
2391 312 00 024
St. Finnbar Land Company
Attn: Morton Heller
Pitkin County Bank
534 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen CO 81611
2391 313 00 028
Scott K. Mann & Victoria Quintana
2727 County Road 100
Carbondale CO 81623-9534
2391 313 00 027
Daniell J. Missey
1522 School Unit #F
Chicago IL 60657
2391 313 00 026
A. Stephen & Janice R. Crowley
2621 County Road 100
Carbondale CO 81623-9534
2391 311 00 009
Lael & Eddie Hughes
3844 County Road 100
Carbondale CO 81623-8808
2391 132 00 005
Mary Ann Hyde Revocable Trust
Attn: Mary Ann Hyde
POB 1557
Aspen CO 81612-1557
2391 311 00 012
Edward E. Dreager
44 Hooks Lane #16
Basalt CO 81621
2463 013 00 043
Carbondale Corporation
2000 S. Colorado Blvd.
Tower Two, Suite 2-1000
Denver CO 80222
2391 312 00 013
Oscar & Wilma Cerise
281 County Road 105
Carbondale CO 81623-9605
ASPEN EQUESTRIAN ESTATES
Lot Cl AEQ, LLC, et al.
c/o Klein - Zimet PC
201 N. Mill Suite 203
Aspen CO 81611
Dorothy Mae Gerstley
1525 Lexington Drive
Dresher PA 19025-1255
Henry & Lana Trettin
c/o Trettin Rodenbush & Partners
3350 Ocean Park Blvd #100
Santa Monica CA 90405
2391 313 00 015
Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County
109 8th Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs CO 81601-3363
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad ROW
Board of County Commissioners
Pitkin County
530 E. Main Street
Aspen CO 81611
Ex,hibi+ A
n., d In AZ, CO. k'1-
4P'O.42t .4044 • t 1.
4441 Q-2
7n
PATRICK ST STOWELL
Attorneys at Law
September 12, 2000
Mr. Rob -Cumming
Mr_ Ace Lane
Wind River Trees
19351 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
Re: Blue Creek Ranch Land Use Application (our file 597A)
Dear Ace and Rob:
This letter is to supplement the engineering report by Tom Zancanella regarding
legal water supply to serve development on Blue Creek Ranch. The raw water irrigation
for the tree farm and the project will come from water rights in the Basin Ditch, Middle
Ditch, and the Lower Ditch. The water rights to be acquired with the purchase of Blue
Creek Ranch are as listed in Exhibit "C" attached hereto_ It is our opinion these water
rights are more than legally and physically sufficient to serve the development_
If you have any questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
PATRICK & STOWELL, P.C.
A Professional Corporation
By: L c c 2z c
Scott C. Miller
miller@warerlaw,com
cc: Glenn Hort
Tom Z.aneanella
W .anc&Curt `MAS stLanv-Curexnrng9-!2wPd
n�a
VI -14
APPENDIX 9
Exhibit "C"
Water Rigbts
1. 26.5/150th of all right, title and interest originally acquired by T.O. Ranch Company of
Colorado in and to Basin Ditch No. 45, under original Priority Nos. 49 and 108, that
being an amount of 0.176 c_f s. in each priority, and 26.5/150th interest in 33.2 els_
under Priority No. 294, that being 5.865 c.f.s., (said original interest in T.O. Ranch
Company of Colorado being an undivided 1/5 interest in and to said Priority Nos 49 and
108).
2. An undivided 11/38th interest in and to all right, title and interest originally acquired by
T.O. Ranch Company of Colorado in and to Middle Ditch No. 68, under original priority
No. 83, that being 0.96 c,f.s,, (said original interest of T.O. Ranch Company of Colorado
being an undivided 2/3 interest therein.)
3_ 37/76th interest of all right, title and interest originally acquired by T.Q. Ranch Company
of Colorado in and to Lower Ditch No. 21 under original priority No. 23, that being 0.365
c.f.s., (said original interest ofT_O. Ranch Company of Colorado being an undivided one-
half interest in and to priority No. 23), and a 451134th interest as to priority No_ 721, that
being 3.996 c.fs., (said interest being the entire original interest acquired by T.O. Ranch
Company of Colorado).
4. Underground water rights in "T.0, Well," identified as Colorado State Engineer's No.
10560, with priority date of Juno 5, 1961, described in Case No. W-849, in the District
Court in and for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado, estimated to be 0.11 c.f.s.
5. All of applicant William J. Gilligan's right, title and interest in and to the C.C. Cerise
Gilligan Ditch, decreed for 3.0 c.Es. in Case No. 90W196 in Water Division No. 5 on
August 31, 1992, with an appropriation date of February 20, 1988.
w:isrie&CEe t+ ine541A\Poc0F:bih+K: Water R;$ht.wpd
1
vu
HW tc.nt int nnro_'i_aao
GecPtech
Hepworth -Pawl k Geoteehnical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-9454988
Fax: 970-945-8454
hpgeofOhpgeotech.com
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
PROPOSED BLUE CREEK RANCH SUBDPVISION
HIGHWAY 82 AND COUNTY ROAD 100
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 100 601
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
PREPARED FOR:
WIN -DRIVER HOLDINGS, LLC
ATTN : ROBERT M. CUMMING, JR.
19351 HIGHWAY 82
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
APPENDIX 10
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
September 11, 2000
WindRiver Holdings, LLC
Attn: Robert M. Cumming Jr.
19351 Highway 82
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
Job No.100 601
Subject: Report Transmittal, Prelithinary Geotechnical Study, Proposed Blue
Creek Ranch Subdivision, Highway 82 and County Road 100, Garfield
County, Colorado.
Dear Mr_ Cumming-
As
u mning_
As requested, we have conducted a preliminary geotechnicat study for the proposed
residential subdivision at Blue Creek Ranch.
The property is suitable for the proposed development based on geologic and
geotechnical conditions.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory pits excavated throughout the
property consist of 1!2 to 1 foot of topsoil overlying up to 31/2 feet of soft to medium stiff
sandy silty clay and loose silty clayey sand. Below depths of 11/2 to 4 feet, dense sandy
gravel with cobbles and boulders was encountered. Groundwater was typically
encountered between 11/2 and 4 feet in the northern part of the property.
Spread footings placed on the natural gravel subsoils or compacted structural fill and
designed for an allowable bearing pre.ssurc of 3,000 psf appear suitable for building
support. Foundations should be kept shallow to avoid groundwater impacts. The
infiltration septic disposal systems should be engineered for the site specific groundwater
and soil conditions.
The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and
presents our recommendations suitable for planning and preliminary design. It is
important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical
recommendations.
If you Have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC_
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
SLPfksw
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1
SITE CONDITIONS 2
GEOLOGIC SETTING 2
HELD EXPLORATION 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT 4
FLOODING 4
SINKHOLES 4
EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS 5
RADIATION POTENTIAL 5
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .. _ 6
FOUNDATIONS 6
BELOW GRADE CONSTRUCTION 7
FLOOR SLABS 7
SURFACE DRAINAGE 7
PAVEMENT SECTION 7
PERCOLATION TESTING 8
LIMITATIONS 8
REFERENCE 9
FIGURE 1 = GEOLOGY MAP AND EXPLORATORY PIT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 6 - SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 7 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE II - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
H -P GOTECH
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical study for the
proposed residential subdivision at Blue Creek Ranch located north of the Roaring Fork
River and east of 100 Road., Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on
Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the geologic and subsurface conditions
and their potential impacts on the project. The study was conducted in accordance with
our agreement for professional services ro WindRivcr holdings, LLC dated July 24,
2000.
A field exploration program consisting of a reconnaissance and exploratory pits
was conducted to obtain information on the site and subsurface conditions. Samples of
the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to
determine their classification, compressibility or swell characteristics and other
engineering properties. Percolation testing was also perfortned to evaluate the
feasability of infiltration septic disposal systems. The results of the field exploration and
laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for project planning anc3
preliminary design. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and
presents our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed development and
subsurface conditions encountered.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
At the time of this study development plans were in the conceptual stages. The
development will be a single family residential project and tree farm. The existing
ranch buildings will remain. The tree farm will be located on the high terrace in the
northern part of the property. The tree farm will provide a buffer zone between the
houses and Highway 82_ Nineteen clustered building sites are planned an the upper
terrace to the north of the existing ranch buildings. Twenty building sites on large lots
are planned to the south of the existing ranch buildings. Private driveways will be used
to provide access to the building sites and a dedicated road will provide access to
County Road 100. We assume the residences will be typical of those in the area and be
H -P GEOTECH
JGr-iG-GVCJtJ 1J•J1
11 r VLV 1 LL1 1
-2
two to three story buildings with slab -on -grade or shallow crawlspace. Extensive site
grading will probably not be required for the type of developrnt proposed. The
development will have on-site wells and a packaged centralized sewer system_
SITE CONDITIONS
The Blue Creek Ranch subdivision is located in the Roaring Fork valley about
three miles up stream from Carbondale. The property is located to the southeast of
Catherine's Store near the center of Section 31, T. 7 S., R. 87W. The Roaring Pork
River borders the property on the south. The general topography is shown on Fig. 1.
The ground in the area consists of nearly level terraces to the north of the river. The
terraces are from about 5 to 15 feet above the river. Ponds and several irrigation
ditches are present on the property. Much of the property is irrigated pasture and hay
fields. Outside the irrigated areas, vegetation Consists of cottonwood trees, grass and
brush. Wetlands are present in some of the lower lying parts of the property_
GEOLOGIC SETFING
Regional geology mapping shows that formation rock in the project area is the
Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997). Rock
outcrops are not present on the property, but outcrops and shallow colluvium (Qc/Pee)
are present on the valley to the south of the river. At the project site the Eagle Valley
Evaporite is expected to lie below typical foundation excavations depths. The Eagle
Valley Evaporite is a gray to tan gypsum, anhydrite and halite with interbedded
siltstone, claystone, shale and dolomite. Bedding in the rock is usually complexly
folded because of flow of the plastic evaporite. The gypsum, anhydrite and halite are
soluble in fresh water. Subsurface voids and related sinkholes are sometimes present in
areas where the Eagle Valley Evaporite is present near the ground surface_ Evidence of
sinkholes was not observed on the property.
Holocene and late Pleistocene alluvium deposited by the Roaring Fork River is
present below the terrace on the property The exploratory pits show that the alluvium
typically consists of a thin upper sandy clay that is usually less than 3.5 feet thick. The
H -P GEOTECH
3
underlying alluvium is a dense deposit of rounded gravel, cobbles and boulders in a
silty sand matrix. Four terrace levels are present an the property (Qt1 through Qt4).
The lowest level represents abandoned river channels_ The higher terraces represent
former valley floor levels. Along this reach of the Roaring Fork River, the modern
river channel transitions from a straight channel pattern up stream of the County Road
100 bridge to a braided channel pattern down stream of the bridge. The lower terraces
to the north of the river at the project site show a relict bradded stream pattern on the
aerial photographs
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on July 28, 2000. Fourteen
exploratory pits were excavated at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the general
subsurface conditions. The pits were dug with a rubber tired backhoe and were logged
by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken by relatively undisturbed and disturbed
sampling methods. The undisturbed samples were obtained in the fine-grained soils by
hand driven 2 inch diameter liners. The disturbed samples were obtained in the coarse
granular soils. Depths at which the samples were taken are shown on the Logs of
Exploratory Pits, Fig_ 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by
the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 'A to 1 foot of organic topsoil overlying up to
about 31/2 feet of soft to medium stiff sandy silty clay and loose silty clayey sand at Pit
8. Below depths from about 1 to 4 feet, relatively dense, slightly silty to silty sandy
gravel and cobbles with boulders was encountered to the maximum depth explored of
51/2 feet. Digging in the dense gravel with the light duty backhoe was difficult due to
the cobbles and boulders.
ti -P GEOTECH
xr-1� GYJCJCI 1, • JG rl-r u u I Gt.r
-4-
r.rJo,co
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the pits included natural
moisture content and density and gradation analyses. Results of consolidation testing
performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the clay and sand soils, shown on Figs.
4 - 6, indicate moderate to high compressibility under conditions of loading and
wetting_ Results of a gradation analyses performed on a disturbed bulk sample (minus
5 inch fraction) of the natural gravel with cobbles soils are shown on Fig_ 7. The
laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
Free water was generally encountered in Pits 1 through 7 (located in the
northern part of the property) at depths of about 11/2 to 4 feet and in Pit 14 at a depth of
5 feet_ The upper soils were moist to very moist.
GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT
There are several conditions of a geologic nature that should be considered in
project planning and development. These conditions and their expected influence on the
proposed development are discussed below.
FLOODING
The low lying ground along the -river may be subject to occasional flooding by
the Roaring Fork River. A hydrologist should evaluate the flood potential for the
project. These evaluations should establish potential flood levels and the need for
mitigation to protect proposed structures in the low lying parts of the site. The flood
evaluations should also consider the possibility of river reoccupation of the abandoned
channels and the possible need for river bank stabilization.
SINKHOLES
Evidence of sinkholes were not observed in the field or on the aerial
photographs of the property. The sinkhole risk on the property is viewed to be low and
no greater than that present in other parts of the Roaring Fork Valley where the
evaporite is near the surface. The potential for shallow subsurface voids that could
develop into sinkholes should be considered when planning site specific geotechnical
studies at the building sites. If conditions indicative of sinkhole related problems are
H -P GEOTECH
I" 1 1 UGV I 1
encountered, the building site should be abandoned or the feasibility of mitigation
evaluated. Mitigation measures could. include:
• Stabilization by Grouting
• Stabilization by Excavation and Backfilling
• Deep Foundation Systems
• Structural Bridging
• Mat Foundations
• Set -back from the Sinkhole
Water features such as landscape ponds are not recommended near building sites
unless evaluated on a site specific basis. Home owners should be advised of the
sinkhole potential, since early detection of foundation distress and timely remedial
actions are important in reducing the cost of remediation, should a sinkhole start to
develop after construction.
EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS
The project area could experience moderately strong earthquake related ground
shaking. Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a
reasonable service life of the development, but the probability for stronger ground
shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general
alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction.
Occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking
with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region
is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on our current
understanding of the earthquake hazard in this part of Colorado, we see no reason to
increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area.
RADIATION POTENTIAL
The project site is not located on geologic deposits that would be expected to
have high concentrations of radioactive minerals_ However, there is a potential that
radon gas could be present in the area. It is difficult to assess future radon gas
concentrations in buildings before the buildings are constructed. Testing for radon gas
levels could be done when the residences and other occupied structures have been
H -P GEOTECH
J .r-1G-CCJ✓ J .L..?..) ri-r t L) I Cl.,rl
6
completed. New buildings are often designed with provisions for ventilation of lower
enclosed areas should post construction testing show unacceptable radon gas
concentration.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
r . J. V.- co
The conclusions and recommendations presented below are based on the
proposed development, the site reconnaissance, subsurface conditions encountered in the
exploratory pits, and our experience in the area. The recommendations are suitable for
planning and preliminary design but site specific studies should be conducted for
individual lot development.
FOUNDATIONS
Bearing conditions will vary depending on the specific location of the buildings
on the property. The subsoils consist of compressible clay and sand soils overlying
dense gravel soils. The clays and sands possess low bearing capacity and moderate to
high settlement potential. The underlying gravels possess moderate bearing capacity and
low settlement potential.
Based on the nature of the proposed construction, spread footings bearing on the
natural gravel subsoils should be suitable for building support. We expect the footings
can be sized for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The overlying fine
grained soils may need to be removed to expose the underlying gravels and replaced
with compacted structural fill. We can evaluate the feasibility of bearing on the upper
fine- grained soils, such as with a lightly loaded monolithic slab foundation, as part of
the site specific lot study. Foundation walls should be designed to span local anomalies
and to resist lateral earth loadings when acting as retaining structures. The footings
should have a minimum depth of 36 inches, for frost protection.
H -P GEOTECH
7
BELOW GRADE CONSTRUCTION
Ground water level typically appears shallow throughout the project area. Field
sprinkler and flood irrigation could be contributing to the shallow groundwater
condition. Due to the shallow water level and flat lying terrain, it will probably not be
practical to protect below grade areas from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by
use of an underdrain system. We recommend that slab -on -grade floors be placed near to
above existing grade and crawlspaces be kept shallow, at least 2 feet above groundwater
level. Basement levels may not be feasible. Potential groundwater impacts on proposed
development should be evaluated as part of the site specific building study
FLOOR SLABS
Slab -on -grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the natural soils
below the topsoil. There could be some potential for slab settlement where there are
compressible clay subgrade soils. To reduce the effects of some differential movement,
non-structural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with
expansion joints. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to
shrinkage cracking. A minimum 4 inch thick layer of free -draining gravel should
underlie building slabs to break capillary water rise and facilitate drainage.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The grading plan for the subdivision should consider runoff through the project
and at individual sites. Water should not be allowed to pond next to buildings. Exterior
backfill should be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a
distance of 10 feet. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits
of all backfill.
PAVEMENT SECTION
The near surface soils encountered in the pits below the topsoil consist of poor
quality sandy silty clay and fair to good quality sandy gravel. We recommend the
pavement section for the site access road consist of a minimum 3 inches of asphalt
pavement on 8 inches of Class 6 aggregate base course for the sandy gravel subgrade
condition. The subgrade should be evaluated for pavement support at the time of
H.P GEOTECH
8
construction. Subexcavation of the fine-grained soils and replacement with coarse
gravel subbase material may be needed to achieve a stable subgrade.
PERCOLATION TESTING
Percolation tests were conducted on July 29, 2000 to evaluate the feasibility of
infiltration septic disposal systems. One percolation hole was dug adjacent each of the 14
exploratory pits at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The test holes (nominal 12 inch
diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and
were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the percolation
holes are similar to those exposed in the exploratory pits shown on Fig. 2. The
percolation test results are presented in Table II. The infiltration septic system disposal
systems should be engineered for the site specific groundwater and soil conditions.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty
either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this
report are based upon the data obtained from the field reconnaissance, review of
published geologic reports, the exploratory pits located as shown on Fig. 1 and to the
depths shown on Fig. 2, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the
area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions
identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not
become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during
construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified
so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning and
preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by
others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued
consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation
of our recommendations. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or
modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site
H•P GEOTECF1
�Cf""1G"CCICJtJ 1J •
r, r t?CV I c,.. -rt
9
observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by
a representative of the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
1HE WORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
4 4# d0:141Pve-
Ralph .Ivlock
Engineering Geologist
and by:
Steven L. Pawlak, P
SLP/ksw
cc: Sopris Engineering - • ncy Nichol
Design Workshop, Inc. - Attn: Sheri Sanzone
Davis Horn, Inc. - Attn: Glen Horn
REFERENCE
Kirkham, R.M. and Widmann, B.L., 1997, Geology Map of the Carbondale
Quadrangle, Garfield Counay, Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey Open File
97-3.
H -P GEOTECH
Q 500 ft.
L o
Scale 1 in. = 500 R.
Contours 2 ft.
EXPLANATION:
of - Man -Placed Fill Qt4 - High River Terrace
Qc - Colluvium Pee - Eagle Valley Evaporite
Qt1 - Abandoned River Channels Contact (approx.)
Qt2 - Low River Terrace P'1 ■ Exploratory Pit
Qt3 - Intermediate River Terrace
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK Proposed Blue Creek Ranch SubdivisionFig- 1
GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. Geology Map and Exploratory Pit Locationsit-
JCr-1G-GCPJCJ n -r VCV 1 Cl.n
0)
N
Ii
*49
S J
auJ
co
N
to
li
N
W
a141
N
tO
R
w
0 601
Depth — Feet Depth — Feet
tia
tifti
Depth — Feet
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC_
a J � co in
co
i`C Il
N m C}
0inN
(O
s- ;U J. p
N
CD
N
i$
N
co
tl
0_w
0
N
a
�L
1''
O
IHIII
Depth — Feet
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3_
Fig.
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
Ott""-1G-Criu ID • DD rl-f' UCV I CL -rt
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; organic silty clay, soft, moist to very moist, dark brown.
CLAY (CO); silty. sandy. soft to medium stiff, very moist to wet, mixed brown, low plasticity.
SAND (SM—SC): silty, clayey, loose, very moist. dark brown.
GRAVEL AND COGGLES (GM—CP); with boulders, sandy. slightly silty to silty. dense. moist to very
moist with depth. mixed brown, rounded to subrounded rock.
2" Diameter hand driven liner sample.
Disturbed bulk sample.
Free water level in pit at time of excavating_
NOTES:
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on July 28, 2000 with a beckhoe.
2. Locations and elevations of exploratory pits were provided by Sopris Engineering.
Pit Iogs are drown to depth.
3_
The exploratory pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the method used.
4. The lines between materiels shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate
boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual_
5. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated.
No free water was encountered in Pits 3 and 8 thru 13. fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
5. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC Water Content ( % )
DD = Dry Density ( pcf )
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve
—200 Percent passing No. 200 sieve
100 601
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
Fig. 3
tr--1G—GUU:) 13.33
r1 -r LICU I Cl..r1
Compression
SE
Compression
7
0
4
5
6
Moisture Content = 22.9 percent
Dry Density = 102 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Pit 2 at 1.5 Feet
Com p r :- sion
upon
wetting
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
r
100
Moisture Content = 24.0 percent I
Dry Density = 101 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Pit 4 at 1.5 Feet
0.1
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
100
100 601
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC_
SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4
OCT-- L G✓J✓Jt) 13.33
n ---r L J1c�n
c
0
m
E
0
0
0
C7
0
d
E
0
U
0
7
s
0
1 Moisture Content = 24.2 percent
Dry Density = 98 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Pit 6 at 1.5. Feet
No movemen
upon
wetting
0.1
7
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE -• ksf
100
Moisture Content = 17.7
Dry Density = 89
Sample of: Silty Clayey Sand
From: Pit 8 at 3 Feet
percent
pcf
Compression
upon
wetting
0.1
L
10 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
100
100 601
HEPWORTH - PA.WLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
ng. 5
0
4
5
5
7
7
8
Moisture Content =
25.1 percent
Dry Density = 39 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Pit 9 at 1.5 Feet
0.1
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE -- ksf
Compression
upon
wetting
100
Moisture Content = 27.3 percent
Dry Density 85 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Pit 14 at 2 Feet
No movement
upon
wetting
0.1
100 601
10 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC_
SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
100
Fig. 6
riiiimiii iiimii
1111111111
—____ s�ai i ii irommi
ammonftlIMISIMUI
iia X111111 _1 w._1.../11.1_1■s.1.121111._1.12T fii_s�
--.�
— .- .___1•____111.____ —_ is
a_arrr�rll-�.._....��.._---U�
—_____ sie musionast il in i
a�■���____ms___s■e__.i■/`s_N31NE
T—i�ea i ai �soe»■c i ii: i ■�"ies'
=a
1r�an+ rrww��r�r�4 �.•���w�ar.trr�
-- -- -li�Mwca �s■�;la�:�a�—�s�SSr�sal
INIMMINUNIIIMIIMINIONWM•=1•1•=0 r+rrZIrsw=1111•11 r=
ii=i====
• .?o n -r L L I c•_,r1
;431121.1.4E7-; sississs
SIEVE ANAt.nS
11WE REA4tt±43
S7A17ARd SERV$
2+ NR, 7 NR
0 45 MK 15 /RN. 80 1.1114.19 iWii. 4 MK 1 YR'N. 1/2130 #50 jib •15
100
.001 .002 .005 .004 .014 .037 .074 .150
CLEAR SQUARE f1A£TI194G4
j4 3/Cf'1jx'3/4' 1 1/3' .r S'3' 5.100
CLAY TO 511.T
100 601
GRAVEL 87 %
LIQUID LIMIT
.300 .600 1.1a 2.36 (75
9.512.5 19.0
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILOMETERS
37.5
75.Z 15Z
12?
SAND 12 %
SILT AND CLAY 1
PLASTICITY INDEX Sa
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Grovel and Cobbles FROM: Pit t3 at 3 thru 4 Feet
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL., INC.
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
203
so
0
90
0
ti_S:idCIIMl IM
Fig. 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
(17
0
0
0
a
0
U
I z
M
J -J
1d
cr
r
U
I 1—
W
0
Lu
I Q CO
I
i.i.
1 -
et
0
D.
Lu
1
1
1
1
1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TES]
n -r ucU I ct,n
r.
�
o
l'i >
.,v
a
o a
Im
Sandy Silty Clay 1
Sandy Silty Clay 1l
---
Sandy Silty Clay 1I
Silty Clayey Sand 1l
[Sandy Silty Clay
Sandy Gravel and
Cobbles
Sandy Silty Clay
w 7 =
x h •••
x ¢E i
8 k- Q 0
o m
_
J
0
Q'
w
D,
Z
a
I
o
d s
z z m
w
a o 4 Y
0
co(0
0
c�
t`
rCO
-
O
I-
0 O
p
2
-
N
w
4
1---
co
3.
® z Q
W
2 O
2
(a
lam'
r-
Qi
W
W
V
M
M
CO
Cr)
N
Sf.
1111
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
1%)
NN
r-
O
N
tV
r-
t'..
c-
Nco
`r
0
SAMPLE LOCATION [
o '�
eV
•�t
CLi
co
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
JGr-1G-CCIYJCJ 1J • J f
n -r 11GV 1 Cl.n
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 100 601
Page 1 of 5
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
UNCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(NIIN.I(NCH)
P-1
15'/s
15
water added
8'/2
6 314
1 /4
20
6%
5%
1
9
7 34
'! %4
7 /4
6 Y.
1 '/4
6'/Y
5Y2
1
5 '//
4 Y2
1
4y,
3Y4
%
3 34
3
3/4
P-2
15
15
11
8 '/4
2 54
24
S 1/4
7 4
34
7h
7
'4
7
6%
1/2
6 1
5 '/a
'A
5'h
4 Y.
Y.
4 31.
4 '%
'/a
4 '/
3 'h
34
P-3
23
15
water added
water added
5
3 '/?
1 Yz
30
3'/:
2314
%
4'/
3 %.
Y.
33/.
3
%
5
4
1
4
3 Y
'
3 '14
2 %
'4
2%
2'/4
/
Note; Percolation tests
shown on Fig. 1
Percolation tests
Inc
were conducted adjacent to corresponding exploratory pits located as
. Percolation test holes were hand dug and soaked on July 28, 2000.
were conducted on July 29, 2000 by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
JCr-iG-CYJCJtJ 1D.3( h -r UtU I tLh
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 100 601
Page2of5
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN}
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN_MNCH}
P-4
15
15
water added
water added
9
3 J4
5 '
8
9
6
3
6
3
3
9 %
6 s
2 'A
6 3
4 /4
2
4'
2 34
2
23'4
1
1'
P-5
11
15
water added
6
4 '
1 'A
17
4 14
4
3'4
4
2 'h
r
1 ''A
6 ''4
5 '
'A
5'
4 34
1
4 %
4
%
4
3
1
3
2'/4
%
P-6
16
15
water added
8 3
5'
3
13
5'
33
2
3%
2
134
2
1
1
10 Y:
$ j
2 'l4
8 'A
6 'A
1 'l-
6'
5 A
1 '/4
5 A
4 'A
1
Note: Percolation tests were conducted adjacent to corresponding numbered exploratory pits
located as shown on Fig. 1. Percolation test holes were hand dug and soaked on July 28,
2000. Percolation tests were conducted on July 29, 2000 by Hepworth - Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
bbr-1; -: r�e�� 1� • �a
n -r ubu i mi -n
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 11
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 100 601
Page 3 of 5
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN.JINCH)
P-7
11 '/a
15
water added
water added
5 9/4
2 34
3
20
2 %
%
2
6
4 1/2
1 1/2,
4 '/2
3 Yz
1
5 1/4
4 Y.
1 1/4
4 '/
4
Y=
4
3'A
344
3Y.
2Y.
3/4
P-8
23
15
water added
water added
8 Y.
5 '/2
3 1/4
8
9 34
6 a/
3
6 2/.
4
2 1/4
4
2
2
4 1/2
6 34
2 %,
6314
4 %
2
4 34
3
1 9l
3
1
2
P-9
26 A
15
water added
water added
8'/.
3 Ys
4 Y4
7
9+ %
5 Y4
4
5 1/4
1 3/4
3 1/2
9 %
7 3/4
2
79/4
5%
2'/
5'
3
2'A
3
1
2
Note: Percolation tests
shown on Fig. 1
Percolation tests
Inc.
were conducted adjacent to corresponding exploratory pits located as
. Percolation test holes were hand dug and soaked on July 28, 2000.
were conducted on July 29, 2000 by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
JCr-1G-GtJVJI'J 1J•JC
17-r UCL.) I Cl_.fl
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE H
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
. �o
JOB NO. 100 601
Page 4 of 5
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
{MIN.)INCH)
P-10
18
15
water added
water added
6
1 'h
4 '
15
5
3 %
1 '/
33
2'la
1
5
3 Y
1 %
3 %
2 Y
1
2 %
1 i
1
P-11
26 Y2
15
water added
water added
6
3%
2'h
13
3h
1 Ya
2'A
4 %
2 Y
2
2 Y
1
1 Y2
5 Y2
1 'h
5Yz
4Y
1
4%
3%
11/4
P-12
23
15
water added
water added
water added
53
2%
3
J
2 %
1
1 %
5 %
3'h
2
3h
1 Ye
2Y
4 Ys
2 %
2 Y4
4 Y2
2
2 '
2 %
'/a
2
Note: Percolation tests
shown on Fig. 1
Percolation tests
lnc
were conducted adjacent to corresponding exploratory pits located as
. Percolation test holes were hand dug and soaked on July 28, 2000.
were conducted on July 29, 2000 by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�cr-1� �u�r� 1J• JO
n -r uc� ct,n
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC,
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 100 601
Page 5 of 5
Note; Percolation tests
shown on Fig. 1
Percolation tests
Inc.
were conducted adjacent to corresponding exploratory pits located as
. Percolation test holes were hand dug and soaked on July 28, 2000.
were conducted on July 29, 2000 by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical,
TOTAL P.26
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P-13
23'
15
water added
water added
water added
water added
6
1'
4A
3
6 ,
1 Y.
5 '/n
6
1 3/
4 ,/
e
1
5
7
i4
6A
P-14
23
15
water added
water added
7 'h
5
2 /-
I
5
3 1/4
1 Y.
6'/<
1 Y.
8'/a
4'
1
4'
2%
2
8
6
2
-
6
4 %
1 %
4 '/9
3 A
1
3 'h
2 %
1
15
Note; Percolation tests
shown on Fig. 1
Percolation tests
Inc.
were conducted adjacent to corresponding exploratory pits located as
. Percolation test holes were hand dug and soaked on July 28, 2000.
were conducted on July 29, 2000 by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical,
TOTAL P.26
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Kevin L. Patrick
Brian L. Stowell
Scott C. Miller
Ramsey L. Kropf*
Sara M. Dunn
*licensed in AZ, CO, WY
Main Office:
730 E. Durant Ave.
Suite 200
Aspen, CO 81611
970.920.1028 Tel
970.925.6847 Fax
Arizona Office:
310 S. Mill Ave.
Suite 201
Tempe, AZ 85281
480.921.4044 Tel
480.921.8688 Fax
www. waterlaw com
PATRICK & STOWELL
Attorneys at Law
September 7, 2000
Mr. Rob Cumming
Mr. Ace Lane
WindRiver Development Company, LLC
5680 Grand River Dr., N.E.
Ada, Michigan 49301
Re: Legal Access for Blue Creek Ranch, (our file 597A)
Dear Ace and Rob:
You have asked us to provide a legal opinion as to access to the Blue Creek Ranch
property, as legally described in the attached Exhibit to the Title Commitment. The west
boundary of the property has frontage on County Road 100 and the north boundary of the
property has frontage on Colorado State Highway 82. It is our opinion there is legal access
to these public right of ways and that there are no access impediments.
If you have any questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
PATRICK . STOWELL, P.C.
A Prof . sional Corporation
r
By:
Scott C. Miller
miller(&,waterlaw. com
cc: Glenn Horn
W:\Lane&Cumming\591 A\Letters\LaneCummingAccess.wpd
APPENDIX 11
1
!WJ. 1U. LUUU 1 U . Lfl1i1
Garfield County Planning Department CIS Resources:
Colorado Division of ildlife WRIS Data Checklist for:
.391-311-- oD-011 1 Fs -t9--00
17U. UJ4' Y 1
Rob HAYS, GIS AAsInit.. aercooKine.nec 970-945-1212 FAX 97 3S 01=10010::5 AM
Note: For Interpretation of this data, contact Pam Schnurr, WIldlife Biologist Colorado Division of
Wildlife, Grand Junction, at 970-297-1192.
Wildlife habitat lies:
Bald Eagle Active Nest Site
Bald Eagle Winter Range
Black Bear Overall Range
Black Bear -Human Conflict
Black Bear Fall Concentration Area
Black Bear Summer Concentration Area
Bighorn Migration Patterns
Bighom Overall Range
Bighom Winter Range
Bighorn Winter Concentration Area
Bighorn Summer Range
Bighorn Production Area
Boreal Toad
Canada Goose Brood Concentration Area
Canada Goose Feeding Area
Canada Goose Production Area
Canada Goose Wintering Area
Canada Goose Winter Concentration Area
Chukar
Colo River Cuthroat Trout
EIk Migration Corridors
Elk Winter Range
EIk Winter Concentration Area
EIk Severe Winter Range
EIk Overall Range
Elk Summer Range
EIk Summer Concentration Area
Elk Production Area
Golden Eagle Nest Site
Golden Eagle Nest Unknown Status
Great Blue Heron Nesting Area
Kltfox Potential Habitat
Kltfox Field Sightings
Lynx
Mule Deer Migration Pattems
Mule Deer Winter Range
Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area
Mule Deer Severe Winter Range
Mule Deer Overall Range
Mule Deer Summer Range
Mule Deer Resident Population Area
Mule Deer Highway Crossing
Native Fish '
Osprey Active Nest Site
.-c ‘,14k - Ma Unim.i.v1Wh1}e sG►
H+ 5 - Niofitle� Scu.i•J
31'1s- $I 5ucker
Entirely Partly Within Out
in Area in Area 1 Mite of Area
"ONOINNIMI .1111.0
MEMIMMEM
3
OMM
•
APPENDIX 12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AUG. 15. 2000 10:15AM
u.4 r.
Wildlife habitat Iles: Entirely Partly Within 1 Out
in Area in Area Mile of Area
Peregnne Falcon Active Nest
Peregrine Falcon Nesting Area
Peregrine Falcon Migratory Hunting Habitat
Pronghorn Antelope Overall Range
Pronghom Antelope Winter Range
Pronghorn Antelope Winter Concentration Area
Ptarmigan Potential Habitat
Raptors
Razorback Sucker
River Otter Overall Range
Sage Grouse Brood Area
Sage Grouse Overall Range
Sage Grouse Production Area
Sage Grouse Winter Area
Wild Turkey Overall Range
Wild Turkey Production Ares
Wild Turkey Winter Range
Wild Turkey Winter Concentration Area
Wild Turkey Roosting Sites
Wolverine Possible Sighting
•
•
•
0. Forams.
•
•
•
•
•
-d
77/
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
Non -Technical Descriptions
Soil Survey Area: 655 ASPEN -GYPSUM AREA, COLORADO, PARTS OF
Map unit: 1 Acree very stony sandy loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes
Description Category: SOI
This deep, well -drained soil is on alluvial fans and valley side -slopes. It formed in
alluvium and residuum derived dominantly from redbed sandstone and shale. The
upper part of the surface layer is very stony sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The lower
part is clay loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is clay 13 inches thick. The
substratum to a depth of 60 inches or more is heavy clay loam. Permeability is slow.
Available water capacity is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runo
ff is medium to rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate to very high on the
steeper slopes.
Map unit: 13 Atencio-Azeltine complex, 3 to 6 percent slopes
Description Category: SOI
This map unit is on alluvial fans and terraces. This unit is 60 percent Atencio sandy
loam and 30 percent Azeltine gravelly sandy loam.
The Atencio soil is deep and well -drained. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly
from sandstone and shale. The surface layer is sandy loam 10 inches thick. The
subsoil is sandy clay loam 10 inches thick over gravelly sandy loam 4 inches thick. The
u
pper 6 inches of the substratum is gravelly sandy loam. The lower part to a depth of 60
inches is very gravelly sand. In some areas the surface layer is gravelly or cobbly.
Permeability is moderate to a depth of 30 inches and rapid below this depth. Av
ailable water capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is
slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate.
The Azeltine soil is deep and well -drained. It formed in alluvium derived dominantly
from sandstone and shale. Permeability is moderate in upper part, and rapid below a
depth of 16 inches. Available water capacity is very low. Effective rooting depth i
s 60 inches or more. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to
moderate.
Map unit: 54 Grotte gravelly loam, 25 to 65 percent slopes
Description Category: SOI
This deep, well -drained soil is on mountain side -slopes. It formed in alluvium and
colluvium derived dominantly from sandstone. The surface layer is gravelly loam 4
inches thick. The next layer is a gravelly clay loam 3 inches thick. The underlying mat
erial to a depth of 60 inches or more is very channery clay loam. Permeability is
moderately slow. Available water capacity is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60
inches or more. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is very high.
Monday, September 11, 2000
Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX 13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Map unit: 92 Redrob loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
Description Category: SOI
This deep, somewhat poorly -drained soil is on alluvial valley floors, low terraces, and
flood plains. It formed in mixed alluvium derived dominantly from sandstone and
shale. The surface layer is loam 14 inches thick. The next layer is stratified stony
loam 6 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 60 inches is stony and very
cobbly loamy sand and sand. Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is
low. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches for water -tolerant plants but is limited
to depths between 20 and 40 inches for non -water -tolerant plants. Runoff is slow to
medium, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to high on the steeper slopes. A high
water table is at a depth of 18 to 48 inches year-round. This soil is subject to
brief periods of flooding in May to July. Ice jams also cause flooding during prolonged
cold periods in winter.
Monday, September 11, 2000
Page 2 of 2
I�HKF 1 f=.L L LUUN I Y J (IObL�4�4 (VJ
•
1 111111 11111 111111 111111 1111 1111 1111111111 111111111111
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P 61387 P101 M ALSDORF
1 of a R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
M
11/10//0L 110:biam N. LUL
•
At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County,
Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building, in
Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 5th day of August, 2002, -there were present:
John Martin , Corrunissioner Chairman
Larry McCown , Commissioner
Walt Stowe , Commissioner
Don DeFord , County Attorney
Mildred Al.sdorf , Clerk of the Board
Ed Green , County Manager
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-82
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY
PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR WINDRIVER
DEVELOPMENT, LLC
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado,
received a Preliminary Plan and Planned Unit Development (PUD) application from
WindRiver, LLC to develop the Blue Creek Ranch property by subdividing the 81 acre
site into 49 residential lots, of which, nine (9) lots shall be developed with deed -restricted
affordable housing units and rezone the site from A/R/RD to (PUD); and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2002, the Garfield County Planning Commission
amended the Proposed Land Use District Map of the Garfield Comprehensive Plan of
2000 for the subject property from Low Density Residential (10+ ac/DU) to High Density
Residential (<2 ac/DU) by a 7 to 0 vote; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2002, the Garfield County Planning Commission
forwarded a recommended of approval with conditions to the Board of County
Commissioners for the PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan requests by a 7 to 0 vote;
and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the 5th day of August 2002 upon
the question of whether the above-described Preliminary Plan and PUD should be granted
I Illill 11111 111111 111111 1111 1111 III III IIIII IIII IIII
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P B1387 P102 M ALSDORF
2 of 8 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
11! KJ! ! YJL lYJ: �l dlll r. LI4JJ
•
or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity
to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Preliminary Plan and PUD; and
WHEREAS, the Board closed the public hearing on the 5th day of August 2002 to
make a final decision; and
WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at
the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of facts:
1. Proper public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board
of County Commissioners.
2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete;
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties
were heard at that hearing.
3. The application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4:00 of the
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of, 1984, as amended.
4. The application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4.00 of the
Zoning Resolution regarding Planned Unit Developments in the Garfield County.
5. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that based on determination of facts set
forth above, the subdivision (Preliminary Plan) and Planned Unit Development request is
approved to allow for development of the Blue Creek Ranch property by subdividing the
81 acre site into 49 residential lots, of which, nine (9) lots shall be developed with deed -
restricted affordable housing units and rezoning the site from A/R/RD to (PUD) with the
following conditions:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval,
unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
2. Due to the fact that the water system for Blue Creek Ranch PUD is a merged system
with the Aspen Equestrian Estates Subdivision, the Applicant shall incorporate
language addressing the interaction between the two Homeowners Associations in the
Blue Creek Ranch By -Laws indicating the responsibilities of both Associations for
the shared water system.
3. The Applicant shall include the following recommendations of the Division of
Wildlife included within their letter dated May 13, 2002 (Exhibit V to Public Hearing
dated 8/5/02) within the Homeowner's Association covenants and provide procedures
1111111 Hill 111111 111111 IIl 1111 III
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P B1387 P103 M ALSDORF
3 of 8 R 0.00 D 0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
for their enforcement by the HOA:
•
r. 1U ICJ 4}
a) Dogs and cats shall be prevented from running at large.
b) Wire fencing shall be held to a minimum with a maximum height of 42" with
no more than 4 strands and a 12" kickspace between the top two strands. Rail
fencing should be held to a maximumheight of 42" with at least 18" between
two of the rails. Mesh fencing is strongly discouraged. Privacy fencing may
be allowed in the residential clustered areas within building envelopes only.
c) The Applicant shall use bear -proof trash cans,
4. The Applicant shall include the following recommendations of the Division of
Wildlife within the Homeowner's Association covenants as recommendations for
homeowners to consider regarding the presence of wildlife on the property:
a) Bird feeders should be strung up from the ground with a seed catchment an.d
humming bird feeders are not mounted on windows or the siding of the
b ouses.
b) Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be left
outside.
c) BBQs should be securely housed in the garage or other indoor structure when
not in use.
d) Eliminate the planting of any berry, fruit, or nut producing plants or shrubs to
discourage bears and other wildlife from feeding.
e) Maintain as much of the existing vegetation as possible.
5_ The Applicant shall conduct a weed inventory and provide the locations on a map. In
addition, the Applicant shall provide a weed management plan for the inventoried
noxious weeds. This information shall be sent to and reviewed by the Garfield County
Vegetation Department prior to Final Plat.
6. Common arca weed management -The Open Space Plan lists various areas of the site
as conservation easements, private open space, general open space, public parks,
public trail, or CDOT dedication. The Applicant shall designate entity or entities that
will be responsible for weed management in each of these areas including roadways
in the project. The Applicant shall submit this information to the Garfield County
Vegetation Department for review prior to Final Plat.
7. Weed management by the Homeowners AsQrlr'fkn and eachindividual lot owner
shall be addressed in the covenants.
8. The Applicant shall provide a map or narrative, prior to finalplat that quantifies the
area, in terms of acres, to he disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and
utility disturbances. The Applicant shall follow the revised Revcgetation Guidelines
from the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (adopted on May 7, 2001) as to
the following:
I.HRr 1GLL ��IJ UIV 1 T
11/0(/U4 L U: slam r. UU t,
i 11111 11111 111111 111111 1111 111 al iii uiii iui iui •
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P 81387 P104 M ALSDORF
4 of 8 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIFLD COUNTY CO
a) Plant material list.
b) Planting schedule.
c) A map of the areas impacted by soil. disturbances (outside of the building
envelop es).
d) A revegetation bond or security shall be submitted at Final Plat and
appropriate language regarding its release shall be included and discussed in
the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA).
e) Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
f) A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
g) A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit
exposed for a period of 90 days or more.
9. The Applicant shall include estimates for the reclamation efforts. The estimates
should include costs for seeding, mulching, and other factors that may aid in plant
establishment.
10. The Applicant shall provide a detailed analysis regarding the outlet flow from the
existing pond regarding detention storage releases by the time of Final Plat.
11. The Applicant shall provide a si,gn.ed copy of an agreement with. St. Finnbar Ranch
regarding the relocation of the `lower ditch' within the property by the time of Final
Plat.
12. The Applicant shall be allowed to reduce the Garfield County Street and Roadway
design standards in designing the internal road network as well as the access points
into the PUD from CR 100 as part of the Planned Unit development. As such, all
roads and rights-of-way within the subdivision shall be designed to no less than a
width of 50 feet in accordance with the Secondary Access classification as defined in
Section 9:35 of the Garfield County Subdivision regulations.
13. The Applicant shall place additional straw bales in the drainage ditch along County
Road 100 between Ponderosa Pass Road and the Blue Creek Ranch drainage, and
along County Road 100 between Bristlecone Drive and the Blue Creek drainage.
Construction documents shall reflect these changes by the time of Final Plat.
14. The Applicant shall provide an inspection, maintenance, and pumping plan for the
proposed septic tanks of the sewer system to be reviewed and approved by the
Planning DP„arfrnent. This plan shall be included within the subdivision covenants
and provided to the Garfield County Building and Planning Depaitinent at Final Plat.
15. Prior to the operation of the wastewater treatment facility, and consistent with the
requirement imposed by the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, the Applicant shall obtain a discharge permit which shall specify the
"final conditions and limitations of the operations of the facility." This permit shall be
submitted to the Garfield County Building and Planning Department prior to the
1 11111111111111111 11111111111111 111111111111111111
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P 01387 P105 M RLSDORF
5 of 8 R 0, 00 D 0 , 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Garfield County Building Department
for any residential lot on. the property.
16. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval as stated in the letter
from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to Blue Creek Land
Holdings, LLC dated November 21, 2001 and included as Appendix 8 in the
application materials (Sec "Exhibit H" submitted for the public hearing before the
BOCC on 8/5/0), as the same may be modified or superceded by any final discharge
permit issued by the Department for the subject facility. Further;
a) This site approval will expire one year from November 21, 2001 if the
construction of the project has not commenced by that date. If expiration
occurs, you must apply for a new site approval. Constriction is defined as
entering into a contract for the erection or physical placement of materials,
equipment, piping, earthwork, or buildings that are to be part of a domestic
wastewater treatment works.
b) The design (construction plans and specifications) of the treatment works
must be approved by the Division prior to the commencement of construction
and all construction change orders initiating variances from the approved
plans and specifications must be approved by the Division.
c) The Applicant's registered engineer must furnish a statement prior to the
coinmenceznent of operation stating that the facilities were constructed in
conformance with the approved plans, specifications, and change orders.
17. The Applicant shall provide nine (9) deed -restricted affordable housing lots within
the PTJD. Four (4) of such lots shall be deed -restricted and the units upon them shall
be constructed by the Applicant, and sold in accordance with all applicable provisions
of the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines as codified in Section 4:14 of
the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. While the Applicant has committed to the
construction of four (4) affordable housing units, the Applicant shall demonstrate to
Staff and the Board of County Commissioners how the five (5) remaining deed -
restricted lots are to be sold and developed.
18. All nine (9) lots approved for deed -restricted affordable housing units are to be "for -
sale" units. The Applicant shall construct four (4) of the units as deed -restricted
affordable housing units pursuant to the Garfield County Housing Guidelines in the
Garfield Zoning Resolution. The five (5) remaining lots approved for deed -restricted
affordable housing units are to be constructed by future lot purchasers who qualify for
those lots in accordance with the Garfield County Affordable Housing Guidelines.
The Applicant shall present further details to the Planning Department as to the
proposed nature of how the remaining five (5) deed -restricted affordable housing lots
are to be sold within the regulatory parameters of the Garfield County Affordable
Housing Guidelines. This language shall be provided at the time of Final Plat.
I 111111 VIII 111111 111111 1111 IIII 111.111 11111 IIII ILII
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P 01387 P106 M ALSDORF
6 of 8 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
•
a) Specifically, the Applicant sh..all provide a detailed proposal for how the five (5)
affordable housing lots which will not be constructed upon by the Applicant will
be sold in a manner which will address the regulatory intent of the AH
Regulations.
b) All nine (9) affordable housing units shall be included within the homeowners
association for the PUD. However, the Declaration of Covenants shall include
adequate provisions to assure that the affordable housing units will never be
unduly burdened by a disproportionate share of fiscal responsibility required for
the over-all maintenance of the common facilities and roads throughout the PUD
to the satisfaction of the Garfield County Planning and Attorney's Office at the
time of Final Plat.
19. In addition to other required conditions of approval, the Applicant shall include the
following plat notes on the Final Plat:
a) "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-1.01., et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities,
sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal
and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a
healthy ranching sector. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights,
mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public
roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or
otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any
one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent
agricultural operations."
b) "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law
and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation
ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using
property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining
property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights
and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good
introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small
Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in
Garfield County."
c) "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior
lighting will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except
that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the
property boundaries."
d) "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be
required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries."
e) "Each lot shall have a maximum of 2,500 square feet of irrigation land from
LGLLJ I..UUIV 1 T
(KJGG�Y J`+I L(J 11(IO((UG 1U:5 lam r.
11111 Hill 11(111 lIlll [11 1111 11111 11111 1111 111
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P B1387 P107 M RLSDORP
7 of 8 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
domestic water system."
•
f) The Applicant shall place a plat note on the Final Plat that would make the
potential purchasers aware of the possibility that the Roaring Fork River is a
dynamic stream and the current channel could move from its present position.
The Applicant shall depict the following items on the Final Plat:
1. The 100 -year flood way;
2. The 100 -year flood fringe;
3. The building envelopes for all lots in the development; and
4, The elevation for each building envelope at 1 foot above the base flood
elevation.
O) o
20. The Applicant shall delete "greenhouse" from the "Uses By Right" in Private Open
Space areas as defined in the application.
21. The Applicant shall obtain and provide the County with the necessary well permits
for the Appaloosa and Arabian Wells located on the Aspen Equestrian Estates
Subdivision as issued by the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources at the
time of .Final Plat.
22. Impact fees shall be paid to the Carbondale and rural Fire Protection District prior to
finalization of the final plat. The Applicant shall provide a receipt to the Planning
Department proving a payment has occurred,
23. The Applicant shall either provide a land dedication or pay cash -in -lieu for the
required School Impact Fees at the time of Final Plat. This payment shall be made to
the Garfield County as part of Final Plat.
Dated this 16th day of September, A.D. 2002.
ATTEST:
GARFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF
COM ►. TONERS,
GA' IFLD COUNTY,
CO
i
111111 11111 111111111111 1111 1111 11111111.11 Hill 111 111
610821 09/17/2002 03:21P 31387 P108 M ALSDORF
8 of 8 R 0,00 D 0.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO
Nay
Aye
Aye
J- r .[ter . r . l�vJ
•
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by
the following vote:
John Martin
Lan -y McCown
Walt Stowe
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the
Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby
certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the
Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my
office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 2002
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
s •
Attachment B
to
Text Amendment to PUD / Zoning Resolution
Regarding Definition of "Barn", Blue Creek Ranch
Dated: July 30, 2004
1) Requested Text Amendment: Modify Paragraph 20 of Resolution No. 2002-82 to
clarify that the definition of "Barn" as a use by right in the Private Open Space Zone
District includes up to four (4) storage barns for the storage of private personal
property to be owned as common elements by the Homeowners Association, as well
as traditional agricultural barn. The interior of each of such storage barns will be
divided into separate storage units. Each unit will then be assigned to a specific Lot
within Blue Creek Ranch and the owner(s) of each such Lot will have the ability to
store his or her personal property within the designated unit. Cost for maintenance of
the storage barns will be paid as part of the Lot owners' common assessments to the
Association. Neither the Association nor any individual Lot owner may rent out or
make any storage unit available for use by any third party.
2) Purpose for the Proposed Text Amendment: Since submittal of the PUD Application
for Blue Creek Ranch, the Applicant's development plan for this Subdivision has
emphasized cluster residential development, on relatively small lots, with large
expanses of open space between the residential clusters. Consistent with that plan,
the Applicant has always anticipated the construction of up to four (4) storage barns,
to be owned as common elements by the Homeowners Association, with each barn
containing individual units which would then be assigned to the owner(s) of each Lot
within Blue Creek Ranch. The Lot owners will then have a place to store their
personal property without cluttering up their porches, garages, or yards with their
belongings.
The Applicant has always understood that the use of the word "barn" as a use by right
within the Private Common Open Space Zone District included these storage barns.
The storage barns will be constructed to look like a traditional agricultural barn (see
Sheets Al and A2 attached hereto) and the sole purpose of the barns is storage of
personal property of Lot owners, not habitable space.
The storage barns were shown as "shared amenities" within the PUD Application,
see, e.g., Figure 1 and Figure 2 of the March, 2002 Blue Creek Ranch Planned Unit
Development and Preliminary Plan Application.
It was not until the Applicant applied for a building permit to construct the first of the
storage barns that it learned that the County did not understand that the storage barns
as described herein were intended to be included within the definition of a "barn" as a
use by right within the Private Common Open Space Zone District. The purpose of
this Zone Text Amendment is to make it clear to all that up to four (4) storage barns,
as well as traditional agricultural barns, are within the definition of "barn" as a use by
right within the Private Common Open Space Zone District of Blue Creek Ranch.
' :AColeACIients\tiluc Creek lot 24v\ ttacbment to "Text ;Amendment to Zouie Dist{ict Exhibit R.doc
o
1O -
I„ j - "t, "144 t.1
•
kr. Lc
N �o
0—
ntsN
g
Q
=o
.L
V
{ 2-155ok TT.k55 rr 41IWh2. @ 25, 0.c.
r
�O C
r
,C-1 ''t 4 c;
il .:.
\ ) g
0 Ir,
1.
.4_,,,I
4
:.
(1
4.
IDt;
Is •
44 at-� GMro TELiss
2.x6 Si7Uici, AS
BLUE CREEK STORAGE BARN
•
•
•
•
FOR : WIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT
BY : GAVIN BROOKE (303.859.0445)
SCALE : I/8" = 1'-0"
My r2ygyia7 zl
Zf ;IC `10g dQJ 11
3�Od
J14,741- C s.V17
•
-r
•
•
1
1
Q
l
O
1
1
1
BLUE CREEK STORAGE BARN
r
4
FOR : WIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT
BY : GAVIN BROOKE (303.859.0445)
SCALE : 1/8" = l'-0"