Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Public Comments• 144; 6111411 ari..41 Or -6 /4-.1 IT/Ai al-/5' -� r 7 Z"e/c2..9 ,e z (%/in A#/!ar.uS� aar pir 6- CiRlihk �4.". DRAWL VELASiIJEZ Au.7 4./6.71 ./6apc• 9y Cai-h a�, ale f Cd1. 8/42 � jjECEIV AuG20 /a A4 eaRNI"ertecad go,A O. - h e - G 11-1 ee U/ / !3 ? I//Le �piv�+ J 744-r-11 d"l4,4i /415 puri o s u / ee iiv, /53-6(..,e ha let" �sz erhi J":Y I lase teas ow S. ‘,/c›,/, huevt/ !h CGIr��/lG3itG� Ll/e /1 /4_ nom► �j l e /le 4 5"Ye e /aL kikCv ��.�• QccesS /S h ade a �. 5 M ' 07-11/;t7,)44-S1/lila" /11 A/•/4 /2e kwral 21 a ,le. -ye c 1,4 .hca / 7� f ti GE.414.4 it /,1 `e cu / - r • #rd0c4, 6)/ f /-Gva 4` S,w/ .- are a w a. , y%r 1,6 47 2/7 145 Zr7 of Giro /r em r yi iy a.? Of Goal Comps dhc/ /oar . % M ' ee6,i (4keus /`"�'�'ef Cr/+`7 a Bach /4 "kr, 4,/a AK aI/ �ssati - A, /1/avb6 are arm / oerevidah 0►1 7LA(5 .lQe4.404 *• 7h L,.a? i Sip /G� j a5 do /'i a h 421Aer- pt/✓. /'l A15 C4:71,c/P7 6', ,9 ,) Sa-f , h -Y / all- �Vi4117 Ge�,v,./7 GQ44 GQce,,se a// sr4 o� cf 4a �SC.�-r`ou,:,, decoy n2 Ai¢ s ) c5' A a s cloys; /0"-€,t3t. �e /4 ira 71' J Cis Ce rr-7 9 i64,,,1�" Gt " c� `v� G 4 �.►-► !"fid / � G �G . see 410k, /- 1--aC/h O'er✓(. r-2 `d%! yerwr S. 1024 112Rd Car4o4dA �e t Co 1 . 9'i$R-A]JE}rV 9?n, Cis . County Commissioners y- �`.) Garco Commissioners Office GARFIELD COUNN C T i. Garfield County Court House Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Gentlemen: We plan to attend the public hearing on the Cattle Creek Pud plan on December 9, weather permitting. If the facts in the inclosed "Flyer" are corr- ect, we wish to protest the special tax district and the increased demands on county facilities. A seriously unfair precedent is being set, when the Cattle Creek Ptak is not requi*d to lessen the impact of their development. Very truly yours. Margaret N. Berg A-97Willi C. Berg CEAJSE oRINKKCUSE VflISETZ ARE YOU T1RFD OF Dear Neighbor, ,9`o CATTLE CRFEK? 4-11STORY A.1981 PLANNING COMMISSION recommendation for DENIAL of 786 units on 960 acres because of NON-COMPLIANCE with the Garfield County COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and INAPPROPRIATE DENSITY for the RURAL CHARACTER or' the area (density: 1 unit per 1.2 acres). The application was nit taken before the County Commissioners. 8.1982 PLANNING COMMISSION recommendation for DENIAL of 786 units on 960 acres (slightly revised plan resubmitted) because of NON-COMPLIANCE with County COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and INADEQUATE ROADS. The application was not taken before the County Commissioners. C.1982 PLANNING COMMISSION recommendation for APPROVAL of Phase I of original proposal (786 units) for 131 units on 313 acres with NO CONDITIONS ATTACHED (density: 1 unit/2.4 acres). Scheduled for PUBLIC HEARING before County Commissioners on DECEMBER 13 AT 9:00 A.M. FOR FINAL DECISION. AXES MA • - � � 1. The developers of the Cattle Creek PUD project propose NO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. The Planning Commission proposed instead a special taxing district to TAX EXISTING RESIDENTS to improve roads for Cattle Creel:: developer. In effect, the developer puts his own obligated costs for road improvements onto existing residents. 2. The Cattle Creek PUD development will put increased demand on County Services, such as police, fire, ambulance, road maintenance, etc. The Cattle Creek developer proposed no provisions to defray these costs. An increased demand for services will result in an increased tag burden on isting residents. YOUR LY MAY BE EN NGERFD? attle Creek PUD will generate over .:,0 vehicle trips per day no'. including heavy construction traffic) on winding, narrow, steep, inadequate dirt roads. Cattle Creek proposes no adequate road improvements. The safety of existing residents using 100, 103, and /L3 road will be in jeopardy. 2. Other recent developments in Missouri Height.s/Cattle Creek area (Strang Ranch PUD, Hawk Ridge, & Cedar Ridge Farm) were required to pave 3.75 miles of 100 and 103 roadsfor a total of only 80 units. They were required to lessen their impacts. Cattle Creel:: FUD SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO THE SAME, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PROTESTS. 411 411 . .R BAL QUALITY OF LIFE THREATENED 1. Cattle Creek PUD will establish a density of 1 unit per 2.4 acres in a rural area WHERE THE EXISTING DENSITY IS LESS THAN 1 UNIT PER 5 ACRES. 2. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan (which COST TAXPAYERS $ 37,000 and had considerable public input)recommends densities for areas adjoining existing subdivisions not exceed 1 unit per 2 acres OR A DENSITY COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING NEIGHBORING SUBDIVISIONS. In rural areas of the County, the more restrictive density rule has always been applied in the past. The existing adjoining subdivisions (Panorama Ranches & the origidnal Cattle Creek PUD) both have densities less than 1 unit per 6 acres. All other new subdivisions near Cattle Creek have densities less than 1 unit per 5 acres. Why should Cattle Creek PUD be granted such a high density in such a remote part of the County? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PRECEDENT FOR IT! Cattle Creek PUD proposes the highest density in the most remote area of any rural subdivision in Garfield County. The rural quality of life will be drastically altered. Cattle Creek PUD is inappropriate at its proposed density. We should insist that our elected officials bring the Cattle Creek PUD density in line with other developments in the .area. Other local developers (HP Hansen, Mike Strang, Sandy Smith etc.) have been required to. Why are these developers from outside the county (PRIMARILY ASPEN DEVELOPERS MOVING DOWNVALLEV) working so hard to slip this new density precedent by the County? "DON'T GIVE UP? Please don't put this letter aside. Let your ELECTED OFFICIALS KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS ISSUE. We must remain as persistent as these developers have been trying to push this through Garfield County...we must be as persistent trying put a stop to it. CALL OR WRITE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOW! Use any of the arguments listed above and more. Your voice, your support will make the difference. Also, WRITE THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS NOW. The battle to be fouoht for reasonable. responsible County Planning is more serious than ever before. Thanks so much for your support. -concerned local area residents. write the County Commissioners: GARCO Commissioners Office Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 call the County Commissioners: Flaven Cerise 963-2634 Larry Velasquez 945-5560 Jim Drinkhouse 625-3653 write the newspapers: The Valley Journal 26 So. 3rd St. Carbondale, CO 81623 Glenwood Post 2014 Grand Ave. Glenwood Spgs 81601 The Weekly Newspaper 922 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Spgs 81601 PLEASE COME TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS ON DECEMBER 13 AT 9:00 A.M. AT THE cOMMISSIONERS HEARING ROOM ACROSS FROM THE GARFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE $ 6' C (Oy Sv 7Ave. (, Iei i w ood -Sprin S ARRANGE NOW TO TAKE 2 HOURS OFF FROM WORK DECEMBER 13 • CARBONDALE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 300 Meadowood Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (303) 963-2491 December 27, 1982 Garfield County Commissioners 801 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 R. c:', ! Vr-.., J Re: Inclusion of Cattle Creek Ranch into the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Honorable Commissioners: JAN 5 1983 This letter is to inform you that Mr. Frank Lerner has filed a petition with the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District, for inclusion into the District of his property in Spring Valley known as Cattle Creek Ranch. The current status of this petition is that it has been tabled by the Board of Directors of the District, pending further discussions with Mr. Ron Liston, who has been representing Mr. Lerner to the District. It should be noted to you that, should the property be annexed to the District, the emergency services would respond from the Carbondale Fire Station with an approximate response time of 20-25 minutes. It should also be noted that the District currently has no plans for a fire station in the area. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 963-2491. Sincerely, Ron Leach Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District Chief cc: Steve Connor Esq. RL:vb • • RECE101 -0 i 1 Jan. !983 JAN 141983 GARFIELD An open letter to the Garfield County Commissioners: ,COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dear Sirs: I am writing in regard to the Cattle Creek PUD. After attending the public hearing on this issue T felt very good about` 6 County Government. Mr. Drinkhouse and Mr. Velasquez ad some very pertinent questions. Thank you. This controversy has been going on for two years now and I guess that I don't understand why it is that the developer always seems to want too much. Last year it was 786 homesites, now it is a density far greater than anyone else in the area. The idea that the developer will do something about either the roads or the density seems inappropriate to me. This attitude of I want, I need, Give me, I've got to have...is appalling. It's an old and often successful ploy to ask for the Moon and then "accept" something less. Why not accept the plan, as now proposed, except for two things - Give Cattle Creek 60 units on their 313 acres and require road improvements commensurate with 60 units. With this proposal, both the County Comprehensive Plan and the safety of the area residents are provided for. I honestly believe that the plan before you now is Phase 1 of the old "786" plan and that the precedent it would set would be sorely regretted in the future. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely i Laura Van Dyne 6283 County Road 100 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • 1 ‘: e I dr -44 ..,111C17_777 L_ az 6-- dk (11 JAN 7 1983 GiT,F1E.LD COMMISMNERS CERISE 1.,---- DRINKROUSE VELASQUEZ G-/ • 6c 17" e.'111Xk 6C)- 0L --(--(--1.---c-1—/ • 6 7/ 14_7-7 0 • 1/1/83 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Court House 201 8th Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 mer level optient Sirs: • REC \ /FD JA/IN 1983 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The result of the interaction between county officials/app- ointees and those of us who oppose the Lerner development gives the impression that the county has no intention of considering the legitimate concerns of those who oppose the high density development. I am aware times change, things change and people change; but not all change is desireable or beneficail. Some en- deavors, i.e., cattle ranching, will always retain merit for the sake of providing protein for a poulation accust- omed to finding meat in the super markets. Beyond the Lerner development however, I see a larger area that needs to address the specific problems of Western Col- orado and that area is Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield Counties. The questions would be: 1.) What major development is going to occur or per- haps be thrust upon Western Colorado by world problems, e.g., oil shale? 2.) What natural resources do we have to meet the de- mand? 3.) How much is it going to cost? When this type of planning has been done to the satisfac- tion of all three counties perhaps we will see the need for a comprehensive hiway system which allows any develop- ment to meet their greatest need: ingress and egress. Otherwise, we have bound ourselves in constricting and dangerous systems. The pulic welfare has been overlooked. I am, and have been opposed to the high density change the Lerner project brings to our Cattle Creek area. Ranching is ruined to the extent an oil refinery on my land would ruin Mr. Lerner's plans and those who might choose to live within his project. Sincerely, J=61Ascz, JoyceGould Copy: Dennis Stranger, Planner GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 15, 1985 Ron Liston Land Design Partnership P. 0. Box 517 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Ron: Based on your inquiry as to whether or not your client could proceed with the Preliminary Plan submittal of the Cattle Creek P.U.D., Don DeEord, County Attorney, Earl Rhodes, Counsel, and I met to discuss the issue. In summary, we all agreed that your client may proceed at his own risk with the Preliminary Plan process for the project. Given that the P.U.D. rezoning and Sketch Plan approvals were approved by Resolution Nos. 83-27 and 83-26 respectively, the County may accept a Preliminary Plan submittal. It is assumed that there may be some confusion on the part of certain interested parties as to why the County is reviewing a project that is presently a subject of litigation in the courts. If the court does find that the P.U.D. approval is inappropriate, any decision on a Preliminary Plan related to that decision will be invalid. We will have to address that issue in any review, but it will be important to make it clear that the litigation is not the issue from which any decision should be based. We will be assuming the previous decisions were legal and correct. As long as your client is willing to take the risk of having the court not rule in his favor, the County is willing to review a proposed Preliminary Plan in accordance with the requirements and procedures contained in the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado of 1984. If you have any questions about this letter or the regulations, feel free to call or write to me at your convenience. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean Planning Director MLB,/emh .sv. nr fag 109 8TH STREET, T+Il44-.EW B 945-8212 i 625-5571 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 28, 1986 Gene Wright 0355 Willow Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 Re: Thompson vs. Garfield County Enclosed, for your information, is a letter from Earl Rhodes regarding the above noted litigation. It has always been Mr. Rhodes' opinion that the litigation stopped any time limits imposed in Resolutions 83-26 and 83-27. His letter indicates that the time limits are back in place and that as of May 19, 1986, the conditions of approval contained in Resolutions 83-26 and 83-27 are valid and final. If you would like to meet and discuss this issue further, I would be willing to set up a meeting. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean Planning Director MLB/emh encl. XC: Ron Liston Sv�rZ 313 109 8TH STREET, Tf+InD rL-e&R 945-8212 / 625-5571 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 FRANK M. HOCKENSMITH DAN O. (VWFM KIRK RIDER JAMES S. CASEBOLT RONALD W. areas CATHY P. HOLUN0SWORTH TERRY D. SLATER EARL 0. RHOOES YOUNGE & HOCKENSMITH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 GRAND AVE. SUITE 500 P.O. BOX 1768 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 51502-1768 30.3-242-2645 May 22, 1986 Don DeFord Garfield County Attorney 109 8th Street, #300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303 RE:' Thompson vs. Garfield County Dear Don: OF COtRNSEL THOMAS K. YOtN OE PE-CEIVEV MAY 2 7 1986 GAR FIELD On April 17, 1986 the Court of Appeals denied Mrs. Thompson's Petition for Rehearing. More than thirty days have past and Mrs. Thompson has not filed a Petition for Certiorari. Therefore, the Court of Appeals decision is now final. As you may recall the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in which the trial court upheld Garfield County's land use decision, resolutions no. 83-26 and 83-27. As of May 19, 1986 it is my opinion that resolution of approval 83-26 and 83-27 became final. Thus, as of this date, the time limits contained in said resolutions as to obligations of the developer began to run. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate to advise the developer as to the County's position as to when time begins to run for him to perform under the above resoluticns. If you have any questions about this please don't to call me. I intend to close my file on this matter time. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service Very truly yours, hestitate at this to you. YOUNGE & HOCKENSMITH Professional Corporation By EGR/aj Earl G. Rhodes JAMES D. PETERSON 1654 County Road 121 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Honorable Board of Commissioners of Garfield County Garfield County Courthouse P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Gentlemen: J December 8, 1982 i1 I Since I will be unable to attend your December 13, 1982 meeting concerning the Cattle Creek. Ranch application for zoning change, I am writing this letter opposing this request. I own 400 acres and my residence has been on 121 Road within one mile of the proposed development for about nine years. Among your many duties as elected commissioners of Garfield County, there is your committment to protect the interests of the residents of the county (most of whom financially support the county through ad valorem taxes) and also direct the orderly growth of the county. Logical and orderly residential growth constitutes expansion of existing de- veloped communities instead of high-density spot zoning in low-density agricul- tural areas. Mr. Lerner's request for 131 units on 300 acres with some com- mercial uses is in direct conflict with the guidelines recommended in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with the plan would allow Mr. Lerner only 60 units on the 300 acres (one unit per five acres) and no commercial uses. Panorama Estates and the recent Strang Ranch subdivision have set a precedent of even lower density. Establishing a denser development a long distance from nearby communities and available public services (Glenwood Springs - 1:3 miles; Carbondale - 8 miles; El Jebel - 8 miles) creates many serious problems for the county. It sets a dangerous precedent for future developments to circumvent density recommendations in the growth plan, thereby opening the door to other potential high-density parcels in rural areas. Such developments are excessively expen- sive to provide with public services because of their distance. Therefore, the hard-working property tax payers of the county must subsidize these areas for many years. Besides the continuing financial burden on the county taxpayers, the roads serving this proposed new city are hardly adequate, even dangerous, for existing useage. Who pays for improving these roads making them safe for construction workers, service people, residents and school children? Who will pay the cost of the wear and tear on these roads caused by the thousands of additional vehicle trips per day? Who will pay for the school bus service, police protection and fire protection required to serve this remote community? Why isn't Mr. Lerner content with the 131 unit P.U.D. which was approved several years ago? It's common knowledge that soon thereafter he advertised the entire development package for a $2 million profit. I ask you, do we the residents of Garfield County owe Mr. Lerner, who is not even a county resident, even greater profits? • • Board of Commissioners December 8, 1982 Page 2 Is it not likely that after meeting resistance on his 1981 application for 786 units on the 960 acres that this current application is perhaps a devious way to obtain a much higher density on the entire parcel by proceeding in stages? If you approve 131 units on 300 acres plus commercial uses, how can you deny future applications by him for comparable density on the 660 acres, as the precedent would be established. This is just another tactical maneuver in the developer's pursuit for even greater profits at the expense of county residents. Now we are at the point of putting our confidence in you as our elected officials to protect the interests of the people of Garfield County from the misguided ambitions of developers like Mr. Lerner, with his smooth and persuasive way of doing business and his endless financial resources to hire expensive legal and development expertise. They are confident they can put one by on what they think is a sleepy little county of ranchers. Let's join in making it clear to Mr. Lerner that we may not be as shrewd and clever as his hired experts, but we do have integrity and a good, basic heartfelt judgment of what's good for our county and the future generations who will live here after us. We want orderly growth and a certain quality of life --perhaps Mr. Lerner being from the big city doesn't understand this. We could perhaps assist Mr. Lerner by offering him some good advice; either develop the 131 units on 960 acres under the existing P.U.D. plan as previously approved, or if he wants a higher density development, he should purchase higher priced land adjacent to Carbondale or Glenwood Springs where the appropriate zoning is already established. Mr. Lerner cannot accurately say that the approval of this project will bring many new jobs and boost the economy of the county. There are currently many unsold lots in existing subdivisions, and when the demand for new homes increases these lots will most likely be built on first because of their access to public services. I sincerely hope that for the future of this county you refuse Mr. Lerner's request. However, if you approve the application in spite of all of the reasons against it, please at least make the following stipulations: 1) Give no commercial zoning (Lerner has implied these second -home residents will shop in Aspen anyway.) 2) Require by deed restriction that the balance of 660 acres be left in open green -space. 3) Fot the sake of safety and saving lives, require major improvements to 100 Road, 103 Road and 113 Road, including widening turns, hard -surfacing, warning signs and a reserve fund for future maintenance. 4) A fire station with at least one fire rescue truck and basic firefighting equipment. 5) A parcel equal to 5% of the total development to be deeded to Garfield County for public uses including future school and public park needs. c mmiss1o,�ers Board of a , 1982 ecemb rev a Vag e3 . dents of tre o police and ce t r protect the resp son Garfield tia\ impact i gate ate security Tv essary to mit 1 ve private t, uirements net ndmi ed before e ny othe Ces q feted or bo 1 1 P services. ery e comp ita county ,the above b , gr°wtr 1 81 F d oder � 'dents poter residential dot the first re • n public ub1 b1y in tion t° to un e aserr r ` s a� r°u bye bass dei, � r se tut �t x,11 meas an° e r s b and countmay be ev e� ° r f ri ends is developer, r addition al ofMr k to and /doing o u 9 an eq un f the s to th idem you is sol vote fo a�� res. ttmert �o°,res rams o Remember, yoavailablet all rear coma wealtny s style and d Recu • ces e har est • s for life services th request. eQu i���or o the bard ert Zor`1n9more legacy �' unty. • S cerely current of positive field co the very p it Gar be nstitue�ts Copy to Gary Wendy M 0:\ ty ede#G • • /1 -e -tom December 7, 1982 Garfield County Commissioners Office Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners: I am writing once again to reiterate my very deep concern regarding the Cattle Creek PUD which will be coming before you for approval on December 13. Aside from any increased taxes in the future (it was proposed by the Planning Commission that a special taxing district be formed to tax existing residents to improve roads and municipal facilities to accommodate the Cattle Creek Developers), taxes so great they would force people to sell their homes, and what buyer in his right mind would consider buying property with an exorbitant tax rate. Generally, a purchaser asks that question first. As I started to say, aside from any increased taxes in the future, the traffic on Roads:.100 and 103, not to mention Road 115 branching off Road 114, all through pastoral range country, would be horrendous, those roads as they are now, are hazardous with the minimal traffic they bear at present. I do not look forward to living under a brown cloud of road dust for the protracted period of time when construction of the development would begin and when it would be finished, not to mention how that dirt and dust would contaminate the hay fields construction trucks would be traveling through on these roads. Mr. Lerner, at one of the Planning Commission meetings, said he did not wish to continue "banging heads" with his neighbors. I do not wish to continue "banging heads" either, I don't want to live that way; I am not selfishly guarding this area against intruders; on the contrary, let us share it in its beauty, with all who come and appreciate it, honor it and revere it. But let it be shared on a reasonable basis, let it not be ravaged and exploited beyond its capacity to bear. I continue to feel that the Cattle Creek Development plans are much too huge; I can understand that Mr. Lerner and his fellow developers have a ratio to adhere to in order to make it all worthwhile for them, but we as property owners also have a lot at stake here, our lifetime investments, emotional as well as economic. I urge the Commissioners once more to carefully consider all facets of the Development's proposal, and all the ramifications concomitant with that proposal. Thank you. S j cerely, / / / (Mrs.) Gloria S Gi respie r� a z M,'71 Q rn dad c -) o oz et c �O cor o Vi O 0 z rn 00 0 rj 11 rn • • ai feii LeX4 71,<: RFIELD GUM U P J/6( ibLt citte a 1- L -ed fi,e_f, 7 a,/ Le_42.-e—Y7/ /A-2-76ck‘A-44t CI-CrS-vx-e A-0 zfr(:c , 3 e ev AY- /)--e-frei 1--ey (-7d /( Cevi‘-rv-<-44-6r7u2,.i .7t-) 71't17( Ar4-'eee7 '/A-1-4-1-14---4 t7i frLvt,a -17 fke4-e.,/ (444 kftytt-,6( 144 /1 • • � l C,„41 7/z, j -A -c 11 VeA 1/11L,wl-tri, C,7 )(-6 • 0 7 December 1982 -777E7 '1' I • r'fi1;.T1' An open letter to the Garfield County Commisioners Mr. Flaven Cerise Mr. Larry Valasquez Mr. Jim Drinkhouse Dear Sirs: This letter is written in regard to the an issue that will be brought before you on Monday, December 13, 1982 at 9AM. I applaud and commend the developers for their clustering concept. It is a far superior plan to five acre "Ranchettes" spread over nearly 1,000 acres. I have some reservations over the present plan though and would like to propose some constructive criticism. 1 -The density proposed is too high. One house per 2.38 acres is much greater than any other development in the area. The precedent that would be set by that density is the frightening thing. Please require a density similar to the existing subdivisions in the area. 2 -The roads are another issue over which I am concerned. Please require the developers to do road work that will improve sight distances, place guardrails and stop signs in the most dangerous areas of County Roads 100, 103, and 113. 3 -The commercial District proposed seems inappropriate unless limited to support for specific athletic activities that Cattle Creek will provide. A bar or restaurant would be dangerous to all who live in the area by increasing • 1 traffic and, most frightening, introducing more drinking drivers to already hazardous roads. I thank you for reading this letter and considering my opinion. I am sure that you will arrive at an appropriate decision. Sincerely, eg‘',7 Laura Van Dyne 6283 County Road 100 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • Iarfield County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Commission Members '• "i ',UIC:CSi FROM: Concerned Citizens of the Missouri Heights AreaK:r�f 1 di i :) 8 GARFIELD COUNTY COMM. The latest Cattle Creek Planned Unit Development for 131 units on 313 acres is an attempt to mitigate the concerns of residenn—in the area over the proposal for 786 housing units. The neW e-posal is just a segment of the 786 unit proposal and may be the first step towards an ultimate 786 unit project. The concerned citizens of the area surrounding the proposal are not opposed to the reasonable development of 131 housing units on the acres that was originall approved. The new proposal includes clus- tering of many of the houses on a smaller portion of the property. We support this excellent planning concept. However, there are some serious overriding concerns that must be mitigated before this new proposal meets the concerns of the people of the area and the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The concerns are as follows: 1 r 1. ACREAGE: The original approved project contains 131 units on acres (1 unit/900 acres). The new Cattle Creek proposal contains 131 units on 313 acres (1 unit/2.38 acres). There is no precedent to increase the density for the Cattle Creek project. All of the other subdivisions in the area have a density greater than 1 unit/5 acres. Strang Ranch P.0 D 1 unit/7.6 acres Hawk Ridge 1 unit/6 acres Cedar Ridge Farm 1 unit/7 acres Panorama Ranches 1 unit/6 acres The original approved Cattle Creek subdivision has a density of 1 unit/ 6.87 acres. The density should not be increased from the original approved proposal on 900 acres (1 unit/6.87 acres). Increased density is against the provisions of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. 2. HOUSING TYPES: The original Cattle Creek Project contained only single family detached housing units. The new proposal contains four plex attached housing units. The fire department response time to the Cattle Creek Ranch under ideal conditions is 35 minutes. From a health, safety and welfare point of view, it is not appropriate to allow multi -family housing in an area that can not be promptly serviced by the fire department. Four units at a time will burn to the ground instead of one unit at a time. The other issue raised by multi -family housing is a new precedent in the area. There is no multi -family housing in the area. The closest attached dwelling untis are 12 miles away at the Ranch at Roaring Fork. The multi -family units should be changed to detached single family units or eliminated. The concept of clustering the housing units on some of the less suitable agricultural land is a good planning concept. 3. COMMERCIAL USE: The original Cattle Creek project contained no commercial uses. The new proposal contains provisions for what could be extensive commercial uses, i.e. restaurant, bar and lounge, and retail commercial shops. There are no commercial uses in the area. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by the Garfield County Planning Commission in May, 1981 states that "the County shall encourage major retail commercial centers to remain in the community activity centers". A small snack bar or other defined and limited commer- cial uses designeated to serve the immediate project residences may be suitable. Commercial uses that attract persons not residing in the project will create additional traffic and criminal impacts to the rural area. A bar and lounge would induce persons not residing in the area to drive the narrow, winding, rural roads, consume alcohol, and make the return trip with increased blood alcohol levels. This would increase the potential hazard of traffic accidents on already hazardous roads. The commercial uses should be specifically defined, limited in scope, and designed to serve only the project residences. The restaurant, bar and lounge should be eliminated. 2. 4. ROADS: All of the roads leading to the Cattle Creek project are narrow, Grinding, dirt, mountain roads. The existing traffic volumes on the roads have increased traffic hazards, accidents and road main- tenance. The original Cattle Creek project contained no provisions for road improvements. That was an oversight. The following recently approved projects were required to do extensive road improvements for far fewer dwelling units than the 131 in Cattle Creek P.U.D.: A. Strang Ranch: Approximately 1 3/4 miles of paving on 130 Rd., 102 Rd. and guard rail on 100 Rd. for 60 units. G. 'r;awk Ridge: Pave approximately i miles of 103 Rd. and improve line of sight distances for 17 units. C. Cedar ridge Farm: Pave approximately G mile of 103 Rd. for 7 units. It would be appropriate for the Cattle Creek project to at least guard rail portions of 113 Rd. and 100 Rd. and possibly 103 Rd. Cattle Creek should improve some of the sight distances at some of the very dangerous intersections on all of those roads. 131 units potentially will generate 786 trips per day out of the subdivision. The Los Amigos P.U.D. was required to do extensive road improvements to County Road 119 for a decrease in number of units. They were not required to do any road im- provements in their original proposal. For the health, safety and wel- fare of the citizens using 100 Rd., 103 Rd. and 113 Rd., the Cattle Creek project should improve the safety conditions on those roads. 5. OTHER ITEMS: The Cattle Creek project developers have stated publicly that the project was reduced in scope to show.to near by resi- dents that the developer did not want to fight them and also to keep the property in agricultural use, while at the same time allowing some limited development. It -might be appropriate for the Cattle Creek Ranch to dedicate the agricultural land to an agricultural conservation district as was done on the Strang Ranch P.U.D. The Cattle Creek project now shows a 60 foot access easement that leads off the map to the area that was shown as a golf course by condominiums. The easement seems to indicate a design which will in- clude more units in the future. This proposal for 131 units with increased density may be just a first phase of a much larger plan that will ulti- mately include the previous proposal of 785 units. This is not appropriate. The access easement should be removed to show good faith that the present proposal is not the first part of a much larger development, one similar or identical to that one rejected twice by the planning commission. Again, we are not opposed to legitimate appropriate development. The new Cattle Creek P.U.D. is an attempt to create appropriate development b•at contains serious flaws that should be amended before it represents good rural planning. The Garfield County Planning Commission will review this new proposal on Wednesday, October 13, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. at the County Planning Office. i • :-.7.....,___T, 7 4-�,AA-C 15 A� l wtS B2.v�-1y1-hlA �A OJ T LE`�E(Z ; 2-_/1.:.x� liv iA.">L(- , 'S`w► A c -L- eo 2 (Tm c ,4HeA-t� , t uDD or i i 21 ✓6_ E,2 VE.-- 2 'EC i c coO 7 t3 oN€ h) i -4o2 / 1. rt iNS tE . W H qty Ll le -&-7; 4120 0 T 4(5 P -ro5 iC t S 71-( e t,,,64 Tl1ac1-T 4/06-- 140-1 Y PL) 7- A- A Ev Zo?Col e )T ouec TEA) lwtl Le$i Din) t d fi-k-72 SIzEkgCc- Z�✓F=LT E5.591ACc come- De T�1-t(5 s cL - '- 15 --C-- (,(A- s(,(A-7ko t -i T ©F i,-{,47-(ANb 50 -i -CE/‘) sT L4 (-T-- g_ 6 A- iY' iiP-_-1- 2S to co -5 Qz•ASt2 ( T). EvT (F- t^l04c--.D "iv{p0C4T IT i,1ofCi) k1pq_qe:7- C) a 11- -J '774E P a- -PP2o f -t 14 r. .t3 c) -Ft _L 5 v 6-55 F2 AA) 3LaGS t) i keJo j v -{.,-r CAS 04 1) 9 #24q144"/q-' 5 c D 76 SAY) CC l-- i/ A,v+ (,�?q- � 11-171h. �; EGL � 0'1 5a�'t.t 3( 5't"o�2Y AAv���= S � chl�'c�2t�/( .+ I SCC_ T (_vi/v ` T4/ -r 71 !fir VkC- T° WAIT et- EE(A) (Mo( -e- ,6-r4 2-S 6t.12._ .- u 2A) 04) 7 -i -c 1 c= 2 r-✓ .)--5--1--141--for A -N D T i -t l} T i T c J 4- L ftI /be -4 o o 8E -rola(' `zio J 5 U; s 1J,)oti-r ?4 APP t/I L- o Oiit ,t, -)E -Lc -. 5 J&5S G -t 67-1'5 '30 cz) /42), •10014_11).--- ;,:f 1r044A — i L 0 ►2- CF-1,e—.z---Go 4 S E,. It -LSo L 'TL( C- 1 vn PSS - ,wt p it -c -m_ , W wv141/11, elft 41/..E'S (titer T i,- - k N.- W116 -A) M ( LW U o tiv. iEE iw 17- w ( wt Pi4Cr60). ,q.✓Y w ; T.6 ,e ACC/ (_, t)o )J111i2.4C6C-, ES 1'3 -Cc( c_r c'Ai tl(2-; 12_,D A b5_ )1\--L a_ Oo(C..C' vQ t WCL( E.D ovTS 06 --OE- vt/,Y a{bvSE €NL'� � .) S E. -C-7- -7;04-T "to On) N OF-�1'2T, tM`[: 56 Pais EqE uva_vbst CaeP5 cvi4)5 i�ce�S 51•�tovL.p 00 S"�-c� 74.1ti! L Gour TA 473 An)P iko s 1,D (o T � 3 ► >5 w6 -2 -1C -s l.0rev w c s Te..,-,-.) 5 U C.s, (JD -►- Gc7 ✓ c_ ] i T c-(" J01� "'�l i c ycc, / o ,,�, -C-TA-ri A) 9 - how iii 24 r Cao T-te 2_ <SD Wit-; F i2_lc _5-4-3 �Lc_ A)56-12(JC-Ft-'1') 1-4-(14'T �ES L t `C� b�vLo�PF" Vt. �N'i 1 LL�E' F? i3`too� 'c-te s PES JA- i o-tJ`Aii-c.ECF1� t � Ai) I� 2a•'k-!j) aa. oft) 0A(-- (?O 4 -ib Teig+T 15 ) Ce too Z ('0-5 PERc./ au 2_ oil) c cei-2 �zirerz. / 4 l 6 Po 2 }i (C-'-io ow1 rAu v ;&(0 2-r�ldT c S � o,Ur= 'a-(LFvE2-Y 5 6 SEC -0"-).s. c.�o,)�� (,�c s^ { Y ctu n 21 NT dvJ 20, to.: "bus -7- t 6 WA'�ube_iTc "PN Le-CIwl. ?re_. u cERz, CN c -X7- -R,°"' `e-sCnwt 1.4031-.T.1.)0WI C(c(4NE2 Z.Ac)S goy( i vv1,QS T 3 E Cc.i s M" /00 r Tis L! -C i a. / dN 'tea -141 -i.. O,S tA-co/tT F'��2(,) OT. 5 W C e AK— (Mn,5100 0. 5(.6 -1 C 1 kC C AVvt P 3ecC-5 C4W-14- VI O .F 1MuS ►y rZ 50 P IA -f- wQZ_ IT veto II L ,Now - t..) t 5 W LA 0 t J) ®N C47l C.E CE GC. T Q -t a -T WtCA1j: (..,h& -r' e L J CST f -o •2- (AA y 50 Tv q'' /ti.. 0 (2- 4 '-' k€ r .£LIiv L. C) Q.4ic-S1C-i wt 6e(4 b iieCC RC,vlouE 7to5 E Jj"5 'f y Ij7 Tee -es GJ I -t -,C? E t (3 To t.\iS cvi-_rjc c f E rk, -r64,-..--y 0t•4 (cE (T 5c) at 2.D `r 5 c TKc' Q,qy) CC -c>,, DS ) c F(2G S) 05 'YrZ_c3l Z o S c. -L 5 No -r ev i Oc)(, A.,,./i)A.,,./i)Co,o5 r -tic k k tK. t-t,aW ,e(,L-S kik 1 8(c� -TJc(,( I-16 Y( �I04(1 2N. t c. t. d}vc- Yo c,,)vi-STe ' 601,2E Goo sc{ i--/-- S ow TRoSE CAA.sry X31 Ds so:L c vc}ry k -ER -P_ -1.4,6. ,L= wl e TQ1/4/(6LS. Dt g--,10,( 0-,1 int sD i te(= '7' CEPA .L)( t -?v) Lc.)vvk (IA (S (c-' •J F 2 S w i-t4-7-EuC= (2 v i "J osl 46. 0 1-1 M ;"f-,1 ne), _rrli p �-eO rrc rl '2' T ° --(: , rtl .1 7, r)(\ • ?-tfT (7: •• j; -.C;! 1 17: , J _51, H 1 0 1 r G6.90 ROAD 102 ARBONDALE ci ��Z COLORADO 8 V �t/<.�fie 4 1623• �� � . wc- tie zee • August 12, 1982 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Court House P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 Gentlemen: q 11 � ',UG1 GARFIELD COUNTY COMt1. re: Cattle Creek Ranch Sub -Division As a resident/property owner in the Crystal Springs/Missouri Heights area, I once again respectfully urge you to very carefully consider and weigh the ramifications of any possible approval by the Board of County Commissioners of the increase from 131 already approved units in the Cattle Creek Ranch P.U.D. The new application (for increased units) will be coming before the Board on August 23rd. Sirs, it is not a question of "now that we are here, let's close the gates". It is a question of the incompatibility of such a huge development, in reality, a small city, complete with lawn sprinklers, water/waste water treatment facilities, stores, gas stations, fire houses, and the like; I forgot to mention 800 some odd wood -burning fireplaces/wood stoves, all burning at once and the resultant air pollution thereof. This area, in the main, is a ranching/farming area, cattle are bred and raised here, and what homeowners there are in this area respect that fact and live in.compatibility with it. The Cattle Creek Ranch Company already has approval for 131 units, that figure alone is already mind-boggling, and the impact on this ranch community will be tremendous. There are always two sides to every story, and I do not envy the difficult decision you will need to make to resolve this complex and many -faceted problem. I realize that the Cattle Creek Company has already made a huge investment in this project, but homeowners, wage earners, ranchers and farmers, also have a huge investment in their property, we are the other side of the coin. The density of population and the concomitant municipal necessities thereof, the drain on limited natural resources in this semi -arid land by such density as requested by the Cattle Creek Company, is a matter of crucial import. I prayerfully hope, and I trust, that you will be most considerate of all aspects of this problem. Thank you. Si.cerely, (Mrs.) Gloria S. Gillespie 7484 County Rd. 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 rk,-ttra, WV; ,A.1101 6 ,..•.";" COUNTY COM. TLC ni/cnier-5- '?erd),,LI , &cord oeucctz,;(__ p.o, )get --y_ /'l35 76006d SpA -z -/-,J VP 0 ao A..x,cuLti- 43az-6 ); . nt_eiti"C ...e.tu.1P ()/.7— —2-- 112 a ceC.. 5-1e71 i2-6 "r2.2907V-657,71 Lk /thi e n e7 (-01_5 sic -e- ,ly- L s/4 -0 -4. -ea 7)tz 5i/ 7C -e- cz,o _7 etm --4.- J s I , c>j- A/ Opp z - c5.e4 -A) avyll rn-e-Le-- -e-)0-s1--A EY--4_._. ?aa.ce,c 9-4._ Vete&tp ._eup_e_c_iezil 61---y7 ( e ttztic c.at. 2C -4 -et -704 —/--etze,i4 81,6 ,,0•717A. 7L14//4--- ) CLC L a P.O. Box 640 August 4, 1982 Mr. Frank Lerner P.O. Box 9140 Aspen, CO 81612 • GARFIELD COUNTY • COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-0640 CERISE (/ Phone 945-9158 oRIrnHeuSE _ VELASQUEZ FIE RE: 1980 Subdivision Improvements Agreement for Cattle Creek Planned Unit Development Dear Mr. Lerner: This office represents the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County. On August 11, 1980, on behalf of Cattle Creek Ranch, you entered into a subdivision improvements agreement which has been filed with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. This agreement provides that certain improvements are to be constructed on or before the first day of September, 1982. In that that date is rapidly approaching, I would ask that you would communicate with this office as to the status of completion of the improvements listed on Exhibit "A" to the agreement, and a copy of which is attached to this letter. It is my desire that the Board be advised as of September 1, 1982, as to the status of the improvements on your property so the Board can take appropriate action in regards thereto. If you have any questions about this, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Earl G. Rhodes Garfield County Attorney EGR/tb Enclosure xc: Ron Liston Board of County Commissioners `;116 Q 5 iii �r GARFIELD COUNTY Not 1 Lh L-) LJ 11 / GL[!NWOOD • x 0 8 � a W < D a LJ U > U < L Electrical Power Telephone Gas - 26,600 L.F. 0 $3.00 • EXHIBIT "A" TO SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT ,.E NT LETWEEN CATTLE CREEK RANCH, a Joint V). ntutFe, and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, bearing.a date of, the 11th day of August, 1930. CATTLE CREEK P.U.U. FILING NO. 1 Roads New Construction: 16955 L.F. 0 $17.50 improvements to Existing Roads 8580 L.F. 0 $4.50 - Water System 4" PVC - 600 L.F. @ $10.00 6" PVC - 1000 L.F. $12on 8" PVC - 4260 L.F. 0 $15.00 160,000 gal. storage tank Well and a;,rurtenances FireriyJrants 23 0 $i,200.00 Valves - 20 0 S350.00 20% Contingency Utilities z. $ 296,712.50 38,610.00 6,000.00 63,000.00 100,000.00 40,000.00 33,600.00 7,000.00 88,400.00 $ 335,322.50 $ 530,000.00 100,000.00 80,000.00 79,800.00 W 0 TOTAL $1,125,122.50 Recognizing that the water rights upon which the subdivision will rely are a vital part of the subdivision improvements to be provided. the w<:ter rinhts J proposed for transfer to the Cattle Creek Ranch Homeowners Association as LJ set forth in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of the District Court of Garfield County dated the 24th day of April, 1978, as amended by the Order Amending Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree dated the 2nd day of May, 1979, shall he ronveyed to the Owners Association as a part of Subdividers satisfaction of the within):c- Subdivision Improvements Agreement, and the Agreement ;hall not satisfied until the occurance of such conveyance. be considered Also required prior to satisfaction hereof is payment of $6,700 which shall be accepted as payment in lieu of dedication of lands for parks and schools. • • August 3, 1982 Garfield County Commissioners P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Sirs: Yr.Ut...... ✓r/` CSL As a resident of the Cattle Creek area, I wish to express my deep concern about Frank Lerner's proposed Cattle Creek Ranch. I sincerely urge you to support the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to deny approval for the additional 786 unit develop- ment. Such a development will threaten the environment as well as the quality of life for those of residents who have chosen to live in a rural area. One without heavily trafficked roads and where hills, meadows, wildlife and a limited number of people share a quiet, peaceful co -existence. We do not need an additional town the size of Carbondale when Carbondale itself is only a few miles and minutes away. Chris Aronson Holtum 112 Road Carbondale, Colorado 4^'cT'ArQcQ \Ct LU G O 5 GARFILLO COUNTY CnrFlt•t. 1 • • July 29, 1982 Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Cour House Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Commissioners: tRISE DRb";Ki?�USE� vELAsa 1EI FILE As a nearby property owner I have been following the Lerner subdivision plans with interest, and although I am unable to attend the August 23 meeting in person, I want to state my opposition to Mr. Lerner's proposal. Twice Mr. Lerner has presented his plan to the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Committee and twice they have turned him down. In doing so, they have reaffirmed theer support for the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, a plan that finds no place for high density housing in a low density rural area such as Missouri Heights. My land is flanked by two subdivisions: John Wix's Panorama Ranches and Mike Strang's proposed development. Both are in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan that allows for both the typical sub- division (Wix's 56 lots, the smallest of which is five acres) and the innovative use of land (Strang's proposed clustered housing and large agricultural preserve). I fully support such sensible development. Frank Lerner's proposal, however, is neither appropriate to Missouri Heights nor to the Comprehensive Plan. Not only will it destroy the quality of life for those of us living in the immediate area, it would also burden the county with increased expenditures for services such as road maintenance and police and fire protection. Just as Eagle County has found Vail an expensive proposition, so too would Garfield County find Lerner's second home city a financial liability. I urge you to vette against it. Sincerely Elizabeth F. Penfield 1204 County Road 170 Carbondale, Co. 81623 GARFL1D COUNTY CJIMM i • Mr. Flaven J. Cerise Mr. Larry Velasquez Mr. Jim Drinkhouse Garfield County Commissioners Court House Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sirs: • DRIN(itINSE�r/ I • July 26, 1982 I am writing to urge that you concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission which has twice recommended that the Cattle Creek Ranch PUD proposal not be approved. In the two proceedings before P & Z their main criticisms were that the proposal was not in compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, that it was incompatible with the existing area, and that road access was insufficient. (The Planning Commission should be congratulated on the way it dealt with this complicated proposal.) This development would increase the population of a rural area by about 2,000 -- the result would be a town about the present size of Carbondale. I am not opposed to growth and development in the county, but 786 units on Cattle Creek Ranch would mean a massive increase and stretch -out in services required from Carbondale and the County. I think the proposal is ill-conceived and ought not be approved. Sincerely your Elayne Golds e in 4020 County Rd 103 PO Box 1327 Carbondale, CO 81623 !I J(i L � 2 �? GAkF�iC ,,,, +.� COUNTY c^i i.. • • Dear Editor/Garfield County Commissioners: July• ;,:1 - We have a friend up on Missouri Heights --you know, that beautiful stretch of land northeast of Carbondale --the one dotted with a few houses but mainly horses and wildflowers. We see our friend when we have the chance; living in Silt, it's a good hour's trig, but worth it. We talk, help in the garden, ride horses --all against the backdrop of the still clean air and the unparalleled scenery of Basalt Mountain and Mt. Sopris. We'be been told recently that all that serenity may chance due to an approved 131 homesites with a proposed additional 786. Such a development constitutes a small town. What we fail to understand is why such a town needs to be built when the torn of Carbondale sits not ten miles away from Missouri Heights. Haven't we yet learned that bigger is rarely, if ever, better? Why mar the beauty of an area like Missouri Heights with housing that belongs in town, where proper facilities already exist? Is this to be low -rent housing, sorely needed for people who work in Aspen? We believe not; rather it's to be housing for people who love Colorado's scenery --for a season, possibly two. Do these people really contribute to Colorado's history and preservation? We think not. More likely they are contributing to the demise of the true Colorado; if you've lived here long enough, you know what we mean. We're not against reasonable expansion in areas which can easily support and give purpose to such expansion. As a teacher in Para- chute, however, one of us can attest to what happens when the need and purpose for rapid, furious expansion suddenly falls flat on its face. The entire flavor, nobility, and fiber of Garfield and Pit- kin counties is at stake every time some hot -shot developer comes into our area, spends money, and says, "Let's go for it!" Let them go for it in California, New Jersey, or Denver where people appar- ently like to live shoulder to shoulder. We in Western Colorado prefer our silences, our gravel roads, our unspoiled mountain meadows, and our pockets of magnificent scenery. We prefer Missouri Heights as it is. We trust that the County Commissioners have learned a painful but infinitely worthwhile lesson from Exxon and other capricious de- velopers. The Commissioners should analyze this potential develop- ment with an eye as to what makes Western Colorado worth living in. Who wants clogged highways or a horizon lines of houses? Let's think instead about preserving the essential beauties of our area. Growth in Garfield County should continue, but, it should be contiguous. New planned unit developments must only occur next to existing municipalities. It only makes se Thank you for your consideration. ( I ` I; Sincerely, L zJ (4121/1- ) OPttel, Andrew Gulli ord Stephanie Moran Box 305 Silt, CO 81652 • Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 WISE Dfi4;11VSc `. YEASQJEZ _L Dear Sirs; I attended the July 7 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at which a major topic of discussion was the Cattle Creek Ranch Subdivision. As the resident of the home a''t ERe narrowest part o t e Cattle Creek road (113) I am quite con- cerned about the possibility of a major change in the nature of the Cattle Creek area as well as a drastic increase in traf- fic and hazardous road conditions due to the proposed develop- ment. Fortunately, the reccommendation of the Planning and Zoning staff, which was adopted by the Commission, was for denial of the developer's request to increase the number of units from 131 to 786 based on the facts that the development is not compatible with existing land use in the area and with the Garfield County Master Plan and because access from existing conty roads is inadequate. I feel, however, that the issue of developing the Cattle Creek area will resurface again in the near future and would like to share my feelings with you before this occurs. I am most disturbed by comments, made by proponents of the project, that because ranching is no longer economically viable, the area should be developed for recreation and tourism. This self-serving statement implies that money is all that counts and completely ignores the possibility that ranchers may receive other intrinsic rewards or gratification from a profession some have engaged in their entire lives. Although I am not a rancher, I find this statement quite insulting and feel that it smacks of a11 more money is better mentality". It was also stated that because Cattle Creek has already been "carved up" into 5 acre ranchettes, there is no reason why Mr. Lerner, developer of the subdivision, should not be able to pursue his project. I fail to see the logic hereas Mr. Lerner's project, a town the size of Carbondale, complete with its own sewage plant (to be vented into Cattle Creek), fire sub -station, shopping center, liquor store, bar -restaurant, golf course and equestrian center cannot be equated with the other parts of Cattle Creek. In the five years I have lived in the Cattle Creek area I have found the growth to be quite well controlled, so much so that I was told that a guest cottage, which has been on the property where I reside for many years, could not even be renovated because of zoning regulations. In addition, although the area has some new homes, I have noticed only a minimal increase in traffic flow. The only traffic problem I hayed noticed was last summer' when trucks working on Mr. Lerner's project barreled through stthe ef 15 mile per hour zone in front of my hous:� gx,�-e r —�Y� 40-50 mph. �._L_��..~� I� JUL14 GARFlLLO COUNTY COMM. • • Finally, I do have an extremely personal interest in opposing this project. The home where I reside is 86 years old and surrounded by beautiful tunneled trees. The location is considered to be one of the most unique spots, not only in Cattle Creek but the entire valley, and holds much aesthetic and historic value. If a large subdivision is approved for Cattle Creek it will definitely be neccessary to widen the road which means removal of the trees and most probably the house, a most sad and unfortunate situation. A long time rancher, whose property is adjacent to Mr. Lerner's project, stated at the recent P&Z meeting that "we cannot stop people from coming in". I feel that what this gentle- man really meant was that he didn't want to stop people because of the enormous increase in property value he might realize should the subdivision be approved. Although I can understand this rancher's motivation and agree that we cannot stop people from moving to the area,I feel this can and should be done in a controlled and sen- sible manner. I appeal to you as my elected county representatives to give this matter your most serious consideration should it come before you and I trust that your decision will be appropriate and well thought out. I believe that if a subdivision of this mag- nitude is approved, a precedent will be set, and the door will be opened for others of similar proportions and that all of us will be witnessing the beginning of the end of a feeling and lifestyle, as we now know it, in Garfield County. Thank you for your time. S• ncerely yours rry einstock 3335 113 Rd. Carbondale, Co. 81623 1111 Galt t- Gustave A. Larson Company 2425 SOUTH 162ND STREET NEW BE RUN, WISCONSIN 53151 KARL G. LARSON July 9, 1982 PRESIDENT Garfield County Commissioners P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 ffl Dear Gentlemen: During the past months thCattlehave C�eek Ran llowed the plan- ning activitiessurrounding e Planned Unit Development Iewproperty on o rri ss 10sou n ri Heightsarea. 3, approximately two miles southwest of the Cattle Creek Ranch P. U.D. , and am, therefore, keenly interested in the changing character of the Missouri Heights area. The development concept and planning efforts that have gone into the Cattle Creek P. U.D. are a welcome improve- ment to the extensive random parcelization that presently dominates this area. This project represents a precep- tive look into the future of the mid -Roaring Fork Valley and it is my sincerest hope that this is recognized by the elected officials and their staff in Garfield County. The project has my whole -hearted support and I would request that Garfield County work closely for development. developer to see this project approved Sincerely, KGL /11 ii11/ vt•N rE: 8 - r RECORD OF CONVERSATION TIME: 9,' D FILE: i • OUTGOING: INCOMING: CONTACT :- FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED: SIGNED: • • C �.; ©? ,/. cf),?-7 - c moo. / 4' o // • 0, vc:>,o (9(f)e./a' 7 C /<7--e--1Z7/. - ,5Z-e_z2,..4>asc2,2c.)),deecc. • • 786 Units for Cattle Creek Ranch Reasons for Non -Approval 1. The recommended density in the Garco Comprehensive Plan is that density which is compatible with existing subdivisions. The currently approved 131 units equals'1 unit/3 acres which is already greater density than that of neighboring subdivisions in the area. 2. The proposed development is adjacent to agricultural lands and will be detrimental to their continuation detrimental the agricultural lands. It has already been C & M ditch break on the existing Cattle Creek Ranch putar. hundreds of acre s out of agricultural production 3. There have presently been observed dslots tsrofds deerwil on themo e concentrated on neighboring Cattle Creek Ranch property. Now these and there will be the dogs in bels more dogs to chase them. More importantly, le on al of his proposed development will be harrasing attcees on't have neighboring ranchlands. The neighboring the capacity for controlling these dogs which can constitute a 24 hour per day nuisance. Is Mr. Lerner going to tell his wealthy customers they can't have their dogs? 4. Existing roads will not handle even n twetcuth Mren ly Wis:'s approved development (131 Units), 9 current 58 Panorama units. There are too many hlinere curves in all the roads leading into this area, and e already too many near accidents with existing construction traffic in the area. The existing roadscombinedwith the present degree of development already constitutes dangerous nuisance. 5. With the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch development the quality of life of existing adjacent land owners will be lowered, and the character of the adjacent rural and agricultural lands will be altered. Mr. Lerner is attempting to put another town the size of Carbondale on the map. (The 1980 census figure for Carbonde was 2,090 people). This new town will not have nearly any he services or city staff required to service a "town" of this size. 6. The Cattle Creek Ranch development presently has 131 approved units with no fire protection.. Mr. Lerner proposes to man his own station with his staff for 786 units. Could his amateur staff handle a condo fire? Will this station be dedicated to the county? 7. Though the proposal touts Garfield County's need for recreation, what they are proposing is a closed, sheltered community for terefacilities wch in a illte besclosed.toThe thegolf public.) course and other unproven concept in This is a radically new and dangerously un p • • housing in Garfield County. The wealthy in this valley prefer to live as close as possible to Aspen and Snowmass. It is simply too long a drive back from any resturant or other entertainment offered in the Aspen area. 8. Instead of attempting to develop housing and a new commercial area in a remote portion of the valley, why not approve locate developments closer to existing commercial facilities? Rural areas should be developed to rural densities, and the county should stick with this philosophy. 9. The proposed rural liquor store will generate drunk driving on rural roads in the vicinity, endangering lives of others. 10. This proposal will require condemnation by the county or purchase by the developer of some of the most scenic portions of private property along Cattle Creek road where the trees grow together above the road. Numerous old trees would have to be cut down and private fences moved. 11. Nearby Panorama Subdivision lots are only 50% sold, and those sold to date have been heavily discounted. 12. The idea of providing a development with an extended recreational season beyond the Aspen/Snowmass area is questionable at 7200 feet of elevation. 13. The wealthy individuals Mr. Lerner proposes to bring in may be terribly demanding of Garfield County services, as they are very used to always having their way. For example, they be unhappy if their roads aren't immediately plowed after heavy snows, etcetera. 14. .3 million gallons per day of treated sewage water dumped into Cattle Creek that far up the creek is unacceptable to most of the residents who live downstream, and is also unacceptable to the many Garfield County below residents who enjoy troutfishing in the stretch j the ranch. If the effluent is of such 'high quality' why don't they keep it on the ranch? 15. The present proposal states "no road improvements will be made until 100 Certificates of Occupancy have been issued." What of the people who may be injured or killed on the presently unsafe roads? 16. There exists no default plan, i.e., no bail-out plan like the one we should have demanded of Exxon. What happens if Cattle Creek Ranch goes broke? 17. The revenue projections for the county are somewhat questionable. The road improvements won't happen until 100 Certificates of Occupancy have been issued. This equals • • only 12% of the lots being sold, and at this time the tax revenues would only be in the neighborhood of $250,000 per year, using Mr. Lerner's projections. 18. This wealthy area will act as a magnet for criminal elements, which in turn will affect adjacent landowners. Sherriff McNeal has already indicated to the planning commission that he cannot service this remote area. Also, this area has already experienced an increase in crime recently. We don't need more. 19. Has Mr. Lerner's group come to an agreement with the ditchowners of the C & M and the Needham ditches which pass through the Cattle Creek Ranch property? 20. We understand Mr. Lerner has been circulating a petition of his own. Where are these signatures from? How many are from Garfield County and how many are from out of the area?. How many represent local people in the area? Our signatures represent local people in the area which will be affected directly by this development. Many of them have taken time out from their busy lives to come to this meeting tonight. We could have secured hundreds of signatures from outside the area, but we feel the local area residents feelings should count heavily in this issue. 21. Lastly, and most importantly, Mr. Lerner's type of development would set a precedent we don't want in Garfield County. Where are we going to draw the line regarding developments of this scale? If the County allows this precedent of city -scale development in rural areas, they will not be able to legally stop it in the future. Small new towns would be springing up all over, in your own backyard next. We urge each and every Planning & Zoning Commission member to vote against establishing this kind of precedent in Garfield County. Sincerely, Doug Davis Spokesperson for Local Area Residents • • Important Omissions in the Cattle Creek Ranch Development Plan 1. The Crystal Springs Road (GARCO #103) is not shown on the vicinity map, nor is it addressed in the road engineering study. It is the major route between the proposed development and the nearest commercial service area (Carbondale). 2. There is no input from Eagle County in this plan, and they are reportedly upset regarding the large potential impact on their roads going through and up from El Jebel. 3. Numewrous adjacent landowners are missing from the list of property owners of record within 300 feet of Cattle Creek Ranch PUD: Todd and Denise Kupka (12 acres), M/K Ranch Associates (14 acres), and Doug and Alice Davis (19 acres). Sincerely, Doug Davis Spokesperson for Local Area Residents • ABETH F PENFIELD 127 DAUPHINE ST • NEW ORLEANS LA 70116 S POS7,9 MI IaiIgram western union U.S MAIL rn 4-0122605386 07/05/P2 ICS IPMBNGZ CSP GLWA AI 5045667457 MGM TDBN NEW ORLEANS LA 57 07-05 045613 FST • 411'THE PLANNING DEPT GARFIELD COUNTY 2014 BLAKE AVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS CO 81601 Gt1111 ,..�., v d. _✓ • • AS A CONCERNED LANDOWNER ON 170 RD I WANT TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED EPCOM NG HEARINGNER TO PROTESTSUBDIVISION ON 100 PERSON BUTT HOPE THATUNABLE vOUOATTEND VILLNOT • THEHE UPCOMING UP I APPROVE THE PROPOSAL ELIZABETH F PENFIELD • 1659 EST • M MCOMP MGM t • • • • • • 10 TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TO: GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RE: THE CATTLE CREEK COMPANY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 7, 1982 GENTLEMEN: Regretably, I cannot attend your Public Hearing, tonight in person. However, I would like to make a few points in support of the Cattle Creek Company Planned Unit Development. 1. This is an example of a well planned multiple purpose development designed to attract and appeal to a broad sigment of the population from outside, as well as from within the boundaries of Garfield County. It might well be compared to a whole new industry, bringing jobs, capital, economic diversification, and an enhanced style of living to the county. That stimulus should be nourished and allowed to prosper within this County. The Counties' Citizens can be the direct beneficiaries of this development, at a time when diversification of our economic base is so important. 2. This development will relieve pressure on the valley corridors. By creating this P.U.D., by tucking it away in the hills, the Planners are attempting to preserve the uncongested and scenic valley vistas which are so valuable a part of our current environment. That effort should be appreciated. 3. By utilizing accepted planning practices, the Developers are avoiding the "rural sprawl" so common in other counties, yet, at the same time, they are creating a beautiful setting for homes and recreational amenitites. This, to me, is highly desirable. Certainly, the Citizens of Garfield County, will not be burdened by this project, but in fact will benefit from the addition of a significant resource development. This project has my wholehearted ort. y�.urs Lee A. Whitney 0413 Rd. 250 New Castle, • • FEBRUARY 3, 1982 TO ;'IHOA.. IT .,.AY CU1': C ERN : IN MAit:;:_ OF 1977 I FIRST .,..:.1' .''RANK THE .;E.. OZ it OF 2HE LAND WEST OF la BOUNDARY 50 900 ACRES PLUS. SOF, TWO ..BLEB Or FENCE LINE RUN BJ L;:EN US. IN THE OLD JEST, THAT LEANS A LOT OF FL:.CE 'MENDING! I STATE NOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN A VERY FRIT,:IDLY PROCESS. I GROW CATTLE AND PROTECT ALL WILDLIFE ON _.:Y PROPERTY. FRANK LERNER AND CATTLE CRE K RANCH WANT TO DEVLLOPi A GOLF COURSE AND BUILD HOUSES. (986 units). THAT IS ALL RIGHT WITH ME. LERNER AND MYSELF HAVE ENOUGH WATER POTENTIAL TO SERVICE BOTH PLACES. /(; THANKS VERY MUCH, JOHN A. NcNU'LTY CATTLE CREEK GAME PRESERVE IP, II GEORGE J. PETRE ROBERT S. ZIMMER>1AN COURTNEY G. PETRE DANIEL B. PETRE March 16, 1982 • • LAW OFFICES PETRE & ZIMMERMAN POST OFFICE 01.4WER 400 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81602 Mr. Richard J. Corriere Post Office Box 1247 Aspen, Colorado 81612 AREA CODE 303 945.6521 Dear Dick, I met with Oscar Cerise, Clifford Cerise, Doug Cerise and H.P. Hanson yesterday and I went over with them what we discussed and in general the nature of the Cattle Creek development. All of us recognize that the highest and best use for the property in the area of this development probably is for development purposes and we all acknowledge that Mr. Lerner has put together a well envisioned, well planned, if somewhat ambitious development, and except for the development's impact on the C/M Ditch, none of the parties would have any objections to the development. All of the parties agree to withdraw any and all opposition they have to the planned development, provided that Frank recognizes his responsibility to them in connection with the C/M Ditch, which we would envision to include the following: 1. That the engineering be completed and the ditch be changed and restructured according to the engineering plans as are necessary to assure reliable flow of water in the ditch. We would suggest that we continue to work with Elmer Claycomb of. Claycomb Engineering in this regard, which engineering and construction would be at Frank's expense. 2. That the arrangements be made for the maintenance of the ditch by the developer, probably through the homeowner's association, of that portion of the ditch through the developed lots. I would also suggest that consideration be given in the development plans to allow access from the roads within the subdivision to the ditch, so that the ditch owners can get equipment to the ditch to maintain it above and below the subdivided lots. LAW OFFICES • • PETRE & ZIMMERMAN A PROF ES5,O'V AL CORPC)RAT iON Richard J. Corriere March 16, 1982 Page 2 3. That care be taken to provide building envelopes within the lots at locations that won't be affected by the ditch or any seepage connected with the ditch. 4. We envision a continuing problem of springs along the hillside that are not connected with the ditch, but have a bearing on its stability. 5. That the developer assume all liability to damages occasioned by the use of the ditch, including the liability for any damages done to homes built under the ditch from seepage from the ditch. They all feel that these are Frank's responsibilities, whether connected with the existing approved subdivision or the anticipated additional PUD. If Frank acknowledges his responsibility in these matters, and agrees to work with the ditch owners, the owners will withdraw any opposition to the development. I personally feel that Frank should be commended for his vision and the enterprising nature of this development. I am sure it will be properly done, and if so, will be a true credit to him. Yours very truly, PETRE & ZIMMERMAN, P.C. GJP/jj cc: Clifford Cerise Doug Cerise Oscar Cerise H.P. Hanson jc-77/c) • 1-1! re.A 9 Pc F; t ri 77 o 4- e7v,-) e (-) frev 6c -i 7/7c) tlit 5"/i/c5. C 7 ti Cr t C! l45. Li -L-2;`) �,y } -1'2) 7 Q) C` /7 (; c.. 1 • P.O. Box X260 Aspen, CC 81612 April 12, 19c2 Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Lox 640 CO 81601 Glenwood Springs, Dear Sirs: 1 am an adjacent land owner for the proposed tattle Creek proposed Ranch project of 786 units and golf course. ffeeihaheapr posed project would be a great benefit to the direction ll move in. The applicant seems willing to address the key issues of police, and water quality, which undor its old road, fire, p � ration. Therefore, I respapplicationtrespectfully Isubmit�mynd pp has no obligation. res ectfu y support of the new proposed Cattle Creek p Ranch, PUD. PJEH/ jgb Sincere}*y, / - Patrick J. Hunter ,CT -i1 JUN 11982 GAith .L!) eO. PlHriidER May 28, 1982 Garfield County Planner Planning & Zoning 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 To whom it may concern: Basic to any well integrated planning effort would be that the proposed development show a need as demonstrated by the community; whichnot borderaddressing development proposal. upon those landowners Historically the area in question: Gould, Squires, Peter- son, Lawrence, McNulty - Upper Cattle Creek - in other words, has been a ranching community. The encroachment of developers does not bring the best of conditions with it for the rancher. Pragmatism would suggest a large devel- opment, of modest beginnings, to be out of touch with the economics of the area as well as the economics oflohe day. To be in favor of development there suggests aof reality. Forbes magazine, a subsidiary of Sangre de Cristo Ranches -777, has responsibly been sending offers to purchase land where ...''rolling foothills sweep to the snow capped peaks of the Rockies" - in Colorado. This proposal has been sent for the past several years. And it is meant to appeal to persons of integrity as the letter further notes: "Because there has been so much bad pub- licity about some firms engaged in land sales, Forbes has taken every possible measure, both moral an legal, to assure our selected prospects that they are being offered a completely worthwhile and reliable land buying opportunity." This particular offer spreads over 260 square miles. Our immediate concern is on our borders, and the new e proposal tothegrantingrofyWithout question any further amobdevelopment I am pp rights. Sincerel Joyce Gould Box 4245 Aspen, Colorado 81612 2v Members of the Plan Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch,carin e consist avor of the project. c �e understand the project willolf course, of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus g equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork ValValley• Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high qtyre water service and sewage treatment and additional police, and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that tdCattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be app the Creek Development has necessary water rights to support project and is an addition to our community. • NAME -'v��LCiC a. 7. 7, a (I/ (4_,c, /76 /0 // ,3 i/ .:"- L. (I • (, /0 / y 7U ADDRESS /"---" n ✓2 3 2 z /17 ),A Pte' C. //2 Pr if., ... , ,__„„),-. „...ei 22,, .dam CI rOt2.,S C'brre,Vl R' t, / �J.> , , . 3 ` r' (tvt:.7-'l// '7` ; Y !.4 ,/ / j /r. 7Y; i•/ (l.:-A,,,,-.1-)�, 3 .. 7 C -.:(_,2 4Q er, ,c) APS. - / �c. .'A �� i4 ...t_, Z.,„ey{.() 0 �rw�-i � � 5 4Z,c C -0-k aidlivtioA, 13 Q'; 0 c4 ,. -z--,,. • C-1 e ru r4 /7/6 6,.-Ii-A.,-ei-e- �G(e 13 }t i�7. ,. de a.,/,„y.,.,_,---7.:.,,__//, 7X9' •,(.7-"-,/ /.; , 4./ Le ..1%!.%;:4:-.4..1":- -' iiii:,..?.4;J.:/- 'C.) /::; 0-% ,.,.7 0 _,`'..:::ZZ -14/`X_7(.'4'7,,7;c4 75/ :I '., Sot kfilt -- ? 1 (' 1 � z� e Z,3 2y • • _Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and dcrare in favor residents he area near the proposed Cattle Creek Rof the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. N ADDRESS ,;/)/". y Po to eci, 6$ltGv d Sir< fj '. D,24S - 4'° 3e -7 4} J k 7%/ l 7� • Da.n \CA \ 7 r71 76 f/ . ,3o? / /,eW• (3•6•S'99 / y , 21i -&7a Z (c •• Z LS 7)/ii2.i �to . v , .?6 (/444(/ t(-19 ,`U�oVgdZ 9 Jerk/ -r2 -71 Members of the P1Z!![ning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support he project and is an addition to our community. • NAME /47/Ti-4-, 1— r? 5-6 rl.. ADDRESS 0 / 1/9 ("9 i / f:e /..f CO 4 /S / .R i/7-./2,62.7,4,..."_eP � ,lam- �/6 €51/::://611 ,Cis Jff-.. �, z .r�:�.r. lail ./., ,,....cX`:..a , •.i. -o (, ())7( /7/.4.1 ! /0'j i-1. ✓—/tel i� �. 4)- ..-_(.-1 7 -)/ 33 0(45 > i-),-\nrit,... , 7f 2; ;"6 • 20Z, „0e -}pec .pv� 1�`1e CR4,TL • •. .\ • 1 ‘7e.-yvw e"/ .• 6r2 6,1 . • Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME ADDRESS F t </7 76, 72 �y X $a /24 n fjr!_ 6/-q:--/-12-04117-9 •706 `i/-t'✓:.0l- 7O6 Mw 2 (--;x: E714izr-r- /� 4._-),f 1--/.-��//__!:_,J),-;,17 !- ':. )� //,.../...,.• ; f. ->f, �)/. C4er l j , ..2,/06-1 CI • ` llc:'1*---(,..,'N'i- .i-LYC^ r., l,) ;.•-;e1. 1() ///•7 ( z ' /(/ I i/v ; /. g r) 7 -'- M Q ��� �' oz 2 r) L �� k . /V' /2/ �2 (/_ .147,,v I &,_e • • Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME L�✓i1 t/ ��`��4'��i ADDRESS 77 S:n.) 7-1) 411-`) C (-) ci))a..1-4.1n1)C ev // `G,)� : (.7// 2- 2t , 5 �.-� ll,i�-C t,i <�srsl ., - c--4. C' .2 C S .Z / 1 )--r -�: - -✓-� ,,,c� j� /.114 - /9(2 /63 PP�s� z� .��C_ \J 4/y J :57 5 i h's (A/-1 _ j - /1. d C' ✓ .c% t/ �-r' • ^///' �u ' a` / i ZC) .-e- 41'6,0C,11 t 7 i J Li' cc1, <'Y 6 --rt L`7 647-14.-/C.4 Sr /,--• »I 60/r/6.o` • • Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME ._. • /Lc t/ t•-• , 1 : , {. G l(F(t-r C ADDRESS •L`, , , �ll _tip , 64 Pc: :5y 2 5 //747/ l/;:'ll�;. �� �`✓o�,r --t�'.7l C cis 1'.; ::,•� ci1' G 2 fr 6 SV \:. 6 (C,=j c (( • C> % ; / /`!%` , �� �i_,; L. c L///'%i/{-( , - Aka /. 132 lf. \ 'f 3 cC )r._5 /vt/4 ,ict • 6/,--2//z, • e �i �S ✓►' /i. j. --(CAC & CIQ-A ApCiiC21 Co a 1 X22 /Z 3 • • Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. "\ /7.r" 7z, /L. vi 1 X Ci IA"' ,� 03(5— /1,=7;:. 3(5— // ADDRESS ,iyam. gipAck- /• ! /i / // 3,z /.--,17/1 en i // y ;i __ILr ask- D2;-,-- 6,4ni J� c lX=/1,14L• lr/4��Cr 26 7 c3.,t-iA)L,(_)_► 1t (-'_.. A� o Aid( - - 6/44 .i)0,-7 % 3() c3)( L2 /(i 3 /.ten io g< ,./ -•/ (.cr . - -/. f -/ ,`/.., , /I • .(( //, ,� ' /' '/2 <//\ J'/.. /icL=(t(C' SSG :�c.,�'/v� ��'r FiL: F -� Y,4-23 .,.,,/ ,v4,,,.," ,f, -__.. )e9 • • Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME (Th . nit ADDRESS qq) --ll 3 PA) ?)--/) 2 c> // (. cc , L /1)07 /(Mrd" Mrd -j kk 1/5 --/—fa 35'i DIS •-v-t).(- JW, i/1 L• _' s r / eo d:Gvv-W vV't✓ "Ig) t -c 0) P\ „-- /Go 'A "`'OffM —t?T-guka4 I :xI42.7 C-Th A . S �o c\A °. �2. /�/ //5 ,%4r. r2/' ,-3/.6? d- /i.e,z4w t crrV(iit � � ? / / 5- k G E'itl.,rreze r �i✓l, S 3S_(tel fct)esa , /F(tttKI- //b— a le\uu8154 5fr, 1. ( .` ; 1 // S ' � L j 5-- — /( J t- v s • - /1 (;, • • Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME ADDRESS U1 Pfik- /). ' • t ,1( /42 14:,7 1 1/ (:-da. /t`. (1 l 1),/./(% / ((i(1 / y � __. �=t f nye "✓ r• /;''7i°2..4 2��.� Chi ci/ 1,), 0111 if - .1 l C/o C1/2.4 . rr � ��.� t ( 0 -cls Doo i A• S .)E C�- S 6.6 1 t) c.....ocK Dear Editor/Garfi• County Commissioners: Jule";r•1982 , We have a friend up on Missouri Heights --you know, that beautiful stretch of land northeast of Carbondale --the one dotted with a few houses but mainly horses and wildflowers. We see our,friend when we have the chance; living in Silt, it's a good hour's trip, but worth it. We talk, help in the gadien, ride horses --all against the backdrop of the still clean air and the unparalleled scenery of Basalt Mountain and Mt. Sopris. We'be been told recently that all that serenity may chance due to an approved 131 homesites with a proposed additional 786. h a development constitutes a small town. What we fail to un:1� is why such a town needs to be built when the town of Ca e,. dale rtn� sits not ten miles away from Missouri Heights.��, i f "uL 2 71982 :1 Haven't we yet learned that bigger is rarely, if ever, be&ter? Why mar the beauty of an area like Missouri Heights withr61•, - that belongs in town, where proper facilities already exist? Is�G' '4414E this to be low -rent housing, sorely needed for people who work in Aspen? We believe not; rather it's to be housing for people who love Colorado's scenery --for a season, possibly two. Do these people really contribute to Colorado's history and preservation? We think not. More likely they are contributing to the demise of the true Colorado; if you've lived here long enough, you know what we mean. We're not against reasonable expansion in areas which can easily support and give purpose to such expansion. As a teacher in Para- chute, however, one of us can attest to what happens when the need and purpose for rapid, furious expansion suddenly falls flat on its face. The entire flavor, nobility, and fiber of Garfield and. Pit- kin counties is at stake every time some hot -shot developer comes into our area, spends money, and says, "Let's go for it!" Let them go for it in California, New Jersey, or Denver where people appar- ently like to live shculder to shoulder. We in Western Colorado prefer our silences, our gravel roads, our unspoiled mountain meadows, and our pockets of magnificent scenery. We prefer Missouri Heights as it is. We trust that the County Commissioners have learned a painful but infinitely worthwhile lesson from Exxon and other capricious de- velopers. The Commissioners should analyze this potential develop- ment with an eye as to what makes Western Colorado worth living in. Who wants clogged highways or a horizon lines of houses? Let's think instead about preserving the essential beauties of our area. Growth in Garfield County should continue, but ,it should be contiguous. New planned unit developments must only occur next to existing municipalities. It only makes se rte` V'i Thank you for your consideration. 'j;( Sincerely, i, - (4.411- i II iei 1 N99 0 -Pa..., Andrew Gulliford Box 305 Silt, Co 81652 Stephanie Moran • Mr. Flaven J. Cerise Mr. Larry Velasquez Mr. Jim Drinkhouse Garfield County Commissioners Court House Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sirs: DRVitafrE • July 26, 1982 yi F • ''''''"'5T-1 � ^� 1 I jilJUL 2 / 1982 rJ i GAHFIELU CO. PLANNER R I am writing to urge that you concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission which has twice recommended that the Cattle Creek Ranch PUD proposal not be approved. In the two proceedings before P & Z their main criticisms were that the proposal was not in compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, that it was incompatible with the existing area, and that road access was insufficient. (The Planning Commission should be congratulated on the way it dealt with this complicated proposal.) This development would increase the population of a rural area by about 2,000 -- the result would be a town about the present size of Carbondale. I am not opposed to growth and development in the county, but 786 units on Cattle Creek Ranch would mean a massive increase and stretch -out in services required from Carbondale and the County. I think the proposal is ill-conceived and ought not be approved. bi( Sincerely your, 4 -9 -- Blayne Golds ein 4020 County Rd 103 PO Box 1327 Carbondale, CO 81623 111 it 1'11 GAkF?e'LQ COUNTY June 25, 1982 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We, the undersigned owners of property and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Planned Unit Development expansion, are strongly opposed to the development of 786 homes in this rural and remote area of Garfield County. Garfield County has gone to great lengths to adopt a comprehensive plan to insure that appropriate density development occurs in appro- priate areas; high density near towns, where services exist, and low density in rural areas with minimal services. We support the provis- ions of the comprehensive plan. We are opposed to the increase in density of the development from the approved 131 dwelling units to 786 units, which includes substantial commercial sites, for the following reasons: 1. The project is not compatible with the rural character of the area with existing lot sizes ranging from 3+ acres to 800 acres per individual homesite. The project would alter the basic character of land uses in the area. The proposal would adversely affect the quality of life of existing adjacent residences. 2. The anticipated traffic generated by 786 units will range between 3,200 to 3,900 vehicle trips per day which would create a public danger, nuisance to surrounding areas, and dangerous traffic near residential areas. 3. Proposed expansion to 786 units would create a population of 2,000 to 2,500 at this remote site. This population will create a demand for urban type services, i.e. police, fire, ambulance, road maintenance etc. These services should be provided by cities and towns which are set up to provide them, not by the County, which is set up for rural services. 4. The project population would adversely affect existing agri- cultural operations in the area. Agriculture is the backbone for eco- nomic stability in Garfield County and has been severely impacted recently by oil shale development. Trespassing, dogs, impact to irri- gation flow, loss of farm equipment, crop damage, and increased real estate pressures would all create an environment non -supportive of agri- cultural operations. 5. The proposed density of 1 unit per 1.23 acres does not meet the density requirement of District "B", of one unit per 2 acres onik a density compatible with the existing subdivision. The existing Cattle Creek Subdivision has a density of 1 unit per 3 acres and Panorama Ranches has a density of 1 unit per 5+ acres. The project does not meet the density criteria of the comprehensive plan. 6. The comprehensive plan states that "it is the policy of the County that, in order to maintain the rural character of the County, preserve the existing quality of life and utilize those areas which are easily accessible to the necessary elements for the provision of tech- nical and community services, the existing rural areas of the county are not appropriate for high density or urban type development." This proposed expansion to 786 units does not fit this criteria. The project is high density for the area and constitutes "urban type development." 7. The poor economic housing market and poor housing financing opportunities make us question the feasibility of this project. The project will not provide needed "affordable" housing to Garfield County. It is primarily a second hone playground for the rich. We feel it is vital that the County question the long term viability of this proposal and insure that the developer has a contingency plan should this type of project go under. The County already has one new town that, even with the backing of the largest company in the world, has folded. We tax- payers do not need another. • • 2. In conclusion, we wish to thank the Commission for hearing our con- cerns as residents of the area. We strongly urge you to reject the Cattle Creek P.U.D. expansion because it is high density in the wrong place. Also, that you limit your approval to the 131 units already granted. Thank you for your time and attention. -"'--7--)\ a/Le Most sincerely yours, (We have affixed our signatures to subsequent pages, hereto attached) l< (7 Gustave A. Larson Company l t. .. KARL G. LARSON July 9, 1982 Garfield County Commissioners P. O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Gentlemen: • JOL .I Co4RFi Q Cp pidi.., During the past several months I have followed the plan- ning activities surrounding the Cattle Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development proposed for the Missouri Heights area. l own property on County Road 103, approximately two miles southwest of the Cattle Creek Ranch P. U.D. , and am, therefore, keenly interested in the changing character of the Missouri Heights area. The development concept and planning efforts that have gone into the Cattle Creek P. U.D. are a welcome improve- ment to the extensive random parcelization that presently dominates this area. This project represents a precep- tive look into the future of the mid -Roaring Fork Valley and it is my sincerest hope that this is recognized by the elected officials and their staff in Garfield County. The project has my whole -hearted support and 1 would request that Garfield County work closely with the developer to see this project approved for development. KGL /11 Sincerely, y 4 7:1 - -- Hr �. f•. hNtf • • I • FENNEIEL • • June 25, 1982 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We, the undersigned owners of property and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Planned Unit Development expansion, are strongly opposed to the development of 786 homes in this rural and remote area of Garfield County. Garfield County has gone to great lengths to adopt a comprehensive plan to insure that appropriate density development occurs in appro- priate areas; high density near towns, where services exist, and low density in rural areas with minimal services. We support the provis- ions of the comprehensive plan. We are opposed to the increase in density of the development from the approved 131 dwelling units to 786 units, which includes substantial commercial sites, for the following reasons: 1. The project is not compatible with the rural character of the area with existing lot sizes ranging from 3+ acres to 800 acres per individual homesite. The project would alter the basic character of land uses in the area. The proposal would adversely affect the quality of life of existing adjacent residences. 2. The anticipated traffic generated by 786 units will range between 3,200 to 3,900 vehicle trips per day which would create a public danger, nuisance to surrounding areas, and dangerous traffic near residential areas. 3. Proposed expansion to 786 units would create a population of 2,000 to 2,500 at this remote site. This population will create a demand for urban type services, i.e. police, fire, ambulance, road maintenance etc. These services should be provided by cities and towns which are set up to provide them, not by the County, which is set up for rural services. 4. The project population would adversely affect existing agri- cultural operations in the area. Agriculture is the backbone for eco- nomic stabil.ity in Garfield County and has been severely impacted recently by oil shale development. Trespassing, dogs, impact to irri- gation flow, loss of farm equipment, crop damage, and increased real estate pressures would all create an environment non -supportive of agri cultural operations. 5. The proposed density of 1 unit per 1.23 acres does not meet the density requirement of District "B", of one unit per 2 acres olik a density compatible with the existing subdivision. The existing Cattle Creek Subdivision has a density of 1 unit per 3 acres and Panorama Ranches has a density of 1 unit per 5+ acres. The project does not meet the density criteria of the comprehensive plan. 6. The comprehensive plan states that "it is the policy of the County that, in order to maintain the rural character of the County, preserve the existing quality of life and utilize those areas which are easily accessible to the necessary elements for the provision of tech- nical and community services, the existing rural areas of the county are not appropriate for high density or urban type development." This proposed expansion to 786 units does not fit this criteria. The project is high density for the area and constitutes "urban type development." 7. The poor economic housing market and poor housing financing opportunities make us question the feasibility of this project. The project will not provide needed "affordable" housing to Garfield County. It is primarily a second home playground for the rich. We feel it is vital that the County question the long term viability of this proposal and insure that the developer has a contingency plan should this type of project go under. The County already ehas one new town has tolnethat, e. We veen-with the backing of the largest company in payers do not need another. • • 2. In conclusion, we wish to thank the Commission for hearingeojurtur con- cerns as residents of the area. We strongly urge you Cattle Creek P.U.D. Plnmitrlyourause it approvalstolgh hed1311units alreadyty in the ng place. Also, that you granted. Thank you for your time and attention. Most sincerely yours, (We have affixed our signatures to subsequent pages, hereto attached) NAME RESIDENCE 3 7 40/5 3335 Jd //3 3333- //5 33002 1/3 J,36.7. )/3 3302 gd /13 MAILING ADDRESS Ca���Ja /e 3 ,Pi 6„z. ,1 3 333 5 // 3A r/f,P-db+ro/4% 8!6 z3 4'/3l RL / 03 4 ao-7 tee4-ell, 40.1\,;e0,_ct_s< 814,2.3 NAME aiyte z2 i4 • • RESIDENCE MAILING ADDRESS /05 (oRd r.¢ 50 /0,14 /F' is, •F ( /• X73- ..2 / 1) J� ? it 4:S3 Co, Rd. 113 Gar ba�aiaJ� gu • L[Lt36 1( tt /:/ p.4 0 7/Q �Pa,►�-� I/3 J. 7V7 - via, e#054 e.r,r k /gof 9ys-0,,t6 . • I r ��li gle I : (13 94<s1,17/3 NAME RESIDENCE n') .0"2.0 OaVe MAILING ADDRESS gdYc7 (19 ,e42? &4. I 0 C K-1 (-) L/ .3 (?)- / C t: /2 -LA ,,pf,e4f 39V7 /s() Cded-' 9y7 tee seL 37 / 00 Rd (1 Ode NAL,' 38:9y 4( >a-0 (0 ) • \ 3 /ol ion Rd. Notho,ncbth , (7,0, 1)%th Sriaaae. a‘sex• 6-7A1+ toizr2J g6-76Pd /a2 a z7.„ Eib23 Lt. 4cm2eseirez_ aito-- 6 0.4623 0 74: )1)A, 0..z Rd. /Q 09 Th6 ?eh% 72,60,7_ e,„h2-7.6kgiez: D3-,, 6e/lJe/2"(ot. &„, 1/2 pitz,J.0144 et 3 7 /7'ic 3- /6.09 Rd /4-2 ra,,/,,1424.6. Ica wi 603 NAME RESIDENCE MAILING ADDRESS wiAi/w,61,t 4A.4 a ![ P -21-Y7 /4(,:_ /-26.:;2_, r 3 ),1 (14,j, -t 4 5,3 7.;2 0 e) , (-/-7R/3 1 14 /3 ) cf(w, S763 `,e 66 ion 6-c,A--zzeek. -z-N-rze Ccv- hIrkl sz- 7L / c lob alG5oc(„.2n. ca Yyly C --, ' ex' C� ;S-/6 3 9L/ 7y Co. MC) �- �. .4._ ei 6, y7z 6. a. 760 ei /,/e Fix 66- 40/ 4 q - vL %GJ (id/IA.44A Ze '/ J-3 RESIDENCE MAILING ADDRESS r) 3 203 - 7t)K Ra. • 6+4,6- ( f-Aci ciai e c t0)34,4 Ay& CACK-YQ.04e, ()zee. , oDS3 ri2i-k9 4v E. 0,4fixiod4Le c- g /6„2.3 z0 6air 'eP6( (),aA,4-frida__e,, 62 cZ Q\ 1 • NAME RESIDENCE MAILING ADDRESS • , :z -:,e 9 (92gf-li W • .(21 61; .---a: (.--. cz--t--Z;(--7-ce-b: C---, • -e-W Z...? „, , / 92 'a (%) AJ ci / 0 3 `)-71 e--7t-i-ffe_., 1-net-z.7!e--,,. ./ v 3 e, R 4 /o --) ,,,,c 7 8/(22 / (Lievield‘O 17cea 6-/?: "Zz ljtiZ4i ko.sv /Cs /t-A(1;)h4; ,z5 cl CU ic )6.4 00 Fs 6 ( Po; . / 0%/ I ( (,; , 1 • ,$/c ,-////y /()3 7 (37 3 NAME RESIDENCE MAILING ADDRESS ()A,e -373/4 CO ,Pb /03 C,JeJAL�)a. 63(ooI 4 3 .� -\k eT VeF / a -a C SQ /0 ; k.v1 3z/9266 V /iii//3 NAME • • RESIDENCE MAILING ADDRESS • 1 20 11 ed. ccola6),clau.• ,.,- • • NAME RESIDENCE MAILING ADDRESS Rob ijloyce 00E7 6(41e i" z'i Ati CCuti d4a,°Q/'ta)0a . ta zyL U J It it 1 / C` \ 9 ri \ \ rs, ',--,,Q ti 4l O6 \ c„„c., (`, 1(i 1•.c.C::. , �c C ,. P_ \\.< , C ;\ C'\ iC i. /ii iy S/() •J (4,k_E f Z (.P) ,6424-d-et4:i 1.0e . C 1a2 6Y.1 /7D jzp s //&I 233 i 2A6 , kpi (a/41-vidt'atc gi bz1 )0/c (1 Q aA) ( 60 • 6Z r • cdo_ c3 Ll- Z3 RESIDENCE /2Oitt MAILING ADDRESS az /4, / c rodzeic_ (494 2z7-(• g Rea t g& (7)ce,L,att 6-L/6- 0a)t,62-e-rtze tf4 • • �nnE&% t± 22 Ea§S/}7\�ƒ�(\ƒ/\\\{ &\+o ®S¥2\{////®k=a&\%/ E\ 7777 /ƒj3 7/ an n «,\ & ; -. �cn- nom\ a,=nomoo�on, gf/}.$\$�\ƒ°§�\\�a)f.\55i\/\ƒƒ ,2Rr�a=\ a;3�\°\�/\�f\\ƒ2.e/@\ a/\e/r na/tee0..._a\Ts-�wakz\k\\s , =oo ,.;g\ n- ,o;n«� a.« /®\3 #= n_aoo\�\ƒ/:$ �2z± E\\] /\7/7]-ƒ/qa±�\ƒ`\ 2 -< ,r, ,<*n--�}� =-�n�,3-ƒ, • ono°°/3,.=°%��+oxon 3s'" -&' a- \rp 3CD �\77°aa\\«�/\ I /2a\ �a-}af2 E%f7ƒ\0Oa ,e $97 /ƒy-0• ?��� 7 /ala „,,.,. ,,-,„ \s„ „\,,,„ , v „.,..1/4 ,k ,...,,,, • G,, ne l tJ , (.t: '/ O'SO O N rD rr, o n. rD °i o o- ^ g' a Ci v? n0 rt, _....3 " :(rm. `C iD ^ rQp-- _= cb 0 u+ °i °' W n> 7• rD al v O -, n' C m rD Cr-ro e o _ C Q et, o °.ate rD�D p O n„ °c�m°an�° O k rD ,T-^ O Q -<=-. � �' v ' T 5 S Q � Vf _. l rD rD rD (IT.--. Chi•tu ° 0 X O Dr N v ° ,� n m' 7 0 o n r) (D C rD c rD• rD 3o y c w' °a F cQzo 0 0 0^ a°f3j �' y•_3 ten. '< n `G O r<D '� �_ rb 7 3 7 a rl 7L o , I n —a rD 0 n v 3 a.o 3° o -c ° rD n m ,, °° P 67- Z (� a Otn � " � � Q n� OAC 0 __ 7- p et, � _� Qp- ° 0 QrD H.rD rt <at) o j w J tri / IbtAA:wdo Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Court House Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Commissioners: July 29, 1982 tRISE ORI;;MUSE VEJC ►EZ 0 FILE Cu' co As a nearby property owner I have been following the Lerner subdivision plans with interest, and although I am unable to attend the August 23 meeting in person, I want to state my opposition to Mr. Lerner's proposal. Twice Mr. Lerner has presented his plan to the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Committee and twice they have turned him down. In doing so, they have reaffirmed their support for the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, a plan that finds no place for high density housing in a low density rural area such as Missouri Heights. My land is flanked by two subdivisions: John Wix's Panorama Ranches and Mike Strang's proposed development. Both are in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan that allows for both the typical sub- division (Wix's 56 lots, the smallest of which is five acres) and the innovative use of land (Strang's proposed clustered housing and large agricultural preserve). I fully support such sensible development. Frank Lerner's proposal, however, is neither appropriate to Missouri Heights nor to the Comprehensive Plan. Not only will it destroy the quality of life for those of us living in the immediate area, it would also burden the county with increased expenditures for services such as road maintenance and police and fire protection. Just as Eagle County has found Vail an expensive proposition, so too would Garfield County find Lerner's second home city a financial liability. I urge you to vette against it. Sincerely Elizabeth F. 1204 County Carbondale, Penfield Road 170 Co. 81623 n' r_i J a_ J __1._ 1._:1...;:: ' 1 GAkH::LD COUNTY i r' Atj. ytiamovO 0 August 3, 1982 Garfield County Commissioners P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Sirs: As a resident of the Cattle Creek area, I wish to express my deep concern about Frank Lerner's proposed Cattle Creek Ranch. I sincerely urge you to support the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to deny approval for the additional 786 unit develop- ment. Such a development will threaten the environment as well as the quality of life for those of residents who have chosen to live in a rural area. One without heavily trafficked roads and where hills, meadows, wildlife and a limited number of people share a quiet, peaceful co -existence. We do not need an additional town the size of Carbondale when Carbondale itself is only a few miles and minutes away. Chris Aronson Holtum 112 Road Carbondale, Colorado 9171 tirsPi j !•,0005 ,i ci ;; v GARFIELD COUNTY cow!. • • June 29, 1982 Planning Commission Garfield County Planner (planning & zoning) 2014 Blake Street r Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Members of the Board: GARFfF�D' The P & Z places Garfield County before the rational scru- tiny of its citizens when the decisions reached begin to effect the life styles and pocket books of the tax payers. The tax payer has every reason to expect any or all offic- ials, elected or appointed, to make decisions leading to a budget serving Garfield County without resorting to "fash- ionable" ideas as an emergency measure. The temptation to lure venture capital on the Western Slope is enormous. It does not follow that venture capital always benefits the community in any positive way. For example, large sums of money spent for oil shale development seems to have lost its appeal - for the time being perhaps - or until other more fiscally sound means are found to provide energy. And that indicates the oil companies watch their own balance sheets. Why should Garfield Co. do less? Development projects in the midst of traditional cattle country seem mis-shapen and inconsistant with costs ac- crued to governmental bodies in providing adequate health, safety and citizen welfare. By example: 1) fire protection 2) police protection 3) clean and uncontaminated water and/or a treatment facility 4) road building and year long maintainance from a massive increase in use, differing in nature from cattle ranchers 5) facilities to provide services 6) schools and transportation %) utilities 8 sewage treatment facility 9) parks and playgrounds for children 10) dog pound 11) emergency health care Briefly scanning this list of costs to the county if a pro- ject the size of the Lerner proposal in Cattle Creek were to be approved, I and many others would conclude Garfield • • page 2 County has no serious intention of keeping a balanced bud- get, but rather, was going after short term gains for long term losses at tax payer expense. We are at a moment in history where this country is canna- balizing itself by destroying the areas and communities which were dedicated to more than a "short view". A golf course bearing the name of a celebrity athelete means al- most nothing in concrete terms. Business persons usually locate profitable golf courses near large population cen- ters for the purpose of remaining solvent - A lovely area in the mountains would be unquestionably costly - for some- one. A high altitude airport makes an impression when the idea first assails the ears. Knowledge of the area would tell you (or me) immediately of continuous prevailing wind con- ditions and the liklihood of viscious storms. Flying for the average pilot becomes another thing in the mountains of Colorado. The Cattle Creek area would not be an astute choice from any safety viewpoint. Political - maybe. For these and other reasons already stated, I remain opp- osed to the proposed additional units as presented by Mr. Lerner, his assignees, co-partners or legal counsel. Sincerely, C.c.s. Joyce Gould Copy: Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County u-ezi� / 9002 ilii L��€ e✓ � ' f t c �t-�z► lJ Bio a- r_e�c . Q�aC - .� vu� Ueer..cQo -..C. G144- 2/16i alp- 7 _ �� �•� �� ,fix -e 4 ' 4 yzely ,44, fie_ v Jx cr ! / it�.ue.erZ"e- _ / 1A-07-4(5 61,..e,;e4 21(e/dze&C r<Ll-a-6(eC_ `714-7Z- .0e4t-e. 4tee‘4; %711 Owe_ 11(//,. /L- D,„ C=Oz �i , J Aik_a &?-t( /-C' .1/0 ;,Gttco cx'fr , _ler.„ dee 7fr40 L4,6 it a1 &ce,e-z1 ce -e CL - , -it �'Xccti zona y dt , -ete,e o -x if env � �. lc2.€ Gr -a jifyi2e. G2 -i Q /f -e.. / urx..014u;f, • • Ice ---&-44-U__.• /41;3 L (-4-Cy Ite—Uet- • • • • • A/4.--7/LL 4-1/tit, d.;L4tzt- 7:3,1 . 4:4 /-(-1/Z4 , • ,; ;/. • / (-7 L , • • - 7,/ • e {-I i 61 / c'c 61 , • /J((.//L// Ai.' t. / / • t• -e . 74, .,..,/ ,>64/--e-t• 6, ,e.ee_ . • piyt •••r A Lt c . ( . I „i'74? t (,)/(6i1a- 2-?‘/ • •e27. /. • -2. A • - _ - • I / • -• - 4.64„ 4 -kr //L. 1E76 i? ,1-7 /.. r1IL .12C'' ...--- --,,,-/-_ , . ,.. .. , >,.-) j Acync. e da• -,-, z.ci,/,-/It , 6 --<-73-te &, 4-4" (_, / t e7 -f • AK._ I•g.,/. % ,, ,-/(- -4---.1 ' /-e _,•• c ) ,it let1/t/kw;1- zy a=te> /.,i,,,-,1 ,)?.4e— ..,v,-(( e7; ;.t ,/:// -/ <6 c?,! "%Zee/62.54X ,•••,../&%-7, mf4) Wc..,:„ • -2)c( ?, 4 7 --1 �k VI— -467/472e-e—/X. ti / / ( ,//zZes•ei _ I e (1, cZ,Pdi 1-(y ; IL( • /lc, le, vp6 6 (te e/ / A e e,cp62 7) '7 • / % / / / //.7t-4/4e4,_z ,6 , z7 ( 7 r•-• 7,/,-,/:.7;.6 4 x': -.x .--(.e- ./_1,:. . 71 , / 7 , ,r-:---. ii.„pe- 7,,,,, t,,,.., .,.,/-- 7:,"--722,?... ,, :4, /1.,%-77'4,.'2-t) eL— ,.,% ("( (A' e -i ,•‘,1,-. &ei. 71- -- -/' c',..Ee.-9 6"1.-(._-!--- ce26'. ,(ai.- , L Evz,„)a d_t, e_. e" -it: t/7 L.. ka.••-t2Z ,:c /- i-, i-e.d( e 4 e_re_eC i / / le _,,,,.... 7//: (/, ,,,: ),„,__, ),?-4,.,_, 2-A.4i a.te/44., • e -c -t.44 / ." - • - -) " ,7zitiz a 64) e/,/,' 41- • Page 1 of 10 Members of the: PlL:ining Commission: We. the undersigned. property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major r1t.bhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water servics: and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulanre services which will set the standard for future development :ire this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County •f:up._ehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek De elopmrnt has necessary water rights to support the project a7t.d is an addition to our community. NAME ADDRESS t.4G( 7/ J ( /-e= ("<- ,96+)(-11111,4r„W 5 3Q ee,re ed 0.4,S r est vC4 a l t< 7 o L#i►1u?otwJL A A/G S 7 S LL5- RD G,AtPz2.4_, // (A lc -Pt cr)o a C i'y al ,mss, 1- 1"'( , ► / 15 - s — // • Page 2 of 10 Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME '04/ is ' A.-cV f 66 e ADDRESS cyl— 0 7?( /7 S4t—t��P9rc,�l— A iva I (4,c(,( (1/(e is f 4,,b, t0 -41.1 -LL,) .1nA 1�1, 2fJ i �I' L ltitat til &bt-1?6/ii() g2 I 'd44 S t I O j? cS) IP {�) cUc c c g X�J e0 • fJ c (,\C €' z 'tv 4 >/ (:4/7,/tC-11(12 , &4:4 f i J /L! 11 1 /tiU el)1 164 (065C C4/91), (i: 1 7 L! ' 6 n 1C'i.'t,(-e (- - / .l < 7 _ (1 4"L/L G' ` 1 1315 -1lS242.4- ICit,(l5zz G i 515 - it S Pea& -- IV 1521 a".... --SZ. PO E.e-x 32g aterwetV, .ip. Page 3 of 10 Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME ADDRESS C a Y a✓% t r . C /:, (P/c'C' Cl,..a� .1 Om d e (‘(/Via O'c/6 Ca s f J IA Do c.:0._c 011 l Ai (A. �- 49p- (4kArt/n4 /F 6- cr r -r C' f r 5 i CG//ii'y CI" LL l (i • Page 4 of 10 Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. AME 4 i/()&1---1 V l� l -f•-- lc L L" C luau 1• ADDRESS /J842 J //3z /A -i eR / / J i Y 27> r-^%) o r h -/1 [ ) 6! v/ • /du d //S" _540- 100 )- gEhP j- 194G<%oo 1. -3 YZCic.2F o38 01-r 5t�A 01, IS 1D1 - .73, ¶6—fra�`�'/(j3 /0 -?,7 0 t-�• cc 1,5P3 s;. 4� z 64.Enl.J:)07 )4. . 7' Po & V-ku t d 1649-e /Y17, r� vac / igLJl,zd I9� 1(1/) /6.23 • • Members of the Planning Commission: Page 5 of 10 We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. '1e understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME ADDRESS 131 -/- 47 - • i 9 I/•-./ )- y 6/(v)S� c •, -_: _t, � 0 (CLQ &cc cam. ?zuv 1 S � ' � . �' ( eSC C: (-( ��%`- • </ / / 1i ,6/ //,, M 32 i 1h 07,, "1 c -70Z5 &AAA co.\A cno CCS i(d)l • Page 6 of 10 Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME ADDRESS _32z ��, 6. 1,4 d -ca ,d,„("&„ :3S CQrl',V1 R' ()into r t� 3 g 7 (D- ad 1.5 e/ ll)f. x.7,11 10124/1. (-6) /4-y ds `,EL /7/lo 1G--(e‘tie.Jc,cy,J 40"(40, Jj" 7i.)(--// LIAJi c) 0 LfzicIAL • Page 7 of 10 Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME ADDRESS egP) 6Y ,5e .c o Pato 24, 641974wava Spr J ,. .W21 C —14 / 71, g./..4*.evore/c.", cn- S;;./ /7/7 mwei ex -r? (f2,_2y ',\C` \1�CtJ (X \ .k �L.; C, -.e -r u �cZ' fl y c' �" CC) fr-27/:, /, - te r% i , y e. ,' / , (5.;-,,,Z.,72, l ? �'L /C ( `�2 4/f/' / Ai ,) 30 2 / y W ,4v (,:_a,,w/?-,-A L /99 Z4 .<.,:.?S;,) a�(- knoe 1( 4-n..ave).:::1 27-5 . g2-1-1‘• 326 2)/ 1 (-Zo-letz4Jacric, 515 rn4L. gl ,NL' , C00 . S7 Go Page 8 of 10 Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME t)fkr* I ADDRESS a/v, /7/00/ f/ 4 I4a 9 ) b,Cb /5a I ) 7 _ t—acs Coq a s j Co" a /4 a'62 ,d/x4ele:c /07/PI-4— ,,,&Gep",-f.' -6 ri,:�7' ,^ 17.21 - >:/(7• �� e jos/ k r . e' C, , 624 Wil :76,0 /22,-- £. 6e-- tie., 11C3 c)4)- 10 Ac t, (.0 '—;vc. r'c• Z • Page 9 of 10 Members of the Planning Commission: We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. ./1 f";(. ADDRESS 11,46w0 XD ,)iJ b /»'-/ po/0 ,?U Z-/ = G.0-7, 7062 Mvv R,0 2„),,/...:///e) o\ r `;,i s; moi., Members of the Planning Commission: Page 10 of 10 We, the undersigned property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch, are in favor of the project. We understand the project will consist of 786 homesites, championship Jack Nicklaus golf course, equestrian facilities, cross country skiing and a major clubhouse. This project represents a well thought-out and carefully considered development for the Roaring Fork Valley. Cattle Creek will provide extensive open space, high quality water service and sewage treatment and additional police, fire and ambulance services which will set the standard for future development in this area. The number of homesites required is currently outside of the recommended number in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, but in order to establish the high quality, low impact and positive tax base that Cattle Creek offers, we feel this project should be approved. The Cattle Creek Development has necessary water rights to support the project and is an addition to our community. NAME ADDRESS `7 S'a.)7A 41771 C»4/p' o� li 77/ !'crv✓tnyr..tl-ltd Z2) // ��; G:,,e(2/1w,ie c7 6 co, (11;1( //./ d _i- s5 6429 1 Ls (, 6L-3)-( . ; cam /' 3 _ ,&.,„J %\.% 7 /(2. :6 -/co ..66- / 7 ;end 1.3I '�'� .� �1�.� .'���..�..cJ , 4 57.5'7 y /X7,/ 9f?'/6,/: _,Liciex bs. - )-/ -�-rte /td e f zJ,i-14-•=4:1--S , . c) 2--0 6 t€, S' -Cr GEORGE J. "ETRE ROBERT S. 21MMERMAN COURTNEY G. PETRE DA'.1EL B. PETRE March 16, 1982 • • LAW OFFICES PETRE & ZIMMERMAN A PROFE'iy�O f. A� C•_ �i•-'i.HAT J,1 POST OFFICE ORAwER .100 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Mr. Richard J. Corriere Post Office Box 1247 Aspen, Colorado 81612 APEA CODE 303 945.6521 Dear Dick, I met with Oscar Cerise, Clifford Cerise, Doug Cerise and H.P. Hanson yesterday and I went over with them what we discussed and in general the nature of the Cattle Creek development. All of us recognize that the highest and best use for the property in the area of this development probably is for development purposes and we all acknowledge that Mr. Lerner has put together a well envisioned, well planned, if somewhat ambitious development, and except for the development's impact on the C/M Ditch, none of the parties would have any objections to the development. All of the parties agree to withdraw any and all opposition they have to the planned development, provided that Frank recognizes his responsibility to them in connection with the C/M Ditch, which we would envision to include the following: 1. That the engineering be completed and the ditch be changed and restructured according to the engineering plans as are necessary to assure reliable flow of water in the ditch. We would suggest that we continue to work with Elmer Claycomb of Claycomb Engineering in this regard, which engineering and construction would be at Frank's expense. 2. That the arrangements be made for the maintenance of the ditch by the developer, probably through the homeowner's association, of that portion of the ditch through the developed lots. I would also suggest that consideration be given in the development plans to allow access from the roads within the subdivision to the ditch, so that the ditch owners can get equipment to the ditch to maintain it above and below the subdivided lots. I LAW OFFICES PETRE & ZIMMERMAN 411 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Richard J. Corriere March 16, 1982 Page 2 3. That care be taken to provide building envelopes within the lots at locations that won't be affected by the ditch or any seepage connected with the ditch. 4. We envision a continuing problem of springs along the hillside that are not connected with the ditch, but have a bearing on its stability. 5. That the developer assume all liability to damages occasioned by the use of the ditch, including the liability for any damages done to homes built under the ditch from seepage from the ditch. They all feel that these are Frank's responsibilities, whether connected with the existing approved subdivision or the anticipated additional PUD. If Frank acknowledges his responsibility in these matters, and agrees to work with the ditch owners, the owners will withdraw any opposition to the development. I personally feel that Frank should be commended for his vision and the enterprising nature of this development. I am sure it will be properly done, and if so, will be a true credit to him. Yours very truly, PETRE & ZIMMERMAN, P.C. GJP/jj cc: Clifford Cerise Doug Cerise Oscar Cerise H.P. Hanson GEORGE J. PETRE RO6E R' ' MMERMAN COURTNEY G. PETRE DANIEL 9. PETRE March 16, 1982 • • LAW OFFICES PETRE & ZIMMERMAN A PROS CS5,O .1L COR,%O' A•ION POST OFFICE DRAWER 400 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Mr. Richard J. Corriere Post Office Box 1247 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Dick, AREA CODE 303 945.6521 I met with Oscar Cerise, Clifford Cerise, Doug Cerise and H.P. Hanson yesterday and I went over with them what we discussed and in general the nature of the Cattle Creek development. All of us recognize that the highest and best use for the property in the area of this development probably is for development purposes and we all acknowledge that Mr. Lerner has put together a well envisioned, well planned, if somewhat ambitious development, and except for the development's impact on the C/M Ditch, none of the parties would have any objections to the development. All of the parties agree to withdraw any and all opposition they have to the planned development, provided that Frank recognizes his responsibility to them in connection with the C/M Ditch, which we would envision to include the following: 1. That the engineering be completed and the ditch be changed and restructured according to the engineering plans as are necessary to assure reliable flow of water in the ditch. We would suggest that we continue to work with Elmer Claycomb of Claycomb Engineering in this regard, which engineering and construction would be at Frank's expense. 2. That the arrangements be made for the maintenance of the ditch by the developer, probably through the homeowner's association, of that portion of the ditch through the developed lots. I would also suggest that consideration be given in the development plans to allow access from the roads within the subdivision to the ditch, so that the ditch owners can get equipment to the ditch to maintain it above and below the subdivided lots. LAW OFFICES 411 PETRE & ZIMMERMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Richard J. Corriere March 16, 1982 Page 2 • 3. That care be taken to provide building envelopes within the lots at locations that won't be affected by the ditch or any seepage connected with the ditch. 4. We envision a continuing problem of springs along the hillside that are not connected with the ditch, but have a bearing on its stability. 5. That the developer assume all liability to damages occasioned by the use of the ditch, including the liability for any damages done to homes built under the ditch from seepage from the ditch. They all feel that these are Frank's responsibilities, whether co.inected with the existing approved subdivision or the anticipated additional PUD. If Frank acknowledges his responsibility in these matters, and agrees to work with the ditch owners, the owners will withdraw any opposition to the development. I personally feel that Frank should be commended for his vision and the enterprising nature of this development. I am sure it will be properly done, and if so, will be a true credit to him. Yours very truly, PETRE & ZIMMERMAN, P.C. GJP/jj cc: Clifford Cerise Doug Cerise Oscar Cerise H.P. Hanson • • FEBRUARY 3, 1982 TO WHOM IT .,:AY CONCERN: IN MARCH OF 1977 I FIRST MET FRANK LEIii ER THE i:Eir 0►'1NER OF THE LAND WEST OF MY BOUNDARY SOME 900 ACRES PLUS. SONE TWO NILES OF FENCE LINE RUN BET I EN US. IN THE OLD `JEST, THAT MEANS A LOT OF FENCE MENDING! I STATE NOW TEAT THIS HAS BEEN A VERY FRIENDLY PROCESS. I GROW CATTLE AND PROTECT ALL ViILDLIFE ON ..Y PROPERTY. FRANK LERNER AND CATTLE CREI::K RANCH WANT TO DEVELOPE A GOLF COURSE AND BUILD HOUSES. (986 units). THAT IS ALL RIGHT WITH NE. LERNER AND MYSELF HAVE ENOUGH WATER POTENTIAL TO SERVICE BOTH PLACES. THANKS VERY MUCH, JOHN A. McNULTY CATTLE CREEK GALE PRESERVE ,/;/- / i/ iJ 2 . P.O. Box 260 Aspen, CO 81612 April 12, 1982 Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sirs: I am an adjacent land owner for the proposed Cattle Creek Ranch project of 786 units and golf course. I feel the proposed project would be a great benefit to the direction this area will move in. The applicant seems willing to addyesshthe ed key riissues of road, fire, police, and water quality, application I undersanhehas of°theobligation. proposederattle,Creek respectfully submit my support Ranch, PUD. Sincere)y3 / , Patrick J. Hunter PJH/jgb Pe ! Yui`/ i` 9e r t-5D av - �)--ei)Ec-t 7 7/7c) /le 5II/5 /Cr fe-c_ /fe)lx eivri)) Lcm) c /7c_ September 8, 1981 Garfield County Commissioners Mr. Jim Drinkhouse, Mr. Flaven Cerise, Mr. Larry Velasquez Garfield County Court House Box 240 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: We, -tile un3ersigned-property owners and residents of the area near the proposed Cattle Creek Development>are strongly opposed to the extensive development planned f that subdivision. In particular, we are against the requested increase in development from the approved 131 homesites to 786 homesites. Such heavy density packed into 963 acres along with roadways, tennis courts, swimming pools, equestrian trails and a possible airstrip strikes us as an unconscionable exploitation of this land area. The effects of the heavy density requested by the developer on this area would be detrimental, if not devastating, in many respects. Mr. Davis Farrar, County Planner, has been quoted as estimating that such density would bring 2,000 people to the area. The services required of the county to maintain such a community would, as you know, be considerable. Given the remote location of the property and the large number of inhabitants indicated, such services as law enforcement, fire protection, road main- tenance, and the various other functions performed by the County would certainly be serious, if not insurmountable, problems. Problems of these types would naturally overflow to adjoining areas. What effect will the addition of 2,000 people to this area have on the available water supply? While it is reported that Mr. Lerner acquired "excellent water rights", we question the capacity of those water rights to adequately serve the population he proposes to bring in. Obviously, it follows that we are worried about the adverse effect the development could have on the volume of water supply in the surrounding area in which we live. Quality of water may also be adversely effected. A sewage treatment plant, the size and design of one adequate to meet the demands of a small city would be needed, if Mr. Lerner's request is granted. There is also the matter of the environment around this part of Cattle Creek. It can, at best, be described as fragile. The influx of large numbers of people to such a concentrated area will certainly mean a deterioration of surrounding land areas; vegetation, and wildlife, would suffer accordingly. Page 1 of 10 2cti7 bed. /66 ixylda / avo (9/6(23 7,2 (-7 // 627) 7'/ a.? -742 7 z, sg/kz3 ) 4/(-_ 76 ,,f t(ek 5- 3 7 2 /el 640, 7_2 /tie*e &es‘‹z2.0 z_ 3 ep2e..2s _ do, „C: D g'4 (42( //61J ca z gee:. Seio4w /o2._ razir9A4;a-af-c.- . 012..3 3etet, cycdcide_<_: 537L/0 Page 3 of 10 • • 166tAt.L 53 a.� (o ,r,5 -s" , g 1_4 2.3 fee)-÷7,,Ale_ yfre g6„. . 477 S1 / Aa auda.,41 alo-e P/C. z3 /0i�c.�s-.1/ .575-6 ii Pe- o.- / e a Page 4 of 10 • • • • • • Citi �e=2 • t&((..,02 - ,f2/ /(?,a ,2 w� cam' q,n o • //3 / s% -1(eS3 / 4-8.c3 18 rd' 44"i;2-9. 'L5 9._5-3 C6,) i/3 Ccs%, 333: //3(:-d- (;-JA 6 05% di II c)>quo 1)?- R4 �'�/ //3 z94?/ !/ / i/6//4124 3 Cgt j-444 "okk!A---- Page 5 of 10 • L-27)1' 1 °W.96 a 3 toeqi /W C C 0 \Lc 3Sa) \,o3 C 923 0,& s3---gc3 /12. J2,1.4L4 64 / 141 0 a, 6UA}1C • XV J -76q q&c (stc-t t/Lc__ LkAwr1z)(4 y//z2 /iy( Page 6 of 10 • C(4 /(nei,) Caw4 dexic L_ /8 `&>tN\cLk Z\ 6c esLI&A.YksU / 7, 6 '04-16/t4g/(023 ')dirtri,k rt o Cati" If(43 (.LI Ft1( Mj) ( ( ;),u/11.-4 ektCla 1).,64.4.4474 1/4.1Z,L," 41eA ,07 J6sLubs_ --vr)tLXJ kti7---("Y-AA 13av_E-- 6?)l/c ea.,Ljr7rycea___Qs- 4/16va1L 01457 (Ivia()ph[e, ('J) OtAitha-- - LO Pc -Q_ 7.7 6 co I—fir,/ d Cc14004(4-Ca< 6 -16), j - Page 7 • of 10 • CbXt 120 4 rio Rd' . Con b451%,c1 aLt. CO 814223 (;W- /7,%' tzi 246 166/66 52L 2$"oa red. q4. 6s7 /o3 /roc L./c J/&---zJ • Page 8 of 10 • • Cyye/1 qiP- ri_r . Page 9 of 10 • • efuaek G_rz-G- /(J;�.� f,1 `/C✓ D. `J&4.<12/ -01,,(6S_` ^'J 9&3oi Page 10 of 10