HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 02.12.03TYPE OF REVIEW:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE(S):
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
PC
2112103
TP
A request for review of the Gilead Gardens
Subdivision Sketch Plan for the subdivision of
approximately 35 acres of land into 10lots.
BBD, a Trust, David and Renee Miller, Trustees
Bruce Lewis, Boundaries Unlimited, Inc.
The property is located between County Road 335
(Colorado River Road) and the Colorado River,
approximately 3 miles west of Apple Tree Park and
3 miles east of the I-70 Silt Interchange..
Central Water System
Individual Sewage Disposal Systerns (ISDS)
County Road 335
A/R/RD (Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density)
A/R/RD and A/I (Agricultural / Industrial)
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Sketch Plan
View of property from Cotrnty Road 335, near residsnce at the south of property, looking northwest.
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC-2112103
Page2
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
1 Development Proposal: The Applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 35 acres
of land into 10 lots ranging from 2 to 7 acres in size. The Applicant is also seeking
approval for four accessory dwelling units.
Site Location: The site is located between County Road 335 and the Colorado River
approximately 3 miles west of Apple Tree Park and 3 miles east of the I-70 Silt
Interchange.
Site Description / Existine Conditions: The property is triangular shaped located between
County Road 335 (Colorado River Road) and the Colorado River. The majority of the
subject property is irrigated pasture-land, gently sloping in a northwesterly direction
towards the Colorado River. The pasture land is irrigated with parallel ditch laterals that
traverse the site. There are two existing residences (and associated out-buildings) on the
property located on opposite corners of the property adjacent to County Road 335. One
residence is located on proposed Lot I and the other residence is located on proposed Lot
3. The Applicant noted that the proposed 10 lots are laid out and sized in a manner where
historic irrigation and drainage patterns can be maintained.
Approximately 4 acres of the northern portion of the property lies mostly within the
Colorado River's 100-year floodplain and is moderately vegetated with trees and brush.
The Applicant is currently constructing two 0.4 acre ponds (on proposed Lots 9 & l0) for
irrigation storage. The location of these ponds can be seen in more detail on the Land
Use Summary Map included in the application. The ponds are discussed further in this
memorandum.
Adjacent Land Uses: The subject property is surrounding, on the west, south and east by
rural residential lots. These surrounding lots are approximately 6 acres in size or greater.
Applicability: Pursuant to Section 3:00 of the Subdivision Regulations, the Sketch Plan
is the initial review of any subdivision proposal to determine the confornance of the
subdivision with the County's Subdivision Regulations and with any other applicable
regulations, resolutions or plans.
II. REVIEW AGENCY AIYD OTHER COMMENTS:
The application was referred to the following agency (ies) for comments. Comments that were
received have been integrated throughout this mernorandum where applicable.
)
J
4.
5
1. Townof Silt: ExhibitB.
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC -2112103
Page 3
2.
J.
4.
5.
Town of New Castle: Exhibit C.
Burning Mountain Fire District: No Comments.
RE-2 School District: No Comments.
Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: Exhibit A.
III. SKETCH PLA]I (SECTION 3:00)
A11 Sketch Plan comments are kept on file in the Planning Department office. The Sketch Plan
comments shall identifii issues applicable to the subdivision proposal, with the comments subject
to change, if there are changes in the circumstances, documents or regulations used as the basis
for comments. Completion of the Sketch Plan process shall, in no way, constitute approval of
the proposed plan.
The Planning Commission shall review the application for consistency with the standards and
polices set forth in the following:
A. Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
B. Garfield County ZonrngResolution.
C. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan.
D. Garfield County road standards and policies.
E. Garfield County municipal comprehensive plans and municipal regulations, as applicable.
F. Other applicable local, state, and federal regulations, resolutions, plans and polices, as
applicable.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located in Study Area2 and 3 of the
Comprehensive Plan of 2000. The property is located within the 2-mile sphere of
influince of the Town of Silt, and is partially located within the 3-mile boundary of the
Town of New Castle.
The suggested proposed land use for the site on the Town of New Castle 3-Mile Area
Plan map is "Open Space Rural Residentiaf'(OSRR). OSRR identifies residential
densities of one dwelling unit per I to 2 acres with open space areas and limited
agricultural. The purpose of this designation is "to providefor home sites in a rural
setting where general agricultural practices will not be interfered with."
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC - 2n2t03
Page 4
The suggested proposed land use for the site on the 2-Mi1e Sphere of Influence for the
Town of Silt is AG/AG Conservation PUD. The Comprehensive Plan for the Town of
Silt adopted February, 1996, and revised September, 7999, states that for developments in
the County within the three-mile and outside the urban growth boundary, the Town
recoflrmends to alternatives :
1. An average density of one dwelling per 80 acres, unless the new dwelling is
directly related to the operation of the agricultural use, or
2. An average density of one dwelling unit per l5 acres in a Conservation
Subdivision or Conservation Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The site, on the proposed land use districts for Study Areas 2 & 3 in the Comprehensive
Plan, is designated as "privately owned lands with site specific use limitations such as
flood plain, slope hazard, septtc constraints, or surfictal geologt (mudflow, debrisfan)
to be evaluated at plan review".
The underlying zoning is A/R/RD allows for a minimum lot size of 2 acres per dwelling
unit. The lots in the proposed Subdivision range from2 acres to 7 acres in size, therefore
consistent with the density measure of the Plan.
Zonine: The Applicant should be aware of the following dimensional standards for the
A/R/RD zone district:
Minimum Lot Area: Two (2) dcres.
Maximum Lot Coverage: Fifteen percent (15%o).
Minimum Setback:
(1) lr9.n!layd: (a) arterial streets: seventy-five (75)feetfrom street centerline or-fifty
(50)feetfroryfront lot line, whichever is greaierj (b) l6cal stregts:fifty (50)feetfrbin
street centerline or twenty-five (25) feet-fromfront'lot line, whicfrevbr'is'ireaier;
(2) Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feetfrom rear lot line;
(3) Si.de.yay(: lgy (t0).de9t frory side lot line, or one-half (t/2) the height of theprincipal building, whtcheier is greater.
Maximum Height o.f Buildings: Twenty-five (25) feet.
Addiliona! Requiremgnts:,All uses shall be subject to the provisions under Section 5
(Supp I e mentary Re gu lati ons).
B
C. Subdivision: Pursuant to section 1:21 of the Subdivision Regulations:
D
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC-2112103
Page 5
"The Subdiaision Regulations [were] are designed and enactedfor the purpose
of promoting the heafuh, sdfety and uelfare of the present andfuture
inhabitants of Garfield County by encouraging orderly deuelopmento in
accordance uith established County policies and plans and, infurtherance, of
the general policy of balancing the d,iaersified needs of a changing population,
including lessening congestion on streets or roads, reducing water in excessiae
anxounts of roads, securing safety fromfi.re, Jlood u)aters and other d,angers,
prouiding adequate light and air, classifying land uses and the distribution of
land deaelopnxent and utilization, protecting the taxbase, securing economy in
goaerntnental expenditures, fostering agricuhural and other industries, and
pr otec ting b oth urb an and non-urb an dea elopment."
The Applicant shall be aware of the applicable General Site Standards outlined in Section
9:00 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Water: Domestic water for the proposed lots is intended to be provided via a central
water system that will be owned and operated by the homeowners association. The
central water supply system will consist of two wells, chlorinatiotVtreatment facilities, an
underground storage tank, a pump station, and distribution lines. An existing well,
currently providing an adequate water supply for the two existing residences without the
use of a storage tank, will be the primary water supply for the proposed water system.
According to the Applicant, a24-hotx pump test conducted January 2001 yielded a
sustained pump rate of 15 gallons per minute. A functional backup well will be included
as part of the water systern construction. The legal water supply for these wells is
currently contracted with the West Divide Water Conservancy District Water Allotment
Contract/Lease seen in more detail in Appendix G of the application.
The Applicant shall be aware that the Preliminary Plan application will require
compliance with Sections 4:91 and 9:50 of the Subdivision Regulations with respect to
central water systerns. The central water system will be subject to approval by the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Technical Services Division.
Approval of the central water system plans and specifications will be in accordance with
the new Water System Capacity Planning Manual as authorized by State statues.
Waste Water: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) are proposed for each lot.
The individual lot owners will be responsible for the construction, operation and
maintenance of their systems. The ISDS design and performance standards shall be in
accordance with the Garfield County ISDS Regulations. According to the Septic System
Constraints Map contained in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, the area
of the site is identified on the map as having 'High Water Table'.
E
F
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC -2112103
Page 6
The Applicant noted that conventional leach fields should be acceptable for all the
proposed sites based on the following:
l. Two existing permitted ISDS located at opposite ends of the development appear
to be functioning properly.
2. Successful percolation tests have been conducted throughout the development
atea.
3. Soil Conservation Service ("SCS") soils information indicates that the proposed
sites should have acceptable percolation rates for conventional leach fields.
The Applicant will need to comply with Section492 of the Subdivision Regulations at
Preliminary Plan application. The Applicant should also be aware of the standards for
Sanitary Sewage Disposal in Section 9:60 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Irrieation Water and Ditches: The Applicant asserts that the property's irrigation water
rights are l/5 of allthe ditch rights in the Goldman Ditch, Pump and Pipeline adjudicated
in Civil Action No. 2759 in the Garfield County District Court for Water District 5 and in
the Ward Reynolds Ditch No. 17 under Priority Nos. 32, 104 and 166-0 as conveyed by
deed recorded as Reception No. 294117 in Book 528 atPage 296 of the records of the
Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County; subject to the provisions of agreement recorded
as Reception No. 293355 in Book 525 atPages 906-908 of the Garfield County Records.
The Applicant has provided copies of these records in Appendix H of the application.
The Applicant noted that these irrigation water rights will be owned and maintained by
the homeowners association. The irrigation ditches will remain in place and will be
operated and maintained within platted easements.
The Applicant indicated that the 0.4 acre irrigation ponds, with an average depth of 9 feet,
currently being constructed on proposed Lots 9 and 10, will be supplied by the reference
irrigation ditch water. Replacement water for pond evaporation is currently contracted
with the West Divide Water Conservancy District's Substitute Supply Plan.
Access: The property is currently accessed via three driveways that originate from
County Road 335. The easterly residence (proposed Lot 1) is served by two of the
existing accesses. The most easterly of these driveways is shared with the adjacent
property (Bullock), and intersects County Road 335 near the crest of the hill. The
westerly of the two east driveways is approximately 370 feet west of the shared driveway.
This driveway approaches the County Road at a sharp angle and has poor sight distance
to the east. The third existing driveway, which is for the westerly residence (proposed
Lot 6), is also at a sharp angle and has poor sight distance to the east.
The most easterly access, the shared driveway, will be retained. The remaining two
G
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC -2112103
PageT
driveways, that have poor sight distance, will be eliminated. The Applicant noted that
two short roads proposed will intersect with County Road 335 near the crests of hills
which will provide acceptable sight distance in both directions. Harvest Late, a cul-de-
sac, approximately 525 feet in length, will serve six lots (Lots 2, 3, 4,8,9, & 10). Garden
Circle, also a cul-de-sac, approximately 315 feet in length, will serve three lots (Lots 5, 6,
& 7). The Applicant notes that these gravel roads will be 22 feet wide with 2 foot
shoulders and terminate with 45 foot radius cul-de-sacs. The roads will be constructed in
50 foot wide public rights-of way and will be maintained by the homeowners association
in accordance with the county subdivision rules and regulations.
Jake Mall of the Garfield County Road Department provided the following comments
(see Exhibit A):
1. There are no objections to moving the driveways from the location previously
submitted.
2. Driveway permits will be issued after the approval of the subdivision by Planning
andZoning. The driveway permits will have special conditions that will be
specified in the permits.
3. Stop signs shall be installed at all entrances accessing Garfield County Road 335
and maintained by the homeowners association.
4. Brush shall be cleared the length of the property along CR 335 and the fence shall
be moved back to the property line (right-of-way line) at the sub-dividers expense
prior to the completion of the subdivision.
5. The driveway at 1577 CR 335 and the driveway at llTl CR 335 shall be
abandoned when the new driveways are installed and operable.
6. The ditch along the property and CR 335 shall be piped in culvert pipe. The
installation and all future maintenance shall be at the sub-divders and home
owner's expense.
7. There are two buildings that encroach within the right-of-way. The Planning
Commission shall make a determination on this issue as it applies to their
guidelines. At this time, the Road and Bridge Department does not have a
problem with the buildings.
8. Construction work zone signage shall be posted on CR 335 during driveway
construction. Signage shall be posted in accordance with guidelines in the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
H.
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC -2112/03
Page 8
The Applicant shall be aware of the Street and Roadways standards in section 9:30 of the
Subdivision Regulations.
Pursuant to Section 4.94 of fhe Subdivision Regulations, a part of the County's Capital
Improvement Plan, the Board has established traffic study areas. The subject property
lies within Traffic Study Area 3 of the Capital Improvements Plan. At the time of Final
Plat, the Applicant willbe required to pay 50% of the road impact fees for the
subdivision. At the issuance of a building permit, other road impacts fess will be
collected. Appendix A of the Subdivision Regulations provides a Road Impact Fee
Calculation Work Sheet. In the event any fees increase before the time of Final Plat, the
increased fees shall be paid.
Soils: Appendix L of the application provides soil designation mapping, interpretations
tables and aerial photos obtained from the SCS. The soils on the subject property
consists of the following:
1. Arvada loam (#3): 1 to 6 percent slopes, deep, well-drained soil, very slow
permeability, moderate water capacity, and erosion hazard moderate.
2. Kim loam (#a0): 3 to 6 percent slopes, deep, well-drained soil, moderate
permeability, high water capacity, slow runoff and moderate erosion hazard.
3. Potts loam (#56): 6 to 12 percent slopes, deep, well-drained slope, moderate
permeability, high waster capacity, rhedium run-off and high erosionhazud.
4. Potts-Ildefonso complex: 12 to 25 percent slopes; Potts soil is deep and well-drained,
moderate permeability, high water capacity, rapid run-off, and high erosionhazard;
Ildefonso soil is deep and well-drained, moderately rapid permeability, low water
capacity, rapid run-off, and high erosionhazard.
5. Torrifluvents: nearly level, deep, well-drained slopes on floodplains, moderately
slow to moderately rapid permeability, low to high water capacity, sloe run-off, and
slight hazard of water erosion.
Lakes/Streams/Topography: There are no lakes or streams located on the subject
property. Approximately 4 acres of the site lies within the Colorado River's 100-year
floodplain.
Radiation: According to the HP GeoTech letter provided in the application (Appendix J)
the site does not appear to be on geologic deposits that would be expected to have high
concentrations of radioactive materials. However, there may be radon gas present in the
area. HP GeoTech notes that it is diffrcult to assess future radon gas concentrations in
buildings before the buildings are constructed. HP GeoTech recommends that testing for
radon gas levels should be completed when the residences and other occupied structures
have been completed. New buildings should be designed with provisions for ventilation
I
J
K.
L.
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC -2112103
Page 9
of lower enclosed areas should post construction testing indicate unacceptable radon gas
levels.
The Applicant shall note that pursuant to Section 4:60 of the Subdivision Regulations, a
radiation evaluation will be required as part of the Preliminary Plat process.
Fire Protection: The property is located in the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District.
No comments from the District were provided.
The Applicant indicated that a dry fire hydrant, proposed to be located at the end of
Harvest Lane, will allow fire truck access year round to irrigation pond water. The
Applicant asserted that using a conservation pond freeze depth of 2 feet would leave an
average depth of 7 feet of available water (more than 550,000 gallons) for fire protection.
The Fire Protection standards outlined in Section 9:70 of the Subdivision Regulations
will apply to the Preliminary Plan application.
Drainage: The Applicant noted that the ground surface of the property slopes uniformly
downward to the northwest, beginning with grades of 8 to 12percent at County Road 335
and gladually flattening out to 2 to 4 percent as the ground approaches the steep bank of
the Colorado River. The Applicant asserts that the lack of any definite drainage channels
across the site indicates that only minor sheet flow drainage is generated from the
adjacent County Road and other properties.
The Applicant indicated that detention is not proposed for this development because of
the large lot sizes that allow natural diffusion of minor flows generated from any
proposed lot improvements. The diffuse flows will be intercepted by one of the many
ditch laterals traversing the sites. Any new roadside drainage will be routed into the
existing field irrigation ditch laterals.
The Applicant indicated that erosion control will consist of disturbing as little existing
vegetation as possible, and therefore, minimizing reclamation. Minimal site grading is
anticipated other than the grading for the two roads. The Applicant asserts that all
disturbed areas will be seeded with a grass mix recommended by the Soil Conservation
Service.
The Applicant shall note that pursuant to section 4:80 of the Subdivision Regulations, a
Drainage Plan, prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, shall be
submitted at preliminary plan.
Floodplain Issues: The Colorado River runs along the property's northern edge. The
river's 1QO-year floodplain elevations are approximately 25 feet lower than the top of the
M.
N
o
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC-2112103
Page 10
steep southerly bank. The Applicant has indicated that the proposed building areas for
the lots adjacent to the Colorado River will adhere to the County floodplain and stream
bank set back regulations.
The Applicant is proposing a private park along the Colorado River as an amenity to the
property owners and their guests. This park will be located primarily within the
floodplain of the Colorado River.
The Applicant shall note that pursuant to section 6.09.01(2XC) of the ZonrngRegulations
[Floodway], "recreation and open Space uses such as parl<s, golf courses, picnic
grounds, green belts, wildlife preserves; and trail systems, [are permissible uses]
provtdedihat no permanent structures are constructed." The Applicant shall note that
compliance with section 6:00 of the ZoningRegulations [Floodplain] is required.
Wildlife: The application does not contain any analysis of wildlife impacts or propose
*y *latf. miiigation. At the time of Preliminary Plan, pursuant to section 4:70 of the
Sribdivision Regulations, the Applicant shall provide a description of the wildlife
habitation on the subject property. Staff encourages the Applicant to make use of the
County's GIS capabilities in finding out about wildlife habitat and encourages the
Applicant to contact the CDOW in order to gain their input on the project.
Public Sites and Open Space: Pursuant to Section 9.80 of the Subdivision Regulations,
the Board of County Commissioners may seek land or cash-in-lieu of land for parks and /
or schools during the subdivision review process when such are reasonably necessary to
serve the p.oporid subdivision and future residents. The following amenities, for the
benefit ofthe lot owners and their guests, are proposed for the Subdivision: A private
park located primarily within the Colorado River floodplain (approximately 4 acres); ana
approximately 4,000 of private pedestrian trail meandering throughout the development,
primarily following the irrigation ditch laterals and lot lines.
The property is located with the RE-2 School District. Pursuant to Section 9:81 of the
SuUAivision Regulations, the Applicant is responsible for paying the School Land
Dedication Impact Fee or pay cash-in-lieu of that land dedication which will be due at the
time of Final Plat. An estimated fee, based on the current fee regulations requiring $200
per each new unit, including Accessory Dwelling Units, would equal $2,800. No
comments from the RE-2 School District were received.
Utilities: Electric power provided by Holy Cross Energy and telephone service provided
ty q*"rt are available off of County Road 335. Al1 existing and proposed utilities shall
be buried within the roads and driveways to each of the residences. Natural gas and cable
television service are not available in the area of the property.
P
R.
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
'"-7:::r1
a. Ditches: Easements shall be provided for all existing and proposed ditches
Weed Manasernent: No vegetation management plan was submitted with the application.
The Applicant shall note that pursuant to section a:70(C) of the Subdivision Regulations,
"a map and description of plant associations following practices of the Soil Conservation
Service and including a description of adapted materials and the location of major tree
masses" shall be submitted at Preliminary Plan. The Applicant is encouraged to work
with Steve Anthony, the County's Weed Management Specialist, to develop a weed
management plan that complies with the provisions of the adopted County's Noxious
Weed Management Plan.
Accessory Dwelling Units: The Applicant indicated that four of the 10 lots are proposed
to allow for accessory dwelling units. In the A/R/RD Zone District, pursuant to section
3 .O2.Ol of the Zoning Resolution , " accessory dwelling unit approved as part of a public
hearing or meeting on a subdivision or subdivision exemption or guesthouse special use
approved after 7/95 and meeting the standards in Section 5.03.21" is a use by right.
Pursuant to section 5.03.2L of the Zonirg Resolution , "use of a structure as an accessory
dwelling unit whether approved by Special Use, use by right in a new subdivision
approval, or on an existing lot must meet thefollowing standards, as well as all other
standards applicable to residential use:
1. The minimum lot size shall befour (4) acres containing a building site with slopes
less than 40% at least two (2) acres in size.
2. The gross /loor area for residential use occupancy shall not exceed I 500 sq. ft.
3. Approvalfrom the subdivision homeowners association and/or allowed by
covenant if applicable.
4. Proof of a legally adequate source of waterfor an additional dwelling unit.
5. Compliance with the County individual sewage disposal system regulations or
proof of a legal ability to connect to an approved central sewage treatment
facility.
6. Only leasehold interests in the dwelling unit is allowed.
7. That all construction complies with the appropriate County building code
requirements.
At Preliminary Plan, the Applicant shall provide evidence that the proposed four
accessory dwelling units comply with section 5.03.21of the ZoningResolution outlined
above.
Mineral Rights: The application does not discuss ownership of the mineral rights. Since
potential for mineral exploration may exist, a disclosure to all potential lot owners must
be included in the covenants, plat notes, and at the time of closing. The Applicant should
S
T
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC -2112103
Page 12
take special caution to be sure to properly notifu the mineral rights owners and lessees of
any public hearings concerning this project (pursuant to sections 4:20 and 4:30 of the
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations).
U Additional Comments:
1. Staff has received a letter of opposition from a neighboring land owner (Exhibit D)
2. The Town of Silt provided comments on the proposed Subdivision (see Exhibit B).
The Town has concerns with the amount of potential pollution that could be caused
by ISDS units. The Town reconrmends that the County, in lieu of centralized
systems, require the Applicant to install ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatment Systems)
units on each lot, instead of ISDS. These ISTS systems treat effluent chemically or
biologically before the effluent goes into the leach field.
3. The Town of New Castle has also provided the following comments on the proposed
Subdivision (see Exhibit C).
a. The two unlinked cul-de-sac streets do not provide for dual access in the event of
emergency. The site topography allows for an easy connection between these two
cul-de-sacs and would provide a much better access arrangement.
b. The 1O-lot subdivision with 4 accessory dwelling units will generate
approximately 140 vehicle trips per day. It would be advisable to require a hard
surface roadway to minimize dust, potholes and road maintenance.
c. The Subdivision should contribute a proportionate share of road impact fees for
future improvements to County Road 335. It is likely that traffic heading east will
utilize County Road 335 to the New Castle I-70 interchange and traffic heading
west will utilize the Silt interchange. The 3-Mile Plan proposes, "the County
Road 225 between the Riverbend subdivision and Garfield Creek needs to be
widenedfor safer trfficflow, with widened right-of-way where necessary. " The
County should consider allocating road impact fees for this purpose. The Silt
interchange is being considered for improvements by the Town.
4. As noted previously in this memorandum, the Applicant is in the process of
constructing two ponds on Lots 9 and 10. In January, 2003, the Applicant was given
notice by the County that the mining and exporting of excavation materials from the
property, as a result of the construction of the ponds, was prohibited and in violation
of the County ZoningResolution. The Applicant immediately ceased the exportation
of the fill from the ponds. To-date, the Applicant has indicated that all on-site
excavation material will remain on-site until proper permits from the County and
from the Division of Minerals and Geology are obtained.
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC -2112103
Page 13
V Recommended Plat Notes/ Covenants: Please note that the County requires the following
plat notes on the final plat and in protective covenants:
l. "Colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq.
Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights,
sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and
necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy
ranching...tor. All must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust,
smoke chernicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and
disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical
fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which
may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non-negligent agricultural operations."
Z. 'No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the
subdivision. One (1) new solid-fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et.
seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling
uni1. eU dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning
stoves and appliances."
3. "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and
County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches,
controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in
accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property.
Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and
responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good
intioductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale
Agricultur;" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield
County."
4. "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting
will be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions
may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries."
5. "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be required to
be confined within the owner's property boundaries'"
V. CONCLUSION:
The Sketch plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of
the Plaruning Commission review (valid until February l2,2OO4). If a Preliminary Plan for the
proposed r.rbdiririon is not presented to the Garfield County Ptanning Commission by February
i2,-ZOO4,the Applicant will have to submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Planning
Gilead Gardens Sketch Plan
PC -2112103
Page 14
Department for review and comparison with the original application.
Exhibits
A. Letter from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department dated January 7,2003
B. Letter from the Town of Silt dated January 7,2003
C. Letter from the Town of New Castle dated February 3,2003
D. Letter from William and Roanne Bradford dated January 28,2003
ALl67/2893 62:36 6258627 ROAD AND BR]DGE
CARFIETD COI.]NTT
Butkfing & Plodrrg DcPtnent
Rcryiew AgarcyForm
Dde Sent: l2l30lV2
Coancotr Due: 0l/17r03
Narne of applicrtion: Gilead Crardcnr Subdivirion
Sent to: Gufield Cqrnty Road md Bddgc DtPt-
Garfield County rE$rcBtB your cunmcot in rwiew of thie proj*t Pleare rmi[the-
planning oeprrt*eit in the cvent you rrG untble to r$pond Uf !t. deedline' Tluc form
rnry be uscd-for your response, or ytrl rnry sttrch your own^additional shcds rs
neccssary. \ilrittcn Gomlnents miy bc mdlcd, +mriled, or fored to:
Garfreld Coufty Building & Phnning
Suff cmtrct; Tamara Pregl
lO9 Bt Stroci, Suite 301
Glenwood Spnngs, CO 81601
Fa,r: 970-3t+347O
Phone: 970-945-8212
Cierrcral commcr*s:CrarfiGld CoutryRord tdpndgs.pfi?t' will 8 Gq!
wittr the fo[owing to the moving otth+ifivpweyr from
thc location prwrouslv slbmifi&4
na ru rlprwat otthc oFivision Uv.phqnTq u{
@s wilt her,a i0ocirl coditione that tvitt be sPGGifid in thc
pr(m$eGE* *ill b. inrtdlua "t *t "rrt"r.- t"""."ir* C.ttr.ld Co,rnt" -"d 13S *a
maintainod by the horneouaerr rg$ci$ign.
f,roferttdinc GOW tine) at ttrc sub aiviaffi crycrtc lrioT to ooEpletion ofthe
zuMivision
Orne dr.ivarny et |SZZ Cr. 135 and orrc drivgwry at I l7l Cr. 335 will be xbrndoncd whcn
nsw drivstYqts arc put in sGrYisG.
r. tf S witl Ue pip,eil i! frtvert pip,e.,nrc instettrtion
ena dl.nrgre rtuir*pnilrrcc witl be Utlre suU dividtri Ftrd homgq$'nef'e eryffsG..
Trrere arp nryo Uuirainsr th$ grcroadr ud[hh thc nOW. plsmiqg and Zqdng wil-lE*e a
ffi it roolier to rtreir griddirrcs. Ar this time Rold etd Bdd8c
rlncc nrt r nrohlcm rlu hrifulinor
Carxml
Name of rwiew rgency: Cnrfisld Corqr Rord urd Bridgc DcPt
lAiti lt';' 7103
GAI1FIELD COUNTY
BUILDING & PIATIT{ING
Rgvixod ?ROIW
R
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: 12130102
Comments Duez 0lll7l03
Name of application: Gilead Gardens Plan
Sent to: Town of Silt
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please noti8/ Mark
Bean in the event you are unable to respond by 0lll7l03. This form may be used for
your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written
comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staff Contact: Tamara Pregl
109 8d'Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
E-mail : tpre gl @earfi eld-county. com
General comments: The Town of Silt Planning Commission reviewed this aoplication at
their Januarv 7.2003. resular meetins and the followins comments:
The Town of Silt is concerned with the amount of potential pollution that could be caused
by ISDS units. The Town would like to recommend that the Countv. in lieu of
centralized systems. require the applicant to install ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatrnent
Systems) units on each lot. instead of ISDS (Individual Sewaqe Disposal Systems).
These ISTS systems treat effluent chemically or biologically before the effluent goes into
the leach field.
As always. the Town would like to suggest that the County encouraqe clustered
develonment-m to oreserve asricultural land and a more loeical
develooment ootential in the future resardin annexation to a municioaliw.
Thank vou for the to comment this proiect.
Resoectfu llv submitted-
Janet G Stei
Communitv Develooment Director
Town of Silt
(970\ 876-23 53 nhone: (970)7 fax:- ianet@lownofsilt ors
NEW CASTLE PLANNING STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: TAIVIAITA PREGL _ GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNER
X'ROM: DAVIS FARRAR _ NEW CASTLE PLANNER
ST]BJECT:REFERRAL COMMENTS ON GILEAD GARDENS &COLORADO RIVER
OAKS SUBDTVISIONS
DATE: 21312003
CC: STEVE RIPPY
Thank you for referring these projects to the Town New Casfle for review and comrnetrt
pursuant to the intergovernmental agreonent with Garfield County. For purposes of efficiency,
this memorandum will address both applications.
Gilead Acres Subdivision is located on the westerly boundary of the New Castle three-mile
planning area in the OSRR - Open Space Rural Residential land use classification. OSRR
identifies residential densities of one dwelling unit per I to 2 acres with open space areas and
limited agriculhre. The purpose of this designation is "to provide for home sites in a rural setting
where general agricultural practices will not be interfered with."
The sketch plan shows two unlinked cul-de-sac streets with gravel driving surfaces. This
access configuration does not provide for dual access any event of an emergency. Site
topography allows for an easy connection between these two cul-de-sacs and would provide a
much better access affangement.
The l0Jot subdivision with four accessory dwelling units will generate approximately 140
vehicle trips per day. It would be advisable to require a hard surface roadway to minimize dust,
potholes and road maintenance.
The development should contribute a proportionate share of road impact fees for future
improvements to County Road 335. It is likely that trafEc heading east will utilize County Road
335 to the New Castle I-70 interchange and taffic heading west will utilize the Silt interchange.
The three-mile plan proposes, "The County Road 335 between the Riverbend Subdivision and
Garfield Creek needs to be widenod for safer haffic flow, with widened right-of-way where
necessary." The County should consider allocating road impact fees for this purpose. The Silt
interchange is being considered for improvements by the town. County development traffic
impacts to the Silt interchange should also be given firnding consideration.
The applicants proposed to create a River Park area for those portions of the property
adjacent to the Colorado River and within the floodplain. The developer should be comme,nded
for this proposal. The LOVA trail organization is working on a tail alignment from Glenwood
Springs to Parachute, Colorado. This group will be working on acquiring/negotiating fiail access
easg-ments or rights-of-way. It may be useful.for the applicants or the Counfy 16 ssnmrrnisats
with this gloup about potential trail alignments.
Fire protection is proposed from a dry hydrant connection to an on-site pond. Calculations
have been made to account for ice accumulation on the pond to ensure adequate water supply
underneath the ice. The pond may be subject to rapid percolation rates depending on its depth. It
rnay be 'irecEssary tb Seal ihe pbird to Ensure that it holds water year-rourd.
Colorado River Oaks Subdivision is also located within the three-mile planning area for New
Castle in the OSRR land use classification. This smaller three-lot subdivision will generate
proportionately less fiaffic than the previously described subdivision. It is likely that most of the
ve[icle hips from Colorado River Oaks will go east to the New Castle interchange. The
applicants are proposing to pay a road impact fee. These funds should be allocated to roadway
improvements on County Road 335 and the New Castle interchange.
Access to this project is proposed off a shared driveway and a separate new driveway. Hard
surfacing or looping of these roadways is not necessary for a small project. The County and the
applicant should ensure that adequate sight distance exists for both access driveways.
The New Castle does not have plans to extend watef or server utilities west to these
properties or the general area. On-site water systems are realistically the only available water
irppty options for these projects. Wastewater treatnent is proposed from individual septic
rft*". The design and engineering ofthe systems should ensure that there is no adverse impact
to domestic watet supplies or the Colorado Rivor drainage'
The town appreciates the opportunity to review these projects within the three-mile planning
area. If the County has any questions or wishes to discuss any points in this memorandum, please
feel free to contact me at your conve,lrience.
)
Garfield County Building & Planning Dept.
Attn: Tamara Pregl, Senior Planner
109 8u',St. Ste. 201
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
January 28,2003
Re: Gilead Gardens sketch plan submitted by BBD Trust, David & Renee Miller/ Owner-Applicants
Dear Ms: Pregl:
As properfy owners living b the wst of this developnrent we are writing this letter regarding the
above mention sketch plan to direct our concerns and point out itens that the county and its
planning department need to be aware of regarding this property. Our intent is to preserve the
quality of our neighborhood and protect the o<isting residential property ownels.
In going through the application we have found a number of discrepancies they are as follows;
On the application for individual sewage disposal system, the building or service type is described
as a single bedroom guesthouse, (straw house) this is not a guathouse, and it has turned into a
dwelling that is occupied on a full time basis. The term guesthouse implies a temporary
occupancy and that is not the o<isting use of the dwelling.
The application materials regarding the Sraw house's sewage inspection and building inspection
are a big concern, as the sewage permit is signed by the applicanfs (Renee Mille/s) brother Russ
Talboq there appears to be conflict of interest here. Also, was a building permit issued on this
dwelling?
We presently have gravel mining being done on the property with a crusher and gravel trucks
hauling away material. Has a permit been issued????
@er a 2-year period sludge from the Apple Tree Mobile home Park evaporation ponds was
spread over the entire subdivision with the exception of lots 1 & 6. What affect will this have on
the property, should the sludge have been treated, was it treated, was this legal and approved
by Garfield County?
The present owners of the property already occupy Lot 1 and Lot 6 is the Straw house (full time
guesthouse) that leaves 8 lots for home construction. In reviewing the sketch plan Lots 3 & 4
should be combined into one lot making it 4.05 acres. Lots I & 9 should be combind to make a
lot of 7.821. Lots 5 & 7 should be combined into a lot of 5.143. This would make the pdect
more consistent with the adjacent subdivision lot size.
This change in lot sizes would address the applicanfs comments in the introduction regarding the
passage of wildlife, the herds of elk and deer that use these fields as a route to the Colorado
River and for grazing. It would be well advised to have some input from the Division of Wildlife.
The WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM is a big concern in this pdect. They appear b think the
existing well, which currently is supplying water to the existing residence and the Guest
house/Straw house without the use of a sbrage tank, will be adequate to supply water b the
rest of the remaining proposd 8 lots. Who are we kidding here; the original intent of this permit
was for an individualdwelling use not 10 or more families. We are talking a great number of
toilefls flushing, washe/s running and lawn watering. Compound that with the fact this well and
pump are over twenty years dd. The noG question would be if a storage tank were required
where would it be placed?
t
The Irrigation Water and Ditches section of the sketch plan address two proposed ponds on Lots
9 & t0, where the gravel is cunently being mined. Wiffi the gravel being rernoled one wonders
how well the ponds will hold water. Secondly, what is the intent of the ponds, fire protection,
supply of water for lawns & gardens, or a place to handle flood irrigation water? The fire
protection talks about the accessing the ponds for year round flre protection. The Ward
Reynolds ditch only has water in the ditch from Aprilb September and this in during an aveftrge
year. The last two years the Ward Reynolds Ditch has used it water rights to pump out of the
tobrado Rjver to have water in this ditch. The cost of the pumping is paid by the ward Reynolds
ditrh shareholders. Do the applicants intend to pay for this pumping to maintain the required
arnount of water for proper fire protection? There appears to be a great number of variable in
this fire protection plan.
The number of parking spaces prwided sound like an opening of a used car lot. It is the
understanding of the plan that the population density will be 3.5 people. That means we are
looking at 4.8 vehicles per lot. The lots are again too small to accomrnodate that many vehicles.
On the HP Geotech report it states that they have reviewed the property'with respect to radiation
potenUal fur 6 single-family residences on 35 acres, not the proposed 10.
Last,but ceftainly not least, a Honreowner Association Prctective Covenants needs to
be included in this dan. To protect the developrnent and the adjacent suMivision. The
present maintenance at the two o<isting residences leaves something to be desired. At
present, trash and unused building material are let out in the open & trash disposal appears
non-existent. This leaves one to wonder what kind of a p@ect this will turn out to be. The
Mille/s appear b be starters but not finisher. We hare two well done developments, one to
the West-Bob Regulski's and the The Rapids to the East, this leaves us wondering the need
for yet another.
We will welcome scrutinizing of this Project. Please npnitor this project for the good of the
future homeowners and the good of the o<isting Mid-Valley Subdivision and other Propety
owners on County Road 335.
Sincerqly yours,
fr*""*/
Rdnne L. Bradford
0071 Midvalley Dr.
William C.
0071 Midvalley Dr.
New Castle, Co. 8t64.7
(970)87G263t
New CasUe, Co. 81647
(970)876-263t
BOUNDARIES UNLIMITED, INC.
January 30,2002 RECEIVED
iAN r r 2tl03
GAfiFIELD COUNTY
8Ufl.DING & PI."ANNII.IGTamara Pregl, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood springs, CO 81601
RE: Notice of Onsite Excavation
Dear Tamara'.
The Miller's wish to notifr the County that they intend to complete their
driveway improvements around their existing residence located at 1577
County Road 335, New Castle. They intend to use some of the gravel
material stock-piled near the pond excavations.
It is clearly understood that no excavated material of any kind can be
removed from the property without County approval and permits.
Please contact me at 379-8362 if you need additional information or have
any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
BOUND UNLIMITED, INC
Bruce D.
Principal
cc David & Renee Miller, Owner & Applicant
Steven Hackett, Garfield County Compliance Officer
Ty Truelove,Dr2
923 CooperAvenue, Suite 102. Glonivood Springs. CO 81601
Ph: (970) 9.1,;-52-52. Fx: (970) 384-2tt33
.E
STA|E OF CCLOTUDO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOTOGY
Department of Natural Resources
'l 313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3567
FAX: (303) 832-8106
January 28,2003
Mr. Bruce D. Irwis, P.E.
Boundaries Unlimited, Inc.
923 Cooper Avenue,
Suite 102,
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
R'ECEIVED
.l,l,i\1 r1 1r]rl:]
s*,RriE;U COUNT\
+uilr:trtl; & P'LANNING
DIVISION OI
MINERALS
-&-
GEOLOG}
RECLAMATIONMINING.SAFETY
Bill Owens
Covernor
Creg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
Acting Division Director
RE: Need for a Mined I-and Reclamation Board Permit
Dear Mr. Lewis
Thank you for seeking a determination as to the need for Mined Land Reclamation Board Permit. '
We have reviewed the information in your January 2003 correspondence. It is the Division's
opinion, based on [hat correspondence, that a reclamation permit from the Mined Land Reclamation
Board will be needed. I'he ploject does not appear to tit within any of the exemptions listed in f"he
Boartl's April 1999 policy, "Need For A MLRB Permit". SpecificalLy, therb is no guarantee of site
reclamation for the two ponds (noimally secured by a reclamation bond). In addition, I could not
find a plan for reclamation of the extraction site in the documents you provided.
If you desire to continue tcr extract materials from the site and haul those materials off'site, you
should contact this office fbr a Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) permit. If the extracted
materials remain on-site, a MLRB permit will not be needed.
The Board has requested that the Division make determinations as to the need for a Mined Land
Reclamation Board Permit. If you disagree with the Office determination, you may request a Mined
Land Reclamation Board hearing.
We are returning the large packet to you and have made copies of several of the maps for our files
v
H. Bruce Humphries,
Minerals Program Supervisor
cc: Ron Cattany, DMG Div. Director
Glenda Williams. DMG
Carl Mount, DMG
BOUNDARIES UNLIMITED, INC.
January 22,2003
Tawnya DeHarrera
State of Colorado
Division of Minerals and Geology
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
RECETVED
JArii .:, ,'. '! i:.1
GARFIELD COUI{ lY
BUILDII'IG & PI.ANNING
RE: I.{eed for State Reclamation Permit
Dear Ms. DeHarrera
In response to your letter, dated lanuary 15,2003,I have prepared the following brief
summary regarding the recent pond construction activities. I then address your questions
in the same order as presented in your letter.
David & Renee Miller, Owners of a 35-acre site, and directors of the Gilead Gardens
Homeowners Association, LTD, on March 22,2001executed a West Divide Water
Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract/Lease for 9.82 acre feet of water each
year. That document states that the contracted water will be used for domestic use in a
proposed development and a new O.8-acre irrigation pond (or combination of ponds). A
shared irrigation ditch system provides the only source of water used to irrigate the
property. The primary purpose of the pond(s) is to provide an irrigation water storage
buffer during periods of low ditch flow and serve as a settling pond for a future
pressurized irrigation system. The proposed development is currently undergoing sketch
plan review with Garfield County. However, the property owner intended to construct the
pond(s) for his irrigation needs, even if the development was not approved.
A contractor agreed, during December 2002, to excavate the pond and remove a portion
of the excavated material from the site. The contractor began the pond excavation on
December 16,2OO2 and started exportlng a portion of the excavated material to another
one of his projects in Rifle. The material removed from the site was not sold nor
processed.
Garfield County clarified to us on January 2,2003 that even though the property owner
could excavate the ponds, the county would not allow any of the excavated material to be
removed from the property. The pond excavation was stopped after receiving the county
notification.
Responses to your questions are as follows
The proposed 3S-acre site is located between the Colorado River and County
Road 335 (Colorado River Road) approximately 3 miles east of Silt This
parcel of land is located within the west half of Section 7, Township 6 South,
Range 91 West, of the O* p.It{ Garfield County. Vicinity map and property
923 Caper Avenue, Suite 102, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ph: (970) 945-5252, Fx (970) 384-2833
1
Page 2 of3
Tawnya DeHarrera
State of Colorado
Division of Minerals and Geology
January 22,2003
2
J
descriptions are included in the attached Sketch Plan Application recently
submitted to Garfield County.
BBD, a Trust, David & Renee Miller, Trustees, privately own and reside on
the property.
The pond construction requires the extraction of approximately 9,500 C.Y of
topsoil and pit run gravel. The thickness of topsoil material varies from one to
six feet. The site is gently sloping, irrigated pastureland, which lies
approximately twenty-five vertical feet above the south bank of the Colorado
River.
The topsoil and approximately half of the pit run material extracted from the
pond construction will remain on site. A total of about 3,000 C.Y. of the
extracted gravel material was to be removed offthe site with approximately
1,600 C.Y. of material already removed.
Onsite use of the extracted material will be for onsite driveways, trails, and
road construction. The topsoil will be used for surfacing disturbed areas, pond
liner and general landscaping.
Approximately 1,600 C.Y. of the gravel material was hauled offsite to a Rifle
commercial development presently under construction and used as road fill.
The remaining 1,400 C.Y. of material will be exported to similar projects in
Rifle
The pond surface area will be approximately 0.8 acres
The ponds are proposed to be approximately 10 feet in depth requiring an
average extraction depth of 12 feet, allowing for a 2-foot thick pond liner.
The ponds side slopes will vary from 2:1 to 3.1.
The pond construction will require the extraction of approximately 9,500 C.Y
of material in total volume.
10. No explosives will be required for the pond construction.
On January 3, 2001, the ground water level at a nearby onsite well was 46'-
10", indicating that the ground water level was approximately 38 feet beneath
the ground surface in the proposed pond area on that same date.
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
Page 3 of3
Tawnya DeHarrera
State of Colorado
Division of Minerals and Geology
January 22,2003
12. The contractor will be receiving payment from the landowner for the pond
construction. The landowner will not receive any payment for the material
being removed from the site.
13 Once the ponds are constructed, the disturbed areas will be surfaced with 6-
inch minimum thickness of excavated topsoil and revegetated to match the
surrounding pastureland.
A water contract was obtained on March 22,2001with the West Divide Water
Conservancy District's Substitute Supply Plan [which included an allowance
for] for the allowance of pond evaporation. [The project is currently in the
Sketch Plan phase with Garfield County's development review process for a
1 O-lot residential subdivision.
l4
16
t7
15. There are no funding agency participants for the pond construction.
The primary purpose of the pond(s) is to provide an irrigation water storage
buffer during periods of low ditch flow and serve as a settling pond for a
future pressurized irrigation systerq even if the site is not developed.
Excavation equipment for the pond may include D6 or D8 dozer, track
excavators, and/or rubber tire end loader.
We wish to obtain the necessary permits to allow us to continue with the pond
construction and be permitted to remove a portion of the pond-excavated material from
the site.
Please contact me at 970-379-8362 with any questions you may have
Sincerely,
BOUND INC
D. Lewis, P.E.
Principal
Attachment (Glead Gardens Sketch Plan)
David & Renee Miller, Owner & Applicant
Tamara Pregl, Garfield County Planner L/--
cc
tsOTJI\I}ARIE, UI{LIMITE,I} [F{(
January 26, 2001
Mr. Mark Bean, Director
Building & Planning DePaftment
Garfield CountY
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Boundary Une Adjustment Notification
within w LlL, sec. 7, T65, R91W, of the 6s P.M.
Dear Mark:
you are hereby notified of a boundary line adjustment between BBD Trust, a
Trust, David:. fqilter and Renee T. Miller, Trustees and Lloyd H. Bullock and
Marilyn T. Bullock. The two parcels are located between CR 335 and the Colorado
River and are approximately 3 mites west of Apple Tree Park. These parcels are
outlined on an attached copy of a portion of the County Assessors Map.
The two parcel owners agreed to adjust a common boundary line to coincide with
an existing fence. In accordance to Sec. 1:64 of the 1984 Garfield County
Subdivision Regutations, please find attached the following copies of recorded
documents pertaining to said boundary line adjustment.
A. Quitclaim Deed to BBD Trust from Bullocks, 8t228, P437,3 pages
B. BBD Trust Affidavit Re: Boundary Line Adjustment, 8L228, P440,4 pages
C. Quitclaim Deed to Bullocks from BBD Trust, 81228, P444,3 pages
D. Bullocks Affidavit Re: Boundary Line Adjustment, 81228, P447,4 pages
Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely,
BOUN ITED INC.
D.
Project Manager
BDL:SOP
Attachments
David & Renee Miller
Lloyd and Marilyn Bullock
0401 Road l49B' Glenivood springs' co 81601 I'ltotre: (970) -'r79-8i6f l':ax: (970)-945-5252
cc
fYtai I fo-. Savue
AFFIDAVIT
RE: BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
The undersigned affiants being first sworn upon thereof, depose and state as follows:
l. BBD Trust, a Trust, David J. Miller and Renee T. Miller, Trustees, is the owner of real
property described in that certain Quitclaim Deed recorded April 19,1999, as Reception No
544118 in Book ll25 atPage327 in the records of Garfield County, Colorado.
2. The real property described in Exhibits A & B, which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, consists of 0.03 acre, more or less. It is adjacent to and abuts the real
property described in Paragraph I and is now owned by Lloyd H. Bullock and Marilyn T.
Bullock, as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
3. The undersigned are desirous of adjusting the boundary lines of our respective properties and
sign this Affidavit in accordance with the Garfield County SuMivision Regulations of 1984.
4. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Afrdavit, Lloyd H. Bullock and Marilyn T.
Bullock are conveying the real property described in Exhibits A & B to BBD Trust, a Trust,
David J. Miller and Renee T. Miller, Trustees . Upon such conveyance, title to the parcel
described in Exhibits A & B will merge with the title to the property described in Paragraph I
above.
5. We hereby represent that no new lots will be created and therefore, that Garfield County will
not be required to issue any building permits, other than what it would be required to issue for the
already existing lots.
6. We hereby represent that none of the parcel of property involved in this boundary line
adjustment is part of a previously platted subdivision of record.
7. We hereby represent that the boundary line adjustment made reference to herein will not
cause the loss of access by road or to utilities, to any parcel of property involved.
8. A copy of this affidavit shall be recorded with the Garfield County and Recorder.
FURT}IER AFFIAI{TS SAYETH NOT
s Lasr
rtnililmnnn rilfiitllllllllr.lltull[ll [llstszii.tii t ?3, iib6f
,ozii-sP Brzza P440 11 RLSDoRF
I or i i-zs-.os o s'oo GRRFIELD couNTY c0
.7,
L)
,rtl -l,i
DONE this day of January, 2001M
BBD Trust, a Trust,
Miller and
, Trustee
Miller. Trustees
o( a[l r.;&*s
tlx
W
T
\-
, Trustee
T
ilililil1il l]lil lllll lllll lll IlI,-_;il llilt il]Llt
575239 Ot/23/2g$l O2t79P 81228 P441 l'l RLSDORF
2 o0 4 R ZO.OO O O.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY C0
State of Colorado
County of Garfield
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
BBD Trust, a Trust, David J T. Miller, Trustees
Witness my hand and
My Commission
ofN
e'd day of January, 2ool by
\t
\t\t
ss.
Lxh lb It
lllill l]il l]]t ]]t ]]lt ilt lilllt lil l]ilillt llll
:39 gl/?3/2ggl g2:19P 81228 P44? n RLSD0RF
3 of 4 R 2O.oO D O.Os GRRFIELD COUNTY C0
oo(o r
J
2L
'o)
d)-z
Z
AE
utun-
z-o!
aF(-o
ur
-|
rrl
_\
--l
rrl
co
-l
Or-
z.
@(o
F
@
_\
ur
F)o^-co-s
:m
Existing Fence Line
Property Lin
lvliller PropertY Bullock ProPertYa
@
@a
(-"1
UI
J
L"l
€
U.l
OJ
S"l
O.lor
Not to Scolc
Point of
Begin n in g
cA t
/5 5a ,re
t
North 1/4 Corner
Section 7, TownshiP
Ronge 91 West of th
th,
P.M.
6 Sou
re 6th
1
Green house
A
ilil1il llilt lilil ]Iil ]1ililt lilmililill m
575239 O1/23/2O0L @2t19P 8122E P443 11 RLSDORF
S of 4 R 2O.OO D s.OO GRRFIELD C0UNTY C0
2) Thence N 86"02',57-
3) Thence N 87o49'5!'t
4) Thence N 89"49'09"
said parcel contai
EXIIIBIT B
A parcel of l-and situated in Section 7, Township 6 South, Range 91 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian, Garfie.Id County, Coforado, being more particularly
described as foffows:
Beginning at a point on a fence Line as constructed and in pIace, whence the
North 16 Corner of said Section 7 a brass cap found in place bears
N 23" 59'54u E a dist.ance of 221,5.43 feet, with all bearings being relative to
the East 16 Corner (a stone) of said Section 7 and the above mentioned North k
Corner (a brass cap) of said Section 7, using a bearing of S 45" 25'03" E
between the two described monuments.
Thence, along the southerly line of the property described in Book 508, Page 119
The foflowing two courses:
1) S 88" 35'13" W a distance of 333.36 feet,
2) Thence S 69o33'31" w a distance of 64.08 feet,
Thence N 00"16'19" W a distance of 21.08 feet to a point on a fence line as
constructed and in place,
Thence easterly along said fence line the following four courses:
r) s 88o06',27', E a distance of 19.45 feet,
Ea
Ea
Ea
ning
distance of 40.95 feet,
distance of 181.15 feet,
distance of 152.09 feet to the point of beginning
0.03 acres, more or l-ess.
ry'toit to: sa nAL, Last lllllll lllll llllll lllll llllllllllll lll illllll llll €,
575241 Ol/23/2OOt O2t28P Bl22E P447 11 RLSDORFI of 4 R 2o.O0 D O.00 GRRFIELD C0UNTY C0
AFFIDAVIT
RE: BOUNDARY LINB ADJUSTMENT
The undersigned affiants being first sworn upon thereof, depose and state as follows:
l. Lloyd H. Bullock and Marilyn T. Bullock, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, are the
owner of real property described in that certain Warranty Deed recorded April 4,1978, as
Reception No. 284556 in Book 508 at Page I l9 in the records of Garfield County, Colorado.
2. The real property described in Exhibits A & B, which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, consists of 0.06 acre, more or less. It is adjacent to and abuts the real
property described in Paragraph 1 and is now owned by BBD Trust, a Trust, David J. Miller and
Renee T. Miller, Trustees.
3. The undersigned are desirous of adjusting the boundary lines of our respective properties and
sign this Affdavit in accordance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984.
4. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Affdavit, BBD Trust, a Trust, David J. Miller
and Renee T. Miller, Trustees are conveying the real property described in Exhibits A & B to
Lloyd H. Bullock and Marilyn T. Bullock. Upon such conveyance, title to the parcel described in
Exhibits A & B will merge with the title to the property described in Paragraph I above.
5. We hereby represent that no new lots will be created and therefore, that Garfield County will
not be required to issue any building permits, other than what it would be required to issue for the
already existing lots.
6. We hereby represent that none of the parcel of property involved in this boundary line
adjustment is part of a previously platted subdivision of record.
7. We hereby represent that the boundary line adjustment made reference to herein will not
cause the loss of access by road or to utilities, to any parcel of property involved.
8. A copy of this affidavit shall be recorded with the Garfield County and Recorder.
, /t
FURTIIER AFFIANTS SAYETH NOT
DONE tns,l8 "Aay of January, 2OOl
Lloyd H. Bullock and Marilyn T. Bullock,
as joint tenants with right of survivorship
T t,l
7?
a
ilililt ilil ilililil ]]lr ilil| ilr illllilrlllr' 575241 OL/23/2OO[ O2:28P 87228 P44E 11 RLSD0RF
2 ol 4 R 2O.OO D O.00 GRRFIELD C0UNTY C0
State of Colorado
County of Garfield
\t
)
II
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Ueday of January,2001 by
Lloyd H. Bullock and Marilyn T as joint tenants with right of survivorship
Witness my hand and
My Commission
of
Lxh lb r
a t
Point of
Begin n in g
22/5 ,,ee3 Urtfr r/+ Corna
Sactlon 7. Tornltlp 6 South.
Rongc 91 tIct of thc 6th P.Il.
t
Green house
Ali/ler Property Bullock Prop erty
Z.o
Codul
J(,
rrl
+(o
P5q.
ao(o
a+
_(o-o(o
=+o
P
-Ao_
Not to Scolc
Existing Fence Line
,.
'1/o Property Line
+r
LII I I ill!,lll|]t! t'
lI!
! !l!l I H']Il r,r.!lL'
I
I ttlllll|! I
5'; 4 n-zs.ss D o.oo GRRFIELD couNTY c0
A
t
ililtil ililt ililt ]]t lillt il il'_ Jil lilt lllt llll
.515241 Ot/23/2g0l O2z28P 87228 P450 I't RLSDORF4 of 4 R 2O.OO O o.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY C0
EXHIBIT B
A parcel of l-and situated in Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 91 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian, Garfiel-d County, Colorado, being more particularly
described as foll-ows:
Beginning at a point on a fence line as constructed and in place, whence the
North k Corner of said Section ? a brass cap found in place bears N 23" 59'54"
E a distance of 2215.43 feet, with al-I bearings being relative to the East r<
Corner (a stone) of said Section 7 and the above mentioned North l< Corner (a
brass cap) of said Section 7, using a bearing of S 45" 25' 03" E between the two
described monuments.
Thence, along the northerly line of the south 11 of Government Lot 5
N 88o 35'13" E a distance of 496.43 feet to a point on the northerly right of
way line of County Road No. 335 more or less,
Thence, along the northerly right of way of said County Road No. 335
s 370 23'53" W a distance of 13.4'l feet,
Thence, westerly along the above mentioned fence line as constructed and in
place S 89" 49'09" W a distance of 488.L0 feet to the point of beginning said
parcel containing 0.06 acres more or Less.
BOUNDARIES UNLIMITED, INC.
January 20,2002
Tamara Pregl, Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8ft Street, Suite 201
Glenwood springs, CO 81601
RECE}VED
JAI'I 2 I 2!]t]3
(;AIIFIL.LIJ L;OUNTY
gUIt OINC & PLANNING
RE: Glead Gardens Sketch Plan Application
Dear Tamara:
In response to receiving verbal notice on January 2,2003 from Steven [Iackett, Garfield
County Compliance Offrcer, removal of pond encavated material from the site has
ccased. All onsite-excavated material will remain on site until proper permits from
Garfield County have been obtained.
For the recor{ we clearly understood that no processed material such as crushed
aggregatecould be removed from the property and that processed material must remain
on site for its own use. However, we did not understand that the removal of any exc€ss
excavated material from the premises of any excavation projects, such as a foundations,
irrigation ponds, roads, etc. may be considered mining.
Please understand that this violation was not intentional and that only excavated (pit run)
material generated from the construction of irrigation ponds was removed from the
property. The material removed from the site was not sold.
We are preparing a response to a fa:red letter dated January 15, from the MLRB
(attached) to determine if the need for MLRB permit is also needed. Please contact us
with any comments or questions you may have.
Sincerely,
UNLIMITED,INC
Bruce D.
Principal
P.E.
Attachment (8 pages)
David & Renee Miller, Owner & Applicant
Steven Hackett, Garfield County Compliance Offrcer
923 Cooper Avenue, Suite 102. Glenwood Spnngs, CO 81601
Ph: (970) 945-5252, Fx: (970) 384-2833
cc