HomeMy WebLinkAboutDeer Crest Staff Report BOCC 06.12.95REOTIEST:
OWNER:
ENGINE ERING/PLANNING:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
PROJECT INFORMATION
Ax A BIn-zt B rlO
Z-t l- 5V
E{ D e+eerf Fil<)EAqctr*) t,{ a \
ADD@lrrr,u p1O sv//u\
BOCC 6n2t9s
zt € 5.f;ffiB'"r
AND srAFF COMMENTS -r$E A'P?Lr.^Ar
Deer Crest Orchard Preliminary Plan
James R. and Diane Barry
Schmueser Gordon Meyer
A parcel of land located in a portion of Section
35, T5S, R92W of the 6th PM; located
approximately two (2) miles nortlrwest of Silt,
north of County Road 233.
I 0 acres
Individual Wells
ISDS
Easement llorn CR 233
A/R/RD
A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSIIIP TO TIIE COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is located partially in District C - Rural Areas Minor Environmental
Constraints as sltown on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management Districts
Map.
II.DESCRIPTION OF THB PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The property is located in the Silt Mesa area, northwest of the
Towr of Silt. Tlre property was originally platted as a portion of as Tract 44, Antler's
Orchard Plat #1, recorded in 1909. The property is currently undeveloped, and is
adjacent to agricultural and residential uses.
TIre property slopes gently to the southwest, with the eastern half of the property
corrsisting of an irrigated hayfield used for hay production and livestock grazng. A
natural drainage runs across the properly fi'om the north to south along the eastem
edge ofthe parcel. The westenr portion of the parcel includes sagebrush and native
grasses. A vicinity map is included within the application.
Access to the site is via a private easement frorn CR 233,platted and recorded as a
part of the Antler's Orchard Subdivision.
B. ['r'qiect Description: The applicants are proposing to subdivide the 10.0 acre parcel
into two (2) parcels of approximately 5.0 acres fur size. The lot configuration is shown
on a "blueline" in the application.
?l-
H+
AGENCY COMMElII.
DMsion ofWater Resources: In house domestic water will be provided by individual
wells. Two well applications are pending with the Colorado Division of Water
Resources. The applicant will enter into a contract with the West Divide Water
Conseryancy District as part of an augmentation plan prior to final plat. These
reEeseltations are consistent with tlre State's January 30th, 1995 comments (see page
5'? ), An adtlitional letter fiom Russell George regarding Round I saLs is
,**l*d ,, page 8
2.
3.
A.
B.
BookcliffSoil Conservation District: The District expressed a number of concerns
. about revegetation, animal control, inigation ditch maintenance, drainage, soil
disturbarrce oirt..p slopes and warer q,,u'li,y (... pug.r!ltl[).
Colorado Department of flealth: The Department of Health has not responded to the
application.
4. Colorado Geologic Survey: The Colotado Geologic Survey has responded to the-application, and concurs with the findings of the Geotechnical Reporl, which is
incl,ded within the application. (sre z-8. 15 rFfidL.fuA dA+^86 )-t-' 5 ",,,,e., *t Fo.aEiii-.{'IV. STAFF COMMENTS )
Cornprehensive Plan Compliance: The cumeut Comprehensive Plan gives little
guidance regarding desigrr criteda for subdivisions in rural areas. The l9S4update
has not addressed the Silt Mesa area. The proposed project will remove land from
agricultural production, which is addressed on the 1984 Comprehensive Plarr.
'Soils/Topograplry: A geologic site review (Flepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.) is
included within the prelirninary plan application. The review concluded that the
property is not exllosecl to landslide, rockfall, debris flow or ground subsidence
hazarcls. pre surficial soils coulcl have some collapse potential, and the report
recommended that "site-specific soils and fourrdation studies be made so that
appropriate geotechrrical desigr considerations are included in the design of the
residertces".-rJ
Percolation tests were perfonned by Hepworth-Pawlak, and concluded that the 120
, mirrrrtes per inch will require engineered septic systems (see December 22rd,1994
letter frqn Steve Pawlak, with attached percolation tests on pagesl2-tS t.
C. Road Desiglr: The applicant proposes that the existing dirt road which provides
access to this propefty Ilom County Road 233 and the common driveway will be
irnproved to meet the Garfeld Corurty Pdrnitive Residential Road Standard, based on
the following standard:
# of Lots
Minirnurn ROW
Lane Width
Slroulder Width
Ditch Width
Cross Slope
Shoulder Slope
Maximum Grade
Surface
2
30 feet
12 feet (single lane)
0
3 feet
2%o (chip/seal) 3% (gravel)
s%
l0o/o
Gravel
The common driveway will be rnaintained as a "common" facility, with maintenance
costs shared by Lots I andZ,presunably through a joint road maintenance agreement
recorded at the time of final plat. A primary issue in front of the Planning
-7- '
O Commissiotr dealt with the need for a roadway improvement agreement with
'$ptop".ty owners. The applicant has :rlritt*3n agreement with owrers
adjacent
south of
F.
G.
H.
the proposed subdivision (see pages )
Fire Protection: The Silt- New Castle Fire [l'otection District has not responded to
' the applicatiott, which shotrld be a condition of approval.
Zoning: All of the proposed lots conform witlr the minimum parcel size and
develolltnent requirements of the Zoritg Resolutiorr.
Drainage/hrigation Ditches: An exiSing drainage channel enters the property on the
rrorth via natural channels and man-made irrigation laterals, before entering the
Fanner's lrrigation Ditch (see Utility Plan blueline in the preliminary plan packet).
Tlrree culverts are proposed to carry the flow across the proposed driveway, sized to
handle projected 5O-year flow.
. Staffwould suggest that easements be shown on the plat to ensure access for periodic
maintenance, and appropriate language be included within covenants to ensure access
and alert potential buyers.
Water Supply: Adjacent propefty owners had significant concerns regarding the
potential irnpact the project may have on existing wells, as well as the likelihood of
'watel to serue two dwelling units. Since tlre hearing before the Planning Commission,
the applicant has drilled a well, although no pump tests have been performed. The
applicaut's engitteer will present additional irrfonnation at the hearing.
: Letters fiom adjacent property owners are attached on
IV. RECOMMENDATION
On February 8th, 1995, the Planning Commission recommended denial on a vote of 5-2,
primarily due to the lack of a roadway agleement and issues regarding physical water supply.
if tlr. Board concludes that these issues have been addressed, Staff would recommend
APPROVAL based on the following conditions:
l.All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
public hearing with the Planning Commission, be considered conditions of approval.
Tlre applicants shall establish a Homeowners Association, or legally acceptable
eqgivalent. and shalt be incoqlorated in accordance with the requirements of
Colorado Revised Statutes. The Homeowrer's Association, or legally acceptable
equivalent, shall be reqronsible for the water infi'astructure, road maiutenance and
stow removal. The articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants shall be
reviewed by County Staffprior to the approval of a Final Plat.
The applicants shall prepare and subrnit a Subdivision Improvements Agreement,
acklressing all improvelnents, llrior to recordirrg a final plat.
Lllnrc.ua,Jh uTrurnEs
All cut slopes created during corrstruction shall be promptly revegetated with native
and other appropriate grasses using certified weed-free seed. Required revegetation
shall be included in the SIA.
Tlre applicants shall pay $200 per lot in school irnpact fees prior to approval of the
final plat.
All roadways shall be designed and constructed irr cottfonnance with design standards
set forth in the Subdivisiorr Regulations and in place at tlre time of final plat.
I.
J.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
-o €-
7. The following plat notes shall be shown on the Final Plat:
\ "P...olation tests indicate that errgineered septic systems may be necessary on
each lot."
"Geotechnical site review of the site has irrdicated that additional soil and
engineered fourrdation design rnay be necessary."
I'No ollen hearth solid-fuelbunring fireplaces will be allowed within the Deer
I Crest Subdivision. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number
I of natural gas-buming fireplaces or appliances. All dwelling units will be
I aflowed no more than one new woodbunring stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-
|-40 l, et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder."
/--(5.\ The applicant shall indicate a 20' downslope easement and a 10'upslope easement
from the centerline of the ditch for maintenance purposes. A plat note to the effect
\ shall be incltrclecl on the Final Plat.
\ O. Dogs shall be lirnited to one (l) per lot, and kennel restrictions shall be included
\ witlrin the covenants.N4
/o
,9rel
xoqr\=Jr-*, t'*k
o+-
STA|E OF COLOI(ADO
OFTICE OT TlIE STATE ENCINEIR
l)iv'isiorr of Water llesotrrt'es
l)r'p,rrlr-ttt:rtt oI Natrrr.tl licsortrt t's
I I I t Slr(,nn,u) Slrt:ct, llrxrttt tl l{l
I )r,rrrrlr, ( rrlrrr.trlo []Ol(l I
l'ltortc t.|[l]) t](rtr-.J5t] I
l:AX ( t0l) l|(r(r-.l5ti9 Roy Romer
Covcrnrlr
Jrmcs S. Lot:hlread
Ixe(iutive Direr]t()t
llal D. Simpson
State Engincer
January 30, 1995
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 Bth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Deer Crest Orchard Subdivision Preliminary Plan
SW 1/4, Section 35, T 5 S, R 92 W, 6tlr P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 39
Dear Dave:
Thank you for the referral for the above referenced subdivision outlined in the Preliminary
Plan Submittal by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, lnc,, dated December, 1994. This proposalwillsplit
a 10 acre parcel into 2 single-family lots of approximately 5 acres each. The proposed water
supply lor this development is to be provided by individual on-site wells. The submittal also
indicates that the applicant proposes to obtain replacement water for the wells pursuant to a
water allotment contract with tlre West Divide Water Conservancy District as part of a plan for
augmentation.
Based upon irrformation in the submittal, lhe State Engineer's Office offers the following
opinion pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(H)(l), C.R.S., for your consideration regarding material
injury to decreed water rights and the adequacy of the proposed water supply:
This office previously commented on this cJevelopment in a letter to Garfield County dated
December 5, 1994 (copy enclosed). Our comments from that letter still apply. Please note that
it is our general opinion that the filing of a plan for augnrentation and the subsecluent ju<licial
review and linal decree should provide adequate terms and limitations to protect decreed water
rights.
Although general information was provided in the submittal regarding adjacent wells, weare unable to comment on the adequacy of the water supply without an engineering or
geotechnical study documenling the physical availability and dependability of ground water for
the proposed uses at these sites. As outlined in the statutes, Section 30-28-133, C.R.S., the
subdivider is required to submit adequate evidence that a water supply that is sutficient in terms
of quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply ol water.
Finally, the two pending wellpermit applications (receipt nos. 3779s2-A, -B)were returned
to the applicant on Decemb er 21 ,1 994, for additional information. Our records indicate that the
applicalions have not been returned to this office to date.
^/-?a
Mr. Dave Michaelson
January 30, 1995
Page 2
We recommend that the County not grant final approval until a plan lor augmentation is
approved by the water court. Should you have further questions or comments regarding the
water supply lor this project, please contact this office at the above address.
Sincerely,
Prtn,'/zQ/
Jetf Deatherage
Water Resources Engineer
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
James Lemon, Water Commissioner
Steve Lautenschlager, Assistant State Engineer
deercresl.sub
?b-
STA|E OF COLORADC)
OTTtCf OT THE STATE ENGINEER
'vision of Water Resources
- cpartment o[ Natural Resources
l3l3 Sherman StteeL Room EIE
Denrret, Colorado 802O3
Phone (lo3) 866-3581
FAX (3011 865-1589 Roy Romet
Corernor
lamcr 5. Lochhead
Ex€<uti\e Direcro.
Hal D.SimFon
Strte IntirrcerDecember 5, 1994
Mr. Dave Michaelson, Planner
Garfield Counry Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Deer Crest Orchard Subdivision
Seaion 35, T5S, R92W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 39
Dear Dave:
Thank you for the referral for the Deer Crest Orchard Subdivision located approximately M9
miles northrvest of Silt. The applicant is requesting to split the ten acre parcel known as Tract 44,
Antlers Orctrard Development Company's Piat No. I into two five acre lots. The proposed water
service will be from exempt wells. TWo permit applications have been submined to our office for
this proJeA - one application to reduce the number oia"r"s for an existing permit and one application
for the new lot should the subdivision be approved by the County.
pursuant to g30-28-136(lxh)0, C.R. S., the State Engineer's Office offers the following
opinion for your consideration regarding the material injury to decreed water rights and the adequacy
of the proposed water suPPlY:
The Colorado River system and iS tributaries at this location are over-appropriated. As
such, well perrnits appiications in new subrtivisions must be evaluated to determine if other
water righs would be injured considering the cumulative effect of all proposed wells. It is
Iikely fhat in many circumstances well permits could not be issued by our office without a
court approved plan for augmentation. To da0e, we have no evidence that h plan for
augmentation is pending or has been approved by the water court in Glenwood Springs. The
p"naing permit applications (receipt numbers 377952 A and B) will be denied until such time
that the applicant obtains a court approved plan for augmentation.
Should you have any questions regarding the water supply for this project, please contact this
office.
JdLU-
y s"/fling,on
ter RbJourcer*6i.t RbJour.o Engineer ncc:
,"J*?l'*J:",ff:."Jiilff: ,iG I o
DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
P. O. BOX L478
RTFLE, COLORADO 81650-L474
62 5-1887
off i cers
President 876-2821
Ke[ ly Couey
1715 c.R. 315
si tt, co 81652
Vice President
Ssm-Et B. Potter
0598 c.R- 323
Rifte, co 81650
T reasurer
LaVerne Startxrck
3106 c. R. 312
si tt, co 81652
Secretary/uater Hanaqer 625-1887
Russetl George, Attocney
Stu/er & George, P.C.
P. o. Box 907
Ri fte, Co 81650
May 1, 1995
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Department of Planning
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood springs, co 816o1
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
Re: James Barry
Mr. Barry has asked mesubstitute vater supply
to write you concerning West
plan and plan for augmentation.
Board of Directors
KettY'CoueY
1715 c. R. 315
si t t, co 81652
gittiam ll- Zitm
0090 Suntight or.
G[enHood Springs, Co 81601
Lsverne Starb'rck
3106 C.,R.342
sitt, co 81652
Gregory ourrett
926 Btake Averue
Gtencood Springs, C0 81601
Satruet B. Potter
0598 c.R. 323
Rifte, G0 81650
Divi-de t s
provide
We have
2OO acre
and the
II ruater
beitweenwith you
I
There is adequate water in our substitute supply plan to
the needs of county residents applying for our contracts.
a permanent lease with Ruedi Round I for 100 acre feet,
feet on temporary lease with Green Mountain Reservoir,
District has applied for 500 acre feet of Ruedi Round
which should be approved this summer.
We have considerable docurnentation on this relationship
West Divide and the State Engineer which we would share
and discuss with you in person at your request.
Sfngerely yours,// , br
/L.t.caaeL<r/ p-rt1H
RusseII George , OAttorney/WaterManager e 0-
RG: im
WEST
October 25, 1994
Dave MichaelsonGarfield County
PIanni ng Department
1O9 Bth ST" STIi 3o3Glenwood Springs, CO 816O1
Dear: Sir:
At the regtllar monthly meeting of the Bookcliff soil conservationDistrict, the Board reviewerl ttr" apprication and pran for theDeer crest orchard subclivision and- have the foltowing commerntsand concerns aborrt the project.
Any cuts for roads or constrtrction shourcl be revegetated tcrprevent erosion. tJeed free seecl and mulch should be used for anyreseeding of the area. Monitoring of aII seeding should ber doneto see if the grass is estabrishing or if weeds ire becomirrg aprobrem. Reseeding or weecr contror practices shourd beimplementecl if a problen is noticed.
The boar:d is always concerned abotrt animar contror in an areawhere there is the potential for conflict between wildlife ordomestic l'ivestock and dogs from the subdivision. Dogs rurrningrin packs of two or more can maim or kiII domestic livestock. andwildIife. Tlre District recommends animal. control regulatic,ns beadopted in the covenants for the subdivision and tha€ they beenforced.
of prime concern to t-he lloarcr, i.s the proper maintenance andprotection of any irrigation d itch rvnitn i.= on the site. NewIandowners shotllcl be infor:med that the ditch owners nurr" right ofway easement to maintain the irrigation system, that they wirlbe creaning ancr working on the cli[ch, and-that this work may bein their yarrls.
ROOKCI,TFF SOII, CONSI]RVATTON
P.O. ROX 1302
GLENI^IOOD SPRTNGS, CO I
DISTRTCT
15 01
what the impact wiII be on thelands should be protected andas possible.
The district woulcl I i ke to knowI^letlands in ilris area? AII t^Ietr:emain in as pr:istine concliti.on
The Board recommencis that any. i.rrigation water rights be used bythe randowners so they ur. *iintaifred. Their con6ern is arwaysfor soil and water conservation and preservation and plans shouldcons i cler t.hese concerns .
DrainacJe has t-he potential to Lre a probrem in the area andengineering recommenclations for control of drainage should beclosely followed by Ure builder ancl/or homeowner.
-g o
I.tith i.ncreasecl concerlls abottt- Water QuaIity, the District is
concerned abottt monitoring chernical applicition for fertilizer,
weed contro'l , and ottrer pest management reasons. Their concern
is the chemicals that wiif be used to fertilize lrrasses and
control weeds in the area. They feel that the chemicals should
be closely monitored in this ar"a due to the possibility that the
chemicals wiII soak into the soils and run off into the river'
The District srrggests drilling of weIIs to monitor ground water
polltrtion, and frrat this .xp"nse and fttture expenses should be
bore lty the devel oPer.
S incerely ,
e.rh".(^
Char:Ies Ryden
Bookcliff soii Conservation District
'es i dent
- l0'o
STA|E OF COLORADO,tEB I 5 1995
cEor ocrcAr sr.rRvEY
GAI1I- ;ELD (XAHilTy,i lr4 t rtrr,t I s,t r rt I ( icolo1sy
I)(fl)nrlnl('nt oI N,rtrtr.tl licsrtrrrt t's
I l l i Sltcrrrtart Slrt:t'1, llrxrrrt 7l 'i' [)t'trvcr, (\r[rr,rrftr lto.lo i
l)lrorrt' (.lO |) li(r(r-2(r I I
FAX ( |O t) l)(,(,-l'l(, I DEIAT{TMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
GA-95-0007
Roy Ronrt'r
(}tverrtrtr
l.rnres S. I ochlre.rrl
Ixcr rrtive Director
Michacl ll Long
[)ivision [)ireck)r
Vir k i (-owarl
Sr.lt('(i({)lr}Bisl
.rrtrl l )irtrtorFebruary 8, 1995
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorad<l tt1601
Re: Proposed Deer Crest Orcharcl Subdivision -- Ca. 1 Mile West Northwest of the
lntersection of C.R. 233 and C.R. 231, Northwest of Silt, Garfield County
Dear Mr. Michaelson:
At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35 (1972), we have reviewed the materials
submitted for ancl made a field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision
indicated above. The following comments summilrize our findings.
Considering the sizes of the planned lots and the locations of the proposed building
envelopes on them, this subdivision is entirely feasible from a geologic standpoint. The
submitted reports by [Iepworth-Pawlak Geotechical and Schmuezer Gordon Meyer, Inc.,
adequately discus.s the possible ccnstruction pr<lblerns end septic-sy-ctem design constraints
for these parcels. We concur with their findings and recommend that they be followed.
Depending on depth to bedrock ancl water table conditions, it may be impractical or
infeasible to construct houses with basements. We also recommend that each building site
have a detailed, site-specific soils and foundation investigation and that foundation drains
be used in any stuctures with below grade space.
Sincerely,
)-, zfi-t--.-t lLt . .r--^l--^
l'lmes M. SouletEngineering
Ceologist
r ll-
^^-A..$l'"'-<.
HepuorthPaulak Geotech TE-.303-945-8454 Dec 2- 94 9 :45 No .00 t P .O2
HrpwonrH-Pnwrex GrorscHr.rrcAL, INc. :T:*::11"r..co8r50r.
December 22, 1994 [il::i31t;T.:rrrr_
James and Diane Barry
Dale and Kim Neffendorf
P. O. Box 671
. Silt, Coloraclo 81652 Jolr No. 194 558
Sutrject: Pcrcolation Tcst Results, Lots I and 2, Tract 44 of tlte Antlers Orclrard
Subdivision, Near Silt, Colorado.
Dear Mr. Barry:
As requcsted, wc conducted percolatiorr testing at the subject site to evaluate the
feasibility of in<lividual infiltration septic disposal. We previously conducted a geologic
review of the sitc and prcsentcd our findlngs in a report dated Decetntrer 20, 1994.
Thc percolatiou holes and profilc pit had heen dug and the test holes soaked on
Decemlrer 2l lty Mr. Barry. The test holes were covered to protect them against
freezing. The holes had been dug with a backhoe and the final one foot dcpth had brcn
hand dug and was soakcd. Sorne of the test l)oles had water remaining in them at the
time we arrived to perform the tests. The soils exposed in the profile pit and
percolation holcs appeared relativcly uniform and conslsted of .stlff dry clay to the
maximum depth dug of l0 feet. A plastic pipe encountered in the protile pit was
flowing a very small arnount of water aud caused sorne ponding at the bottom of the. pit,
The approxirnatc locations of the pits are shown on Flg. l.
. 'flte percolatiou tcst rcsults arc presented in Table I. The tesB were conducted between
about 10:00 a.rn, to l:00 p.rn. The weather was sunny and there was no treezing of
water during the test. The typical final rate of the test was 120 minutes per inch. Based
on the firrdings, an engirreered septic disposal system will be needed.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
%-X,Q*-(/-
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
SI-P/rr
cc: Schmueser Gorclon Meyer - Debbie Duley
-D /e,r.
h_
t\l\/t PropertY BoundarY
ir.
II
I
t,:
I DrivewaY and UtllitY Easement
,\.- _-r.- '- -Jlrc) _
Waterline
Eaeement
I
tt
Lot 2
Property BoundarY
o 50 10o 20O
Scaie tn Fsot
/3
HepuorthPau I ak Geotech Tt. .303-945-8454 Dec Lr 94 9 :46 No .001 P .03
HEFIA'ORTH-PAWLA Ka)En'rEaaf-llltra A I194 558 Locationo of Porcolatlon Pits Fig. 1
Hepuor thPaur I ak Geotech TF 303-945-8454 Dec 94 9t46 No.001 P.04
JOB NO. 194 5s8December 22, 1994
I{EPWOBTIJ.PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
LOT I
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
HOLE NO.HOLE DEPTI{
(INCHESIT
LENGTH OF
INTERVAT
(MINI
WATER OEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
llNcHE6)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
!NTERVAL
tlNcHESl
DROP IN
WATEB
LEVEL
IINCHESI
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN/INCHI
P-1 60 l/2 30 13 314 1211+112
60
12'-U4 11 114 1
11 114 11 1l+
ll 10 112 112
P-2 4B 30 10 I 1
r20
I I 1/4 3t4
s 1t4 7 gl4 1t2
7 314 7 1t2 1t4
P,3 49 30 10 1t2 10 114 114
1ZO
10 1/4 I 1t2 3t4
I 1t2 9 1/4 114
I 114 I 114
/ll -
Hepuror thPau lak Geotech Tt-'303-945-8454 Dec 94 9 :46 No .001 P .05
JOB NO. 194 558December 22, 1994
HEPWONTH-PAWLAK G EOTECI-INICAL, INC.
TABLE I
LOT 2
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
HOLE NO.HOLE DEPTII
ltNcHEsl.
LENOTH OF
INTERVAL
(MINI
WATER OEPTI.I
AT START OF
INTERVAL
flNCHESt
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
flNCHESI
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
ilNCHE6l
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MrN/rNCHl
P-4 48 1t2 30 10 1/2 10 1t2
120
10 91lZ 112
9 112 I 1t2
I s 314 114
P.5 601t2 30 12112 11 314 314
120
11314 11 112 114
11 112 11 114 114
11 114 11 114
P-6 48 30 I3/4 g 114 112
s 114 I3t4 112
s 3/4 g 112 1t4
8112 8114 114
,? /{'
tiOn I) MAIN t't:NANCtr AC;tit:tiMIrNl-
'l'lllr l'NI)l:lisl(;Nlil)' troing all .['thc owrcrs (hercaliercollectively rel'erred to as the"orvtlet's") ol'tlre t'citl 1'rtrrpe.ty rlcscrlibcrl rr1'ron the attaclrcrl I:xhibit A (Sereaiier collectivelyrel'errerl to as Ihe "l)roPcrty"), rvlrich I:xhibit A is by tlris relcrence incorpor.atecl herein, docovellallt ancl agrce to thc lbllorvitrg ter.rs anclconrlitions of'this Roacl Maintenance Agreement(herealier the "Agr.eenrent"):
l' 'l'his Agrcertletlr cotlcertls the nrainlenance o1'that certain roacl easement and rightof way as clepictetl trport tlte altaclrecl Exhibit I) (hereafter the,,Roacl,,) which is incorporatedherein by this rcfcrence;
2' 'l-hc owllers are tlesirorrs ol'cstablishi.g a^ eq,itable ancl enfor.cable agreementrespecting the costs .ss.ciaterl rvith rrairrt.i.ing the Roacl;
3' Iror purposes of this Agreenrent, the phrase "maintenance,, is deerned to includeall costs for labor a.d sttppli", n".".ro,'y for the consrruction, improvement,repair, upgrading,sltow ancl tlebris rentoval, ancl otlterwise nraintai.i,g the Road to the extent necessary for the usethereof fbr purposes oI i.gress ancr egress to each owners, r^",r *iiq,, ,ro p.p"nv,
4' 'l'lrc owrters lrereby agree ancl covenant to share equally, on a pro rata basis in allc<lsts ollhe Roettl's tllaittlcnatrce witlieach subdivided, sel)arately owred parcel of the propertyresponsible lor ouc equal slrare olsuch costs;
5' 'l'lre owners Itrrther agree that any rnaintenance costs shall be cletermined andagreecl upon in writirlg by a nrajority ol'saicl orv,ers p.io. to the incurra.ce of any financialexpencliture or obligatiolt fbr suclt Itoacl maintcnance;
' 6' Prtrsttant to tlte ternrs of this Agreement, il'an owner owns a parcel of land withintlle Property as a lettant in cornttrort or by joinitenancy'with one or more otSer person, saidparcel owners shall appoittt one of their.,unrbcr for p,i.por.. of voting o, whether or not a Road
;;il::""te
cost shall bc incurrecl ancl lbr a.*ecrti,rg o"y opp,orals as tlescribed by paragraph 5
7' All costs associatctl wirh rhe ltoatl which are not within the scope of the tlefinitionol'"t't-tttilttellallce" tttrtler paragraplt 3 lrereol'("arlclitional expenclitrrres,,), sSall not be imposedIlpon any owner willtottt sttclt otvtters' wrirte, consent approving r,,.t-,'u,t,iiiio,rut .*p"nditure;
tl' l)rtt t'itlit itssesstrlcttts lbr thc nrairrterrance costs conternplalecl by this Agreenrentshall be deli'crctl t. tlte otvttcrs rvii, a rcaso,trble tinre alier the cxperrsc is i,currecl;
9 'l-ltc o'''ttc,.s ltliry clt<ltlsc 0nc <ll'tlrc pa[ties t0 tlris Agr.ccnrcnt t() acL in the capacity.l-trlitttaget'' rvlriclr l)cr'lioll slrall bc resPonsiblc lil' arrarrging rrrccti.gs t. rliscrrss Ii.oacltltititttctritrlcc issrtcs c()llll'il(:ls lilr,rairtcnirrrcc lir[r.r's r,ral ,r,,t",.i,rls. irrrl tlcli'cr.irg.nrlc.l Iccti rrg appr.p'iirtc irsscsslr.rcr)rs rrcr.eaacrcr.,
e/be
10. l:lclr Orvnel.lras thc r.igltt arrrl aullror.itl, to ilct o11 bchall.ol.all other Owners toerlir.cc (^e tlrrtics irrrtr ollrigari,lrs hertli. rrcscrirrctr,
I l lt is lltc ittlctttirltl ol'rhc ltartics lrcrct. rlrat thc provisio.s oItlre Agr.ee,re,t ru,with tlte lattcls cttc.tttpitssetl by the l)r<lPerty aucl.llral trre Agree,ren[ lre trincring upo, a,cr inure totlte benellt ol'all Ircirs, sl'lcccssors anrl assigrrs ol'any lantl wirhin t5e properry;
l2' 'l'lris.greerttertt sltall rettraitr i, lirll lbrcc a,cr efi'ect Ibr a periocl of twenty (20)years colll,tencirtg,s of the tlate of lhis Agreer,eur. uuless earlier ternrinated by writte.agreenterrt of'the rtra.iority ol'tlte owtters, wlrich written termi,atio, og...n-,.nirha, be duryexecutecl ancl recorclecl i. lhe lartcl reco.ls ol'Garllelcr county, coloraclo, ancl which writtenagreeent sltall rltllc'wose provitle lbr rhc conrinues maintenance of rhe Roarl;
l3' 'l'lris Agreenlent shall be governcd by ancl constrtrctecl in accordance with thelaws ol' the State ol'C.olora<lo;
l4' Irt tlte event tltat it beconres neccssary lbrany indivicloal, ownerorgroup ofowners to retairl legal cottrlsel i. orcler to- enforce tlie provisions hereof, saicl person shall be
;'.:l*,"#;:l'iT:::ffr;t ol'all reasonitble legat l'ccs u,,,t *rt, i.currecras, ,l.s.,rt ora parry,s
l5' 'fhis Agreement represents the entire agreement among the parties hereto and allotlter agreenrents' wltetlter oritl or writterr, pertaini.g Jxclusively ro tlre subject nratter
'ereof
arehereby mergecl into this Agreernent;
Now TIIIIRIIFoRII' i^ co.sitleration of the,rutual promises, terms, co.ditions and covenantsset fbrlh herein' antl of'the irlcliviclrtal a,cl nrutual benefits a,d detriments hereunderarisi,g, andother good ancl valuitble co,sideration, rhe receipt un,r ,..,rri.i"il;r;;;r";:;ro*ledged, theOwners have set rheir hands to rhis Agreenrcnt this _clay ol. ,1995.
'/, /D
-.t,'(- 'L//t! //;..',,L'1-'l
arren Jg , Owrtcr
(
/7-
-=-=_=U***r-E-*r,r*,==_-l}1 (a *-r__) _ \)_q.V\^_r
Diirnc llarly. orvrrcr --f
Abel Nrrnez,Ou,ncr'
Victoria A. Ntrnez. Orvner
I-arry D.'l'iliarry, (\";--
Patricia A.'fiff,rny. Owner
State o1'
)
)
County of'
,
Tlre ibregoi,g irst^rnlcnt was acknowrerrgetr belore ntctrtis.,,// y'
cray of(/ror, / , 1995, by Warrcn .lovcll.
\\'itness nty lranrl anrl oflicial seal.
My comn,ission exl,ires: r"nEEHffiEUgU
r) 'l'he fbreg.i,g i,st.r*e,t was ack.owrerrgerr befloreJ+rL?_, t99.5. try (Jlori, .tcrvcil.
wit*ess tuv lta.cl
"'lil. :l"t'ilr\pcorururrssroN EXpTRES:itlv cornrnission ex;.rir.es: ER26, lggg
Z':'::;.ffifu_
.."''l'lre. rbrc-ur i rr q i rrst.r r.rc,t \\,irs .c k rr.rvr crr gerr rle rilr.eL-ett.,/_ .., l99j lry r\rrgrrsl (j.,lcrvcll.
)
)
)
)
rne tltis;fu 4
clay of
ntc tlris#z
/8-
"/rlay ol'
Witncss ln1, lrarrtl rrnrl ol'ljcial scal
M1, conrnrissiorr cxpi r cs:
Witness rny hancl and oll'icial seal.
My commission expires: MY COMMISSTON EXpIRES:
SEPTEMBER 26, 1 998
State ol' _1/ *, ...,( J )
('otrrrry "t1_itt f *I1_ )
.1- . 'l'lre. lbrcg.i,g inst.u.rcrr was ack,.rvlcrlgetl lrelbre nrc thisL+4-L_, t995 lry Atbcrtir .tcrvctt.
4i,, . |7 /,-{
ota11,Prrblic
S/];- clay of -)
State of
County o,
a^ _The foregoi.g inst.rment was ackrowledged berore nre trris"rY , 1995 by.larncs llarry.
l'*day of
Witness my hantl and olllcial seal
My cornmission expires: t tlU le V
State of'--__ _Q:!rr:.t" )
Cirrrnty of _Gr^,{.zlA_ )
'fhe fbregoi.g i.st'unrent was ack,owleclge before me rhis | 5-(
Aa'/-,-it"e;,,, nrianc ll:rrr1,.
Wi!ncss nrl, halt<l an<l oflicial s,ral
lr.,ly co.rri-rrission expirrt, ttf ,tlO6
Snrc of (. et.,n b__ )
Cotinty of_ fq, C'4{_ )
'l-he loregoi.g i.strur,cr)t was .ck.owlerlgecl belbre ,ie tlris
_,1995 [ry Ahcl Nrrncz.
Wiluess rtry lranrl anrl ol'ljciirl scll
My conrruission cx;li r.cs:
)
day of
12 l?-
Ntltat'1, l)trltlic
day of
t
'l'lre lbregoirrg irrstru.re.t w.s ack,owrecrgerr betbre me trris
-,
199-5 tly Larry l). T'iff:rny.
------"'-''b"\r r/utt'rtv- "rv !rrrJ.<.- day of
Wilness nry lrantl ancl olllcial seal
My cornnrission expircs:
Slirtc rtl'
t orrrrtl,rll
)
__, 1995 by Vic(rlr.i:r A. Nurrcz.
Witness niy lratrtl anrl olJjcial scal
My courntission exlli res:
Statc ol'
County o['
Slate ol'
County ol
'[-lre litrcgoirrg irrstnrnrel)t wils acl<norvleclgerl beliore rtre thirs clay of
Notary Public
Notary Public
Notary Public
)
)
'l''e lbregoi.g inst^rnre.f w,s ackrrowreagea befirre nre trris cray of, 1995 by I,atricia A. .l.it.f:rny.
Witness rny hantl ancl olllcial sealMy cornnrission expircs:
- e0-
)
)
t i r rltilr! i
il (.J :.t .l l-! r..- :. i... t' l. i..i t- .t r. I f I ; i r- ._i r.: t- :; ...J, ii r
l.t..t, :.r;j: i:rl)l:rr,^,rt! 1:)tt i.iii..t i:ltt1...tr*r :;
1..r.)ilrir.::)tt )r ':-; i- t.,il1-' i'.i'..r " .1. i-..i.. l. Hr.i
'1.. iii.-. r.-. i i'.it-!,. ,iri(.i l..ii':i_,:.tt rJt:r I i
i.l t::r , ..;, ;' .:i 1;;1 );11 Lr +:: .i ri il L fl l:ii r-: r- t_ r r_r rtir..,:: iJL.::i t- i:.rJ i: Ite: o t.h i::' , l"l ,
I i i.:r i.r i:J I L. i'i'.li;'.i
.i,i:r .i,) t ,:;.,r.i,. ,:ii;i, iill.:, :1:,iI ctrn(i
t..I r r:: l r a r" i I !.) r.l',, r:,r .i. c:r ;.:r nr e: n i:
'i r:r r- r- ii c: r::) r- i.i .1. n 1- l'r r: n i' i' i r:: r* i:-r T
[:i.,rr- i':i.e i ri {.-)p1.r 11 [_ r, _i.,-\ [ir:c:lrm*n t.:;ltrr Inr.rn::lrrl;: ii i]nr_ti._lr* [i:+.n,Jre
[:r.ritfr,i r rr
-2l-
/)J
t',1
.,,
fv
Ll
6
flrxjllt I AC'iE il1./;)
Iti^Cl 2r
ACNES
I2
?.5 F.t.
/\ '')JT
s.s silr
t1
N 4 ACmS
-"'-rn^cT 2t
t'3 I4
2.5 F.t. , 6 !ilI project
4 Silt Project
2 F.t.
sEl /4t.w t/4!El/4
.,,_--- - -/.1.,. . ..1 _.=._ _. _/ . . i.,.\.,l I t-r
:':\1
t-. I t
.r{tt : \\\\
a\
SEt,/4SEl/4rMl/1 : : -.
:LS ARE LOTS
lrnrD Sr.oolvlsl
ProJect
B F.I.
ASDMENT
2.5 F.l.
44
5.5.Stlt Project
F.I.
53
Si I t Projec
t5
)
2.5
5.5
52
6(Z
UNDIR CONIRACT
62
UNOER CONTR^CT
Ll5
2.5 F.t.
I 511t ProJect
5 F.I.
4 5l I t
5
Proj ec t
I
ROAOS
e ,lata(c1 -
61 EXI.IIBIT B
...ROAD.
February 7, 1995
LaPrieI McPherson Arnrijo
O475 County Roacl ];1761
Gl-enwood Springs, CO 8160I
GarfieJ-d County PJ-anning Comnrission
109 8th Street
Gfenwood Springs, CO 81601
To Whom It May Concern:
Shawn and Barbara McEIroy have brought to my attention
that their neighbor Mr. Barry has requested that a county
approval be glven to split his 10 acre parcel into two (21
five acre parcels.
The McElroy property and tl're Barry
the ofd Antlers Orchard Subdivislon
falls under this Subdivision. The
property and the Barry property is
acre tracts.
property are part of
. Much of SiIt Mesa
area that the McElroy
l-ocated consi-sts of 10
I am concerned that if Mr. Barry is given an approval to
spJ-it his property a precedence woul-d be set. How many
other people wil-I want to split their 10 acre tracts into
Lwo (2) five acre tracts? I do not feel t.hat these
proposals shoul-d be approved since the homes will be on
individual wel}s and sepLics. I do not fee] that the
water aquifer on Sil-t Mesa can support all- these wells if
this precedence is seL.
truly yours,
*l n"
LbPrief McPherson Armi
Very
t9S-
Planning Department
Garfield County
January 30, 1995
Subject: Opposition to DEER CREST ORGHARD SUBDIVISION
This letter documents our objection to the proposed subdivision as outlined
by public notice. We object for the following reasons.
1) One of the maln reasons we selected our tract ln this area for our
homesite was exactly because the minimum size was ten acres and that there
would only be limited number of homesites available. These sltes were, in fact,
advertised as "Mini-Farm and Ranch sites" on "ten acre tracts"and under that
premlse justifled the asking price.We belleve if the Barry's wanted less than ten
acres then they should not have purchased property in an area clearly being sold
as such.
2) Our second concern Is the precedent this subdlvislon into five acres
would set for the future. lf approved, we fear other owners might do the same and
further subdivlons would ultlmately follow whlch would put a straln on a utility grld
and private road designed for a smaller number of homesites.
3) Finally, as one of the first owners to start construction, we have invested
considerable tlme, money, and effort to develop thls raw land lnto a suitable
homesite. Starting from scratch, it was necessary to organize a homeowners
assoclation to share the extremely hlgh cost of bringing in utllltles, maklng
required improvements to the private road and formulating a private road
maintenance agreement. Unfortunately, this proposed subdivision has already
hampered this effort. We have been unable to get the two owners of the proposed
subdivision to either sign the Private Road Maintenance agreement or pay the
same fair share as tlre other owners for utilities or road improvement. Obviously
two homesites instead of one will lncrease both the traffic on the private road and
the draw on a utility grid designed for fewer homes.
Therefore, we urge you to not grant approval for this proposed subdivision.
Thank you for the opportunlty to express our views.
Sincerelv.
Slr--.-- ltnvrc- Sr*
6^Zo-*-t' /1"-'12
-4{-
r'iiii