HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.01 AddendumADDENDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FI2()IVI: Eric McCafferty, Planning Department
SUBJECT: IVlangurian Subdivision Exemption
DATE: 11 March, 1997
The Board originally heard this application on 21 February, 1996, at which time the Board granted
conditional approval to the petition, consistent with stall's recommendation that only one (1) lot be
created. ("Phis recommendation was based on research that demonstrated three (3) exemption parcels
had previously been created) One of the conditions attached to the approval was that the exemption
parcel be ofa size between 4.0 acres and 5.0 acres. See meeting minutes, pages A'15. . The
Planning Department sent the applicant's attorney a letter that listed the conditions upon which the
approval was premised, clearly indicating the requirement regarding the size of the exemption parcel.
See letter, pages r_ Sr
1, personally, ha(1 no more (IISCIISSIOn with the applicant o1" his attorney regarding this matter, until
the Planning Department received the exemption plat. The plat shows the approved exemption
parcel; however, the size of the parcel has been increased to approximately 11.7 acres. Discussions
with the County Attorney concluded with the opinion that this amendment should be considered in
a public meeting setting, pursuant to the subdivision exemption notification requirements.
In short, as long as the applicant is required to adhere to the original conditions of approval, and any
other conditions the Board may (teem necessary, staff approves of this amendment, due to the opinion
that the larger lot size would not be out of character with the surrounding area.
Attached to this Addendum is the original stall'report liom the meeting of 21 February, 1996.
241 10. That the State Engineers office approve the well permit application for expanded use of
242 existing well and Basalt Water Conservancy District contract be approved for
243 augmentation water prior to the authorization of exemption plat.'
244 11. All lots be in compliance with Section 5.04.02 as pertains to slope.
245 12. Impact fee of $235.00 paid to the Carbondale Fire District and a letter stating this
246 exemption is within their fire district.
247
248 A motion was made by Commissioner Arbaney and seconded by Commissioner Mackley to
249 approve an exemption from the definition of subdivision for Elaine Bertholf for a tract of land
250 located approximately one (1) mile north of Cattle Creek along CR 114 to divide, by exemption,
251 the 6.69 acre property into two (2) parcels of 3.4 and 3.3 acres each as described in the staff
252 packet along with major issues and concerns, suggested findings, recommendations and add 1110
253 - legal water supply; #11 - less than 40% slope; and 1112 fire district impact fees of $235.00 and a
254 letter stating this exemption is in the Carbondale Fire District as read into the record. Carried.
255
256 Executive Session - Cedar Hills Subdivision Legal Mailers
258 A motion was made by Commissioner Mackley and seconded by Commissioner Arbaney to go
259 into Executive Session to discuss the Cedar hills legal matters. Carried.
2�� A motion was made by Commissioner Arbaney and seconded by Commissioner Mackley to
262 come out of Executive Session. Carried.
263 PUBLIC MEETING - SB 35 SUBDlYIS1QN_EXEMPTION - LOCATED APPROXIMATELY TWO (21
264 MILES EAST OF SILT APPLICANT• TAMERMILIELIQE
265 Eric McCafferty, Don DeFord, Walt Brown and Sherry Caloia were present. Don determined
266 adequate notice and publication was given and the Board was entitled to proceed.
267
268 Eric McCafferty presenting: Staff recommended the public meeting be continued due to allow
269 the petitioner time to complete the water supply information, which shall include a favorable
270 decree from the State Eng1 peer's Office, if necessary, and the issuance of West Divide water
271 contracts for augmentatio►water.
272
273 A motion was made by Commissioner Arbaney and seconded by Commissioner Mackley to
274 continue the Public Meeting until 2:30 P.M. on May 13th for Tamera Duplice. Carried.
275
276 PUBLIC MEETING - SB 35 SUB_DAY151Q EMPTION - LQQAI.EDAPPROXIMATELY THREE (31
277 MILES NORTH OF RIFLE APPLICANT: MANGURIAN PARTNER5141E
218 Eric McCafferty, Don DeFord, and Attorney John Schenk representing the Mangurian
279 Partnership were present. Don determined adequate notice and publication was given and the
280 Board was entitled to continue.
282 Randy and Jerry Duran appeared before the Commissioners. John Schenk verified a letter had281
283 been sent to a Woody Creek address obtained from the Assessor's office tax notice records.
284 Don stated the address required to send public notice was required to be from the Assessor's
285 office or the Clerk and Recorder's Office. Therefore, following standard practice, the notice was
286 accepted as valid to the address shown in the Assessor's Office.
287
288 Eric McCafferty presenting: This is a request for an exemption from the definition of
289 subdivision on a tract of 81.7 acres of land located approximately 3.5 miles north of Rifle,
290 immediately north of CR 251 (North TIasse Lane). The applicants propose to divide, by
291 exemption, the 81.7 acre tract into four (4) parcels. Three (3) of these parcels would be
292 approximately 3.9 acres and the remaining parcel would consist of the remaining 70 acres. The
293 three (3) smaller lots would be aligned in a linear fashion along CR 251 and the 70 acre parcel
294 would be located directly north of the smaller lots.
295 .,
296 Recommendations:
297 Staff recommends APPROVAL of the application for one (1) parcel, to be decided upon by the
299 applicant, pursuant to the listed conditions:�
1
301 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
302 meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of
303 approval.
304 2. A Final Exemption Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the
305 property, dimension and area of three proposed lots, access to a public right -of way, and
306 any proposed easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities.
307 3. That the applicant shall have 120 days to present a plat to the Commissioners for
308 signature, from the date of approval of the exemption. The Board may grant extensions
309 of up to one (1) year from the original date of approval.
310 4. That the applicant shall submit $200.00, per lot, in School Impact Fees for the creation of
311 all exemption parcels.
312 5. That the following plat notes be included:
313 "The minimum defensible space distance shall be 30 feet on level terrain , plus
314 appropriate modification to recognize the increased rate of fire spread at sloped sites. The
315 methodology described in "Determining Safety Zone Dimensions, Wildfire Safety
316 Guidelines for Rural I-Iomeowners," (Colorado State Forest Service) shall be used to
317 determine defensible space requirements for the required defensible space within building
318 envelopes in areas exceeding five (5) percent grade."
319 6. The control of noxious weeds shall be the responsibility of the landowner.
320 7. The applicant shall receive any necessary driveway permits, for each lot created, from the
321 County Road and Bridge Department, prior to signing of an exemption plat.
322 8. That, if the water supply is to be shared, the applicant shall demonstrate that an adequate
323 supply in both quantity and quality exists for the lots to be created. Criteria for
324 demonstrating the quality, quantity and dependability of a well or a shared well system:
325 • a) A well be drilled and a 4 hour pump test shall be performed.
326 • b) The applicant supply, to the Planning Department, the well completion report
327 demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the static water
328 level;
329 • c) The results of the 4 hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute
330 and information showing drawdown and recharge shall be submitted to the Planning
331 Department;
332 • d) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well would be
333 adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots and be submitted to the Planning
334 Department;11
335 • e) An assumption oPtan average of no less that 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100
336 gallons of water per person, per day;
,• 337 • I) If the well is to be shared, the provision for individual water storage tanks of no less
i"' 338 that 1000 gallons for each proposed lot (required at time of building permit application);
339 • g) A discussion of the mechanical components of the shared well system to include the
340 pump, water supply line, storage tank and other components (for shared well systems);
341 • h) A legal, well sharing agreement which discusses all easements and costs associated
342 with the operation and maintenance of the system and who will he responsible for paying
343 these costs and how assessments will be made (for shared well systems);
344 • i) The water quality be tested by an approved testing laboratory and meet State
345 guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates.
346 Comments from the audience:
347 Robert Caliva - read letter into the record. I le stated he was one of the owners adjacent to the
348 property that is being proposed. ""I'his property is being subdivided for residential use. The
349 trend of the converting of agricultural property into residential is relentless, and is alarming and
350 is recognized by the Governor as a major problem plaguing Colorado. Considering the whole of
351 society, the land in question is better suited for other purposes than residential and is therefore
352 not a good candidate for conversion. We must exercise the foresight to preserve agricultural land
353 in such cases as this. If not, again, at the end of this year, tens of thousands of more acres of
354 prime farm land will be everlastingly lost from production and as habitat for wild creatures. We
355 all recognize the problem confronting human society and Garfield County in particular in loss of
356 open space and -agricultural land. Human population is growing out of poor planning and
357 seeming each insignificant choices that individuals make to break tracts into smaller
358 fragmehtations paint us and all other creatures little by little into a corner. The problem and its
359 causes are enormous. If we recognize the cause we must inform and influence each of the
360 choices that contribute to the whole of the problem. Otherwise we will keep heading along the
4
•
361 same path and end up in the degradation none of us want. I oppose this subdivision because it
362 will contribute to the fragmentation and the loss of viable land, diminish the ability of future
363 generations to provide for themselves and injured wildlife. If proceeds from the subdivision of
364 this land were necessary to sustain the petitioners then it would be at least a debatable league. In
365 this instance, need does not exist while the ability to subdivide is inevitable according to State
366 law and County regulations. This case highlights the conflict between the division of the County
367 and body and its Comprehensive Plan and the unintended negative effect made possible by
368 County regulations. I urge the petitioners to withdraw this application if the petitioner is
369 unwilling then I urge the County Commissioners not to grant approval and to change the
370 regulations to conform and to support the comprehensive plan." Now this is a letter I am reading
371 in part from John Powers who wasn't able to be here. And I think most of the property owners
372 that are involved agree with this. In addition, I would like to point out one other point that I
373 think we should address which the petitioner has stated, it the size of the proposed parcels are
374 similar to those in the area. This is quite true but not entirely, the smaller pieces that we are
375 referring to are up against the hillside. They are not farmable; they are not applicable to good
376 farming. Other than this, that is my point.
377 Randy Duran - basically the letter read from John Powers, we concur with the contents of that
378 letter, it succinctly represents exactly the way that we feel regarding construction of the
379 environmental situation for all the wildlife that is in there. We personally moved from a bustling
380 metropolis of Denver 12 years ago to come to the Western Slope to yes, have good neighbors and
381 to enjoy all the wonderful things that God has given to us. This is a real nice situation and the
382 letter goes along with our frame of mind. My wife and I concur with the letter and ask the
383 Commissioners to deny the proposal for the fragmentation of the land.
384 Ann Catherine Robinson - I managed Mr. Mangurian's Ranch about three years ago or so for
385 about 2 1/2 years and 1 was very proud of putting that 82 acres, which is really between tho-
•
386 beautiful creek and wildlife habitat and the neighbor's sense and the highway, a beautiful 68
387 acres of brand new alfalfa field. And there is a lot of places in this county that can't raise a thing.
388 And I don't think - we all need besides people - they need to live somewhere - but that's is true it
389 is just a big flat alfalfa field. It's only in its third year of production and it was superb. Mr.
390 Gentry who leases it now said Cal, we should have put more seeds in it, cause then he would
391 have had a bigger crop. But it is a good alfalfa field and I think it ought to stay that way.
392 Mike Johnson -I bought the little portion of the farm or ranch from the Mangurian Partnership
393 back in 1993 with an understanding that this parcel we are,discussing today and the one next to
394 the golf course would be n ade available to me at some future point which so far has not
395 transpired, so at this pointe don't want to risk alienating anyone although I do oppose
396 subdividing this property and I think there could be a solution in that if the original* agreement
397 that I reached were lived up to then we could keep this place as a agricultural area instead of a
398 sub -division. And I am a full time resident at that address.
399 Randy Duran - to correct Mr. Schenk, we do not have 105 acres of property personally , it's Mr.
400 Johnson - we only have 30 acres.
401 Mr. Schenk - Mr. Johnson, I have to make this record clear right now because I handled both
402 contracts and I just supposed the names and I apologize for that, you say you have a right of first
403 refusal of this ground?
404 Mike Johnson - well I had an agreement with him on a price and whether you want to look at that
405 as a right of first refusal to me it was an oral option - not a written option. And it was witnessed
406 by the Realtor whose name is Rudy Steele.
407 Mr. Schenk - but this is a legal issue that I want to make real clear in this record .... you have no
408 written right of first refusal... it was just a general discussion...
409 Mike Johnson - no, it was more than just a general discussion, it was hart of the negotiations in
410 buying the property. And at one point it was revived and - the property was offered to me, but it
411 was offered to me at a different price than this oral option.
412 John Schenk - you are still al this address
413 Mike Johnson - it's 2384 Hwy. 325.
414 John Schenk- because if you claim that right, we have to resolve that and I just want to contact
415 you on that directly. I just want to make it clear of the record that no right of first refusal exists
416 in the general discussions, but whatever this tape is used for, if it could be used for any kind of
417 evidence for that fact, that we will absolutely inequitably refute that. And put that in the record,
418 the property was sold, it was sold at arm's length and we're happy to sell it and it was a fine
t....i ,t..,e ...�� tL•r rvirnt of it and to cnvr,Pst that this nronerty teas an option is snnn v
421 you purchased your properly also from Mr. Mangurian in 1992 and you purchased the acreage
422 that you described, 30 acres thereabouts you say. And you didn't get any promises from Mr.
423 Mangurian as to what he would dd with the rest of his land in that transaction? -
424 Randy Duran - no
425 Ms. Robinson - you still have a subdivision and you did not get any sort of promises from Mr.
426 Mangurian with what he'd do with the rest of his land in that transaction did you?
427 Ms. Robinson - no, not at all.
428 John Schenk - you have a subdivision that lies just east of the Rifle Creek in this area?
429 Ms. Robinson - yes
430 John Schenk - and how many lots do you have in that subdivision?
431 Ms. Robinson - sixteen
432 Mr. Schenk - and that's still a viable subdivision?
433 Ms. Robinson - yes; approved; recorded.
434 Mr. Schenk - there is a certain land configuration there that is suggested It is this nice rural area.
435 If the land was left as agricultural land, none of these folks would have their houses to live in
436 because they were all broke out of the big ranches that were there. I looked at the abstract, Mr.
437 Mangurian has held his pieces together in fact the piece that the Duran's own was formerly
438 owned by Mrs. Robinson that was sold by an intermediate interest along the way and was a part
439 of the original ranch. Mr. Mangurian has been a steward o the land in the sense he hired Ms.
440 Robinson and she's right, it was put into alfalfa, now steril ze it for any other development and
441 make it open space for everyone else. Mr. Mangurian ma not have the financial need, but Mr.
442 Caliva's suggestion that somehow or another one's need fo money makes a difference ought not
443 to enter into anybody's discussion or considerations. It is nteresting to note that Mr. Hennings
444 lot, who is not here, (Ms. Robinson's brother has a small 1 t just adjacent to this) has a very nice
445 attractive house and I don't think there going to be a whol-sale degradation of the land or its -
446 agridultural by values by this one small lot here and woul ask the Commissioners to approve the
447 single lot.
+--> 448 Chairman Smith - John, just so I am clear in my mind, in.tead of the map we have in front of us,
449 you are essentially just asking for one exemption.
450 John Schenk - yes and I would assume it would be lot thr e but I don't want to preclude a right to
451 expand that or change the configuration - the lot would b- along that south line, it would not
452 move north, it would be somewhere along the road.
453 Chairman Smith - I don't know if everybody realizes that this is what, instead of four he is just
454 asking for one that he has changed.
455 Mike Johnson- we also have not seen what the configura
456 John Schenk - explained and showed the map and fully e
457 that they had submitted for three lots. I would argue that
458 bigger pieces and non-exem t. The issue was clarified a
459 This property is along the rod. Ile further stated no one
460 agricultural argument, but they would not agree either.
461 Randy Duran - should this be approved, how much prec dence will this set to one -two -three
462 years down the road that the same thing comes in and w 're be doing this again?
463 John Schenk - explained that the County is attempting to change this.
464 Chairman Smith - you might explain where we are but tt at we haven't got it done yet.
465 John Schenk - right, the County Commissioners are in tie process right now of reviewing the
466.entire exemption process.
467 Randy Duran - we'd sure like you to go back to the com rehensive plan.
468 John Schenk - even if an exemption occurs it does not preclude full subdivision in the future, but
469 that is a different, more extended public hearings and that type of things; but in terms of
470 exemptions, this is probably the end of the line for this type of parcel.
471 Commissioner Mackley - the current type of Comprehe sive Plan we are working on is for two
472 acre - the zoning is for two acre hots in this entire area.
473 John Schenk - 81 is the entire parcel site and this propo al cuts ....it to 3.9 acre minimum
474 Don DeFord - can you represent a size limitation
475 John Schenk - 3.9 acre minimum - the one lot, lot num er 3 - it may be bigger, but no one has
476 ever objected to a bigger lot. -
477 ??? - How about a maximum - ans. - 10 acres.
478 Don DeFord - in terms of the letter we received from t e Words, can you explain for the record
_that because the letter i§ bf reco 1.
ort is of any of the lots.
planned the proposal. He explained
the County has approved exempt lots in
out the way the parcel will be divided.
disagrees with the view held on the
1
481 Don DeFord - oh, I didn't see your letter. all right, this - I would suggest the representation of
482 Mr. Schenk in his letter dated February 20, 1996 also be made a condition of approval for the
483 reason that when we have an exemption plat we won't have a dispute relative tothe boundary
484 lines on the plat.
485 John Schenk no problem.
486 Commissioner Mackley - what vZe have to look at is that it qualifies under the current regulation.
487 Eric McCafferty - yes, it does appear to qualify for one lot. Since there was so much discussion,
488 this is a discretionary process, whether all the criteria is met or not, the Board does not
489 necessarily have to approve.
490 Commissioner Arbaney - you don't have to approve, but it has met all the regulations.
so believe in
491 and
oly, I don't
t have certain rights ant to break up agricultural
happens to bel a portion of h,isoperty rights, aslts
much
492 and owners of property
493 as it disagrees with my own personal philosophy.
ht to
ell if we can't
go
494 Ranabout
t DThat'slthe nextgree, qhas uestion. rEverybody's heard chop chop him
cl froit. How m
break the land, take my
495 about it. Ilia 9
496 money and leave.
497 Chairman Smith - back here to the Fire Protection letter from Mike Morgan - does he have a
498 water supply out of Rifle Creek so he could put in a dry hydrant?
499 John Schenk - no, just irrigation rights so we would like to see that particular aspect not a part of
500 it because that is not going to help anybody. The house will be no different from any other house
501 out there from the standpoint of a dry hydrant.
502
503 Discussion ensued about the issue of fire protection and the cooperation of homeowners in the
504 immediate area.
506 Randy Duran - subject to his speaking to an attorney, however, he will talk to Mike Morgan
505
507 about a dry hydrant.
508 Commissioner Arbaney - I would like to see it. stay at 4 - 5 acres.
509 John Schenk - That's okay.
510
511 A motion was made by Commissioner Arbaney and seconded by Commissioner Mackley to
512 approve an exemption from the definition of subdivision on a 81.7 acre tract of land located
513 approximately 3.5 miles north of Rifle; immediately north of CR 251 (North Hasse Lane) for
514 only one lot size with a maximum of 4 - 5 acres in size as per the description as included in the
515 staff packet, with all major issues and concerns, suggested findings, recommendations, and
516 conditions adding: 1110 - the applicant shall receive an approved well permit from the State
517 Engineer's Office prior to pre -authorization of plat; # 11 - approved lot would be between the size
518 of 4 acres - 5 acres;1112 - the letter from Mr. Schenk dated 2/20/96 and all provisions of the letter
519 shall be conditions of approval which shall be met prior to authorization and issue of plat; # 13
520 to work with best efforts with the Fire Department on the installation of a dry hydrant.
521
522 Discussion included: R Cy& D will install and will cooperate with fire districts with special
523 rates. John Schenk is to call Mike Morgan and work with him on this. A wild guess of less that
524 $500 cost. Motion carried.
525
526 Executive Session - Consent Decree and Article in Newspaper
528 A motion was made by Commissioner Arbaney and seconded by Commissioner Mackley to go
529 into Executive Session to discuss the Consent Decree. Carried.
530
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Arbaney and seconded by Commissioner Mackley to
53
532 come out of Executive Session. Carried.
533
534
535
536 WIN
538
szn
•
•
GARFIELD CO UNT Y
Building and Planning
February 22, 1996
Mr. John Schenk
Schenk, Kerst & deWinter, P.C.
302 Eighth Street, Suite 310
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Mangurian Partnership Subdivision Exemption
Dear John,
On Wednesday, February 21, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners conditionally approved your
client's petition for an exemption from the definition of subdivision for one (1) additional lot. The
conditions which must be satisfied prior to the authorization of an exemption plat are as follows:
I. That all representations oldie applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting
before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval.
2. A Final Exemption Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the property,
dimension and area of the proposed lots, access to a public right-of-way, and any proposed
easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities.
3 That the applicant shall have 120 days to present a plat to the Commissioners for signature,
from the date of approval of the exemption. The Board may grant extensions of up to one
(1) year from the original date of approval.
4. That the applicant shall submit $200.00, per lot, in School Impact Fees for the creation of
all exemption parcels.
5. That the following plat notes be included:
"The minimum defensible space distance shall be 30 feet on level terrain, plus appropriate
modification to recognize the increased rate of fire spread at sloped sites. The methodology
described in "Determining Safety Zone Dimensions, Wildfire Safety Guidelines for Rural
1 lomeowners," (Colorado State Forest Service) shall be used to determine defensible space
requirements for the required defensible space within building envelopes in areas exceeding
five (5) percent grade."
"Upon adoption of road impact lees by the Board of County Commissioners, the lots created
by this exemption shall be subject to paying the fees, paid at time of building permit
application, paid by the building permit applicant."
"This exemption was approved based on the use of a central well and shared water system.
109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
There is no assumption that a household use only well will be a dependable water supply.
Any purchaser of a parcel of land that was created by this exemption reserves the right to use
the proposed central water supply.
"The shared well system approved for this exemption requires either an individual water
storage tank, minimum capacity of 1000 gallons, be installed at each lot or a central storage
tank, the sizing shall be a minimum of 1000 gallons per lot created and served by the central
water system. This shall be done at time of building permit application at the expense of the
building permit applicant."
6. The control of noxious weeds shall be the responsibility of the landowner.
7. The applicant shall receive any necessary driveway permits, for each lot created, from the
County Road and Bridge Department, prior to signing of an exemption plat.
8. That, if the water supply is to be shared, the applicant shall demonstrate that an adequate
supply in both quantity and quality exists for the lots to be created. Criteria for demonstrating
the quality, quantity and dependability of a well or a shared well system:
a) A well be drilled and a 4 hour pump test shall be performed;
b) The applicant supply, to the Planning Department, the well completion report
demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the static
water level;
c) The results of the 4 hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute
and infbrmation showing drawdown and recharge shall be submitted to the Planning
Department;
d) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well would be
adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots and be submitted to the
Planning Department;
e) An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100
gallons.pf water per person, per day;
i)
lithe well is to be shared, the provision for individual water storage tanks of no less
than 1000 gallons for each proposed lot (required at time of building permit
application);
g) A discussion of the mechanical components of the shared well system to include the
pump, water supply line, storage tank and other components (for shared well
systems);
h) A legal, well sharing agreement which discusses all easements and costs associated
with the operation and maintenance of the system and who will be responsible for
paying these costs and how assessments will be made (for shared well systems);
i) The water quality be tested by an approved testing laboratory and meet State
guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates.
9. That the applicant shall receive an approved well permit from the State Engineers' Office prior
to the authorization of an exemption plat.
,.
7,
10. That the proposed exemption parcel shall be of a size between 4.0 and 5.0 acres.
11. That the letter from Mr. Schenk to Dr. and Mrs. Word, dated 2/20/96, and all provisions of
said letter shall be considered conditions of approval which shall be ►net prior to the
authorization of an exemption plat.
12. That the applicant or his representative will consult with the Rifle Fire Protection District to
discuss the feasibility of meeting said District's recommendations regarding this petition.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Eric D. McCafferty
Garfield County Planner
BOCC 2/21/96
PROJECT INFORMATION ANI) STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: An exemption from the definition of
subdivision.
APPLICANT: Mangurian Partnership
LOCA'1II Ni
A tract of land located within Section 19, TSS,
R92W of the 6th P.M.; located approximately
3.5 miles nortlt of Rifle; immediately north of
CR 251 (North Hasse Lane).
SITE UA'1'A1 81.7 Acres
WK Elis Shared well
Malt Individual sewage disposal systems
ACCESS; Direct access to CR 251; easements •
EXISTING ZONING.;. A/R/RI)
ADJACENT 1ON_11` Gt A/R/RD
1. IiELA'TIONSIIIP'1'0ii1J COMI'REIIENSIVE PLAN
1l.
The subject property is located within District D - Rural Areas/Moderate Environmental
Constraints, as designated by the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's Management
Districts Map.
L)ESCRI '•T O(2E "TIE PROPOSAL
A. Ske_Descrijtion. This 81.7 acre tract is located approximately 3.5 miles north of
Rifle, east of State Road 325 and north of County Road 251 (North Hasse Lane).
The tract slopes gently to the south and currently appears to be an agricultural parcel.
An irrigation ditch transects the center of the tract and Rifle Creek creates the western
property line, more or less. See vicinity map, page •
B. Adjacent Land Uses: There are a number of different land uses adjacent to the
property is question, including; agricultural, single family residential and a platted
subdivision (Rifle Creek Estates).
C. Ptstuosal: The applicant proposes to divide, by exemption, the 81.7 acre tract into
four (4) parcels. Three (3) of these parcels would be approximately 3.9 acres and the
remaining parcel would consist of the remaining 70 acres. The three (3) smaller lots
would be aligned in a linear fashion along CR 251 and the 70 acrearcel would be
located directly north of the smaller lots. See sketch map, page 4 • .
III. MAJOR ISSUES ANL) CONCERNS.
A. SubdixisiQn Regulations: Section 8:52 of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations states that "No more than a total offour (4) Iola., parcels, interests or
dwelling units will be created from any parcel, as that parcel was described in the
records c f the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office on January 1, 1973, and
is not a part of a recorded subdivision; however, any parcel to be divided by
exemption that is split by a public right-of-way (State or Federal highway, Coady
road or railroad) or natural feature, preventing joint use of the proposed tracts, and
the division occurs along the public right-of-way or natural feature, such parcels
thereby created may, in the discretion of the Board, not be considered W have been
created by exemption with regard to the f mr (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit
limitationn otherwise applicable:"
Deeds submitted with the application indicate the petitioner purchased the subject
property alon with other property in the vicinity, in November, 1971. See deeds,
pages 7. tl � _. 1t appears that sometime in 1992, the applicant divided the
original parcel, known as 2127-193-00-033, into three (3) separate parcels. These
three parcels (214, 215 and 216) are legally and physically separate; therefore, it
appears that only one (1) exemption parcel may be created. See Assessor's
information, pages 4
ionittgl. The subject property is located within the A/R/RD zone district, which
mandates a minimum lot size of two (2) acres. All proposed lots are in excess of the
minimum, lot size requirement.
11.
C. Water: The applicant intends to serve the proposed lots willi as s_h ed, exempt,
domestic well, for which an application is attached on pages /60 It will be
necessary to have the permit approved by the State Engineer's Office and to drill and
pump test the well, prior to the authorization of an exemption plat.
D. Sewer/Soils: The applicant intends to serve the parcels with individual sewage
disposal systems as the method for waste water treatment. According to the Soil
Conservation Service, soils on-site are predominantly of the I leldt clay classification
with lesser amounts of Arvada loam. When used for building site development and
placement of ISD systems, these soils have moderate to severe constraints due to high
clay content and slow percolation. Staff recommends the inclusion of a plat note to
address these limitations.
E. Access.; Access to all proposed lots would be via CR 251, an improved, dirt/gravel
road that intersects with State Road 325. The three (3) smaller lots would have direct
frontage along CR 251, and it appears the larger parcel would be accessed by an
easement along the eastern portion of the property. Prom information supplied by
Road and Bridge, it appears only the first 0.50 mile of this road is maintained by the
County, which would encompass the area where the proposed lots would be created.
F. Fire Protection: Included with the application is a letter from the Rifle Fire Protection
Dist►ict that states the subject property is within its emergency services district. In its
letter, the District states it approves this exemption with three (3) recommendations:
the installation of a dry fire hydrant at Rifle Creek; recognizing wildfire mitigation
steps; andt re posting of addresses that can be readily seen from the road. See letter,
page */ - . Staff' does not know how feasible the installation of a dry hydrant
at Rifle Creek would be, but does recognize this procedure as a proactive step in fire
protection. Staff would further recommend a plat note address wildfire mitigation.
G. Easements: Any required easements for drainage, utilities, access, irrigation ditches,
etc., will be required to be shown on the exemption plat.
11. School Impact Fees: The applicant will be required to pay school impact fees of
$200, for each lot created by this exemption.
1.
•
Potential RoadLnpact Fees: Upon adoption of a road impact fee, the Tots created by
this .exemption will be subject to paying that fee; paid at time of building permit
application, paid by the building permit applicant. This provision shall be included as
a plat note.
J. Coinrn rots Received: Staff has received a letter from an affected property owner,
stating a number of reasons the petition should be denied. See letter, pages /9 • .
IV. SUGGEST I) FINJ)INGS
That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before
the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption is in the best
interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of
the citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the application for one (I) parcel, to be decided upon by
the applicant, pursuant to the listed conditions:
I . That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions
of approval.
2. A Final Exemption Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the
property, dimension and area of the proposed lots, access to a public right-of-way,
and any proposed easements for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities.
3. That the applicant shall have 120 days to present a plat to the Commissioners for
signature, from the date of approval of the exemption. The Board may grant
extensions of up to one (1) year from the original date of approval.
4. 'I'liat the applicant shall submit $200.00, per lot, in School Impact Fees for the
creation of all exemption parcels.
5. That the following plat notes be included:
"The minimum defensible space distance shall be 30 feet on level terrain, plus
appropriate modification to recognize the increased rate of fire spread at sloped sites.
The methodology described in "Determining Safety Zone Dimensions, Wildfire Safety
Guidelines for Rural I Iomeowners," (Colorado State Forest Service) shall be used to
determine defensible space requirements for the required defensible space within
building envelopes in areas exceeding five (5) percent grade."
"Upon adoption of road impact fees by the Board of County Commissioners, the lots
created by this exemption shall be subject to paying the fees, paid at time of building
permit application, paid by the building permit applicant."
"This exemption was approved based on the use of a central well and shared water
system. There is no assumption that a household use only well will be a dependable
water supply. Any purchaser of a parcel of land that was created by this exemption
reserves the right to use the proposed central water supply."
"The shared well system approved for this exemption requires either an individual
water storage tank, minimum capacity of 1000 gallons, be installed at each lot or a
central storage tank, the sizing shall be a minimum of 1000 gallons per lot created and
served by the central water system. This shall be done at time of building permit
application at the expense of the building permit applicant:" -•
7. The control of noxious weeds shall be the responsibility of the landowner.
8. The applicant shall receive any necessary driveway permits, for each lot created, from
the County Road and Bridge Department, prior to signing of an exemption plat.
9. That, if the water supply is to be shared, the applicant shall demonstrate that an
adequate supply in both quantity and quality exists for the lots to be created. Criteria
for demonstrating the quality, quantity and dependability of a well or a shared well
system:
a) A well be drilled and a 4 hour pump test shall be performed;
b) The applicant supply, to the Planning Department, the well completion report
demonstrating the depth of the well, the characteristics of the aquifer and the
static water level;
c) The results of the 4 hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per
minute and information showing drawdown and recharge shall be submitted
to the Planning Department;
d) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well would
be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots and be submitted
to the Planning Department;
e) An assumption of an average of no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit,
using 100 gallons of water per person, per day; •
f) If the well is to be shared, the provision for individual water storage tanks of
no less than 1000 gallons for each proposed lot (required at time of building
permit application);
g) A discussion of the mechanical components of the shared well system to
include the pump, water supply line, storage tank and other components (for
shared well systems);
It) A legal, well sharing agreement which discusses all easements and costs
associated with the operation and maintenance of the system and who will be
responsible for paying these costs and how assessments will be made (for
shared well systems);
i) '1•he water quality be tested by an approved testing laboratory and meet State
guidelines concerning bacteria and nitrates.
A/o LPIV($1 1.1_ Bt )1tLaW 9
a� TSE CA/f 4 Piti,") 7AKtEL
v1J \I (111'
IV
1
5769
1,
6884
•
5
•
\
561,n l/ .'\
I M <
55N1%j•;nn
iI`,`
i
)X
X
A.
'86
jr
"RA
"Rl
i4RN6ue,ht.1 sRJs”
UIc,Al►ry 11)14a
z.‘
ivthrotri5"1
5.12 31*
Jl )11,
512 12'
• -
t.,
k )
)
541 91'
.11IYC
4-,
0,
i .005
AgAit4t/PmAt ..719
iTTAT1/1-1
92
R:COP►lEDaT,,1 �pG MILDRE_ ALSDORUL COUNTY 9
FEC N
nj6389 TY CLERK
N
QUIT CLAIM DEED
PIERCE MANGURIAN, for the consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable
consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and quitclaims to MANGURIAN PARTNERSITIP,
whose address is P.O. Box 159, Paonia, CO 81428, the following real property in the County ARFlt3�
of Garfield, State of Colorado, to -wit: 8 1992
'Irdtats Doo, reo
BOCK 836 1'4E153
Township 5 South_ Range 92 West, 6th P M_,
Section 18: S'/2SW'/ (being Lot 4 and SE'/.SW'A), excepting only the surface
estate in the northerly 50 feet thereof as described in that certain
deed recorded in (look 394 at Page 364 of the Garfield County,
Colorado, records;
Section 19: S'AS' NW'/ (being S'/ of Lot 2 and the S' SE'ANW%);
NG'/SWIA; East 3() acres of the SE'/SW'/,; N' NW'/ (being Lot
1 and the NE'/NW'A); N'hS' NW IA (being N'/z of Lot 2 and the
N'/2SE'%NW'A); and a tract of land containing 5.87 acres, more
or less, which is more specifically described as Parcel 3 in that
certain deed to George Christensen recorded July 26, 1966, at
Book 377, Page 547, of the Garfield County, Colorado, records;
and that part of the N' W'W'/zSE'/,SW VI lying easterly of the
centerline of Rifle Creek as described in that certain deed recorded
October 2, 1975, in Book 479 at Page 469 of the Garfield County,
Colorado, records;
"township 5 South, Range 93 West 6th P.M,
Section 24: NE'/,NE'
Together with all ditch and water rights appurtenant to or used in connection with
said land.
Together with a non-exclusive easement for purposes of ingress and egress
twenty (20) feet in width adjacent to and immediately West of the East line of the
S' W' W'/2Sli'/SW% of said Section 19.
EXCEPT' that tract of land and ditch and water rights conveyed to Ann Catherine
Robinson by Executor's and Trustee's Deed dated January 1, 1971, and recorded
January 28, 1971, at Book 416, Page 445, of the records of the Clerk and
Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado.
ANI) EXCEPT' that tract of land situated in Lot 4 and the SE'/.SW'/. of Section
19, Township 5 South, Range 92 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Garfield
County, Colorado, lying Northerly of the Northerly right of way line of County
Road No. 251 and Gtsterly of the centerline of Rifle Creek, said parcel of land
bia 836 P:CE1:4
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of said Section 19; whence an iron pipe with
a brass cap, being a reference monument for said corner bears: N. 00°10'00" W.
219.80 feet; thence, from said corner, N. 87°20'25" E. 1335.80 feet to the
intersection point of said centerline creek and said right of way line, the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, along said centerline creek, N. 36°10'00" E.
55.(X) feet; thence N. 26°00'00" E. 60.00 feet; thence S. 83°40'00" E. 80.00
feet; thence No. 59°40'00" E. 35.00 feet; thence No. 02°30'00" E. 35.00 feet;
thence N. 19°45'00" W. 130.00 feet; thence N. 15°08'40" E. 72.48 feet; thence
No. 06°52'30" W. 151.00 feet; thence N. 26°15'00" E. 75.00 feet; thence N.
08°05'00" E. 115.00 feet; thence N. 47°05'00" E. 63.00 feet; thence N.
49°15'00" W. 87.00 feet; thence N. 23°45'00" W. 65.00 feet; thence, leaving
said centerline creek, East 216.29 feet;: thence S. 00°11'42" E. 824.43 feet
(Record S. 00°04'59" E. 825.00 feet) to a point on said right of way line; the►icr:'
S. 89°57'39" W. along said right of way line 351.43 feet to a point in said
centerline creek, the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 3.97 acres,
more or Tess.
AND EXCEPT that tract of land situated in the NE'/ of the NE'/, of Section 24,
Township 5 South, Range 93 West of the 6th P.M., more particularly described
as follows:. `
Beginning at the NW corner of said NE'/, of the NE'/, which is marked by a •
Brass Cap on a steel pipe; thence N. 89°30'34" E. 325.00 feet along the Section
line; thence S 67°46'34" W 351.07 feet to the West line of said NE'/ of the
NE'/ ; thence along said West line, North 130.00 feet to the point of beginning,
containing .485 acre more or Tess.
Signed this 1/ day of ) J-- , 19 yd.
STATE: OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF /,3.4. -LL,
) ss.
GUit!C22(
Pierce Mangur) n
The foregoing quit claim deed was acknowledged before me this
,r f , 19 'J, by Pierce Mangurian.
WITNESS my hand and official seal
My commission expires:/dzy9�
day of
1.1,.1111. l '1 a Chit .,....1. .....a1 ,1\1.1 �,..✓...\1,... .t.,'LIU
7
\lJ' Page 54Itaee,lloa al/� lldi,J...i�d6 Recorder.
`1'll s DEED, Itlade 111:1
July
Twenty-fifth day of
in_lhq year of our 1,0rd one lhousau(1 nine hundred
and sixty-six between
CARL D. TUCKER, sometimes known as Carl 'fuel:er,
Tand ICATIIRYN 11. 'TUCKER, sometimes known as Kathryn N.
ucker
of)1 to >L ntnttXxl1 xttudx
Bedrock, Colorado,
Stabtxa&tanlnrndee•xof the first part, and
GEORGE CIIR 1S'1'EIIS EN
of the County of
(RECORDER'S STAMI1'
Pitkin nn11 Slate of Colorado, of Um second part;
\VI PN1l,SSIi;TII, That Ole said part les of the first purl, for and in consideration of the sum of
----TEN DOLLARS AND OTIIER coop AND VALUABLE CONS IDERATION )1XQ11tK1]AYl1S,
to the said part ies of the first part in bond paid by the said part y of the second part, the
receipt whereof is hereby confessed !1114 allht101Vledgell, 1111 ve granted, bargained, sold and conveyed,
and by these presents do ,dint, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said part y of lila
second part, his heirs 1111(1 assigns forever, all lbc following described lot or parcel s of
load, Minute, lying and being in the County of Garfield -- and
State of Colorado, to -wit! - r
ParcyL-No i1: S`;SWO1Ir; (also described ns the Ss of Lot 2), the SZSISE4NW ,
,NEONand the East 30 acres of the SE04,' o1 Sec. 19, Tp. 5 S., R. 92 W. of
the 6th VAC, containing 101.3/1 acres, more or less; together with 1.25 cubj.c ..
feet of water per second of time under Priority No. 5, .306 of a cubic foot of
water per second of Lime under Priority No. 54, and .306 of a cubic foot of
Crater per second of Lime under Priority No. 80, all in the Rifle Creek Canon
Ditch, and an undivided interest in said ditch sufficient to carry said water
rights; and also any and all other ditch and water rights belonging to or used
in connection with the above described land.
Parcel No. 2: N SW;,NW;• (also described as N2 of Lot 2), N4SE1jNW and NISZSENW
of Sec. 19, '1'p, 5 S., R 92 0. of the 61:11 P.N., together with all ditch and water ;
rights used upon or in connection with said land.
1
Parccl_No. 3: A tract or parcel of land In the SES of the SW1 of Sec. 19, Tp. i
5 S., R. 92 W., 6111 P.M., beginning at a point on the South line of said Sec. 19,
whence the SI! corner of said Sec. 19 bears due West n distance of 1405 feet; 1
thence dud North a distance of 126 feet to the thread of Rifle Creels; thence 1
along I:he.Lhreall of Rifle Creek, N. 29°45' E., 72 feet; thence along the thread
of Rifle Creels U. 25°45' W., 90 feet; thence nlon(; tate thread of Rifle Creek 11
li N. 5°45' G., 154 feet:; thence N. 2°45' W., 409 feet; !:hence along the thread of:
Riflo Creels N. 13°I5' I".., 102 feet; thence along the !.!trend of Rifle Creek N. 'I
11 42''45' (1. , 25 feet; thence along the thread of Rifle Creek S. 83°30' W., 100
i feet; thence. along the thread of Rifle Creels S. 55°00' W., 59 feet; thence along 'I
�� the thread of Rifle Creek N. 49°45' 11. , /Ill feet to the West line of said SE of 4
the Slgi of Sec. 19; thence along said !lest line. due North 149 feet to the thread
o1 Rifle Creek; thence along the thread of Rifle Creek N. 25°30' E. , 175 feet 11
r
to the North line of said'S1 Sll4, Sec. ]°: thence along said North line, clue ,I
11
:1 last 260 feet; thence due South. -1320 feel to 111e South line of snld Sec. 19; 11 thence along; said South line of Sec. 19 due hest 167 feet, more or less, to the 11
point of beginning, together with all water ri•,IlLs and ditch rights already
adjudicated and belonging 10 it in just proportion. Excepting hcrefrom a right II
oi' way 30 feet in width for a County (toad known es Lite grosius lane, along the II
South edge of said tract, as noted in prior conveyance. Exclusive of the afore- j1
mentioned right of way, said tract of land contains 5.87 acres, more or less,
herein conveyed. 'Title to Parcel No. 3 is not warranted. I
I1
Parcel No. ! 1.
li,,
is Loi 4 and SEt,Sof Seq.. 111; and Lot 1 and I1E�,0W�, of S,•,• 1,> t.
Ali, 5 S., R. 92 W.- r1, 1, M It. .i.... ., .
• t
Book 377 ,.., page 54.8
li
• WyNW;,- of Sec. 19, 'said Townitlp and Range); and the 111;:b4E of Sec. 24, Tp. 5 S. , II
It. 93 W., •6L11 L.H. Together with all of first parties' right, title, and
in tares 1 in the 'Ill.fle Greek Canon 1)1Leh and the wa Ler rights connected therewith j
out of Priorities 5, 54 and 80, it being understood to be three cu. ft. per
second -o1 time out of said ditch and pr iori t les from Ri11e Creek; and also any II
'•, and all other ditch and water rights appurtenant to or uses! in connection with 1II
the above described land.
11
The.above land is subject to easements in place and being used or of record i.
prior to July 21, 1965; and to reservations of mineral rights of record prior to
July 21, 1965.
II
T1)(1 PAT' II( tvil1r All and siugnlnr the hcredilnlnents and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in
anywise appertaining, and the reversion nail reversions, re.nmtuder and remainders, renIs,_iasues and
profits thereof; and all Ihe estate, right, tills, inlnresl claim and demand whatsoever, of lite said
part les or Ihe firs. part Miller in Ina or mpiily, of, in and lo the above bnrgniued premises, wills
the hereditaments and nppurlcuances.
I'() 11A\I A 11) 'PO 11OLI) the said premises nbuca bargained and described, trills the appurte-
nances unto George Christensen
the said party of the second pail, Ills heirs and assigns forever.
And the saki Carl 11. 'Pucker, also known as Carl 'Pucker, and Kathryn 11. Tucker,
also known as Kathryn W. 'rocker,
purl les of the first port,
for 11em sel vas , thel.dieirs, executors 011(1 administrators, do covenant, grnnl, bargain
and agree to and with Ihe said party of the second port, his heirs and assigns, (hat at the
limo of Ihe enscsliog and dnlive.ry of these presents they are well seized of the premises
above conveyed, as of good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefensible estate of inheritance in law, in fen
simple, and h;t ve good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell find convey the
same in mouser and form aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other
;,•rants, bargains, sales, liens loxes, asscssuteuls and incumbrances of whatever kind or nature sower,
except the general taxes for the year 1967 which are assumed by the grantee.,
The grantors reserve possession until January 1, 1967,_ file property is subject
to an oil and gas lease of record,
the quiet rind peaceable possession of the said part y
13ook 377
Page 51F9
1111(1 Lha uGove bnrgniuccl promises in
of the second part, f his'
heirs and
assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part
thereof, the said part les
of the firul part shall and will \VA1titAN'1r AND FOIt13VEIt DEFEND.
IN 'WITNESS \VII131tIg010,'1'lla said part les of the first purl hit
hand s
and seal s the Ilny unit year first above Avrittcu.
Signed, Settled 411:1 I)elivetltl 111 I'ItScllee of
ve hereunto set their
2, /f_J
r J 1 ; (SEAL]
Car ' 1). 'flicker, also known as
('.Irl Tucker
[SEAL]
�IZathryn 11. Tucker, also known as
Kathryn H. Tucker
[SEAL]
5 i'A•r11'1o1WY ACKNOWLEDGMENT, 5(14914)1 10Ir
S'1A'I'14 010 U01 d)ItA 1)0,
ss.
Uouniy of GARFIELU.,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before inc this
25th day of July
19 66 .,by* Carl D. 'fucker, also known ea Carl Tucker, end KnLhry11 H. 'Tucker,
a 1 so kilouu as Ka l.hryn 11. 'Tucker .
Wiliicss my hand and official seal.
i•Il )tuunuisei4n expires
•
Apr11 25, 1970.
Notary 1'ulIlle.
1•. f.l itettoi, or pawn •u hero laved naou, or onotest 11 br per::on oellug In reprenenluays or ofllclel uylneily or se ullorntr-
:, a +,1.111,, .1 I.arco,, ria 030:010 1. rill ounc r-lofact, 00 other tul,ncllr or dcacrlpllon t 11 LY officer of eor0orsllan, 11,en Ineert
.u, t•'i.j1,t•1. Jlfkcl a, ,:r Zhu incrltlenl or other of fleet of aur. carpet, 011011, nnuttot 0.
, V .
r;
,111(1
111.1. I:y: U/: F.,. -,.:,,,,,....,;x4,',;1
1.
�
ri .ii
. .
1 i
1B I, 1.., f,•:j'. I l -.:.,111 )
;11.1•11.—
11. 1' Ill! .14'::!!!'...........1.
, hill.1. Ij 111 • .l II
,J1
•:i'I l l.l..,f.UY.it
I , t , ,.1 ::.e�:•:, .' 1 II 1:1. t: Il.jj ll:rY••It •:
1 . , 1 1 1 I IY 1 • j.11
!• I1111,W.11
•41
li
II
1'
II
I ,;i;i1i'.ilil,y+:.i.•.a'..' 1.:Ji:ii4lLijJ•4•'i;
•li'..-..-1?'''''''- ..
,i
\ , \t
II I; ; II
2127-193-00-033 21.043(I 40
216 (ST-rT' (021)
PARCEL DUMBER
5-92
Sec. 18. Lot 4(40.25), SESW(36.55)
except the N. 50' of Lot 4 & SESW
cont. 2.90 Ac. Acl.
Sec. 19. Lot 1(41.52), 2(17.47), E}NW
(net 73), NESW, also a portion of SESW
(net 33.50Ac) desc. as the EiSESW,
E(W(SESW, and the N,W)WjSESW lying Ely of
C/L of Rifle Creek except a Tr. Desc. in
750/793.
Total 284.29 Ac.
GRANTEE
BOOK
PAGE
OLJ.: I2
DATE
KIND OF
INSI RUMENI
REMARKS
•Mangurian, Pieroe - .4.24— __421;__12444134__4
_4 1;_.12444131.:-911L445; 177(/54 L; 64 4,/_5116
• 'Lil,uY"��1�i �1ei'Shl(•
�, >•
j 1. rr. c • c_r( .! JP. -- (()
(_I 9 22:12J -- L�
;:., i `Li/ _. { o 9 --- /
•
,
•
1.11
• .1 In
I'
;I
II' 1. ,I.. ..
1i•r
• •).l.i
;!;
11/
I_,
1,9,./‘/////
.//,;1/1/-5-• , ) (''(:. • / ? ; R CI Q )Nid)' ./-571) • /
9 (-2. 5'0
7 nA,-,1/ (t_ CO ( -1 / SE S-0 de 50 , a s +11
CA') 5 E. 5. 1J) t I/. WX2 5 r SV + Me
A/l/f).,WY vYcsi 5 r_-•14) 1 7 i• )1 3 E/
(/t. 0 -r P,' Tic C )< , 4-r./Nra (-!"/2_..1.
dec. )1/1
7-0-1„/ `
V,' 7 /1c11
Viu/.4?-0 ii,
1,2 ',Vr I! .):
if
47 /; J/5
i
:1'1 7— 7927 00-2/5
e_
, 4 r
d
nil-
d=I-..._.= G,1 5 4c
21e,.
c4 C.5C, /14 U rr./
Alf 0 ex,
To / -t. / /0 7, 1/
0 , )
rN Pc1 ( Ttl C 11
•
Lo -1-1 -)c IA)
):1— ) 50/0
Loki! LIT
/ (28 tr. ( 0,‘,
2 5)0 )
c.-0
H.- /V k/,
7;1,, ) t )//
WRJ•S..Rev. 76.
Application must
be complete where
applicohle. Type or
print in BLACK _
. INK. No overstrikes
or ci ns(11 es 11111055
initialed.
COU(ADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOUF, . S
010 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman Si., Denver, Colorado d0203
PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
(X ) A PERMIT TO USE GROUND WATER
(X I A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL
FOR: (X 1 A PERMIT TO INSTALL A PUMP
( 1 REPLACEMENT FOR NO
( 10111E11
WATER COURT CASE NO.
(1) APPLICANT - mailing address
NAME flangurlan Partnership
c%o John R. Schenk
STREET —302_EigILLIt SLIeeL,_SuLLe 310
CITY Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(Stale) (Zlo)
TELEPHONE NO (970) 945-2447
(2) LOCATION OF PROPOSED WELL
County Garfield
SE V. of the SW Y.. Section _ 19
Twp. 5 S Rng. 92 — 61111. 1' M
IN.5) IE,WI
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: 00 NOT WRITE IN THIS COLUMN
(3) WATER USE AND WELL DATA
Proposed maximum pumping rate (gpnt)
Average annual ain0u111 of ground water
to be appropnated (acre-feet):
Nunlhel of acres to be inigrued:
15_ spin
1
PI 0)1051•(1 Total (10'1)111 (leer):
150
Ayuiler ground water is to he obtained Iron:
Sand and gravel
Owner's well designation PN We 11 111
GROUND WATER TO BE USED FOR:
( (IIOUSEIIOLO USE ONLY • no iniyation (0)
(X ) DOMESTIC (1) ( ) INDUS1 RIAL (5)
( I LIVESTOCK (2) ( ) IRRIGATION (8)
( ) COMMERCIAL (4) ( ) MUNICIPAL (8)
1 1 O11IER 191
DETAIL TI IE USE ON BACK IN (11)
Receipt No.
Basin
(4) DRILLER
Name
Street
City_
Licensed
Telephone
Tic. No.
(ZIP)
Dist.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
This well shall he used in such a way as to cause
no material injury to existing water rights. The
issuance of the permit does not assure the applicant
that no injury will occur to another vested water
right or preclude another owner of a vested water
right from seeking relief in a civil court action.
5r'.l.
(7/ 1'
APPLICATION APPROVED
PERMIT NUMBER
DATE ISSUED
EXPIr1ATION DATE
BY
I.D. 5
j TATE ENGiNEEflj
i9
COUNTY 23 -
• f T BE LOCATED BELOW
(5) THE LOCATION OF THE 1 SSED WELL and the area on (6) TIIL r1tiL.L r
which the water will be used must be indicated on the diagram below. by distances from section lines.
Use the CENTER SECTION (1 section, 640 acres) for the well Iocation.
-I- — -I- ---�- -- -1- -- -I
i_ --- --I- — I - I — West
_—
I !{ 20
I MILE, 50 FEET 1- I 2000 it. from
(earl or well) sec. line
I- -1- -1= -I- -1- -I- -I- -1- f
I 1 I SUBDIVISION
N011lll SECTION LINE —. - -I-
-I- — --I 1--r j 1
-I- - 5500 R. from South sec. line
t
noru
t or 1001111
LOT_ 0LOC1< FILING r
I � I
NORTH
1' z
1 ul I-. . _ ---1-----
-1-
---1 --
-1- 4- 3 —
I I I
1 1
- SOUTH SECTION LINE
1-
)
N
111
ri
-1
0
z
z
-I
-I -
-I-
I Ire scale ol the dimflant is 2 inches = 1 mile
Each small square represents 40 acres.
WA 1 Ell EOUIVAI..EN I5 IAMILE 1110unr led Ftyui es!
An ane loos covers 1 arre of land 1
rtotclecjt
nunutc 19Pnd
1 cubic loot Per second Iclsl J oer
A lauuly 01 5 will i squire anotwoonately 1 acre•loot ol water Por Year.
1 acre furl 41500 cubic lee' .:125.900 yallons.
1 000 9pnt ounyred continuously for title tiny produces 4.42 acro leaf
(
(7) TRACT ON WATCH WELL WILL BE
LOCATED Owtlet;Nangurlan Partnership
35.87 . Will this be
No. et acres
the only well on ibis 11act]
es
(83) PROPOSED CASING PROGRAM
Plain Casing
7 in. lion 0 ft. to 30 It.
5in. from
25 it to 130 ft
Perforated casing
5 in hone 130 1t. to 150 _ It.
in. Iron It. to a.
1 (9) FOR REPLACEMENT WELLS give distance
and direction from old well and plans for plugging
it:
N/A
--
(10) LAND UN_WIIICII G110UNU. WATEIR WILL IiE_USED:
Ownerlsl:_Nan r-Iau_I'artuership-----------
No, of acres: 35.67
SFASW1/4, Section 19, 'l'5S1 R921,1,_6L11 P_N. See attached Exhibit "A"_�_—_
Legal desci mild
(11) QEJIILED DESCRIP(IO(V of the use of ground waler: Ilouseltolduse and domestic wells must indicate typedisposal
system to be used. All domestic uses, including__up to three L
(3we111ngs one 1) ' tc ta
rrigat tun__and non-commercial livestock with state and couul.LlperovedllSlS sysLeulh- with
_septic anitleach_[iela,
(12) OTIIEII__VATE.11111LILIT5 used on this land, including wells. (live Registration and Water Court Case plumbers.
Type or right
Used lou (1)1111tosel Description of laud on which used
N / A ___----
(13) THE APPLICANT(S 'TA 1 TI)' IIIE INFORMATION SET FORTH HEREON IS
TRUE TO THE DE t 0�II1�I WO DGE.
HAM= LAN PAR'T'NERS, 1 CJr �` JZiIL�
lly : /-77-_-_-"23) / =
SIGNA TURF/OF APPL IL'AN T(5) iIt InCt IOr 1)Wtler
Joint R. Scheel[ as author1zed agent .1ud attorney
IJ'.n adllunnud sheets rel n,lnei
;!Ver' anal.1 '5 11'1111111.11
r•1
„2,14,1995 15t20 1.14011 L• FINE PHUI. U151.
TO 9,32977
•
P.02
CRi f le CFire CProlech on CDish icl
Box. 1133 • Ri f le, Colorado • 81630
Schenk, Kerst & deWlnt.er, P.C.
302 Eighth Street, Suite 310
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Attention: John Schenk
December 14, 1995
Re: Mangurian Partnership Subdivision Exemption
Mr. Schenk.
I have reviewed the proposed Mangurian Partnership
Subdivision Exemption located on County Road 251 within
the Rifle Fire Protection District. As per our telephone
conversation, 1 understand that this would create three
residential lots bordering the County Road.
The Rifle Fire Protection District approves this exemption
with Lhe following recommendations:
1. A fire protection water supply should be developed
along the County Road. I would recommend that a " dry
hydrant " be installed where the County Road crosses Rifle
Creek. Of course, I am not aware of who the property
owners are for the Creek area but it would be in the best
interest of all residences in the area to support this
type of water supply.
2. As the new hollies are constructed, Nationally recognized
standards of Wild Land / Urban Interface should be
followed.
3. As the new homes are constructed, addresses are to be
posted aL the entrance to the property In a manner that
makes thein readily Identifiable to emergency response
agencies.
Thank you for your cooperation and feel free to contact me
if I can be of further assistance or if you have any
additional' questions.
Sincerely,
i k e Mo5-man.
Fire Marshal
Rifle Fire Protection District
TOTnt P.02
Tuesday, 6 February 1996
Garfield County•Conunissiouers
109 8t1► Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
John Powers
P. O. Box 726
Rifle, CO 81650
II''
(tnIIllli 1. q.i,.:..1<,.i' :
re: Mangurian Partnership Subdivision Exemption Application
Dear Sirs,
As a neighboring land owner, I received a public notice regarding the petition of the
Mangurian Partnership. Since I will be out of state when the hearing occurs, please accept
this letter as my expression of opposition to the subdivision.
This property has been agricultural and if subdivided, would be forever converted to
residential use. The trend of converting agricultural property into residential is relentless and
alarming, and is recognized by the Governor as a major problem plaguing Colorado.
Considering the whole of society, the land in question is better suited for other purposes than
residential and is therefore not a good candidate for conversion. We must exercise the
foresight to preserve agricultural land in such cases as this. 1f not, again, at the end of this
year, tens of thousands of more acres of prime farmland will be everlastingly lost from
production and as habitat for wild creatures.
We all recognize the problem confronting human society, and Garfield County in particular,
of the loss of open space and agricultural land. Iluman population is growing exponcMially
on a finite planet. Each seemingly insignificant choice that individuals make to break tracts
into smaller fragments paints us, and all other creatures, little by little, into a corner. The
problem and its cause are clear. If we recognize the cause, we must inform and influence
each of the choices that contribute to the whole of the problem. Otherwise we'll keep
heading along the sane path and end up at the destination none of us wants. If not here,,
where will we draw the line? 1 oppose this subdivision because it will contribute to
fragmentation and loss of arable land, diminish the ability of future generations to provide for
themselves, and injure wildlife.
If proceeds from the subdivision of this land were necessary to sustain the petitioners, there
would at least be a debatable need. In this instance, need does not exist. While the ability
to subdivide is enabled by stale law and county regulation, this case highlights the conflict
between the vision for the county embodied in its comprehensive plan and the unintended
negative effects made possible by contradictory regulations. I urge the petitioners to
withdraw this application. if petitioners are unwilling, then I urge the county commissioners
not to grant approval, and to change regulations to conform to and to support the
comprehensive plan.
Sincerely,
VWC4
John Powers