HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Planning Commission 01.03.1992MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew McGregor
DATE: January 3, 1992
RE: LOS ADOBES PRELIMINARY PLAN
Enclosed for your review is the latest from the applicants of Los Adobes, completing the
required components of the application. Included are a topographic site plan, addendum to
drainage report, Basalt Water Conservancy District contracts, letter from attorney and a letter
from the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. Also enclosed is a complete copy of
the previously distributed staff packet.
A. 1 o sign/Site Planning
The most recently submitted lot layout plan, entitled "Topography", eliminates the lot
originally known as lot 2 at the southwest portion of the subdivision. As a result, the
Common Open Space has been expanded. In addition, this plan has identified building
envelopes which correspond to comments made by Nick Lampiris in letters dated
September 25, 1991 and January 2, 1992 (enclosed).
The elimination of "Lot 2" should eliminate concerns of the neighbors regarding
drainage and erosion issues. Staff is skeptical about the utility of Lot 7. Access to the
lot requires crossing a narrow gully. The building site consists of a narrow linear
ridgetop. Gaining access to the site and developing a building pad will require extensive
cut and fill work. Development of this lot may enhance erosion.
B. Drainage
The applicant's engineer has addressed certain drainage concerns in a new letter dated
January 2, 1991. The letter refutes concerns that the proposed subdivision will cause
an increase in post -development stormwater runoff. The letter does not address the
potential of increased erosion and/or debris flows due to the increase in disturbed
surface area. The report also fails to elaborate on the proposals made at the last
Planning Commission meeting. These include the proposed sedimentation basin, and
the debris flow inhibiting berm located in the common space area.
C. Roads
No changes in the roadway design have been proposed since last month's meeting. As
discussed in last month's staff comments, the roadway exceeds current standards for
gradient (14% instead of 10%). The Board of County Commissioners will review
proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations allowing an increase in road
gradient up to 14%. Approval would be contingent upon road design in conformance
with regulations in place at time of Final Plat.
In their letter, the Carbondale and Rural Fire District indicates that access to all lots is
adequate and the cul-de-sac is not problematic.
r •
D. Water
The applicants have submitted four (4) separate water allotment contracts from the
Basalt Water Conservancy District. These contracts will guarantee adequate water
supply and will cause the State Engineer's Office to issue well permits. Wells will not
be shared with the exception of Lot 8 which will have its own well. Specific well
location(s) have not been identified to date and therefore easements and other common
facilities have not been located. These will need to be accomplished before final
platting.
E. Fire Protection
The applicants are proposing to require fire sprinkler systems in each of the new homes
and also to install a 10,000 gallon water storage tank with an adjacent fire hydrant. The
tank will be buried in the driveway easement immediately west of the existing well, just
north of the cul-de-sac. This proposal differs slightly from the recommendation of the
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. They have recommended that the
applicants provide either 60,000 gallons of water storage or residential sprinkler systems
could be utilized. Staff feels that the combination of both storage and sprinkling would
be preferable, particularly in light of the high wildfire potential of the property. In
staff's eyes sprinkling alone would be insufficient to adequately protect the subdivision.
The only remaining question is whether 10,000 gallons would be an adequate volume.
Further input from the Carbondale and Rural Fire District will be pursued regarding
the adequacy of water storage.
Summary
Staff has unresolved concerns about the practicality of developing Lot #8 (now known as Lot
#7) in light of the difficulty in accessing the site and the substantial earthwork required to
create a building site. Consequently, staff would recommend that this lot be deleted. If the
Planning Commission is inclined to recommend approval of this application, then staff would
recommend that approval be subject to the following conditions.
POSSIBLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the
Public Hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners shall
be considered conditions of approval, unless stated otherwise by the Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
2. The Homeowner's Association shall be incorporated in accordance with Colorado
Revised Statute requirements.
3. The applicant shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements agreement
addressing all on-site improvements, prior to the submittal of a rural plat.
4. The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all roads, bridges, utilities and
drainage structures prior to the submittal of the final plat.
5. That all proposed utilities shall be placed underground.
6. That all cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native grasses
and shrubs with adequate weed control. All revegetation shall be in accordance with
the applicant's revegetation plan. Revegetation and landscaping shall be included in the
Subdivision Improvements Agreement. In addition, adequate security shall remain in
place for a period of two (2) years to guarantee the survival of all plantings.
7. That the applicant shall demonstrate that procedures are established for the
maintenance of all roadways and bridges, including snow removal, through the
Homeowner's Association.
8. That the applicant shall pay $200 per lot in School Impact Fees prior to the approval
of the Final Plat.
9. That the following plat notes shall be included on the Final Plat:
a. The recommendations of the Colorado State Forester and U.S.F.S. wildfire
prevention guidelines shall be followed in the construction of all structures.
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare and
submit a soils and foundation report, an I.S.D.S. design, and a grading and
drainage plan prepared and certified by a professional engineer. All
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such measures which shall
be a condition of the building permit.
10. That the Water Allocation Contract shall be transferred from the developer to the
Homeowner's Association. The Homeowner's Association shall enforce individual
compliance through covenants.
11. That the Open Space areas shall be appropriately dedicated to the Homeowner's
Association for said use in perpetuity and shall not be subsequently subdivided.
12. That the applicants shall prepare and submit protective covenants, articles of
incorporation and other Homeowner's Association documents including by-laws will
be submitted for review by the County Attorney prior to the approval of the Final Plat.
13. That the covenants will provide that there will be no resubdivision of the lots.
14. That prior to scheduling of a public hearing on the preliminary plan before the BOCC,
the applicants shall submit all required components of the preliminary plan application.
6._4RC1 .1-,S" c tmJ( ✓nc
15. That the applicants shall provide llln approval from D.W.R. endorsing the
proposed water supply plan prior to the submittal of the water supply plan.
16. That all roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards in effect
at the time of submittal of the Final Plan.
That the applicants shall provide a fire protection plan approved by the Carbondale and
Rural Fire Protection District. Adequate water storage shall be included in the
proposal.
18. Common wells shall be addressed in the covenants.
19. That prior to the submittal of a Final Plat, well permit(s) approved by the State
Engineer's Office shall be submitted.
1
20. Driveway easements shall be identified on the Final Plat.
21. The applicants shall submit a detailed drainage report specifically addressing
sedimentation, debris and stormwater runoff in the two drainages that traverse the
property. The report should also address the requisite structural facility to protect the
adjacent parcels to the southeast. Also, the report should address protection of
properties across Highway 82.
22. The Final Plat shall identify building envelopes that are in conformance with those
represented during the Preliminary Plan application.
23. That a Plat note requiring staking and certification by an R.L.S. verifying building
location within approved envelope. This requirement shall also be incorporated into
the restrictive covenants.
24. The Final Plat shall depict easement for irrigation pipeline(s) to its terminus.
25. That adequate easements for wells, waterlines and other attendant facilities shall be
provided on the Final Plat.
26. That ten (10') foot perimeter easements on each lot should be provided for utility
purposes.
That the applicants shall demonstrate the acceptability of the shared well system by the �L;1 r �'J
Colorado Department of Health. }0 r\,'
• certi f ,
.._ .. .
in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement.
1- 1 • .
y work not completed shall be included
Lot #7 shall be deleted from the revised Preliminary Plan.
r I (
PLANTED EARTH
12744 HIGHWAY 02
CARIIONDALE, CO 01623
January 6, 1992
Garfield County Planing and Zoning
Garfield County Court house
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear P and Z Members:
ilk-illtit..-)iLl'I:rii,_°iVI J".'T
LIM I 192 \\A,
to...o (JouN
I am writing this letter as I am a neighbor of the proposed Los
Adobes Subdivision, and was unable to attend the last P and Z
public meeting in December, and will be unable to attend the P and
Z meeting this coming Wednesday evening.
In my opinion, the proposed Los Adobes development will be a most
positive benefit for all of us in the neighborhood. This
development should help to support and increase all of our property
values. Without Los Adobes our chances of getting natural gas
service on the north side of highway 82 is :slim at best. With the
addition of the Los Adobes subdivision our chances are greatly
increased. Natural ga.; willsave us money, and increase the value
of our properties.
The meadow and land at the base of Sunnyside (Los Adobes) has to
my knowledge never been maintained or irrigated. Trash that has
been thrown or blown on to it would remain there as there was no
one to remove it. I believe that with the Greenest home that has
already been built (the most expensive in the neighborhood), the
price of the proposed lots, and investment likely in future homes,
that chances are common area lands and the newly constructed road
will be well maintained, vegetated and irrigated in the future.
It is my understanding that a number of the neighbors have
expressed concerns thatthe developers might build on or change the
drainage on or around the proposed subdivision. I have walked
around the property, and as an owner of a nursery and landscaping
business, I haven't seen where the developers have or plan to
change the drainage. The water that has historically run across
Highway 82 from the two major gullies adjacent to the property will
continue to run down those gully's. If a neighbor in the past
chose to build their home in the existing gully's path, any
flooding or mud slides are the homeowner's problem, not the problem
of the developers of Los Adobes.
if the owners of Los Adobes hadn't purchased all four existing Lots
of Sunnyside Subdivision Exemption, would we as neighbors been
worse off? We very possibly might have.
The new road provides the subdivision with a private entrance.
The old road meant that home owners' access was through Barbara
Tunniclirfe's driveway. Barbara will now have her own driveway for
her own homes. Isn't this a benefit to her at no cost to her?
In summary I hope the Los Adobes plan as proposed is approved by
P and Z and the Garfield County Commissioners.
Sincerely,
/14
Mary McCarney
Garfield County Planning Commission
Garfield County Court House.
Glenwood Springs, CO
January 8,1992
RE* Los Adobes Hearing
8 January 1992
My name is John Rahm. My wife Harriet & I reside in a
hillside residence due East of Lot #1 in the proposed Los Adobes
subdivision. We are still sorely concerened about many aspects of the
Los Adobes application — especially the full impact of storm runoff
and how it will be handled.
I have read ,with interest, the recent letters from various
cntities,addressed to the solutionof several shortcomings noted at the last
Planning Commission hearing. Quite frankly, I am unable to%Oi follow the reason••
ing,assessment of the problem and the solutions suggested or proposed.
High Country Engineering estimates that there will only be an
additional storm runoff of 1% for the West portion of the subdivision
and 3% for the East half. Their report suggests that this additional
runoff might well be absorbed by the extensive revegatatAd areas.
This in spite of the extensive disturbance for access roads, foundations,KA
utilities,
and sewage disposal systems. I sincerely question the validity
of this assumption -- especially in view of my endeavours to vegetate
on this particular hillside exposure.
May I again questionthe suitability of a residence on Lot #1.
Nicholas Lampiris, the consulting geologist, addres1►is report and letter
to this lot and site envelope.
1. "GULLIES SHOULD BE AVOIDED". Lot #1 and site envelope is
located in the bottom of the East Gully flood plain.
2. Any foundation should be designed to withstand an impact
of 200 lbs. per sq. ft.
3. Extensive diversionary earth workmust be done to accomodate
a residence on Lot #1.
I would make the following observations in regard to Lot #1.
Prosntly there is no planned easement or access to this lot. There is
Page 2
Contd.
on file a sugested possible alignment fors
u INGRESS, EGRE3S,UTILITY,DRAINAGE and DRXIIQXIR EMERGENCY ACCESS'
EASEMENT ".
I can only assume that this easement relates to the old closed/
abandoned road which II joins the New Los Adobes Road just inside the gate entrince.
A diversionary berm, ditch and access road for this limited area is quite a loaf.
ALL drainage from the West half of the subdivision will enter the Hwy 82
barrow pit at this point.
Tere is currently in the Planning Commission file a letter from
Richard Spencer dated September 1991 7. In this letter he endures the
approval of the Los Adobes applicatidn. I would suggest that this latter be
removed from the file as the Spencers are no longer an adjoing landowner.
My statements in regard to Lot fel are directed tword the safety
and suitability as a possible home site. Any structure erected in this
deep ravine/gulley would NOT be within view of our nearby residence.
I note that Staff's Jana MEMORANDUM to Planning Commission
reports on the present standing of five major components of the application.
I also note that there remain Twenty seven (27) "POSSIBLE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL " to be fulfilled.
I thank the Planning Commision and staff for thepatio e(.
/3 tot2),,,----_________ _
6hn M. Rahn
November 5, 1991
1
Planning Commission
Garfield County
State of Colorado
Garfield County Courthouse
109 8th Street
Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
To whom it may concern:
(141{9rr F'
Pitill/
Before I moved here in 1988, Laura and Jim Hurtic owned most of the property
on the mountain side. The original land owner was a gentleman named Meade
Harker. He owned all the mountain properties. This Old Timer said the
mountain area known now as Los Adobes was an Indian Burial ground. I never
did go on that mountain out of respect for the Indians.
The Deer and Elk Bucks would stay just below the Los Adobes estate. The
young and their mothers would come down to my pasture land and feed. We,
(myself, my daughter and son-in-law) would feed the beautiful animals. Now
the female and young come, but we'll never see the beautiful stately Bucks
on the Los Adobes side again! I personally watched them. I thank God my
two little granddaughters also got to see this. Los Adobes has ruined the
habitat for the magnificent wild animals.
The mountain hillside cannot maintain 8 more homes, without generating the
threat of land erosion and mud slides. This land is fragil! And it depends
upon the trees and vegetations that are now here in order to keep it stable.
Los Adobes currently represents a lovely country estate. By tting 8 more
homes there it will become just another Sub -Division, devaluig onr own
properties.
In the summer if the wind blows, you can see a red cloud in the sky. That
is the top soil. I allow all the natural vegetation on my property to grow
all year to prevent erosion.
I am opposed to any further development. There were 4 original approved home
sites. That's all the land can hold. Anymore will be disaster to the whole
mountain side. Big is not necessarily better.
Secaus4eT'- z-fot be here on-Nhv er--13,---L'_m giving__.this
to lr.
John Rahm, J.2.7.411 Hwy_ 82Crblaxrlat , o orado to Vote
Power of Attorney
otary Public
io /QQS
Comtisgion Expires
&?-10
Gladyce • Clow
12750 H . 82
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
Adjacent Property Owner
410 Bat aza ¶unn.i,eLi.ffE •
12694 Jlwy. s2
e]azbiondafe, Colo. 8,623
30=4-963-2561
Planning Department
Garfield County
County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs. Colo 81601
Dear Sirs,
hi
i f
li NOV 7It.1991 lH ii
il
GARFIELL) UUu VTY
November 6th 1991
In response to the certified letter pf Public Notice with regard to
the Los Adobes Joint Venture, I would like to make my comments in this
regard.
I do have serious concerns with extending the original 5 lots to 8 lots.
My first and most serious concern, is with regard to the water run
off into my two properties which sit below the subdivision.
This property was purchased by Mr Gerbas, Findholm, Grange and Stutzman
several years ago, when it was originally subdivided. They proceeded
to widen the last switch back at that time, which changed the entire
flood flow. More water was funneled into the natural ditch, and the first
big storm brought down tuns of mud which washed into the house at
12644Hwy 82, which at the time belonged to Mr Luttrell. The force of
the water broke the basement windows and flooded his basement with
at least six inches of mud causing lots of damage. I now own this
hou:sie $ before Mr Luttrell sold the house he built a temporary wall
to protect his property.
The next cloud burst brought down more mud and trees which ran to the
wall and shot it over my property at 12694 Hwy 82, taking out half my
lawn ( half acre) but my house was not in its path.
With the intention of lots #1 and #2 being anywhere near the natural
gully I am very concerned that I may be harmed and particularly now I
own both homes I have more to lose.
I would demand that my properties be made harmless from any future
water damage caused by any further rearrangement of roads or buildings.
At the present time my land has been contoured to carry water and debri
down to the Highway where the side ditch carries away some. However
there has been several occassions when I have been on Highway 82 in a
torrential downpoor pulling trees and debri off the highway so as not
to endanger motorists.
o
• 3azgaza ¶unni.efiffE ill
12694 cAttYy. 82
Calgo,zjaL'E, COL). 8,623
5O.5-96=;-2561
Continuation..
My second concern is that the sleeping grounds for the deer have
been lost by the subdivision, but I suppose there is nothing that can
be done about that.
My third concern is that although the intention is there to re -
vegetate the ugly scar made by the new road, I don't see how it
can be restored to its natural condition.
Yours -truly,
Barbara Tunnicliffe.
• •
November 8, 1991
Garfield Planning and Zoning
Commission
109 8th St.
Glenwood Spring, Co 81601
Dear Sirs and Madames:
It is our understanding that the developers of "Los Adobes" on Highway
82 north of Carbondale have filed for a change from their existing ap-
roved allotment of 5 building lots to 8. We adamantly object to any
consideration for additional building sites.
The roadway which they have started to build on the subject property
is a complete abomination which is being built with absolutely no concern
about the environmental or visual impact it is creating. The road has
almost completely covered what was once a lovely meadow often frequented
by deer.
Said road appears to a layman to be way beyond the scope required to serve
a small subdivision. It is massive, broad and has very steep embankments.
Also note that on the upper, or north side of said road, it is raised
several feet above the existing grade even on the UPHILL side. I'm not
an engineer and make no pretense to know why such a monstrous undertaking
is necessary to serve 5 homes, but I do know that it is a gross insult to
the sensibilities of one who has been a neighbor to the property for 26
years.
We object to the existing roadway and any subsequent consideration being
extended to the developers to enlarge the scope of the subdivision and
request that every legal effort be made to address the following concerns:
1. Erosion impacts and subsequent flow of mud and debris onto the
highway right-of-way and neighboring properties. (Ours!!)
2. Strict compliance to all water and sewer regulations.
3. Mitigation of the impact of the loss of the meadow for the deer
population. I would suggest consideration be given to dramatically down-
sizing the roadway as now being constructed, reduction of grades of the
embankments, and immediate revegetation and landscaping of the recently
raped hillside.
4. Installation of deer fences, cattle guards, and such other devices
as may help discourage the deer population from entering the highway.
5. Every effort must be made to minimize the visual impact of the
road and the subdivision.
The developers have shown a blatant disregard for the once beautiful
hillside which they have made great strides to destroy. We will be
counting on the P & Z commission to rein these folks in and educate
them to the sensibilities of modern mankind.
Sincerely Yours,
Ralph and Connie Hubbell
12431 Highway 82
Carbondale, Co. 81623
STARKS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
12537 STATE HWY. 82
CARBONDALE. COLORADO 81623
d4:4 'ex-/Y;ra-i;/
//y ff4 Lf/ f
172
-2 •t ✓ /- to ,
? Ft
NOV 13 1991'
GARFIELD CuUNTY
a/'-!+- � - ./2t a'> /y % "/Z/ 1'7 L •'y'�uL�"✓C / ')`%l
%1 i a (e -Q, A ,2
//4 0uy7 ell/a50
(44'77.14 I:6)k
/i a74 -537 We?, g.2,ze,/ .
liyL
/// d G
afr/oi4 ,j 4.4;74/2-c 644=;,e.,1. 74#
/T7oweleVi ..L:^G xi4 / 1, / d. //t.,- (/z. 2
a
701e ti
/ /_ t
770,,,/-3; / ea-
t_ , ,ls c v 1 D:
y2..)2./ ,vn yup .,' J. %�i`
722,2
/eel, (�' rJ v! d DAZE .�Ln f% 6' /_ )7:91-7,f;
�zhc�x_ --77.0 /a,. a:124,7), /
1 Gary Marshall
Cathy Marshall
12748 Hwy. FjP Ph. 625-5738
Z1-4
/4(-e e951
• -e,Ajts...tie___LQ_ 67.ck0 *e'e4/12
et) -e-1/4_, /2,e 1G7^2Gea€
44741 e44- —
Atier-i4
-C>Ce-oc— Af2e*-74e:1;-7 4r,4*
Ap7t.ciL_ zz- --ea/Le-417;
•(6)11- 4Ce- ez_
,14-2 a/04- th'
NOV 1 3 1991
4411Alatn-e-g-- Nb''‘{AlbOor °I -Lf
Ogra
r t d ate cl
eJohn M. Rahm
12746 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
My name is Harriet Rahm. MY HUSBAND,JOHN RAHM REGRETS THAT
7 HEARING
HEIS UNABLE TO ATTENDTHIS PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR LOS ABODES
SUBDIVISION.
HE HAS SSKED METO READ AND LEAVE WITH THE PLANNING COMMMISION
HIS BASIC THOUGHTS IN REGARD TO THIS INCREASED LOT REQUEST --
FROM 5 to 8 sSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES LOTS.
I have spent several hours IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING
OFFICE GOING OVER THE VOLUMINOUS COVERING THIS REVISED SUBDIVISION.
I HAVE WALKED THE LOS ADOBES PROPERY SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST TOW
SUMMER. IHAVE STUDIED THE NEW SURVEY AND PLAT OF THE PROPOSED 8
LOTS, PREPERED BY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING. I HAVE NEVER BEEN
WITNESS TO THE OLD 5 lotSURVEY ORPLOT. MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIION
IS THAT THERE NO POSSIBLE WAY TO PLACE A RESIDENCE ON LOT 1 or 8.
HXX WITHOUT PLACING IN A GULLEY W ASH.
THE MOST REVEALING PAPER/REPORT IN THIS LOS ADOBES FILE WAS
W RITTEN BY NICHOLOS LAMPIRIS THE CONSULTING GEOLOGIST. AT THREE
POINTS IN HIS APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY ,FOR DEVELOPMENT , HERASIED
THE QUESTION AS TO WHETERER THE PROPERTY COULD SUPPORT 8 RESIDENCES.
IF sucsh AN APPROVAL WAS FORTHCOMMING HE RAISED MANY GEOLOGICAL
AND ENGINEERING QUESTIONS. L fully CONCUR WITH MR. LANPIRIS findings
in his repot. careful study of this report is a must FOR THE ENTIRE
PLANNING BOARD.
UNLESS YOU HAVE WITNESSED THE RUNOFF FROM THIS HILLSIDE PROPERTY
UNBELIEVABLE. In CONTRAST, DURING THE SUMMER DROUGHT ON THIS HILLSIDE
EXPOSURE EXPERIENCES THE MOST DEVastating moisture depletiond 1 have
ever seen. FOR TWO SUMMERS I HAVE ENDEVORED TO ESTABLISH A STAND
9C of drought resistane vegetation CROW N VETCH, GRAMMA GRASS, WHEAT
BUFFALO * WITHOUT ANY DEGREE OF SUCCESS.
DEC 11 1991
CONTE') 2
John M. Rahm
12746 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
W ith eight new residences, WITH 8 new roof, AND 8 NEW AND ROADS
THE RUNOFF WILL BE MUCH MOR RAPID AND DEVASTATING. I SINCERELY
QUESTION THE ADDITIONAL LOTS BEING REQUESTED REGARDLESS OF HOW WELL
PLANNED AND EXECUTED.
Plannink AND FULLMENT OF THOSE PLANS WILL REQUIRE CAREFUL MONTERING
TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT IF A MEANINGFULL REVEGATION IS TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED.
Thank you for yo time
Sincerel
John M. Rahm
FEC 11 Wih
December 11,1991
Mr. Peter Greene
12508 Hwy 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
RE: Proposed re -zoning of Los Adobes Subdivision by Garfield CO. P&Z.
Having owned the property adjacent to the GreenBelt area for three
years, (Property address 12544 Hwy 82) I see nothing but an improvement
by putting the road un to the subdivision .n and having more building
sites up on the top. During the time I owned the above mentioned property
the Greenbelt area was nothing but a dried out field of thicket and
weeds. In the Spring and Summer there were usually 10 to 15 Deer carcasses
rotting in the field and the Road Dept. did nothing because they were
off the Highway. That particular stretch of road in front of the Greenbelt
is considered the first or second most dangerous in the State of Colorado
by the State Police as far as accidents with deer crossing the Highway.
Also by adding eight more homes in the Carbondale Area, that along with
the proposed Aspen Glen Golf Course Development will do nothing but
bring more business to the Town of Carbondale. Therefore as a resident
and Real Estate Agent in Carbondale, I am all for the proposed re -zoning
of the Los Adobes Sub -division.
Res.ectfully,
G�
ick Spencer
2882 Road 113
Carbondale, CO 81623
• •
/A\ Colorado Town & Country Realty, Inc.
Nyr
December 11, 1991
Planning and Zoning
Garfield County
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Gentlemen:
I would like to request you consider favorably the plans submitted
by "Los Adobes."
"Los Adobes" is a very high-quality development that will enhance
the Carbondale area greatly. Not only from a visual, but also from
an economical tax -based standpoint. I understand the people behind
the project are very reputable and willing to cooperate with
neighboring property owners to maintain the environment in its
natural state.
Your favorabl, consideration will be greatly appreciated.
/;Kindest regabds ,
_, `moi\S16\\NA.A.,\J\..t2tj
Irene C. Schumacher, G.R.I.
Owner/Broker Associate
Colorado Town & Country Realty, Inc.
ICS/pm
981 Cowen Drive • Carbondale, Colorado 81623
(303) 963-9700 FAX (303) 963-9796 1-800-748-2790
Garfield County Planning Commission
Garfield County Court House.
Glenwood Springs, CO
•
January 8,1992
RE* Los Adobes Hearing
8 January 1992
My name is John Rehm. My wife Harriet & I reside in a
hillside residence due East of Lot #1 in the proposed Los Adobes
subdivision. We are still sorely concerened about many aspects of the
Los Adobes application — especially the full impact of storm runoff
and how it will be handled.
I have read ,with interest, the recent letters from various
entities,addressed to the solutionof several shortcomings noted at the last
Planning Commission hearing. Quite frankly, I am unable to%$' follow the reason..
ing,assessment of the problem and the solutions suggested or proposed.
High Country Engineering estimates that there will only be an
additional storm runoff of 1% for the West portion of the subdivision
and 3% for the East half. Their report suggests that this additional
runoff might well be absorbed by the extensive revegatatRed areas.
This in spite of the extensive disturbance for access roads, foundations,K
utilities,
and sewage disposal systems. I sincerely question the validity
of this assumption -- especially in view of my endeavours to vegetate
on this particular hillside exposure.
May I again questionthe suitability of a residence on Lot #1.
Nicholas Lampiris, the consulting geologist, address report and letter
to this lot and site envelope.
1. "GULLIES SHOULD BE AVOIDED". Lot #1 and site envelope is
located in the bottom of the East Gully flood plain.
2. Any foundation should be designed to withstand an impact
of 200 lbs. per sq. ft.
3. Extensive diversionary earth workmust be done to accomodate
a residence on Lot #1.
I would make the following observations in regard to Lot #1.
Presntly there is no planned easement or access to this lot. There is
1992
Page 2
Contd.
• on file a suggested possible alignment fors
N INGRESS, EGRESS,UTILITY,DRAINAGE and MUM EMERGENCY ACCESS'
EASEMENT ".
I can only assume that this easement relates to the old closed/
abandoned road which VI joins the New Los Adobes Road just inside the gate entrance.
A diversionary berm, ditch and access road for this limited area is quite a load.
ALL drainage from the West half of the subdivision will enter the Hwy 82
barrow pit at this point.
There is currently in the Planning Commission file a letter from
Richard Spencer dated September 1991 ?. In this letter' he endores the
approval of the Los Adobes applicatimn. I would suggest that this letter be
removed from the file as the Spencers are no longer an adjoing landowner.
My statements in regard to Lot #1 are directed tword the safety
and suitability as a possible home site. Any structure erected in this
deep ravine/gulley would NOT be within view of our nearby residence.
I note that Staff's Jan3 MEMORANDUM to Planning Commission
reports on the present standing of five major components of the application.
I also note that there remain Twenty seven (27) "POSSIBLE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL " to be fulfilled.
I thank the Planning Commision and staff for the ' .atie
I
• Rahm
llilll
AN J8
January 6, 1992
•
PLANTED EARTH
12744 HIGHWAY 82
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
Garfield County Planing and Zoning
Garfield County Court House
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear P and Z Members:
so 7 *la
AFIELD COUNTY
I am writing this letter as I am a neighbor of the proposed Los
Adobes Subdivision, and was unable to attend the last P and Z
public meeting in December, and will be unable to attend the P and
Z meeting this coming Wednesday evening.
In my opinion, the proposed Los Adobes development will be a most
positive benefit for all of us in the neighborhood. This
development should help to support and increase all of our property
values. Without Los Adobes our chances of getting natural gas
service on the north side of Highway 82 is slim at best. With the
addition of the Los Adobes subdivision our chances are greatly
increased. Natural gas will save us money, and increase the value
of our properties.
The meadow and land at the base of Sunnyside (Los Adobes) has to
my knowledge never been maintained or irrigated. Trash that has
been thrown or blown on to it would remain there as there was no
one to remove it. I believe that with the Greenes' home that has
already been built (the most expensive in the neighborhood), the
price of the proposed lots, and investment likely in future homes,
that chances are common area lands and the newly constructed road
will be well maintained, vegetated and irrigated in the future.
It is my understanding that a number of the neighbors have
expressed concerns that the developers might build on or change the
drainage on or around the proposed subdivision. I have walked
around the property, and as an owner of a nursery and landscaping
business, I haven't seen where the developers have or plan to
change the drainage. The water that has historically run across
Highway 82 from the two major gullies adjacent to the property will
continue to run down those gully's. If a neighbor in the past
chose to build their home in the existing gully's path, any
flooding or mud slides are the homeowner's problem, not the problem
of the developers of Los Adobes.
• •
If the owners of Los Adobes hadn't purchased all four existing lots
of Sunnyside Subdivision Exemption, would we as neighbors been
worse off? We very possibly might have.
The new road provides the subdivision with a private entrance.
The old road meant that home owners' access was through Barbara
Tunnicliffe's driveway. Barbara will now have her own driveway for
her own homes. Isn't this a benefit to her at no cost to her?
In summary I hope the Los Adobes plan as proposed is approved by
P and Z and the Garfield County Commissioners.
Sincerely,
rhe
Mary McCarney
lee,-1_ A. , -L,