Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 CorrespondenceAugust 24, 1978 SUN DESIGNS ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, AND SOLAR CONSULTANTS Mr. Bob Witkowski Garfield County Planning Director 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 REF: LOS AMIGOS RANCH - SDG 78019 Dear Bob, Enclosed is our draft of what we consider a complete sub- mittal. Also accompanying the submittal will be all of the required narrative material. We would appreciate your review and any comments con- cerning that information which might be lacking. Sincerely, SUNDESIGNS can K. Moffa t Enclosure DKM/cg 2Z' /I ("1 zeta PU D (14_DA7 ell (feud 74- <4*-ts -- OVel q► or? f? b)etireA --4;" /---r,40, ? 13151/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601, Telephone 303/945-5041 P.O. Box 3102 (1280 Ute Avenue), Aspen, Colorado 81611, Telephone 303/925-8884 October 2, 1978 • SUN DESIGNS ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, AND SOLAR CONSULTANTS Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 REF: APPLICATION FOR REZONING AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED LOS AMIGOS RANCH PUD Gentlemen, This Application for Rezoning is submitted pursuant to the PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GARFIELD COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION, as authorized by Article 6 of Chapter 106, Colorado Revised Statutes of 1973. This Application is for rezoning only - Applications for Phased Subdivision Platting will follow at a later date. Attached is our check in the amount of one hundred dollars for the Rezoning Application review fee. Sincerely, SUNDES ' S Dean K. fatt - Architect Enclosure: Check DKM/cg 13151/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, Colorodo 81601, Telephone 303/945-5041 P.O. Box 3102 (1280 Ute Avenue), Aspen, Colorado 81611, Telephone 303/925-8884 September 29, 1978 SUN DESIGNS ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, AND SOLAR CONSULTANTS Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 REF: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PROPOSED LOS AMIGOS RANCH PUD Gentlemen, An Application for Rezoning as a Planned Unit Development is presently being prepared for the above land and is scheduled for submittal in the near future. This is a request for variance from Section 14.08.05(5) of the PUD Amendment to the Garfield Subdivision Regulations, which requires as part of the submittal a site topographic map indicating five foot contours. We request that our current site topographic map indicating forty foot contours be considered adequate for the following reasons: 1. The Application is for rezoning only - subdivision platting will follow at a later date. 2. The property is large in size and the proposed de- velopment areas constitute about one half of the total property. In addition to the expense of topo- graphic surveying for non -development areas, the map size sufficient to show five foot contours would be in excess of eight feet long and therefore not an efficient review or data tool. 3. Phased Subdivision Platting maps will indicate five foot contours and be at a scale of at least one inch equals two hundred feet. Aerial photography is to be done this fall. Your consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, SUNR�•�� S Dean K. Moffitt - Architect cc: Garfield County Planning Office DKM/cg 13151/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601, Telephone 303/945-5041 P.O. Box 3102 (1280 Ute Avenue), Aspen, Colorado 81611, Telephone 303/925-8884 Los Amigos Ranch 2929 - 114th Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 September 25, 1978 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen, The undersigned, being the owners of the Los Amigos Ranch properties, as described by title insurance policies in- cluded in this Application, an area of 2,200 acres, more or less, hereby consent to the inclusion thereof in the Application for rezoning as a Planned Unit Development. Robert W. Chatmas - Owner Thomas E. Neal - Owner Ja es A. R. J,hnson - Owner ( The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of September, 1978, by Robert W. Chatmas, Thomas E. Neal and James A. R. Johnson. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires • Notary Public • • Los Amigos Ranch 2929 - 114th Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 September 25, 1978 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen, The undersigned, being a co-owner, along with Robert W. Chatmas and James A. R. Johnson, of the Los Amigos Ranch properties, as described by the title insurance policies included in this Appli- cation, an area of 1,472.7 acres, more or less, hereby consents to the inclusion thereof in the Application for rezoning as a Planned Unit Development. E Thomas E. Neal - Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 21,st day of December, 1978, by Thomas E. Neal. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires FPhruary 18, 1980 Notary Public �.J CONCLUSION The undersigned owners of Los Amigos Ranch depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements sub- mitted with or contained within this Application are true and correct to the best of their knowledge. The owners of Los Amigos Ranch respectfully request that the subject land be rezoned as a Planned Unit Development in accordance with the terms and provisions above set forth. Robert W. Chatmas - Owner Thomas E. Nea - Owner ✓' James A. R. Johnson - Owner State of Colorado ) ss. County of Garfield ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of September, 1978, by Robert W. Chatmas, Thomas E. Neal and James A. R. Johnson. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires • Notary Public • • Los Amigos Ranch 2929 - 114th Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 September 25, 1978 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen, The undersigned, being a co-owner, along with James A. R. John- son and Thomas E. Neal, of the Los Amigos Ranch properties, as described by the title insurance policies included in this Appli- cation, an area of 1,472.7 acres, more or less, hereby consents to the inclusion thereof in the Application for rezoning as a Planned Unit Development. ( Robert W. Chatmas - Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Deac , 1976, by Robert W. Chatmas. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires 1-) OL 0` Notary Public AO LLe., • • Los Amigos Ranch 2929 - 114th Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 September 25, 1978 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen, The undersigned, being a co-owner, along with Robert W. Chatmas and Thomas E. Neal, of the Los Amigos Ranch properties, as de- scribed by the title insurance policies included in this Appli- cation, an area of 1,472.7 acres, more or less, hereby consents to the inclusion thereof in the Application for rezoning as a Planned Unit Development. J: mes A. R. Jo nson - Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Johnson. day of Her, 1970, by James A. R. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires • Notary Public • • Los Amigos Ranch 2929 - 114th Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 September 25, 1978 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen, The undersigned, being a co-owner, along with Robert W. Chatmas and James A. R. Johnson, of the Los Amigos Ranch properties, as described by the title insurance policies included in this Appli- cation, an area of 1,472.7 acres, more or less, hereby consents to the inclusion thereof in the Application for rezoning as a Planned Unit Development. -yan-tLr Thomas E. Neal - Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 21,st day of December, 1978, by Thomas E. Neal. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires FPhriiary 18, 1980 Not. y Public • • Lincoln DeVore 1000 West Fillmore St. Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907 (303) 632-3593 Home Office Mr. Dean Moffatt Sundesigns 13152 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 September 14, 1978 Re: File No. GS -740 Preliminary Geologic Hazards Investigation for Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Moffatt: Personnel of Lincoln-De-Vore completed a preliminary geologic hazard site inspection on the above referenced property on September 5, 1978, in order to identify and define the geologic :-,nu soils cos:rai:.t5 t;hLui1 may effect the proposed P.U.D. - A set of maps were prepared in connection with this report which were based on a regional study done by Lincoln-DeVore for Garfield County in 1975 under the provisions of Colorado House Bill 1U41. These maps have been amended and added to, but must still be considered as preliminary in nature. Geologically the site could be described as an upland mesa, formed by basalt flows (Tb) (see Plate I) which were extruded during the down cutting of the Roaring Fork Valley. These flows covered the Maroon formation (F Pm) (see Plate I), a thick sequence of red interbedded sandstones, siltstones, and shales which can be seen outcropping along the southwestern edge of the site. The basalt flows also partially covered the Eagle Valley Evaporite (Pev) in the southern portion of the site. The Eagle Valley Evaporite locally consists of white to grey gypsum with widely spaced fine grained sandstones and dark grey shales. The following discussion of the engineering considerations of these three formations is general in nature. The Eagle Valley Evaporite (Pev) has undergone several types of deformation which has resulted in a typical chaotic internal structure. The contortion and deformation of the incompetent materials of this formation dictates that wherever it is exposed it must be considered as potentially unstable„ Other hazards associated with this formation include potential solution, hydrocom- paction and the presence of corrosive minerals. The Maroon formation (IP Pm) is highly fractured and, therefore, easily eroded which provides an excellent source of material for rockfall and debris flows 2700 Highway 50 West Pueblo, Colo 81003 (303) 546-1150 P.O. Box 1427 Glenwood Springs, Colo 81601 (303) 945-6020 109 Rosemont Plaza Montrose, Colo 81401 (303) 249-7838 P.O. Box 1882 Grand Junction, Colo 81501 (303) 242-8968 P.O. Box 1643 Rock Springs, Wyo 82901 (307) 382-2649 EXHIBIT 5 J • • Mr. Dean Moffatt September 14, 1978 Page -2- when exposed on steep slopes. These hazards are only present along the steep valley sides on the west and southwest boundary of the site. Soils derived from the Maroon formation may be susceptible to potential subsi- dence and hydrocompaction. The basalt flows (Tb), which underlie the majority of the site, are dark grey, highly fractured, and vesicular basalts attaining several hundred feet in thickness. The major hazard associated with the basalt is rockfall which is present on the steeper slopes below the cliff -like palisades along the Roaring Fork Valley in the west and 4outhwest edges of the site, and along the outcrops near the eastern boundary. Another large rockfall area is present in the south central portion of the site just north of the Colorado Mountain College access road. Another slope stability problem in the presence of a moderate sized land- slide (Q]) was noted at the base of the palisade between the two major drainage gullies just north of where they intersect. This slide appears fairly old and moderately stable but, without specific analysis, should be considered potentially unstable. The palisades which occur throughout the proposed development area should be considered as potentially unstable and a minimum setback from the edges for buildings should be established prior to construction. The basalt bedrock appears to outcrop or be present at a shallow depth throughout the majority of the site and wherever it is encountered close to the surface will affect both construction and excavation and may require blasting for removal. The shallow bedrock is highly fractured and permeable, which will affect the potential for individual septic systems and may necessitate the use of a central septic system. Surficial deposits mapped as colluvium (Qc) have potential hazards which are dependent on the formations from which they are derived and their modes of deposition. Colluvium, derived from the Maroon formation, is mainly gravity transported and will be susceptible to potential subsidence due to hydrocompaction only, whereas colluvium derived from the Eagle Valley Jvaporite will b3 susceptible to solution, iylrocompa^cio.i and the presence of corrosive minerals. Alluvial deposits mapped as terraces (Qtl_2) consist mainly of well rounded sands and gravels and have no inherent hazards except where they overlie incompetent members of the Eagle Valley Evaporite, which could cause them to be potentially unstable. Sands and gravels also make up the deposit which surrounds the Roaring Fork River labeled (Qal). The alluvial deposit mapped as (Qal) in the eastern part of the site, however, consists mainly of sand, silt and clay deposited by stream action. Expansive clays and/or consoli- dating silts may be encountered in this eastern alluvial area. Another geologic feature mapped as an alluvial fan (Qf) was noted just south of the site but will not affect the proposed development. Two major gullies and several minor ones were inspected to determine their potential for flooding and uebris flows. The evidence indicates that signifi- • Mr. Dean Moffatt September 14, 1978 Page -3- cant stream flow in most of the gullies will exist only during and after torrential rains. The upper part of the drainage basins are fairly flat, cultivated, and cross the highly fractured and permeable basalt flows which tends to reduce runoff to a level far below that which would normally be expected, however, the potential for flooding within the gullies does exist and has been mapped as floodways (fw ) (see Plate III). The lower part of the drainages become fairly steep and contain considerable quantities of debris. Close inspection of these gullies revealed no recent debris flow activity, and actually very little potential for debris flows. As all the areas of proposed development are located on the uplands, the flood hazard to those areas is almost nonexistent. There is a potential for hazards to exist for any roads and dams placed in the area of the gullies; these must be designed for the relevant peak flows and channel configura- tions. In conclusion, there do not appear to be any severe conflicts between the proposed use and the geologic engineering constraints. Site specific studies are recommended in areas of geologic hazards, at which time specific mitiga- tion procedures can be outlined. If there are any questions or if we can be of further service, please feel free to contact the Laboratory at any time. Respectfully submitted, LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LAB. k. y Michael T. Weaver Engineering Geologist Reviewed by Kenneth L. s%vers, Professional Engineer MTU/sko October 10, 1978 LS5 kit, tie& (?-9 SUNDESIGNS ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, AND SOLAR CONSULTANTS Mr. Robert Witkowski - Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 REF: LOS AMIGOS RANCH P.U.D. Dear Bob, OCT 11 1978 4 Ek(r au} t,o. KAMER In consideration of your resignation as Planning Director we would like to request a written memorandum from you to either your successor, the P & Z, the commissioners or us outlining your thoughts and recommendations concerning the Los Amigos Ranch PUD proposal. We feel this to be of utmost importance as regards the nature of the proposal and the forthcoming detailed review process. Prior to the P and Z site visit and work session on October 24, 1978, if your schedule permits, we would like to meet with you for a review of the proposal. Sincerely, Dean K. Moffatt cc: Robert Chatmas William Jochems DKM/cg 1315% Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601, Telephone 303/945-5041 P.O. Box 3102 (1280 Ute Avenue), Aspen, Colorado 81611, Telephone 303/925-8884 RICHARD D. LAMM Governor DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street - Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Administration (303) 839-3581 Ground Water (303) 839-3587 November 28, 1978 Mr. Robert Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Witkowski: C.J. KUIPER State Engineer NOV ;31978 Re: Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. . _:, ,SCR This is to acknowledge receipt of preliminary plan material pertain- ing to the above referenced development of 568 residential units on 2200 acres. We have reviewed the water supply planning information prepared by the developer's consulting engineer and agree that an adequate water supply would be available if the second well can be constructed to provide additional water for peak day requirements. The developer has applied for a municipal well permit for Los Amigos Well No. 6 and it presently is under evaluation by our Ground Water Section. At this time, we do not know if the permit will be issued due to the proximity of existing wells. To reduce the possibility of well interferance, the developer may need to relocate the proposed well to the north in Section 32 where the Spring Valley alluvium appears to have a good saturated thickness. The developer has also filed an application for a conditional water right for this proposed well in Section 5. A statement of opposition has been filed by Colorado Mountain College. The basis for the opposition is that the College believes that its senior water rights (wells) would be detrimentally affected by this proposed well. Until this issue is decided by the Water Court in Case No. W-3873, it is not possible to determine if a second well can be constructed. It is difficult to answer your question concerning the dependable yield of the Spring Valley aquifer based upon the data available. The projections by Wright Water Engineers appear reasonable and if accurate, the aquifer Mr. Robert Witkowski -2- November 28, 1978 should be able to sustain this development and the needs of Colorado Mountain College. The water requirements of Lake Spring Ranch are not known and projections concerning the capability of the aquifer to meet this additional requirement cannot be made. It does appear that if the sustained yield of the aquifer is 1500 to 1600 acre-feet per year as indicated by Wright Water Engineers, that additional development can take place provided the wells are properly located to reduce interference problems . The use of Ruedi Reservoir water for augmentation purposes is possible if the calling water right is situated on the Roaring Fork River, the Colorado River, or a tributary of these rivers if no intervening water rights are being injured. In the Wright Water Report, this is proposed as a possible plan for augmentation should a call be situated below Rifle where numerous conditional water rights are located. In order to use Ruedi Reser- voir water, a contract must be entered into with the Bureau of Reclamation to obtain water for replacement purposes. It is also possible that water stored in Green Mountain Reservoir could be used to protect these domestic or municipal water rights from being cur- tailed by calls on the Colorado River below Glenwood Springs. In that a second well is not presently available, we cannot recom- mend approval of the subdivision. If additional information is provided addressing this problem, we would be most happy to review it upon your request. JAD/H DS : mvf Very cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. Ralph Stallman Land Use Comm. r. Jeris A. Danielson eputy State Engineer POWER OF ATTORNEY I, Thomas E. Neal, of the County of Cook, and State of Illinois hereby designate and appoint Robert W. Chatmas of Pit- kin County, Colorado, my attorney in fact and agent for and in my name and for my benefit to acquire, purchase, exchange, grant options to sell, and sell and convey real property or interest therein, on such terms and conditions as my agent shall deem pro- per concerning any real property owned by me or in which I have an interest, located in Garfield County, Colorado, and to exercise or perform any act, power, duty, right, or obligation, in connec- tion with the foregoing powers. Third parties may rely upon the represenatations of my agent as to all matters relating to any power granted to my agent, and no person who may act in reliance on the representations of my agent or the authority granted to my agent shall incur any liability to me or my estate as a result of permit- ting my agent to exercise any power. Dated this llth day of December, 1978. ri Thomas E. Neal STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) ss. COUNTY OF COOK ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 11th day of December, 1978, by Thomas E. Neal. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 2/18/80 /7 /_.i POWER OF ATTORNEY I, James A. R. Johnson, of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado hereby designate and appoint Robert W. Chatmas of Pit- kin County, Colorado, my attorney in fact and agent for and in my name and for my benefit to acquire, purchase, exchange, grant options to sell, and sell and convey real property or interest therein, on such terms and conditions as my agent shall deem pro- per concerning any real property owned by me or in which I have an interest, located in Garfield County, Colorado, and to exercise or perform any act, power, duty, right, or obligation, in connec- tion with the foregoing powers. Third parties may rely upon the representations of my agent as to all matters relating to any power granted to my agent, and no person who may act in reliance on the representations of my agent or the authority granted to my agent shall incur any liability to me or my estate as a result of permit- ting my agent to exercise any power. Dated this 10th day of December, 1978. STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 10th day of December, 1978, by James A. R. Johnson. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 3/22/83 Notary Pub Resource Management inc. August 24, 1981 Garfield County Planning Commission Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commission Members: The following discussion responds to the issues and questions raised at the first presentation of the proposed amendment of the Los Amigos Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD) . The major changes .l'rorri the original PUD --less multi- family rrulti- family and commercial development --are explained first and followed by discussion of more specific planning issues. THE MAJOR CHANGE --FEWER HIGH DENSITY UNITS AND LESS COMMER- CIAL LAND The Los Amigos Ranch PUD amendment represents a change in emphasis on the type of development that is most appro- priate in this location. The new plan with minimal high density residential housing and considerably less commer- cial acreage does not aspire to create a "new community" development. This change in direction is based on several planning guidelines. 1. Location and Accessibility. The mesa above the valley floor is an inappropriate location for a development with the diversity of uses and hous- ing envisioned in the original plan. Such communities function more efficiently in close proximity to work centers and with direct access to major transportation routes. While CMC antici- pates some growth, it can supply neither the quantity nor the diversity of jobs needed to at- tract and support the residential and commercial development provided on the current PUD plan. The remote location and limited access to and egress from the mesa would likely cause potential new employment enterprises to seek locations that are nearer existing population centers that have ready access to major transportation routes. Post Office Box 11536 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6615 New Hampshire and Colorado Resource Management inc. Garfield Planning Commission August 24, 1981 Page Two 2. Diversity of Housing Types. High density housing occurs more naturally and frequently where there is stiff competition among diverse uses for expen- sive land. The large amount of high density housing proposed on the original plan is not in response to any existing or projected housing demands in the Spring Valley area, and it's con- struction is less likely to occur without a substantial economic stimulus to create a market for higher density housing. Also, the ability to develop multi -family developments is further re- duced by the fact that lenders in today's tight money market can no longer offer financial back- ing for more speculative high density projects. 3 Commercial Development. The 18 commercial acres at Los Amigos are excessive given the population to be generated by Los Amigos, CMC and the remain- ing Spring Valley area. For comparison purposes, 18 acres is equal to 11.7 city blocks in Glenwood Springs. (This calculation incorporates a 25% reduction from the 18 acres for interior site circulation and access.) It is unlikely that this area could ever become a viable major commercial center due to the remote location and availabil- ity of commercial land nearer the existing population centers and along high traffic volume routes. The objectives of the amended PUD plan do not differ significantly from those of the original plan. However, the amended plan does not strive "to offer a variety of housing options in the Glenwood Springs/Carbondale area and the Roaring Fork Valley." Instead, the amended plan offers predominantly high quality, low density homesites that can be responsive to current and future single-family housing demands. Limited medium density housing in the form of townhouses and apartments are planned for later phases to accommodate unforeseen future demands for higher density housing. Housing needs and land development costs have in- creased in Garfield County as they have elsewhere, but it is unlikely that many of the high density lots would be purchased t,,'. in this location for construction of multi- family units. Resource Management inc. Garfield Planning Commission August 24, 1981 Page Three The amended PUD plan will reduce the population living at Los Amigos Ranch by about one quarter. For example, the original plan with 568 units will house 1,818 people based on the average 3.2 people per unit. The amended plan will house 1,354 people based on the same unit density. The im- pacts of the Los Amigos Ranch residents on the Spring Valley area will be correspondingly less. OBJECTIVES OF THE ORIGINAL AND AMENDED PUD The amended PUD plan is not inconsistent with the ob- jectives of the original plan. The only exception is the objective "to provide a variety of housing options in the Glenwood Springs/Carbondale area and the Roaring Fork Valley". The revised plan is based on the opinion that mul- tiple types of housing are inappropriate for the site from planning and marketing standpoints. The new plan can fur- ther the original project objectives. 1. Preserve and maintain productive agricultural land. The revised PUD plan maintains the same amount of land for agricultural purposes, and given the fact that the projected population is decreased by one quar- ter (and therefore a probable decrease in autos, auto emissions and other possible negative impacts), it is unlikely that the revised. PUD plan would diminish the preservation and maintenance of productive agri- cultural land. 2. Realize more efficient uses of the land, water and public utilities, roads and services. Since the revised plan results in a lower population base, effi- ciencies will be realized through less demands for these resources and facilities. 3. Preserve the scenic quality of portions of the property exposed to public view. The multi -family structures will be physically larger than single- family homes and, if more than one level, they will be much more visible particularly if they extend above the pinion and juniper trees. 4. Realize community and recreational amenities in- tegrated with housing and open spaces. Open Space Land Resource Management inc. Garfield Planning Commission August 24, 1981 Page Four is available adjacent to the school site for future organized recreation use by the Los Amigos homeowners association. However, the elimination of high density housing substantially reduces the need for organized community recreation facilities. 5. Realize maximum scenic benefit of agricultural and greenbelt lands. The revised plan actually in- creases the visual appearance of undeveloped agricul- tural and greenbelt lands. Some of the apartment and single-family development areas on the original PUD have been replaced on the new plan by the three rural residential lots which would result in only three single-family homes. 6. Provide service commercial needs convenient to housing and CMC. The three acres proposed on the re- vised plan is adequate for convenience commercial uses such as a foodstore, drugstore, laundry and restau- rant. The commercial land adopted in the approved subdivision is reduced to three acres since 1) it is unlikely that the Spring Valley area will generate demands for 18 acres of commercial property and 2) the area is inappropriate for 1£3 acres of commercial land because of access and location. 7. Provide a procedure for relating residential types, designs and layouts to specific sites in order to preserve the land's natural characteristics. Indi- vidual building sites for each lot will continue to be specified at the time of subdivision approval, and the subdivision covenants and design guidelines will continue to review siting and design features. 8. Encourage integrated planning and development phasing to achieve the foregoing objectives. The re- vised PUD proposal incorporates another element of planning which was not conducted for the initial PUD, a market analysis study. This study reviewed other real estate developments in the Roaring Fork Valley and Glenwood Springs areas and analyzed development sites, costs of lots, absorption rates and similar- ities with Los Amigos Rnnch properties. The change in gi 5 I Resource Management inc. Garfield Planning Commission August 24, 19$1 Page Five emphasis from predominately multi -family to single- family is based, in part, on the observations resulting from this study. NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE CORRIDORS The amended plan retains corridors in ravines for wild- life migration, and the density of housing in these lcoations is equal to or less than that in the original PUD. Fencing will be restricted to the building sites on each lot and a dog ordinance at least as restrictive as Garfield County's ordinance will be included in the PUD restrictive covenants. ROADS IN EXCESS OF EIGHT PERCENT GRADE All of the road alignments have been walked on site and grades have been shot with an inclinometer to ensure that roads can be constructed to not exceed eight percent grades. The issue of road grades, however, must be ad- dressed at the time of more detailed subdivision review, and the roads indicated on the PUD plan are generalized alignments. THE INCREASE OF LOTS ALONG LOS AMIGOS DRIVE The lots along Los Amigos Drive have tree cover of juniper and pinion that permit screening of the homes from the road and from one another. The lots on the revised plan that front onto Los Amigos Drive are fewer in number than those on the original plan with the only exception being the clustered lots at the northwestern corner of the prop- erty. STUDENT HOUSING FOR CMC The amended PUD does not alter existing commitments with CMC to give first option to CMC students for rental of the 96 apartments, 48 of which have been constructed. Last Garfield Planning Commission year there was a 70 to $0 percent occupancy over the school year, and all of the rented apartments with the exception of one were occupied by students. 1:7111 Resource Management inc. Garfield Planning Commission August 24, 1981 Page Six In conclusion, the proposed PUD amendment relies on the original plan in identifying appropriate areas to be developed, but differs from the original plan by emphasiz- ing single-family development which will result in a quarter reduction in overall population density. The orig- inal plan is an imaginative attempt to provide a variety of housing opportunities to future Garfield County residents, but it is not sensitive to reality, in that: 1 There is no significant demand today for high density housing in essentially rural locations in Garfield County. 2. Development of the high density housing requires unrealistically large capital commitments by the Los Amigos Ranch developers without any reason- able economic return. In addition, construction of housing of this type is vir- tual impossible to finance in today's money markets. The revised plan is designed to bring about the gradual imple- mentation of the project on a stronger economic foundation. The revised project is also more consistent with the County's policies to restrict growth in the Spring Valley area. Therefore, we request that you give due consideration to amending the Los Amigos Ranch PUD and subsequently recom- mend approval of the amendments as presented. John P. Stanford Planner • • WALTER E. BROWN 111 ATTORNEY AT LAW 1131 GRAND AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 (303) 945-2361 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1512 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 August 12, 1981 Mr. Davis Farrar Garfield County Planning Office 2014 Blake Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Los Amigos PUD Dear Davis: At the P & Z meeting on August 10, 1981, Commission member Dick Martin asked me about the status of the Spring Valley Sanitation District vis-a-vis Foster Petroleum. My response dealt with two issues; that I understood that an agreement had been forwarded to Alan Friedman (Attorney for the District) which would substantially meet the consensus of Foster, the District and Los Amigos, and; that I understood that Foster's petition to annex into the district was to be scheduled for a district meeting in late August, the early August meeting having been changed since everyone concerned could not appear. I also noted that I understood the basics of a compromise had been reached. On August 11, 1981, I received a call from Duncan Sinnock of Foster Petroleum. Duncan stated his firm had not received a copy of the agreement which is a recovery contract between the District and Los Amigos. He also stated that the annex- ation petition was not scheduled for discussion with the Board to his knowledge and that he had no knowledge of any agreements or compromises having been reached on that matter. He also stated that Mr. Friedman had not formed a final opinion on the agreement yet. Based on the foregoing, the information I presented is apparently in error. I request that you advise the P & Z r-DT91-N r Ic AUG 1 6 1981 UJiRF,ELD CO. i'LIANNa l • • Mr. Davis Ferrer Page Two August 12, 1981 of this and tender a copy of this letter to Mr. Martin. Mr. Greg Hoskin of Grand Junction is the attorney representing Los Amigos in water and sanitation matters. I have not attended all Board meetings nor been involved in all negotiations and therefore the information I conveyed to Mr. Martin was not current. I talked to Greg on August 11, 1981 and learned the following: A draft recovery contract between Los Amigos and the District has been tendered to Mr. Friedman. This agreement was drafted by Los Amigos and designed to address the areas of concern between the District and Los Amigos. It was produced after a June 10, 1981 Board meeting in which the Board voted to include all parties in the District now and Foster in any meetings held to formulate a recovery contract or discuss annexation of Foster. The first meeting that was scheduled for those purposes was for August 3, 1981. That meeting was changed to August 4, 1981 for Board convenience, but since all the parties could not attend, the agenda did not include annex- ation or the recovery agreement. A meeting has been tentatively set for August 31, 1981 by the Board to discuss the recovery agreement. A tentative meeting on September 14 has been requested for discussion of the annexation matter. Mr. Hoskin has advised me that the District and Los Amigos should reach a consensus on the recovery contract before finalizing the annexation issue. By copy of this letter I have advised Duncan Sinnock of its contents, as I promised him I would do. I hope you under- stand that I want the record to be straight and that what I related to the P & Z was the most recent information I had. /9 WEB/sd cc: Duncan Sinnock Thomas E. Neal Greg Hoskin, Esq. Mr. Wm. Kane Kinde 1- Walter E Brown, III • • FOSTER PETROLEUM CORPORATION 242 MAIN STREET CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 303-963-3200 July 10, 1981 Mr. Larry Velasquez Garfield County Commissioner P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81623 Dear Mr. Velasquez: During the Commission Meeting on Monday, July 6, 1981, Foster Petroleum Corporation's final plat for Lake Springs Ranch was referred to the P & Z by Commission vote. There- after discussion turned to the Sanitation District and sanitation service for the PUD. At that time you requested that I submit a cost analysis covering annexation to the District versus a new district with separate sanitation facilities for Lake Springs Ranch. Foster Petroleum Corporation's general position with respect to Lake Springs Ranch development has been to follow as closely as possible guidelines set forth by the County Commissioners and the County Planning Office. We have attempted, for instance, to structure our development and sales program so that no hidden costs were passed on to the ultimate buyers of property in Lake Springs Ranch. Naturally, we pursued with County recommendation a formation of a district for sanitation service with Los Amigos Development and Colorado Mountain College. We agreed, at that time with Mr. Rob Chatmas who was then the managing partner for Los Amigos, to pay one-half of the organizational costs for the formation of the District and are still ready, willing and able to do so. Our understanding was that organizational costs would include one-half (z) of all con- sulting fees associated with the organization of the District up to and including the annexation of Lake Springs Ranch and the annexation agreement, including both attorneys' fees and expenses and engineering fees and expenses. In addition, Foster would, of course, pay the cost of installation of outfall lines, collection lines and its pro rata share of the cost of expanding the sewage treatment facility as required. Over 12 months ago we submitted (through Bob Emerson, local attorney for Foster) an annexation request, and we still are not annexed. After some months of no activity, we began to analyze the options available to Foster to enable us to carry through with our development in the summer of 1981. Those alternatives included annexation, of course, contractual service agreement with the District, andlastly a District serving only the Lake Springs Ranch PUD. At the present time to annex to the existing District will carry with it the following costs, all of which are not totally public knowledge: 1. Apartment levy charge - $420,000.00 - (Mr. Tom Neal has requested $2,000.00 per lot in the Foster Petroleum Corporation PUD to gain his approval for our annex- ation to the Spring Valley Sanitation District. This request was made in a telephone conversation some three days before the June 1981 District Board Meet- ing. At that time, Mr. Neal indicated to me he had sufficient funds to fight our annexation for five years if necessary. His justification for requesting $420,000.00 from Foster Petroleum Corporation was that the apartments which were Mr. Larry Velasquez -2- July 10, 1981 built by Los Amigos had turned out to be economically unfeasible and that they were a requirement by the CMC folks for inclusion in the District. I have spoken with Mr. Rod Anderson of the College, who attended most of the meetings with Rob Chatmas and I, and Mr. Anderson has told me that under no circumstances did the College demand construction of the apartments as a contingency to District forma- tion. Frankly, it is my understanding that the apartments were plagued by bad management and cost overruns which both contributed heavily to their economic problems.) 2. Outfall Line - $250,000.00 - (A line approximately one mile in length will be required to carry waste and sewage from the Lake Springs Ranch PUD to a point near the Pinon Alps Apartments where we would intercept a sewer line to the sewer plant. This $250,000.00 is an engineering number and may not include the cost of blasting in the event rock out-croppings along the opposite side of County Road 114 from the Pinon Alps ultimately requires additional time and money.) 3. Plant Savings - $200,000.00 - (Eldorado Engineering estimates indicate that Foster Petroleum Corporation's share of upgrading existing treatment plant facil- ities to handle 210 units in the Foster PUD will cost approximately $350,000.00. Our research indicates that a 75,000 gallon plant installed and in place can be purchased for approximately $150,000.00.) 4. Total - $870,000.00 - (Paid by purchasers of lots in Lake Springs PUD that could be saved if a Lake Springs Sanitation District were allowed by the County and State.) As you will recall, at the close of the Foster Petroleum Corporation presentation, I requested that the County attempt to define more accurately the term "when feasible" as used in the County Master Plan with respect to consolidation of sanitation facil- ities. I hereby reiterate that request. In this particular set of circumstances, we feel that we are in a "Catch 22" position between the County, State and a District which is now in private hands and under private control and being manipulated for private benefit. We do not want to take advantage of our neighbors or of other people in the County; we wish to pay our own way and we are planning so that our development will not be a burden on existing taxpayers. We would like to be able to proceed with our development without further delays and in a manner that will minimize the cost to the members of the public who will purchase lots in our development. However, the way out of this "Catch 22" is not clear to me at this time, and I am requesting, as I did in Monday's meeting, that you advise us as to how to proceed to solve the problem which is beginning to tol- more and more money in terms of losses every day that goes by that we cannot develop the subject property. I will be more than happy, as will our attorneys, to meet you at anytime, anywhere to bring this rather unique problem to an end. I am looking forward to a response in the near future. \Sincerely, \tcL:4(/ uncan L. Sinnock Real Estate Investment Manager DLS:jc Enclosure Recorded at Reception No 1 - JUN 1 ;i 9rir3� o'clock M , STATE STATE OF COLORADO, County of GARFIELD THOMAS E. NEAL County of Cook f ss. of the , in the State of Illinois being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says that LOS AMIGOS RANCH PARTNERSHIP anti 1)5 AMIGOS RANCH BOOK 550 PAGEIWS Recorder. are the names under which a business or trade is being carried on at 2929 County Road 114, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 in the County of _Garfield , and State of Colorado. The full first names and surnames and addresses of all persons who are represented by the RAH saidnamesof Los Amigos Ranch Partnership and LOS AMIGOS a e as follows: Thomas E. Neal, 327 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1724, Chicago, TT,r, 60604 James A.R. Johnson, P. 0- 13nx 15263, Minneapolis, MTNNI 55415 Robert W. Chatmas, P. 0. Box 2218, Aspen, CO 81611 (the Partnership Agreement of the partners is recorded at Book 543, Page 16, Reception No. 301283, Garfield rnnnty CPrk and Recorder, State of Colorado) The affiant is (one of the persons) (±kmpenum)*carrying on said business or trade under the above names . E. NEAL, Managing' Partner Subscribed and sworn to before me, this /2 day of My commission expires 6: /t , /(1,1 - Witness my hand and official seal. �,,tt t t I,,,,,,,,,,, .ti``°: p3 10 ''�, C— -Th e.4-32 a" .,�z/';:+ 1 eh • Notary.: ubD *Strike as applicable ; , . tj n . NOTE—The foregoing Affidavit must be filed in the county in which any` t � � � do g g person, part or a§sociatioi% ot- persons does business or carries on a trade in the State of Colorado under any other name than th*a+perflona1 •naVne cif Its constituent members. The Affidavit is to be refiled for any change, whether by withdratira1,, additional, or otherwise, of the parties represented by the name. Unless filed, suits for collection of debts may not be prosecuted and failure will warrant a misdemeanor charge which upon conviction carries a fine of not less than $10.00, nor more than $$04,40. Q.R.S. 7-71-101.(1973) et seq. No. 298. TRADE NAME AFFIDAVIT. Rev. 79—Bradford Publishing. 15165 West 44th Avenue. Golden. Colorado 80401 — (303) 278-0644-2-80 Recorded at Reception No APR 91980 o'clock � M., 3(42 2 /l BOOK Recorder./7 STATE OF COLORADO, County of GM FTFT,D ROBERT W. CHATMAS of the County of GARFIET,D , in the State of Colorado, being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says that LOS AMIGOS PARTNERSHIP 546 PAcE6 1 2929 County Road 114, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 is the name under which a business or trade is being carried on at Glenwood Springs,_Colorado 81601 2929 County Road 114, in the County of GARFIELD , and State of Colorado. That the full Christian and surname and address of all the persons who are represented by the said name of T,ns Amigos PartnPrshi p Thomas F Neal, 327 S LaSail_, Sui 1724, .•• is as follows, to wit: •• •i.14 James A.R. Johnson, P. O. Box 15263, Minneapolis, MINN 55415 Robert W. Chatmas, P. O. Box 2218, Aspen, Colorado 81611 That the affiant is name or style aforesaid. the person carrying on said business or trade under the Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 7f day of l►, „,� �- t'6 ILS , ROBERT W. CHATMAS, managing partner �/ �i Q ���'�'„- My commission expires - , / - 7 l � , 19 .? •�,, �� Witness my hand and official seal. -,Uy �c�\fig nd • . * "i' i / Li' <!, .../j/ .: 'ro l.Li E, �� `,.•, �' Motlry Puk)cd, `. ,ll i NOTE—All co -partnerships and every person doing business otherwise than in his own fu3 es. this affidavit, which must be filed in the county in which the firm carries on its trade or business,"Araha t b€Vefiled whenever there is any change in the membership of the firm; and no suit can be prosecuted by '6%0�►fhlfrm11(p,r`E e collection of any debts until such affidavit is filed. - No. 298. TRADE NAME AFFIDAVIT.— Pradford Publishing Co., 1846 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado 1:',73-50111-6.78 0GARFIELD COUNTY 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO B1601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-8212 July 30, 1981 Walter Brown 1131 Grand Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Walt: I am writing to inform you that the Los Amigos P.U.D. amendment has been scheduled with the County Commissioners on August 10, 1981 at 11:30. This meeting is to determine if the proposal will be referred to the Planning Commission. You should be at this meeting to answer any questions. Please call this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Davis S. Farrar Planner DSF: l d Resource Management inc. July 23, 1981 Mr. Davis Farrar County Planner Garfield County 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO $1601 RE: Los Amigos Ranch Further Information Dear Davis: Attached are a number of maps and some additional in- formation which is submitted in response to a few of the questions you raised at our meeting on Tuesday, the 21st First is a map which physically relates the phasing schedule to the overall P.U.D. This map identifies which lots would come on in each year during the first three years of the proposed development at Los Amigos. The next item is a map which relates the lots which are proposed for service by Central Sewer to the Spring Valley Acquifer as it is located within the Los Amigos prop- erty. Finally, on the question of areas to be covered by both central sewer and septic, with this P.U.D. revision we are actually reducing the number of units to be serviced by on-site sepctic by 11. The original P.U.D. called for a total of 122 single-family lots which were to be serviced by individual, on-site septic systems. In our current sub- mission, we are proposing 163 single-family units with 52 of those to be serviced by the central sewer, thereby leav- ing a balance of lots to be serviced by septic of 111. The enclosed map reflects which of those lots are proposed for central sewer service and which are proposed for septic. Hopefully, this information will be helpful in the review of the Los Amigos P.U.D. Amendment. Sincerely, William G. Kane Vice President/Planning Post Office Box 11536 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6615 New Hampshire and Colorado • LOS AMIGOS RANCH 327 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1724 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 (312) 630-5226 July 29, 1981 To Whom It May Concern: As an owner, partner and the managing partner of Los Amigos Ranch Partnership, I hereby give my consent to the PUD amendment application and its process before the Garfield County Commissioners. Thomas E. Neal TEN:kit Leonard Bowlby Road Supervisor September 28, 1981 GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. Box 1485 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Sno-Engineering, Inc. PO Box 11536 Aspen, Co81611 Att'n: John P. Stanford Dear John; Phone 945-6111 This will confirm conversation September 23, 1981 between us regarding County Road 114. From the location known as Deadmans Curve to the Colorado Mountain College turnoff the road needs widened to a minimum driving surface of 24 feet. There are also several curves that can be made less severe with a minimum amount of work and the cutting of cedar trees that are close to the roadway would help the line of sight. The only major construction required would be in reducing the grade on the hill just to the north of the old entrance to Los Amigos. This short span or road is very troublesome during the winter months. If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ///,/'' • Leonard A. Bowlby Garfield County Road Supervisor ?K� LAB/pc September 22, 1981 Board of County Co!nmissioners Garfield County, Colorado P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Gentlemen: ra The Spring Valley Ranch is in the process of performing num- erous studies such as site analysis, hydraulics, geologic, market analysis studies. and many other physical and financial impact studies as well as a traffic study Tnd .road improvement study of County Road 114 from State Highway 82 up to and through the Spring Valley Ranch. Bob Sternberg of our development team has consulted the - county staff relative to the scope and concerns of the county as it relates to this proposed study. ^;c are now in the process of interviewing traffic consultants and should have a consultant selected within the next several weeks. With that brief background information, let me state our concerns relative to any near. future improvements of County way 115. 115. We would request that no improvements be requested of devel- opers to this roadway until our study is completed in order that the upgrading of the road can he based on a comprehensive study better serving the entire area in terms of short need and long- term planning. Also, with the information generated by the stud- y, a more equitable cost sharing formula could be developed be- tween the developers in the area. We look forward to your comments and direction and will re- view the traffic engineering proposals with your staff prior to the selection of a consultant.• Yours vr_r-y truly, ,/ R�y Watring cc: Hal Terrell RW/s o s un: • • -,( ki b- 8 CARBONDALE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 300 Meadowood Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 September 16, 1981 Mr. Davis Farrar Garfield Co. Planner 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Davis: I am in receipt of your letter of August 31, 1981 and offer the following comments on fire protection in the Spring Valley Area. Concerning the Los Amigos/CMC area: Colorado Mountain College has expressed a willingness to provide land, free of charge, to the Fire District for construction of a fire station. The proposed fire station would be a sub- station of the Carbondale Fire Department and would be used for first response duties. The "heavy artillary" would still respond from the Carbondale station. The sub -station should be constructed with the capability to add-on as the area grows. The sub -station could also provide first response fire protection to the Westbank area, and the entire southwestern part of the Fire District. Funding the construction of such a station is quite another question. The Carbondale Fire District does not currently have budget provisions for such funding. Requiring the various PUD's in the area to fund the construction is an option, I suppose. Possibly grant monies could be procured. The Fire District does recognize the need for a sub -station in that end of the Fire District and plans to pursue all available avenues to accomplish this plan. Concerning the Spring Valley area that is not presently in an incorporated fire district: should the various property owners choose to petition the Fire District for annexation, and should the Fire District elect to expand its bound- aries, then provisions will have to be made for yet another sub -station in that area. (Assuming the Cattle Creek Ranch PUD of 131 Units is developed as plan- ned). Our response time to Westbank is currently 9 minutes, to CMC is currently 15 minutes, and to Cattle Creek Ranch is currently 20 minutes. (All times are approximate). 501 , • e Mr. Davis Farrar September 16, 1981 Page Two I hope this answers some of your questions regarding the Fire District plans for the Spring Valley area. I look forward to working with you further on this subject and if I can be of further assistance to you, please call me at 963-2491. Sincerely, et - Ron Leach Carbondale Fire District RL:cf S t 0 - en sneering inc. ; Management • • 17d-xci /% 7/1-4 )674e -c -b j4z, //711 S— t le' Post Office Box 11536 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6615 New Hampshire and Colorado • GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-8212 August 31, 1981 Ron Leach Carbondale Rural Fire Dist. 300 Meadowwood Dr. Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Ron: The Los Amigos partnership has requested an amendment to their P.U.D. in Spring Valley near C.M.C. This amendment would result in an overall re- duction in density from 568 units to 423 units. The Planning Commission has given a recommendation for approval with several conditions. One of these conditions was that the developer designate a site within the P.U.D. for a fire substation if it were requested by the fire district. I would like you to provide this office with your comments on the following items and any other concerns that you might have for that area. 1. Designation of a site for a fire substation. 2. What are the districts plans for the Spring Valley area? 3. Estimation of response time to Spring Valley, specifically, Los Amigos/C.M.C. 4. What is the districts financial capacity for construction of additional facilities in that area? 5. Any other concerns that you might have. If you have any questions please contact me at this office. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Davis Farrar Planner DF:ld • GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 91601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-8212 August 31, 1981 Leonard Bowlby County Road Supervisor 1015 School Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Leonard: The Los Amigos partnership has applied for an amendment to their P.U.D. This amendment would result in an overall reduction in density from 568 units to 423 units. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this proposal with a number of conditions. One of these conditions was that they address improvements to the C.M.C. road (County Road 114). I would like you to provide this office with your recommen- dation for improvements to 114 road that the developers should be required to participate in. If you would like any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at this office. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Davis Farrar Planner DF:ld • 1:7 1 11 Resource Management inc. August 25, 1981 Davis Farrar Garfield County Planner 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Davis: One of the conditions of the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval for the Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. Amendment was that the interior roads meet County road spec- ifications. We would appreciate a clarification of what this condition will mean as we begin the subdivision process after approval by the County Commissioners. Also, we would like to know when we will be scheduled before the County Commissioners. Thank you. Sincerely, 341) ohn P. Stanford Planner cc: Malcolm Wall klm 57T,,9773F,F7-9' AUG 2 6 1981 JEFFREY H. SACHS HERBERT S. KLEIN JON DAVID SEIGLE JAMES H. DELMAN • SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 October 12, 1981 Mr. Earl Rhodes Garfield County Attorney P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Re: Application for Amendment to Los Amigos Ranch PUD Dear Earl: t14 TELEPHONE (303) 825.8700 I am writing this letter to follow up on my correspondence of July 29, 1981, to Davis Farrar of the Garfield County Planning Office and my telephone conference with you of August 6, 1981, concerning the above-described application and my client, Dean Moffatt. Dean indicated to me this week that the Board of County Commissioners tabled consideration of the application due to a failure to properly notify certain property owners and that the matter has been set for hearing on October 19, 1981. In anticipation of the hearing on this application by the Board of County Commissioners I wish to further confirm our understanding with respect to Mr. Moffatt's pending claims against the Los Amigos Ranch property and the lis pendens covering said property. You stated to me during our telephone discussion that the Board could consider the amended application but that they would not grant final plat approval until Mr. Moffatt's claims and liens on the property were resolved. We believe that your position is correct and will insure that any subdivision approval will not be jeopardized by foreclosure or execution of the Los Amigos Ranch property as a result of the disposition of Mr. Moffatt's claims. The only question remaining which I would appreciate clarification of is a matter of procedure. Specifically, assuming the Board is inclined to grant approval, will such approval be granted subject to the condition that Mr. Moffatt's claims be resolved and the property freed of his liens or will no approval be granted until Mr. Moffatt's claims are resolved and the property freed from his lien. Although it may appear that the distinction is one of form over substance, I believe that there is substantial substance to the difference between an approval with conditions and no approval. An approval with conditions may create justifiable reliance on the part of the applicant so that regardless of the manner in which the conditions are met and the timeliness of satisfying Mr. Earl Rhodes October 12, 1981 Page Two those conditions, the County would be estopped from revoking the approval. In addition, an approval with conditions may permit or encourage the applicant to attempt to obtain sale agreements for lots still subject to Mr. Moffatt's liens, the undertaking of financing to construct required public improvements and other contractual obligations which, in the event conditions are not met, would create hardships for "innocent" third parties who may then petition the Board to lift the conditions so that they will not be damaged by the applicant's possible failure to satisfy the conditions. It is clear, however, that if the Board refused to grant approval until the applicant can demonstrate that the conditions (such as Mr. Moffatt's claims) have been resolved, there can be no justifiable reliance and the Board will not have the spector of having to alleviate the hardships of third party purchasers, contractors or lenders. In addition, in the event the Board's planning goals and policies should change to meet the ever changing conditions in Garfield County, the Board would be able to address those concerns as they may affect the application without being prejudiced by a previously granted approval with conditions. I hope that you will take the foregoing into consideration when making your recommendation to the Board on how they should proceed in this matter. I understand and agree with your previous determination that the Board could consider the application prior to the resolution of Mr. Moffatt's claims and greatly appreciate your determination that the application could not obtain final plat approval until such claims were resolved. However, we never articulated our respective positions on the matters presented above which involve the procedure between consideration of the application and final plat approval. We believe that consideration to the application may be given but that no approval should be granted until Mr. Moffatt's claims and liens on the property are resolved. I hope you will take these suggestions in the spirit in which they were given. We do not wish to hinder, delay or harrass the applicants in their efforts to obtain amendments to the revised plat. Our purpose is to protect Mr. Moffatt's rights and to assist the Board in any way possible so that they can be assured that when they grant approval to this project the parceling of lots will take place according to the approved subdivision plan and not pursuant to a Court ordered foreclosure of Mr. Moffatt's lien or execution upon his claims if his litigation is ultimately successful. On behalf of Mr. Moffatt I wish to express our appreciation for your consideration in this matter. Would you kindly contact me prior to October 19 so that we may discuss our Mr. Earl Rhodes October 12, 1981 Page Three • respective positions so that I may be prepared to address Mr. Moffatt's concerns in the event you do not agree with our suggestions. Very truly yours, SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE 2' By K/fs cc: Dean Moffatt Davis Farrar ertS . Klein • October 6, 1981 Walter E. Brown III P.O.Box 1512 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81602 Dear Walt, .11ufr!i/p r( 6un1)4ri STEWART TITLE OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS 805 Colorado Avenue P.O. Box 430 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-5434 Here follows a list of the names and addresses of the surface owners adjacent to the Los Amigos Ranch P.U.D. in Garfield County. The addresses are based on either the address shown of the deeds or the address cards in the County Assessors Office. Truly Yours, R. L. Rays Vice President • GARFIELD COUNTY 411 PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-8212 LOS AMIGOS P.U.D. AMENDMENT Recommendation for approval with the following conditions• :n�rove;Y.e: r c,,AA rese_4 gy /Pre 1. That County Road #114 fie. --improved to the satisfaction -of the County and the Road and Bridge Department. 2. That a fire substation be designated on the site at preliminary plat, if requested by the Carbondale Fire District. 3. That the dwelling units on the lower bench be served by central sewer because the units are on the Spring Valley Aquifer. 4. That all interior roads within the subdivision meet County standards. 1