Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 CorrespondenceKarla Mobley 1274 County Road 237 Harvey Gap Road Silt, Colorado 81652 Home Phone 970-876-2060 Email kmobley@oneimage.com April 14, 1999 Garfield County Commissioners Glenwood Springs, Colorado Re: Amended and Corrected Plat Regulation Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision Amended Final Plats Gentlemen: I am requesting that the Garfield County Commissioners review the Amended and Corrected Plat Regulation Section 6:00 of the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado (February 19, 1997 as amended). This regulation was recently used to amend a portion of the Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision and in the process created confusion among the adjoining landowners of this property and other interested parties. By definition (Section 2:20:02) an Amended Final Plat is "a recorded plat amended to correct minor surveying, drafting errors and other minor changes, if the amendment does not increase the number of approved Iot(sic), represent a major relocation of a previously platted rad(sic), or creates a new road". There appears to be a discrepancy between the definition of an Amended Final Plat (Section 2:20:02) and Section 6:10 wherein the guidelines are established in regards to amendments to a recorded plat. Is the definition negated by the statement "An amendment may be made to a recorded plat, if such amendment does not increase the number of subdivision lots or dwelling units, result in the major relocation of a road or add new roads."? I do not feel the use of the Amended and Corrected Plats - Section 6:00 is appropriate in regards to the Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision Plat and other properties like it for the following reasons: • It is not a minor surveying or drafting error or minor change (Section 2:20:02) when 14 ten acre lots are traded for 14 two to five acre lots even if the number of subdivision lots or dwelling units is not increased. • All county road easements within the Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision had been vacated in 1957 therefore new roads were created. I have been led to understand by Planning Staff that whether or not it is appropriate to use this regulation, it is legal and as an adjoining landowner the only public notice I would have received is the County Commissioner's Meeting Agenda as posted in the Citizen Telegram or Valley Journal. RECEIVED APR 1 5 1999 Because there are no guidelines set within this regulation in regards to Public Notice or notification of adjoining landowners (as are written within other sections of the subdivision regulations) I was unaware of the action taking place until very late in the process, I was ignorant of what had taken place in public proceedings and did not understand what the landowner intended to do with the property. I am not a proponent of "clustering" and as one of two landowners most affected by the Peach Valley Orchard Amended Plats I do not feel comfortable with the impacts it will have on my surroundings. Had I been aware of the proceedings I would have requested that this subdivision be subjected to a full subdivision review and would have had some proposals to offer in regards to road placement and visual buffering. As stated earlier I am requesting that you review the Amended and Corrected Plats subdivision regulation. Please determine what the definition of an Amended Plat is, establish guidelines regarding the appropriate use of this regulation and require Public Notice and notification of adjacent landowners when appropriate. Thank You, rad, - Karla K. Mobley cc: Garfield County Planning Department 09c-08-98 10:10P PRINCE CREEK Ex 114;4- tRI 970 963 2140 P.07 ca v N N N N v v V V V V V -. NNNNNNNNNN(.4c.0.4C.4 41.41.41. AAAAAAAAAA40Oo 000d Ag0)0)010)0)0)0)0ONNNN r`0000000000000Q NN►Vi 000-1 AAAA A;h4 �p.A I 4.00 1 :4!.3N 2.42 1 NOL+sAW ACRES 840000000 QNN Nkwk,4.4cN.A..+ ca v March 30, 1999 Garfield County Commissioners Glenwood Springs, CO. Re: Second Amended Plat -Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision Commissioners: The Amended Subdivision Plat for Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision you recently approved appears to be an obvious disregard for local residents and a blatant double standard for subdivision approval. The most damaging aspect of this matter will set a precedent for further Amended Subdivision Plats in the already impacted Silt Mesa and Garfield County, in general. It has also been brought to our attention that the conservation easement for the subdivision is contingent on a verbal agreement, which is not binding. We are requesting that you reconsider the Amended Subdivision Plat and the present verbal agreement concerning the conservation easement. The amendment was used to change 10 acre lots into 2-5 acre lots, drastically changing the density, "lay out", and impact from the previous plat. We do not believe the existing regulation applies to the present situation and feel a full subdivision review is in order, especially since one local landowner was denied similar amendments on a much smaller scale. We were also considering amending our plat, for more effective use, and were told that the current mind set of the County Commissioners was not favorable towards amending existing plats! As exhibited by local response, most of us were and still would be willing to let the previous 10 acre parcels and 40 acre parcel be developed. The land use and density was comparable to the Silt Mesa area. Now, one parcel has been amended with public notice and the original development has been drastically changed due to a loophole in Garfield County's Amended Subdivision Regulations, without public review, and approval on a verbal agreement that is not binding. We are in agreement with other adjoining land owners by requesting the same rights and courtesies you have shown other Garfield County residents by again asking that a full subdivision review be concluded, including but not limited to, public input, engineering review, protective ordinances, before approval of the amended review; and that no verbal agreemen Of considered as conditions for amendment. / tad er onnie L. Kunstadter 0588 250 Rd. Silt, CO. 81652 April 1, 1999 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Garfield County Court House Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 TO: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: This letter is to express my concern over the Simon Final Subdivision Exemption Plat, Simon Amended Final Plat, Simon First Amended Final Plat, and Simon Second Amended Final Plat coming before the Commissioners on April 5, 1999. Please note that the original Peach Valley Orchard Map diagrammed fourteen 10 acre parcels and One 40 acre parcel. I understand in 1998 David Hicks who has a purchase agreement with the Present Owner Sonia L. Simon of Burlingame, California, requested the county to split the 40 acres into four parcels, which required notifying the adjoining property owners (that is those owners who directly adjoin the 40 acre parcel). Now David Hicks is requested an approval for 18 parcels within the total 180 acres (being the 40 acre split into 4 parcels and the 140 acres which again are presently split into fourteen 10 acre parcels. The owner was required to notify the adjoining property owners on the 40 acre parcel because they were breaking it into 4 parcels and the Peach Valley Orchard Map showed only 1 parcel. Now the adjoining property owners of the remaining Peach Valley Orchard Parcels are not having to be notified because you are looking at the total acreage, yet nothing has changed. Each parcel per the Peach Valley Orchard Map is an individual parcel being changed in its configuration and for said reason, I believe the owner is required to notify each and every owner of the possible change of the original Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision. One cannot say one time we have to notify the adjoining property owners of changes and the next time we do not. Each and every change of number of parcels or configurations of a already platted subdivision must require the notification of the adjoining property owners. Presently you have, from what I can tell, twelve 10 acre parcels, per the Peach Valley Orchard Map, which adjoins other properties and these owners should have been notified of the changing of the original platted map which is on file with the County of Garfield, State of Colorado. PAGE ONE Letter to the County Commissioners Dated: April 1, 1999 PAGE TWO I am sure the owners adjoining this proposed subdivision, have many concerns such as I have. Some of my concerns are as follows: 1) I have been told that the 119 ± parcel will be left and never divided. If in fact the County Commissioners believe this is a fact, than that would need to be a stipulation of the subdivision agreement of record for future Commissioners and owners to know. Otherwise Ms. Simons or Mr. Hicks or any new owner could come back in and ask for a further division split of the land and there would be nothing in writing to protect the adjoining owners who this has been represented to. 2) Did you, as County Commissioners, request a water augmentation on this land prior, in order to know exactly where the water is coming from to provide adequate water for the parcels you are considering and to protect the adjoining parcel owners from having their wells dry up. How much water does the wells that are being represented to be providing water to the parcels produce and are they even drilled at this time. Have you seen a production sheet on these wells? Was the applicant requested to notify the Division of Water Resources requesting them to augment the proposed subdivision and if so, what was the Division of Water Resources reply? I believe this is normally required for proposed subdivisions in the County of Garfield. 3) Irrigation is a big part of the Silt Mesa Area and again must be considered when dividing up parcels Which areas of this land has been irrigated and how many acres and which has not and how many acres. When irrigation usage is altered, even though the owner has X -amount of shares, how will what you are thinking of allowing affect subdivisions below this land and farms and ranchers, small and large alike. 4) Presently the road to Silt Mesa are heavily traveled by the subdividing going on, yet no maintenance has taken place on either what is 1st Street leaving Silt but turns into County Road approximately 2 blocks from Highway 6 & 24 out of Silt and off 7th Street on past the curve leaving Silt. County Road 261 is a Graveled road with large amounts of dust now and in poor condition. As far as I am aware no work has been completed on County Road 237 or County Road 250 since I have lived out in the area for approximately 20 years. Letter to County Commissioners Dated: April 1, 1999 Page Three Each home owner is considered to own at least 2 vehicles and in the in the rural areas this statistic increases to 2 1/2 to 3 vehicles per house hold on the average. Not to mention horse trailers and tractors and four wheelers. 5) Is the County presently capable of providing domestic water to the home owners where wells will dry up in the future, perhaps they are considering something like Orchard Mesa Water in the Grand Junction area. Surely making sure water is available to all who are given building permits and who presently have resided in the area for years should be a major concern. Also what effect is the constant and ever continuing septic and leach fields dumping into a concentrated area going to have on the over-all domestic water? 6) It is highly unusual that the County would consider accepting 4 revised and amended plats and the final Plats all at the same time and at the same meeting, what seems to the public to be to push something through without proper input and public notice. I believe the public has a right to be heard, as they are going to be directly and indirectly affected by this and other large parcels being split. Surely hearing the public and notifying them prior to accepting a change cannot be considered anything but "A GOOD THING". It allows the owners a chance to perhaps bring to the Commissioners attention, something that the Commissioners were unaware of and at the least allows them to have a say in their government and land use. Please remember, I believe that you cannot change size of the existing 10 acres that are platted no matter how many an individual owner owns and puts them all together. You are changing individual platted 10 acre parcels, making "YES" some larger, but making some with a much higher density than originally accepted per the Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision Map Thank you for your time. I hope that you will consider tabling this, and allowing time to make sure everything met and went through the proper channels and allowing the public and adjoining land owners to voice their concerns. Respectfully, DAVID R. EBELER and SHARON K. EBELER MobleylBustad 1158 County Road 237 1274 County Road 237 Silt, Colorado 81652 Home Phone 970-876-2060 Email kmobley©oneimage.com March 29, 1999 Garfield County Commissioners Glenwood Springs, Colorado Re: Second Amended Final Plat - Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision Amended Final Plat - Simon Subdivision Exemption Gentlemen: You recently approved an Amended Subdivision Plat for the Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision. It is our understanding that you approved this amendment against the advice of your Planning Department and accepted a verbal agreement instead of a written agreement for a conservation easement as a condition of the amended plat. This change occurred without our knowledge or input because of a loophole in the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. It is our contention that the type of changes reflected in the amended subdivision should have been subject to a full subdivision review with proper notification of all adjacent landowners as well as public review. We are respectfully requesting that you reconsider your approval of the Second Amended Final Plat - Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision and consider amending the existing Amended Subdivision Regulation to state that adjoining landowners be notified by certified mail of any proposed property line or lot adjustments. We do not believe that the existing regulation was intended to be used to change 10 acre lots into 2 to 5 acre lots without a full subdivision review. Any conservation easement accepted should be a legally binding and recorded document. Conservation easements are a valuable concept, but the idea is more complex than simply looking at a plat and accepting without proper review what you are shown. If you accept this amended plat in it's current form we feel you will have set a precedent for improper review of land development in Western Garfield County. As adjoining landowners to this parcel of land we were dismayed to discover that the 40 acres of sagebrush south of our properties - one of the very few truly undeveloped areas left on Silt Mesa and currently divided into four 10 acre lots - home to a small herd of deer, a family of red foxes, several pheasants and many species of songbirds, will become the home to 10 human families on 3 to 5 acre lots. An intermittent stream with perpetual springs in the stream course (i.e.. a wetland) also crosses this property. Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision was already divided into 10 acre lots and had been for 90 years. Maybe our predecessors knew something we don't. This subdivision didn't increase population density in nearly the same way as the amended subdivision will, and was not out of character with existing uses. The 2 to 5 acre lots would have fit existing uses more fully on the southeast side of the property - just north of Panoramic Subdivision instead of where they were placed and would have been more compatible with Comprehensive Plan Proposals. The landowners to the north of us recently contacted the planning department concerning the process to break their 2 Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision Lots into two 2 acre lots, a 10 acre lot and a 6 acre lot. In order to do this they would have had to go through a major subdivision review - costing thousands of dollars including engineering reports - and it could have taken up to a year with no promise of final approval. The amended subdivision approval on the property south of us must have taken much less time and there were no engineering reviews required. The Amended Subdivision Regulation should be fully reviewed by your Planning Department and County Surveyor and amended to state that adjoining landowners must be notified by certified mail of any changes to existing plats and clear guidelines should be established in regards to the type of amendments that could be subject to the regulation. (example: changes in lot acreage of 10% or more will not be applicable under the Amended Subdivision Regulation). Please don't establish a precedent by approving this amended subdivision plat. It should be subject to a major subdivision review including engineering reviews. Respectfully, LtdL,L Karla K. Mobley (T Vueg/ Dee Mobley 'Gaal C. Mobley Other Concerned Silt Mesa Landowners 04.9 (a. ! ( z arvuL ` 6-3 , 0. 0703 C -y C X65 -c2._ s.) uc,)(6(1191k (u/cC- / 2 �,�Ca Other Concerned Silt Mesa Landowners ,� // G /mac)/ G 3 -7 /�, o/ 3, // H6 7 ) 3 7X/ /c 7 o Q 2 3 7 ;<d Sc , c G E �� S�Z- /7,771:-Y N z 737 C � Iff7 (4 -z57 Cay € et— 4y76 d ' '23 7 ,P/ /*"7/". DISCUSSION ON PEACH VALLEY ORCHARD AMENDED PLAT, SECOND AMENDED PLAT, SIMON SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIOIN, SIMON SUBDIVISION AMENDED EXEMPTION PLAT Don DeFord and Mark Bean were present. Mark Bean presented a letter dated April 15, 1999 from David Hicks requesting the plat amendments to Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision and Simon Subdivision Exemption Plat be withdrawn. David stated they now own the Simon property. His only request is to have the Chair authorized by the Board to sign the Resolution on the original submittal of a 4 tract split. Mark mentioned he had received a letter from Attorney Robert Chaffin which he read into the record that stated they will not appear today but if Mr. Hicks does try to have amended plats approved, they need to be notified. Mark mentioned the exemptions were subject to notification and it was noticed properly. David Hicks affirmed he wanted to withdraw the amendments. He proposes to sell some of these lots. Public Comment Dee Mobley an adjoining property owner commented that she hopes somewhere down the line the Commissioners will re -do a process to require notification of the adjacent property owners. Chairman Martin stated she could request that to the Planning Commission. Dave Ebler, owner of property to the south, said he and his wife and the Homeowners Association had written letters but now that David Hicks has withdrawn he was not against it. They had bad feelings especially about water and traffic. The county road is not safe and is one of their main concerns. David Hicks stated this was done in 1909 and put in 10 acre lots. Now it is 18 and 199 acres. Don DeFord stated on the exemption that Mr. Hicks needed to clarified that he was the owner. Commissioner McCown mentioned the Simon's were apprehensive and suggested Mr. Hicks pursue the conservation easement. He also reiterated he would not approve anything on that 199 acres as long as he was a Commissioner. Assurance beyond 20 years was a concern of the neighbors. David Hicks said he cannot change this. He had already deposited funds and now he has no other choice but to split it in 10 acre plots. Mark requested the Chair be authorized to sign the plat and the Resolution. Commissioner McCown made a motion that the Chair be authorized to sign a Resolution and the plat regarding the Exemption from Subdivision on the 40 acres parcel as noted in the legal description. Chairman Martin stepped down as Chair to second the motion; carried. January 27, 1999 Garfield County Building & Planning Department Mr. Mark Bean, Director 109 8th St, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 David Hicks 1051 County Road 111 Carbondale, CO 81623 RE: Simon Subdivision Exemption and Plat Amendment of Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision Dear Mr. Bean, I am submitting four plats for review by your staff for the February 14 hearing before the County Commissioners. Two plats concern the Simon Subdivision Exemption and two plats concern the Peach Valley Orchard Subdivision. The 72 -hour well test is scheduled to be conducted starting February 2°d by Samuelson Pump Company. Water resource engineer Paul Currier bas submitted an application to the West Divide Water Conservancy District to lease water to cover the expansion of the existing use of the historic well. I have attached a copy of the application to West Divide W.C.D. along with the usage calculations provided by Paul Currier, P.E. Attorney Gerald Hartert is preparing the well sharing agreement which will state that I will retain ownership of the well, since it also serves the large lot that is the ranch. Each lot owner will be provided domestic water from the well with the stipulation that when the lot owner has connected to a central water supply they will relinquish all rights to water from my well. I have also attached a copy of the letter from Sean Mello, Captain of the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District, confirming that both of these subdivisions are within their protection district. I am requesting that the requirement for a 20 -year conservation easement be removed for two reasons. First, the mortgage holder has refused to allow me to burden the large parcel that I intend to keep for ranching with a 20 -year conservation easement until 1 have retired their mortgage. Second, if the conservation easement is required then I can not claim a charitable contribution for providing the easement. I am submitting this with a faxed signature and I will follow with a signed original by U. S. Mail. Please call me if you have any questions. David Hicks 963-8182 Paul C. Currier, P.E. Water Resource Engineer 244 Hutton Ave. Rifle, Colorado 81650 PH / FAX (970) 625-5433 Cell (970) 618-3213 e-mail: pcurrier.c-a@juno.com West Divide Water Conservancy District 125 West 4th Street Rifle, CO 81650 RE: Application for Water Contract Dave and Connie Hicks Gentlemen: January 20, 1999 Enclosed are completed forms for a WDWCD contract for Mr. and Mrs. Dave and Connie Hicks. As the agent for the Hicks, I have enclosed the following: • Two completed and notarized copies of the WDWCD "Water Allotment Contract Lease," • Two completed "Application and Data Form to Lease Water from WDWCD," and, • A check for $231.00 for the administration and recording fees. Mr. and Mrs. Hicks are requesting a contract for in-house use only for 17 homes for a parcel of ground north of Silt (Figure 1). An existing well and other irrigation rights on the property provide irrigation water. Therefore, this application is for in-house use only. The existing well on the property was adjudicated in 1910 for 49 gpm domestic and irrigation use. Since it is our understanding that the well has historically served one home, it is our belief that increased in-house use caused by additional residences will be considered an expansion of use and will not be protected by the Green Mountain Reservoir Historic User Pool. Thus, a contract is being requested to supply the in-house needs only for 17 homes. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Paul C. Currier, P.E. Water Resource Engineer cc: Dave and Connie Hicks PCC/pcc Current 1/01/99 Contract No. Map ID No. Date Activated APPLICATION AND DATA FORM TO LEASE WATER FROM WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT A. APPLICANT Name Dave and Connie Hicks Mailing Address 1051 Prince Creek Road, Carbondale, CO 81623 Telephone Number 970 / 963 -8182 Authorized Agent or Representative PauI C. Currier, P.E 970-625-5433 244 Hutton Ave., Rifle, CO 81650 B. WATER RIGHT OWNED BY APPLICANT OR BEING APPLIED FOR Name of Right Simon Well Type of Structure or Right Well Location of Point of Diversion (description from decree or permit) See Item 3, Exhibit A Water Court Case No. W-1452 (ExhibitA) Well Permit No. 04915iF (txhiba ts) (Attach copy of permit) C. INTENDED USE OF LEASED WATER Location of Area of Use (Include metes and bounds legal description of property on which water right is to be used. May be attached as Exhibit) -See Item 4, Exhibit C Total acreage of above -referenced parcel 180 Acres Address of above -referenced property none Description of Use In -House Domestic Total Number of Dwelling Units 17 Number of Constructed Units 0 Number of Vacant Lots 17 Potable Water System Not Installed Waste -Water Treatment System ISOS Type of Meter or Measuring Device Totalizing flow meter (not Installed) Projected Monthly Volume of Leased Water Needed in Gallons: EXHIBIT D THESE FIGURES ARE XX ACTUAL DIVERSIONS OR CONSUMPTIVE USE ONLY (Actual diversions must be used unless contractee has an ailme ntation plan) Jan. 158 Feb. 143 Mar. 158 Apr. 153 May 158 June.153 July 150 Aug 158 Sept.153 Oct.158 Nov158 Dec. 158 Annual Total Gallons—'1,861 Acre Feet 5.71 Maximum Instantaneous Demand 49 gpm D. OTHER REMARKS In-house use only Date January 20, 1999 Applicant Applicant Agent for applicant: PauI C. Currier FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP ,2 5 l'''am F I - Jit Z� �i�V t; Or 1 - "x•44"7/ IF., • f.• • 1.•• _ r Jam-:' it• r. - I i 4'�WF5 "-'- V .13R ,,_'4yi�1 :T • t.t 1 January 20, 1999 WDWCD Application Dave and Connie Hicks EXHIBIT A Aug -03-9B 10:03A PRINCE CREEK 970.963 Recorded at_L�Lo'ceci A #70110# Reception to B1U Ste RECEIVED ' 10 1973 RECEIVEDriA 2 7 197k IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND PO WATER DIVISION N0. 5 STATE OF COLORADO CASE N0. W- 1452 IN THE NATTER OF TRE APPLICATIQN FOR WATER RI= OF FRED X. SItiO21 Ihh TAZ COLORADO RIVER OR ITS TRIBUTARIES TRIBUTARY INVOLVtD: IN GARFXELD COSI!fi 2340 MIR E 174 . Recorder r- 1Lr_D I IN WATE., t:.. L & f P.03 P. 3 TC QF CS ORLCO w*vt C..n Dv °Crory RULING Or TNM REF: = ABSOLUTE =SE FOR umD1S1 GROUND 'l*TSR RIMS And the Referee having mads the investigations required by Article 21 of Chapter 148, C.R.S. 1963, as amended does hereby make the following ruling, to vitt This application was referred to the Water Referee of Vater Division No. S on the 13th d y of July . 1972L. 1. Naar of Applicant Address Fred 1. Simon 1620 Colorado Boulevard Denver, Colorado 2. The num, of the structure is Simon Well. 3. The Legal description of the structure u= The well is located in the NE1:NE ;NE{ of Section 36, T. 5 S., R. 92 W. of the 6th P.M. at a point 397 feet West and 147.5 feet South of the Northeast Corner of said Section 36. 4. The depth of the well is 20.5 feet. S. The date of initiation of appropriation is Spring, 1910. • 6. Thi amount of water claimed i• O.Z1 -cubic foot .per geCoAd of time. 7. The use of the water is domestic and irrigation. • 8. The State Engineer's number is none. 9. The Priority date is May 31, 1910. 10. The date of the application was July 3, 1972. It is the ruling of the Referee that the ststeoents in the application are true and that the above described voter right is ' approved and granted the indicated priority; subject, however. to all earlier priority rights of others. • It is accordingly ordered that this ruling shall become effective upon filing with the Water Clerk, subject to Judicial review as provided by lay. f EXHIBIT B Aug -03-96 10:03P. PR INCE CREEK .ate .. �.•. �..v+ a....... crsv f. 970 963 2140 P _ 02 r'. L ""w — STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER am corssrrrisi ma. Sherman CvkxaIv For a Dee orNy PERMIT NUMMI 049153 F 1313 91., Deriver. sa203 _121=11166 -mat 32132 ^K t, REGISTRATION OF DECREED EXISTING WELL, PURSUANT TO C.R.S.37-82304(B) Wt -9 r OW*rr'a NAME(S) Mailing Cay, Phone: : FRED I SIMON ESTATE. 50NIA SIMON Address: 80X 4993 Sr. Zip : BURUNGAME CA 94011.491X3 (416) bg7-o silo 2. WELL LOCATION: COUNTY: GARFIELD OWNER'S WELL NUMBER: SIMON WELL (State) 4:44 , One. Via) iar) NE 1/4 of the NE tf4. Sec. 38 Twp_ 6 SOUTH, Rng. 92 WEST, Oth P.M. Lacatad at 147.6 tort from North Section line, 397 teat torn East Section 3. The won has historically been used for the following purpose('): Domestic and Irrigation. 4. Water from the wail was That usod beneficially by the original owner for the above clew:lbed purpose(s) on 1910. 5. The total depth of thee well rs 20.51aet 6. The pumping rate is 0.11 cfs, 49 gallons per minutia. 7. Th. average annual amount of water diverted s not reported acro tet 9, The Land area irrigated rrom INS wail is: not reported acres described as: • . . (Lanai DeecrisoON oras Subdivision LOt(s) Block Filing/Unit .- tt,, 1 y FOR OFFICE USE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE W$TH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37-92.3o4(8), CRS, THE STATE ENGINEER HAS ENTERED INTO HIS RECORDS. UNDER THE ABOVE ASSIGNED WELL PERMIT NUMBER. THE DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE DIVISION 5 WATER COURT IN CASE NO. W-1452 FOR WELL NO. THE REGISTRATION FOR THIS WELL HAS t3L EN AMENDED TO REFLECT CURRENT OWNER,ADDRESS ANO LOCATION INFORMATION. lelA2 'a 2`' c5---, NOV 0 4 t997 Sar. Ergtrwr by Date Court Casa No. W1462 Div. 5 Co. 23 WD 313 Basin MD Lea la EXHIBIT C ?tn. ?p. 1999 ;O:l7a1 Cum TEALTII 11T:.3 H., F.1 „ ?. 2/2 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A FILE NO. 9809077 -REVISED 1. Effective Date: 4TH day of JANUARY 1999, at 7:59 A.A. 2. Policy or Policies to be iaaued: (m) ALTA OWNER POLICY (ALTA 10-17-92) Proposed Inourcd: DAVID HICKS AND CONNIE HICKS (b) ALTA LOAN POLTCY (10-17-92) Proposed Inaurodr AONIA L. SIMON AB PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE 07 BRED I. SIMON, DECEASED 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in the Commitment and Covered herein is Pww Simple and is at the effective dote h.,rr,of vOated in; SONIA L. 82XON AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF FRED I. SIMON, DECEASED 4. The land referred to in thim Commitment is situated in the County o1 GArtiald, Stxtu of Colorado, and doscrib,d as follour: TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 92 NEAT OF THE 6TH P.M. RECTION 36: NEL/4NW1/4, NEI/4NS1/4, W1/2NE1/4, W1/28E1/41E1/4 EXCEPT THE NORTH 15 FEET OF NE1/4NE1/4 CONVEYED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IX DEED RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1890 IN BOON 20 AT PAGE 570. TITLE CHARGES OWNER'S POLICY XOATGAGEE'S POLICY TAX CERTIFICATE COVI+TSRSSCNEDr.D., )'PJ Autharized Officer or Agent ew Valid Only it Schedule 0 and Corer Are Attached emcricwr lanai Title Association Casitaent Cchedole A (Rev'd 6-86) i SSU:m6 AUNT; Commonwealth line Canpary 127 [est nth Street P. 0. Roz 352 Rifle, Cotorado 816S0 I C.1,41 •-o .,uuio Ik. 1 -/PVC Udlc. ucl ruu Illus. n.0 I..Ju r11vI Nage 1 01 1 EXHIBIT D WDWCD Application for Water Contract Dave and Connie Hicks In -House Diversions Month No. Days GPD / Residence Gal / Month / Residence No. of Residences Total Gal / Month AF / Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 10,850 9,800 10,850 10,500 10,850 10,500 10, 850 10,850 10, 500 10,850 10,500 10,850 17 184,450 0.57 17 166,600 0.51 17 184,450 0.57 17 178,500 0.55 17 184,450 0.57 17 178,500 0.55 17 184,450 0.57 17 184,450 0.57 17 178,500 0.55 17 184,450 0.57 17 178,500 0.55 17 184.450 0.57 2,171,750 6.67 Note: In-house diversion based on an average daily usage of 100 gallons / person /day and an average household occupancy of 3.5 persons year around. Outside stock and irrigation provided by other rights. Paul C. Currrier, P.E. January 20, 1999 Domestic Water Use.xls PO BOX 236 SILT CO 81652 January 20, 1999 DAVID HICKS 1051 PRINCE CREEK ROAD CARBONDALE CO 81623 To Whom It May Concern, All properties along Garfield County roads, 261 and 250, are within and covered by the Burning Mountains Fire Protection District. The first response station is located in the town of Silt. Feel free to contact me with any questions at (970) 876-5742. Evenings and weekends are the best time to reach me. Sincerely, ,;:,- !!k_ff Sean Mello Captain Station #1 GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department December 2, 1998 Simon Estate Attn: Sonia L. Simon P.O. Box 4993 Burlingame, CA 94011-4993 RE: Simon Subdivision, Exemption Application Dear Mrs. Simon, At their October 5, 1998 hearing, the Board of County Commissioners approved your application for an exemption from the definition of subdivision with the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. A Final Exemption Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the property, dimension and area of the proposed lot(s), 25 ft. wide access to a public right-of-way, and any proposed easement(s) for setback(s), drainage, irrigation, access or utilities. 3. That the applicant shall have 120 days to present a plat to the Commissioners for signature from the date of approval of the exemption. 4. That the applicant shall submit $200.00 per lot in School Site Acquisition Fees for the creation of the exemption parcels. 5. That the following plat notes shall appear on the Final Exemption Plat: "Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner." "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owners property boundaries." "No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances". "All exterior lighting be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries". " If, in the future event that the properties described on this exemption plat, have the reasonable ability to connect with any municipal or centralized water and/or sewer system, the subject property owners shall be required to connect to said service and remove any existing residential well head(s) and individual sewage disposal systems(s) which may be located on said property, within one year of the effective date of service availability." 6. Prior to the approval of an exemption plat, the applicant will demonstrate that the well will meet the following: 1) That a seventy-two (72) hour pump test be performed on the well to be used, during the month of February; 2) The results of the seventy-two (72) hour pump test indicating the pumping rate in gallons per minute and information showing draw down and recharge; 3) A written opinion of the person conducting the well test that this well should be adequate to supply water to the number of proposed lots; 4) An assumption of an average or no less than 3.5 people per dwelling unit, using 100 gallons of water per person, per day. 7. The applicant shall provide a letter of service from the applicable Fire Service District, or a plat note to the effect that no such service exists. 8. The applicant shall provide a well sharing agreement, or other water service provisions which has the ability to provide a level of water delivery service if the seventy-two (72) hour pump test indicates inability to provide amounts previously defined in these conditions. 9. The applicant provide a water service contract from the West Divide Water District. The next step in the approval process is a Subdivision Exemption Plat indicating the conditions listed above and all requirements as indicated in the Subdivision Regulations of 1984 aa. Please contact me if you have any questions, Sincerely, John Barbee, Senior Planner Phone: 945-8212 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601