Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 PC Staff Report 02.08.2006Exhibits for Mahan Properties Preliminary Plan Public Hearing (PC) held on 02/08/06 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 F Application materials G Staff Memorandum H Letter from Glenwood Springs Fire Department dated 4/5/04 I Letter from Glenwood Springs Fire Department dated 1/31/06 J Letter from the Colorado State Forest Service dated 1/23/06 K Memorandum from the County Road and Bridge Department dated 1/17/06 L Letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife dated 1/30/06 M Letter from the Division of Water resources dated 1/27/06 N Memorandum from the County Vegetation Manager dated 2/1/06 0 p .lei" film (4\ l-hit:E1 1 iL ai.4w • 0 54-0 v +- k kJ, Vl v. l PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Preliminary Plan review APPLICANT Mahan Properties LOCATION SITE DATA WATER SEWER ACCESS EXISTING ZONING ADJACENT ZONING PC EXHIBIT raj A tract of land located in portions of Section 8, T7S, R89W, generally located approximately five (5) miles south of Glenwood Springs, off of County Road 126. 20 acre parcel (approximately) Spring Well (The Davies Well) Individual Sewage Disposal System CR 126 (Black Diamond Mine Road) ARRD ARRD / Open Space (BLM) -1- L DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Site: The 20 -acres parcel, generally located south of Glenwood Springs in the Four Mile Creek drainage, is bisected by CR 126 (Black Diamond Mine Road) across the northern portion of the property and is bordered by BLM on the north and private lands on all other sides. Existing improvements on the property include a single-family dwelling and an arts and crafts studio on the west side of the road and a guest house and two out buildings on the east side of the road. The tract contains some hillsides (slopes of 7 to 15 %) and generally covered by grasses, sage, and oak brush. The Proposal: The Applicant proposes to formally split their 20 acre property into two lots (Lot 1 having 5.66 acres and Lot 2 having 15.06 acres). As a practical matter, the Applicant proposes to use Black Diamond Mine Road (CR 126) to split their property into the two lots. Domestic water source for the two lots comes from an existing spring well that currently has a West Divide contract. Existing ISDS would be utilized for sewage disposal purposes. Access to the properties would continue to be County Road 126. Lot 1 would contain the existing house and arts & crafts studio. Lot 2 would contain the guest house and various storage sheds. II. PROPERTY / PROJECT HISTORY This request to split the subject property has been previously reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners on two separate occasions, once in 1989 and again in 2002. The Board conditionally approved the request in 1989 (James Mahan was the Applicant of record); however, the Applicant never submitted a Final Plat for approval by the Board due to a conflict with covenants on the land that prohibited further splits of the land. [The covenants were valid until January 1, 2000 and then automatically renewed for 10 year periods, unless they are changed by a majority vote. The Applicant submitted a document entitled "Termination of Protective Covenants and Deed Restrictions" which was recorded on December 20, 1999 which appears to be an agreement to terminate the terms of the covenants and deed restrictions by a majority of the property owners which include Mahan Properties and Kenneth Greene. As a result, it appears that is no longer an issue.] In 2002, the Applicant (James Mahan) submitted an application for an exemption to split the property into the same presently proposed configuration. The Board of County Commissioners denied the request, by a vote of 2 to 1, finding that the proposed split by a public right-of-way does not prevent joint use of the proposed tracts. This finding by the Board was memorialized in Resolution 2002-71, dated May, 20th, 2002. Subsequently, "Mahan Properties" (which consisted of James and Roberta Mahan) appealed the Board's decision to County District Court by filing a Rule 106 Petition for Judicial Review and Declaratory Judgment against the Board. The District Court Judge dismissed the claim against the Board finding the following: Since Mahan Properties is the owner of the land, the only remedy is dismissal because Mahan Properties was not a party before the Board of County Commissioners. Mahan Properties is similarly free to submit an application [to Garfield County, sic] for an exemption in its own name. -2- Therefore, the merits of the decision to deny the exemption request by the Board were never discussed in District Court because the wrong party filed suit. If "James Mahan" had remained the owner of the property and filed the appeal in District Court rather than "Mahan Properties," the issue may have been discussed. As a result, the Board's decision to deny the exemption request remains the final outcome. Lastly, since the application filed by James Mahan in 2002 was denied by the Board, Section 8:32 of the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended, states "An applicant denied exemption shall follow the subdivision procedure in these regulations." III. REFERRAL COMMENTS Staff referred the application to the following agencies / County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are attached as exhibits and incorporated into the memorandum where applicable: a) City of Glenwood Springs: No Comment Received b) Glenwood Springs & Rural Fire Protection District: (Exhibits H and I) c) Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: (Exhibit K) d) RE -1 School District: No Comment Received. e) Colorado State Forest Service: (Exhibit J) f) Colorado Division of Wildlife: (Exhibit L) g) Colorado Division of Water Resources: No material injury to decreed water rights (Exhibit M) h) Bureau of Land Management: No Comments Received. i) Colorado Geologic Survey: No Comments Received. j) Garfield County Vegetation Management Department: (Exhibit N) IV. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is located in Study Area I and is designated as "Low Density Residential" on the proposed land use district map which suggests an overall density of 10 acres per dwelling unit or greater. The proposal, if approved, will result in an overall density of 10 acres per dwelling unit if the main house remains the only dwelling unit on Lot 1 and the guest house reverts to a primary unit on Lot 2. The resulting density is consistent with the proposed land use district and residential uses in the Comprehensive Plan. V. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS FOR ZONING Regarding zoning, the property is located in the ARRD zone district. The proposal is generally consistent with the uses and dimensional standards of the district; however there are several issues that Staff points out here where the proposal conflicts with the Zoning Resolution. 1) Dimensional Standards By locating the new lot line separating the two lots down the middle of Black Diamond Mine Road, it renders the framed dugout, storage building, and cabin (on Lot 2) as non conforming structures because they would be located in the newly created front yard setback of 25 feet from the front -3- property line or 50 feet from the centerline of the road whichever is more restrictive. IN this case, the 50 feet from road centerline is more restrictive. Therefore, this proposed lot line makes the three subject structures non -conforming structures that cannot be expanded because of that status. Arguably, these non -conforming structures exist today using the 50 foot from road centerline as the setback. (See the illustrative insert to the right.) 2) Uses There are a number of existing uses on the property. Only two residential dwelling units are allowed on the parent property consisting of the "Main House" and the "Cabin." No other residential structures or uses are allowed. For clarity, Staff outlines these uses here so that there is no ambiguity regarding what is being requested and / or allowed by zoning for the current parent property or what may be allowed on proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the Mahan Subdivision: 4.44 39.34' 71218" tV=12.4.33' 'N38'04'27" 24' ROAD [AWLIEN1 BOOK 483 Al PACE 421 FRAMED DUGOUT STORAGE RUIl.Oti�C WATER STORAGE SHED-- t=107.93' R=122.27' \1=50'34'39" GJ EN.r104.46' BRG 4'09'29"W ._ T _ 6d. Is> `• f�',� WATE AN. i Current Uses Allowed on the Parent Property Structure Main House: Barn / Garage: Framed Dug -out: Storage Building: Cabin: Use Dwelling unit Art Studio / Home Office (CUP) Out building Storage Legal non -conforming dwelling Proposed Uses to be allowed (if approved) on Lots 1 and 2 of the Mahan Subdivision Lot 1: Structure Main House Barn / Garage Lot 2: Structure Framed Dug -out Storage Building Cabin Use Dwelling unit Art Studio / Horne Office (CUP) Use Out -building / storage Storage Dwelling Unit As a matter of background, the property received approval for a Conditional Use Permit for a studio for arts and crafts and a home occupation, memorialized by Resolution No. 98-06. Conditions of that approval required the Applicant to 1) have an engineer certify the adequacy of the ISDS serving the structure and 2) that the structure not be used for any other purpose than the home occupation and arts and crafts studio. The ISDS was permitted and verified as being -4- 0) iv adequate for the studio for arts & fts/home occupation. If this structure is being lived in independently, it represents a ming violation and will be investigated by the County Code Compliance Officer. Finally, the uses provided above are the only uses (particularly the dwelling unit count) permitted on the parent property or on Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed Mahan Subdivision. As mentioned above, the Comprehensive Plan proposed land use designation (average density) allows for 10+ acres per dwelling unit. This means that there can be no more than a total of 2 dwelling units on the 20 acre "parent" property or 1 dwelling unit on each of the proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the Mahan Subdivision. Assuming Lots 1 and 2 are approved, any additional dwelling units on those lots requires a Special Use Permit from the Board of County Commissioners. Even so, these additional units would be in conflict with the densities in the Comprehensive Plan. VI. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS FOR SUBDIVISION As mentioned above in the background section, since the most recent Subdivision Exemption request was denied in 2004 by the Board of County Commissioners, Section 8:32 of the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended, states "An applicant denied exemption shall follow the subdivision procedure in these regulations." What follows is an analysis of the proposed subdivision with the applicable County's Subdivision review requirements. A. Legal Access Legal access is provided from County Road 126 to both lots. The Applicant is using the County road for the split by running the dividing lot line down the middle of CR 126. Normally, the County would have the Applicant dedicate a 60 ft. wide right-of-way for the road as it passes through the property. As noted in a previous discussion, a road easement was filed in 1975 that created a 60 ft. wide road and has been shown on the proposed plat. It appears the easement is between private parties and does not include the County, but the County has maintained the road for over 20 years. If the road has not been deeded to the County, the Applicant shall be required to deed a 60 -foot right-of-way to the County for the 60 foot wide right-of-way for County Road 126, if they have the right to do so. This deed shall be provided to the County with the Final Plat application. The County Road and Bridge reviewed the proposal, conducted a site visit to the property, and provide the following comments: 1) The existing cabin and the storage building could be left in place with a possible encroachment agreement between Garfield County and the property owner. The existing dugout building should be reproved as it almost entirely within the County ROW; 2) The corner fence at the existing driveway to the main residence should be removed and one tree at the driveway entrance should be trimpred if possible or removed for better visibility for downhill traffic and widening the existing road; -5- 3) The brush and fence on both sides of the road should be rernoved back to the existing ROW at the owners expense; 4) The property owner did not have a problem with the removal of the brush and fences and the road work. He said he did not have the finances to do the work, but he did not have a problem if the County performed the work and did not replace any of the fences that would be removed; and 5) After the removal of the above items Garfield County Road & Bridge Department would remove some existing rocks, widen and gravel this section of CR 126 to include the driveway access to the main residence. B. Water Supply 1. Physical System The Applicant proposes to provide domestic "potable" water to Lots 1 and 2 from an existing spring well ("Davies Well") located on Lot 2. Physically, the water system consists of an artesian well (a spring well) where this water is piped to an infiltration gallery, then to two 5,000 -gallon storage tanks. Water is then sent to each individual lot by way of booster pumps and pressure tanks. Water treatment is provided by canister filter cartridge containing a spun fiber filter. An on -stream pond, separate from the water system provides fire protection water storage. 2. Legal Supply Regarding the provision of adequate legal water, the "Davies Well" was decreed by water court case # W-2572, appropriated in 1941 and decreed in 1974. This well was recently re -permitted under permit #239415 by the Division of Water Resources in April, 2002. This well permit states the well may provide water up to two (2) single-family dwellings, fire protection, watering of domestic animals, and the irrigation of not more than one acre of lawn / gardens. Subsequently, the Applicant obtained an augmentation contract from West Divide Water Conservancy District which was activated on January 15, 2004. This contract provides. water from the Davies Well to serve up to three (3) single-family dwellings and up to 6,000 sq. ft. of irrigation water for lawn / gardens. At present, the subject property is allowed to contain two single-family dwelling units (the main house and the cabin). 3. Physical Supply Regarding adequate physical supply, the Applicant provided a "spring water test" conducted by J & M Pump Co. (January 22, 2005). This test indicated that the "spring" water supply produced a flow of 15 gallons a minute and would be stored in a 5,000 gallon fiberglass storage tank. The report indicated that the supply and storage would be adequate to serve up to three single-family dwellings at 350 gallons per day per household. Mountain Cross Engineering provided an analysis which concludes that the peak day use could be accommodated by 3.63 gpm and that the spring and decree have the -6- capacity of 4 times the anticipated use. 4. Fire Protection Water The Mountain Cross Engineering report states the property contains an on -stream pond, separate from the water system, which provides fire protection water storage. Ron Biggers with the Glenwood Springs Fire Department met with the Applicants at the property several times to discuss fire protection and water sources (Exhibits 11 and 1). His letter explains that there is no established / recognized water supply for fire fighting in the CR 126 area. The Mahan property contains several natural and man made water supply sites but have poor access to them. The Applicant could improve access to the sites in order to provide a water source. This was suggested by the Fire District but not acted on by the Applicant to this date. Staff finds that if proper connections can be installed at the two 5,000 -gallon water storage tanks, that water would be available. 5. Water System Ownership & Service The water system will need to be deeded to a Homeowners Association created by the Applicant. This HOA shall own and maintain the physical water system as well as the water rights (well permits and augmentation contract). Further, the location of the components of the physical system shall be placed in easements deeded to the HOA. These easements shall be shown on the final plat. Mountain Cross Engineering report concludes "the existing well decreed along with the West Divide contract for augmentation apparently addressees the legal supply of water; the existing water source capacity is greater than the anticipated use; the existing storage is larger than recommended; and the existing distribution system is adequate to handle the anticipated flows. Although the system has been used for drinking water historically, with no known related illnesses, modifications to the existing treatment system are recommended: 1. Installation of a 1 micron filter on the downstream side of the existing canister filters, and 2. Installation of a UV disinfection system downstream of the 1 micron. These would generally be the easiest to install, operate, and maintain. They are likely the least expensive as well. Based on the information provided, gathered, and evaluated during this report, along with the incorporation of the recommendation described above, it is our opinion that the existing water system is sufficient to supply an adequate supply of water for the proposed subdivision." The Division of Water Resources reviewed the application and concluded that "it is our opinion that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights so long as the Applicant maintains a valid well permit and operates according to the terms in the augmentation contract, and is physically adequate" (Exhibit M). C. Sewer Each of the lots has existing ISDS systems serving the legally placed dwelling units. The arts & crafts studio/home occupation has a legal ISDS that has been permitted by the County. The application meets the requirements which require a suitable type of sewage disposal for each lot which are in compliance with the applicable local and state environmental health regulations. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment ISDS standards require the County to -7- issue an ISDS permit for all such systems installed in the County. Each of the ISDS on the property appears to be in compliance with the State and County ISDS regulations. Section 4:92(E) requires the Applicant to submit an ISDS Management Plan for the operation and maintenance of on-site systems. This was not submitted. The Applicant shall be required to submit such a plan which will be incorporated into the protective covenants. D. Easements Any required easements (water system, drainage, access, utilities, etc.) will be required to be shown on the final plat. This includes well and water line easements for the shared well / water system to serve both lots. As stated earlier, the Applicant must record conveyance documents at the time of final plat if the easements and water rights will be owned by an entity such as an HOA. E. School Site Acquisition Fees / Traffic Impact Fees Normally, all newly created lots within any residential subdivision are required to pay both the school site acquisition fees and traffic impacts fees. However, in some instances, new lots created may have already been improved with a primary single-family dwelling and have subsequently not been required to pay the fees since the improvements were already there. In this case, proposed Lot 1 already contains the primary single-family dwelling and an art studio and therefore is not obligated to pay the fees. Conversely, proposed Lot 2 only contains a "guest house" that is secondary and accessory to the principal dwelling on Lot 1. As a result, fees are required to be paid for the newly created Lot 2. As a result, regarding school site acquisition fees, the property is located in the RE -1 School District which will require the Applicant pat the appropriately calculated fee based on the assessed value of the property. This fee shall be paid at the time of final plat. Regarding traffic impact fees, the Applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Impact Fee because this property is located within Traffic Study Area 8d. The fee is a cumulative fee for areas 8a + 8b + 8c + 8d which are a total fee of $264.00 per ADT minus the appropriate discounts to be calculated and paid at the time of Final Plat or as otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners. F. Mineral Estate It is unclear if the property's mineral estate has been severed and is owned or leased to another party. If so, the Applicant shall include a plat note on the final plat stating the following: "The mineral rights associated with this property have been partially or wholly severed and are not fully intact or transferred with the surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s)." G. Soils / Site Geology In general, the property is located in an area where the soils are classified as "Jerry Loam, 12 to 25 percent slopes" which characterizes the soils as deep, well drained soils on alluvial fans and hills. The soils are poorly suited for home site development due to shrink -swell potential and slopes. The application contained a geotechnical analysis of the property prepared by HP Geotech which identified potential geologic issues for development including landslides, construction -induced slope instability, expansive soils, and earthquake considerations. The report -8- makes certain recommendations for any future development including design recommendations for foundations, floor slabs, under -drain systems, site grading, and surface drainage. Based on these apparent (imitations, Staff generally requires that the following plat note be required to provide disclosure to potential lot purchasers that foundations and septic systems will need to have site specific analysis and engineering. "Foundations and Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be engineered by a Professional Registered Engineer within the State of Colorado." H. Fire Protection Generally, the Glenwood Springs Fire Department does not have any objections to Garfield County authorities granting preliminary plan approval to the Mahan Subdivision to divide their 20 acres into two lots one of 6 acres and one of 14 acres. The Applicant included a letter from the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire District, dated January 6, 2004, which acknowledges that the property is within the District boundaries and will be served by the District. The letter also states that it should not be considered in any way an approval for any building and / or development plans that may be in the process of consideration by the Garfield County Building and Planning Department. The letter does not address any specific protection requirements. Staff referred the application to the District which responded with comments made on the former Exemption request but explained that these comments continue to apply to the present application. The Subdivision regulations require the Applicant to provide a Fire Protection Plan that addresses the fire protection standards in Section 9:70 of the Subdivision Regulations that are listed here: 9:73 Where there is no central water system available, a central located fire protection storage tank shall be designed to meet the fire protection needs of the subdivision and be approved by the appropriate fire district. 9:74 Water used for fire protection purposes does not have to be potable water and may be from a source separate from the domestic supply. The District suggests the following conditions be added as plat notes: I. For any new buildings that are constructed on these new lots a comprehensive fire protection plan be submitted with the building permit request. This plan is to be review and approved by the fire department. Because of the location of this property, some of the items the fire protection plan shall address are: a. A wildfire hazard fuels reduction landscape plan. b. An onsite water supply that can supply the necessary fire flow for the size of the structure or structures to be built. This may need to be installed on the building site. If the structure has a residential sprinkler system installed in it, an external water supply may not be required. c. Architect to use non-combustible exterior finishes on the structures. -9- Ron Biggers of the District met with the Applicant and the following points were discussed for this subdivision (Exhibits H and I) 1) The Applicants do not plan to build new structures on the new lots thus the District does not want to create a financial hardship by requiring improvements to a preexisting site that is not going to change. If the Applicants want to voluntarily meet the requirements to improve their property value and insurability we will work with them; 2) If the County wants to require the Applicant to meet these conditions to protect the existing building the Glenwood Springs Fire Department would support that requirement; 3) The Applicants stated they were applying for the subdivision so they would be able to slake the "Art Studio /Home Office" into a legal dwelling unit so they could legally live in it full time if they chose to. In that context, the requirements in the attached letter are recommendations if no new buildings were to be built on the lots. The Applicants indicated they wanted to work toward complying with them even though no new buildings were planned at that time; 4) The District and the Applicant discussed a Wildfire Fuels Reduction Plan; however, to this date no Wildfire Fuels Reduction Plan has been submitted for the property to review; 5) In late April or early May of 2005, the District met on site with the Applicant to discuss the water supply issues. On County Road 126 and in the Black Diamond Subdivision there is not an established/recognized water supply for fire fighting; 6) There are several natural and man made water supply sites on the property. If the access to them was improved, they could be used as draft sites to obtain water to fight a structure and/ or Midland fire; and 7) The site that at the time appeared to be the best is located on a limited access two track road to the south of the structures, it starts at County Road 126. The site has two submerged 5,000 gallon tanks that are filled by the year round creek that runs through the drainage they are located in. The Applicants were going to look into improving the access to this site but have not gotten back to the District in the past year with a plan to review on the improved access to this site. The Applicant mentioned his brother had purchased the property this "two -track" leads to and he would be improving it, as it will be the driveway to the home he intends to build on this property. Staff finds that even though the two proposed lots are already improved, the risk of fire becomes more significant than vacant lots. The property contains two existing 5,000 gallon tanks associated with the domestic water system for a total of 10,000 gallons of water that could be used for fire protection water supply. The challenge is accessing the tanks and / or providing a -10- waterline from the tanks to CR 126 for access to the District. If the tanks can be accessed, the Applicants have adequately addressed Section 9:73 and 9:74 below. If not, the Applicant has not adequately addressed the issue of fire protection. 9:73 Where there is no central water system available, a central located fire protection storage tank shall be designed to meet the fire protection needs of the subdivision and be approved by the appropriate fire district. 9:74 Water used for fire protection purposes does not have to be potable water and may be from a source separate from the domestic supply. I. Drainage The Applicant provided a drainage report prepared by Mountain Cross Engineering. The report provides the following conclusions regarding stormwater run-off from the property in a 25 -year flood event. 1) The drainage study essentially verified the adequacy of the existing drainage system to convey the Garfield County required 25 -year storm. The road side culverts under driveway accesses are 12" culverts that have capacity for the 25 -year storm. During a 100 -year storm these culverts are anticipated to surcharge causing minorflooding on the edges of the road. The road does have a cross slope that is anticipated to control the flooding to some degree to the outside edges. 2) There are two existing pipes beneath the Black Diamond Road one is a 15" culvert and the other is an 18" culvert. Either have the capacity to convey the 25 -year flows. The 15" and the 18" have the capacity for the 100 -year storm but the inlets are not ideal to capture the flows. Some entrance losses are to be expected that may cause some flooding. As a result of this, the subject property would likely experience sone flooding because the site is below these culverts. 3) To mitigate this, a berm 12" in height above the top of the 18" pipe, surrounding the inlet would be recommended to capture the surcharged water caused by entrance losses. However, this would be to capture a storm larger than the mandated 25 -year storm and is a recommendation instead of a requirement. 4) The Black Diamond Road surface is a base course aggregate (gravel) road and a substantial amount has filled the culverts along the sides of the road. Since the culverts in the calculations assume a full diameter available for conveyance, the road fill greatly limits their capacity. With out this capacity, there is a greater probability of flooding during storms of smaller magnitudes than the 25 -year event. 5) These culverts will therefore need to be cleaned. They should also be periodically inspected, cleaned, and maintained. At the time of the preparation of this report the road was being graded and resurfaced by the County. Cleaning of the culverts was anticipated as part of this work bort should be verified. -11- 6) There is a certain amount of uncertainty in hydrologic calculations. However, it is our opinion that the existing culverts will safely convey the runoffflows and volume of the 25 - year design storm event for this site. J. Vegetation Management The application contained the list of the County Noxious Weeds with "Plumeless Thistle" circled on the list. Further, the Applicant has provided a map and inventory of weeds; however, the Applicant should be required to provide a Weed Management Plan which includes weed treatment by June 1, 2006 as a condition of approval. The documentation could be in the form of copies of application records or they could contact the Vegetation Management Department for a site visit to verify that the treatment has been done by June 1, 2006 (Exhibit N. K. Wildlife The application contained a WRIS list of wildlife on or near the subject property with the following species listed on the property: 1. Bald Eagle Winter Foraging Area 2. Black Bear Overall Range 3. Brazilian Free -Tailed Bat Overall Range 4. Elk Winter and Severe Winter Range 5. Elk Overall Range 6. Elk Summer Range 7. Mule Deer Summer, Winter, and Overall Range 8. Wild Turkey Overall Range The DOW reviewed the application and provided comments (Exhibit L) stating "while this simple subdivision will create two lots, it should not create significant impacts to wildlife. In. order to minimize the impacts of future development, the DOW recommends the following recommendations: 1. The building envelope for Lot 2 should be positioned near CR 126 at the location of the existing cabin in order to cluster development and disturbance near existing structures on Lot 1; and 2. Native vegetation should be maintained outside of building envelopes. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the public hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties were heard at those hearings. -12- 3. The application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4:00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. 4. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of the County. 5. The proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 6. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the Board of County Commissioners for the proposed Preliminary Plan request for the Mahan Subdivision subject to the following conditions of approval. General 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. Plat Notes 2. The Applicant shall include the following plat notes on the final plat: a. "Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner." b. "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries." c. "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 ". d. "All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries". -13- e. "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. Those with an urban sensitivity may perceive such activities, sights, sounds and smells only as inconvenience, eyesore, noise and odor. However, State law and County policy provide that ranching, farming or other agricultural activities and operations within Garfield County shall not be considered to be nuisances so long as operated in conformance with the law and in a non -negligent manner. Therefore, all must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. f In addition, all owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County." g. "The mineral rights associated with this property have been partially or wholly severed and are not fully intact or transferred with the surface estate therefore allowing the potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or lessee(s)." h. "Foundations and Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be engineered by a Professional Registered Engineer within the State of Colorado." County Road 126 3. The Applicant, at their own expense, shall remove the "framed dugout" as identified on the Preliminary Plan from the County Road 126 right-of-way. Security for this work shall be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement if not removed by the Final Plat submittal. 4. The Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Agreement from the Road and Bridge Department allowing the "Cabin" and "Storage Building" to remain in the County Road 126 right-of-way. This approved agreement shall be submitted with the Final Plat application. 5. The Applicant, at their own expense, shall 1) remove the corner fence at the existing -14- driveway to the Main House as identified on the Preliminary Plan, 2) one tree at the driveway entrance shall be trimmed if possible or removed for better visibility for downhill traffic and widening the existing road, and 3) remove brush and fencing from the right-of-way on both sides of CR 126. Security for this work shall be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement if not removed by the Final Plat submittal. 6. The Applicant shall be required to deed a 60 -foot right-of-way to the County for the 60 foot wide right-of-way for County Road 126 as it passes the full length of the property. This deed shall be provided to the County with the Final Plat application. Wastewater 7. Pursuant to Section 4:92(E) of the Subdivision regulations, the Applicant shall submit an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) Management Plan for the operation and maintenance of all the on-site ISDS systems. The Applicant shall include this plan in the protective covenants. Water System 8. As required for the Final Plat application, the Applicant shall create a Homeowners Association (HOA) and provide the Articles of Incorporation, By -Laws, and Protective Covenants with the Final Plat application. 9. The Applicant shall be required to deed the existing water system in its entirety, to the HOA. This HOA shall own and maintain the physical water system as well as the water rights (associated well permits and augmentation contract). The form deeds shall be submitted to the County as part of the Final Plat application. Easements 10. All easements of record shall be shown on the Final Plat. More specifically, the Applicant shall identify the location of the components of the physical system which shall be placed in easements deeded to the HOA. These easements shall be shown on the Final Plat. School Site Acquisition Fee / Traffic Impact Fee 11. The Applicant shall pay the appropriate RE -1 School Site Acquisition Fee as calculated by Section 9:81 of the Subdivision regulations. This fee shall only be calculated for one new dwelling unit on Lot 2. Payment of this fee shall occur prior at the time of Final Plat. In no circumstance shall the Final Plat be signed by the Board of County Commissioners until such fee has been paid. 12. The Applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Impact Fee for a property located in the 8d Traffic Study Area. This fee shall only be calculated for one new dwelling unit on Lot 2. Payment of this fee shall occur prior at the time of Final Plat. In no circumstance shall the -15- Final Plat be signed by the Board of County Commissioners until such fee has been paid. Fire Protection 13. The Applicant shall submit a "Wildfire Fuels Reduction Plan", approved by the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District with the Final Plat application. This plan shall incorporate the recommendations provided by the Colorado State Forest Service in their letter dated 1/23/06 (Exhibit J). This plan shall also be incorporated into the Protective Covenants. 14. The Applicant shall design and install an appropriate water line connection from the two existing 5,000 gallon water tanks on the property to the County Road in order that the water may be used for fire protection supply. This design and location of line shall be reviewed and approved by the Glenwood Springs Fire District. The Applicant shall submit the approved design with the Final Plat documents. Weed Management 15. The Applicant shall provide a Weed Management Plan which includes weed treatment by June 1, 2006 to the County Vegetation manager for review and approval. The documentation may be in the form of copies of application records or they may contact the Vegetation Management Department for a site visit to verify that the treatment has been done by June 1, 2006. Proof of this shall be included in the Final Plat application. Site Plan Design 16. The Applicant shall delineate building envelopes on both lots such that they encompass the existing and developed areas near CR 126 to minimize development / disturbance on the remainder of the lots. Native vegetation shall be maintained outside of building envelopes. These building envelopes shall be shown on the Final Plat. IX. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the Board of County Commissioners for the proposed Preliminary Plan request for the Mahan Subdivision subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report." -16- RESOLUTION TO 53 - 35 Whereas, Narry E. Will has petitioned the Board of k --v 751 rE .' j. County Commissioners of Gcrfield County, Colorado, for an exemption under C.R.S. 106-2-33 (3) (d) (1963 as amended) for the division of a 40 acre tract into two tracts of 10 acres and one tract of 20 acres and more fully described as follows: Tract 1: NE ; of the SE 4 of the NW 1/4, Section Range 89 West of the 6th P,M, Tract 2: SE 4 of the SE 4 of the NW 4, Section Rang:: 89 West of the 6th P.M, 9, Township 7 South, 9, Township 7 South, Tract 3: W 1 of the SE 4 of the NW 4, Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M. each Whereas, the Petitioners have shown to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that they desire said exemption for the purpose of resale into single family residential acreage, and Whereas, the Petitioners have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board that there is a reasonable probability of locating domestic water on each of said tra',:ts and t'iat there is adequate 4ngress and egress to said tracts, and that the location of septic tanks will be permitted by the Colorado Department of Health, and that the requested division is in accoraance with the general purposes and intent of the subdivision regulations of the State of Colorado and County of Garfield, and that said division will actually restrict the density of housing within said area and therefore should be exempted from the c:•finition of subdivision anJ "subdivided land" as set forth in C.R.S. 106-2-33 (3) (d) (1963 as amended). ihr; rt lu s1,<. t'G- C01.1C(r11—tOri I-- /I A. 1 ctf/ v , .T t , i f ft:;-* �.� v, i cio a(red NOW, THEREFORE, upon motion of _,.,/'r7 iLr j► r7ic _,' , seconded by{ / and unanimously carried, said tracts of lard are hereby exempted from su.n definition and transfer of said tract may be made by division Resolution to SB - 35 P. 2 +� r 751 Pk1€2, into three tracts, that is, i tract of 20 acres and 2 tracts of 30 acres each, more or less, all as is more fully described in the petition pertaining hereto, provide°, however, that this exemption is granted only upon the condition that none of the above parclis of land be sold, transferred or conveyed until such time as: 1. ,'etitioner ori+is a domestic water well or wells to serve the subject property and that the well or wells be tested for potability by the appropriate state authorities: 2. That petitioner have each site be approved by the county sanitarian for septic tank and leach fields: 3. That any instrument of sale or conveyance will contain an easement for road and utilities to each tract and that said instrument con- tain on- tain a statement to the effect that maintenance of the road serving the sites is not the responsibility of Garfield County and that said roa.i is to b- maintained privately. A co:!y of the i ii.; truments or instrument of conveyance, when recorded, shall bo filed with this resolution. u..teo tris day of� , 4975. Attest: '1�,<<^� THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO By: a BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PETITION FOR EXEMPTIONS Pursuant to C.R.S. 106-2-33 (3) (d) (1963), as amended, the undersigned, Harry E. Williams petitions the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, co exempt by Resolution 3 parcels, more fully described herein, and for the reasons set forth herein. 1. Petitioner is the owner of a tract of land in Garfield County, Colorado, described as follows: The SE ; of the NW 4 of Section w, Township 7 South, Range 89 West, of the 6th P.M. containing 40 acres, more or less. 2. Explanation of reasons justifying request: A. Domestic water supply. As explained in the attached outline, permits for domestic water wells have been granted in the surrounding area and neighboring property owners have had no trouble finding water at depths from 125 to 175 feet. Petitioner proposes to drill a domestic water well to serve the properties that are the subject of this petition. No property would be sold until a water well permit was issued, a well drilled and water tested by the appropriate state authorities. B. Sanitation s stem. The area surrounding petitioners property has gen- era ly been found to be satisfactory for septic tanks and leach fields. The petitioner proposes that no land be sold until county sanitation authorities have approved sites for septic tanks and leach fields.) C, Access. The subject property has direct access to the Four Mile County road by way of a gravf,1 surfaced, 16 foot wide private road. Petitioner has an easement 60 feet in width, that is, 30 feet either side of the center line of this road, and will grant an easement with the property along this road. Any deed of conveyance will contain a statement to the effect that .the private road is not the responsibility of Garfield County under any circumstances, and that said road is to ne maintained by property owners. 3. A copy of the deed of conveyance will be filed with the Petition and the Resolution if the exemption is granted, Dated at Glenwood Springs, Colorado, this _ day of ADDITIONAL FACTS PETITIONi FOR EXEMPTIONS I. ACCESS 130(_lx 751 nix4 A. As shown on the attached Mat, the subject property has a 60 foot wide right of way leading frcm the subject property to the Four Mile County Road. The grade on this road does not exceed 9% and part of this road is presently being kept open during the winter by adjclning property owners with no difficulty whatsoever. B. Restrictions will be placed on sale of property such that this road not be the responsibility of the County Commissioners unless property owners bring the road to complete county specifications and then petition to have the road accepted under Garfield County standards. II. AVAILABILITY OF TELEPHONE AND ELECTRICITY A. Telephone and Electric lines are presently into the property as shown on the attached plat. III. DOMESTIC WATER A. Numerous wells have been drilled in the area and there appears to be no problem in striking water at a reasonable depth. B. Prior to any sale of the property, petitioner will drill a water well on the property, and upon striking water, will have the water analyzed by the appropriate state authorities so as to determine its potability. C. As part of any conveyance, petitioner will agree to provide water to any tract of land sold. IV. PROVISIONS FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL A. The area surrounding petitioners property has from time to time been approved for septic tanks and leach fields. Petitioner will have appro- priate perculation tests conducted by the county sanitation officer, and petitions.^ hereby a^,reias to coovey no land until the county sanitation officer approves perculation tests and engineering of sewage disposal. V. PROTECTIVE COVENANTS A. Protective covenants for the petitioner; property or deed restrictions will be attached to each deed of conveyance as follows: a. Resubdivision. No tract of land may be resubdivided into smaller tracts of land. No tract of land may be used for any purpose other than single fami 4 residential uses. c. No mobile homes or trailers .!'a11 be used at any time in any manner on said tracts of land. d. Any residence constructed on subject property shall be at least 1200 square feet in area. Area shall be measured on the first floor of the outside founlation, exclusive of porches, garages and car ports. e. No livestock, poultry or goats shall be kept, other thar one horse or cow per five acres. Any such livestock must be kept and maintained so as not to become a public nuisance. Any property owner keeping dogs of nets must securely pen or restrain by a leash said animal so that it may not roam throughout the area at will. 1. The owner of any tract shall complete construction of any structure erected on that tract within one year of commencement of construction. g. existing foliage shall be preserved on each lot as nearly as possible. Foliage and vegetation shall be removed only to the extent necessary to construct dwellings, driveways, sidewalks and sewage and vtilitj► facilities. i Additional Facts: Petition for Exemptions B: ( 151 ?4' 225 Page Two h. Mese covenants and restrictions are to run with the land and shall ne binding upon all parties and all perscns claiming under them until January 1, 2000. At that time, said covenants shall be auto- maticad y extended for successive 10 year periods unless otherwise changed by vote of the then majority of tract owners. i. if any tract owner or persons acting for them should violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein stated, it shall be Lwful for adjoining tract owners or any other person or persons thareby affected to prosecute any suit in law or in equity to re- strain and enjoin the violation of said covenants and to recover damages for such violations and to recover all costs and attorney fees necessary to enforce the provisions of these covenants. Garfield County Building & Planning Memo To: Board of County Commissioners , Planning Commission From: Mark Bean, Director Date: 5/20/02 Re; Mahan Exemption appeal Attached is a letter with supporting documentation from Charlie Willman, that states that the resolution the Board relied upon as a basis for the denial of the Mahan exemption request does not apply to the property in question. Also attached is the resolution that was entered at the last meeting that the Board used as a basis for the decision. Mr. Willman is correct in his assertion that the resolution cited as a basis for the denial of the requested exemption does not apply specifically to the Mahan tract. Also enclosed are the minutes for the Board decision on the Williams tract, which is also the tract subject to the previously noted resolution. Staff found the minutes and the resolution for the Carnes tract, which included the Mahan property, As you can see, the resolution did not include the same language regarding the covenants. It does include interesting language regarding the status of the road though, that the Board should be aware. Staff would also point out again that the subdivision exemption process is discretionary and the Board is not obligated to approve an exemption. An issue that was not fully explored in the previous discussion, due to the applicant not providing any information or argument, is the issue of whether the "county road prevents the joint use of the tracts in question." Specifically, Section 8.52 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations states that "No more than a total offour (4) lots, parcels, interests or dwelling units will be created from any parcel, as that parcel was described in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office on January 1, 1973, and is not a part of a recorded subdivision; however, any parcel to be divided by exemption that is split by a public right- of-way (Stale or Federal highway, County road or railroad), preventing joint use of the proposed tracts, and the division occurs along the public right-of-way, such parcels thereby created may, in the discretion of the Board, e considered to have been created by exemption with regard to the four (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable;" It is still staff's position that the applicants have not presented evidence that would show that the public road being identified as the basis for the split prevents joint use of the tracts. 1 LISOLOT:ON 70 S3 - 31 Ubereaa, Sari 3. CARNES lea petitioned the 3oard of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado for an exemption ;ander C.A.S. 506-2-33 (3) (d) (1963 as amended) for the divia'-„'.. .. a 40 acre __v.._ into rum .recta of 10 4cr:.a tat and one :tract of 20 aeras and mars fully described as foiiowa :race is :ha NEk of t'sa SS:1/4 of tam 1ZL, Section 9, Township 7.Soach, Liege 34 We.:: of :he 6_c 3.M. Tract 2; she 321 of :be SS+'% of the ;R/s, Section 9, Township 7 Sooth, zaaga :w? ,es: o, the 6th 2 . ':rant 1= :ata '41/4 or Sa 3':1/4 ai =ice Y'.:+,, Sae Yiosa 9, Tawnahip 7 south, Lange ny Wiest of the eth ?. S7haraaa, tha ?oci_ionera wave shown to the satiaiaction of to 3oara of County Commissioners of 1arf eld Cowitp, Colorado, that they deaire said exe ptiau lot th a pur;ose of .eagle :etc a-;:g.a `atiy-es=deu.ia= acreage, and '»'hera,as, ;hi ?omit:L ners have danonatzatai co the aatiaiantion o£ the 3oard that these is a reasonable probability of locating domestic water on each of said tracts and that :dere is adequate ingreaa and egress to said tracts, and that the location o: septic :ants vi12 be ?a:mi:tad by the Colorado Department of SeaJ h, and ^ac .:q recaootna ' • icio- a im iateat.of ;lie subdivision regulations -Garfield, and t`iit said divtdion sot within said araa and therefore should .sad "subdivided land" as aet fortis. is :c..."4 :ha ge✓.ar a.' pu.poteo and. or the State -of Colorado and tea County oi' actually restrict tura density of housing wa exempted from the definition of Sundlrision'.�':: C.1.3.• 106-2-33 (3) (d) (1963 as amended) . WW. TENXEZISUZ, upon motion .115c;... and uneaimo ua _y by examp=ad iron such dsi1oition and transfer Cn't 2,2 asconded by carried, aaid tracts& of land ;+re hera- of said tract map be sada by diviaion 00 ally.- footis:0-ft 04.141.A, Coubutfitis 3v4St s i-vvvt Oe... &1l° Resolution to $3 - 35 P.2 into.thres tracts, that Is, 1 tract of 2C acres and 2 tracts of 10 acres each, core or lass, all as is Zoxe3 fully &est:f ed It ;:.a petition pertaining :der:ro e ryrovided,':Y,ovever, t tat this axemot o -a is ;morsd c.ii pop th? condition :`„a: none of tela above portals .of :and ba sold, traasfe mad or .lonveyed until such ziaa Ad: ?nit -loner drills a domestic eater well or wells to serve ;tae eubjecz property and that the sell or v&..La be traced for potabi11ry .oy the appropriate state authorities; 2. 7hat petitioner nava each' size approved by the-coumt7 '3atsitariaq fox septic tank and Leech ;ieldst 3. That any instrument of sale or conveyance sill contain as easement • far road and' utl hies :o each tract and :hat asid instrument con- tain a statement to :aa efeet :'at nwi tanance of the road services the sites ie 'not the =esoous.t.b l.i of Garfield County and that as .3 r ;d' i3 zo +2su- sinefrle,r,.e.+ 7-4ra- ly. 1 copy of the ioscxtiaseets or last•=i a of conveyance, vhen racarded, ebel.1 be: filed vich this resolution. r Dazed this / / day of . J y ; y75. LCtaS L' :..i 3Can 0£ CCTSCT T CO22ilSS LONERS 07 a.42.77az COU TL', COLORADO ly : 3 R r.L.::CXsa-35 !e:" 751 ..221 Jo whereas, `r4ar77 E. iIiliiarn '.as etitioned the 3oard of cbunj C. rissicriert of Garfield Counts, Colorado, 'or an excretion under C R.S. iQ -Z-3,? (1) (-) ii .3 is am.rsdre.) for t' d1Tis'en df a cr: trsc into tritta of i x e.ch aril Ont Vic: Of 21 itrts Oil w i l'411f descries as fol lows: V414. irict 1: ME i of '.`, ?UI 1, Section 9, IQwn1M2 7 :i, Frac: 2: SE 1 of no SE 'I:1 .`.e Is, Section 9, icwrini; 7 , inc: 3: X of the :Se ,Ai s, Section 9, TGtirtztti; 7 S.a�.:1, :longe 89iestof the 5th?.l. real, the Petitioners hors shc-,n to ;;e satfsfac lon of to Scar: Sit :;,wr.7 :.ansf 29 west of re :th '.'. "hart'* 39 'pies:. df the ith Wmeissiorers of °arfieid r.,:unt7, Cdiaracad, that the demirt said c :o++ `—Qr. • j he rurxse of male into. si'rg1e faa;;7 rnicentiai ;Kresge, ansa ',Ihereas, the Petitioners ?WV! '..E': to the satisfaction of the kart at there is a r-easonaole ;,r OaCi1ity ;f locating ^J"a�CStic 7H:r on dG1 of Said tracts and ;haat there is aGe-t1ata irk:rtss and A7ts5 ta said tracts, aril that Ng location of Saone tanks ]r ti :deslew' d7 .".e Colorado rear -frit ".' ;'Alan:, and .na: the reruesteO division is In actortarxe with the gereril r^srs arc intant the sLiadirisic r'_=uiaticre of the Stave o1 Colorado and C..;^x.;7 harfieid, and that said division Y+si ac-.:aiiy r -rrc: ;he d zsit7 of ;141.'iir4 x.i thin said area and the iq rc re S ill ii i d li tzr—...ed f ; ` m thfi ni': ass of 54X1115-:-.41 and is ton 'f ided IanC' as SAL f7r±i in (4i) (IG' 2s a ).. ii?; n 1. 7i 1 4 � `! ^• `! +1 nrL O C L ? ' ' r !� Q 1'r.'.t r`l ri 'y'st ."�.. liCif, 9"GRE. 3AL, uc'1 anion ci l'1 7-- •" . seddr•Ce'd p' A 4 ,, I i l••.• i and carr lei, Said pct i aro ora her -8;y e..atad from ;ucn definition and t.--orsfar of said tract 7 �It �-0' air siaa C nit P. 2 • So.. .'8o- OI S oMee!��" ,sr ; I r"k. lid WASU Reqir6s (-°'"t"4" � W� COVerarti5u�%� �j h0 rur fs 2 into three tracts, the: Is, tris: c' 23 acres and 2 tracts of 10 torn tech, Frori or 1 iii is 1i'cr7 !�i',,+ cri bed in :.he pwtition arta inirsr, ?yr -T.4, provided, hvweve', that .`1s a;e■: .an 1s y *ntei or man the orydi:10n .tat nom of the ibare ;omit cf lart tc14, t*araf rrtd or =Trrermi until sbC1 time- as: 1. Petitioner drills t xvn+_s tI c 'aattr well or wei i3 1a term the sic.; : proaer'.y and .`at the wei i or veils be tested for potability by the aopt` pri ate sate author` .i es : 2. That petitiorer iavt each sftoy}e is raved Oy the =anti sanf'aria* for s±JL c tank anci leachfields: 3. That any instr-gent of sale cr =mreyanea will r:.ntain to easement for r...rd aro uti i iti es to each tract and that said inst.-went - tain a sto zrer..t :>t of: t that eaintenar+ce of to r^,act sarrir, the sitz< is rc: tars Oi ity of atrfit'sd Gwnty tri ;.%.11: said road 1s to ae nainainei privately. A cooy of the irSi'31C^ or coral vatio2. wrien re r , suis 4 filed with this resolution. C.atxd this r^ c.,y of �} � , 1975. Attzs .: cL •r� r) • rzZ 8CARD Of C;,L iii G' '�: 5 W OT:vs.+�: i e ..7 G u7 , i 17. 7 6,1 .y. �.1 ryCF �+y /yO� �y�-� CU.ir1 i 1 , wLVAA= ?url'uent to C,A.S.. SCS -Z-33 ;'.i ;=i iI"r53}1 as OP*-rdr:, '. r56+rs;;* , ottltlons t.''a of :.Nr,ty. Caviss1or-ers Cis idrfi#;d to exempt .ess1ut on 3 ;ar il, * r -a fuiiy descried ?xtr`:in, arld for :.`74 rvvsons tet f;,r~ herein. Petitioner is :1e wrier of a trio: of land in 4t-fleld Co•vn y, :.oiorsoor descri«i as foi iters: Me E 2 of the 9 1 of Section x, imgrship 7 SaA, ?.arge 89lies- 'rit h btrl P.A. wnaining 11 aCreS, a'crt or less. Z. aoiar.ation of reascrs ?Vstifyirrg request: A. Ds_,.. suojiY. As erziained in eat;.,aver' outiirit, perlit or xtn _;c Yatzr ,,.' 1s hate bee.n grant -'d in the sur-otrr•dinlarta ar4 nei:ipori,, .r.r,Pe..-y ownerl nay, had no :r;t.io;e findirr; 'rater at fivY iG: to 17i fee:. "^?:: ticrer vr17ose3 `} drill a '' CStit water scree tne aro'??.'":ies that are the si,dject of :.his 7ltitici'. iio o-nper y voulr. 'at sold 'Srti i a "rate' ie I pr i t was issu , drilled and Yater '•tstac vy =' E aoompriatt s'.dta c. San' .,•'on niter. Mt area surrourcinc petitionersm;: 4as er31;Y 61!!1 >]47'G _.. ? satisfactory for se: -tic tants and ;eaci The petitioner ,roPoses that no ;and 'a._ sold until =ueit7 13nita =ior1 aut.^.ori ties r.aYe ac -Ye^ s1 to for sectic tangy- and iesc fieisaw C. Ac:as.s die `-14.'-_ oro er y has direct across `� t e Four ?file C. olt:1 - -f 'favQ' a raYei�T' Sace , 16 foo: "ride :riYa i .ad. Pe -ti _'cher has °1c}san_ ;u. f?�_ in iridin, thet. is, X f? -e: either side zl-re Gamer i r/e .. ii's anti vi 1 l grant an taserent 'with t e aiiong this ria_. Any dela of conYelancz 1 I =nta in a std' "I the affect that the ;rivate r0a4 is not ne respcny;bi;ity cf "amici' Cour :f unej r any , and t.`.at said raid is sii.r.t;rxw ar ;racer', aners. A ca y re dem o` , ;r.Ye7ar<e. ott fi i ed xi tt the ?-a-:i t oe arzi the nesciu.::n if the axe11 tion is granted. aatei at n; e+ct :pr~ r1 :a lora, i s_ dad tf �.� 1474, / • r, • i. Acr.os r -;';Cil F7/P, EIV i0KS A. 's sncv►n ., :'! at:a:-to :'a'. the suoect ;rx.e*.-7 't5 t 6.: `7;: vice. ri ., of *ay ►.;f,'r, `*-A the sui:J .11-7...7177.7 ::7e tour !i;! ;cad. , road Coen not tzCt!'y 0': fir+: oar: of .`.is r,,14 is ;rest::y ZE`fr_ it:: :;7'r1 dL4r1ri :rt 'tint r ' ac,;oining cvners oro ,i f.:^ ty ,ma tscerer. I a. a,.t_ir;+orS �'' i :E;iactd ori sale of :-o .'ty suc.1 ' t tiis mad ^07. be a r-r.ccro,,`,'ty of trre :oumy C ssiore-; x�iiss :"fie a.rers ;;.;x : r. tea: ,;=Polate w'xty specificattons and *n p ti t;pai to have :'E road ac_ztad valor f.4 starean:S. ii. ►YAiiJ3i�:.7 ur zit xz A 11.ECTRICI7 A. { e i eonant and E? ie c I f ries ar-e pr'as enti 7 ' n 'm ;r-,.�r../ as shout, p4 VIE attac..'e ;tat. ill. OWL :C A. 71Urer°?t]s 'weals have :•'__'!t dri i it: in the arei ir'si r7 -7.01e in striking rater at a r„35anable Oerrth. 8. rior zo any sale of the property, , oet` z cher Til the orlberty , and '.:xCn ; :- R i riC ]Iola", the appropriate s -a-.4 aut..00ritiSa aS ".. be' C. .s ;tar- ^,f any conveyance, peti :leper Till agree :r3C: of land said. F1. PRuY S:CHS reit ; 3? s _ 'peri marl w be i 1 drilla Tater ice's 1 �n the late!' aria i y ted .2''�'nt i:: pG-:i111.-7. 'r7 jrT"v"l i di •satze ar4 A. The area surrounding ,o:i.ior' rs - --y ?.as fraa tire to ,;fir . • acorevec for septic tants and leach fields. Petitioner ;.ave. a,,,-- - 2r.ia:e :er_,la:ion 'tests conductei ^y t e curt:'; sanitation officer, and ,et' prat ner y agrees J co ere' ix i aro until .he s.a+enc: cion of i ,C,r doy'r`aves cintilat';an "...*s s and r-c;ne-±rir7g cs se7ra9e g'Sv�.3al. Y. PRO :.T.:YE-OYEY.Ah7- Can' t A. 17 "••3 : ° c :i YE CI-. Y?.^>a n ts �Y the pet : }? U'. ers ort*er"j or deed r"►3 .�^. i i :'i be attached to each oreof =nice:ame as foi1e1.-s: a, xesucdiv',Sion. ?47 tract of tarsi may be. rzsubdir,d i ire:. ss l:Cr _rata of Lane. . 'lo tract of rand Ile,y be. used for any pur?ose of zr tea:: Singe fariiy nnidenziai uses. c, io mcg -ie ;homes :r trailers shall ',be T..sed at any thee in any 3canrxr cn said tracts of ,and. d. Ar' r?s i dance c s:..-.1ct?d on subject pray shall be at least i72X scuare feet in ar-•,a. Area shall be Zee_.ssur,?': o i vie first floor of the outs ne foundation, Exclusive CI y^,orcnes, arac�s and c r ports. e. ho ,I iyes tock ;cul tr/ or Coat sha I i o kept, other than v'*"•e horst or cow o r five acres. Any suck livestock cck t be kept and aeintaine; sa as not to beczre 3 pub i is nuisance. Ary property owner keeping Co'z as pets horst securely pen or res u ai n by a leash said ani al so that it may not oars t`.r:ughc,ut ',.lie aro at rill. f . The c» r}er of any tract sha11 cocci eta c ns truc-tfon of any stricture eT te•'i on that tact wi thin one year of contercagent of construction. g. Existing foliate shall be presents or, Bch lot as nearly as possible., ro i iac-e and vegetation shall be removed only to the ex;.r„t necessary to constrict Cavell i ngs , da -i rerars, si dega'rk.9 and sa'wage arsd stili' facilities. • Abell ti dna Pa9e Two Feet: Pili tion 'ar Ezst1 n-rs ' &Tese corenar.;.s and restrictions art to rm xi VI tht land srx shall be binds; •ax:r ail 7art1es and an pErscns claixiri 7ntzr that wilts ,;ar:;;rr► ', 27A. At'that tliat, $aid werrarti smil ?.e ar-• Ai:icai ly extended for 3ucctssir• 10 yar ',riots anir3 o_-,rr,*-a crarle-s 07 +s -.t c the then .yori ty of troct yrs, i. tf Jn7' tract • rer or p•er'sorl actirg for `.`l s*.rld ri^.la:i r.. i::,P.t 7ioiatd ar7 of ttie7erants Nrein s=tel, 1t s"iir f ;eiftj 'y, r a c l: i n s nr :.-act corers or a n7 a w ex person :•r 7e no-fs '.^er±:y affected to 77,sru.a any suit 1n lae or i r41 •.z rr- s::sin ant tr„:in the riolatian 01 :aid Cr'rx14r',3 ant tr. 1 -ter .grays L'- s4c1 rlclatiora and to rev:7yr ill c=3 arld 1-:=Iry4 fern rr*C21 sa rY in for t.`* rIrriii0411 e t.lrsa =rr s . Document Context Page 1 of 1 c QUICK ���� PRINT I- PRINT LA EMAIL N PTHER Perlmutter Associates, Inc. v. Northglenn 35 Colo.App. 355, 534 P.2d 349 Colo.App. 1975. Feb 25, 1975 (Approx. 2 pages) str s pep' .Efd•74- /mob au( U"--4/ /g4--" I( QC, DCG �l vztafrd_-- /0-A ,7 iu 6'; feive_ 6c9P-7:-) e http://web2.westlaw.comlresult/doccontext.aspx?rs=WL W6.04&service=find&fcl=False&... 5/2/2006 534 P.2d 349 Page 1 of 3 West Reporter Image (PDF) 35 Colo.App. 355, 534 P.2d 349 Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I. PERLMUTTER ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado Corporation, and Perlmutter Building Group, Limited, Plaintiffs -Appellants, v. NORTHGLENN, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Defendants -Appellees. No. 74--142. Feb. 25, 1975. Selected for Official Publication. Owners of subdivision sought review of city's refusal to issue building permits on certain lots and city's revocation of permits already held by the owners. City counterclaimed for injunction against use of the property. The District Court, County of Adams, Oyer G. Leary, J., denied the injunction but upheld the actions of the city, and subdivision owners appealed. The Court of Appeals, Sternberg, J., held that where county planning commission attempted to make approval of subdivision plat filed by original owners conditional, but where the plat as recorded showed approval of both the planning commission and the board of county commissioners without reference to any condition, the approval of the plat was unconditional as to third persons without knowledge; and that city, in annexing the area, took the subdivision with the plat as recorded and could not revoke existing permits or condition their issuance upon requirement that the developers pay a $200 fee per lot into a drainage escrow merely because the county planning commission had intended to make approval of the plat conditional upon canal owners' acceptance of drainage from subdivision and the canal owner had refused to do so. Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. KC L1] KeyCite Notes West Headnotes 414 Zoning and Planning 414XI Enforcement of Regulations 414XI(A) In General 414k764 k. Rights and Remedies of Individuals. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 104k7) Where original subdividers of property and the property's subsequent owners were separate entities, subdividers' actual notice of contingency which was placed by county planning commission on subdivision but which did not appear on the recorded plat could not be imputed to the subsequent owners. KC f21 KeyCite Notes 414 Zoning and Planning 414VIII Permits, Certificates and Approvals 414VIII(17) Effect of Determination; Revocation 414k464 Construction and Operation in General 414k464(Z) k. Maps, Plats, or Plans. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 414k464.1, 104k7) Where county planning commission attempted to make approval of subdivision plat conditional upon canal owner's acceptance of drainage from the subdivision, but where the plat, as recorded, showed approval of both the commission and the county board of commissioners without reference to any http://web2.westlaw.comlresult/documenttext. aspx?rs=WL W6.04&service=Find&fcl=False... 5/2/2006 534 P.2d 349 Page 2 of 3 such condition, approval of the plat was unconditional, at least as to third persons without knowledge of the condition. C.R.S. '73, 38-35-108, 38-35-109. KC %3J KeyCite Notes -- 268 Municipal Corporations .268I Creation, Alteration, Existence, and Dissolution 2681(i3 Territorial Extent and Subdivisions, Annexation, Consolidation, and Division .268k26 Alteration and Creation of New Municipalities 268k36 Adjustment of Pre -Existing Rights and Liabilities 268k36(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases When city annexed subdivision, it took the subdivision with the plat as recorded and could not revoke existing building permits or condition their reissue upon requirement that the developer pay a fee, unauthorized by ordinance, into a drainage escrow deposit fund merely because the county planning commission had intended to make Its approval of the plat conditional upon canal owner's acceptance of drainage from the subdivision, where the approved plat did not show any such condition on its face and the subsequent owners of the subdivision had no actual notice of the proposed condition. *356 **350 Berger & Rothstein, P.C., David Berger, Commerce City, for plaintiffs -appellants. Carroll, Bradley & Ciancio, P.C., Gene A. Ciancio, Denver, for defendants -appellees. STERNBERG, Judge. Administrative officials of the City of Northglenn refused to issue building permits on certain lots owned by plaintiffs, revoked the permits already held by plaintiffs, and conditioned the reissue of those permits upon the payment of a $200 fee. The city's Board of Adjustment upheld these actions. The matter was reviewed by the district court in a proceeding brought by plaintiffs under C.R.C.P. 106. Defendants counterclaimed seeking an injunction against the use of the property. The actions of the administrative officials, and the Board of Adjustment's approval of them, were upheld by the court, but no injunction was issued. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the trial court's action in refusing the injunction, but reverse the balance of its judgment. On January 13, 1966, Perl-Mack Homes, Inc., and three individuals (Pert -Mack), owners of some 65 acres of previously unplatted ground in Adams County, submitted a plat dividing the property into 155 building sites. The Adams *357 County Planning Commission approved the plat, but, by resolution, made its approval 'subject to ... a letter from Farmers Highline Ditch Company agreeing to accept drainage from the subdivision . into the canal,' On January 24, 1966, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution approving the plat, but made no reference to any contingencies. The plat was duly recorded bearing on its face the unconditional approval of both the planning commission and Board of County Commissioners and with no reference to the drainage contingency. It is undisputed that the contingency had not been met. Not only had no letter been procured approving the dumping of drainage waters into the canal, but on the contrary, a letter dated December 18, 1972, expressing the canal owner's refusal to accept the drainage waters appears in the record. Perl-Mack conveyed the property to Tulsa Rig, Reel and Manufacturing Co., which corporation conveyed it to plaintiff Perlmutter Associates, Inc., in 1968. Since Perlmutter Building Group, Ltd., may have acquired an interest in some of the lots from Perlmutter Associates, it was added as a party plaintiff at the time of trial. In **351 the years following approval of the plat, building permits were issued on about 65 lots, homes constructed on some of them, and certain off-site improvements installed. On December 27, 1972, following an election, the City of Northglenn annexed the property. No conditions were placed upon the annexation. Thereafter, Northglenn denied all applications for building permits because the conditions relating to drainage as set forth in the resolution of the county planning commission had not been met. However, after Perlmutter made application for four specific building permits, the city administrator lifted the general moratorium on all but six lots in the subdivision, conditioned on payment of $200 per lot into a drainage escrow deposit fund. There had http:l/web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?rs=WL W 6.04&service=F ind&fcl=False... 5/2/2006 534 P.2d 349 Page 3 of 3 been no ordinance adopted by the city council to authorize these actions. Nor was there any evidence of emergency drainage problems that might justify a peremptory action. *358 f 11 Since it was conceded at oral argument that the subdividers of the property and the present owners are separate entities, and there is no evidence to the contrary in the record, actual notice of the drainage contingency cannot be imputed to plaintiffs. The city cannot 'visit the sins of the grantor upon the grantee.' State v. City of Tacoma, 63 Wash.2d 23, 385 P.2d 372. Thus, the principal question to be determined is the effect, if any, of the contingency in the resolution of the county planning commission. KC 12] While the planning commission attempted to make its approval of the plat conditional, the plat as recorded shows approval of both the commission and Board of County Commissioners without reference to any condition. Therefore, we hold that the approval of the plat must be deemed unconditional, at least as to third persons without knowledge of the condition. To hold otherwise would be to require title examiners to look behind every recorded plat and would do violence to the presumption of notice which is the basis of the law relative to the recordation of documents. See generally ss 38--35--108 and 109, C.R.S.1973 (C.R.S.1963, 118--6--8 and 9). Kc In a perhaps laudatory but nevertheless illegal effort to allow development to proceed on the property while solving the drainage problem, the city administrator, in effect, created his own special improvement district by lifting the city imposed moratorium on building permits in the subdivision and establishing a drainage escrow deposit fund into which payments of $200 per lot were required. If the owners of the canal continued to refuse to accept the drainage waters, the proceeds from this fund were to be used to solve the drainage problem. Such action of the city administrator, however well intentioned, cannot stand without specific and valid legislative authorization. See City of Aurora v. Bogue, 176 Colo. 198, 489 P.2d 1295; 2 E., McQuillan, Municipal Corporations ss 10.40 and 10.40a (rev. 3rd ed. F. Ellard). When the City of Northglenn annexed the property, it took the subdivision with the plat as recorded. Therefore, the city's revocation and conditional issue or reissue void, as *359 were the conditions imposed upon reissue of those permits. Absent an appropriate ordinance, the city may not impose the drainage fee conditions upon the issuance of future building permits in this subdivision. The judgment is affirmed as to the denial of injunctive relief to the city, but reversed insofar as it approved the denial, revocation of existing building permits was of building permits, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. COYTE and RULAND, 33., concur. Colo.App. 1975. Perlmutter Associates, Inc. v. Northglenn, 35 Calo.App. 355, 534 P.2d 349 END OF DOCUMENT West Reporter Image (PDF) ':`. (C) 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http : /lweb2.Westlaw. comlre sult/documenttext. aspx?rs= WL W 6.04&service=Find&fcl=False... 5/2/2006 1111111 Iilll 11111131 11111 1111 1111 1111 695677 04/07/2006 12:50P B1767 P828 M RLSDORF 1 of 5 R 26.00 0 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO TERMINATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND DEED RESTRICTIONS WHEREAS, on March 17, 1975, Resolution to SB -35 was approved by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners which granted Ben E. Carnes an exemption under C.R.S. § 106-2-33(d) (1963 as amended) for the division of a forty (40) acre tract into two (2) tracts of ten (10) acres each and one tract of twenty (20) acres; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Carnes sold a ten (10) acre tract to Richard , and Sharon Stephenson with certain protective covenants and deed restricted as recorded in Book 477 at Page 467 (hereinafter referred to as the "Stephenson Parcel"); and WHEREAS, on August 8, I975, Mr. and Mrs. Carnes sold a ten (10) acre tract to Tom Collinson with certain protective covenants and deed restrictions as recorded in Book 477 at Page 470 (hereinafter referred to as the "Collinson Parcel"); and WHEREAS, on March 4, 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Carnes sold a twenty (20) acre tract to Jimmy and Letha Sue Sills with certain protective covenants and deed restrictions as recorded in Book 483 at Page 421 (hereinafter referred to as the "Sills Parcel"); and WHEREAS, Kenneth J. Greene and Christine N. Greene are the current owners of the Collinson Parcel; and WHEREAS, Mahan Properties is the current owner of the Sills Parcel; and WHEREAS, Kenneth J. Greene (as the sole owner of the Collinson Parcel at the time) and Mahan Properties, as the majority of tract owners, desired to terminate the protective covenants and deed restrictions on all three tracts of land, as allowed for pursuant to paragraph (h) of said covenants; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 1999, Mr. Greene and Mahan Properties executed a Termination of Protective Covenants and Deed Restrictions recorded in Book 1165 at Page 646 as Reception No. 556907 (hereinafter referred to as the "Termination Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Termination Agreement included a clerical error such that only one tract of land was included in the termination of protective covenants and deed restrictions rather than all three tracts of land; and WHEREAS, Mr. Greene and Mahan Properties intended to include all three tracts of land Page 1 of 3 111111111101111111111111A1111111111111111111111111 695677 04/07/2006 12:50P B1787 P829 M ALSDORF 2 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO described herein in the Termination Agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties, as majority of the tract owners, desire to terminate the protective covenants and deed restrictions on the Stephenson Parcel, the Sills Parcel and the Collinson Parcel; and NOW THEREFORE, notice is hereby given by a majority of the tract owners that the protective covenants and deed restrictions as initially recorded in Book 477 at Page 469, in Book 477 at Page 472, and in Book 483 at Page 423 are hereby terminated. It is the intention of the undersigned that the protective covenants and deed restrictions initially recorded in Book 477 at Page 469, in Book 477 at Page 472, and in Book 483 at Page 423 terminate and that there be no automatic extension as otherwise provided for under said protective covenants and deed restrictions. The protective covenants and deed restrictions are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Property descriptions for the three tracts of land are attached hereto and 'incorporated herein as Exhibit B. DATED: `t-- % - 0 A4 STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ) ss. r-(2"\AAAIdi Kenneth J. Gree e 65 Favre Lane El Jebel, CO 81623 1 Christine N. Greene 65 Favre Lane El Jebel, CO 81623 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 day of April; 2006, by Kenneth J. Greene and Christine N. Greene. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: IQ J 9 1? 010 Notary Public Page 2 of 3 1111111 11111 HSI 111 641111 11111III 11111 11111111 695677 04/07/2006 12:50P 81787 P830 M ALSDORF 3 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Mahan Properties P.O. Box 3574 South Padre Island, TX 78597 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7th day of April, 2006, by James P. Mahon, Jr, WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: 10/31/2007 Page 3 of 3 yam. Hyx� N r 4 2 1 0 0 I�J0 a 4J � II Immi 0.0 , 1 ism o% m or -mai0( MEI a� o 0 Amo 0 - ("1 0 - 10 er immo 104. 414ati~,; :'.zf 211 f, 10 EJ 11 14• 4.. [1 irl r• iq c l .i t) r.: 0 c +=1 • I 1.2 '' i •4 • tJ 1 rt t: if +J •? ... 7 . a a i'1' 0„, 3 it i? Sr k 4'. f. is 4 '.1 O 0.. Y, 0 0 +1 , :J 1, + J ri 1: C • r: ,43 N'r3 rf tG r: !J t7 ;;r�� .1 rJ q i= a . '1 4 7 +•1 rf n a U u'11 i ,�' b 104140 • • > : i .j :: h !: •� .c q i1 .1 . +J • I 11• a tl .: >. tJ 4 0 >, 4. J .0..31 J t rf > ti m O 11 .g fj il 0 0 :: O.4 O t:0 ... 410..). }, l4 l',...30„..4.1; 43.43.341 .. t] Jug •43 1J s .f .4 (3t1 r: 0K :0: .441.13j. 1•U.7•1:3q,: 4�'•y• •.a•.,.4 ▪ 43 • a • nl .tO:J•:eq/:0 •1 i �..� u a .i a .4: 1 .0 42 o:7sra, �1 m ui4! .4 11047 11 e..' •,J :7 9 . T ^1 :4,4 ..t Y ? .R 1# O u • Li a 11 •3_ix1 nn4'ui l4 , 7t,. ,iy,lr 4.:Cli .J•7 M :i d G.1 ".'J +l '! 0 ,s 1:.1 Ori d: r: 1. U p O fl :7 • .7.'.34S 91 0 ': 7 :� +1 11 .1: t r1 :J r U :a ,. }* A. 'r7 ^-r�7 f: .X.....4 •.i f: 4' 1.11 1. e".:1.311.! J .J % i•1 i� 11 .. s: 8 rJ • . t3 O .-1.54 i+ '7 0 7 .4 . . r tl t. t• ry tJ .f 0 4 :!. 1r l 7 ` :1 ,J 11 •. 7 •7 7 ri u . q .1 t' 11 , . :7..1 a 'l .r 14 :1 r! H,•:.6. . 1 +7 ,i ;, . • ••, 1: :7 •7 i : J .3 rJ ►i s: _ ,1 1.4 . .1 a •1 11 1S :J p �U %1 1 0 .4 '1 .J .J , s 17 1 •3 'G L, S .. • r y 0 '� J4 .4-..111-414 r1 q M .9 •S e1 J•1 =. i is •e e: 13 •1 •') 1? :+ 14 .y rl 1 0 .. 1 1 .1 .1 '1 r7 t] • • 12 U O -1 .4 '•J r t •1 + 1, S :1 .`. 7. 1: •' !, . RI •'1 .3 :� ' ••. •1 .-! a ..•i .. 30.11 es �• i 11 7 a 0 •7 •11.41 V •7 ') h .i 0 . 47 .1 t1 .J Z rl '1 •J ', . 1. t:7til Y :11.:4; 7'•.• .. 4r ':141 ••• f: 0•.111 • . . .i!1 :I n:9 :, .1.1 17 '1 .• .: 7.7 ;1.i .li 0 '.1 43 IA 0 W la .;.41 •4 N 3 •, •1 :} .7 • 0 ), .)••1 1 O '1 O 31 C. 1 4, :11"1 1, 1,,:5,4 .3 r., 1: •.1 1 •1 u� 1:.7 .,•. •7 i J :9 •'J••t '1 st !•. 11 '1 1 iJ • 1 i, ri :442 ',,. , : ,; ,: ,� • .i ,1 :7 .] 1t 1111 •1Lh••x:1 4 • 14 Y •.t •, 17 i,•J^7'I.': 3 •.' S. 1' J 11 cJ '1 } :a q I: l.14 .1 4-1.43 ..'.! �7 :1 '1 .7 :• :,t1o - .3�•': '1 .4 ;, rt • 11 1t al:. j�.,,, .::7 a 4J • w I. 1, .1. 1 r• !, .3 .3 a. t: J r4 �' f+ tl , �. 4, .3 74..14 -.4 4 1: t' 4 4 S. i1 :.•t 1: ,4 .i .) .J i4 t,+� 1 i1 s: 13 ..4 4 1,.J; A 11 0 ri J: 1 1' ! r: n a .r. k r 0 •,4 V •Q :1 +41.1. r4 14 0 0 0 4+ .1 17 •7 4 .� f:••# •1 U V !I •:)41 t) :•. s: 1i , .4 0 •[J it O 0 ' 41 14 0 'J 0 0 a 1 rJ 41 7.14i .3'.! '.1 .7 �I ,r4 •• .:111-..: 3 •J y +4 g4M:im o 4:1 q e•»4 M0'C11: • • al q N • r })j •� 1. J i1. 4 43 14 i Ra l O 0:41/ i► '3> .I l l k 11 41 s: +� Y, ( O Q 0'•0 d1 nevi 11 s 4 0 X14 '3 .4 0 4 +S A 1J ti: 0 •! ± ,l 1, q .J 1104 04fq�• q -100 s...4 O*.d' n17 u.. O iJ .1 •OO O .i f, se • w4 k! .4 20.120 (0 d O �•1 114J4.i a? 1,4 a 4, p ,:o�+a es 5, 0a I. 0 la a.0 '!o U 4 H .3 t: 4 0 a IA @ 6 ,0 JJ 1 JJ � 8 +• Y A 0 0 5.11e. 44 41 r? 9 11 4 0 T .t � jl }� t17•.i l0,• q rJ �l Y 1s ti• .-1 c M. M a k C !. F' O o t+ a 4 J' O a fl C r, la ,: 1 11 0 1 M a a1 r4 1. M 19 0 •.• 7J •.4.4 t• 0 t4 a 3 $ rJ fi } . 4J ,. O .3 .0r.0••�� q A JQ1 4 O •.i lo y yy 1110 01 0 0 +1.0 X 1: M 7� ••,0 1+ b.O :l r4 t� b, Ri It Ii 014 A •.1 0 q •! 1.1 0 1+ •r• 4 A Oft 44 .4 14 14 1;2144:11 .•+ •3 ., J a s w .••M ,up loft 4 M :4 t1 44.00 44.4fl...4 1•sa O A C.te .4130431 -4 tl OH Oki •13 4 H 4 •3 :.1./2 y a '.Od , ii 5 b� a t J i�� dib 040404.4 u •1 • otio u4 • •. s n•r ).� sE .:`?Ate.:si';•�y:�`!T,"':-:;..,.ti.. L':: -.":l. :ii-..=zw ,. it+!:• .e 'a0.0. ':y: tn'u�._N.?�•-YY: ,.rx ....:Y.- - '�a`�-,ea•.-;'^}.��•'4'14.2%74; . _ -�:�...l:f":"K==t'n.:.�. �" �-.1+ v •i.". l.�i � �. yl•• ` �r4 _x'C�,,. C`:� _...... � 3 ;. �..•i„ J.-.: Ir Y.ivx .• l3w� r � :7t•'1,;^ra,eJ'1$E:f 'ra- b,t'�-++i'Yr',.•v'�.: ?? / L. . • • 111111111111111111111111iii1111111 11111111 1111111111111 695677 04/07/2006 12:50P 81787 P832 11 RLSDORF 5 of 5 R 26.00 D 0.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT B Property Descriptions for Three Tracts of Land Stephenson Parcel N1/2EI/2SW1/4NE1/4 of Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6'h P.M. in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado also known as 4777 117 County Road, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601. Collinson Parcel S 1/2E1/2SW1/4NE1/4 of Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M. in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado. Sills Parcel W 1/2SWl/4NE 114 of Section 9, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th P.M. in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado also known as 4779 117 County Road, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601. David Davies (260 acres) Charles G. Davies, William H. Davies, Llewelyn Davies Adeline E. Cleary and Alice E. Kummer September 23, 1966 Book 379, Page 244 (260 acres) William H. Nelson 444 White Ave. May 20, 1974 Book 459, P. 348 (27.38 acres - 2 parcels) Ben E. Carnes 444 White Ave. May 20, 1974 Book 459, P. 353 (40 acres) Burr Bolen 444 White Ave. May 20, 1974 Book 459, P. 349 (40 acres) Tom. H. Collinson August 8, 1975 Book 477, P. 470 (10 acres) covenants prohibit resubdivision 4e Stephensons August 8, 1975 Book 477 P. 467 (10 acres) covenants prohibit resubdivision William Rump 444 White Ave. May 20, 1974 Book 459, P. 350 (40 acres) Sills March 4, 1976 Book 483, P. 421 (20 acres) covenants prohibit resubdivision \Le Mahan (20 acres) b 3 D $ EXHIBIT 1 Harry Williams 444 White Ave. May 20, 1974 Book 459, P. 352 (40 acres) Henry Faussone 444 White Ave. May 20, 1974 Book 349, P. 351 (40 acres) RECEIVED FEB 0 9 2006 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING if":1011 ptj... nrelaek. �, ..`t [, r 1. �t•:. 4{"pi4pn No. ,...gg M•i.i .. ��..... , tecprger.Oyu! 459 FIit4:' ViA111+F+4 G. P4VIP T4U WEtJYN PAY F. 4PR i w ot;a worm Is P94fltX t fitAte or fed. the consideration nf*Tefl Pot tars an4 r4her ood and vaitaaht.e cons ideratione slam, m, inlumti ps►id. hereby s£lt to) nn4 cOtivey (s) to PPN P. COMPS wime niIqPelot 4ttet 14t14914t149 Aveflht" 440440 44fl4ipascfl � tY Me§a t #! Pita Qr PolPraciR the fe!iewIn reu1 property .1 l the FoIn$y Qf . Pflrf i-91,4 t KO state sir PnioraciP, t(f .wit; sacI1on 9 s Tgjt' §Otp 7 PPM, r pante 09 WPIlt:r Ot✓h #'!M. ; TPGPIlipg w Pfl aid wager, water. rights! 440 and d oh rights, SPrinq c4ncI pipeline r •ghp,s, appnrhenaflt to the ataove de`3crihed property; WNTn115 PFSPflV►P 1-A t.hemse.ves, a rtnnt PP rePsive pne-h44f of iandownerts share ot'ap' r4Ye4t:y payah4a OY raIsnn pr the en- t�ract On of pit; P111,1- sr per mt•TIeTals from the move lescr .pec1 property; eech of the at ove namec1 grantors sh411 have en mnd •videi one -filth 1.nt+erest i agch reserved rgyaft; interest:; pravicied. however, grantors cnnvey allrights to p�-trticipat:e ifl ef1Y '`respect in the m,4hegemeht=, 1.eaRing or other ProPrletprship in sNch minerals, their r •nhtq .1e4p9 palely Tfmt•t=ec1 tp roce1ve rPya •tY , aq!Aril whet} p, Rcflct*igii `AFt a1 1 Pcc r.1;pts t~jp prPperty i.