Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application• • BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PETITION FOR EXEMPTION Pursuant to C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-101 (a) - (d) as amended, and the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado, adopted April 23, 1984, Section 2:20.49, the undersigned, THOMAS H. ODGERS and MARY K. ODGERS and SAMUEL B. POTTER and TERESA A. POTTER, respectfully petition the Board of County Commissions of Garfield County, Colorado, to exempt by Resolution the division of an 18.05 acre tract of land into three (3) tracts of approximately 4.52 acres, 4.53 acres and 9 acres each, more or less, from the definitions of "subdivision" and "subdivided land" as the terms are used and defined in C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-101(10)(a) - (d) and the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations for the reasons stated below: A. Blue line plats are submitted with this application as Exhibit "A". B. Vicinity map is on the plat. C. Copy of deed showing ownership is attached as Exhibit "B". D. Names and addresses of owners, lessees, etc. is attached as Exhibit "C". E. Evidence of soil types is attached as Exhibit "D". F. Each lot is greater than two acres, allowing individual septic tank/leach field systems. Petitioners own a water well in place and in operation on the subject property. (This well is located in Parcel 3 of the attached exemption plat.) The plan is to use this well subject to a Water Well Community Sharing and Maintenance Agreement, copy of which is attached to this application as Exhibit "E". Easements are in place on the plat to allow for this joint use. Either joint storage at the well site will be constructed, or each lot may install an individual cistern. All county requirements with respect to the well flow and capacity have been met. This is verified by the well test done on March 20, 1996, by Aqua Tec Systems, Inc. (See letter attached as Exhibit "F" dated March 29, 1996.) Of course, no water engineer will guarantee any flow from any well over time. Many variables affect the operation of a well. This is true of all wells in Garfield County and is not unique to this well. The water is safe for drinking as tested by Grand Junction Laboratories. Please see the lab report dated March 26, 1996 attached as an exhibit to this application as Exhibit "G". The subject well is exempt from state regulation since it was in place and in use prior to 1971. Please see the following excerpt from the statute: "37-92-602. EXEMPTIONS - PRESUMPTIONS - LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION. (1) the provisions of this article ... shall not be applicable to: (e) Wells not exceeding fifty gallons per minute which are in production as of May 22, 1971, and were and are used for ordinary household purposes for not more than three single-family dwellings, fire protection, the watering of poultry, domestic animals, and livestock on farms and ranches and for the irrigation of not over one acre of gardens and lawns." Under this statutory exemption, this pre -1971 well does not require a permit and is not regulated under the existing system of water rights administration, provided the terms of the above cited section are met, which is clearly the case in this application. This well cannot be interrupted by a call on the adjacent creeks or the Colorado River • • This well is NOT closer than 600 feet to any other well. No neighbor to this planned exemption has any legal standing under the water rights administration laws to object to the operation and use of this well within the above statute for up to three single residential dwellings as planned here. Also see Section 37-90-137(2) which is the statutory authority on the 600 foot issue. If these neighbors can document their concerns that their own wells are diminished by anything done by the applicants or their successors on the subject property, then they have their remedy in civil court, provided they can meet their burden of proof. Their mere speculation and objection because they have their homes in this rural setting and do not want anyone else to be able to exercise private property rights is insufficient legal cause for this application to be denied. Garfield County has approved many similar sites and wells for subdivision exemption with the same or lesser available water supplies. This property must be treated no differently. If the County wishes more insurance on this subject, we note that nothing in the law prevents each subsequent lot owner to apply for individual well permits which can be supported by West Divide Water Conservancy District contracts for exchange and augmentation supplies to prevent interruption due to a call. This property is in Area A of the West Divide district. Contracts will be approved upon application, consistent with the district's practices in this area. With respect to fire protection, these exempted lots all border the county road and are therefore readily serviced by fire equipment. Outside valves/faucets/hydrants will be made available so that fire fighters may have access to the domestic and irrigation supplies of water serving these properties. No plan is being made to provide stored water for fire fighting, nor has such a demand been made. Attached as Exhibit "H" is a letter dated August 21, 1996 from the Grand Valley Fire Protection District regarding approval of the fire protection plan. Petitioners will comply with all requirements set out in this letter. G. No connection to an existing community or municipal water or sewer system is proposed other than as discussed in Paragraph F above. H. The lots being created by this exemption are in conformity with the existing development in this area. There is significant demand for lots of this size for single family homes. This form of development and its location on the county road will allow the price to remain consistent with current market conditions. I. The predecessors of the present owners (Petitioners) purchased the subject property in the 1960's and occupied the entire property until their deaths. No division was made during their ownership. Present owners acquired all rights of their predecessors and have not made any divisions until this application. J. The required $300.00 fee is submitted herewith. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: An application which satisfies the review criteria must be submitted with all the following information: A. Sketch map at a minimum scale of 1" - 200' showing the legal description of the property, dimension and area of all lots or separate interest to be created, access to a public right-of-way, and any proposed easements for drainage, irrigation, access or utilities; B. Vicinity map at a minimum scale of 1" - 2000', showing the general topographic and geographic relation of the proposed exemption to the surrounding area within two (2) miles, for which a copy of U.S.G.S. quadrangle map may be used; C. Copy of the deed showing ownership by the Applicant, or a letter from the property owner(s) if other than the Applicant; 2 i • D. Names and addresses of owners of record of land immediately adjoining and within 200 feet of the proposed exemption, mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners of record of the property to be exempted, and tenants of any structure proposed for conversion; and E. Evidence of the soil types and characteristics of each type; and F. Proof of legal and adequate source of domestic water for each lot created, method of sewage disposal, and letter of approval of fire protection plan from appropriate fire district; and G. If connection to a community of municipal water or sewer system is proposed, a letter from the governing body stating a willingness to serve; and H. Narrative explaining why exemption is being requested; and I. It shall be demonstrated that the parcel existed as described on January 1, 1973 or the parcel as it exists presently is one of not more than three parcels created from a larger parcel as it existed on January 1, 1973; and J. A $300.00 fee must be submitted with the application. PETITIONERS: liv1/41-wp ) Thomas H. Odgers Samuel B. Potter 3 Teresa A. Potter • • 477012 B-938 P-101 04/21/95 04:27P PG 2 OF 2 EXHIBIT A The E1/2 SE1/4, the E1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4, the SW1/4 SE1/4, excepting a strip of land in the West end 275 feet wide and 1320 feet in length and running North and South parallel to the West line of the SW1/4 SE1/4. All of the above described land in Section 31, Township 6 South, Range 94 West of the 6th P.M. Also: Lot 2, Section 6, Township 7 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., excepting some 10.2 acres that lay South of a line that begins at a point' 138 feet North from the Southeast corner of Lot 2 and extends Northwesterly across Lot 2 to a point 538 feet North from the Southwest corner of Lot 2. Also: Lot 1, Section 6, Township 7 South, Rance 94 West, 6th P.M., excepting some 8.9 acres that lay South of a line that begins at a point 450 feet North of the Southeast corner of Lot 1, and extends Southwesterly across Lot 1 to a point 138 feet North from the Southwest corner of Lot 1. Also Lot 4, Section 5, Township 7 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., excepting some 15.0 acres that lay South of a line that begins at a point 500 feet North from the Southeast corner of Lot 4 and extends West across Lot 4 to a point 500 feet North from the Southwest corner of Lot 4, together with all improvements and appurtenances belonging thereto. Containing 218 acres, more or less. Also: All and every part of grantors' interest, rights, and ownership, whatsoever, in and to all water, both springs and ditches, ditch rights and spring rights, that they have, own or use on the above described land by way of enumeration and not by limitation as to the following ditch and water rights, to wit: all their interest in the Reynolds and Gillum Ditch from Cache Creek, Priority No. 119B and especially all interest in the Helen G. Reynolds adjudication of water from 2 or more springs as shown in Decree Book, Water District No. 45, page 154, and also that part of which is described in Doc. No. 28055, Garfield County, Colorado records and designated as .the No. 5 Spring Ditch. Also all of grantors' interest and ownership in and to a water filing on several spring ditches by Sebastian Keller on September 15, 1897, and recorded in Garfield County as Doc. No. 20351. Subject, however, to easements in place and being used or of record prior to the date hereof. The grantors reserve to themselves, their heirs, and assigns, an undivided one-half interest in and to all oil, gas, petroleum, and minerals, upon, in, or under the above described real property. County of Garfield State of Colorado i I.JA TEC SYSTEMS, INC. F. O. BOX 432 GLENWOOD .srR.INGs, CO. 31602 SAN POTTER AGENCY, INC. EC;L947 RIFLE, CO. 311350 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WELL LOCATION: T (_mT AT PUMPING RATE � 1T (� PER T mTT T.. .;ILL WA: 1ES�F ` UMPI: G RA'iE OF 1.0 GALLONS MINU_�F0E 4.0 HOURS. DATE OF TEST /20.'w A7"ROXIMAT7 STATIC LEVEL S7.'5 FEET DRAWDOWN DURING TENT =f,. FEET FOR 1 HOUR WAS 22 FEET THE F AQUA m THAT " T THIS S WELL CAN SUSTAIN ONE 11 I � i�1i OPINION Gi< t ' L £ SEC �£ £ 1 1 F" 1.t�1 J . �.v...) GPM, WITH ADEQUATE STORAGE IT WOULD PRODUCE 1440 GALLONS PER DAY, ',INCH WOULD BE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY FOR 4 DWELLING. UNITS (IN HOUSE S JAIL:') PER THE PLANNING DE ARlr'1ENT S CRITERIA RE'CD FROM THE SAM PC ITER AGENT(_ ON ;'LARCH 14, 196. TEE TEST DATA OBTAINED IS REPRESENTITIVE OF ONLY CONDITIONS OBSERVED ON THAT DATE AND DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR POSSIBLE SEASONAL VARIATION IN THE AQUIFER NOR LONGER PUMPING DURATIONS. r L 5 SUBMITTED, TON PLAT STATE LICENSE 11106 EMT F Received from: J JOHN C. KEPHART & CO. AT 11 ES • 435 NORTH AVENUE PHONE 242-7618 • GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 ANALYTICAL REPORT Customer No. Laboratory No Sample Date Received' Date Reported i Nir,atr.,T:(N) Nitrite{..N) Pott,F..F 5.-"act.2ria ,7Dr, arnb drinkin) 109f Odtliers/ Pcitter iA211 1.21 FM MCTE: vsf,are not ;...aH:..Dn by or comcioito,..i in lab. MitratE NiLrit(E, 114.-E.thod .Erom "SL.7..ndard Aat9F Ed -- 1.9c)"1 mq1, L.han EXHIBff Received from: • 1 JOHN C. KEPHART &CO. lj 0\ LA AT ES 435 NORTH AVENUE PHONE 242-7618 • GRANO JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 ANALYTICAL REPORT C—P PrdoerLie,E PC pk.DX 140 CO 01.&.) 10'74 Customer No. Laboratory No Sample Date Received "'- Date Reported i‘f.H4 P:.1ttc77..r 1. Cli+crm Sactria drinkinti]) 109f Pam P.--.t÷r Rr,bintiion Wall 121 PM mg/I C.,. 12 mci MOT: f"73,;..mplias ostare not ;..akc..?n or oc.Dmoc,f5it, in lab, ME:tnod NitriLa =2.77, NiLrata, wa,a an:71y.z.ed NjAirit,72. 7/21/. loti.thod 4:rom "Gt,-.7..ndard Method,a 4:or Lhe..2amination '3Iatrar .and Wite,.7)atrNtathod 1.t:.h Ed -7 drinking i6.C) mg/11 T. C. mk.:Tst iihan onc.: Received from: J er. A\ • 1 JOHN C. KEPHART &CO. J NCT 435 NORTH AVENUE LA ••• ee. eee eel we AT wer • PHONE 242-7618 • GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 31501 ANALYTICAL REPORT 0—P ProoertieE PO l'ox 148 Pile, CO 81',50 094 jatEr Customer No. Laboratory No Sample Date Received - ' • Date Reported Sample Nitrte(N) Nitril-e(N) Cdger/E,,itm Potter 1. _) ool=ieg/100m1 eampie rea4:e +or drinking). 109E Odoers/ Silm Potter Robin,eon Well 7/20/9 171 PM 71:.8a7 mg/1 C.12 mori NOTE: Samples .v.fere not taken oroc...Jmoogited in lab, Methrd r Nitr.itte 27,7.77 Nitrite 774.1. Nitr,ate tflkJ 1T/2'5/9:., Nitrite 7/21./96. imathod .from "Sthdard ':'hod 4or the E.:::itmintion o+ ,Aattir Methd l'. -7th Ed., te-iited 7,/21/96. LimIttirdrinking Nitc:Rte mdil Nitrite 1.0 md/il T.: C. le!iig than cptv,.., ner Received from: • • JOHN C. KEPIIART & CO. J 435 NORTH AVENUE J LA ATM • PHONE 242-7618 • GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 ANALYTICAL REPORT Customer No. Laboratory No Sample Date Received Date Reported : :1,:::::.• i.... : ! :::.*: (....! ..:1.::.. 1,:: !. .. ' ..:. ; ,' .:: t:::::.' C.I .. H.. ::: : ,:. • t...! ...:'. i:- :l: I.: :::::: Received from: JOHN C. KEPHART & CO. � 435 NORTH AVENUE CT L. ° AT PHONE 242-7618 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO m5m/ ANALYTICAL REPORT -P Prooerties PO 8'�x 1,1.0 Rific` CO 8165� '}94 Customer No. Laboratory No Sample Date Received Date Reported Odgers/5aa Potter Total C�lifor� Bacteria ''safe for drinkznd) 1095 Odgers/ Sam Potter Robinson Well 3/20/6 1:21 �M Nitrate(N) Nitrite(N) HOTE/ ; ken b/ or comoILe7.! io iab Method for Nitrate /s h. NiLrate was anal,zed 3/25/96; NiLrite /1/. �accerihod fr12,1)1 S�andaMe�hod� or Lhe Exami(-ation cf �ater aod �aste�a�+^`" :" 9222� I; Ed'' L. I. nking .ot's� �� I. ion/ oer i'�0ni, GRAND VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT P. 0. Box 295 Parachute, Colorado 81635 (303) 285-7630 August 21, 1996 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Proposed Exemption for Odgers/Potter Property To Whom It May Concern: Please reference the letter dated January 15, 1996 from the Grand Valley Fire Protection District regarding this subject. Attorneys for Odgers/Potter have requested another letter to update this proposal. The conditions outlined in the original approval letter remain essentially the same: 1. Request that all structures be separated from native pinyon/juniper by a distance of four times the surrounding tree height or 60 feet (changed from 100'). 2. Source of water for fire trucks is adequate from live stream or pond. 3. Access to all structures should be sufficient as parcels adjoin County road. Therefore, the Fire District has no concerns with this exemption. If there are any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Ed Baker, Asst. Fire Chief District Sec./Tres. cc: Stuver & George EXHIBIT r • Subject Property t ..w i t Vicinity Map Scale: 1" = 2000 feet LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS 1 f land, contained in the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of t1, Township 6 South, Range 94 West of the 6th P.M., rticularly described as follows; q on the northerly line of said NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 whence the /4 corner of said Section 31 bears N 89'52'24" W 747.66 feet, 89'52'24'E 248.73 feet along said northerly lane; 00'04'16"E 842.90 feet to the center of the Camp Bird Ditch; :ong said ditch S 84'20'48" W 90.07 feet to the center of a draw; :ong said center of draw N 35'09'43" W 100.95 feet and N 63'34'47" W :et to a fenceline; thence along said fenceline N 00'20'58" W 721.30 'ie point of beginning, containing A52 acres, more or less. "ow Zw Sat Y alum cap POTTER / ODGER, A Tract of land in the SE 1/4 oj Garfield Count stamped 8 1/16 To S 1/4 Seo. 31 _ _ _. / C -C S 31 LS #9009 089'52'24* 11 2437.09 ft. Set 2 1/2 in. dia. alum: cap at C 1/4 stamped Seo. 31, T6S, R941r. LS # 9009 ro 0 NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 589'52'24' E 5p' 4 N Sb' N63'34'4r A 109.00' x 248.73' Parcel 1 4.52 Ao. N35'09'43' If 100.95' / S8420'48' W 90.07' N89'52'24' II 231.84' S89'52'24"E 22.00' Parcel 2 4.53 Ao. 31.,91.3•0.00S a N88' 19'58" W L 103.55' / N81'16'29" w 129.86' , i N00'04'18' 82. 15' Camp Bird Ditch Center of draw Q 0 S83'20'14 2 238.52' S85.55'04'E 167.92' Parcel 3 9.00 Ao. 15' easement to existing water well 58804'25W --- 0 9 0 u 25 foot Access, Drainage and utility easements along aide and rear tot lines Set rebar & cap 426.58' LS #9009 (typical) NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 E 1/4 oorner Se Tie to property S 00'48'12"E 66 To C 1/4 Sec. 3 N 89' 52'24" W 2. N 00'48'Ir lI 0 County Road # 309 Boundary is set 30 ft. and parallel to the exit road oenterline. GRAPHIC SCAI, a (IN FEET) 1 inch = 200 ft • 491644 B-974 P-348 04/17/96 11:28A PG 1 OF 3 REC DOC NOT MILDRED ALSDORF GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER 0.00 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) Ata REGULAR meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday ,the 26 of February A.D. 19 96 , there were present: Marian I. Smith , Commissioner Chairman Arnold L. Mackley , Commissioner Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney , Commissioner Don DeFord , County Attorney Mildred Alsdorf , Clerk of the Board Chuck Deschenes , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 96-15 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION FROM THE GARFIELD COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THOMAS ODGERS AND SAMUEL POTTER. WHEREAS, THOMAS ODGERS AND SAMUEL POTTER petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, for an exemption from the definition of the terms "subdivision" and "subdivided land" under C.R.S. 1973, 30-28-101 (10) (a) -(d), as amended, and the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado, adopted April 23, 1984, Section 8:00 through 8:60 and for the division of a 204.0 acre tract into four (4) parcels of approximately and 4.70, 5.00, 5.15 and 189.85 acres in size, more or less, with the parent parcel more practically described as follows: (see attached) (in the State of Colorado and the County of Garfield); and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the proposed division does not fall within the purposes of Part 1, Article 28, Title 30, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended, for the reason that the division does not warrant further exemption from the definition of subdivision review; and WI-IEREAS, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that there is proof of a legal and physical supply of domestic water for the property at the time of the application. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the division of the above described tract of land is denied by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. OP 3- 34 491644 B-974 P-349/17/96 11:28A PG 2 OF 3 Dated this 26 day of ATTEST: February , A.D. 19 96 •/ Cl of the Board / Chairman Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO vote: Marian I. Smith Arnold L. Mackley Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) , Aye , Aye , Aye I, County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 19 . County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 491644 B-974 P-350 04/17/96 11:28A PG 3 OF 3 0 ►a b Zk la. Crt -ted m m m m O m 'o t3 ,.. to -;:::, r ti tv ..... -ts R ,,, m a• ok ca kt�bo m kE2 t IC 44c•z o"to moi m o tO tn m o O t3 *lc m ‘,t Q R te"0 o m�^r� O tt m g 05 , ,O -:-- 2k %“- ..q* a; 8 V prb, o O O rO d ;QC/14'?0 N. i i , z o o o[r]+'Z� .a It .640 L c:, Lf1y a 0 m o r N. /,s.�5m r1 k 71:N:-' '4z k• Ena� CD d o�,��s� � 86o 0 mCk 0. oe)+. ym �� x ,00 ei b m : k•"Cn o \o oo m� °4N 0 ct m IC c0 ice' m �� r m- .4.411"..,0 cz Z3 e d m .4.. ••t. t` :i op .oma; mco Ob• .d...413 07 N% -'O Cp i c% grZJ —iO °+ CV � .g*Fit04' WbrO k ,a 74; it -'c, R W 0En .a..0 • 1 478135 B-940 P-885 05/16/95 03:27P PG 1 OF 2 REC DOC FEJT MILDRED ALSCORF GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER 10.00 24.09 PERSONA)=. REPRESENTATIVE ' S D E E D THIS DEED, made by DOROTHY LOIS GEORGE, as personal representative of the Estate of BARBARA B. ROBINSON, Deceased, grantor', an undivided one-half interest to SAMUEL B. POTTER and TERESA A. POTTER, JTWROS as between themselves, and an undivided one-half interest to THOMAS H. ODGERS and MARY H. ODGERS, JTWROS as between themselves, Grantees, whose address is 0598 County Road 323, Rifle, CO 81650. WHEREAS, the grantor is the qualified personal representative of the Estate of BARBAPA B. ROBINSON under appointment of Court entered on the 24th day of January, 1994, by the District Court in and for Garfield County, Colorado, Probate No. 93PR86. 1. NOW THEREFORE, the grantor distributes and conveys to the Grantees, the following real property situate in Garfield County, Colorado, to wit: The E1/2 SE1/4, the E1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4, tte SW1/4 SE1/4, excepting a strip of land in the West end 275 feet wide and 1320 feet in length and running North and South parallel to the West line of the SW1/4 SE1/4. All of the above described land in Section 31, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. Also: Lot 2, Section 6, Township 7 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., excepting some 10.2 acres that lay South of a line that begins at a point 138 feet North from the Southeast corner of Lot 2 and extends Northwesterly across Lot 2 to a point 538 feet North from the Southwest corner of Lot 2. Also: Lot 1, Section 6, Township 7 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., excepting some 8.9 acres that lay South of a line that begins at a point 450 feet North of the Southeast corner of Lot 1, and extends Southwesterly across Lot 1 to a point 138 feet North from the Southwest corner of Lot 1. Also Lot 4, Section 5, Township 7 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.N., excepting some 15.0 acres that lay South of a line that begins at a point 500 feet North from the Southeast corner of Lot 4 and extends West across Lot 4 to a point 500 feet North from the Southwest corner of Lot 4. Together with all improvements and appurtenances belonging thereto containing 218 acres, more or less. Together with, but without warranty or representation, all and every part of Grantor's interest, rights, and ownership, whatsoever, in and to all water, both springs and ditches, ditch rights and spring rights, that it has, owns, or uses on the above described land by way of enumeration and not by limitation as to the following ditch and • 478135 B-940 P-886 05/16/95 03:27P PG 2 OF 2 water rights, to wit: All its interest in the Reynolds and Gillum Ditch from Cache Creek, Priority No. 119B and especially all interest in the Helen G. Reynolds adjudication of water from 2 or more springs as shown in Decree Book, Water District No. 45, page 154, and also that part of which is described in Doc. No. 28055,. Garfield County, Colorado records and designated as the No. 5 Spring Ditch. Also all of Grantor's interest and ownership in and to a water filing on several spring ditches by Sebastian Keller on September 15, 1897, and recorded in Garfield County as Doc. No. 20351. Together with all of Grantor's interest in Water Cases No. W-2008 and 94CW114 in the District Court in and for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado, and all water and water rights represented by the ruling and decrees in those cases. Together with the water well located on the property. Subject, however, to easements in place and being used or of record prior to the date hereof. The Grantor reserves to itself an undivided one-half share of the interest Grantor owns of oil, gas, petroleum, and minerals, upon, in or under the above-described real property. i. Executed this/5th day of May, 1995. STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD • Dorothy Lois George U Personal Representative of the Estate of BARBARA B. ROBINSON 115th The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ah day of May, 1995 by DOROTHY LOIS GEORGE, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF BARBARA B. ROBINSON. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 4 Air ' 11 /,/,.7.op.;1 Notary • blic 127 West 5th Street Rifle, GO 81650 Recorded at...8 _...o el«k...! _x_ . _. J_u.nese.-11,._ 19.63.._ .............._ RR,„„tion No_ 221_1.7 78..__ Chas. S. Keegan........................Recorder. 1'msDLSED, coal.Hb 10th hi the year .f . la saw Lord ono thousand nine hundred and betw«a ROY 8. PERRY and MARY PERRY day of June sixty-three of the County of Cat -field and State of Colorado, of the first part, and -----ERVIN B. ROBINSON and BARBARA B. ROBINSON eftbe Cowtyof Clrfield and State of Colorado, of the second part: WITNESSETH, That the said part 1 es of the tint part, for and In consideration of the sum of $10.03) and other good and valuable• consideration DOttisAkilY,x to the said part i e:of the first part In hand paid by the said parties of the ascend part, the reel Ipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, hs ve `ranted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these pro•rents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said parties of the scrond part, their heirs end assigns fonder, not la tenancy In common but In joint tenancy, all the following described lot or parents of land, situate, tying and being in tho County of Gar t 1 e l d and State of Colorado, to -wit: The F,;SP.;,, the E.?NW;,SP.,, the SW,SEL excepting a strip of land In the West. end 275 feet wide and 1120 feet in length and running North and South parallel to the West lInc of the SW„SE;,. All of the above described land In Sec. I1, Tp. h S., R 94 W., 6th P.M. Also: Lot 2, Sec. 6, Tp. 1 S., R. 94 W., 6th P.M., excepting some 10.2 acres that lay South of a line that begins at a point 118 feet North frown the Southeast corner of Lot 2 and extends Northwesterly across Lot 2 to a point 538 feet North the Southwest corner of Int 2. Also: tut 1, Sec. 6, Tp.. 7 S. , R. 94 14., lith P.M., excepting some 8.9 acres that Loy South of a 11ne that begins at a point 4',0 leo( North of the Southeast corner .,1 Lot I, and extends SOLI th.estenIy across Lot I to a point 138 Icer North from the Southwest corner of Lot I. Also Lot 4, Sec. ',, Tp. 7 S., R. 92. W., 6th some 1'1.0 excepting soe 1'1.0 acres that lay South of a line that begins at a point 500 t eat North from the Southeast corner of I.ot 4 and e':. tends West Across Lot 4 to a point '.03) feet North from the Southwest corner of Lit -., tugcthar with al 1 improvements and nppurtcn.teves belonging thereto. Containing .'I8 acres, more or It ss. .'wino: 111 and every part of grantors' Lntctest , rights , .nal own, ship, whatso- ever, In and to all water, both springs and rifteh.,s, .tit'+, ,1 ante: .,nd aig,hts, that they h.tve, own or use ou the ,shove described land by woe of enum.•r- a1ion .+nd nut by limitation as to the Iollowing ditch and water rights, to -•.sit: all the1i inlet est in the Reynolds and Gillum hitch from C,che Greek, 3', $ui it No. 11911 and especially all int. rest in the Ile 1'n G. Rejnnl.Is aJludlcat 1.•11 of welter visna 2 or more springs as shown in Decree Book, Wales Distt ick No. 5, page 154, and .tlso that part of which i, described 'u Doc. No. .8t1'r., Gal ILeld County, Colorado ret en ds and designated as the No. 5 Spring Di trh. Also all o1 gtant..rs' inlet est And ownet:.ltlp in and to 0 water (iIing on several 101ing di [cites by Schaal fan Eel Ier on Septeodhet 1 , 1891, and 1ceorded In C.srtiel,1. Count., era Doc. .!t11 r1 . Subject, huvevet. to .•..sements in plate and heron used or of terord prior to the dal,' hetonl. the r, nu.tots t aseger In themselves, their heirs, and assigns, an undivided ane-h,lli interest to and to All oil, gas, petroleum, and minerals, upon, in, or under the above des.: ib. -.3 tr..1 prnpet lye TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditem,mts and appurtenances thcrcunto b.-bmging, or In nuywine appertaining, and the n vernlon and reversions, remainder and ,.v,sindcee, rents, lases and prvfita thereof; and all the estnte, right. Ink, interest, elitist and demand a•hnlso.•eer of *he sal) part of the first part, either in law or equity, of, In and to the ribose bnrlrniea d yremtaee, with the heredita,n n( and eppurla•naneca. r 11111111121111111 ailla • . • AQUA TEC SYSTEMS, INC. P.O. E0X 438 GLEN OD STRINGS, CO. 31602 SAM POTTER AGENCY, INC. BOX L947 RIFLE, CO. 31650 TO WHOM IT NAY CONCERN: WELL CATION: THY," WELL WAS TESTED 302 4.0 20223. AT A FUNPIGG EATS OF 1.0 GALLONS. PER MIK922 DATE OF TEST .322022E D2GZIMAT7 STATIC LEVEL F7 FEET 92q<DCWN DURING TEST 40 FEET k6' 7222 FOR 1 HOUR WAS 22 EEE` IT IS THE OPINION OF AQUA TEC THAT "IF" THIS WELL CAN SUSTAIN ONE 0P2, WITH ADEQUATE STORAGE IT WOPLD 220292E 1440 GALLONS ©E2 DAY, S ! WOULD BE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY FOR 4 DWELLING UNITS (IN HOUSE ONLY) PER THE PLANNING DEPA2TNENTS CRITERIA RECIEVED FROM TE: SAM 2CTTER AGENCY ON MARCH 14, 1996. TEE TEST DATA OBTAINED IS REPRESENTITIVE OF ONLY CONDITIONS OBSERVED ON THAT DATE AND DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR POSSIBLE SEASONAL VARIATION IN THE AQUIFER NOR LONGER PUMPING DURATIONS. STATE LICENSE 1.1106 • • BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PETITION FOR EXEMPTION Pursuant to C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-101 (a) - (d) as amended, and the Subdivision Regulations of Garfield County, Colorado, adopted April 23, 1984, Section 2:20.49, the undersigned, THOMAS H. ODGERS and MARY K. ODGERS and SAMUEL B. POTTER and TERESA A. POTTER, respectfully petition the Board of County Commissions of Garfield County, Colorado, to exempt by Resolution the division of an 18.05 acre tract of land into three (3) tracts of approximately 4.52 acres, 4.53 acres and 9 acres each, more or less, from the definitions of "subdivision" and "subdivided land" as the terms are used and defined in C.R.S. (1973) Section 30-28-101(10)(a) - (d) and the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations for the reasons stated below: A. Blue line plats are submitted with this application as Exhibit "A". B. Vicinity map is on the plat. C. Copy of deed showing ownership is attached as Exhibit "B". D. Names and addresses of owners, lessees, etc. is attached as Exhibit "C". E. Evidence of soil types is attached as Exhibit "D". F. Each lot is greater than two acres, allowing individual septic tank/leach field systems. Petitioners own a water well in place and in operation on the subject property. (This well is located in Parcel 3 of the attached exemption plat.) The plan is to use this well subject to a Water Well Community Sharing and Maintenance Agreement, copy of which is attached to this application as Exhibit "E". Easements are in place on the plat to allow for this joint use. Either joint storage at the well site will be constructed, or each lot may install an individual cistern. All county requirements with respect to the well flow and capacity have been met. This is verified by the well test done on March 20, 1996, by Aqua Tec Systems, Inc. (See letter attached as Exhibit "F" dated March 29, 1996.) Of course, no water engineer will guarantee any flow from any well over time. Many variables affect the operation of a well. This is true of all wells in Garfield County and is not unique to this well. The water is safe for drinking as tested by Grand Junction Laboratories. Please see the lab report dated March 26, 1996 attached as an exhibit to this application as Exhibit "G". The subject well is exempt from state regulation since it was in place and in use prior to 1971. Please see the following excerpt from the statute: "37-92-602. EXEMPTIONS - PRESUMPTIONS - LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION. (1) the provisions of this article ... shall not be applicable to: (e) Wells not exceeding fifty gallons per minute which are in production as of May 22, 1971, and were and are used for ordinary household purposes for not more than three single-family dwellings, fire protection, the watering of poultry, domestic animals, and livestock on farms and ranches and for the irrigation of not over one acre of gardens and lawns." Under this statutory exemption, this pre -1971 well does not require a permit and is not regulated under the existing system of water rights administration, provided the terms of the above cited section are met, which is clearly the case in this application. This well cannot be interrupted by a call on the adjacent creeks or the Colorado River • • This well is NOT closer than 600 feet to any other well. No neighbor to this planned exemption has any legal standing under the water rights administration laws to object to the operation and use of this well within the above statute for up to three single residential dwellings as planned here. Also see Section 37-90-137(2) which is the statutory authority on the 600 foot issue. If these neighbors can document their concerns that their own wells are diminished by anything done by the applicants or their successors on the subject property, then they have their remedy in civil court, provided they can meet their burden of proof. Their mere speculation and objection because they have their homes in this rural setting and do not want anyone else to be able to exercise private property rights is insufficient legal cause for this application to be denied. Garfield County has approved many similar sites and wells for subdivision exemption with the same or lesser available water supplies. This property must be treated no differently. If the County wishes more insurance on this subject, we note that nothing in the law prevents each subsequent lot owner to apply for individual well permits which can be supported by West Divide Water Conservancy District contracts for exchange and augmentation supplies to prevent interruption due to a call. This property is in Area A of the West Divide district. Contracts will be approved upon application, consistent with the district's practices in this area. With respect to fire protection, these exempted lots all border the county road and are therefore readily serviced by fire equipment. Outside valves/faucets/hydrants will be made available so that fire fighters may have access to the domestic and irrigation supplies of water serving these properties. No plan is being made to provide stored water for fire fighting, nor has such a demand been made. Attached as Exhibit "H" is a letter dated August 21, 1996 from the Grand Valley Fire Protection District regarding approval of the fire protection plan. Petitioners will comply with all requirements set out in this letter. G. No connection to an existing community or municipal water or sewer system is proposed other than as discussed in Paragraph F above. H. The lots being created by this exemption are in conformity with the existing development in this area. There is significant demand for lots of this size for single family homes. This form of development and its location on the county road will allow the price to remain consistent with current market conditions. I. The predecessors of the present owners (Petitioners) purchased the subject property in the 1960's and occupied the entire property until their deaths. No division was made during their ownership. Present owners acquired all rights of their predecessors and have not made any divisions until this application. J. The required $300.00 fee is submitted herewith. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: An application which satisfies the review criteria must be submitted with all the following information: A. Sketch map at a minimum scale of 1" - 200' showing the legal description of the property, dimension and area of all lots or separate interest to be created, access to a public right-of-way, and any proposed easements for drainage, in-igation, access or utilities; B. Vicinity map at a minimum scale of 1" - 2000', showing the general topographic and geographic relation of the proposed exemption to the surrounding area within two (2) miles, for which a copy of U.S.G.S. quadrangle map may be used; C. Copy of the deed showing ownership by the Applicant, or a letter from the property owner(s) if other than the Applicant; 2 • • • D. Narnes and addresses of owners of record of land immediately adjoining and within 200 feet of the proposed exemption, mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners of record of the property to be exernpted, and tenants of any structure proposed for conversion; and E. Evidence of the soil types and characteristics of each type; and F. Proof of legal and adequate source of domestic water for each lot created, method of sewage disposal, and letter of approval of fire protection plan from appropriate fire district; and G. If connection to a community of municipal water or sewer system is proposed, a letter from the governing body stating a willingness to serve; and H. Narrative explaining why exemption is being requested; and I. It shall be demonstrated that the parcel existed as described on January 1, 1973 or the parcel as it exists presently is one of not more than three parcels created from a larger parcel as it existed on January 1, 1973; and J. A $300.00 fee must be submitted with the application. PETITIONERS: Thomas H. Odgers Mary Odg Samuel B. Potter 3 -- I Teresa A. Potter Received from: JOHN C. KEPBABTSk1�O. \ \ 435 NORTH AVENUE [II_ LA -� ° PHONE 242-7618 ° GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO msn' ANALYTICAL REPORT O—p Properties PO Bex 140 Rifle` CO 8165') , Customer No. Laboratory No Szmple 1094 �ater Date Received - Date Reported �dger�/Sam PQtter nob,r=c~. W�il T�t�� C�liform 8a��erie '� ���ns�es/1��ml sa*c|e drinking) Nitrate(N) Nitrite(N) 1095 Odgers/ Ram Potter Robinson Hsll 3/20/96 1:21 PM 3.8!: mg/1 0.12 ma/1 NOTE.: Samples "ere not ;..aken b' or comoositeci in Lab.. MeU`od Nitrate Nitrite =4.1' NiLrate was analyzed NiLrite ^SLndard Methods 4or the Examination cf ,Aater and Waste:-.1at�'`" Method 92222` iqth Ed'' 1�95� tested 3/21���. /'ia^ts for drinking ,,,,,,Ater Nitrat.e T. 177..' �a.���ri��� m.'s�� �e ��ss than • • • GRAND VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT P. 0. Box 295 Parachute, Colorado 81635 (303) 285-7630 January 15, 1996 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Ste. 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 131601 RL: Proposed Subdivision for Odgers -Potter Property lo Whom 1t May Concern: Per a request of Sam Potter of OP Properties, the Grand Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the proposed subdivision exemption in Rulison. lt is our understanding, three parcels of land will be subdivided from the total of approximately 204 acres. The three parcels will be approximately 5.15, 5.0 and 4.7 acres in size. The Grand Valley Fire Protect -ion District requests that all structures be separated from native trees (Pi nyon/Juniper) by a distance of four times the height of the surrounding native trees or 100 feet . A source of water for fire trucks is available from existing irrigation Glitch. Access to all structures should be sufficient as parcels ajoin county road. Therefore, with the set back from native trees, this Fire District has no concerns with this exemption. If there are any questions, please contact rne. Sincerely, C.. - Ed Baker Asst. Fire Chief 4-a/w • GRAND VALLEY • FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT P. 0. Box 295 Parachute, Colorado 81635 (303) 285-7630 August 21, 1996 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Proposed Exemption for Odgers/Potter Property To Whom It May Concern: COLrN TY Please reference the letter dated January 15, 1996 from the Grand Valley Fire Protection District regarding this subject. Attorneys for Odgers/Potter have requested another letter to update this proposal. The conditions outlined in the original approval letter remain essentially the same: 1. Request that all structures be separated from native pinyon/juniper by a distance of four times the surrounding tree height or 60 feet (changed from 100'). 2. Source of water for fire trucks is adequate from live stream or pond. 3. Access to all structures should be sufficient as parcels adjoin County road. Therefore, the Fire District has no concerns with this exemption. If there are any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Ed Baker, Asst. Fire Chief District Sec./Tres. cc: Stuver & George Mr.- Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 Eighth St, Glenwood Springs CO 81606 Sirs: 6006 309 Rd jkO8i99fl;ach Co 81635 6' GAi=1Ei D COUNTY RE: Odgers/totter second Petition For Exemption I live in Rulison and the springs that irrigate my land rise on the Odgers/Potter property. My letter on the original Petition For Exemption request is attached. At this time, it is my understanding that the old well on the Odgers/Potter property is proposed to be used to supply the domestic water required for the 'exempted' properties. I recall Irwin Robinson telling me that with careful us<Frell produced barely enough water for his household needs. ( His was a household of two older ranchers who operated the well over the years. ) It is unrealistic to suppose that this well will adequately serve three or four modern households. Water remains a major concern here. On a property owned by Gary and Elaine Allen, directly west of the Odgers/Potter land, a spring dried up in 1991. Wells in the 'exempted' Lemon development are inadequate. It seems especially important in this area of fluctuating springs and marginal wells that new properties NOT be created by further 'exemptions' until a reliable supply of domestic water is committed to them. bye ���� �c ,,, r,744l A. 7a/":„ Sincerely, 42/a/ Conn % Erhard 6006 309 Rd Parachute CO 81635 February 21, 1996 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 Eighth St Glenwood Springs CO 81606 Re: Odgers/Potter Petition For Exemption Sirs: The old Robinson place is large, relative to the size of rural Rulison. Drainage tendrils fan out from the property through the downslope community. The subdivision review process needs to address the many concerns surrounding division of this prominent acreage. A major concern is water. Most of the irrigating water used on Erhard land comes from springs located on the Robinson place.* These springs and others, both to the east and west in the same strata, fluctuated over the years -- decreased in dry periods -- recovered, after a lag period, in wetter times. Efforts to develope a greater flow in one spring might cause another spring's output to decrease. There are fears that additional wells, drilled to supply the proposecd,exempted property households, will affect adversely the output of existing,wells. In fact, there are at present at least three properties already created by GarCO's exemption process that need working water wells if homes are to be built and potential values realized.** The Lemon development, exempted from any water requirement when approved, is less than a city block from the proposed new tracts. Wells are marginal. Is it an oblization of GarCC to consider the circumstances of these established small acreages that it permitted previously? How can such review occur under the inflexible. narrowly focusedl'Exemption' review procFss? Ver y IMPQrh:0"'. ) The disposition of the largest, 180 acre parcel is not required to A be addressed. I ask that you deny this Petition For Exemption. Sincerely, 2 (ine �Ii11G��G✓ Constance E. Erhard *I expect this established easement to be recorded on the map. ** Rod Miller ( formerly Ems exempted two lots ) Walter Lemon development • • 6691 County Road 309 Parachute, Colorado 81635 7 October 96 Mr. Marts Bean, Garfield County Planning Department Garfield County Commissioners 109 E. Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen: L 1 . Again I must object to the Petition for Exemption to subdivide 208 acres at Rulison by Potter and Odgers. The petition states the property will be "fully developed later" so it is more imperative to treat this as a full subdivision development. A plan of many homes needs a full analysis of internal and external impacts by the planning department. This petition should be rejected for the following reasons. WATER: The new petition would depend on the use of the existing well and common reservoir system for four units of domestic water. The petition indicates that the letter of the law has been met and outside objections have no bearing, which is contrary to rights of objection when the issue affects the individual. I do not think the county can be `forced" to grant an exemption, particularly when the petition states the intent to expand the development in the future. The recent Talbott exemption was subject to approved well permits and wells in place before acceptance. However, even a well permit will not alter the characteristics of water flow set by the local alluvial fans. The last resident on the Robinson Ranch frequently had a dry well, as have Scott, Hasty, Burchfield, Johnston, Youland, and M. Wells. Two and sometimes three holes have been drilled to get adequate results, and flow remains erratic at several Rulison properties. Local springs have gone dry in the last five years. Allen's domestic spring went dry permanently. W. Wells #1 spring has returned to only half its old rate, while three of my hillside seeps remain dry. It is my professional judgment that the Aqua Tech test report is woefully inadequate in scope to draw the report's conclusions. Further, it has a bad odor of undue influence in it. It is ludicrous to use a four-hour test to extrapolate to 24 hours a day, let alone 365 days year after year, even with a storage facility. The minimum household requirement is 150 gallons per person per day and demand is determined by the individual household habits. Any variation in flow or surge in demand by owners will completely change the unspecified storage requirement. A water opinion from attorney Sherry Caloia is attached. EASEMENTS: Easements which will impact development are not shown on the Exemption Plat. Garfield County regulations require these be shown to evaluate how building sites are effected. A major high voltage line bisects the center of the tract east -west. Camp Bird and Reynolds Gillman ditches meander across the property. I know of at least two spring rights which traverse the property. Telephone and power companies have a right-of-way on the property. DEVELOPMENT: Piecemeal development of three small and one large tract is but a subterfuge for future splits. In the petition, they stated they anticipate "a community water supply system will be developed." This subdivision should be considered and reviewed as a full small tract development with all impacts, internal and external, being addressed through the Garfield County Planning Department. The continued chipping away at agricultural and open lands should be controlled. There are plenty of small acreages in more accessible areas of the county and towns. Wells to Garfield County • Potter-Odger Exemption Letter, Page 2 7 October 96 CONFORMITY: Contrary to the petition, the small lots of 4.5 acres are not in conformance with current area growth. New small tracts to the south are 35 acres and the smaller lots in the Rulison area are 8-14 acres in size. The recent Talbott split is 10-11 acres each. The future development would exacerbate this rural concept. SLIDE AREA: Lot 4 in section five of the original survey has had two major mudslides in the last ten years. The side hill remains pockmarked with fissures, so any development in this area will place my property in jeopardy with any further slide activity. About 80% of Lot 4 is unstable. The last slide impacted my spring flow and eliminated the use of seepage along my south boundary. I worry the next slide will flow across the fence and adversely affect my spring and property. PROPERTY LINU: The east property line shows a "Line of Possession" outside the title line. Potter and Odgers had been legally notified before the last petition that I would (and continue to) defend my title. The deeded boundary line is fenced according to the 1982 survey which was rechecked this year. The title line remains the legal boundary and all reference to a "Line of Possession" needs to be deleted from this plat. SUMMARY: The water supply is inadequate to support even this small amount of development. The well sought for use has no permit and is not reliable. Even if it did not dry up during periods of the day, days of the month, and months of the year, one gallon per minute is insufficient. Wells and springs have already been dry at times, and further expansion will adversely impact water rights and flows of landowners in the area. We are already in a poor labor economy. Piecemeal developments are not needed and false assumptions about future water and sewer do not merit consideration. Tract easements, the Lot 4 in Section 5 slide area, and future subdivision plans should be addressed before any consideration of this petition is made. I firmly believe in County Land Use Control and this subterfuge defeats all its efforts. I respectfully request denial of this Petition for Exemption. Sincerely, (Mr.) Wayne E. Wells .14 • • 6691 County Road 309 Parachute, Colorado 81635 4 October 96 Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Department Garfield County Commissioners 109 E. Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen: i�..+::':y. Again, I object to the Petition for Exemption submitted by Potter and Odgers. Their petition should be again denied for several reasons. First and foremost is the water issue. Many wells in the area have gone dry, and my well has had erratic flows. My property should have qualified for domestic use since it was deeded long before 1972, but since the Division of Water Resources had given other domestic permits to unqualified small acreages which had been exempted, I was required to purchase West Divide Water Conservancy water. Now we have Potter/Odgers proposing a subdivision which will be expanded and the water issue appears inadequate to meet the needs without compromising other water rights in the area. The changes since the last petition are not adequate for four dwellings (which violates the terms of a permit) --I have about 2 gallons a minute and that, according to the same Aqua Tech is barely marginal for one dwelling. The Robinson's had constant problems with adequate household water, let alone domestic water, from the same well noted in the petition. Secondly, the lack of information submitted on the petition plat and submittal documents fails to provide sufficient information for a clear decision. Easements which affect development have been omitted. Areas on the plat may be unsuitable building sites which could affect other proper;ties. The boundaries are not the legal description. While the exemption is "legal" and Mr. George indicates we have no right to protest legalities, there is a moral obligation to consider all possible adverse impacts on granting such a petition. The owners clearly state this exemption is not the final development plan. Since Rulison still has vacant subdivision acreages, do we really need another inadequately planned subdivision? I respectfully request this petition be denied. A full subdivision plan, proof of compliance with water law and permits, and complete informational requirements disclosure needs to be done before consideration of the permit. This petition really should be considered under the rules of subdivision planning and review. Sincerely, (Ms.) Marion J. Wells OCT 1 1 1 COUNTY Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 E. Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 6373 309 Road Parachute, Colorado 81635 October 9, 1996 Subject: Petition for Exemption Thomas H. Odgers/Samuel A. Potter We object to the petition for Exemption to subdivide 214 acres for the following reasons: The wells in this area are mostly inadequate and many go dry in a dry year. All thewells show a mark decrease in production after the irrigation season ends. This year after a very dry summer our well in August dropped dramatically in production. Our well is one of the better wells in this area, this means other wells in this area are practically dry. The well on the petitioners property was and is a very poor well. Mrs. Robinson ran out of water after a couple of washer loads and this was all year round. If wells are drilled and the aquaflow that feeds our well is tapped by a new well and our wwll goes dry, who is responsible? It is very difficult to prove that the new well is responsible for our dry well.Since water is of the up - most importance and this area is well known for the dry holes that have been. drilled and the very low production of the various wells already in existence it is our sincere hope this petition will be denied. These small plots are not in character with our larger homesites in this rural agricultural area. Connie Erhard has 55 acres, E. Allen 30 + acres, Ova Gibbs 13 acres and we have 10 +acres all these in agricultural use. The County Road 309 is already over taxed with traffic and needs upgrading especially if more homes are placed in this area. The County has a problem now with monies to maintain the roads and it would be more costly if we should have a severe winter with lots of snow. This area is also a winter habitat for elk/deer herds. Other wildlife abound in this area such as turkey, bobcat, mountain lion and bear. More homestmeans more dogs turned loose and less habitat for the animals. This exemption is asked, not because of a hardship to save a ranch,but for monetary gains, the petitioners should go through the subdivision plan. We urge the Commissioners to deny this petition for exertion. Thank you for your time in considering our objections. Sincerely, Eugene '1t. Scott Evelyn R. Scott OCT 6266 309 Road Parachute, Colorado 81635 ` `-1L'%VJy October 9, 1996 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 E. Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Subject: Petition for Exemption `Phomas H. Odgers/Samuel A. Potter I object to the petition for Exemption to subdivide 214 acres. The petition should be rejected for the following reasons: The water situation concerning wells is a high risk in this area. Many wells are inadequate and some go dry in a dry year. The well on the Odger/Potter property goes dry after it is used for a few washer load of clothes. Mr. Irvine Robinson told me on several occassions. This was a problem all year round. Contamination from sewage is another big concern of mine. My well is located down slope from the petitions land and my well is approximately 175 feet from the west property line of the petitioners. Who is held responsible if my well becomes contaminated, the Petitioners or you, the Commissioners? This area is rural agricultural with ranches rangeing iri200+ acres to the Ranchettes rangting 40 acres to 10* acres. These lots are totally unappro- priate for this rural agricultural area as they do not conform with the existing type of building sites. Water being thentrain issue and because most wells in this area are barely producing enough water and many go dry in dry years.This is a very serious issue. I urge the Commissioners to deney this petition for exemption. Thank you for your time in considering my objections. Sincerely, (-3:/6" Ova Gibbs • • GRAND VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT P. 0. Box 295 Parachute, Color -ado 81 635 (303) 285-7630 January 15, 199E Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Ste. 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 01601 RE: Proposed Subdivision For Odgers -Potter Property fo Whom It May Concern: Per a request of Sam Potter of OP Properties, the Grand Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the proposed subdivision exemption i rr Rul i sun. It is our understanding, three parcels of land will be subdivided from the total of approximately 204 acres. The three parcels will be approximately 5.15, 5.0 and 4.% acres •in size. The Grand Valley Fire Protection District reques is tha t all structures be separated from native trees (Pinyon/Juniper) by a distance of four t i uses the height. of the surround i no native trees or 100 feet. A source of water For Fire trucks is available from existing irrigation ditch. Access to all structures should be sufficient as parcels ajoin county road. Therefore, with the set back from native trees, this Fire District has no concerns with this exemption. IF there are any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, i Ed Baker Asst. Fire Chief cc: G. Mahaffey, Chief U Y' • (-J-NcN(' Rem SHEET' RIFLE ARE, - s 55 56 ai 3a 1" i . 4 55 58 56 31 Yi r 59 58. Ag 56 55 56 58 L.. f s 56 58 34 ,. h 34 "• 44 58 4 45 59 J 6 67 45 MESA 69 45 • j?4_69 _. '77 R . _- 69 69 69 45 45 69 69 71 4 r. 45 71 69 71 71 45 EX1IEIT t S.. " • . •• •�'" e. ....i.7 " 70..1 , '+ rn , '.? J••••••'-',-,,,•-• °1-...,,. � l `4.%••••••-, 'i . �t ' kms. ',�`•:�1 ,.�.,._ ,`�4•�a.•,,y7.�.:_�.� �'� 1�J .y! C•iS-.1:.....7.7.1.44...:.1. i, i ..' + 'y IL ...:r...4-k:725 ��. . _ y 1^ '..........„..;....,..7.;.%.4..,: . +.-•...,,.,rA-^''�-►'��19 c•-.;-q--,..'11.4.1.7,,,i.'\ wI,•r,ti� 3z.L�.h.�, " .7.-.....7.: . v ,-1 ?�Y.....; - �.Wm,- r}t're C� : U,S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1111 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SANITARY FACILITIES Soils • PAGE 1 OF 4 12/13/95 (The information in this report indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need tor onsite investigation) Map symbol Septic tank Sewage lagoon Trench ; Area , Daily cover and soil name absorption areas sanitary sanitary 1 1 for landfill fields landfill landfill 1 1 I I I 34: ' 1 I I I Ildefonso ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: Severe: :Poor: slope ; seepage, ; slope, ; slope ; small stones. slope, ; large stones : slope large stones I I I I 56:1 I I I Potts Severe: :Severe: :Moderate: Moderate: :Fair: percs slowly ; 'seepage, ; slope slope ; slope slope II I I I I I 1 58: 1 1 I Potts ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: Severe: :Poor: percs slowly, ; seepage, ; slope slope ; slope slope slope 11 I I 1 I 1 1 Ildefonso ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: ;Poor: slope ; seepage, ; slope, slope ; small stones. slope, ; large stones ; slope 1 large stones , I I I I I I I 59: ; 1 I I Potts ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: Severe: ;Poor: percs slowly, ; seepage, ; slope ; slope : slope slope ; slope ' I 1 I 1 1 1 I Ildefonso ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: ;Poor: slope ; seepage, ; slope. slope ; small stones. slope. ; large stones ; slope large stones 1 ' I I I 1 I 1 1 I 67: 1 I Torriorthents, , I I I Steep ;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: Severe: ;Poor: depth to rock. ; depth to rock. ; depth to rock. slope depth to rock, slope ; slope ; slope small stones, I I slope U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE • • SANITARY FACILITIES --Continued Soils PAGE 2 OF 4 12/13/95 Map symbol Septic tank Sewage lagoon Trench Area Daily cover and soil name ; absorption areas sanitary sanitary for landfill fields landfill landfill Rock Outcrop, , 1 Steep ;Severe: Severe: Severe: :Severe: :Poor: depth to rock. depth to rock. depth to rock, ; depth to rock, ; depth to rock. slope slope slope ; slope ; slope U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE S • PAGE 3 OF 4 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 12/13/95 SANITARY FACILITIES Endnote -- SANITARY FACILITIES This report shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect septic tank absorption fields. sewage lagoons, and sanitary landfills. The limitations are considered "Slight" if soil properties and site features generally are favorable for the indicated use and limitations are minor and easily overcome; "Moderate" if soil properties or site features are not favorable for the indicated use and special planning, design. or maintenance is needed to overcome or minimize the limitations; and "Severe" if soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant increases in construction costs, and possibly increased maintenance are required. This report also shows the suitability of the soils for use as daily cover for landfills. A rating of "Good" indicates that soil properties and site features are favorable for the use and good performance and low maintenance can be expected; "Fair" indicates that soil properties and site features are moderately favorable for the use and one or more soil properties or site features make the soil less desirable than the soils rated "Good"; and "Poor" indicates that one or more soil properties or site features are unfavorable for the use and overcoming_ the unfavorable properties reouires special design, extra maintenance, or costly alteration. SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 to 72 inches is evaluated. The ratings are base on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. Permeability. a high water table, depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan. and flooding affect absorption of the effluent. Large stones and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Unsatisfactory performance of septic tank absorption fields. including excessively slow absorption of effluent, surfacing of effluent, and hillside seepage. can affect public health. Groundwater can be polluted if highly permeable sand and gravel or fractured bedrock is less than 4 feet below the base of the absorption field, if slope is excessive. or if the water table is near the surface. There must be unsaturated soil material beneath the absorption field to filter the effluent effectively. Many local ordinances require that this material be of a certain thickness. SEWAGE LAGOONS are shallow ponds constructed to hold sewage while aerobic bacteria decompose the solid and liauid wastes. Lagoons should have a nearly level floor surrounded by cut slopes or embankments of compacted soil. Lagoons generally are designed to hold the sewage within a depth of 2 to 5 feet. Nearly impervious soil material for the lagoon floor and sides is required to minimize seepage and contamination of ground water. This report aives ratings for the Natural soil that makes up the lagoon floor. The surface laver and. generally, 1 or 2 feet of soil material below the surface layer are excavated to provide material for the embankments. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features. and observed performance of the soils. Considered in the ratings are slope, permeability, a high water table, depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, flooding, large stones, and content of organic matter. Excessive seepage due to rapid permeability of the soil or a water table that is high enough to raise the level of sewage in the lagoon causes a lagoon to function unsatisfactorily. Pollution results if seepage is excessive or if floodwater overtops the lagoon. A high content of organic matter is detrimental to proper functioning of the lagoon because it inhibits aerobic activity. Slope, bedrock. and cemented pans can cause construction problems, and large stones can hinder compaction of the lagoon floor. SANITARY LANDFILLS are areas where solid waste is disposed of by burying it in soil. There are two types of landfill. trench and area. In a trench landfill, the waste is placed in a trench. It is spread, compacted, and covered daily with a thin layer of soil excavated at the site. In an area landfill. the waste is placed in successive layers on the surface of the soil. The waste is spread, compacted, and covered daily with a thin layer of soil form a source away from the site. Both types of landfill must be able to bear heavy vehicular traffic. Both types involve a risk of groundwater pollution. Ease of excavation and revegetation need to be considered. The ratings in this report are based U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SANITARY FACILITIES Endnote -- SANITARY FACILITIES --Continued • PAGE 4 OF 4 12/13/95 on soil properties, site features. and observed performance of the soils. Permeability, depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, a high water table. slope. and flooding affect both types of landfill. Texture, stones and boulders. highly organic layers, soil reaction. and content of salts and sodium affect trench type landfills. Unless otherwise stated, the ratings apply only to that part of the soil within a depth of about 6 feet. For deeper trenches, a limitation rate "Slight" or "Moderate" may not be valid. Onsite investigation is needed. DAILY COVER FOR LANDFILL is the soil material that is used to cover compacted solid waste in an area type sanitary landfill. The soil material is obtained offsite, transported to the landfill, and spread over the waste. Soil texture, wetness, coarse fragments. and slope affect the ease of removing and spreading the material during wet and dry periods. Loamy or silty soils that are free of large stones or excess gravel are the best cover for a landfill. Clayey soils may be sticky or cloddy and are difficult to spread; sandy soils are subject to soil blowing. After soil material has been removed, the soil material remaining in the borrow area must be thick enough over bedrock. a cemented pan, or the water table to permit revegetation. The soil material used as final cover for a landfill should be suitable for plants. The surface laver generally has the best workability, more organic matter than the rest of the profile. and the best potential for plants. Material from the surface layer should be stockpiled for use as the final cover. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 1 OF 2 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 12/13/95 SOIL FEATURES Soils Map symbol and SUii nal& 34: Ildefonso 56: Potts 58: Potts Ildefonso 59: Potts Ildefonso 67: Torriorthents. Steep Bedrock Cemented pan ; Subsidence ' ; Risk of corrosion Potential ;frost action Uncoated Depth ;Hardness; Depth Kind ;Initial; Total ; ; steel Concrete In ; In In In 1 I 1 I 1 I >60 ; ;Low ;Moderate ;Low + I 1 I + 1 I I >60 ; ;Low ;High ;High I 1 I I I 1 I I I >60 ;Low ;High ;High 1 1 1 1 >60 --- ;Low ;Moderate ;Low 1 I I I I 1 I I >60 ;Low ;High ;High 1 1 I I I 1 1 I >60 ; ;Low ;Moderate ;Low 1 I I I , I 1 I I I I , 4-30 Hard ;Low ;High ;Low I I I I Map symbol and soil name Shallow excavations 34: Ildefonso ;Severe: slope 56: Potts ;Moderate: slope 58: Potts ;Severe: slope Ildefonso ;Severe: ' slope 59: Potts ;Severe: slope Ildefonso ;Severe: slope 67: Torriorthents. Steep ;Severe: depth to slope Rock Outcrop, Steep ;Severe: depth to slope Dwellings without. basements ;Severe: slope Dwellings with basements Small commercial buildings Local roads and streets Lawns and landscaping ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: slope ; slope ; slope ; slope 1 I I 1 I I1 I I I ;Moderate: :Moderate: ;Severe: :Severe: ;Moderate: shrink -swell, ; slope ; slope ; low strength ; slope slope 1I I I I I ,' I 1 I 1 ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: slope ; slope ; slope ; low strength. ; slope 1 slope 1 1 1 I I 1 ;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: slope ; slope ; slope ; slope ; slope 1 II 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 11 1 I I I 1 1 I ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: slope ; slope ; slope ; low strength. ; slope slope I I I I ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: slope ; slope ; slope ; slope ; slope 1 1 1 1 I i I I I 1 I 11 1 1 I 1 , ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: rock.; slope. ; depth to rock.; slope. ; depth to rock,; slope. depth to rock : slope ; depth to rock ; slope ; depth to rock I ! 1 I, 1 I ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: rock.; slope ; depth to rock„ slope ; slope ; droughty, slope ; slope. depth to rock 11 I 1 I I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE • •PAGE 2 OF 2 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 12/13/95 SOIL FEATURES Endnote -- SOIL FEATURES This report gives estimates of various soil features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations. Depth to bedrock is given if bedrock is within a depth of 5 feet. The depth is based on many soil borings and on observations during soil mapping. The rock is either "Soft" or "Hard". If the rock is "Soft" or fractured, excavations can be made with trenching machines, backhoes, or small rippers. If the rock is "Hard" or massive, blasting or special equipment generally is needed for excavation. Cemented pans are cemented or indurated subsurface lavers within a depth of 5 feet. Such pans cause difficulty in excavation. Pans are classified as "Thin" or "Thick". A "Thin" pan is less than 3 inches thick if continuously indurated or less than 18 inches thick if discontinuous or fractured. Excavations can be made by trenching machines, backhoes, or small rippers. A "Thick" pan is more than 3 inches thick if continuously indurated or more than 18 inches thick if discontinuous or fractured. Such a pan is so thick or massive that blasting or special equipment is needed in excavation. Subsidence is the settlement of organic soils or of saturated mineral soils of very low density. Subsidence results from either desiccation and shrinkage or oxidation of organic material, or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years. This report shows the expected initial subsidence, which usually is a result of drainage, and total subsidence, which usually is a result of oxidation. Not shown in the report is subsidence caused by an imposed surface load or by the withdrawal of ground water throughout an extensive area as a result of lowering the water table. Potential frost action is the likelihood of upward or lateral expansion of the soil caused by the formation of segregated ice lenses (frost heave) and the subsequent collapse of the soil and loss of strength on thawing. Frost action occurs when moisture moves into the freezing zone of the soil. Temperature, texture, density, permeability, content of organic matter, and depth to the water table are the most important factors considered in evaluating the potential for frost action. It is assumed that the soil is not insulated by vegetation or snow and is not artificially drained. Silty and highly structured clayey soils that have a high water table in winter are the most susceptible to frost action. Well drained. very gravelly, or very sandy soils are the least susceptible. Frost heave and low soil strength during thawing cause damage mainly to pavements and other rigid structures. Risk of corrosion pertains to potential soil -induced electrochemical or chemical action that dissolves or weakens uncoated steel or concrete. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture. particle -size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content. texture. moisture content. and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors creates a severe corrosion environment. The steel installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than steel in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer. For uncoated steel. the risk of corrosion, expressed as "Low", "Moderate", or "High". is based on soil drainage class, total acidity. electrical resistivity near field capacity. and electrical conductivity of the saturation extract. For concrete. the risk of corrosion is also expressed as "Low", "Moderate". or "High". It is based on soil texture. acidity, and amount of sulfates in the saturation extract. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 1 OF 2 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 12/13/95 BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT Soils U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Endnote -- BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT • • BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT PAGE 2 OF 2 12/13/95 This report shows the decree and kind of soil limitations that affect shallow excavations. dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. The limitations are "Slight", "Moderate", or "Severe". The limitations are considered "Slight" if soil properties and site features are generally favorable for the indicated use and limitaions are minor and easily overcome: "Moderate" if soil properties or site features are not favorable for the indicated use and special planning. design. or maintenance is needed to overcome or minimize the limitations: and "Severe" if soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant increases in construction costs. and possibly increased maintenance are required. Special feasibility studies may be required where the soil limitations are severe. SHALLOW EXCAVATIONS are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for basements. graves. utility lines. open ditches, and other purposes. The ratings are based on soil properties. site features. and observed performance of the soils. The ease of digging, filling. and compacting is affected by the depth to bedrock, a cemented pan. or a very firm dense layer: stone content: soil texture: and slope. The time of the year that excavations can be made is affected by the depth to a seasonal high water table and the susceptibility of the soil to flooding. The resistance of the excavation walls or bands to sloughing or caving is affected by soil texture and the depth to the water table. DWELLINGS AND SMALL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS are structures built on shallow foundations on undisturbed soil. The load limit is the same as that for single-family dwellings no higher than three stories. Ratings are made for small commercial buildings without basements, for dwellings with basements, and for dwellings without basements. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. A high water table. depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, large stones, slope, and flooding affect the ease of excavation and construction. Landscaping and grading that require cuts and fills of more than 5 or 6 feet are not considered. LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material, a base of gravel, crushed rock, or stabilized soil material, and a flexible or rigid surface. Cuts and fills are generally properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. Depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, a high water table, flooding, large stones. and slope affect the ease of excavating and grading. Soil strength (as inferred from the engineering classification of the soil), shrink -swell potential, frost action potential, and depth to a high water table affect the traffic -supporting capacity. LAWNS AND LANDSCAPING require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features. and observed performance of the soils. Soil reaction, a high water table. depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan. the available water capacity in the upper 40 inches, and the content of salts, sodium. and sulfidic materials affect plant growth. Flooding, wetness. slope, stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer affect trafficability after vegetation is established. NONTECHNICAL SOILS DESCRIPTION REPORT Soils Mao Symbol Soil name and description 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes This deep, well -drained soil is on mesas, benches. and sides of valleys. This soil formed in mixed alluvium derived primarily from basalt. The surface laver is stony loam about 8 inches thick. The underlying material is very strongly calcareous very stony loam to a depth of 60 inches. Permeability is moderately 56 Potts loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes This deep, well -drained soil is on mesas. benches. and sides of valleys. This soil formed in alluvium derived from sandstone. shale, or basalt. The surface layer is loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is clay loam about 24 inches thick. The substratum is loam to a depth of 60 inches. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is high. 58 Potts-Ildefonso complex. 12 to 25 percent slopes These soils are on mesas and sides of valleys. The Potts soil formed in alluvium derived from sandstone. shale, or basalt. The Ildefonso soil formed in very strongly calcareous, basaltic alluvium and small amounts of eolian material. Potts soil makes up about 60 percent of the map unit. and the Ildefonso soil makes up about 30 percent. Potts soil is deep and well -drained. The surface is loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is clay loam about 24 inches thick. The substratum is loam to a depth of 60 inches. Permeability is moderate. and available water capacity is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is rapid. and the erosion hazard is high. • • • NONTECHNICAL SOILS DESCRIPTION REPORT Soils Map Symbol Soil name and description Ildefonso soil is deep and well drained. The surface laver is stony loam about 8 inches thick. The underlying material is very strongly calcareous very stony loam to a depth of 60 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid, and available water capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is more than 60 inches. Runoff is rapid, and the erosion hazard is high. 59 Potts-Ildefonso complex. 25 to 45 percent slopes These soils are on mesas and sides of valleys. The Potts soil formed in alluvium derived from sandstone, shale, or basalt. The Ildefonso soil formed in very strongly calcareous, basaltic alluvium and small amounts of eolian material. Potts soil makes up about 60 percent of the map unit, and the Ildefonso soil makes up about 30 percent. Potts soil is deep and well -drained. The surface is loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is clay loam about 24 inches thick. The substratum is loam to a depth of 60 inches. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is high. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is rapid. and the erosion hazard is high. Ildefonso soil is deep and well drained. The surface layer is stony loam about 8 inches thick. The underlying material is very strongly calcareous very stony loam to a depth of 60 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid. and available water capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is more than 60 inches. Runoff is rapid, and the erosion hazard is high. 67 Torriorthents-Rock Outcrop complex. Steep This broadly defined unit consists of exposed sandstone and shale bedrock and stony soils that are shallow to moderately deep over sandstone and shale and stony basaltic alluvium. Torriorthents make UD about 60 percent of this complex. and Rock outcrop makes up about 25 percent. The Torriorthents are on foothills and mountainsides below the Rock outcrop. NONTECHNICAL SOILS DESSTION REPORT Soils Map Symbol Soil name and description Torriorthents are very shallow to moderately deep. They are well to somewhat excessively drained. They generally are clayey to loamy and contain variable amounts of pebbles, cobbles. and stones. Permeability is slow to moderate, and water holdino capacity is very low to low. Effective rooting depth is 10 to 40 inches. Runoff is very rapid, and erosion hazard is very high. Rock outcrop is mainly Mesa Verde sandstone and Wasatch Shale. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 1 OF 4 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 12/13/95 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Soils (The information in this report indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation) Map symbol Roadfill Sand Gravel ; Topsoil and soil name ' I. 34:1 ' Ildefonso Poor: ;Improbable: :Improbable: :Poor: slope ; excess fines ; excess fines ; small stones. area reclaim. ' slope 56: , Potts ;Good ;Improbable: ;Improbable: :Fair: excess fines ; excess fines ; too clayey. slope 58: ' Potts ;Fair: ;Improbable: :Improbable: ;Poor: slope ; excess fines ; excess fines ; slope Ildefonso ;Fair: ;Improbable: :Improbable: ;Poor: large stones. ; excess fines ; excess fines ; small stones. slope ; area reclaim. slope , 59: Potts ;Poor: ;Improbable: ;Improbable: :Poor: slope ; excess fines ; excess fines ; slope 67: Torriorthents. Steep ;Poor: depth to rock, slope 4111 slope :Improbable: :Improbable: Poor: excess fines excess fines depth to rock. small stones. slope U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE • • CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS --Continued Soils PAGE 2 OF 4 12/13/95 Map symbol and soil name Rock Outcrop, Steep Roadfill ;Poor: depth to rock. slope Sand Gravel Topsoil I Improbable: :Improbable: :Poor: excess fines excess fines ; depth to rock. slope U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Endnote -- CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS • PAGE 3 OF 4 12/13/95 This report gives information about the soils as a source of roadfill. sand, gravel. and topsoil. The soils are rated "Good". "Fair". or "Poor" as a source of roadfill and topsoil. They are rated as a "Probable" or "Improbable" source of sand and gravel. The ratings are based on soil properties and site features that affect the removal of the soil and its use as construction material. Normal compaction. minor processing. and other standard construction practices are assumed. Each soil is evaluated to a depth of 5 or 6 feet. Roadfill is soil material that is excavated in one place and used in road embankments in another place. In this report. the soils are rated as a source of roadfill for low embankments. generally less than 6 feet high and less exacting in design than higher embankments. The ratings are for the soil material below the surface layer to a depth of 5 or 6 feet. It is assumed that soil lavers will be mixed during excavating and spreading. Many soils have layers of contrasting suitability within their profile. The report entitled Engineering Index Properties is also available and it provides detailed information about each soil layer. This information can help determine the suitability of each layer for use as roadfill. The performance of soil after it is stabilized with lime or cement is not considered in the ratings. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. The thickness of suitable material is a major consideration. The ease of excavation is affected by large stones. a high water table, and slope. How well the soil performs in place after it has been compacted and drained is determined by its strength (as inferred from the engineering classification of the soil) and shrink -swell potential. Soils rated "Good" contain significant amounts of sand or gravel or both. They have at least 5 feet of suitable material; a low shrink -swell potential, few cobbles and stones. and slopes of 15 percent or less. Depth to the water table is more than 3 feet Soils rated "Fair" are more than 35 percent silt- and clay -sized particles and have a plasticity of less than 10. They have a moderate shrink -swell potential. slopes of 15 to 25 percent, or many stones. Depth to the water table is 1 to 3 feet. Soils rated "Poor" have a plasticity index of more than 10. a high shrink -swell potential, many stones, or slopes of more than 25 percent. They are wet. and the depth to the water table is less than 1 foot. These soils may have layers of suitable material, but the material is less than 3 feet thick. Sand and gravel are natural aggregates suitable for commercial use with a minimum of processing. Sand and gravel are used in many kinds of construction. Specifications for each use vary widely. In this report only the probability of finding material in suitable quantity is evaluated. The suitability of the material for specific purposes is not evaluated, nor are factors that affect excavation of the material. The properties used to evaluate the soil as a source of sand or gravel are gradation of grain sizes (as indicated by the engineering classification of the soil), the thickness of suitable material, and the content of rock fragments. Kinds of rock. acidity, and stratification are given in the soil series descriptions. Gradation of grain sizes is given in the Engineering Index Properties report. A soil rated as a "Probable" source has a layer of clean sand and gravel or a layer of sand or gravel that contains up to 12 percent silty fines. This material must be at least 3 feet thick and less than 50 percent, by weight. large stones. All other soils are rated as an "Improbable" source. Coarse fragments of soft bedrock. such as shale and siltstone. are not considered to be sand and gravel, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 50IL CONSERVATION SERVICE • • CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Endnote -- COHSTRUCTION MATERIALS --Continued PAGE 4 OF 4 12/13/95 Topsoil is used to cover an area so that vegetation can be established and maintained. The upper 40 inches of a soil is evaluated for use as topsoil. Also evaluated is the reclamation potential of the borrow area. Plant growth is affected by toxic material and by such properties as soil reaction, available water capacity, and fertility. The ease of excavating. loading, and spreading is affected by rock fragments, slope. a water table. soil texture. and thickness of suitable material. Reclamation of the borrow area is affected by slope, a water table. rock fragments. bedrock. and toxic material. Soils rate "Good" have friable loamy material to a depth of at least 40 inches. They are free of stones and cobbles. have little or no gravel. and have slopes of less than 8 oercent. They are low in content of soluble salts, are naturally fertile or respond well to fertilizer. and are not so wet that excavation is difficult. Soils rated "Fair" are sandy soils. loamy soils that have a relatively high content of clay. soils that have only 20 to 40 inches of suitable material, soils that have an appreciable amount of gravel, stones, or soluble salts. or soils that have slopes of 8 to 15 percent. The soils are not so wet that excavation is difficult. Soils rate "Poor" are very sandy or clayey, have less than 20 inches of suitable material. have a large amount of gravel. stones. or soluble salts. have slopes of more than 15 percent. or have a seasonal water table at or near the surface. The surface laver of most soils is generally preferred for topsoil because of it organic matter content. Organic matter greatly increases the absorption and retention of moisture and nutrients for plant growth. WATER WELL COMMUNITY SHARING AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on the date set forth below to be effective 1996, by and among the following parties: THOMAS H. ODGERS AND MARY K. ODGERS SAMUEL B. POTTER AND TERESA A. POTTER P.O. Box 148, Rifle, CO 81650, as owners of the property described as Parcels 1, 2, and 3 on the Potter/Odgers Exemption Plat as Document No. recorded on WHEREAS, all of the parties are the joint owners the pre - 1971 water well and casing and the water to be diverted by said well system for providing domestic water to three residences built or to be built said parcels; and WHEREAS, the well and casing and pump are in place and capable of being utilized by said owners as a lawful water right and that parcel 3 is presently using the water from said system while Parcels 1 and 2 as yet have no residences constructed; and WHEREAS, the water well and system requires continuing maintenance and operation, the costs of which must be borne by the owners and users thereof; and WHEREAS, the parties contemplate perpetual, co -ownership, use and operation of the well, pump and the appurtenant structures; and WHEREAS, said owners A.5._parties hereto desire to enter into this agreement for the purpose of clarifying respective rights and duties and establishing easements and procedures for jointly operating the water well and delivering water to the three (3) Parcels, and for providing a method for equitably dividing the water derived from operation of the system, and for equitably allocating the shared payment of costs of operation and maintenance of the water well and its pump and other structures by all of the parties. It is. intended that this Agreement is made for the benefit of subsequent grantees of said Parcels and as such is intended to be divisible. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual obligations, promises, and covenants set forth herein, and the due performance thereof, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, including but not limited to the acceptance of the benefits and detriments deriving herefrom, the above-named parties agree as follows: EXHIBIT E • 1 6. All matters affecting the well and water system shall be jointly and unanimously made when possible but may be made under the control and supervision of such person as a majority of the interests from time to time may choose, which person shall be designated for these purposes as the Well Manager. Such control and supervision shall extend to, but not necessarily be limited to, the right and obligation to make decisions about the type of work required to be done on the system, the timing of such work, the acquisition or construction of additional structures, or devices, the performance or hiring of such work to be done and incurring the cost thereof, times and dates of operation of the pump, and to collect from the parties their respective shares of such costs. Payment by parties shall be due within ten (10) days after receiving written notice thereof from the Well Manager. Should a majority fail to authorize a Well Manager, then a majority of the interests shall be responsible and have full authority to make all decisions with respect to the well and system, which decisions shall be binding on all parties subject to judicial review for fairness and compliance with the terms and reasonable interpretation of the intent of this Agreement. If a majority cannot agree, then any party may operate the system in order to obtain water for use by any party who desires the water and pays his share of the costs. 7. The Well Manager, or any party, shall not incur any expense with respect to the well or system in excess of $200 (except in an emergency) without first giving ten (10) days written notice in advance of such expenditure to all parties who will be obligated to share in such cost. Unavoidable and reasonable expenses incurred by the Well Manager or any party in an actual emergency, shall be reimbursable by all users. a. If a party objects to any non -emergency expenditure, said party must deliver a written objection and the reasons therefor to the Well Manager before the expiration of ten (10) days after having received the notice. If any party fails to so object, then said party waives his right to object and is thereafter bound to timely pay his share of the expenditures. b. Upon receipt of an objection, the Well Manager or other party acting in that capacity, shall request approval of a majority of the interests before proceeding with the expenditure. If a majority approves the expenditure, the Well Manager may proceed, and all parties, including the objector, shall be bound to timely pay his share of the expenditures, except in any instance in which the objector has obtained a judicial decree preventing the Well Manager or party from proceeding. Without such majority approval, the expenditure shall not bind any party not agreeing to the expenditure. Any party not paying his share of this expenditure shall not 3 • • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this agreement on the dates following their respective signatures. Thomas H. Odgers Date Samuel B. Potter Date Mary K. Odgers Date Teresa A. Potter Date STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1996, by Thomas H. Odgers and Mary K. Odgers. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1996, by Samuel B. Potter and Teresa A. Potter. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public 5 • • CALOIA, Hourr & LIGHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SHERRY A. CALOIA JEFFERSON V. HOUPT SAMUEL J. LIGHT October 8, 1996 Mark Bean, Director Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Regulatory Office and Personnel Department of Development 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1204 GRAND AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-6067 FACSIMILE: (970) 945-6292 Re: Potter/Odgers Subdivision Exemption Request: Round II Dear Mark and Eric: SCI 0 8 1996 �aa ate-- — i (XI -WY I have been contacted by Wayne Wells, Evelyn Scott, Eugene Scott, Connie Erhard, and Ova Gibbs to represent them in their opposition to the subdivision exemption. Since I have represented them on their water issues and other land and boundary disputes, I am very familiar with the area and would like to respond to the Potter/Odgers request for exemption. Well Permits First of all, I have reviewed the Planning Department's file and fmd that that are no well permits in the file to support the application. It is my understanding that the application is for four lots total, and that there is one existing unpermitted well on the property which served the old house. As you are well aware, water rights are extremely important in the State of Colorado. Without the right to divert water, there is no guaranteed legal supply and the issuance of a well permit is primary to this determination. In the many subdivision exemptions I have been involved with, well permits have always been required and it greatly concerns me that the Applicant is taking the position that no such well permits are necessary, nor required by the County. This appears to be an incorrect statement on behalf of the Applicant, and if allowed by the County would be an inconsistent position. I understand that the existing well on the property is not permitted. While there is no requirement that an exempt well be permitted in the State of Colorado if it was constructed prior Sam Light is no longer with the firm. The name of the firm is now Caloia & Houpt, P.C. WELLS-Bean-ltr-1 CALOIA, HouPT & LIGHT, 1 Mark Bean, Director Mr. Eric McCafferty Page 2 October 8, 1996 to 1972, such well can be used only for its historic purposes and no other. There was only one house on the property at the time the well was drilled and to the present day. Thus, under Colorado law and the policies and procedures of the Division of Water Resources, that well can be used for one single-family house only. It deeply disturbs me that no well permit application has been filed, as I believe that the application before the County cannot be deemed complete until such application is filed. Two well permits, if the Applicant is seeking to have these wells declared as exempt wells, must be submitted to the County for four lots. I have always been told by you and the Commissioners that well permits must be in place in order to serve all of the lots to be created, that includes the existing lot. An exempt well on a 35 -acre lot cannot serve more than three single-family dwellings. That is a basic tenant of Colorado water law (C.R.S. §37-92-602) and the Applicant's request to use this well to serve more than three single-family dwellings and still designate it as exempt is incorrect. If the Applicant is seeking to have this well declared as a fee well and augment it with West Divide Water Conservancy District water releases from Ruedi Reservoir, an application must be made to the District and if the area is in Area A, the property may qualify. However, we do not believe that they will qualify because of the location and potential influence on Cache Creek. Since no application for a well permit using West Divide water was made, this is academic at best. Physical Water Supply Secondly, it has always been understood by me that the County requires that for all wells to be used to service lots those wells must be drilled and a pump test performed and supplied to the County, which states that there is adequate water to supply the number of houses the wells are to supply. That was the requirement decided on by the County in 1995. That requirement was placed on me in the Glas exemption, on the Fyrwald exemption, on the Duplice exemption, on an exemption that Levy Burris did, on the Bertholf exemption, just to name a few. Thus, before any exemption can be granted for this property, at least one additional well (and we believe that two wells would need to be drilled to establish that there is in fact adequate water to supply homes). I personally will be greatly offended if the County does not follow through with this policy, as it has been imposed on other clients of mine. Such requirement is no inexpensive or easy item to accomplish and the County should be very careful to ensure that its policies are maintained and that consistency is applied with respect to all Applicants. More importantly, the pump test that was accomplished by Aqua Tech on the existing well shows that the existing well is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of any homes, no less three or four homes in this area. My clients, Wayne Wells, Eugene and Evelyn Scott, Connie Erhard, and Ova Gibbs tell me that wells drilled in this are many times inadequate, do not recover, some have to be turned off for numerous hours during the day and some go dry WELLS-Bean-Itr-1 CALOIA, Hourr & Licrrr, A Mark Bean, Director Mr. Eric McCafferty Page 3 October 8, 1996 • completely during certain times of the year. With the exception of Wayne Wells and Ova Gibbs' wells, it is my understanding that most of the wells are afflicted with an inadequate supply. Robbie Robinson told Wayne Wells that this well is in fact inadequate and that it was not even adequate to "do a load of wash." Moreover, the well test performed by Aqua Tech is 4 -hour test and through that 4 -hour test he was able to pump 1.0 g.p.m. It is my understanding that this pump test is not reliable. A pump tester will have a difficult time verifying that, at such a low level, there will not be some degree of error. Therefore, it is my clients understanding that there can be no reliance on this 1.0 g.p.m. as an accurate figure because of the margin of error. At one gallon per minute, Mr. Platzer is opining that there is the ability to obtain essentially what it would take assuming that the household uses the minimum amount of 350 gallons of water per day on a daily basis. This assumes that the well pumps continuously for a 24-hour period without any periods of dry up, or accounting for pump servicing, or any other problems. Because it is our understanding that this particular well goes dry (and does go dry during periods of the day as well as for months at a time during dry periods), it is not possible that 1.0 g.p.m. can in any manner be adjudged to be an adequate water supply for three, no less four houses. Even with storage, Well No. 1 does not recover fast enough to be able to pump 1.0 g.p.m. to refill storage. Secondly, the should the well go dry storage would do no good. Thirdly, the requirement that there be an indication that the well is adequate to supply the number of houses absolutely cannot be met at this low level, and if the County would allow this kind of data to support a water supply it would essentially be nullifying its normal requirement that there be a letter certifying that the well will pump an adequate amount of water to serve the number of units that is requested. Additionally, the rate of 1.0 g.p.m. assumes no irrigation for the lots and allows for little to no fluctuation in the amounts of water that would be used by homes. The basic water needs at 350 gallons per house per day is 1,400 gallons per day. At 1.0 g.p.m., the well pumps only 1,440 gallons per day, assuming that the well pumps 24 - hours per day every day, or continuously. If the well pumps less than 1.0 g.p.m., even for a short period of time, goes dry for periods during the day or needs to recover or other factors the supply is inadequate. I know .of no well that must pump the maximum pumping rate on a continuous basis infinitely into the future in order to supply a subdivision with the bare minimum amount of water. No engineer or water attorney would give his client an opinion that such well is adequate for a new subdivision. Should this well have any problem whatsoever, this subdivision would be without adequate water. To make this review meaningful, it is imperative that you demand a physically adequate supply of water that is reliable into the future. WELLS-Bean-ltr-1 CALOIA, HOUPT & LIGHT, 41 Mark Bean, Director Mr. Eric McCafferty Page 4 October 8, 1996 • Water is an important item in the development of any subdivision. While certain areas of our county have ample, physical water supply in the ground, therefor allowing for a subdivision water supply, certain areas of our county do not. Unfortunately, for the Applicant, Rulison is one of those areas and may explain why very little to no subdivisions have occurred in this area. If you will take a look at the Assessor's map, you will find most of the parcels in this area are much larger than even the middle-sized lot that Potter/Odgers intends to create. My clients all have larger tracts of land and conduct agricultural activities, have horses or other livestock and essentially have preserved and used this area as a rural and remote agricultural -type area. This does not lend itself easily to creating homesites of lots of such a small size of the type and character that Potter/Odgers intends to create. Because it appears as if the Applicant is intending to create three small lots pursuant to exemption and preserve its right to subdivide the larger Lot No. 4 through subdivision, I strenuously object to the division of property into such small acreage. Such is not consistent with what actually exists in this area. Additionally, County Road 309 that accesses these lots is inadequate, as most of our county roads are, and such should be taken into account before simply approving an exemption split with the number of problems. Water Quality My client, Ova Gibbs, has a well which is directly down -gradient of drainage for the individual sewage disposal systems for all three of these lots. He is greatly concerned about the effect of such sewage systems on his well and does object on those grounds. Lot Creation The description of property in the Potter/Odgers' deed separates the land into lots. While many of our lands in Garfield County talk about old government lots in the description, the designation of lots in the deed and on the survey is confusing. Either the land has been split before and the survey reflects these lots, or these lots were a mere characterization of some property designation in the past and all such property has been essentially merged. In any event, if the Applicant is claiming that there are three lots existing, Lots 1, 2 and 4, and is creating three additional lots, Lots 1, 2 and 3, the Applicant would not qualify for an exemption split, or there would be six lots created, not four. Such should be examined and a statement from the Applicant obtained on this issue. Plat Submitted Lastly, my client, Wayne Wells, owns part of the property that is designated on the exemption plat as possession line. Such is located to the east of the Potter/Odgers property. WELLS-Bean-Itr-1 CALOIA, HOUPT' & LIGHT, • Mark Bean, Director Mr. Eric McCafferty Page 5 October 8, 1996 • Any reference to a possession line is improper and must be eliminated from the plat. My client has a deed to this area and has always asserted his right, title and interest to it, as well as paid taxes on it. Potter/Odgers have not taken legal action claiming ownership. By putting it on the plat, there appears to be a hidden agenda to establish one more piece of evidence on behalf of Potter/Odgers' ownership of this piece. This is not a County issue, nor is it an exemption issue and should be eliminated from the plat. Easements Additionally, all easements that exist on and across the property whether it be for the new lots or for the large Lot 4, must be included on the plat. My clients, Wayne Wells and Ova Gibbs, can more fully describe those easements and will do so on their own behalf at the hearing. Ova Gibbs has been using water for approximately the past 30 years from the springs on this property, and recognizing such use on the plat by an easement is appropriate. Conclusion We are encouraging that the application at this time be denied. First of all, the Applicant has not demonstrated and probably cannot demonstrate that there is adequate water available for use for these lots. The Applicant has not submitted well permits and therefore there is no complete application. The individual sewage disposal systems may affect my client Ova Gibbs' well, and all easements have not been established on and across the property. We will be present at the hearing in order to address any questions that may arise. Sincerely, CALOIA & HOUPT, P.C. SAC:lin cc: Wayne Wells Evelyn and Eugene Scott Ova Gibbs Connie Erhard WELLS-Bean-ltr-1 6,./.6),„ SEO-IJTR DIV 5 TEL Oct 10 96 10:18 No.002 P.01 • STATE OF COLoFADQ DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES WATER DIVISION FIVE Office o! the State tngineer E3cpanment of Natural Resources 50633 US. Hwy 6 R 24 P.O_ Box 396 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Phone 13031945-5665 fAX (30)1 945-0741 DATE: FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEI:I TRANSMIT TO FAX NUMBER: 7lfJJ /.f S` S - IMMEDIATE DELIVERY TO: r r' • c_ /1'1 k (41 f '' 7 FROM: c... � 4 74- (~G - `i(( 4 e d •'i NO. OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 674 INSTRUCTIONS/COMMENTS: Roy Rome. .ovvrnnr lan.,r 5 loclthca0 xcc wive [)Ger Iry Hal 0 Simpson Stara (nRince, Odyn J. bolt Dwision Engcnccr ,(«sem IVDA 7-f le 12/ei7 6?6z 2, //6gt?I _ --/(, 9.z_ . 7_ , __ _./ z 2 / 3, 7.... - a"- -(( Lc. 7- , rs 1 d ,, P At- / .6 0 S e .( „5.- T O 74 - ," l e -t )4- 7 ,Frf- .0/ �.r 4 Of' yr 'I l d ,b,,e /!!� ,/ r . r /r 1 – -f 4 p �j .�r-• 't a —. � /Q L /j „. c / 7t'"` Jr c7 // 4, - /C.— 4 . if >e" d` - -'-7_< c A 0 —t t'- v /4 r - / . #1 G , r If you have problems receiving document(s), please call 945 -5665 - DIVISION 5 WATER RESOURCES OUR FAX NOS: (303) 866-5415 or (970) 945-8741 (call first before sending to latter.) SEO-WTR DIV 5 REPORT DATE 10/10/96 TEL:303-945-5665 • Oct 10 96 10:19 No.002 P.02 COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS COLORADO DIVISION OP WATER RESOURCES PERMIT D CO OWNER INFORMATION ACTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANNUAL ACRES CD DATE CD DATE ND MD DB USE DATE APROP IRR 168173 5 23 MARTIN SHARON 120 N 4TH ST RIFLE, CO 6165D LOT 2 + � ' 168773 A 5 23 MARTIN SHARON 120 W 4TH ST RIFLE, CO 81650 LOT NP 7 4 4 D 97472 5 23 WALTERS R.N. GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 NP 04/04178 RC 39 _D 107035 5 23 BYERRUM C B & DORIS 5781 CNTY RD 309 GRAND VALLEY, CO 81635 HP 05107/79 BP 06104181 45 117826 5 23 BYERRUM C B PARACHUTE, CO 81635 NP 12/31/80 45 -- I + GEOL WELL AQFR YIELD LEMON MINOR I 2 LEMON MINOR W 127516 5 23 EMS G L RIFLE, CO 81650 NP 0' :2 127517 5 23 EMS G L RIFLE, CO 81650 NP 09/15/82 45 GEORGE & IMOGENE RT 1, BOX 180 RIFLE, C 45 D 09125/70 42627 5 23 JEFFERSON 47648 5 23 LIVENGOOD CLAIR RT 1 BOX 180 C RIFLE, CO 81650 45 D 08/15/71 62261 5 23 MC DANIEL RALPH & DANIEL LENA RT 1 BOX 181 RIFLE D 13.106163_. 98518 5 23 BROWN EARL C 5851 309 ROAD GRAND VLLEY, CO 81635 0 81650 I +1 • PAGE 1 WELL WATER SEC LOCAT'N TOWN DEPTH LEVEL COORDINATES QTRS SC SNIP RANGE M 1+ 1, 21 1, ++N I 1 NM 1 6 4 WS 8 2D1W 31 6 S 99 14& 2600N.04008 $WNW 3 6 S 94 W S I II CO 81650 1 40 1590 2 10 131809 5 23 HASIAX ANTRONY JR. & BARBARA 1018 CO. RD. 323 RIFLE, CO 81650 45 08/15/83 1 187647 5 23 MILLER RODNEY V 0864 CO RD 323 RIFLE, CO 81650 LOT C EMS EXEMPT NP 04/17/95 45 / 121867 5 23 ARNETT 8 L PARACHUTE, CO 81635 BX 115/18/81 AR 0)/10/81 15 D 37052 5 23 GIBBS OVA A & ALICE W R R 1 GRAND VLY, CO 00000 45 D 05/01/69 112305 5 23 SCARROW V RIFLE, CO 81650 1 7' 69622 5 23 HOLLBNBAUGH B HP 01/20181 116809 5 23 COULTER R B NP X12 1 4 D GLENWD SPG, CO 81601 45 RIFLE, CO 81650 D 64029 5 23 TRAHERN DALE L I II 110 SWN$ 31 6 S 94 W S Siff 31 6S 99N5 SWHW 31 6_S 94 W S W WNW WN 1.:1, ,t WNW 3 WS 4W 4W .15.00 _.5.2 34 RIFLE, CO 81650 45 DS O11OS/73 NW EMU 31 6S 94 WS WW KWS W 31 6 S 9 4 8 S SESW 31 6 S 94 N S 1,00 10,00 j_g___161_21151idiRLSIN1.12_13_3111 125897 5 23 MITCHELL B B PARACHUTE, CO 81635 NP 05/26/82 EP 06/15114___A5__ SE32 6S 99 WS SEO-WTR DIV 5 TEL:303-945-5665 • Oct 10 96 10:19 No.002 P.03 REPORT DATE 10/10/96 COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES • PAGE 1 PERMIT D CO OWNER INFORMATION ACTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANNUAL ACRES GBOL WELL WELL WATER SEC LOCAT'N TOWN P CD DATE CD DATE WD MD DB USE DATE APROP IRR AQPR YIELD DEPTH LEVEL COORDINATES QTRS SC SHIP RANGE M 95006 5 23 HOLDERBAUM WILLIAM BOX 1510 RIFLE, CO 81650 BP 45 D 119251 115093 A 5 23 COLTON B GRAND VALLEY, CO 81635 81132 115093 114446 5 23 NYSTROM J RIFLE, CO 81650 NP 02/13/81 RC 04/16/81 39 D NPI I: R ! I :4 5 23 WELLS GRAND VALLEY, CO 81635 NP 09/16175 5 23 COLTON B GRAND VALLEY, CO 81635 NP 06130/80 45 D 03129/84_.. A 5 23 RUNGEL B B 6433 309 RD PARACHUTE, CO 81635 wy 04/12/89 BP 04119121 45 _0 W 114446 5 23 YOULAND PRANK L & BEVERLY A 6433 COUNTY RD 309 PAROCHUTIB, CO 81635 1 11 11 II 117 8 404 NE SBNB31 6 94WS IL_ 4 , 00 95 10 1980N 175E SWNR 31 6 S 94 J4 5 NP 05/12/80 RC -10118/93 19 Di-- 116354 5 23 LEMON W B RIFLE, CO 81650 NP 08/27180 45 0 /122137 5 23 LEMON W B PARACHUTE, CO 81635 _9P 08/121: 122521 5 23 MAHAFFEY M PH08NIX AZ, AZ 85008 NP 08112/81 AR 09121/81 45_ 64055 5 23 SCOTT EUGENE RT 1 BOX 81 RULISON, CO 81635 39 D _.1/06/73 22332MH 5 23 MARTIN SHARON C/0 SHELTON DRILLING CO BASALT, CO 81621 MH 02/15/94 45 0 M 5 23 COLTON B PARACHUTE, CO 81635 AP 12/1.3/82 AU 01/05183 39 D 1 GV 103969 5 23 LEMON WALTER B RT 1 GRAND VALLEY, CO 81635 NE 12/18/78 EP 12/26/80 45 D 106226 5 23 JOHNSTON CHARLES C & GRACE B 6107 309 RD GRAND VALLEY, CO 81635 NP 04/25/79 45 115269 5 23 WALTERS R M PALISADE, CO 81526 NP 07/07/80 45 D 126578 5 23 COULTER JORN BOX 1503 RIFLE, CO 81650 LOT 2 LEMON NP 07/23182 EP 08/03/84 45 D 13564 5 23 SEVENTH DAY ADVENTI RULISON, CO 00000 45 D 11/14162 11 1 SW 31 6 S 94 W S WN 1 6 NNE H 2 2 1 ;1W 1 W 1 ;NW 9 ; 560404 31 6 S 94 W S 11' 11: 1.1' W 31 404 55273 5 23 SCHEELE MICHAEL R & MICHELLE M P 0 BOX 649 RIPLE, CO 81650 WP + I 4 I 1 59012 5 23 MASSEY WILBER H RTE 1 BOX 180R RIFLE, CO 81650 45 D 16/20/67 1.00 6i0 140 R 12 11 W 11 1 L540N.2050W SBNW 31 6 S 94 W S N1 043 404 21 WS SE0—WTR DIV 5 REPORT DATE 10/10/96 PERMIT D CO OWNER INFORMATION TEL w Oct 10 96 10:20 No.002 P.04 COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES ACTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANNUAL CD DATE CD DATE WD MD DB USE DATE APROP 14074TH 5 23 BERNKLAU CARL 7880 309 RD RIFLE, CO 81650 TH 1 7796AD 5 23 BRUCKNER FRED R. RIFLE, CO 81650 AD A 5 23 DALTON BDA 8190-301 RD PARACHUTE, CO 81635 NP 05L31188 RC 08/19/91 45 D 96908 96908 110699 • PAGE 1 ACRES GBOL WELL WELL WATER SEC LOCAT'N TOWN P IRR AQFR YIELD DEPTH LEVEL COORDINATES QTRS SC SHIP RANGE M 5 23 DALTON GLENN M. 8190 301 RD GR. VALLEY, CO 81635 45 D 03/12/80 5 23 BRUCKNER FRED R. & MARY L. 8526 301 ROAD PARACHUTE, CO 81635 _ 45 07105/83 160782 5 23 HARRIS ANDREW J 7962 CR 301 PARACHUTE, CO 81635 BX 05122191 CA 09/05195 45 D 189718 5 23 HARRIS ANDREW J 7962 CR 301 PARACHUTE, CO 81635 P 12 189716 5 23 HARRIS ANDREW J 7962 CR 301 PARACHUTE, CO 81635 NP 07/14/95 45 0 194692 5 23 MOORE VELLA J 80X 1044 RIFLE, CO 81650 NP 04/11/96 15 W 110004 5 23 WILSON J RANDY BOX 2190 GLENW00D SPGS, CO 81602 _ NP 08/13/79 RC 10/22/91 45 _PS GW 110007 5 23 SAVAGE J W RIFLE, CO 81650 NP 07110179 AR 08/17/79 45 DS ' .1 1. 1, ' D 17 11 4. 2 li 121403 5 23 WAGNER M J PASCAGOULA, 39567 FP 01/02/81 AB 08!05/1.1 45 D 27961MH 5 23 MOORE VELLA $ SHELTON DRILLING CORP BASALT, CO 81621 MB 04/18/96 15 DM : II 1 II I II : 11 11 24 170 1 311 5 7 S 9 4 W S JOE 5 Z S 94 W E 7 '4 W 9 1 1 1 1 1. ;WN: 11 1 1 Ilk 260 'I1: 21 1I: 1, 1711 W 7S WS 4W W5 WB NWSB 5 7 94 W S NW • 478135 B-940 P-885 05/16/95 03:27P PG 1 OF 2 REC DOC NOT MILDRED ALSCORF GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER 10.00 2.1.09 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S DEED THIS DEED, made by DOROTHY LOIS GEORGE, as personal representative of the Estate of BARBARA B. ROBINSON, Deceased, grantor, an undivided one-half interest to SAMUEL B. POTTER and TERESA A. POTTER, JTWROS as between themselves, and an undivided one-half interest to THOMAS H. ODGERS and MARY K. ODGERS, JTWROS as between themselves, Grantees, whose address is 0598 County Road 323, Rifle, CO 81650. WHEREAS, the grantor is the qualified personal representative of the Estate of BARBARA B. ROBINSON under appointment of Court entered on the 24th day of January, 1994, by the District Court in and for Garfield County, Colorado, Probate No. 93PR86. NOW THEREFORE, the grantor distributes and conveys to the Grantees, the following real property situate in Garfield County, Colorado, to wit: The E1/2 SE1/4, the E1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4, the SW1/4 SE1/4, excepting a strip of land in the West end 275 feet wide and 1320 feet in length and running North and South parallel to the West line of the SW1/4 SE1/4. All of the above described land in Section 31, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. Also: Lot 2, Section 6, Township 7 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., excepting some 10.2 acres that lay South of a line that begins at a point 138 feet North from the Southeast corner of Lot 2 and extends Northwesterly across Lot 2 to a point 538 feet North from the Southwest corner of Lot 2. Also: Lot 1, Section 6, Township 7 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., excepting some 8.9 acres that lay South of a line that begins at a point 450 feet North of the Southeast corner of Lot 1, and extends Southwesterly across Lot 1 to a point 138 feet North from the Southwest corner of Lot 1. Also Lot 4, Section 5, Township 7 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., excepting some 15.0 acres that lay South of a line that begins at a point 500 feet North from the Southeast corner of Lot 4 and extends West across Lot 4 to a point 500 feet North from the Southwest corner of Lot 4. Together with all improvements and appurtenances belonging thereto containing 218 acres, more or less. Together with, but without warranty or representation, all and every part of Grantor's interest, rights, and ownership, whatsoever, in and to all water, both springs and ditches, ditch rights and spring rights, that it has, owns, or uses on the above described land by way of enumeration and not by limitation as to the following ditch and "ft 478135 B-940 P-886 05/16/05 03:27P PG 2 OF 2 water rights, to wit: A11 its interest in the Reynolds and Gillum Ditch from Cache Creek, Priority No. 119B and especially all interest in the Helen G. Reynolds adjudication of water from 2 or more springs as shown in Decree Book, Water District No. 45, page 154, and also that part of which is described in Doc. No. 28055, Garfield County, Colorado records and designated as the No. 5 Spring Ditch. Also all of Grantor's interest and ownership in and to a water filing on several spring ditches by Sebastian Keller on September 15, 1897, and recorded in Garfield County as Doc. No. 20351. Together with all of Grantor's interest in Water Cases No. W-2008 and 94CW114 in the District Court in and for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado, and all water and water rights represented by the ruling and decrees in those cases. Together with the property. Subject, however, being used or of hereof. water well located on the to easements in place and record prior to the date The Grantor reserves to itself an undivided one-half share of the interest Grantor owns of oil, gas, petroleum, and minerals, upon, in or under the above-described real property. Executed this,$'th day of May, 1995. STATE OF COLORADO as. COUNTY OF GARFIELD Dorothy Lois George Personal Representative of the Estate of BARBARA B. ROBINSON 5th The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this U 15th day of May, 1995 by DOROTHY LOIS GEORGE, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF BARBARA B. ROBINSON. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: /, 7 q//..c.") £F Notary • blic 127 West 5th Street Rifle, GO 81650 • • Commonwealth Title Company of Garfield County, MC. 127 East 5th Street - P. 0. Box- 352 Rifle, Colorado 81650 (970) 623-3300 F1 x (970) 625-3305 December 14, 1995 Sam Potter 120 West 4th St. Rifle, CO 81650 Dear Sam, Pursuant to your request, we have examined ownership of property within 200 feet of your proposed subdivision exemption and the following owners would be affected: Blane Colton 6565 309 Rd. Parachute, CO Harry L. & Linda E. Hasty 6565 309 Rd. 81635 Parachute, CO 81635 Frank L. & Beverly A. Youland 6433309 Rd. Parachute, CO 81635 Ova Gibbs 6299 309 Rd. Parachute, CO 81635 Eugene R. & Evelyn R. Scott RR1 Box 6373 Parachute, CO 81635 The current severed mineral owners are: Dorothy Lois George as Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara B. Robinson Route 2 Box 9-A Grand Saline, TX 75140 Marian G. Clem 7416 West Clifton Ave. Littleton, CO 80123 The current lessee of the mineral rights is Barrett Resources Corporation, 1125 17th St. #2400, Denver, CO 80202. If you have any questions or comments, please contact this office. Sincerely, Dean H. Hubbell DHH/cjd EXHIBIT • • Commonwealth Title Company of Garfield County, Inc. 127 East 5th Street - P. 0. Box 352 Rifle, Colorado 81650 (970) 625-3300 FAX (970) 623-3305 December 14, 1995 Stuver & George, P.C. Attn: Russell P.O. Box 907 Rifle, CO 81650 Dear Russell, In addition to the owners set forth in my letter to Sam Potter dated December 14, 1995, the following would make up all of the owners within 200 feet of the entire parcel owned by Odgers and Potter. Wayne E. Wells 6691 309 Rd. Parachute, CO 81635 Mountain Man Enterprises 361 Pikes Peak Dr. Grand Junction, CO 81503 Gary D. & Elaine M. Allen 6208 309 Rd. Parachute, CO 81635 James Robert Lemon 6343 301 Rd. Parachute, CO 81635 If you have any questions or comments, please contact this office. Sincerely, C)P-6\1. Dean H. Hubbell DHH/cjd cc: Sam Potter ga -OCT -10-1996 08:30 FROM STUL)ER & GEORGE P.C. TO • .c'e'i CAYG k'.:tEOFT2ra ,pc. ATTORNEYS AT LAW .c Wir-ST T1-4:PE, 5t•¢n.� 7 Da COVER SHEET DATE: O :ob 10, 1996 NUNWER OF PACES driC ceding C3V r he t) 1O: 1?LfiL'n L! h DOt, E,4 4LL��•��� FROM: .-sett CcC.Tge RE; PC1i..L.i:r Odle ,3 9457785 P.©1 aCSIMILE T.RANSM SSiON CQMi L1'M33 ON MIS DATY: AT _ _ GI' FAX NUMI E."'i.:. 945-7755 DOCUMENTSwt.T MIiTLE ; Letter (17 YOU DO NOT RECEIVE- _Uf.. OF THE PACES, PLEASE CALL (97d) (2 -ISS7. Transmitted: For approval For signature For rwkw and comment reqw.xsted For 'your information OTHER b ,SSa='.otd , Sign and return Cali upon receip revie Caii it any questions The information etvutaaned in this flie:3i€iitie shies z.Ig' Yiay priv:leged ai:ri :_i .3 i P1C:_ii information intended ezai fiat' tlit eisr, the: 2LYtilY6IdZ. c2h or entity dii nwv.i° :aboyc.�a' tiit rtm..chn::af this nvess . ;a: i3 not. heti __S'3.i_sa_ r E yEl�it ycu€ am hereby notiriied that ;my di ti'iiTaltio .ar c py of this te. =a>p is .itrictly prohibited. Ifyou /lave received this teieca5p,y in error, plisse rn tify u iratnentateiy hy Ze¢epiautae and rkurs1 Y�y� aiaibyi9a 1 faati•y.zz)nr tte aYbU' Thaiiii aidB, 25•444'L OCT -1D-1996 08:31 FROM STUVER & GEORGE P.C. W. *!U3EELL GE'PGE .K Lr_t;q^}1' CS. trt .9�53:Ef October 2, _9.36 TO 9457785 P.02 • i STUVER & GEORGE, P,G, 4.TTORiiiF:V5 AT LAW 120 EPr'CS4 4H/Rn LTFFi:E7 RIFLE, CC LORA:3O 4 E'i ;art Garfield County Planning r i€'pa.rterifit '' C'=Itt L: i- t.,- r e Garfield County oui k,r Board of Commissioners 109 5th Sr rsaL, Suite 2V) Glenwood Sprin •r, CO. E1601 1 L•_IL i-,,c1hrir. 70, - 6 £L7 FAX S7:: • 62:3•4444S' W'Ltit;y o€: to Aptprov 1 of Subf ivieLo.i Exemption. Potter and Odgers This is tc, ti_;.i.„f..C6y up our telephone Conversation hw^Ck with. several staff members, On behalf of the applicants/petitic,ners, we are. asking that open the public hearing on this matter at . : J''`_ p.m. en Monday, vctober 14, .15',.D6, as published andplanned. At that time my associate, '_t�3-s;.:�' r�•"rassih, will he present o � Y. �r1�4 ,.v t 4 ... � provide to you :•rcof that all notice requirements have been mei an,'"i to torria_J_1v ask for a c .`'rbt:► yuan ee a t.li yor regular le .'4± g on November 4, 1936, As the result - zta t having been a Iv sed this data e will be ask :nc; for a continuance, we ask tht a staff report not 1., he prepare i and submitted to the Board on or prior tO October 14_ presently hr:s"Je a meeting snhedulad for CC`L;:1b r 16 at which time we wish to make several ad arf u _,ent to staff prior to their making- recommendations. The purpose in asking for this contir9U{i.Lb^�"''�.. is to yrovida a.as'. to the undersigned who must appear at hearings in Denver on October" 14 and 15. it is the desire ol applicants/petitioners that this matter to not be b,=1r+.4i"ti before the 1.3oar in my absence. /f you ha -'':e u e:.T.ons oz- concerns„ please wall my offica i'fi'tmed1e.te1y, 1 am relying upon the foregoing, and unless we heat otherwise soon, we will expect that the continuance v:il1 he granted ^� ,r was requested, We and your staff have notified d t,e object.ors 5C t at they are not Put to inconvenience on the 14C.h. A.e always, we appreciate you -r kind Courtes:; :.:, and nose of yor 43 Ili 1 E i y you :'s , i ,� sri rfr' � L+� TOTAL P.02 •• STATE QF-CQL: RADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES WATER DIVISION FIVE Office of the State Engineer Department of Natural Resources 50633 U.S. Hwy 6 & 24 P.O. Box 396 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Phone (303) 945-5665 FAX (303) 945-8741 October 11, 1996 Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 OrsT V 151996 c"L Iry ry PE: Adgers!Potter Exemption AKA Old RobinsonPlace Proposed Water Supply From a Existing Well, Not Permitted & Not Decreed State Parcel ID: 23-2175-314-00-027 Sec 31, Twp 6, South, Rng 94 West, 6th P.M. Water Division 5, Water District 45 Dear Mark: Roy Romer Governor lames S. Lochhead Executive Director Hal D. Simpson State Engineer Orlyn J. Bell Division Engineer Per our phone conversation on 10/08/96 between you, myself, Don DeFord and Eric Mc Cafferty and a similar phone conversation between myself, Russell George and Sam Potter, the applicants proposed water supply for the Adgers/Potter Exemption is claiming use pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(1)(e). Per these conversations I'd like to provide the following information and guideline. CRS 37-92-602 identifies Exemptions -presumptions pursuant to Water Right Determination And Administration. Furthermore CRS 37-92-602(1)(e) provides for " Wells not exceeding fifty gallons per minute which are in production as of May 22, 1971, and were and are used for ordinary household purposes for not more than three single-family dwellings, fire protection, the watering of poultry, domestic animals, and livestock on farms and ranches, and the irrigation of not over one acre of gardens and lawns. " Please Note: "and were and are used" thus limiting the well to its historic use. Wells meeting the criteria per CRS 37-92-602(1)(e) are not required to be permitted although highly recommended. Additionally, CRS 37-92-602(5) allows wells put to beneficial use prior May 8, 1972 to be recorded by the State Engineers Office (SEO) if all statutory requirements are meet under these provisions. This is most commonly called Registration of an Existing Well or Late Registration. When a request for Late Registration is submitted, a filed inspection is required by the SEO to verify the claimed historic use. If the field inspection cannot identify the claimed historic use additional information may be required to support the claim. Any use identified or claimed after May 8, 1972 do not qualify under CRS 37-92-602(1)(e) and are viewed as an expansion of use. Thus any application submitted after May 8, 1972 the SEO shall make determination of material injury pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(I). This information is just a guide line and is not a recommendation or denial for water supply on the pending Adgers/Potter Exemption. Additionally the State Engineer's August 7, 1995 letter is still in effect: "effective AUGUST 31, 1995 THIS OFFICE WILL NO LONGER RESPOND TO LAND USE ACTIONS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND AS DEFINED IN SECTION 30-28- 101(10)(a) C.R.S. (1986 REPL. VOL.)." I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the matter. Sincerely, cc Orlyn Bell Bruce DeBrine Eric Mc Cafferty Alan Martellaro Bob Klenda Don DeFord -174- Whitehead, Water Commissioner (Wells) Russell George Sherry Caloia Sam Potter :dmw\historic.use\adgpoter.com • • Township: 2175 Section: 31 1/4 Section: 4 Block: 00 Lot: 027 County: Schedule: 270284 District: 027 Name -1: ROBINSON, BARBARA B., ESTATE Name -2: Address -1: RR 1 Adderss-2: PARACHUTE State: CO Zip: 81635-9801 Street#: 006427 Street Name: 309 ROAD Sub Code: Condo Code: Total Land: 2200 Total Improv: 2190 Total Acres: 219.55 Total SQ FT: 0 TTL Land Act: 7580 TTL Imp Act: 20850 Year Built: 20 Well Permit #: Existing Well, not permitted/not decreed DWR ID: Pending Exemption Adgers 1/2% - Potter 1/2% 2704 SEO-WTR DIV 5 TEL:303-945-5665 Oct 11 96 15:02 No.008 P.01 • STATE OF COLOFADQ DIVISION Of WATER RESOURCES WATER DIVISION ME Office of the Statc Engineer Department of Natural Resourre5 50613 U.S. HMS- 6 & 71 P.O. Box 396 Glenwood Spring. CO 61602 Phone OM) 945.566S FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHIVFT FAX 00)1945-8/41 DATE; /a//( /9 6 TRANSMIT TO FAX NUMBER: 9 .3 7 7 /1/77 / "-(- IMMEDIATE DELIVERY -10: f : ' c- /Z1 c �/i?u �C ei-e ef-\ FROM: %.,' ( e NO. OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEEP): INSTRUCTIONSICOMMFNTS: Rny Romer Crwernot Molts% 5 1.0, hheart Excc.civc D;wcior Hal 0. Simiroon State ingincer (lrlyn J. Be Division Engineer f/� If you have problems receiving doeument(s), please call 945-5665. DIVISION 5 WATER RESOURCES OUR FAX NOS: (303) 866-5415 or (970) 945-8741 (call first before sending to latter.) SEO-b1TR DIV 5 WATER RES. 104444..77., CHIS FutiM MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN SD DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE WORK DESCRIBED HERE- ON_ TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK, TEL:303-945-5665 Oct 11 96 EIL :303-866-3589 UCt 141196 COLORADO DIVISION Of WATER RESOUR 6 I 1313 Sherman Strnnl - Rooth 810 I Denver, Colorado 80203 WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP INSTALLAT/I�ON REPORT PERMIT NUMBER _./. A214 -/ . et/of See. i ,. �� -.... 14 of Me -., l4 ` 15:04 No .008 P.04 NO.UU1 r.u‘ HLCEIVED JAN 281982 ISMER ate uRetS. WAIL EMSINI (I tow WELL owNF Xrdr-itatt__._67.-‘; -6.... ��3, a .� ADDRESS__ --- a''ri.),71-r-' _ + ._ , t8. / HOLE DIAMEUR PATE COMPLETED . J -�— � to -2/ �it In, front ... WELLLOG_..._ WOW~ In, (rV1f� -- - t0 _ . 1t, From To Type and Color of Material Inc.0 /4 0/- elq 5 Wi DC(' 07 — TOTAL DEPTH 'Lisa :8didertal peps necessary to ppmplsta Lop. 145 _ in. (matt DRILLING METHOD.. CABiNt3 t} RD: Melo Casing �J/ from . _�- to J Size � _ BI kind _c. size & kind —..— from _ .—tQ Sire _-_ & kind _ - from -to Perforated Caine Site 81 kind . from /00to Size __ .... & kind — from _ —to ft. & kind —from __.-.. to ft. Size.--... -• - P.M, ft. - ft. ft. AROUTINO REC RD Materiel __. E' / interval; Placement Mcthod�- GRAVEL PACK: Sit8 Interval __. TEST DATA Date Teeted Static Water Level Prior gat -- Type of Test Pump 4,f.. Length of Test _ Sustained Yield (Metered) Final Pumping Water Level _ /AO? lo 9--. ft SEO-I.JTR DIV 5 WATER RES. w.,,t.7(,.7? • TeliS FORM MUST DE SUBMITTED WITHIN RD PAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE WORK DESCRIBED HERE- ON. TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK. WELL OWNER -1301 a.. i r ADDRESS ' ++��,,,__/� DATE COMPLETED J--'l2tr_ WELL Loa TEL :303-945-5665 6:303-866-3589 Oct 11 96 UCt 11 yb RfSOU COLORAL?U131D13 �V�6nm StOr o WATER Denver. Colorado S0203 WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP INSTALLATION REPORT PERMIT NUMBER .I.21, - From six Y.r _,19 Type end Color of Material 3Of''t a no w ti C.Ia''i La✓Q. 43014ICkfr`S ava-Q 0ti.tat e %5 Grp elegy /-Logo4.- (3dN14 teas S 014611 Laud 7fa;4 k) po tree- arm/ AS aunt evtat►ILS 4 (Cyst, i r IGl5 9 kI'LQ d, 9 f Ll3 TOTAL DEPTH la- the additional popes necessary to corn pl to 1091, Water Loc. 15:05 No.008 P.05 D:Dts rvo.Uua r.uo RECEIVED MAR 1919Rd MWAPt11 *tEQmo SMIt • EItMMNEEN 00lA. 14 of the L — K of See. 41/____ T. al R....L._ •- L.4.11 --P.M. HOLE DIAMETER . In, arum — tc - � — ft. — -- in. from - . fo In. from t ,� _ ft, DRILLING METHOD_f!- r� CASING RECORD:-PIeinn Casing kind %f iled__ from h' Size ._.._... & kind from to ft. Site . _._._ & kind . from ____ - to ft, Perforated woo Sire & kind witted .-from -_ to ,ft. Si>•t:._ ._. & kind _ . frOt+n _ to _ ._.,.ft. Size ...___. & kind . _._. -.— from -_. _- to —ft, GROUTIN0 RECORD Material _C..141r it intervals . %!_=-d+-�� �` I Placement Method . - GRAVEL PACK: SIze_ (- Interval _.. . TEST DATA Date Tested ___3:=12- . ++ Static Water Level Prior to Tett . Si Type of Teat PIMP -B 11 e r Length of Test Sustained Yield (Nleteredj Final Pumping Water Level' SEO-WTR DIV 5 WATER RES. v..dk.25-7/ 1II OHM MUST BC IU8MITTEP W11%4IN a0 WAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE WWI( 0E50110E0I1[RE• QN TypF cos pRINT IN BLACK INK, TEL:303-945-5665 Oct 11 96 �3038663589 Oct 11 91)- \. 1) COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOUR 1313 Slrermen Strom • Boom 1816 °envoi, Colorado 80203 15:05 No.008 P.06 5:59 NO.UU1 r.u4 RECEIVED JAN2 B1982 WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP INSTALI JION REPOT RESOLIKIS of the _...+ -- A W Sem X21 T. fL�_. •- . R. P.M. sain Homo PERMIT whine WELL OWNER-.1...eialr • 7 f .I keri.- -- ADDRESS 4_19 &� DATE COMPLETED WELL LQG _ ,From 1 To Type and Color of Materiel ® //45- f',9,/i 6)403- 1d ER -5. - • • ,19 to HOLE DIAMETER • ?t in. from toLA — 1t. --- ..—_. In. 4rOm -- _ 10 ft. _in. from .... `"v — ft. DRILLING ME1 HOCJK CASINO RECORD. Plain Co $Ixe&kind 1.240 •– from to n' SirN & kind . from to _... ft, . & kind _ from . to —_.—._. ft Perf0101e41 C04101 Sipe 11017 & kind . ! IZt.S5112-- from .el _ to J -A tt. Sire& kind �. from _ to _ ft. . _ "' dice - &kind —froot __—to.—ft, / TOTAL DEPTH -- /AO "• dditional Ps4es rleoaswry to cornDlet° 109. GROUTING •. RECORD Material __.. r�"-� Intervals .. •.. =`ate --G AilC1Plooement Method 10 trs. -_ �./ . GRAVEL PACK: Size Interval _.. _ . TEST DATA ,. -d Date Tested ���,�— --;— • , to i[ i Static Weter Level Prior to Test �- - D -- _ft Type of Test Pump Length of Teat '41--les� k Sustained Yield (Metered) _._.. FI41ai Pumping Water Level SE0-1JTR DI) 5 WATER RES. N.In.2t;-7 s THIB POW muirr HE SUBMITTED N SQ, DAYS OF COMPLETION WITN1 or ir+E 'Nona. AE9CR1nEO MERE. ON. TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK th T WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP ELATION REPO 1 /• ��� e+►1� �'e dill of the !Y �. of Seo. �L• TEL:303-945-5665 Oct 11 96 ,L:303-866-3589 Oct 11 yb COLORADO DIVISION OF WATERR RESOUR 1313 Shormfin Strel+t - floorn 818 Denver, Colorado 00203 ,NR PERMIT NUMBER T 15:06 No . 008 P.07 NO.UUi r.uD rRE,ctvto FEB o2t98> IWO ftt ouacsa Imo[ f:I'Ig1EaR �tA WELL OWNER — _ .jam • /, T. R. ' , 4 _ P.M. DATC COMPLETED ---- � `-��` .. 10 ' MOLE DIAMETER in. from_G si — to ft, in. from _._r..— to ---..._ ft. ' in. tram -- to _. _ ft DRILLING METHOD_ 1? dthi2N7-u - CASING RECORD: Plain Grind Site v & kindldtiZatfrom to, ft. Size — & kind from ... to its SIP) — . . & kind -. from .r to ft. From To o' 27 WELL LOG Type and Color of Materiel Appm )3044 evrs c,1 Ity, 113' , aroc2 4 os4.)G)Frrs /#q 190 aP c'vta tae% -s f' 6BII /69 /Po 1, wv 7 i o 4,1 c cv+rs r f Water Let. TOTAL DEPTH fry) Use additional papas necessary to OQlhPlete Perrfforratted� Casing Size cam. & kind .pIM S teclrom495 to /2ci ft. Size -_ __- & kind --, ._ from _ to . ft Size --- & kind from _ to — ft GROUTING RECORD Material Intervals 16 - Placement Method GAVEL PACK: Size 7" --- Interval TEBT DATA Date Tested / /441' • {g` Static Water Level Prior to 'Test -�-- / --- ft. Type of Teat Pump _. Length of Test __...6 r� Sustained Yield (Metered)g--t�I Final Pumping Water Level /677--- SEO-WTR DIV 5 WATER RES. h. 117 THIS FORM MUST BE SUQMITTCP WITHIN 6o PAYS OF COMPL€TION Or THE WORK DUMBED HERE- ON, TYrt OR PRINT IN MACK INK. TEL :303-945-5665 Oct 11 96 diL:303-8663589 Oct 11 96 COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOUR _S 1313 Sherman Street - Room 816 Denver. Colorado 80203 WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP INSTALLATION REPORT WELL OWNER .—. AO1Yt PERMIT NUMBER __: �i .•—.... - i{3IIC, % of the _..-5b! T...b _.. , , R.---�._ .-- — P.M. ADDRESS —406...4—lY. k.DZ..__.._.j..._. Glenwood Springs, Co. 816011g__ GATE COMPLETED ..—...— — WELL LOG From 1 To TYpt And Color of Materiel TOTAL DEPTH ._ ter Loc. Ute adriitionel •pa°es necessary to complete 1 15:06 No .008 F.08 b:UV No.UU't,l r.U0 REGI .N.'// .J a JUN 101 vsan Ala., . f10tA _ % of Sec. __ R —r' . tem E DIAMETER __ in. from __. — to _. . ft. rram . to — _ f1. DRILLING METHOD_.._. CASING RECORD: Plain Cuing Sit° — & kind .___. — from ___.- to — ft. _. Size . ..._ . & kind _.r.. from to ,. ft to ft. Size ., — 81 kind _- . -- from Perforated Casino Size _ ._—. & kind _._.-.. from — - j ft. SIZa —&kind. .fromt0ft Size _ . — & kind _ — from .— to —ft GROUTING RECORD Material • Intervals placement Method ----- — GRAVEL PACK; SILO Interval __.. — TEST DATA Date Testers .--•-- Static Water Level Prior to Teat _...,— Type of Teat Pump _- _--- — of Tett — .l ipI 11 Yield (Metered) - glnai PILtlnping Weter Level . 19 -_ DEC 04 '96 O3:01PM CALOIA , HOUPT, F.C. SHERRY A. CALOIA JEFFERSON V. HOUPT TRAVIS S. THORNTON • • CALAIA & HOUPT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT L.. ;v December 4, 1996 Mark Bean, Director Mr, Eric McCafferty Garfield County Regulatory Office and Personnel Department of Development 109 Eighth. Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: 1potter/Odgerm.nIntai. P.1 1204 GRAND AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-6067 FACSIMILE: (970) 945-6292 Dear Mark and Eric: Pursuant to our most recent conversation, it is my understanding that Potter/Odgers will be asking for a continuance of the hearing currently scheduled for December 9, 1996, at 2 p.m, When 1 learned of this, I took the opportunity to confirm my attendance at a meeting that is to be held at the same time, and therefore will not be in atter dance. Based on my conversations with you and with Don DeFord, it is my understanding that you are in agreement that the continuance should be granted. My clients are not going to object to the granting of a continuance. Should the position of the Applicants be other than to ask for a continuance, my clients are asking that the matter not be heard, as we will not be prepared to pi sent testimony at that time, Please inform me of the continued date and any conditions that might be unposed, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, CALOIA & HOUPT, P,C, SAC:IIn cc: Wayne Wells Evelyn and Eugene Scott Ova Gibbs Connie Erhard WELLS -Bean -kr -2 DEC -09-199G 11:57 FROM STUOER GEORGE P.C. TiqOMAS ?V STOVER RUSSELL. LIZi471,R.C.iE M1,7.1.0ZOGYG.P6P..=t11, Dacamber 9, 199G TO 9457785 P.01 • • SI -LIVER OR JC ATTORNEYEAT.i.NN 120 Vi'7 TH,IRE1 r. C. 3<i); SC7 RIFLZ, COLORADC a I GSCI Garfield County Building. and Planning 105 Eth Street, Suite :10J. Glenwood Spl:inqa, CO 0-16-1 Ccigers/Potter ExepT. Ey Facsimile to 945-78 Atntion: Eric Dear Commissioners: TELFz9,.F.r.v. Vi70 - 97C; - 325-444S The purpose of Lhis letter is to. follow up our recent verbal request to continue these pnot,oeecaings frcai our previously' set oublic hearing datcs, Theeason Lor this reqaesr. is hat the applicant_s have retained. the. services cf a water engineer to conduct an iestigatic;n on. the property to provide data for a number of opt:ions, Te applicants cannot pl:oceed until to eTtginec-,r wsibmit:tbi report The aplicants dsfinitely do intend to proceed with their appiicaticn in some form, and will ,crovide Cnis inforrilatin to ycu as soon a possible. Por the.se reaons, the applicants wi c keel? their before you andask that you continils, tftsir case to a uncsrLain. If you need anything further, pleae -ely your", _, 4 RUSSELIJ GEORGE case pen, .n,74 dte TOTRL P.01 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept, 109 Eighth St. Glenwood Springs CO 81606 Sirs: 6006 309 lid -arachute Co 8 64, 9f 9,,E '35 GA :AE L.7 COUNTY —y RE: Odgers/Potter second Petition For Exemption I live in Rulison and the springs that irrigate my land rise on the Odgers/Potter property. My letter on the original Petition For Exemption request is attached. At this time, it is my understanding that the old well on the Odgers/Potter property is proposed to be used to supply the domestic water required for the 'exempted' properties. I recall Irwin Robinson telling me that with careful use�faell produced barely enough water for his household needs. ( His was a household of two older ranchers who operated the well over the years. ) It is unrealistic to suppose that this well will adequately serve three or four modern households. Water remains a major concern here. On a property owned by Gary and Elaine Alien, directly west of the Odgers/Fotter land, a spring dried up in 1991. Wells in the 'exempted' Lemon development are inadequate. It seems especially important in this area of fluctuating springs and marginal wells that new properties NOT be created by further 'exemptions' until a reliable supply of domestic water is committed to them. (7'414�/ 'af SGL **4 .-aeoef de ��� Sincerely Conn i Erhard 6006 309 Rd Parachute CO 81635 February 21, 1996 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 Eighth St Glenwood Springs CO 81606 Re: Odgers/Potter Petition For Exemption Sirs: The old Robinson place is large, relative to the size of rural Rulison. Drainage tendril, fan out from the property through the downslope community. The subdivision review process needs to address the many concerns surrounding division of this prominent acreage. A major concern is water. Most of the irrigating water used on Erhard land comes from springs located on the Robinson place.* These springs and others, both to the east and west in the same strata, fluctuated over the years -- decreased in dry periods -- recovered, after a lag period, in wetter times. Efforts to develope a greater flow in one spring might cause another spring's output to decrease. There are fears that additional wells, drilled to supply the proposed, exempted property households, will affect adversely the output of existing,wells. In fact, there are at present at least three properties already created by GarCO's exemption process that need working water wells if homes are to be built and potential values realized.** The Lemon development, exempted from any water requirement when approved, is less than a city block from the proposed new tracts. Wells are marginal. Is it an obligation of GarCO to consider the circumstances of these established small acreag.es _that it permitted previously? How can such review occur under the inflexible, narrowly focusedl 'Exemption' review procFss? Yfeei y i64pc, 'Flan -Hy) rhe disosition of the largest, 180 acre parcel is not required to A be addressed. I ask that you deny this Petition For Exemption. Sincerely ilt4447Geff Constance E. Erhard *I expect this established easement to be recorded on the map. ** Rod Miller ( formerly Ems exempted two lots ) Walter Lemon development • 6691 County Road 309 • Parachute, Colorado 81635 7 October 96 Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Department Garfield County Commissioners 109 E. Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen: Again I must object to the Petition for Exemption to subdivide 208 acres at Rulison by Potter and Odgers. The petition states the property will be "fully developed later" so it is more imperative to treat this as a full subdivision development. A plan of many homes needs a full analysis of internal and external impacts by the planning department. This petition should be rejected for the following reasons. WATER: The new petition would depend on the use of the existing well and common reservoir system for four units of domestic water. The petition indicates that the letter of the law has been met and outside objections have no bearing, which is contrary to rights of objection when the issue affects the individual. I do not think the county can be "forced" to grant an exemption, particularly when the petition states the intent to expand the development in the future. The recent Talbott exemption was subject to approved well permits and wells in place before acceptance. However, even a well permit will not alter the characteristics of water flow set by the local alluvial fans. The last resident on the Robinson Ranch frequently had a dry well, as have Scott, Hasty, Burchfield, Johnston, Youland, and M. Wells. Two and sometimes three holes have been drilled to get adequate results, and flow remains erratic at several Rulison properties. Local springs have gone dry in the last five years. Allen's domestic spring went dry permanently. W. Wells #1 spring has returned to only half its old rate, while three of my hillside seeps remain dry. It is my professional judgment that the Aqua Tech test report is woefully inadequate in scope to draw the report's conclusions. Further, it has a bad odor of undue influence in it. It is ludicrous to use a four-hour test to extrapolate to 24 hours a day, let alone 365 days year after year, even with a storage facility. The minimum household requirement is 150 gallons per person per day and demand is determined by the individual household habits. Any variation in flow or surge in demand by owners will completely change the unspecified storage requirement. A water opinion from attorney Sherry Caloia is attached. EASEMENTS: Easements which will impact development are not shown on the Exemption Plat. Garfield County regulations require these be shown to evaluate how building sites are effected. A major high voltage line bisects the center of the tract east -west. Camp Bird and Reynolds Gillman ditches meander across the property. I know of at least two spring rights which traverse the property. Telephone and power companies have a right-of-way on the property. DEVELOPMENT: Piecemeal development of three small and one Targe tract is but a subterfuge for future splits. In the petition, they stated they anticipate "a community water supply system will be developed." This subdivision should be considered and reviewed as a full small tract development with all impacts, internal and external, being addressed through the Garfield County Planning Department. The continued chipping away at agricultural and open lands should be controlled. There are plenty of small acreages in more accessible areas of the county and towns. Wells to Garfield County • Potter-Odger Exemption Letter, Page 2 7 October 96 CONFORMITY: Contrary to the petition, the small lots of 4.5 acres are not in conformance with current area growth. New small tracts to the south are 35 acres and the smaller lots in the Rulison area are 8-14 acres in size. The recent Talbott split is 10-11 acres each. The future development would exacerbate this rural concept. SLIDE AREA: Lot 4 in section five of the original survey has had two major mudslides in the last ten years. The side hill remains pockmarked with fissures, so any development in this area will place my property in jeopardy with any further slide activity. About 80% of Lot 4 is unstable. The last slide impacted my spring flow and eliminated the use of seepage along my south boundary. I worry the next slide will flow across the fence and adversely affect my spring and property. PROPERTY LINE: The east property line shows a "Line of Possession" outside the title line. Potter and Odgers had been legally notified before the last petition that I would (and continue to) defend my title. The deeded boundary line is fenced according to the 1982 survey which was rechecked this year. The title line remains the legal boundary and all reference to a "Line of Possession" needs to be deleted from this plat. SUMMARY: The water supply is inadequate to support even this small amount of development. The well sought for use has no permit and is not reliable. Even if it did not dry up during periods of the day, days of the month, and months of the year, one gallon per minute is insufficient. Wells and springs have already been dry at times, and further expansion will adversely impact water rights and flows of landowners in the area. We are already in a poor labor economy. Piecemeal developments are not needed and false assumptions about future water and sewer do not merit consideration. Tract easements, the Lot 4 in Section 5 slide area, and future subdivision plans should be addressed before any consideration of this petition is made. I firmly believe in County Land Use Control and this subterfuge defeats all its efforts. I respectfully request denial of this Petition for Exemption. Sincerely, (Mr.) Wayne E. Wells • • 6691 County Road 309 Parachute, Colorado 81635 4 October 96 Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Department Garfield County Commissioners 109 E. Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen: Again, I object to the Petition for Exemption submitted by Potter and Odgers. Their petition should be again denied for several reasons. First and foremost is the water issue. Many wells in the area have gone dry, and my well has had erratic flows. My property should have qualified for domestic use since it was deeded long before 1972, but since the Division of Water Resources had given other domestic permits to unqualified small acreages which had been exempted, I was required to purchase West Divide Water Conservancy water. Now we have Potter/Odgers proposing a subdivision which will be expanded and the water issue appears inadequate to meet the needs without compromising other water rights in the area. The changes since the last petition are not adequate for four dwellings (which violates the terms of a permit) --I have about 2 gallons a minute and that, according to the same Aqua Tech is barely marginal for one dwelling. The Robinson's had constant problems with adequate household water, let alone domestic water, from the same well noted in the petition. Secondly, the lack of information submitted on the petition plat and submittal documents fails to provide sufficient information for a clear decision. Easements which affect development have been omitted. Areas on the plat may be unsuitable building sites which could affect other proper;ties. The boundaries are not the legal description. While the exemption is "legal" and Mr. George indicates we have no right to protest legalities, there is a moral obligation to consider all possible adverse impacts on granting such a petition. The owners clearly state this exemption is not the final development plan. Since Rulison still has vacant subdivision acreages, do we really need another inadequately planned subdivision? I respectfully request this petition be denied. A full subdivision plan, proof of compliance with water law and permits, and complete informational requirements disclosure needs to be done before consideration of the permit. This petition really should be considered under the rules of subdivision planning and review. Sincerely, 11/1 et - 114t, (Ms.) Marion J. Wells OCT 1 0 1 Cowry y Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 E. Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 ft/ Subject: Petition for Exemption Thomas H. Odgers/Samuel A. Potter 6373 309 Road Parachute, Colorado 81635 October 9, 1996 We object to the petition for Exemption to subdivide 214 acres for the following reasons: The wells in this area are mostly inadequate and many go dry in a dry year. All thewells show a mark decrease in production after the irrigation season ends. This year after a very dry summer our well in August dropped dramatically in production. Our well is one of the better wells in this area, this means other wells in this area are practically dry. The well on the petitioners property was and is a very poor well. Mrs. Robinson ran out of water after a couple of washer loads and this was all year round. If wells are drilled and the aquaflow that feeds our well is tapped by a new well and our ww11 goes dry, who is responsible? It is very difficult to prove that the new well is responsible for our dry well.Since water is of the up - most importance and this area is well known for the dry holes that have been _>. drilled and the very low production of the various wells already in existence it is our sincere hope this petition will be denied. These small plots are not in character with our larger homesites in this rural agricultural area. Connie Erhard has 55 acres, E. Allen 30 + acres, Ova Gibbs 13 acres and we have 10 +acres all these in agricultural use. The County Road 309 is already over taxed with traffic and needs upgrading especially if more homes are placed in this area. The County has a problem now with monies to maintain the roads and it would be more costly if we should have a severe winter with lots of snow. This area is also a winter habitat for elk/deer herds. Other wildlife abound in this area such as turkey, bobcat, mountain lion and bear. More homegmeans more dogs turned loose and less habitat for the animals. This exemption is asked, not because of a hardship to save a ranch,but for monetary gains, the petitioners should go through the subdivision plan. We urge the Commissioners to deny this petition for exenion. Thank you for your time in considering our objections. Sincerely, f).,4‘e- Eugene ` . Scott Evelyn R. Scott • Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 E. Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Subject: Petition for Exemption Thomas H. Odgers/Samuel A. Potter • 6266 309 Road Parachute, Colorado 81635 " L VTY October 9, 1996 OCT 1 0 NW I object to the petition for Exemption to subdivide 214 acres. The petition should be rejected for the following reasons: The water situation concerning wells is a high risk in this area. Many wells are inadequate and some go dry in a dry year. The well on the Odger/Potter property goes dry after it is used for a few washer load of clothes. Mr. Irvine Robinson told me on several occassions. This was a problem all year round. Contamination from sewage is another big concern of mine. My well is located down slope from the petitions land and my well is approximately 175 feet from the west property line of the petitioners. Who is held responsible if my well becomes contaminated, the Petitioners or you, the Commissioners? This area is rural agricultural with ranches rangeing ir200+ acres to the Ranchettes rangting 40 acres to 10* acres. These lots are totally unappro- priate for this rural agricultural area as they do not conform with the existing type of building sites. Water being theTmain issue and because most wells in this area are barely producing enough water and many go dry in dry years.This is a very serious issue. I urge the Commissioners to deney this petition for exemption. Thank you for your time in considering my objections. Sincerely, 43//t Ova Gibbs GRAND VALLEY E PROTECTION DISTRIR P. 0. Box 295 Parachute, Colorado 81635 (303) 285-7630 August 21, 1996 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Proposed Exemption for Odgers/Potter Property To Whom It May Concern: COUNTY Please reference the letter dated January 15, 1996 from the Grand Valley Fire Protection District regarding this subject. Attorneys for Odgers/Potter have requested another letter to update this proposal. The conditions outlined in the original approval letter remain essentially the same: 1. Request that all structures be separated from native pinyon/juniper by a distance of four times the surrounding tree height or 60 feet (changed from 100'). 2. Source of water for fire trucks is adequate from live stream or pond. 3. Access to all structures should be sufficient as parcels adjoin County road. Therefore, the Fire District has no concerns with this exemption. If there are any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Ed Baker, Asst. Fire Chief District Sec./Tres. cc: Stuver & George