HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report PC 12.10.03Exhibitsfor PC 12/10/03 (Ranch @ Coulter Creek)
liW#!#.*W.$!i.{.$trliiiifiit!i:f{tf
A Proof of Mail Receipts and Posting
B Proof of Publication
C Garfield County ZoningRegulations of 1978, as amended
D Garfield CoUnty Comprehensive Plan of 2000
E Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended
F StaffMemorandum
G Application Materials submitted by the Applicant
H Lg{qr from the Ga44d County SherifPs Department dated l2l}l/OjILetter from Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District dated l2lo3l\3
J _l4emo from Steve Anthony dated lll21l03
K StaffMemo to the BOCC dated 5ll9l03
L Letter from Road aryt Bridge Deparfinent dated l2l4/03
t fu4J a4' 1* A+t+t f/rwV
PLANNING COMMISSION
12/10/03
FJ
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
APPLICAITIT:
REPRESENTATTVE:
LOCATION:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
Preliminary Plan and Planned Unit Development
(PUD) review for the Ranch at Coulter Creek
A request to subdivide approximately 479 acres into
26 single family residential lots and rezone the
property to PUD
Snowmass Land Company
TG Malloy Consulting, LLC
The property is located west of the intersection of
County Road 115 and Cattle Creek Road (CR I 13)
in the Missouri Heights area
Central Water Systern
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS)
County Road 115
A/R/RD (Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density)
A/R/RD
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
As a matter of background, the Planning Commission recently reviewed the subject application in
the form of a preliminary plan for the Ranch at Coulter Creek Subdivision as it was originally
proposed this summer. The Commission recorrmended approval to the Board of County
Commissioners, which ultimately approved the preliminary plan on June 2, 2003, which is
memorialized in Resolution 2003-41 .
The project, Ranch at Coulter Creek, was originally intended to be a private ("gated") development
where the internal roads within the project would be private roads managed by the homeowners
association rather than be public roads dedicated to the public as required pursuant to Section 9:34 of
the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. This requirernent was disclosed to the applicant
during sketch plan review as well as made an explicit condition of approval in Resolution iOO:-+t
which granted approval for the proposal. However, due to an apparent oversight on the part of the
applicant, this request was never explored during the preliminary plan process.
Planning Commission
Preliminary Plan & PUD l2ll0l03
Page2
From a regulatory perspective, in order to vary this subdivision requirement, the applicant would
need to submit a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application to the county, thereby pursing the
appropriate regulatory avenue allowing the Board to make a decision as to whether private or public
roads are appropriate for this development.
Based on the foregoing, the applicant submitted a PUD application to the county for the sole purpose
of requesting the Board allow the internal roads within the Ranch at Coulter Creek to be private
rather than public. The applicant was required to resubmit the preliminary plan because the Board
signed a resolution which contained condition no. 7 whichexplicitly required roads be dedicated to
the public. Under current regulatory procedure regarding amending resolutions of approval granted
by the Board, an applicant has no other recourse other than resubmitting the entire preliminary plan.
Lastly, because the subject of the proposal is to address the request for the private / public nature of
the intemal road system and the fact that the proposed preliminary plan is exactly as that which
received approval by the Board in June, 2003, Staff has focused its substantive review on the road
issue and whether or not the applicant has satisfied the PUD requirements in the Zoning Resolution
of 1978, as amended.
II. DEVELOPMENTPROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to rezone the Ranch at Coulter Creek from its underlying zone district of
Agricultural/ResidentiaVRural Density (A/R/RD) to Planned Unit Development (pUD) in order to
vary the requireraent of Section 9:34 of the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended.
Specifically, this requirement requires that all roads within a subdivision be dedicated to the public.
The applicant requests the Board vary this requirement to allow internal roads to be private and
gated.
By rezoning the property to PUD, the applicant proposes that all of the uses (by right, special, and
conditional) as well as the dimensional requirernents (height, setbacks, minimum lot size, etc.)
remain those of the underlying (A/R/RD) zone district as applied to the property. Therefore, the sole
pu{pose of rezoning the property to PUD is to request the Board vary the road standard. The
applicant is seeking approval for private roads for the following main reasons:
Private roads are a"part of the overall strategy to preserve as many of the open space and
environmental values of the property as possible while still achieving a reasonable financial
return from the development";
"Keeping the roads private will contribute to the quiet rural appeal of the property";
"Practical limitations [ofthe property] that make private roads a logical solution are the site's
terrain and public ownership of adjacent lands. None of the proposed roads would connect to
any existing roads, nor are they likely to connect to any public road in the future and as a
result, the roads are de facto private"; and
Allowing private roads would limit the liability and maintenance expense that can
accompany public roads."
2)
3)
1)
4)
Planning Commission
Preliminary Plan & PUD l2ll0l03
Page 3
The applicant proposes to construct automatic gates at both entrances to the development offof
CR 1 15 (Red Canyon Road). Further, the applicant states that the proposed gate systems will not
interfere with the provision of emergency services personnel (sheriff/ police, fire, arnbulance) to
the development due to the gate's technologies:
Legally, an easement willbe established for the roads systerns to provide full use ofthe road
system for ernergency services personnel;
Physically, the gates will have a control box with a key pad and an emergency service key
enhry where the code and key are provided in advance to emergency services personnel. The
key pad also functions as an intercom providing communication to residents and ranch
manager who can open the gate remotely. The gate has automatic sensors so that it
automatically opens for outbound vehicles. If a power failure occurs, the gate has a battery
backup system that will take over to open the gate and leave it open until power is restored.
ilI. REFERRAL AGENCIES
The application was referred to the following agencies for comments. Comments that were received
have been integrated throughout this memorandum where applicable.
Garfield County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and did not oppose
the conversion from public to private roads (See Exhibit L)
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District (see Exhibit I)
RE-l School District: Larry Eshada (Transportation Manager) reviewed the project and
indicated that a school bus route travels along CR 115 in front of the development
however it will only stop outside the gates and will not enter the subdivision.
Garfield County Sheriff Department (see Exhibit II)
Garfield County Vegetation Manager (see Exhibit J)
IV. APPLICABLITY
Pursuant to section 4:20 ofthe Subdivision Regulations and Section 4.00 ofthe ZorungResolution,
the Planning Commission shall hold an advertised public hearing on the proposed subdivision and
PUD request at a regularly scheduled meeting of the commission.
The Commission shall complete its review and make its recommendation to the Board at the public
hearing on the Preliminary Plan and PUD or continue the hearing to the next regularly schiduled
Planning Commission meeting for additional information or public input before *ating a decision.
The Planning Commission may recommend approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the
Plan. The reasons for disapproval, or any conditions of approval, shall be set forth inihe minutes of
the meeting or in a written Resolution. If the Final Plat is to be phased, the planning Commission
shall recommend a phasing plan, along with the approval or conditional approval.
r)
2)
1.
)
aJ.
4.
5.
Planning Commission
Preliminary Plan & PUD l2ll0l03
Page 4
V. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is designated on the 'Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Area 1' map in the
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan as low-density residential. The recofilmended density in this
land use category is 10 acres or more per dwelling unit. Using this standard, the property could
accommodate approximately 48 dwelling units, twice the proposed number of units.
A number of policies in Comprehensive Plan are aimed at reducing density in future developments
and preserving opens space and agricultural uses. The following statements from the
Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies are applicable to this application:
5.0 Recreation and Open Space
Objective:
5.3 The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the
development and imple,mentation of zoning, subdivision, and PUD regulations designed
to retain and enhance existing open space uses.
5.0(a) Open Space and Trails
Goal:
5.1(A) To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development
approved by Garfield County.
5.1(B) To ensure that wildlife habitat is a component of the review process and reasonable
mitigation measures are imposed on projects that negatively impact critical habitat.
Policies:
5.1(A) A1l projects approved adjacent to existing agricultural uses shall be required to mitigate
any adverse impacts. These mitigational measures shall include some or all of the
following:
a) Appropriate buffering of building envelopes from common property boundaries;
b) The use of open space to provide additional buffering;
c) Dog reskictions, including limiting the number of dogs and requiring kenneling, prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5.2(A) Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife Resources Information Systern (WRIS) will be required to propose
mitigational measures during the submittal of proposed projects. Mitigational measures
shall include the following:
a)
b)
c)
Planning Commission
Preliminary Plan & PUD l2ll0l03
Page 5
Fencing and dog restrictions consistent with DOW recommendations;
Avoidance of critical portions of the property, through the use of building envelope
restrictions or cluster development concepts;
Conservation easements.
Agriculture6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
Goal:
To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility
issues are addressed during project review.
Objectives:
Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches.
Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher-intensity adjacent uses.
Developments adjacent agricultural uses should be reviewed in a manner that allows for
flexibility in resolving compatibility conflicts with adjacent uses.
Policies:
6.1 Agricultural land will be protected from infringernent and associated impacts of high-
intensity land uses through the establishment of buffer areas between the agricultural use
and the proposed project.
6.3 Clustered development will be strongly encouraged in areas that present potential
incompatible uses.
7.0 \[ater and Sewer Services
Objective:
Development in areas without existing central water and sewer seruice will be required to
provide adequate and safe provisions for these services before project approval.
Projects proposing the use of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (.S.D.S) will be
required to assess the site's capability to accommodate these systems prior to project
approval.
Policies:
7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water and/or sewer
systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.4
Planning Commission
Preliminary Plan & PUD l2ll0l03
Page 6
sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval.
The County will require developers proposing I.S.D.S to provide data that demonstrates
to the County that the proposed site can accommodate these systems prior to project
approval.
Where I.S.D.S. is not feasible, Garfield County will require a sewage disposal system
approved by the State of Colorado.
8.0 Natural Environment
Goals:
Garfield County will encourage a land use pattern that recognizes that environmental sensitivity
of the land, does not overburden the physical capacity of the land and is in the best interests of
the health, safety and welfare of Garfield County.
Objectives:
8.2
8.3
8.5
8.6
Proposed projects will be required to recognize the physical features of the land and
design projects in a manner that is compatible with the physical environment.
Garfield County will ensure that natural drainages are protected from alteration.
Development proposals will be required to address soil constraints unique to the proposed
site.
Garfield County will ensure that natural, scenic and ecological resources and critical
wildlife habitats are protected
Policies:
8.3 Natural drainage patterns will be preserved so that cumulative impact of public and
private land use activities will not cause storm drainage and floodwater pattems to exceed
the capacity of natural or constructed drainways, or to subject other areas to an increased
potential for damage due to flooding, erosion or sedimentation or result in pollution to
streams, rivers or other natural bodies of water.8.7 Garfield County will require development on lands having moderate or minor
environmental constraints to mitigate physical problerns such as minor rockfalls, 17 to 24
percent slopes, minor mudflows, potential subsidence, high water tables, slow
percolation, radioactive soils and/or corrosive and expansive soils.
VI. STAFF COMMENTS
As mentioned above, because the subject of the proposal is to address the request for the pivate /
public nature of the internal road system and the fact that the proposed preliminary plan is exactly as
that which received approval by the Board in June, 2003, Staffhas focused its substantive review on
the road issue and whether or not the applicant has satisfied the PUD requirernents in the Zonrng
Planning Commission
Preliminary Plan & PUD l2ll0l03
PageT
Resolution of 1978, as amended. (Staffhas attached the original Staffmemo (see ExhibitK) which
was presented to the Board to serve as additional information for the Planning Commission as it
relates to the issues raised in the preliminary plan review.)
A. Zoning
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from A/R/RD to PUD. In general, the intent of a PUD
is to encourage design flexibility, thereby enabling the applicant to capitalize on a site's desirable
features in ways that would be prohibited under the otherwise applicable zoning. In this case, the
applicant wishes to change the underlying zoning for a property which already has an approved site
specific development plan. However, by rezoning the property to PUD, the applicant proposes that
all of the uses (by right, special, and conditional) as well as the dimensional requirernents (height,
setbacks, minimum lot size, etc.) rernain those of the underlying (A/R/RD) zone disfrict as applied to
the property. This is acceptable because the project was originally designed to be consistent with the
development parameters of the A/R/RD zone district. The applicant does not wish to vary any of
these parameters. Therefore, the sole purpose ofrezoning the property to PUD is to request the Board
vary the road standard. Outside of this one request, the project is consistent with the underlying
zoning (A/R/RD) even through, if rezoned, it would be designated PUD.
B. PUD Review Standards
Staff has reviewed the proposal against the PUD standards for review in Section 4.07 through
4.07 .10. Based on the unique and very specific nature ofthe proposal, Staffhas limited the following
discussion to the main question at hand as well as to points not adequately addressed by the
applicant. Again, the site specific development plan approved by the Board is consistent with
development parameters proposed by the applicant which are also those of the underlying zone
district.
The only standards that directly address the issue ofpublic versus private roads within a subdivision
is Section 4.07.03(3) which requires that the PW shall provide an adequate internal street
circulation system designedfor the type oftrafJic generated, safety, separationfrom living areas,
convenience and access. Private internal streets may be permitted, provided that adequate access
for police and tire protection is maintained. Bicycle tralftc shall be provided for when the site is
used for residential purposes.
As the standard points out, the Board may permit private internal streets where the applicant has
demonstrated that adequate access for police and fire protection is maintained. Staffreferred the
application to the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District and the Garfield County Sheriff
Department. The County Sheriff indicated that as long as the SherifPs Office and the Fire
Departrnent have reasonable access to residents, he had no issue with the proposal (see Exhibit II).
The Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District indicated that they are satisfied with the proposal
and that the method of access provided will be adequate for their needs (see Exhibl'f.I). However,
they offered the following comments:
Planning Commission
Preliminary Plan & PUD l2ll0l03
Page 8
1. Page22 of the submittal indicates that an easement with be set forth to establish legal access for
emergency service vehicles and personnel. We request an opportunity to review the easement
language before it is finalized for the plat.
2. Resolution No. 2003-3 ofthe Fire District, which conditionally approved annexation ofaportion
of the Ranch, requires that the developer grant the District an access and utility easement for the
radio antenna site. This easernent was intended to run from the public roads to the antenna site.
If the roads will be private, the Fire District will need a perpetual non-exclusive easement from
County Road 115 to the antenna site. We request that the language of such an easement be
negotiated and approved by the District prior to approval of the final plat. This easement would
allow access by Fire district personnel, conhactors, or subcontractors to the antenna site for all
uses of the antenna site, including installation and maintenance.
3. The water system described in the engineering report (Attachment 12) refers to the previously
proposed water system and does not match the current master utility drawings. The current
drawings contain a note "see Mclaughlin Rincon drawings for details of pump station and
storage tank installation". Since the Mclaughlin Rincon drawings are not included in the
submittal, the Fire District would like to review and approve the drawings for the prior to final
plat approval.
Therefore based on these corlments, Staff finds that the emergency services community who would
need to gain access to the residents / property during an emergency are satisfied that that access
would be provided. Staff finds this standard is met.
It appears the only standard not addressed by the applicant is the following:
Section 4.07.-03(5) The PW shallprovideforvariely in housingtypes anddensities, other
facilities and Common Open Space.
The applicant states that this is "not applicable to purpose of PUD (private roads)." Stafffinds this is
an inadequate response to Section 4.07 .03 which states The PUD shall meet the following site plan
criteria unless the applicant can demonstrate that one 0) or more of them is not applicable or that
a practical solution has been otherwise achieved. The development proposes only one type of
residential housing (single-family) and a result of the unit to acreageratio, only one type of darsity
(low) is proposed. The applicant has not adequately dernonstrated that the request for private roads
determines that this standard does not apply. While a request to privatize the roads is the impetus for
applyrng for a PUD, an applicant cannot pick and choose which standards they should address as a
result. Staff finds this standard applies and the applicant has not adequately demonstrated why it is
not applicable.
C. Other Issues
Other issues worth noting include the fact that the applicant has now received their final decree for
their augmentation plan for the proposed central water supply systern and the Carbondale & Rural
Planning Commission
Preliminary Plan & PUD l2ll0/03
Page 9
Fire Protection District has conditionally annexed the property into the district. Lastly, while work
was being completed on the Weed Management Plan, a sensitive plant called Harrington's
penstemon was discovered on the property in July, 2003. Staff referred this issue to the County
Vegetation Management Director who provided the following comments (see Exhibit J).
The response of RCC/AVLT (dated October 23, 2003) to my earlier merno of October 15,
2003 regarding Harrington's penstemon is acceptable.
The applicant states that they will provide the County with a map of the occurrences of
Harrington's penstemon in 2004. We lookforward to seeing that information.
In the same ,nemo, there are recommended changes to the Protective Covenants thatwould
help minimize impacts to Harrington's penstemon. Staff encourages the adoption of these
recornrnendations.
As a result, Staffhas included those recommended changes as conditions of approval.
VII. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS
1. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law for the
hearings before the Planning Commission and before the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners were extensive and complete; all pertinent facts, matters and issues were
submitted; and that all interested parties were heard at those hearings.
3. The application is in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 4:00 of the Garfield
County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended.
4. That the proposed subdivision of land is in compliance with the recommendations set forth in
the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of the County.
5. The proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County ZorungResolution of
1978, as amended.
6. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
VI[. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to the
Board of County Commissioners for the proposed Preliminary Plan and PUD request for the Ranch
at Coulter Creek subject to conditions of approval.
Planning Commission
Preliminary Plan & PUD l2ll0l03
Page 10
IX. PLANNING COMMISISON RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission forwards a recommendation APPROVAL to the Board of County
Commissioners for the proposed Preliminary Plan and PUD request for the Ranch at Coulter Creek
subject to the following conditions of approval:
l. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the
public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of
County Commissioners.
2. All conditions of approval contained in Resol bytheBoardof
County Commissioners shall also be conditions for this ication and will be
included in a new resolution that shall be supprseded and replaced i y anew resolution
The Applicant shall provide a Deed of Easement dedicating a perpetual access easement over
and across all roads within the subdivision allowing unfettered access for all applicable
emergency services personnel. These easernents shall be shown on the final plat. As part of
the final plat submittal to the county, the applicant shall obtain a letter signed by the
applicable emergency services agencies indicating an agreement to the terms ofthe easement
agreernent and that proper access codes and keys have been provided to those agencies.
Resolution No. 2003-3 of the Carbondale and Rural Fire District, which conditionally
approved annexation of a portion of the Ranch, requires that the developer grant the Disfrict
an access and utility easement for the radio antenna site. This easernent was intended to run
from the public roads to the antenna site. The applicant shall provide the Carbondale and
Rural Fire Protection District aperpetual non-exclusive easernent from County Road I 15 to
the antenna site. The applicant shall provide the language of such an easernent to the Disfrict
in order to be negotiated and approved by the District prior to approval of the final plat. This
easement would allow access by Fire district personnel, contractors, or subcontractors to the
antenna site for all uses of the antenna site, including installation and maintenance.
The water system described in the engineering report (Attachment 12) refers to the
previously proposed water systern and does not match the current master utility drawings.
The current drawings contain a note "see Mclaughlin Rincon drawings for details ofpump
station and storage tank installation". Since the Mclaughlin Rincon drawings are not
included in the submiffal, the applicant shall provide the Carbondale and Rural Fire
Protection District with the referred to "Mclaughlin Rincon drawings" for review and
approval prior to final plat approval.
The Applicant shall incorporate the recommended changes to the Declaration of Protective
aJ.
4.
5.
6.
\
Planning Commrssron
Preliminary Plan & PUD l2ll0l03
Page 11
Covenants proposed by Lisa Tasker and Dawn Keating regarding the Harrington's
penstemon as included in their memo to Tim Malloy dated October 23,2003. Accordingly,
The Applicant shall provide the County Vegetation Manager with a map of the occurrences
of Harrington's penstemon in 2004. These changes the covenants are included below:
a) Page 5. 6. General Requirements. b. Site Location:
...the Architectural Committee shall exercise its judgment to attempt to presave
the natural characteristics of each Lot, including trees, vegetation, particularly the
Harringtonb penstemon, and the natural setting.
b) Page 9. 8. b. Defensible Space:
(ix) When implementing a plan to reduce flammable material around structures,
survey the area to be treatedfor the Harringtonb penstemon and avoid removing or
trampling it.
c) Page 12. 12. Domestic Animals:
...horses may be kept in a stable and a small corral upon any Lot so long as the corral
is not in a location that the Harrington's penstemon has been mapped. If the
penstemon has beenfound, the location of the corral shall be alteredin order to seek
to avoid the penstemon.
Page 13.3. Underground Utility Lines:
All water, electrical and telephone lines, within the Subdivision, shall be buried
underground beneath Subdivision roads and driveways or in such other locations
that shall seek to avoid the Hanington's penstemon, and shall not be carried on
overhead poles...
Pages 14 - 15" 7. Individual Sewa&e Disposal Systerns:
Each ISDS shall be designed and located to minimize tree removal, seek to avoid
the Harringtonb penstemon, arrd changes to the natural contours of the land.
Paee 15. 8. Trees and other Sigudficant Plants:
All construction ...sha11 seek to avoid the Harringtonb penstemon,mitimize the
removal, and maximizethe preservation, of trees...
Page 15 - 17. Additional Restrictions on Lots:
Add 10. Construction Management. In order to protect the Harringtonb penstemon
and other native vegetation, all construction activity, storage of materials,fill and
debris, parking ofvehicles and equipment shall occur within the building envelope.
d)
e)
s)
Z,/u / tstw /).^ / ,$c.- /
//l- / 'ir -/ Vh""- czzz
?"^ / bo"
Planning Commission
Preliminary Plan & PUD 1,2110103
Page 12
Note: As a practical matter, the Planning Commission should entertain a motion on the
request for the PUD (rezoning) first, then entertain a motion on the Preliminary Plan. Also,
Staff has included the conditions of approval required by the Board of County Commissioners
from the original preliminary plan as conditions for the presently requested preliminaryplan
and PUD.
/ ./< l/ /n"**"'<"' '
h"rh*)
V,,I \*
,/
/
/
,(
t-/
12l10/2003 03 r20 FAX S70 945 0833 IG },IALLOY CDNSULTING rd o0l /oo3
TG MALLOY CONSULTING, LLC
FACSIMILE TNANSMITTAL SHEET
P&OMr
TirnMdloy
FredJarnin
CClMPANIY:
Crarfield County Planni$g
D^TE,
Dcccmbct 10,2003
l-Ax ruNBlilt.
3S4-3470
.TOTAL NO. OF PAOES TNCLUDING COVEI(
3
PltONL, NUM$rrn
945-8212
SENDSR'S REFERENGE ].T UMEER
Y(rUR ltEl' EItliN (ltr NtJ Mllrln
Fishcr Ctt-'ek $p..i"l Managerneot
Area Flyer
E urctrN'l E rt:n RF.vrEw D u.nasn CoMMF.NT D pl.e,rsE REpLy E rrcesu RLcYcLu
NOTFSICOMMbN'1'S
Hi Fred - Hcte is the flyer I promisd you tcgarding thc Fisher Crcek Spccid Manegcrnent
Arce. Thanl* fot thc cell this aftemoon. . . see you ronightl
Irln
RECEI\IED
t}EC 1 0 2003
a02 rAlx rrtrv{ Er.rf,wOc)I} SfttNCt C0!Ot^DO tt0Ot tilt s4e -orrz r -MAtL: tuMALLot@rotGARFiELD COUNTY
NXLDING & PI.ANNING