Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.0 BOCC Staff Report 07.08.1996BOCC 7/8/96 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Preliminary Plan review for the Levitt Subdivision. APPLICANT: Thomas Levitt PLANNER: Land Design Partnership ENGINEER: High Country Engineering, Inc. Zancanella & Associates LOCATION: A tract of land located in portions of Sections 28 & 29, T7S, R87W of the 6th P.M.; located in Missouri Heights, approximately 0.5 mile west of the Eagle County line in southeastern Garfield County. SITE DATA: 79.455 Acres WATER: Central well SEWER: Individual sewage disposal systems ACCESS: Fender Lane (Eagle County), County Road 102 (Garfield County); easements EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed subdivision lies within District F - Rural Areas/Severe Environmental Constraints and District B - Subdivisions/Rural Serviceable Areas 0.5 to 1 Mile Radius; Minor Environmental Constraints, as designated by the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan's Management Districts Map (1981; 1984 Plan). The subject property is located in the Medium Density Residential (6 to 9 acres/dwelling unit) and Low Density Residential (10+ acres/dwelling unit) Proposed Land Use Districts, as designated by the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan for Study Area I (1995 Plan). -- H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The property is located on the slopes and crest of a mesa on the north side of the Roaring Fork Valley, in an area known as Missouri Heights. The property can be thought of as two (2) different physiographic provinces. The first province, consisting chiefly of the southern half and the western sixth (1/6) of the property can be described as very steep, where slopes are in excess of 40%, with some slopes in excess of 60%. The second province, where the homesites are proposed to be located, consists of the mesa crest, where slopes are typically quite gentle. The buildable portion of the property slopes gently east to west, from approximately 7040 feet to 6900 feet, an average slope of 6.0%. The vegetation varies from pinion juniper dominating the steeper slopes, to sage and annual grasses existing on the mesa top. See vicinity map attached on page 1 . B. Proposal: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 79.455 acre tract into 13 parcels, ranging in size from 4.0 acres to 9.1 acres, with a gross density of 6.1 acres/dwelling unit. Two (2) lots within the proposed subdivision would be allowed accessory dwelling units and three (3) lots would be allowed up to four (4) head of livestock. The individual lots are proposed to be served by a shared, central well system with 120,000 gallons of storage and individual sewage disposal systems are proposed for waste water treatment. An exaggerated cul-de-sac is planned to access the thirteen (13) individual lots and provide open space to the residents. See sketch map attached on page 15 Adjacent Land Uses: The adjacent land uses are predominantly residential, with some larger parcels in the vicinity. Additionally, some agricultural land uses exist in the vicinity. III. REVIEW AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Colorado Department of Health: Did not note any violations or discrepancies with state guidelines regarding ISDS or drinking water. States that a project of five (5) or more acres total (disturbed) area will need a storm water construction permit. See letter, page 16 Roaring Fork School District RE -1: Requests impact fees, or land in lieu of impact fees, for the subdivision. See letter, pages 1-7- Zd . Staff notes that, typically, the county collects a school impact fee of $200.00, per lot, prior to final approval. C. Colorado State Forest Service: Conducted a site inspection on March 22, 1996, and concluded that the proposed homes be located 100 feet from the edge of the slope. This recommendation was based on National Fire Protection Standards with the intent of protecting homes from convective and radiant heat originating from a wildfire below a structure. The site analysis further recommended the implementation of defensible space around all structures. Discussions with the local fire district concluded with the opinion that the road system is sufficient for wildfire control purposes. See letter, page Z 1 . D. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: Commented that access throughout the subdivision appears to be adequate for fire apparatus; noted some concern that the end fire hydrant, supplied from the water storage tank would be able to supply 1000 gallons per minute, as proposed; the developer would be required to pay impact fees of $235, per lot ($3055 total), due prior to recording a final plat. See letter, page Colorado Geological Survey: Commented that the steep slopes are an important constraint to development of the property as they are subject to the potential for downslope movement; noted that particular care should be taken when siting individual sewage disposal systems and the siting of surface and sub -surface drainage systems and recommends a minimum setback of 25 feet from the topographical break. Additionally, the Survey notes its concern for the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite Formation, which is susceptible to dissolution, possibly creating ground failure and sink holes. Recommends that each building site be investigated by a shallow geophysical survey to better characterize the Eagle Valley Formation. See letter, pages z 3 -Z . Division of Water Resources: Indicates that the Basalt Water Conservancy District contracts would be sufficient to prevent injury to decreed water rights; recommends that no approval occur until the developer has District contracts for the proposed wells and has obtained valid permits for the proposed uses; states that, with sufficient storage, it appears that the wells can supply adequately the proposed uses and that the long-term adequacy of any groundwater source may be subject to fluctuations due to hydrologic and climatic trends. See letter, pages 1,5- Z( Adjacent Landowner: The attorney for Sirous Saghatoleslami, an adjacent landowner, has commented indicating opposition to the placement of the water storage tank as being unnecessarily conspicuous. See letter, page Z 7 IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Soils: There are three (3) predominant soil types on-site, each with its own characteristics affecting development potential and the siting of building envelopes and ISD systems. The three (3) soil types and their chief characteristics are as follows: tt,13 - Forelle/Brownsto Complex: This soil comprises the top of the ridge, where the homesites are proposed. The soil is generally deep and well -drained, found on slopes between 6% and 12%. Constraints to building site development varies from moderate to severe due to slope and the potential for cutbanks to cave in the Brownsto unit. Constraints to location of ISD systems is considered moderate to severe because of slope and the Forelle unit is further hindered by slow percolation. #55 - Gypsum land-Gypsiorthids Complex: This soil complex formed from parent material that was high in gypsum content (Eagle Valley Evaporite) and constitutes the lower slopes of the property. This part of the site is not slated for development but, due to its limitations, should be considered as it does underlie the soils comprising the buildable portions of the property. Constraints to building site development and placement of ISD systems are considered severe, chiefly because of depth to bedrock and slope. The Eagle Valley Evaporite, which underlies the property and forms the characteristic tan and brown slopes on the north side of the Roaring Fork Valley, is susceptible to erosion and subsidence as it is prone to dissolution. Staff suggests that special consideration is needed to determine the severity of this problem in and on this property. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical has evaluated the letter submitted by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) and the severity of the threat caused by the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite and, in summary, discounts the recommendation made by the CGS as to requiring subsurface exploration. See letter, pages ZB-L61 . #106 - Tridell/Brownsto Complex: This soil complex occupies the upper slopes of the property and tends to be deep and well to excessively -well drained. Constraints to building site development are considered to be severe due to slope and the tendency for cutbanks to cave. Constraints to location of ISD systems are considered severe due to slope and that the soil tends to be a poor filter. The geotechnical study suggests that, underlying the soils on the property, basalt flows between 50 and 200 feet thick may be encountered and that sound basalt will be encountered at typical basement depths. Basalt is an igneous rock, formed when basaltic lava was extruded at the surface and cooled into solid rock. Basalt is a very dense rock and, unless it is cut by a system of joints, it tends to have very little permeability. In areas where there is a joint system, these joints can have positive and negative effects on the hydraulic characteristics of the underlying water table and, in a worst case scenario, "piping" of effluent water can occur, which could have negative effects on groundwater. Staff recommends that all septic systems be engineered, based on site-specific ISDS locations, at the time of building permit application. B. Water: The proposal specifies the use of a shared well to supply water to the subdivision. At this time, two (2) wells have been drilled and only one (1) well has been pump -tested. The pump test was conducted on March 19, 1996, at a pumping rate of 20 GPM, for a 24-hour period. The pump -tested well was completed to a depth of 320 feet and the static water level was found to be approximately 255 feet below the surface, an available drawdown of 65 feet. As stated, the well was pump -tested for 24 hours with drawdown for the testing period calculated to be 1.9 feet, showing a continuous drawdown with no stabilization over the time of the pump test. Upon completion of the pump test, recharge characteristics were also gathered for a 24 hour time period, indicating the well did not recover at a greater rate than it was pumped, which suggests that water pumped during the test was from storage in the underlying aquifer and the current recharge rate of the aquifer is less than the pump test flow. See pump test letter dated April 2, pages 3D - go . Measurements taken on March 26, indicated the well recovered to a level that was approximately four (4) inches higher than the initial, static water level, indicating that there was no permanent depression in the aquifer. See supplemental pump test letter, pages q ( - 41--1 . It is the opinion of the engineers conducting the test that there is a substantial reservoir to supply water to the subdivision and, further, that the well is capable of supplying the subdivision's needs. The engineers recommend that a homeowner's association take prudent steps in designating a well monitoring program to manage the water resource and further state that "Annual water volumes pumped from the aquifer will need to be matched or remain less than the annual recharge to the aquifer system." This information, although difficult to assess, should be taken very seriously in an effort to effectively manage the water resource, especially as the Missouri Heights area develops. Staff would suggest this recommendation be specifically described within the homeowner's covenants. The original, hydrogeologic study conducted by Minion Hydrologic and bound within the preliminary plan submittal analyzed existing water data from well completion reports of wells drilled in the area, as well as the site specific geology of the general area of this proposed subdivision. Although it is staffs opinion that this study is relevant, it did not include or evaluate an actual pump test; therefore, staff would tend to rely more on the actual information presented in the pump test as to the adequacy of the water supply. The engineers have submitted revised calculations indicating an annual water diversion requirement of 12.70 acre-feet, of which 3.98 acre-feet would be consumed. At time of buildout of the subdivision, instantaneous demand for water would be greater than can be provided by the well alone, requiring the necessity for on-site storage, as well as water for fire -fighting purposes. The applicant proposes the installation of a 120,000 gallon water storage tank to meet these water demands. The water service line is proposed to be an eight (8) inch, non -looped line that would be required to have either a fire hydrant or a blow -off valve at its terminus. The engineers further recommend the addition of another well to provide mechanical reliability to the system and constructed at 50% build -out of the subdivision. An additional well has been drilled; however, it has not been pump -tested and staff cannot comment on its ability to adequately perform this function. Both the water storage tank and the well would be located off of the subdivision site and would require easements across the adjacent parcels. These easements must be sufficient to allow access and maintenance of the facilities and staff recommends minimum easements of 20 feet, for the water supply line, wellhead and storage tank. Staff notes that an adjacent property owner has objected to the proposed location and construction of the tank as being too conspicuous. The letter is included in the review/comment section of this report, page 17 . Legal Water Supply: The applicant has recently been issued a water allotment contract from the Basalt Water Conservancy District for 14.9 acre feet of water, per year. The engineers have calculated that annual diversions of groundwater would total approximately 12.7 acre feet. Therefore, it appears the water allotment contract should be sufficient to prevent injury to decreed water rights. See Basalt contract, pages (45 -51 . Water Quality: A water quality analysis of inorganic chemicals and volatile organic chemicals was conducted on water samples from the pump -tested well, with the results concluding that all tested parameters were within mandatory, state standards. See water quality letter, pagerjz_. . This water information has been developed for a total of 23 individual residential units and 12 livestock units, which includes eight (8) units that would not be constructed as a part of this proposal, but are "reserved" by the Levitt Family Trust, which owns the land upon which property the well and storage tank would be located. In staffs interpretation, the additional eight (8) [residential] units should be considered as a second phase and staff recommends that any approval of the Levitt Subdivision proposal shall not be construed as approval of a later subdivision proposal or phase. C. Access/Roads: Access to the property is proposed to be along easements from County Road 102, across adjacent property, to the applicant's tract. Access and maintenance easements are in place for the access across the adjacent property north and east of the subject tract; however, at this time, no agreement regarding the maintenance of Harmony Lane has been approved by all affected parties. It appears that Harmony Lane is a public road that is privately maintained by the current users of the road, who request that the applicant contribute, on a pro -rata basis, to the continued maintenance of the road. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to upgrade that portion of Harmony Lane between Wind River Road and CR 102 to a consistent platform width and a chip/seal surface, to be largely consistent with Garfield County Secondary Access standards. See letter and Road Maintenance Agreement, pages _63-59 . The Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the Preliminary Plan pursuant to the applicant having, in place, a signed agreement for the maintenance of Harmony Lane, at the time of the Board's hearing. If this signed agreement has been completed, it has not been submitted to staff for review. A preliminary, unsigned agreement is attached on pages 55 - . The thirteen (13) lots that would be created by this subdivision would require a Rural Access road standard throughout the subdivision, which includes a right-of-way of 50 feet, 11 foot travel lanes, six (6) foot shoulders and either a gravel or chip/seal surface. This internal road would be accessed via off-site roads known as Whitecloud Road and Wind River Road, which provide access to Harmony Lane and eventually CR 102/Fender Lane. At the intersection of Harmony Lane and CR 102, Harmony Lane would provide access to approximately 26 lots. There appears to be no accepted method to mitigate the impacts to the existing roads, as it appears Garfield County does not have the authority to require the applicant to upgrade the affected, off-site roads. However, as discussed, the applicant has offered to improve Harmony Lane to a standard largely consistent with Rural Access standards. See letter pages Go- Co 3 . Although this provision may be difficult to enforce, staff sees the proposal as a proactive approach in mitigating certain road impacts and suggests it be a condition of approval. The Preliminary Plan submittal indicates the shoulders of the roadway within the subdivision are proposed to be two (2) feet in width, which may be approved in mountainous areas. The Planning Commission, with a finding that the subdivision is within mountainous terrain, approved the two (2) foot shoulders. The length of the road is significantly longer than the 600 feet normally allowed for a cul-de-sac design (approx. 3000 feet); however, longer cul-de-sacs may be allowed if it can be proven that fire protection and emergency egress and access is provided as part of the longer design. Access to lots 1, 2 and 3 would be along a secondary road that would be required to be built to Semi -Primitive standards with a 40 foot right-of-way, two (2) 8 foot travel lanes, and two (2) foot shoulders. According to the County Subdivision Regulations, all roads should be dedicated to the public; however, repair, maintenance and snow removal is the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. D. Fire Protection: The applicant proposes the installation of a 120,000 gallon water storage tank that would be capable of supplying 1000 gallons of water for a two (2) hour period, for fire -fighting purposes. A total of three (3) fire hydrants are planned, spaced approximately 800 feet apart and plumbed into an eight (8) inch service line. It would appear that this amount of water, in conjunction with adequate roads should be sufficient in the event of a fire. There was originally some speculation by the Fire District that the 1000 GPM could be supplied at the terminal fire hydrant, as initially proposed. The engineers have suggested the upgrade from a six (6) inch water line to an eight (8) inch line to provide the 1000 GPM flows. As part of its review, the District requests $235.00, per lot ($3055 total), be paid to the District in impact fees, prior to recording a final plat. In its review letter, the Colorado State Forest Service, (CSFS) using recommendations made by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and published in the 1991 edition of Protection of Life and Property From Wildfire, recommends a minimum, slope setback of 100 feet. Currently, the developer proposes a minimum slope setback, for all lots located along the slope, of 50 feet. Staff has discussed the CSFS recommendations to better understand the criteria used to determine the necessity of the specified 100 foot setback and was referred to the following diagram (excerpted from the above noted publication): 30'1 30 Convective heat currents 100' , setback Structures at the top of slopes will require 100' or more fuel modification to mitigate increased exposure due to convective and radiant heat transfers. Figure 3-2.4(b) Defensible space (slope). Staff has attempted to determine the specific analysis used by the CSFS to make this setback recommendation; however, at this time, there appears to be no mathematical explanation for the recommendation. The recommendation may seem extreme and perhaps arbitrary; however, considering that the CSFS would be regarded as the expert in this domain, staff will defer to its recommended setback of 100 feet. F Lot Size: All lots conform to the two (2) acre minimum lot size as stipulated by the A/R/RD zone district. However, the lots on the southern and western portions of the property consist chiefly of steep slopes (>40%), which'restrains the buildable portions of these lots. Subdivision Regulations specify certain requirements regarding setbacks, slope, and minimum size of building envelopes. Given the proposed building envelopes, it appears all lots can meet applicable setback and slope requirements; however, if the Board enforces the CSFS recommended setback of 100 feet, then the affected lots may need to be re -drawn. It should be noted that, gross estimates indicate that approximately 40 acres of the entire 79.5 acre tract are of less than 40% slope. Therefore, effective density of the 13 proposed lots would be approximately 3 acres per dwelling unit. G. Open Space Easements/Detention Pond: The proposal specifies deeding the open space to the residents of the subdivision; however, it appears that this open space land will actually be sold as portions of four (4) different lots. In fact, the Subdivision Application Form indicates a total of zero (0) acres within the development area be preserved as Public/Quasi-Public or Open Space/Common Area. The arrangement where the area within the cul-de-sac is deeded to the public would require that specific covenants be drafted to ensure unimpeded public access, and should further specify maintenance responsibilities. The open space would consist of approximately 0.5 acre of irrigated lawn area. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the western -most portion of the open space area, planned to straddle the property line between lots 9 and 10. The pond is designed to retain a volume of 5,063 cubic feet, the expected runoff volume from the 25 -year storm. Once the retention volume is exceeded by storm events of higher magnitude, the water is designed to drain directly from the overflow into the existing drainage on the western end of the property. Staff recommends this drainage be lined with an appropriate material (concrete; rip -rap; etc.) to ensure that no erosion occurs, which could possibly result in further down -cutting or slope instability within and along the drainage. This recommendation is supported within the Colorado Geological Survey letter. Additionally, it will be necessary to draft specific covenants regarding maintenance of the detention pond and attendant facilities. H. Aesthetics: Currently, no County regulations exist regarding setback requirements from ridges; therefore, adherence to CSFS recommendations would have two outcomes. First, this placement would help protect homes in the event of a fire moving up the ridge and, second, would decrease the visual impact caused by a line of homes constructed at or near the ridge, which could be quite visible from many points in the Roaring Fork valley. Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan: Section 4:33 of the Subdivision Regulations requires review of a subdivision application based on compatibility with various planning criteria, including the Comprehensive Plan. The following section addresses the compatibility, or lack of compatibility, with the Plan. Agriculture: Housing: The subdivision is potentially compatible with agricultural land uses as the majority of adjacent land uses are residential. Existing, platted subdivision lots currently exist within a five mile radius of the proposed subdivision, with current build -out estimated at an average of 49%. Conventional zoning, not PUD, is being employed. There are no provisions for low and moderate income housing (stated) within the subdivision application information. The subdivision is situated away from incompatible, non-residential uses such as light industry and commercial centers. Recreation/Open Space: The proposed development includes provision for open space. Transportation: County regulations do not have any provision for off-site improvements to County roads. The applicant is limiting traffic to one intersection. Roadway design is targeting a specific, projected traffic load. Roadway design has been conducted in consideration for potential emergencies. Water and Sewer Service: It does appear that a legal, physical water supply exists. The development could not feasibly connect to any existing community water/sewer system. Soils on-site are constrained in their use for ISDS. Environment: There are slopes on the parcel which are in excess of 25%. Mitigation of erosion by development of the property is required. Mitigation of slope hazards may be necessary. V. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper publication and public notice and posting were provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing. 3. That the proposed subdivision of land is in general compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated area of the County. 4. That the proposed subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the State of Colorado and Garfield County have been submitted and, in addition, have been found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. VI. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission, at its May 8, 1996 meeting, recommended APPROVAL of the application, pursuant to the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless stated otherwise by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Homeowner's Association shall be incorporated in accordance with Colorado Revised Statute requirements. The applicant shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements Agreement addressing all on-site improvements, prior to the submittal of a final plat:. 4. The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all roads, bridges, utilities, fire protection, improvements, signage and drainage structures prior to the submittal of the final plat. 5. That all utilities shall be placed underground. 6. That all cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native grasses, shrubs and trees with adequate weed control. All revegetation shall be in accordance with the applicant's revegetation plan. Revegetation and landscaping shall be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. In addition, adequate security shall remain in place for a period of two (2) years to guarantee the survival of all plantings. 7. That the applicant shall demonstrate that procedures are established for the maintenance of all roadways and bridges, including snow removal, through the Homeowner's Association. 8. That the applicant shall pay $200 per lot in School Impact Fees prior to the approval of the Final Plat. 9. That the following plat notes shall be included on the Final Plat: "The minimum defensible space distance shall be 30 feet on level terrain, plus appropriate modification to recognize the increased rate of fire spread at sloped sites. The methodology described in "Protection of Life and Property From Wildfire, 1991 Edition," (NFPA) shall be used to determine defensible space requirements for the required defensible space within building envelopes in areas exceeding five (5) percent grade, except that the slope setback shall be a minimum of 50 feet, for all lots. "Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare and submit a soils and foundation report and an I. S.D. S. design prepared and certified by a professional engineer. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such measures, which shall be a condition of the building permit." "Access to the Levitt Subdivision shall only be allowed from Harmony Lane and shall not be allowed from Sunset Lane." 10. The Basalt Water Conservancy District Allotment Contract and the water rights associated with the wells, together with well permits, shall be transferred by the developer to a homeowner's association which shall have the power and the duty to enforce compliance by lot owners with the terms and conditions of the water contract. 11. That the applicants shall prepare and submit protective covenants, articles of incorporation and other Homeowner's Association documents, including by-laws, will be submitted for review by the County Attorney prior to the approval of the Final Plat. 12. That the plat and covenants will provide that there will be no resubdivision of the lots. 13. Based upon the determination, by the Planning Commission, that the internal subdivision roadway is in mountainous terrain, all roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards in effect at the time of submittal of the Final Plat, except that the roadway shoulders will be two (2) feet in width. 14. The Final Plat shall identify building sites that are in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report conducted by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical and be less than 40% slope. 15. That adequate easements for wells, waterlines and other attendant facilities and utilities shall be provided on the Final Plat. 16. That 10 foot front lot line easements, on each lot, shall be provided for utility purposes. 17. The applicant shall provide road signage in accordance with the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control. These should be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. 18. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit approved plans (by Colorado Department of Health) for the proposed community water system. 19. The restrictive covenants shall include the "Aspen Glen" provisions regarding lighting, fire places and dog restrictions and further mandate specific procedures for monitoring the water supply consistent with the recommendations made by the engineer and contained within the engineer's letters dated April 2, 1996 and April 29, 1996. 20. That the applicant will improve Harmony Lane, from Wind River Road to County Road 102, to Secondary Access standards including a chip/seal surface. This provision shall be contained within the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. 21. The construction of the overflow from the proposed detention pond will be done in a manner to affirmatively mitigate erosion that may be caused by the apparatus or anticipated water flows. 22. Approval of this subdivision Preliminary Plan does not construe approval for any later phases or associated developments on or off the subject property. 23. The applicant shall submit the appropriate impact fees directly to the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District and provide the Planning Department a copy of the receipt, prior to Final Plat approval. 24. That Accessory Dwelling Units shall only be allowed on lots 12 and 13 and livestock shall only be allowed on lots 11, 12 and 13. These provisions and limitations shall be stated within the protective covenants. 25. That the applicant shall agree upon and enter into a maintenance agreement, for maintenance of Harmony Lane, with the Harmony View Subdivision Homeowner's Association, prior to approval of the Preliminary Plan by the Board of County Commissioners. 1 1 N i II' I -?.- ' 'I 1 • pt 69/8. - `7039 29 _ I•� I s==ass ass.ska aG • am. ---- o` —7•/6`1 11 • • 1 '. .rborda-112— 4--• • I, 1321 n 6765 ell 641 • • \• `J. oV 66Op .. \ _ r. s . Wit. I! 60 6428 • :sa=ss;- 7 • - io°° • -�• T ��: �—� 7200 �1 - `�. �1 ` \I:�\ �� � �� �f /^ /:' . s, Q • HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. 923 COOPER AVENUE GLENW000 SPRINGS, CO 81601 (303) 945-8678 • FAX (303) 945-2555 • • VICINITY NAP FoR LETT SUpp1VISION I"=Z000 HC.E 41' 950U0.01 2-13-9(D ifL PRELIMINARY PIAT LEVITT SUBDIVISION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 28 AND THE SE1/4SE1/4 OF SECTION 29, T.? S., R.87 W., OF THE 6TH P.I., COUNTY OF' GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO SHEET(2 OE 2 M WN'OC• 1 I 44 II ILII *N MO, 1 • • 6.069 ACS L _ / H• E •� 4�i.-'+li[.•�•�_��'il 110Nlo affIYj�f 11 1 SIIMMIBEl-1ifwlraLY•>r/lw,Y•:r! MIIINIMILAnIMINE1MMES ,M i9i::.Z:• T1lrAli"YLwl9olQ101OM iessRZINNI9Oai�[wEI NIWNu9NCR.E.rresil&LIt II �'•: C1�71�: w»�11wu�11v�ruvisUl` iiFF195)�fF. . r:suEllif =alli WeWWI/MIAOWEnCLIII :1E �i:lU�"II I .111• rW I WIIIIOMM �•::l[•:l�f �i �:�>ii:IIls 91 W 1II]w>!J11II11M 77/ :d�lw11�6tlor�w/1sIIY1ravlr[r!r =wia•)I=u1I16c1M®SaZa16iM1011:9• 6�w9Mx )_15r;1�liTl1[allfIIrirIIIMMt 7 wwli aj)M51�!wiYJMONI rn II 4N1•1•11n[m�e111L M[l 1'�31Qlwa�linC IIi al1wM'rl1L'1• 1�_11_irl�11/11r•11t1fifLllrUICIME ar11/ S[O7 ':E)ilw(i1wiJ•99�1II19QTHME IINUMM �Nii:si7ilmn rn 1innIS9[[IIIIlw�1Or t♦t{tltl.i :�1�1II�s1 iIZ11Sat1alatr9lLltirildi HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS 923 COOPER AVENUE GLEN7[000 SPRINGS. COLORADO 91601 (970) 045-5075 or • . Lav • Al4.44(. w :i .avrie WW1= >u II 33.I til GRAPHIC SCALE 111111.1.11 Il a • WO rll Subject: Levitt Preliminary plan review Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 17:18:31 -0700 From: dwatson@wic.net (Dwain Watson) Reply -To: dwatson@wic.net To: garcopin©infosphere.com Mark: My previous E-mail said "no comment." It would be more correct for me to say that we did not note any violations or descrepancies with state guidelines regarding ISDS or drinking water. A project of five or more acres total area will reed a stormwater construction permit. Regards, Watson Roaring Fork School District RE -1 Box 820 1405 Gland Avenue Gienwoo.I 5prings, _Colorado 81602-0820 Telephone (970) 945-6550 March LI, 1996 1:1 Ie f'vIe(' ilICI ly (ialliel(I ('aunty !Wilding rl Planning IUO 8tl1 Slice' Glenwood Springs, CO -;1601 ItI: Levitt Subdivision I'ICIinlinaiy flan J) ar nlr IVic('allcrly 1"–;)11–,7,11:-7;;T? x— �. :�,ai� A U 7 19961 _..-- -.:t DR. JAMG'S L- bADBR:(, pirhGendenl JAMES C. PHILLIPS. Assrstanl Superinlendenl SIIANNON PELLANO. Budges Officer Please accclll 0111 Ie(ILICSI fur 11111;1(i ICCS 111 land 111 lice 1)1 111111(1(1 fees fur Ills abovc- rel-ercnec(I subdivision pet 1110 attached schedule as 1)1I _ Iually s11111uillc(I 10 you f\lay 1(I l')94 Please (l0 not IICsllale lu call II you have any (lueSlImIs Sincerely, &.'-(1 Ill.-. Shannon I'ellan(I Utl(Iget (Whey! • Roaring Fork:.School District RE -1 Box 820.!. 1405 Grand /. venue Glenwood Springs;>Colorado 81602-0620 Telephone (970) 945-6556 1)R-' JAMES L.BADER, Supenntandent JAMES C. PHILLIPS, Assearant Supenntendent SHAHNON PELLANO, Budget OIfica TO: County and City Governments Planning Divisions FROM: Roaring Fork School District - DATE: May 30, 1994 RE: REQUEST FOR IMPACT FEES On behalf of the Roaring Fork School District and the Board of Education, we are extending our thanks and appreciation for the time and energy all of you have provided to assist us_ in this review. During the course of several months, we met with a variety of community representatives, as well as elected officials with the couIlties' and cities' Planning and Zoning Departments. As a result of this process, and review of various formulas for impact fees, the Roaring Fork School District: is respectfully requesting the appropriate officials adopt the following fee structure. A. We are requesting the formulas your organization presently uses to determine the number- of students be continued. B. We are requesting land dedication of .04 acres per student, based upon your formula. Land areas shall be suitable for school sites. C. We are requesting the District determine whether or nut Lo accept cash in lieu of land dedication. 'I'he Superintendent of Schools and the Director of Finance are available to visit with your boards regarding this request, and willing to continue our dialogue to determine wheat is fair and equitable for all. We believe this formula provides a mechanism that is consistent throughout our District, and addresses real impacts made on the schools. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Janes L. Bader Superintendent Enclosures: Supporting data HOUSING TYPE TABLE III IMPACT FEES IN LIEU OF LAND Number of Bedrooms 1BR 2BR 3138 4BR 5BR BLENDED (all BRs) SINGLE FAMILY $378 $1104 $2237 $3531 $1358 APARTMENTS $ 56 $344 $1067 a b $ 312 TOWNHOUSE $162 $219 $ 656 c d $ 485 HIGH RISE $ 24 $ 24 $ 24 e f $ 24 MOBILE HOMES $254 $363 $1410 g 11 $ 819 2PLEX, 3PLEX, 4PLEX $131 $403 $1043 i j $ 582 Formula (Acres per student) x (Cost per acre) x Students per unit cost = Fee NOTE: a -j - No units at Lime of study. Based on interpolating data chart would be as follows: a = 1502 c = 1036 e = 24 g = 2348 1 = 1411 b = 193 1 d = 1416 E = 24 h = 3200 j = 1:179 Roaring Fork; School District RE -1 Box 820-. :1405 Giand AvnrnJt Glenwood Springs? Colorado. 81602-0820 Telephone (910) 945-6550 RESOLUTION OR JAMES L: , BADER, Surxrronendenr JAMES C. PHILLIPS, Assjsleni Supennrondenr SHANNON PELLANO, Budget Office/ BE IT RESOLVED: The Board of Education of the Roaring Fork School District RE -1 is hereby requesting that all affected entities (Counties, Cities) collect au impacL fee from new developments in the amount of .U4 acres of land suitable for construction of school facilities, per each estimated student, generated by that development according to the formula adopted by the affected entity. although the entities IL is understood that have formulas based upon different allocation methods, all entities are currently using or have available, formulas which reasonably calculate of students. For those areas which or could calculate that number may not be conducive to school • development, the District may accept cash in lieu of land at its option. It would be the establish the estimated fait- independent appraisers. responsibility of the developer Lo Markel: 'value of the land through iTori-Fir,-.;_p;T:.y/1--dq:,)--T?.17-7,.; O d O PI,• , March 21, 1996 Eric McCafferty Garfield County Building and Planning 109 OLh Street:, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Eric, :;I lI, Set t•iet•s IluiItIinl; • ( 1' 222 :iltect, I(uum .116 I;i:nul .Iunrliun. l:nlm:ulu n1,51)1 l t•It•tdlt.tu•: ('17n) 2.1))-7.125 1 inspected Che Levi 1:L Sulx1 i v i.: -;.i o11 site w.i t h Ron Liston on on March 22Ild. The Slll)diviL.1.o11 contains Ilen11.y level O1.<ls:;/sa(Ie areas as well as Pinyon/juniper Il i.l I ;.isles that exceed 50% slopes. The building envelopes are situated OH the I,I:n(h Above 1 hese steep slopes. Ron and 1 Looked at all 13 1,1 c,l,o:;(:(1 sites. Sites 1 Lhrou9h 10 include portions of the L' i Ilyoli/ j Iln i I )e.► v(:O0l.i:1t i on . recommended Lo Ron that the homes h€2 situated 100 feet I ronl the edge of the slope. Thi :.; 1. ec:ouuuPI)(! 11 i on comes 1 t c nn the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2.19 standard d I of 1'I.oL.E cL,io!1 _ uL Fife and L'Loje1: Ly from Wildfire. The Ini l l,o:;e 01 this recommendation is Lo avoid convective and 1 r1(l i;t11I heat originating from cl wildfire hetow [I l;l ruc:l (I (c., . This hull could ignite a structure. The Colorado State Forest. Service uses the NF PA 299 standard recommendationsin all w i I d I i 1 e h;IX.a 1 (! mitigation. 1.11 addition, (Ie1en:;.iIt1(, space :;houIf! he implemented around all. structures. This defensible space includes incorporating landscaping clLouncl the home Ilia( (:;In he maintained at: 6 inches of less for a .11) fool. pcI. imet (:I . Veget (t ion beyond Lite 10 1`.00l: perimeter should 1,I_ manipulated out 1-o X11 least: another .30 reset.. Wit.h i ii LII i :; '1l) loot. I)1:1 i nu t ( t , dead wood :;hull I d 1.)e removed and trees should he thinned :;(I I h(: l t ee ('1 OWI :i are not touching, I)1.e1:e1:a1)Iy at least 10 feel rll,;l:l 1. visited with l.h 13i I l (;i(vel l e of the ( ;It I,onlltl l e Fite IIop,II I nI0l)l about this :;nlic1 i v i :;ion . We talked ;I1)(,nt I he w,I1 (::I :.1 (rl ;t0(r 1 i I (' hydrants and existing road system. 1 also v i :; i t e(1 w i 111 !ton about the roads. A:; we discussed and what 1 see on the II11)101 1 he toad system is sufficient101 wildfire cont 1 (, I }imposes. 'l'haiik you lot I:I1e ol)I)o1 l nn i 1.y to I ev i (t(•) this pt u1.1osa I . tee 1 flee ee Lo call. me with any questions Sincerely, ,Cs\G� A. Vince 1111.)ina Assistant District 1'ut ('S.;l.('I cc : Guy Meyer -(earl i e l(1 County !;11e.t• ill's o1 I i c (' Bi1 I. Ga vet te -Ca tThott(1rl l e FPI) Ron Li sL.oll . Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection l)isiri MAR 251996 300 dead(wuutl Ur. Carbondale, Colorado 81623 1'Iiune (970) 963-2491 (. 'ELL) U c'c*j 4 Y Fax (()70) 963-0569 Match 2 I , I 996 l;ric [VIcC'a(le1(y Garfield County Planning 1)elru 1111en1 109 l.;ighlh Sheet, Suite 301 Glenwood S1 1 Ings, CO 81601 1 1 Levil1 Subdivision Preliminary Plan 1 have reviewed the 1)lclunilaly plan lin the Levitt ,Suhdhvision I \void(' elle! II1e 1611(w11g comments 1ega:(111b liie 1)1oleeliol 161 111e slhdlvislul The pi u1)used access is essentially the same ,is pieviunsly 1>1cpused in the skcich 1)1,11 Access throughout 11he subdivision appeals lu he adecjr1;11e h i hie a1)1>;u;llus The proposal indicates that wale! Ii>1 Inci1iiutecliu)1 will he su1)i>hcd Iioin ;1 120,00( (;;11111 slulage lank withh lire hydrants supplied Iron' (, incl! w;ile1 mains 111;ave some Bunce! n whether the end Ilydlanl can piovi(ie IIhe 1000g p n1 hie How indicated In the 1>1u1x1sai I noted that the end hydrant is supplied front al>I>luxinlately 28O0 feet ()Idea(' end \vaie' 1);)11) •I I)e system is aided hy die (Imp 111 elevation Ihiotigh thesuhclivisioii. I all lucihle l0 dete111ne the tidal elevation &lop !roil! the lank since it Isnot indicated 011 the 1)Iiiiis /\s indicated previously diming the sketch 111;11 lcvicw, the (levclul)ci \\ ill he le(1u1!e(I t(, (iilei ilio a contract with IIhe I)isliicl lin the payment ufdcvelul>lienl Impact lees 11 the amount ul .Y? i5 (1) pci lot, li)r a (ulal 011; 1,055.00 as approved hy the ( ;al held ('Ointy ( 1 Itis payment 1s due prior to the recta cling oldie !Mid 'dill I'Icase culitaci Ole d yule have ;my (luctiuls Sin yl ,//l (' 13111 Ciavcilc Lire I\larslial COLORADO (;I.()1.( )GICAI SURVEY 1)ivision of 14inet.iI, ;Intl (;t•ult, y t)r11a1intent u( N.1twill 16.1011111 1 11 1 Shulman Slu•rl• Il nito / 1 ( )t•nvr1, 1. nlulatln l)(l't) 1 Nilotic (11) 1) 1101. 11.1 1 1 AX (111 11 MN.1. 1•11.1 ii.rI. 7_j_ r..-.;y._ ;./ , rir'r(? rte; :1� ' 1 6fr1( f {-1STAI El (DE C pL _. 1 /\ )\J I-^,1 -t� 1-1-/_____. 1)) March 28, 1996 (IA -96-0011 Mr. Eric Mc/Welly Garfield County Planning Department 10O 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 1 )1•.t'AI(I NI F.1"4 I ()1 NA 1'U1&A1 imiSoul&(;FS It. t, 1441...I1., .11, 1 •t I.t.. (mow% `1 11.. 1101•..11 1 1 t'. 1.11. I. 1 1111'. 11.. 1.11111.11.111 1111111 I /11 .• 11.11 111.1•. I1 11 VII 1 1 1 111 v.111 '11.1/1. l .. 1 d, qp•.1 .111111hn', 111. 1&e: Proposed Levitt Subdivision (I'ieli)Ilinlry l'I;ul), NI. 1.1 .Ic I,c I ;Intl Iul IIIc Gal held County -Nagle County lloun(laly, (;tilield Count), /)ear vlr. Nlcnitelty: At your request and in accordance with S.11. 35 (11)/2), we have reviewed Ihc mate'ials submitted for and made a field inspection of lire site of Ihc ptoposc(1 residential subdivision indicate(/ above. Some of our conclusions are based on ol)s&Nations made: in nearby developing subdivisions where geologic conditions ale silnilat to lilis one..1•hc Iullowill coIIIIIICI1ts Still 11llari•ze our findings. (1) The analysis and discussion of the slit ficial and bedrock geology, geologic conditions, and geotechnical (engineering -geology) concerns ;/bout development of IIIis paled as planned are thoroughly and well discussed in the submitted I(I)n1I by 1 It I)wo1ilt-l';twl;tl; (;eotccllnical, htc., (;letnvood Sptillgs. I will nal repeat :my ul Ihc (Icl:tils 1,1 IIIci1 discussions here. (2) The most important constraint un consltuclion all (hese lots is that :all of dl(: sIecl)c: slopes arc either underlain by landslide dcposils and a1 colluvium subject to landslidiug. "these /)laces should he completely ;/voided as building sites. tVlotcover cal e. should be taken to not direct surface and slnbsutface drainage into u1 onto these slopes. This includes discharges from the septic sewage -disposal systems which arc; planned to be used for all of these lots. This means that both houses and septic systems should lie well set hack from the break in slope between the higher and lower parts of all of the lots. We concur with the 25 ft recolnended by 1 lepwotth-I'awlak. The engineer(s) designing the futual.aIiI11S and septic systems should take this into account in their designs. The sires of the proposed lois are a(le(luate to do this if the building envelopes shown urn the plans aIc adhered Io. (3) Our only other serious concerti is IIIaI II)e Eagle Valley I?val)ot ile I ut illation, which underlies the basalt, could have natural voids in it caused by dissolution of gypsum o► he -Z3 Mr. Eric McAfferty March 28, 1996 Page 2 subject to dissolution in the future. In either case, collapse of such voids could result in ground failure by formation of sink holes even where II►e Eagle Valley is covered by basalt. For this reason, we recommend That each building site be Willed and/or investigated by a shallow geophysical survey, such <►s shallow seismic, by a qualified geotechnical engineer to characterize the 1?agle Valley (beneath the basalt). We admit that this is a conservative approach but it may (provide inexpensive "insurance" against ground failures relative to the values of both houses and the Tots themselves. If the recommendations made above are followed and mode condition of u1►Inoval of Ibis subdivision proposal, then we have no geology rcla►Ic 1 to your aI)I►►oval of Sincerely, (ones M. Soule Engineering (;eulogist STALL OF 011 ICL OF I I IL S 1 A l t I)ivisiun of KIWI I(esuu1( 1•, I )t•1).ullnt•nl u( N111111ill I(rwuu t•ti 1 11 1 SIu IItl.ln 111x1.1, r(unu111111 1 hmvet, ( nlu,.11 11111211 1 1111 • (.11111 1101,. 3 AX (1111)1166 -pity) March 10, 1996 Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 cath Street, Suite 3U3 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 I it MARS 2 2 1996 (AF F= i E.LD UOut,f 1 Y fel • Roy 1(.1111x1 (el1,1'1/1111 .1.Ia11., S 1.1111111,111 1 •1.1 1111\1. 1 111x1 1111 11.11 1, ',,1111...,1 ',1.111.1 ,11;1111 •.1 111=: Levill Subdivision Preliminary flan SW 1/,1 of Sec. 28, & 1/4 of Soc. 29, I wp. / S, ling rr) 117 W, 6111 P.M. Water Division 5, Water District 311 Dear Mr. McCaller ly: We are in receipt of your subdivision referral lo subdivide approximately 80 acres into 13 lois, located on Missouri Heights east of El Jebel, Colorado. I I re subdivision will include 13 single family residences and a west or car(:lal(e► 31011SO will,. 3,000 square feel of lawn and • gardens at each residence. Also included will be 12 livestock units in the water service plan arid up to 1/2 acre of ii igale(I open space. -I he proposed wafer supply will be from two common wells and a storage tank. the applicant states !hal Uasall Water Utiliser vrlricy District (Distrid) contracts will be acquired for the proposed wells, indicating Ilial the wells would 1)e operated pursuant to the District's Substitute Wale: Supply flan (IwI was approved by the Slate I:-liyineei on December 26, 1995. The ground water in llle SIII)jet:t ;110i1 !c I,il)nl;liy lu IIie I(l).tlinti I ulk IiIve1 ill (1 (.:()10(;1(13) 1 -liver Systems, wIlicii are over apprupriat(:(l. In yrs lend, issuance ul new or expanded use permits would cause rnalerial injury to senior walon riylits unless 11(13 appli(:ai3 obtains approval of a plan to remedy the injury. [he District has a valid substilnle water supply plait for contracted wells which provides replacement water to !nevem) injury lo decreed water riylrls. Pursuant to Section 30 20 336(1)(31)(1), C.II S., it is unlikely ilial Ilfe proposed water supply will cause injury to decreed water rights. We recommend that This development riul receive approval from the county and Iols not be sold (Alli3 the developer has I)istricl contracts for the proposed wells and has obtained valid perrliils for (lie proposed uses. A report dated February 13, 1996 muni 1niluallel1a nod Associates, slates Ilial Ilio subdivision will divert on Ilse aver aye 16.57 acre feet of water annually )ually will, .Iver aye 3)11111.,110 rate of 10.27 CJi)nr or a leak pumping rale OI I /.11 (13)11, (huh kJ July. 1 ho Ic)013 1111111e1 sales that the existing wells in lliis area pock ice al valyiny rale', from / 5 91113 to 33) !lino. With stalk:ien' storage capacity, it appears Ilial Ilse wells can supply ;mie(Iu-110y the 3)3Opose(3 uses Please Mr. Eric McCafferty Page 2 March 18, 1996 note that the long Tenn adequacy of any ground water source may he subject to fluctuations due to hydrological and climatic trends. If you have any questions regarding this platter, please feel free to contact Mr. Kris Mr.rrllly of this office or Mr. Odyn Bell of our t)ivisiorr office in Glenwood Sprirgjs at 9415 5665. SPL/KM/krn cc: Otlyn Bell, Division Engir 1001 Joe L. Bei yquist, Water Conimissionw levitl.sul) Si: rcer ely, 1c!).1y Steve Larrlenschlager Assistant Slate Engineer John H. Case Attorney at Law Post Office Box 4203 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Telephone (970) 925-8391 Fax 920-339 e-mail johncase inftrs1)here.com April 24, 1996 Garfield County Planning Commission Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO tf1'T7.; Awl? 2 199A . 7.r_' Re: Application of Levitt Subdivision lur Preliminary Plan Approval Dear Commission• I represent Sirous Saghatoleslaini, who is the owner of Fox Run Meadows, a property bordering the proposed Levitt Subdivision. 1 wish to object to the proposed location oldie water tank site on the Levitt Subdivision as unnecessarily conspicuous and would request that the tank site be made less visible by excavation or landscaping to reduce the visual impact Sincer Thank you for your consideration of this matter y /7‘ J6hn H. Case 11-IC:ss cc Sirous Saghatoleslaini HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 April 29, 1996 Mr. Thomas Levitt P.O. Box 414740 Kansas City Missouri 64141 fax 970 945-8454 ('hone 970 945-7988 Job No. 195 524 Subject: Potential Sinkhole Hazard at the Proposed Levitt Subdivision, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Levitt: As requested by Land Design Partnership, we have reviewed the March 28, 1996 letter to the Garfield County Planning Department prepared by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) summarizing their S.B. 35 (1972) review of the proposed Levitt Subdivision. In particular we have considered the CGS concerns regarding the potential for sinkholes and their recommendation that each building site be drilled and/or investigated by shallow geophysical surveys to characterize the Eagle Valley Evaporite below the basalt. This letter has been prepared to present our comments on the CGS recominendations. Our previous geologic study of the subdivisions indicates that the basalt flows below the proposed building sites are likely to be from 50 to 200 feet thick (Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, 1995). This is based on the basalt outcrop pattern along the escarpment just to the south and west of the rolling upland where the building sites are planned. We did not observe evidence of sinkholes in the area. Considering the probable thickness of the basalt and absence of sinkholes, it seems reasonable to infer that there is a relatively low risk that the proposed building sites will be subject to sinkhole related problems during the buildings service life, even if subsurface voids are present in the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite. Exploratory borings through the 50 to 200 feet of basalt would be relatively expensive and thick basalt would make geophysical evaluations of subsurface voids questionable. It is our opinion that deep subsurface exploration at individual sites to address sinkhole potential within -OS - Mr. Thomas Levitt April 29, 1996 Page 2 this development would be expensive and would probably not add significantly to our knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site. If there are questions, please call. Respectfully submitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, nvc. Ralph G. Mock Engineering Geologist Reviewed by: 9,400.4 s 244x3 Daniel E. Hardin, Ps ///� �� RGM/ro %V.°. q;SS/O N AL,EN.����� cc: Land Design PartneiTli p 'attention: Ron Liston REFERENCES Colorado Geological Survey, 1996, Proposed Levitt Subdivision (Preliminary Plan) Nr. El Jebel and East of Garfield County Eagle County Boundary, Garfield County: Prepared for the Garfield County Planning Department, Glenwood Springs, Colorado (GA -96-0011, March 28, 1996) Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, 1995, Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed Levitt Subdivision, South of Fender Lane and West of Harmony Lane, Garfield County, Colorado: Prepared for Thomas Levitt, Kansas City, Missouri (Job No. 195 524, December 29, 1995) H -P GEOTECH z q-- P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Z4nC4t'VELL4 allo 4S50C14 TES, INC. ENGEPIEERU(`1G COIiNSULr4r1 r April 2, 1996 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Levitt Subdivision Missouri Heights - Well test report Levitt Trust Well #2 Dear Mark: (970) 945-5700 Enclosed for your review is our pump test report for the Levitt Trust Well #2. This well was investigated to determine its yield and ability to provide the physical water supply to the Levitt Subdivision located at Missouri Heights near El Jebel. The legal source of supply will be provided from the Basalt Water Conservancy District. The contract to acquire water from the district is currently awaiting approval by the Basalt District Board of Directors. We will forward you a final contract when approval is granted. If you have any questions, our require additional information please call our Glenwood Springs office at 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. w/encl cc: wo/encl Tom Levitt Ron Liston CM1cm\952311gar2.ltr Page 1 P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 /`<\ Z4NC4NELL4 4ND 4550014 TES, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS" April 1, 1996 Molly and Thomas W. Levitt Missouri Heights Subdivision P. 0. Box 414740 Kansas City, Mo. 64141 Re: Levitt Trust Well 112 Dear Tom: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax At your request, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. has conducted groundwater investigations to determine the resources available for your proposed Missouri Heights subdivision. A recent pump test has been completed for the Levitt Trust Well 112 to determine the well yield. The well is currently registered as a monitoring (role with Division of Water Resources under permit No. MH -27420 and is located in the NE 1 /4 of the SW 1 /4 of Section 28, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. 2001 feel hoar the West section line and 1470 feet from the South section line. The approximate location of the well is shown on the attached site map (Figure 1). The Levitt Trust Well 1/2 was drilled to a depth of 320 feel and constructed with a 5.5 -inch diameter casing. The water bearing portion of the well is in a sandstone member of We Eagle Valley Formation. The attached Figure 2 has been prepared to illustrate the well construction details. The static water level in the well on March 19, 1996 was 25,1.92 feel below the lop of the well casing. The available drawdown in the Levitt Trust Well 1/2 is approximately 65 feet ( 320 ft - 255 fl). The well was tested on March 19, 1996 by Samuelson Pump Company. A two - horsepower pump powered by an electric generator was installed for the test. A pumping rate of 20 gallons per minute (gpni) was selected and the well was pumped continuously for a 24-hour period. Drawdown and time data collected during the test is presented in the attached Table 1. The drawdown data can be used to determine the yield of a well and associated aquifer. The drawdown is the distance the water level drops frurn tWWe initial static water level and can vary over time dependent on the pumping intensity. We have plotted the pump test data in a drawdown vs. tirrre curve for Well 1/2 as shown on the attached Figure 3. The well drawdown was approximately 1 -fool over the first hour of the test and further dropped to 1.9 feet at the end of the 2,1 -hour test. i he well showed continuous drawdown with time and did not stabilize. The pumping level at 20 gprn stayed well above the pump intake during the pumping test. Figure 4 shows the relative -31- 0 • �.l • _. I L • J 69/8; -- 09 _'— f- - - �•-.- 7C X719) Z.-- Levitt Well #1 • Levitt Trust WeII # 2 _ •tom //�.\ 6eo_`���' �\ • I \ l _ "•I=�^ •,�5. /% moi'-�/\•• -r_.\� -I:.•. —�� �r- • II u 4a�� oft 1. VzE 3• A7 '2i • • If 65R5 \s. �•\�i I II=h • 33 ; If `69C9y I 1 •.6915_.. rt PCS. NMI Ct BT ,rro BY 1 WELL LOCATIONS i-ni r!iTr— -.. 1 – ---.--1>-::::--,, LEVI rr \\, /'lug sn.it„r. ;fin 4110 r/S3{t1711 i ?� rcl i uV'hi1-1 w.v /GP[KC %n'1%J BIC On.!M - KOl Ktrtr 1111010 01.7 01001 1—ice-- e.;; GROUND LEVEL ESTIMATED TOTAL DEPTH 320' SOIL BASALT FORMAT IIITERBEDED HAPOUN/ EAGLE VAI Y FLIRI IA r Juti 0 81) ieu 161) 200 2.10 200 320 • 'z',•,''-- 8f2---CEMEI-s1-1- 7' CID PLAIN Si LEI_ CSG 5 1/2' Sch '10 or (-joss 200 PLAIN EVE WELL CSG ; c- \'AlLR I I VI I. PY5--;:llo 5 1/i-," 1.1). ScI-1 PVL ---- :32 siu 1M [-dal AND ASI 22,1 --. I ------ PVC WU" DE FAIL I47.--1.--,7; i;r• YAP," 191,1 I Fir rum \Ian!, anr-- 1 T_ VI I I --- / jzpl il, 1 / id..(PAP Xi SX,V1 74 ;Lac: P /.7..../. i,7,,it 7.:‘,I3 Pc, ertu 'DM - M-1,1 A.f)Mr 9.0K, 4.0" • - S3- 'I1V, omr m IC. Arre 9 °''' MCNISIOM •Loot 8 , COo P( • 'z',•,''-- 8f2---CEMEI-s1-1- 7' CID PLAIN Si LEI_ CSG 5 1/2' Sch '10 or (-joss 200 PLAIN EVE WELL CSG ; c- \'AlLR I I VI I. PY5--;:llo 5 1/i-," 1.1). ScI-1 PVL ---- :32 siu 1M [-dal AND ASI 22,1 --. I ------ PVC WU" DE FAIL I47.--1.--,7; i;r• YAP," 191,1 I Fir rum \Ian!, anr-- 1 T_ VI I I --- / jzpl il, 1 / id..(PAP Xi SX,V1 74 ;Lac: P /.7..../. i,7,,it 7.:‘,I3 Pc, ertu 'DM - M-1,1 A.f)Mr 9.0K, 4.0" • - S3- TABLE 1 LEVITT TRUST WELL # 2 PUMPING TEST DATA WATER DRAW DATE TIME LEVEL DOWN 1 t' 111' Q (n) (II) Orlin) (min) (grin) 19 Mrn • 96 11:05 AM 254 97 (1 0 19 Ku 96 1 1 116 AM 755 47 1) t, 1 70. 19 -Mai -96 1 1:01 AM 255 42 0.5 2 20 19 -Mar -96 11:08 AM 255.50 U.6 3 20 19 -Mar -96 11:09 AM 255.50 0.6 4 20- 19 -Mar -96 11:11 AM 255.54 0.6 6 20 19 -Mar -96 11:13 AM 255.54 0.6 8 20 19 -Mar -96 11:15 AM 255.54 0.6 10 20 19 -Mar -96 11:17 AM 255.58 0.7 12 20 19 -Mar -96 11:25 AM 255.67 0.8 20 20 19 -Mar -96 11:35 AM 255.75 0.8 30 20 19 -Mar -96 11:45 AM 255 79 0.9 40 20 19 -Mar -96 11:55 AM 255.88 1.0 50 20 19 -Mar -96 12:05 PM 255.88 1 0 GO 20 19 -Mar -96 12:35 PM 255.88 1.0 90 20 19 -Mar -96 01:05 PM 255.88 1.0 120 2U 19-M2r-96 01:35 PM 255.92 1.0 150 20 19 -Mar -96 02:06 PM 255.96 1.0 181 20 19 -Mar -96 02:35 PM 255.96 1.0 210 20 19 -Mar -96 03:06 PM 256.00 1.1 241 20 19 -Mar -96 03:35 PM 256.00 1.1 270 20 19 -Mar -96 04:06 PM 256.04 1.1 301 20 19 -Mar -96 04:35 PM 256.08 1.2 330 20 19 -Mar -96 05:06 PM 256.08 1.2 301 20 19 -Mar -96 11:06 PM 256.50 1.6 721 20 20 -Mar -96 06.06 AM 256.58 1.7 1 141 20 20 -Mar -96 11:15 AM 256 83 1.9 1450 20 RECOVERY TEST DATA WATER DRAW DATE TIME LEVEL DOWN 1 1' 01' Q (II) (lir (niin) (min) (yrni) 20 -Mar -96 11:15 AM 256 83 1.9 1450 (1 0 20 -Mar -96 11:16 AM 256.04 1.1 1451 1 1451.0 0 20 -Mar -96 11:17 AM 756 17 1 7 1452 7 776 0 0 20-Mnr-96 11:10 AM 756 25 1 3 1.10.1 3 411,13 0 20 -Mar -96 11:19 AM 256 21 1 3 1454 4 363 5 0 20 -Mar -96 11:20 AM 256.17 1.2 1455 5 791.0 0 20 -Mar -96 11:21 AM 256 21 1.3 1450 6 242 7 0 20 -Mar -96 11:23 AM 256.17 1.2 1458 8 182.3 0 20 -Mar -96 11:25 AM 256.17 1 2 1460 10 146 0 0 20 -Mar -96 11:27 AM 256.17 1.2 1462 12 121 8 o 20 -Mar -96 11:30 AM 256.17 1.2 1465 15 97.7 0 20 -Mar -96 11:35 AM 256.13 1.2 1470 20 73 5 0 20 -Mar -96 11:45 AM 256.08 1.2 1481) 30 49 3 0 20 -Mar -96 11:55 AM 256.04 1.1 1490 40 37.3 0 20 -Mar -96 12:05 PM 256 00 1.1 15(10 50 30 0 0 20 -Mar -96 12:15 PM 256 00 1.1 1510 61) 75 7 0 20 -Mar -96 12:45 PM 755 92 1 0 15.10 90 17 1 0 20 -Mar -96 01:15 PM 255 88 1 0 15111 170 11 1' 11 20 -Mar -96 01:45 PM 255 83 0.9 1(00 150 10 7 0 20 -Mar -96 02:15 PM 255 83 0 9 1630 100 9.1 0 20 -Mar -96 02:45 PM 255.75 0.8 1600 210 7.9 0 20 -Mar -96 03.15 PM 255.71 0.8 1690 240 7.0 0 21 -Mar -96 11:00 AM 255.58 0.7 2075 1425 2.0 0 715 icu -25 - 30 (N O -45 0 -5 - 10 - 15 - 20 -35 - 40 - 50 -55 - 60 - 65 Levitt Trust well X21 Drawdown vs Time quirgo2 0•°� a. .. r. .. 1 24 -Hour Pump Test 3-19-96 10 100 1000 Time t (minutes) Figure 3 10000 0 - 40 - 80 0 - -120 L cz -160 o -200 I -240 - 280 - 320 Levitt Trust Well #2 Water Depth vs Time I I I ! I I ; I ! ' I I i1 i I I I I I I i I + I I I I - 360 1 24 -Hour pump test 3-19-96 socog,.•.,oe • 10 100 1000 10000 Time t (minutes) Figure 4 depth of the well with respect to the water surface level during the pump test. Based on the available drawdown the well should be able to pump continuously in excess of 100 days at the test rate of 20 gprn. Recovery data for the well was collected for a 24 -Hour period after pumping had stopped. The recovery data is also presented in Table 1. The recovery plotted as residual drawdown is shown in Figure 5. Based on the residual drawdown curve, the well did not display positive recharge characteristics, or in other words the well did not recover at a greater rate than it was pumped. The well did not return lo the original static water level which would indicate that water pumped during the test was from storage in the underlying aquifer and the current recharge rate of the aquifer is less than the pump test flow. Annual water volumes pumped frorn the aquifer will need to be matched or remain less than the annual recharge to the aquifer system. The attached Table 2 presents the estimated water diversion requirements for the proposed 13 residential unit development. We have assumed that each residential unit will have 3.5 people, each using 100 gallons per person per day. We understand that some of the residential units will include guest houses. For purposes of this analysis we have conservatively assumed an additional 3.5 persons for each unit to account for any guest facilities. The irrigated lawn and garden area for each unit was estimated to be 3000 ft' (1500 ft' residential + 1500 ft' guest house) for a total area of 0.9 acres. An additional 0.5 acres of irrigation demand was included to cover any greenbelt or park space within the proposed development. The irrigation consumption requirement was estimated to be 1.87 acre-feet/acre and is distributed over the growing season based on plant demands. The irrigation application efficiency was assumed to be 70% resulting in n diversion requirement of 2.67 acre-feet/acre (1.87/.7). Ari additional demand for 12 livestock was included at a consumption rate of 15 gallons/unit/day. Based on the above assumptions, the peak diversion month would occur in June with a demand of 1.78 acre-feet or 13.4 gallons per minute and the average monthly demand would be 1.18 acre-feet/month or 8.9 gpm. The annual diversion requirement is 14.16 acre-feet. The estimated annual water consumption requirenrent is 4.35 acre-feet, with 1.53 acre -feel attributable to "in house" uses and 2.81 acre-feet horn irrigation and livestock needs. The entire 13 units will require a larger instantaneous peak demand than can he provided for by the well alone. On site storage will be provided to supply peak domestic and fire storage demands. Sizing of storage facilities and associated distribution pipelines will be provided by High Country Engineers. It is our opinion that with proper storage the well will be capable of serving the development's domestic and irrigation needs assuming the aquifer characteristics provide adequate recharge capabilities. We recommend that the aquifer lie monitored on a regular basis so that the water resource can be properly managed. During periods of low recharge (like a 1977 dry year), irrigation from the well at the proposed development might require curtailment if seasonal recharge volumes are low. We recommend that a second well be constructed to provide mechanical reliability to the system. The second well should be constructed at approximately 50% of build out of the subdivision. 'FI re Levitt Well 111 (Monitoring Hole No. 27419) has been constructed but has not been tested and may be suitable for this purpose. Parin 7 -31 — a� 0 -5 - 10 -15 - 20 -25 U-, -30 I o -35 cz -40 0 - A5 50 -55 - 60 - 65 Levitt Trust Well #2 Recovery as Residual Drawdown '\V*:4:46:v' • .'X.X '• 0:4:145.*:ii l I I I ! ! I i I I i i ; i i i 1 ; I i I I! I ! I i ! l{! i I I 1i. ; i ," I 1' . i ' ; ! i . ; ' ; I ; . j '; i 1 24 -Hour Pump Test 3-19-96 10 100 Jt' 1000 10000 Figure 5 ZANCANELLA & ASSOCIATES LEVITT SUBDIVISION DATE: 3126195 Diversion Domestic Commercial Lawn Cpen Space In-house or Other Irrigation Irrigation (1) (2) (3) (4) Januar/ 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 Febuar/ 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 March 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.60 April 0.84 0.00 0.04 0.02 May 0.97 0.00 0.46 0.26 June 0.34 0.60 0.59 0.33 July 0.87 0.00 0.56 0.31 August 0.57 0.00 0.35 0.20 September 0.84 0.60 0.20 0.17 October 0.37 0.00 0.09 0.05 November 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 December 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual 10.23 0.00 2.39 (1) 4 o(_2R's persons/residence gallons/person/day (2) 4 of E2R's !2) Sq. F! of Lawn Irrigation/Unit Total Lawn Application tact (4) Acres of irrigated Open Space Cpen Space Application (af/ac) (5) 4 of livestock units in subaivision gallons per unit per day 1.34 TABLE 2 (values in acre feet) Livestock (5) 0.017 0.015 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.20 26 C0 350 1 CO.00 0 CO 1500 00 0.90 0.50 2.67 12.00 15.00 TOTAL Domestic In-house Consumptive Use Commercial Lawn or Other Irrigation (6) (7) (9) (9) 0.89 0.131 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.117 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.131 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.126 0.00 0.03 1.61 0.131 0.00 0.32 1.78 0.126 0.00 0.41 1.76 0.131 0.00 0.39 1.44 0.131 O.CD 0.25 1.33 0.126 0.00 0.21 1.03 0.131 0.60 0.06 0.86 0.126 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.131 0.00 0.00 14.16 1.535 0.00 1.67 Open Space Irrigation Livestock TOTAL (7) 96 CU for Domestic (8) 96 CU for Commercial (10) (11) (12) 0.00 0.017 0.15 0.60 0.015 0.13 0.00 0.017 0.15 0.02 0.017 0.19 0.18 0.017 0.65 0.23 0.017 0.78 0.22 0.017 0.76 0.14 0.017 0.54 0.12 0.017 0.47 0.03 0.017 0.24 0.00 0.017 0.14 0.00 0.017 0.15 0.94 0.20 4.35 (9) % Lawn Irrigation Efficiency Annual Irrigation CU (af/ac) Elevation (ft) (10) % Open Space Irrigation Efficiency Annual Irngation CU (a(/ac) Eievation (ft) 15.00 0.00 70.00 1.87 7000.00 70.00 1.87 7000.00 (11) °6 CU for !iverstock • 100.00 The proposed wells will be capable of providing the physical supply to the development. The legal water supply can be provided horn contract water with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. The contract water enables use of district water rights to replace or "augment" diversions frorn the development, thus protecting any downstream water rights. Diversions from either well would initially be covered under a temporary exchange plan currently approved by the Division of Water Resources. Use of the contract water will eventually require for [nal approval under a court approved augrnentation.plan at which time only the consumptive portion of water use will have to be replaced. Well permits from the Division of Water Resources will be approved subject to being covered by the Basalt Water Conservancy District temporary exchange plan. Finally, water samples of the pumping discharge were taken from Levitt Trust Well #J2 but have not yet been analyzed by the investiyating laboratory. We will make the results available to you as soon as we receive thein from the lab. We estimate the laboratory results will be available ori April 3rd or 4th 1996. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at (970) 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. /110 4,0 >Ll Z G I �4 Thomas A. Zancanella, P. E. President 9/Ptoi,t- Christopher Manera, P. E. Design Engineer cc: Ron Liston Larry Green CM/mw/95231.wcli1 r ['nue 10 LAD P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 /-<\ Z4P1c4t1ELL4 4N0 ,4s5ocg4rEs, ItIC. ENGINEERIt4G ConsuLranrs April 29, 1996 Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Levitt Subdivision Missouri Heights Dear Eric: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax To supplement our April 1, 1996 pump test letter report, we have collected additional data that is relevant to the Levitt Trust Well #2, tested on March 20, 1996. In our April 1, 1996 letter there was concern over the rate at which the aquifer recovered and whether the pump test resulted in a permanent lowering of the local aquifer. Additional data was obtained by Samuelson Pump Company on March 26, 1996 that showed the water level in the Levitt Trust well #2 was at 254' 7". This level is 4" above the water level measured on March 21, 1996 during the recovery portion of the original test. This would indicate the water level was not permanently reduced by the 24 hour pumping test. We believe this early spring testing period would be the lowest aquifer level of the season and should represent for conservative aquifer estimates. Table 1 (attached) further refines the proposed water uses in the Levitt Subdivision. The total number of proposed units has been reduced to 23 units. 13 single family units - Levitt Subdivision 2 guest Douses - Levitt Subdivision 8 single family units - Reserved by Levitt Family Trust 23 total units upon which property the wells and storage tank are located It was assumed that each of these units will have 1500 ft2 of outside irrigation. It is also assumed that there will be no more than 12 livestock units on the property. Table 1 shows that on the average the proposed homes will divert 12.70 acre feet (7.9 gpm) per year. The peak diversion month will occur in June when 1.61 acre feet (12.12 gpm) will be diverted. We have estimated that 3.98 acre feet (2.47 gpm) will be consumed by the subdivision on an annual average. The well was pump tested at a rate of 20 gpm with a total draw down of approximately 1 .8 feet. During the same period when the well was tested, the water system requirements would be approximately 6 gpm or 30% of the tested rate. It is our opinion that there is a substantial reservoir that can be drawn upon by the proposed Levitt Subdivision. As with any water resource, the supply is dependent upon seasonal recharge. Just as a municipality goes to the field and observes the reservoir level to evaluate their water supply, a prudent homeowners association should measure their water level in their aquifer to evaluate their available supply. We believe that this well is capable of supplying the subdivision needs. We recommended that a backup well be constructed at 50% of build out to provide additional system reliability. At your request we have also provided a revised Figure 2 from our original report showing 254' 11" static water level, measured March 19, 1996. If you have any questions, or require additional information please call our Glenwood Springs office at 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. t leo A Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. President w/encl cc: Tom Levitt Ron Liston CM\cm\95231 \gar4.ilr ZANCANELLA & ASSOCIATES LEVITT SUBDIVISION DATE: 3/28/95 January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December Annual Diversion TABLE 1 (values in acre feet) Domestic Commercial Lawn Open Space In-house or Other Irrigation Irrigation Livestock TOTAL (1) (2) (3) 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.41 0.74 0.00 0.52 0.77 0.00 0.49 0.77 0.00 0.31 0.74 0.00 0.27 0.77 0.00 0.08 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 9.04 0.00 2.12 (1)# of EQR's # persons/residence # gallons/person/day (2) # of EQR's (3) Sq. Ft of Lawn Irrigation/Unit Total Lawn Application (ac) (4) Acres of Irrigated Open Space Open Space Application (af/ac) (5) # of livestock units in subdivision gallons per unit per day (4) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.33 0.31 0.20 0.17 0.05 0.00 0.00 Domestic In-house Consumptive Use Commercial Lawn or Other Irrigation (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 0.017 0.79 0.116 0.00 0.00 0.015 0.71 0.104 0.00 0.00 0.017 0.79 0.116 0.00 0.00 0.017 0.82 0.111 0.00 0.03 0.017 1.46 0.116 0.00 0.28 0.017 1.61 0.111 0.00 0.37 0.017 1.59 0.116 0.00 0.34 0.017 1.30 0.116 0.00 0.22 0.017 1.20 0.111 0.00 0.19 0.017 0.92 0.116 0.00 0.05 0.017 0.76 0.111 0.00 0.00 0.017 0.79 0.116 0.00 0.00 1.34 0.20 12.70 1.356 0.00 1.48 23.00 3.50 100.00 0.00 1500.00 0.79 0.50 2.67 Open Space Irrigation Livestock TOTAL (7) % CU for Domestic (8) % CU for Commercial (10) (11) (12) 0.00 0.017 0.13 0.00 0.015 0.12 0.00 0.017 0.13 0.02 0.017 0.18 0.18 0.017 0.59 0.23 0.017 0.73 0.22 0.017 0.69 0.14 0.017 0.49 0.12 0.017 0.44 0.03 0.017 0.21 0.00 0.017 0.13 0.00 0.017 0.13 0.94 0.20 3.98 (9) % Lawn Irrigation Efficiency Annual Irrigation CU (af/ac) Elevation (ft) (10) % Open Space Irrigation Efficiency Annual Irrigation CU (at/ac) Elevation (ft) 15.00 0.00 70.00 1.87 7000.00 70.00 1.87 7000.00 12.00 15.00 (11) % CU for liverstock 100.00 GROUND LEVEL ESTIMATED TOTAL DEPTH 320' SOIL BASALT FORMATION INTERBEDDED MAROON/ EAGLE VALLEY FORMATION 40- 80- 120- 160- 200- 240- 280- 320- T ;_ -CEMENT 8-24' 24' 7' OD PLAIN STEEL CSG 5 1/2' I.D. Sch 40 or Class 200 PLAIN PVC WELL CSG STATIC WATER LEVEL 254' 11' 3/19/96 275' to 310' 5 1/2' I.D. Sch 40 PVC 32 SLUT ASTM 17-480 AND ASTM 2241 PVC 11 DAIC REVISION WAD[ BT PIM D BY Mfg BT WELL DETAIL • .*r a Tc u ARRI 23. IMO Rlc r tMR 0.1.1 Olt 1U. we .r rnt ••r* en uN •c .v -1i W LEVITT PROPERTY ori A _ t A CQ, -/R I[S /t f Nt:IALf F/N CO/SZ( 1AN T V06r nrn[t In/ -te - des tOJ'P ANNA QOMO, 1TNrrt GAMY* NVl1 11701 tR-+m --14 - BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT WATER ALLOTMENT CONTRACT Pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 37-45-131 Thomas Levitt (hereinafter "Applicant") has applied to the Basalt Water Conservancy District (hereinafter the "District"), a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, organized pursuant to and existing by virtue of Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 37-45-101, et sec ., for an allotment Contract for beneficial use of water rights owned, leased, or hereafter acquired by the District. By execution of this Contract, Applicant agrees to the following terms and conditions: 1. OUANTITY: In consideration of the covenants and conditions herein contained, Applicant shall be entitled to receive and apply to beneficial use .11 cubic feet of water per second from the District's direct flow rights and 14.9 acre feet per year of storage water owned or controlled by the District. 2. SOURCE OF ALLOTTED WATER: Water rights allotted pursuant to this Contract shall be from the District's water rights decreed to the Basalt Conduit, Landis Canal, Stockman's Ditch Extension, or other decrees or water rights hereafter acquired by the District, including the District's contractual right to receive storage water from Ruedi Reservoir. The District shall have the right to designate the water right or Decree of the District from which the Applicant's allotted rights shall be obtained. The Applicant's use of any of the District's water rights shall be subject to any and all terms and conditions imposed by the Water Court on the use of the District's said rights. Exchange releases made from the District's storage rights in Ruedi Reservoir or other works and facilities of the District shall be delivered to the Applicant at the outlet works of said storage facility and release of water at such outlet works shall constitute full performance of the District's delivery obligation. Delivery of water from the District's storage rights in Ruedi Reservoir shall be subject to the District's lease Contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. 3. PURPOSE AND LOCATION OF USE: Applicant will use the waters herein granted for beneficial purposes limited to the augmentation of existing and future wells and other water sources, within or through facilities or upon lands owned, operated, or served by Applicant, which lands are described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto; provided that the location and purpose of Applicant's use of said water shall be legally recognized and permitted by the applicable governmental authority having jurisdiction over the property served. Applicant's contemplated usage for the water allotted hereunder is for the following use or uses: X Domestic/Municipal Industrial/Commercial Agricultural Other Applicant acknowledges that usage of the District's water rights as herein contemplated shall be in lieu of or supplemental to Applicant obtaining or adjudicating, on its own. the right to use certain waters. It is acknowledged that certain locations within the District may not be 1 -y5- susceptible to service solely by the District's water rights allotted hereunder or the District's said water rights may not satisfy Applicant's needs and purposes. To the extent that service cannot be achieved by use of the District's allotted water rights, or in the event said service is inadequate, Applicant may, utilize such other water rights, by way of supplementing the District's water rights, or otherwise, as is necessary to assure water service sufficiently reliable for Applicant's intended purpose or purposes. All lands, facilities and areas served by water rights allotted hereunder shall be situated within the boundaries of the District. The District reserves the exclusive right to review and approve any conditions which may be attached to judicial approval of Applicant's use of the District's water rights allotted hereunder. Applicant agrees to defray any out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the District in connection with the allot- ment of water rights hereunder, including, but not limited to, reimbursement of legal and engineering costs incurred in connection with any water rights adjudication necessary to allow Applicant's use of such allotted water rights; provided, however, in the event anv such adjudication involves more of the District's water rights than are allotted pursuant to this Contract, Applicant shall bear only a pro -rata portion of such expenses. Applicant shall be solely responsible for providing works and facilities, if any, necessary to utilize the District's water rights allotted hereunder for Applicant's beneficial use. Water service provided by the District shall be limited to the amount of water available in priority at the original point of diversion of the District's applicable water right and neither the District, nor those entitled to utilize the District's decrees, may call on any greater amount at new or alternate points of diversion. The District shall request the Colorado State Engineer to estimate any conveyance losses between the original point and any alternate point and such estimate shall be deducted from this amount in each case. The District, or anyone using the District's decrees, may call on any additional sources of supply that may be available at an alternate point of diversion, but not at the original point of diversion, only as against water rights which are junior to the date of application for the alternate point of diversion. In the event the Applicant intends to develop an augmentation plan and institute legal proceedings for the approval of such augmentation plan to allow the Applicant to utilize the water allotted to Applicant hereunder, the Applicant shall give the District written notice of such intent. In the event the Applicant develops and adjudicates an augmentation plan to utilize the water allotted hereunder, Applicant shall not be obligated to bear or defray any legal or engineering expense of the District incurred by the District for the purpose of developing and adjudicating a plan of augmentation for the District. In any event, the District shall have the right to approve the Applicant's augmentation plan and the Applicant shall provide the District copies of such plan and of all pleadings and other papers filed with the Water Court in the adjudication thereof. 4. PAYMENT: Applicant shall pay annually for the water service described herein at a price to be fixed annually by the Board of Directors of the District for such service. Payment of the annual fee shall be made, in full, within fifteen (15) days after the date of a notice from the District that the payment is due. Said notice will advise the Applicant, among other things, of the water delivery year to which the payment shall apply and the price which is applicable to that year. If a payment is not made by the due date, written notice thereof wiII be sent by the District to the Applicant at Applicant's address set forth below. If payment is not X TX- /.CD ILVTTT i AU..T CI)X 2 made within thirty (30) days after said written notice, the District may, at its option. elect to terminate all of the Applicant's right, title, or interest under this Contract, in which event the water right allotted hereunder may be transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of by the District at the discretion of its Board of Directors. In the event water deliveries hereunder are made by or pursuant to agreement with some other person, corporation, quasi -municipal entity, or governmental entity, and in the event the Applicant fails to make payments as required hereunder, the District may, at its sole option and request, authorize said person or entity to curtail the Applicant's water service pursuant to this Contract, and in such event neither the District nor such persons or entity shall be liable for such curtailment. 5. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS: The Applicant agrees that so long as this Contract is valid and in force, Applicant will budget and appropriate from such sources of revenues as may be legally available to the Applicant the funds necessary to make the annual payments in advance of water delivery pursuant to this Contract. The Applicant will hold harmless the District and any person or entity involved in the delivery of water pursuant to this Contract, for discontinuance in service due to the failure of Applicant to maintain the payments herein required on a current basis. 6. BENEFIT OF CONTRACT: The water right allotted hereunder shall be beneficially used for the purposes and in the manner specified herein and this Contract is for the exclusive benefit of the Applicant and shall not inure to the benefit of any successor, assign. or lessee of said Applicant without the prior written approval of the Board of Directors of the District. In the event the water right allotted hereunder is to be used for the benefit of land which is now or will hereafter be subdivided or otherwise held or owned in separate ownership interest by two (2) or more uses of the water right allotted hereunder, the Applicant may assign the Applicant's rights hereunder only to a homeowners association, water district, water and sanitation district or other special district properly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado and then only if such association or special district establishes to the satisfaction of the Basalt Water Conservancy District that it has the ability and authority to assure its performance of the Applicant's obligations under this Contract. In no event shall the owner of a portion, but less than all, of the Applicant's property to be served under this Contract, have any rights hereunder, except as such rights may exist through a homeowners association or special district as above provided. Any assignment of the Applicant's rights under this Contract shall be subject to and must comply with such requirements as the District may hereafter adopt regarding assignment of Contract rights and the assumption of Contract obligations by assignees and successors, provided that such requirements shall uniformly apply to all allottees receiving District service. The restrictions on assignment as herein contained shall not preclude the District from holding the Applicant, or any successor to the Applicant, responsible for the performance of all or any part of the Applicant's covenants and agreements herein contained. _(47- x r.uior cot 7. OTHER RULES: Applicant's rights under this Contract shall be subject to the Water Service Plan as adopted by the District and amended from time to time; provided that such Water Service Plan shall apply uniformly throughout the District among water users receiving the same service from the District. Applicant shall also be bound by the provisions of the Water Conservancy Act of the State of Colorado, the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Directors of the District, the plumbing advisory, water conservation, and staged curtailment regulations, if any, applicable within the County in which the water allotted hereunder is to be used, together with all amendments of and supplements to any of the foregoing. 8. CURTAILMENT OF USE: The water service provided hereunder is expressly subject to the provisions of that certain Stipulation in Case No. 80 CW 253 on file in the District Court in Water Division 5 of the State of Colorado, which Stipulation provides, in part, for the possible curtailment of out -of -house municipal and domestic water demands upon the occurrence of certain events and upon the District giving notice of such curtailment, all as more fully set forth in said Stipulation. 9. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Applicant shall enter into an "Operation and Maintenance Agreement" with the District if and when the Board of Directors finds and determines that such an agreement is required by reason of additional or special services requested by the Applicant and provided by the District or by reason of the delivery or use of water by the Applicant for more than one of the classes of service which are defined in the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Directors of said District. Said agreement may contain, but not be limited to, provision for water delivery at times or by means not provided within the terms of standard allotment contracts of the District and additional annual monetary consideration for extension of District services and for additional administration, operation and maintenance costs, or for other costs to the District which may arise through services made available to the Applicant. 10. CHANGE OF USE: The District reserves the exclusive right to review and approve or disapprove any proposed change in use of the water right allotted hereunder. Any use other than that set forth herein or any lease or sale of the water or water rights allotted hereunder without the prior written approval of the District shall be deemed to be a material breach of this Contract. 11. PRIOR RESOLUTION: The water service provided hereunder is expressly subject to that certain Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the District on September 25, 1979, and all amendments thereto, as the same exists upon the date of this application and allotment Contract. 12. NO FEE TITLE: It is understood and agreed that nothing herein shall give the Applicant any equitable or legal fee title interest or ownership in or to any of the water or water rights of the District, but that Applicant is entitled to the right to use the water right allotted hereunder, subject to the limitations, obligations and conditions of this Contract. 13. CONSERVATION PRACTICES: Applicant shall implement and use commonly accepted conservation practices with respect to the water and water rights allotted hereunder and 4 shall be bound by any conservation plan hereafter adopted by the District, as the same may be amended from time to time. Applicant's Address: P.O. Box 414740 Kansas City, MO 64141 STATE OF ) ) COUNTY OF ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this by Thomas Levitt. APPLICANT: Thomas Levitt ss. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 5 day of . 1996 Notary Public v. - 4q ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT CONTRACT THOMAS LEVITT CONTRACT NO. 269 Application having been made by or on behalf of Thomas Levitt and hearing on said Application having been duly held, it is hereby ordered that said Application be granted and that the attached Water Allotment Contract for .11 cubic feet of water per second from the District's direct flow rights and 14.9 acre feet of water per year of storage water owned or controlled by the District is hereby approved and executed by.and on behalf of the Basalt Water Conservancy District, for the beneficial use of the water allotted in the attached Contract, upon the terms, conditions and manner of payment as therein specified and subject to the following. specific conditions: 1. In the event of the division of the property served by this Contract into two (2) or more parcels owned by different persons, the Applicant shall establish a Homeowners Association or other entity acceptable to the District for the ongoing payment of charges due under the approved Contract following subdivision of the property described in the Application on file with the District and the Applicant shall give notice to purchasers of all or any part of the subject property of the obligation of this Contract, and shall record such notice in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado. Applicant shall pay the District's standard assignment fee upon transfer of this Contract to such Homeowners Association. Applicant and his successors and assigns shall comply with all rules and regulations now existing or hereafter adopted by the District to enforce payment of charges due under the approved Contract by present and future owners of all or any part of the real property served under this Contract. 2. The Applicant shall provide the District proof that the proposed land use of the land to be benefitted by the water allotted hereunder has been approved by the applicable governmental authorities having jurisdiction over such land use, including evidence satisfactory to the District that each lot or parcel to be benefitted hereunder is legally subdivided. 3. By acceptance of this Contract, Applicant acknowledges that within two years of the date hereof or such later date as the District may approve, the Applicant shall file with We Water Court of Water Division No. 5 a water rights plan of augmentation for utilization of water allotted hereunder at the location and for the purposes hereinabove set forth or the Applicant's water allotment as provided in this Contract shall be included in a water rights plan of augmentation to be filed by the District with the expenses thereof to be shared prorata by the Contract holders included in such plan; provided that inclusion of the Applicant's water allotment in the District's plan of augmentation shall be at the District's sole discretion. The District may establish an augmentation plan fee to be paid by the holder of any Contract to be included within a plan of augmentation to be filed by the District, which fee shall be payable in advance of the inclusion of such Contract in a District plan of augmentation and may be based on the District's good faith estimate of the anticipated expense of such plan of augmentation. If such augmentation plan fee paid by a Contract holder exceeds the Contract holder's prorata portion of the actual expenses incurred by the District in completing said plan of augmentation, the District shall refund such excess to the Contract Bolder. II. tDoIwC0 LENm t`wnr a*u -1- -50 -- 4. Any and all conditions imposed upon the release and diversion of water allotted hereunder in any water rights plan of augmentation or other water rights decree of the Water Court for Water Division No. 5 shall be incorporated herein as a condition of approval of this Contract. Granting of this Contract does not constitute the District's representation that the Applicant will receive a well permit or water rights decree for the land to be benefitted hereby. 5. The Applicant's property to be benefitted by the water allotted hereunder is located within an area in which the Applicant's diversion of water may require the augmentation of Blue Creek. The District has incurred extraordinary costs and expenses in connection with the acquisition of water rights which enable the.District to augment Blue Creek. Therefore, the annual contract fee, as well as the Applicant's share of expenses incurred by the District in connection with the augmentation of Blue Creek, may be greater than such fees charged for contract allottees in other portions of the District; provided that such fees charged to Applicant shall not be greater than the fees charged to other allottees similarly situated in the area for which Blue Creek augmentation is required. The District may establish an augmentation plan fee to be paid by the holder of any contract to be benefitted by a plan for augmentation of Blue Creek, which fee shall be payable within thirty (30) days following the District's statement therefore. 6. If Applicant intends to divert water through a well or wells, Applicant shall provide the District a copy of Applicant's valid well permit for each such well before the District is obligated to deliver water for the benefit of Applicant hereunder. 7. The Applicant has acknowledged that the land to be benefitted by the attached Contract is described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Approved this g f c` day of , 1996. BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Attest: By: -7/ B Barbara Mick - Secretary 14 VL'r.CI)ILNTT, T ulor UIIU -2- —J�— P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 x`c Z4Nc4NELL4 AND 455004 TES, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULT/AN TS April 5, 1996 (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax APR 1 0 1996 GAPFhELD COUNTY Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Levitt Subdivision Missouri Heights - Water Quality Test Levitt Trust Well #2 Dear Mark: Enclosed for your review is a summary of the water quality tests performed by Barringer Laboratories for the Levitt Trust Well 112. The water samples were tested for parameters required, and the ColDepartment These parameters pass the Colorado Department Health volatile organic ic chh emicals VOC's)) mandatory standards. If you have any questions, or require additional information please call our Glenwood Springs office at 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. C ristophe Manera, P. E. I Vtow�cR� nA-.CcA^-9 Q Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. President w/encl cc: Tom Levitt Ron Liston CM\cm\95231 \ger3.ltr DELANEY & BALCOMB, P. G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAWER 790 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 ROBERT DELANEY KENNETH BALCOMB IOF COUNSEL) JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL. JR. SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R. GREEN ROBERT M. NOONE TIMOTHY A. THULSON LORI J.M. SATTERFIELD EDWARD 8. OLSZEWSKI SENT VIA FAX TO 927-4069 June 6, 1996 Mr. Raul Gawrys, President Harmony View Homeowners Association Dear Mr. Gawrys: 618 COLORADO AVENUE TELEPHONE 945-6546 TELECOPIER 945-8902 AREA CODE 970 LAWRENCE R. GREEN FAX -945-9769 Re: Harmony Lane Maintenance Agreement This firm represents Tom Levitt, the owner of a proposed subdivision located southwesterly of Harmony View Subdivision. David Brown has advised me that you are now the President of the Harmony View Homeowners Association and therefore the person to whom this letter should properly be addressed. In proceedings before Garfield County on the proposed Levitt Subdivision, it has been suggested, and Mr. Levitt has agreed, that it would be appropriate for the parties who use Harmony Lane to enter into an agreement for the maintenance of the roadway. I have spoken to David Brown several times on this subject and have been advised that Harmony View Subdivision, Pinion Grove Subdivision (Joel Barnes) and Joseph's Meadows Subdivision (Jim Adams) have reached a conceptual agreement on the road maintenance issue. I have now prepared and enclose herewith a draft Road Maintenance Agreement which sets forth my understanding of the conceptual agreement as explained to me by Mr. Brown. In addition to the terms of the enclosed Agreement, I would also note that Mr. Levitt has committed to Garfield County that as part of the subdivision improvements associated with his subdivision, he will improve Harmony Lane from its intersection with Fender Lane to its intersection with Wind River Road, to a chip and seal surface of consistent platform width. Mr. Levitt, as the initial director and officer of the Homeowners Association associated with his subdivision, is willing to sign the enclosed Agreement. I hope the enclosed draft -- 53- Mr. Raul Gawrys June 6, 1996 Page 2 accurately sets out Mr. Brown's discussions with me and. that Harmony View Homeowners Association is likewise willing to execute this Agreement. I have discussed this matter with Cindy Ashcroft, and am providing her with a copy of this Agreement and asking that it be executed by the appropriate officer of Pinion Grove Homeowners Association. I have been unable to locate Jim Adams so I am asking if you would deliver a copy of the enclosed Agreement to him for his review as a member of the Joseph's Meadows Homeowners Association. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. We would very much like to have this matter resolved by June 14, 1996, if possible. I am at your convenience to answer any questions you may have. Very truly yours, DELANEY & BALCOMB, P.C. By: v LRG:bd Enc. cc: David Brown (via FAX 925-2258) Cindy Ashcroft (via FAX 920-2020) Tom Levitt Mark Bean (w/enc.) Lawrence R. Green ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of June, 1996, by and between HARMONY VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; PINION GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; JOSEPH'S MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; and LEVITT SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. RECITALS 1. Harmony View Subdivision is a subdivision located primarily in Eagle County and partially in Garfield County, Colorado, consisting of seven (7) lots, six (6) of which utilize a road known as Harmony Lane for access. The owners of each of the six lots within Harmony View Subdivision that utilize Harmony Lane as access are members of the Harmony View Homeowners Association. 2. Pinion Grove Exemption is a subdivision located in Garfield County, Colorado, consisting of four (4) lots. The owners of the 4 lots within Pinion Grove Exemption constitute the members of the Pinion Grove Homeowners Association. 3. Joseph's Meadows Subdivision is a subdivision exemption located in Garfield County, Colorado, consisting of three (3) lots. The owners of the 3 lots within Joseph's Meadows Subdivision exemption constitute the members of the Joseph's Meadows Homeowners Association. 4. Levitt Subdivision is a proposed subdivision located in Garfield County, Colorado, Subdivision, proposed to consist of thirteen (13) lots. The owners of the 13 lots within Levitt Subdivision will constitute the members of the Levitt Subdivision Homeowners Association. 5. The owners of the twenty six (26) lots referenced in paragraphs 1 through 4, inclusive, above, each use portions of Harmony Lane for access to their respective properties, all as more fully set forth hereinbelow. 6. The parties hereto have reached the following agreement with respect to sharing the costs of the future repair and maintenance of Harmony Lane and wish to memorialize said agreement in writing. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the keeping and performance of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Harmony Lane. Harmony Lane is hereby defined as that certain existing roadway located just westerly of the Eagle County/Garfield County line, from its intersection with Fender Lane -55- (County Road 102) southerly to its intersection with Wind River Road. For purposes of this Agreement, Harmony Lane shall be further divided into three sections, defined as follows: a. North Section shall mean that portion of Harmony Lane of approximately feet in length from the intersection of Harmony Lane and Fender Lane to the intersection of Harmony Lane and the northerly entrance into Harmony View Subdivision; t - b. Center Section shall mean that section of Harmony Lane of approximately feet in Length from the intersection of Harmony Lane and the northerly entrance into Harmony View Subdivision to the intersection of Harmony Lane and the southerly entrance into Harmony View Subdivision, which is the same point as the entrance into Joseph's Meadows Subdivision; c. South Section shall mean the section of Harmony Lane of approximately feet in length from the intersection of Harmony Lane and the southerly entrance into Harmony View Subdivision and Joseph's Meadows Subdivision to the intersection of Harmony Lane and Wind River Road. 2. Use of Harmony Lane and Sharing of Repair and Maintenance Costs. The parties wish to share the ongoing and future repair and maintenance costs of Harmony Lane on a prorata basis, determined according to the number of users of each section of Harmony Lane. The parties therefore agree that the sections of Harmony Lane are used as stated below, and that costs of repair and maintenance of each section of Harmony Lane shall be shared as follows: a. North Section is used by 26 lots, consisting of 6 lots in Harmony View Subdivision, 3 lots in Joseph's Meadows Subdivision, 4 lots in Pinion Grove Exemption, and 13 lots in Levitt Subdivision. The cost of ongoing and future repair and maintenance of the North Section will be divided into 26 equal parts and each lot using the North Section will be allocated 1/26th of said cost. b. Center Section is used by 24 lots, consisting of 4 lots in Harmony View Subdivision, 3 lots in Joseph's Meadows Subdivision, 4 lots in Pinion Grove Exemption, and 13 lots in Levitt Subdivision. The cost of future repair and maintenance of the Center Section will be divided into 24 equal parts and each lot using the Center Section will be allocated 1/24th of said cost. c. South Section is used by 17 lots, consisting of 4 lots in Pinion Grove Exemption, and 13 lots in Levitt Subdivision. The cost of repair and maintenance of the South Section will be divided into 17 equal parts and each lot using the South Section will be allocated 1/17th of said cost. Road Maintenance Agreement 6/6/96 Draft Page 2 - 56- 3. Method of Payment of Road Maintenance Costs. a. Obligation of Homeowners Association. The obligation to pay the proportionate share of the Harmony Lane repair and maintenance costs, as allocated above, shall be the responsibility of and shall be paid by the Homeowners Association for each affected subdivision. The sums due from each Homeowners Association shall be determined by the number of lots whose owners are members of each such association who use the various sections of Harmony Lane as specified herein. It is anticipated that such Homeowners Association shall assess each lot whose owners are members of such Association such lot's allocated share, provided, however, that the precise manner in which each Homeowners Association collects the monies from the individual lot owners shall be in accordance with the applicable internal documents and procedures of each Homeowners Association. b. Manner of Assessment. Prior to May 31 during each year of the term of this Agreement, the Presidents, or such other representatives as may be designated in writing, of each Homeowners Association which is a party hereto, shall meet and confer with respect to items of routine repair and maintenance of Harmony Lane which may be expected during the succeeding twelve (12) months. Upon the unanimous agreement of such representatives, each Homeowners Association shall, within twenty (20) days, pay to a joint road maintenance fund the total amount due from each such Association, which shall be equal in amount to the cumulative amount allocated in accordance witih this Agreement to the lots whose owners are members of such Association. Upon reaching such agreement, the representatives shall designate one of their number to negotiate and enter into such contracts for services with third parties as are appropriate to cause the anticipated repair and maintenance to be accomplished. The cost for such services shall then be paid from the sums deposited into the road maintenance fund by the parties hereto. In the event that the representatives of the Homeowners Associations are unable to reach unanimous agreement with respect to items of repair and maintenance and allocations therefor, the Harmony Lane road maintenance allocation for each lot within each subdivision party hereto shall remain the same as said allocation for the preceding year and the amount due from each party hereto shall be the same as in the preceding year. Allocations for emergency or extraordinary repair and maintenance to Harmony Lane shall be made in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the Homeowners Associations party hereto shall have the authority to contract and pay for such emergency or extraordinary repair and maintenance to Harmony Lane by following the same procedures as those set forth herein for routine repair and maintenance. Road Maintenance Agreement 6/6/96 Draft Page 3 4. Term of Agreement. The initial term of this Agreement shall be for a period of ten (10) years, and shall thereafter automatically renew for successive five (5) year periods; provided, however, that this Agreement shall terminate automatically upon the earlier of (i) the acceptance of the responsibility for repair and maintenance of Harmony Lane by any state, county, municipal, or quasi -municipal (such as a road maintenance district) entity, or (ii) the anniversary date of this Agreement in the year 2051.. 5. Additional Users of Harmony Lane. The parties recognize and agree that as of the date hereof there are other users of Harmony Lane who are not parties to this Agreement, and further recognize that there are other lands susceptible of development that may use Harmony Lane as access (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Additional Users of Harmony Lane"). The parties hereby agree that this Agreement may be amended without their further consent by the -addition of Additional Users of Harmony Lane so long as such Additional Users of Harmony Lane agree to pay their proportionate share of the repair and maintenance costs of Harmony Lane allocated in accordance with the concepts established by this Agreement, and provided further, that such Additional Users of Harmony Lane execute and deliver to the parties hereto a memorandum indicating their agreement and the necessary changes in the number of users of the various sections of Harmony Lane and the resultant changes in allocation of costs. 6. Miscellaneous. a. Governing Law and Venue.. This Agreement shall be governed by, interpreted under, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. The parties agree that any action to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be brought in the District Court in and for Garfield County, Colorado, and that such court shall be the exclusive venue within Colorado for any such action. b. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior understandings and agreements between them with respect thereto. c. Recovery of Attorney Fees. In the event suit is brought to enforce or interpret any part of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover, as an element of its costs of suit and not as damages, reasonable attorney fees as determined by the Court. d. Titles and Captions. The headings used in this Agreement are for purposes of convenience only and shall not be used in interpreting this Agreement. e. Signatures in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall constitute a single agreement and each of which shall be an Road Maintenance Agreement 6/6/96 Draft Page 4 -5B- original for all purposes. It is agreed and understood that the signatures of the parties on a copy hereof transmitted by facsimile shall be sufficient as if an original signature. f. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, unenforceable or illegal for any reason whatsoever, such provision shall be severed from this Agreement and shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. HARMONY VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION By President PINION GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION By President JOSEPH'S MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION By President LEVITT SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION By President Road Maintenance Agreement 6/6/96 Draft Page 5 -59- COMINIUMfY DINE LopmEbir l)EI'AI(If�1LM1 (.303) 120 0130 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Mark Bean David Michaelson Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81.603-3303 RE: Barnes Subdivision Exemption Dear. Mark & Dave: 500 BROADWAY P.O. I)OX 179 EAGLE. COLORADO 81331 fAx: (303) 328-7185 March 29, 1995 Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the Barnes request for Exemption from the Garfield Subdivision Regulations. Our concern is only LlraL of the harmony Lane and only in as much as we would suggest that your applicant concern him/Herself with use and/or maintenance agreements with other property owners that: use that: same said private road. Allow me to further explain: Ifarmony Lane i.s a private road and basically came into existence w,1.th 'the subdivision of harmony View which .i.s largely in Eagle County. A small portion of that property i.s in Garfield County and that portion contained all of Harmony 1,ano. 1n order to proceed with the subdivision of harmony View, the applicant agreed to improve that private road to a minimum standard. 'I'h.i.s improvement was collateralized through a Subdivision Improvement Agreement which has since been .inspected and released. An intergovernmental agreement was entered into between Garfield and Eagle Counties giving Eagle County the right: and responsibilities of subdivision, zoning and improvements to that portion of Harmony V i.ew within Garfield County. Subsequently, a proposal for an exemption (Jim Adams?) was received by your office proposing access directly onto the improved portion of Harmony Lane. 1L i.s my understanding that Mr..__4dams and Harmony View Subdivision (Kip Koski.) came to a private agreement concerning the future maintenance of harmony Lane. Consequently, we would suggest; that the current applicant enter into a similar agreement for maintenance with both the Adams Exemption property owners in Garfield County and Harmony View property owners in Eagle County. We would further suggest that the portion of harmony Lane that will be uti l i.zed by the new Barnes Exemption property owner and has not been improved since .it is not within the Harmony View Subdivision, be similarly improved to a minimum standard. That standard in Eagle County includes 4' borrow ditches, 2' shoulders, two 10' lanes and 3-"1" of compacted aggregate base course. -60 • Messrs. Bean and Michaelson March 29, 1995 Page 2 This communication is at the request of one of the IIarmony View property owners. As such, and given that IIarmony Lane is a private access easement, these remarks are intended as suggestions only. -It should probably remain incumbent upon your applicant and the affected property owners to come to appropriate agreements in much the same manner that Adams and Koski arrived at an equitable solution. I am at your service if you would w.i.sli to further discuss this matter. Sincerely, Paul B. Clarkson AiC1 Planner cc. Keith Montag Sid Fax Jim Fritze BoCC chrono ROBERT DELANEY KENNETH BALCOMB ;OF COUNSEL) JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R. GREEN ROBERT M. NOONE TIMOTHY A. THULSON LORI J.M. SATTERFIELD EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI DELANEY & BALCOMB, P. G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAWER 790 GLI:NWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81002 April 30, 1996 Mr. David Brown, President Harmony View Subdivision c/o Stryker/Brown Architects, P.C. 300 S. Spring Street, Suite 300 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Levitt Subdivision 6,8 COLORADO AVENUE TELEPHONE 945-9546 TELECOPIER 9456902 AREA CODE 970 LAWReNce R. GREEN FAX -945.9769 Dear David: Initially, I want to thank you for taking the time to discuss with me the present situation on Harmony Lane. As I understand it, the Harmony View Homeowners Association, the Homeowners Association for the Barnes Subdivision Exemption (Pinion Grove) and Jim Adams (owner of another small subdivision in Garfield County that uses Harmony Lane for access) have reached conceptual agreement for sharing the cost of ongoing maintenance of Harmony Lane. This conceptual agreement is reflected in a letter memorandum dated February 5, 1996 from you to Mark Bean of Garfield County. At this point, however, the conceptual agreement has not been memorialized in a formal written agreement. I have now had the opportunity to discuss the conceptual road maintenance agreement with Tom Levitt, the proponent of the Levitt Subdivision in Garfield County. He is in agreement with the conceptual road maintenance plan you explained to me and will participate in the payment of future road maintenance costs of Harmony Lane on the same prorata basis as the other participants. With respect to reimbursement of initial capital costs, however, Mr. Levitt has some level of concern. As I mentioned to you, Garfield County staff is recommending that Harmony Lane be improved over its present condition. The level of recommended improvement is not clear, nor is it clear what the Garfield County Commissioners' decision will be on this issue. Mr. Levitt is prepared to offer to Garfield County to improve Harmony Lane to a Z- 3Y : Community 1)cvclapmtlnt 1>cpartment (70) 328 873() Fax. (970) 378-71;45 .1171): (')70) 328-8797 5- 8-96 ; 9:35 ;Commun i tyIi ve l opment-+ 9157785;# 1/ 1 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Er; : McCafferty (_ ;cid County Planning Department 109 lith Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Levitt Subdivision Dear Eric: [trj:---1/AV 111) T44-* G Cagle County Building ) !lox i./O 5O) Broadway Color(l4) 41 11-0179 May 8, 1996 Please accept my apologies for the lack of a timely response to the referenced item. Our work load is such that we sometimes are unable to respond at all. The proposed Levitt Subdivision's docuuncnts indicated that the majority of the traffic will travel on and through Eagle County roads. Eagle County requires an off tiite road improvements agreement for its subdivisions which requires the applicant to make any identified off-sitc road improvements or in lieu of that, a $1,000.00 contribution to a road improvement fund. 1 have been asked to request of Garfield County the exploration the possibility of developing a tool by which Eagle County can mitigate the impact o.fthis subdivision to its roads. This could be by way of an 1CiA that considers such a "contribution" or any by any other means that Garfield may suggest. It has also come to my attention that Harmony lane through the I-Iarmony Subdivision may have been dedicated to the public on the two plats. I can only say that if this is the case (I have not verified it), it was inadvertent. I don't believe that it was intended to dedicate the road to the public. My main concern here is that I would question whether or not the IGA between Garfield and Eagle County regarding this subdivision granted the authority to Eagle County to make such a dedication. This issue may require exploration by our respective Attorney's Offices. Feel free 10 contact me if you wish to further discuss the matter. Sincerely, Paul E. Clarkson AICN filanner cc: Robert Loeffler, Asst. County Attorney Sid Fox, Planning Manager Keith Montag, Community Development Director Chrono 1V1ij 7: J0riJl Jlalliir. - r.-,._uiiu 12 0. LY.:v2 F1rom:OFFICE / MK "'NG iy Harmony View Homeowners Association c/o David P. Brown, President P.O.Box 91, Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-2254 (o), 963-1998 (h) Mr. Lawrence R. Green Delaney ST.. Balcomb fax: 945-9769 Raul Gawrvs, Vice President, 927-4411 (o), 963-4790 (h) Kip Koski, Secretary -Treasurer, 963-2098 (h) May 7, 1996 Re: Leavitt Subdivision/Harmorty Road Maintenance Agreement Dear Larry: I have reviewed your letter of April 30, 1996 with the Harmony Homeowners. We believe that if we can reach an understanding on a few issues relating to the Leavitt subdivision, we can support your application before Garfield County, perhaps by tomorrow's meeting. We share Mr. Leavitt's desire to reach and agreement to our mutual benefit. Our concerns address the road, the number of units, and water resources. I hope you and Mr. Leavitt agree that these concerns will be shared by your potential buyers as well. ROA.DW IMPROVEMENT Given that the number of dwellings that will be using Harmony Road is greater than the minimum for a "CHIP ANC) SEAL" road (20 residences) as required by several jurisdictions in the area, we think that Harmony Road should be surfaced with "CHIP AND SEAL". Because your new homes are increasing the traffic and impacts beyond the existing, your subdivision should bare the expense. Because the base for a "CHIP AND SEAL" road is substantially in place and was paid for by others, it seems fair to reimburse the Harmony View, Adams, and Barnes subdivisions fur their expenses to date. That was the basis for understanding that we reached with the Barnes': PEAK DEVELOPMENT has agreed to the following agreement with Harmony View Subdivision Homeowners' Association. 1. Fair (not full) reimbursement of Harmony View and Jim Adana for road improvement costs on a prorata basis . (ie, pro -rata per distance travelled). 2. Fair sharing of maintenance costs on a prorata basis per distance travelled. 3. Seeking a government to redesignate the road as a public road at a future date. 4. Sharing of expenses to create the Road Maintenance District on a prorata basis. I have not yet approached Cindy Ashcroft (Barnes) or Joel Barnes to discuss this, but I assume they we seek the same reimbursement from you that we are to receive from them. We would like to see this reimbursment occur prior to the signing of an aggreement. Another reason this seems fair to us is that had the road not been improved to it current standard, you would now be required to make an even greater investment at this time. To reduce the speed traffic (and your expense), we recommend maintaining the existing width of the road_ 1'v'lay. 199b / ��' uYl� I1 U 6:JJc. r. 1, Ftoris,OFF IOE ; M1 TNG Mr. Lawrence R. Green, 5.7.96, page 2 In order to reduce the "through" traffic, it seems reasonable to only Chip and seal from the intersection of Fender to Wind River Roads. Also, a sign at the intersection of Fender saying "NO OUTLET" should be installed at a cost to all homeowners on a prorata basis. We also request that either you or the Bameses complete the work (up to the Eagle County Standards as they agreed) on their section of the Harmony Road prior to our signing an agreement. MAINTENANCE As outlined above in the agreement of principle with Barnes, we ask you agree to these outline terms and to enter a Maintenance District. 1 have not yet drafted such an agreement in detail. NUMBER OF UNITS To reduce the traffic and other impacts (such as water) we request you reduce the total number of dwellings (including accessory, caretaker, granny units) to 10. This will give you an approximate net usable density (discounting cliffs) to 4 units per acre +/-. This is more in keeping with the density of our neighborhood. I believe you will find this product more marketable and profitable, and it will not reduce the "existing property values" as the more dense project as proposed may. WATER Your subdivision and all those on Missouri Heights share the same water table. Currently, Garfield and Eagle Counties do not consider the impacts of development in adjacent jurisdictions when reviewing applications for new subdivisions. We do not have a comfort level that your project will not be the one that puts the Water Table below its "carrying capacity". We request you fund an independant licensed water engineer consultant to address the `carrying capacity" of the water table - aquifer that serves the Missouri Heights area. We would like you and Mr. Leavitt to agree to these "conditions" prior to our entering into a "road inaintenance and improvement agreement". I look forward to discussing these with you and Mr. Leavitt and working on a resolution to our collective benefit. Sincerely, HARMONY VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION David P. Brown, President INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO AND THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO H;S INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, made and entered into this //" day of.Q 'r, 199, by and between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, a body corporat4' and politic, by and through its Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as "Eagle County"), and the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, a body corporate and politic, by and through its Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as "Garfield County"). W I T N E S SETH : WHEREAS, Kip and Wendy Koski have applied to Eagle County for subdivision approval for the Harmony View Subdivision (hereinafter referred to as "the Subdivision") in accordance with and pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Subdivision is located within a contiguous portion of Eagle County and Garfield County; and WHEREAS, Eagle County and Garfield County desire to enter into an agreement to authorize Eagle County to have jurisdiction over that portion of the Subdivision, which lies in Garfield County, for planning and zoning purposes only, which shall include establishing and enforcing zoning and land use regulations except as otherwise provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, Eagle County and Garfield County, for the considerations set forth, agree as follows: 1. Authority This Agreement is entered into under the authority of local governments of the State of Colorado to contract with one another for the joint provision of services or functions which they can provide individually; Section 29-1-201, et seq., C.R.S. as amended, and Article XIV, Section 18, Colorado Constitution. 2. Scope of Agreement A. Eagle County shall have the authority to administer and enforce its Land Use Regulations, including its zoning, subdivision and public improvement requirements for the entire Subdivision, including that part that lies in Garfield County, as shown in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. B. Eagle County shall not issue any building permits for construction of any improvements or structures on that part of the Subdivision located within Garfield County. 3. Modifications and Waiver No modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless such modification is agreed to in writing and signed by Eagle County and Garfield County. 4. Term of Agreement This Agreement shall commence upon the signing of said Agreement, and shall be perpetual. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause upon thirty days' written notice to the other party. 5. Notices Any notice provided for herein shall be given in writing by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: GARFIELD COUNTY: c/o Garfield County Attorney 109 - 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 EAGLE COUNTY: c/o Eagle County Attorney P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 6. Miscellaneous Provisions • A. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed to confer upon nor grant to any third party any cause of action, right to sue, or allow any claim against either Eagle County or Garfield County or their officers, agents, or employees because of any services provided hereunder or any breach hereof or because of any terms, covenants, agreements or conditions contained herein. B. This written Agreement embodies the whole agreement between the parties hereto, and there are no inducements, promises, terms, conditions or obligations made or entered into by either Eagle County or Garfield County other than those contained herein. C. This Agreement shall be binding upon .the respective parties hereto, their successors or assigns, and may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other respective party hereto. D. All agreements and covenants herein are severable, and in the event that any of them shall be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be interpreted as if such invalid agreement or covenant were not contained herein. -2- E. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that either of the parties hereto does not possess the legal ability to enter into this Agreement, this Agreement shall be considered null and void as of the date of such court determination. IN WETNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the 2/-- day of Na-dt-mer, , 199k ATTEST: By: COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO and Through Its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS ONERS Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: By: C erk of the Board of County Commissioners By 404.-Vjtr .- ,., C firman Ri hard L.fson Gus COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO By and Through Its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By V :L" -€'Q -3- /c-7-9J , Chairman Uo. 3'3 3 r, i. Frora:0FFICE / MI;TNG Mr. Lawrence R. Green, 5.7.96, page 2 In order to reduce the "through" traffic, it seems reasonable to only chip and seal from the intersection of Fender to Wind River Roads. Also, a sign at the intersection of Fender saying "NO OUTLET" should be installed at a cost to all homeowners on a prorata basis. We also request that either you or the fiarneses complete the work (up to the Eagle County Standards as they agreed) on their section of the Harmony Road prior to our signing an agreement_ MAINTENANCE As outlined above in the agreement of principle with Barnes, we ask you agree to these outline terms and to enter a Maintenance District. 1 have not yet drafted such an agreement in detail. NUMBER OF UNITS To reduce the traffic and other impacts (such as water) we request you reduce the total number of dwellings (including accessory, caretaker, granny units) to 10. This will give you an approximate net usable density (discounting cliffs) to 4 units per acre +/-. This is more in keeping with the density of our neighborhood. 1 believe you will find this product more marketable and profitable, and it will not reduce the "existing property values" as the more dense project as proposed may. WATER Your subdivision and all those on Missouri Heights share the same water table. Currently, Garfield and Eagle Counties do not consider the impacts of development in adjacent jurisdictions when reviewing applications for new subdivisions. We do not have a comfort level that your project will not be the one that puts the Water Table below its "carrying capacity". We request you fund an independant licensed water engineer consultant to address the "carrying capacity" of the water table - aquifer that serves the Missouri Heights area. We would like you and Mr. Leavitt to agree to these "conditions" prior to our entering into a "road maintenance and improvement agreement". I look forward to discussing these with you and Mr. Leavitt and working on a resolution to our collective benefit. Sincerely, HARMONY VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION David P. Frown, President INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO AND THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO I'z-IS-Zg __ITU INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, made and entered into this # day of.R 199, by and between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, a body corporat))and politic, by and through its Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as "Eagle County"), and the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, a body corporate and politic, by and through its Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as "Garfield County"). W I T N E S SETH : WHEREAS, Kip and Wendy Koski have applied to Eagle County for subdivision approval for the Harmony View Subdivision (hereinafter referred to as "the Subdivision") in accordance with and pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Subdivision is located within a contiguous portion of Eagle County and Garfield County; and WHEREAS, Eagle County and Garfield County desire to enter into an agreement to authorize Eagle County to have jurisdiction over that portion of the Subdivision, which lies in Garfield County, for planning and zoning purposes only, which shall include establishing and enforcing zoning and land use regulations except as otherwise provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, Eagle County and Garfield County, for the considerations set forth, agree as follows: 1. Authority This Agreement is entered into under the authority of local governments of the State of Colorado to contract with one another for the joint provision of services or functions which they can provide individually; Section 29-1-201, et seq., C.R.S. as amended, and Article XIV, Section 18, Colorado Constitution. 2. Scope of Agreement A. Eagle County shall have the authority to administer and enforce its Land Use Regulations, including its zoning, subdivision and public improvement requirements for the entire Subdivision, including that part that lies in Garfield County, as shown in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. B. Eagle County shall not issue any building permits for construction of any improvements or structures on that part of the Subdivision located within Garfield County. 3. Modifications and Waiver No modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless such modification is agreed to in writing and signed by Eagle County and Garfield County. 4. Term of Agreement This Agreement shall commence upon the signing of said Agreement, and shall be perpetual. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause upon thirty days' written notice to the other party. 5. Notices Any notice provided for herein shall be given in writing by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: GARFIELD COUNTY: c/o Garfield County Attorney 109 - 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 EAGLE COUNTY: c/o Eagle County Attorney P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 6. Miscellaneous Provisions A. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed to confer upon nor grant to any third party any cause of action, right to sue, or allow any claim against either Eagle County or Garfield County or their officers, agents, or employees because of any services provided hereunder or any breach hereof or because of any terms, covenants, agreements or conditions contained herein. B. This written Agreement embodies the whole agreement between the parties hereto, and there are no inducements, promises, terms, conditions or obligations made or entered into by either Eagle County or Garfield County other than those contained herein. C. This Agreement shall be binding upon the respective parties hereto, their successors or assigns, and may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other respective party hereto. D. All agreements and covenants herein are severable, and in the event that any of them shall be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be interpreted as if such invalid agreement or covenant were not contained herein. -2- E. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that either of the parties hereto does not possess the legal ability to enter into this Agreement, this Agreement shall be considered null and void as of the date of such court determination. IN W TNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the 17 -43P -day of 199As. ATTEST: By: CA/ Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: B County Commissioners 4p COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO and Through Its BOARD OF COUNTY rajL a• COMMISS +HERS\ at "-cloy C erk of the Board of Ft 00 By Ri hard L. Gusfson COUNTY OF GARFIELD; STATE OF COLORADO By and Through Its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS irman -3- /0-7-9/ , Chairman t-‹. 486912 B-962 P-257 12/26/95 04:39P PG 1 OF 8 REC DOC NOT MILDRED ALSDORF GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER 41.00 DEED OF EASEMENT JASPER JOHNS, whose address is c/o Norman Sloane, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Harrison,1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration in hand paid by THOMAS W. LEVITT, MOLLY G. LEVITT AND THE 1993 THOMAS W. LEVITT FAMILY TRUST, whose address is P.O. Box 414740, Kansas City, MO 64141, Grantees, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has given and granted and by these presents does hereby grant unto each of said Grantees, their heirs, successors and assigns, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement 60 feet in width on, along, over and across the premises more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. H Purposes of Easement. The easement granted hereby is for the purposes of the construction, installation, use and maintenance of an ingress/egress roadway and the ' installation, use and maintenance of underground utility lines to the Properties now owned w by Grantees and described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this p reference. E~ Scope of Easement. Grantor acknowledges that the easement herein granted is appurtenant to the Properties described on Exhibit B and that said easement may be utilized as the primary roadway and utility access to such Properties by the Grantees, their heirs, successors and assigns, as such Properties now exist or as they may hereafter be developed in accordance with applicable regulations of Garfield County, Colorado. As such, it is the intention of the Grantor that the within easement shall not provide access to a total of more • than twenty-six (26) subdivided lots on the properties of the Grantees described on Exhibit • B, and that no roadway constructed within the easement shall have greater than eleven (11) • foot lane widths, six (6) foot shoulder widths and six (6) foot ditch widths as provided for • secondary access roadways in the Garfield County road standards. Limitation of Use of Easement. At no time may the access easement granted to Grantees be utilized for parking of vehicles. Indemnification. Each of the Grantees hereby agrees to fully and forever indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless Grantor from and against any and all losses, damages, liabilities, claims or demands for personal injury, property damage or any other form of loss or damage (including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred as a result thereof) arising from or incurred in any way in connection with the use or occupancy by such respective Grantee of the easement granted hereunder. Binding Effect; Covenants Running with the Land. This Deed of Easement and all rights and obligations set forth herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, and shall be deemed to be a burden and benefit running with the properties owned by Grantor and various Grantees, respectively. Retum to: Lawrence R. Green Delaney & Balcomb, P.C. P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 486912 B-962 P-258 12/26/95 04:39P PG 2 OF 8 Attorneys' Fees. In the event that any party hereto retains an attorney for the purpose of enforcing any right or duty arising out of this Deed of Easement, the non - prevailing party in such dispute shall pay the prevailing party the latter's reasonable attorneys' fees, whether or not litigation is actually instituted. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging, or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever of the said Grantor, whether in law or equity, in and to the easement hereby granted to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of each of the said Grantees, their heirs, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed the within Deed of Easement this lam`' day of Qct er, 1995. ecew.be4r"" STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss. COUNTY OF beeztAbeir The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 121'` day of , 1995, by Jasper Johns. WITNESS my hand and official My commission expires: Address: II Ai 31 Qualif - • in New York County Commissi ' Expires March 30, 19 486912 B-962 P-259 12/26/95 04:39P PG 3 OF 8 EXHIBIT A 60.00' WIDE ACCESS DESCRIPTION A 60.00 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NE1/4SW1/4 AND THE NW1/4SE1/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID STRIP OF LAND BEING 30.00 FEET TO EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE S 82°06'44" E 2670.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF HARMONY LANE, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 88°50'17" W ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 61.37 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NW1/4SE1/4; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N 88°50'17" W 56.19 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25°39'21", A DISTANCE OF 134.33 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 76°00'37" W 133.21 FEET); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N 63°10'56" W 33.98 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 150.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42°58'25", A DISTANCE OF 112.50 FEET (CHORD BEARS N 84°40'08" W 109.89 FEET); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S 73°50'39" W 130.47 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°46'56", A DISTANCE OF 108.82 FEET (CHORD BEARS S 84°14'08" W 108.22 FEET); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N 85°22'24" W 45.89 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°21'42", A DISTANCE OF 599.72 FEET (CHORD BEARS S 77°26'45" W 590.78 FEET); THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S 60°15'54" W 97.14 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23°18'33", A DISTANCE OF 73.23 FEET (CHORD BEARS S 48°36'37" W 72.72 FEET) TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NE1/4SW1/4, THE TERMINUS, WHENCE THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28 BEARS N 65°33'42" W 1388.57 FEET; SAID STRIP OF LAND CONTAINING 2.001 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT 13 486912 B-962 P-260 12/26/95 04:39P PG 4 OF 8 Devitt Tnrst Pr° erty_ Parcel 1 SITUATED IN TEP SW1/4 SW1/4, THE N1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4, THE W1/2 5111/4 A PARCEL OF LAND SI AND IN THE NW1/4 SW1/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 877 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, 8COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID THE NEI/4 SWI/ PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COUNTY SURVEYOR'SBRASS BEGINNING AT TSE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28, A GARFI LINE OF LD 11 SECTION 28, 997.11 997. CAP FOUND IN PLACE; TEEN X.89'40' 17'5. ALONG TEP SOUTHERLYPOINT, OBfi N 7.11 FEET TO A REBAR & CAP IN PLACE, LS t 22580, TEP EN EXISTING PENCELINE; THEN N.89'56'19'5. ALONG SAID X.03.23 `54 "E. 1396.62 FEET TO AN SAID pgICEyTRB PEST TO � FIU NORTHWESTERLY 96.34 FEET; TEEN S. 88' 51 ' 41 "E. ALONG AS EINE DESCRIBED 248.00 RECEPTION TION TEE NORTHWESTERLY LIMB OF AN =STING 60 POOP ROAD O� � 15.65 PEST TO TEE EAST -WEST COUNTY RECORDS; THEY 394063 OF THE G�PI�THEN S. 89'45'38"E. 28.99 FEETTO THE SOOTB'WPST CENTERLINE OF THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 28; GAP � PLACE, LS t 22580; THE+'I =mum CORNER OF SECTION 28, A REBAR AND ALS & CAP IN PLACE, CONTINUING ALONG SAID GINE S. 89'45'38TEO•A10�� FEET TO A REBAR & CAP IN PLACE. LS t 22580,; THEN 78 PEST EASTERLY LS t 22580, ; TEEN N.D1'S1'S4"S. 435+ LINE OF SAID NEI/4 SWI/4 OF SECT ION S. 89.45' 38 "E. 250.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE TEEN5%01'51'54'W. ALONG THE NORTH -SOUTH 28, A REBAR & CAP IN PLACE, LS TO THE SOUTH CENTER SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SECTION CENTERLINE OF SECTION 28, 435.78 FEET5.89'45'09"E. 28 (WHENCE A REBAR AND CAP • LS t 2376 BEARS N. 37' 10' 03 "E. 1.28 FEET); THEM A 09. 105.05 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF A ROAD AS CONSTRUCTS AND CENTERLINE IN CE. ALSO BEING A REBAR (9) & CAP IN PLACE, LS t 22580; TEEN CONTINUING ALO NG COURSES: 1) 5.01'14'32"E. 280.88 FEET; 2) S.02.01'43"W. 115.18 FEET; 3) 5.00'39'22"W. 148.53 FEET; 4) S.01'44'39"E. 133.99 FEET; 5) S. 04'28' 45"E. 106.53 S OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1475.00 PEE:', 6) 100.07 FEET ALONG A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03'53'14" (CHORD BEARS S•06'ZS'ZZ"E• 100.06 PEST); � 7) S.08'21'S9'E. 67.98 FEET;TO TBS RIGHT, HAVING A RADIOS OF 126.84 FEET, A 8) 95.23 PEST' ALONG MARC CNA CDR VECENTRAL ANGLE OF 43'01'06' (CHORD BEARS PLACE S.13'08'34'W. 22580,; TEENET))+S.89'43'28'F�• 9) S.3812'03'' . 18.82 FEET TO A REBAR & CAP • A R & CAP IN PLACE. LS t 22580,; TEE110100 N.01'52' 4P8ET . TO 329.19 FEET POINT O.N A TEE REBA30.7P �� & CAP IN PLACE. LS t 22580; THENN.895809� CAP IN PLACE, LS t 22580; THEN NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 28, A REBAR POINT ON T. PAST-1rEST CENTEpLINE 5.02'06'39"E. ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 49.20 FEET t 22580; THEN 5.89'57'05""• A REBAR & CAP IN PLACE. LS OF THE SE1/4 5W1/4 OF SECTION 28, TO k POINT ON THE'NORTH-S0� CFIVTERLI.NE OF TSE 5311,'4 ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 1353.02 FEET PLACE, LS t 22580; TEEN 5.03'23'54'11. ALONG SAID OF SECTION Z8 , A REBAR & CAP IN =NET COMM!'iiON TO SECTIONS 28 AND 33 , A CENTERLINE 686.91 FEET TO TEE WEST SIXTEENTH 5,89'40'1?"K• ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE REBAR { ALUMINUM C,.P IN PLACE, LS t 22580; THEN SECTION 28, 374.54 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 37.547 OF '• ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 486912 B-962 P-261 12/26/95 04:39P PG 5 OF 8 LEVITT TRUST PROPERTY Parcel 2 A PARCEL OF LAND BEING ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NW1/4SE1/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN LYING WESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF HARMONY LANE, AS CONSTRUCTED AND IN PLACE, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE S 89°09'47" E 2594.58 FEET TO THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE S 0151154t E ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NW1/4SE1/4 922.91 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE S 89°45'57" E 82.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF HARMONY LANE; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES ALONG SAID CENTERLINE: 1. S 00`34'25" W 226.20 FEET 2. S 02°28'40" E 91.04 FEET 3. S 06`19'45" E 119.31 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NW1/4SE1/4; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE N 89'44'18" W ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 111.02 FEET TO THE SOUTH - CENTER SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE N 01°51'54" E ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NW1/4SE1/4_435.78 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 0.907 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ' 486912 B-962 P-262 12/26/95 04:39P PG 6 OF 8 LEVITT TRUST PROPERTY Parcel 3 Attached to and forming a part of General Warranty Deed between JASPER JOHNS, Grantor, and THOMAS W. LEVITT, MOLLY G. LEVITT AND THE 1993 THOMAS W. LEVITT FAMILY TRUST, Grantees. A parcel of land situated in the NE1/4SW1/4 of Section 28, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the West Center Sixteenth corner of said Section 28, a rebar and cap, PLS #14111; then S. 03°23'54" W. 1252.96 feet along the North- South centerline of the SW1/4 of Section 28, to the true point of beginning; then S. 89°45'38" E. 1081.15 feet; then S. 01°51'54" W. 120.74 feet to the East- West centerline of the SW1 of Section 28, a rebar and cap, PLS #22580; then N. 89°45'38" W. 1084.38 feet along said East-West centerline to the Southwest Sixteenth corner of Section 28, a rebar and cap PLS #22580; then N. 03°23'54" E. 120.87 feet along the North-South centerline of the SW1/4 of Section 28, to the true point of beginning, said parcel containing 3.00 acres, more or less. 486912 B-962 P-263 12/26/95 04:39P PG 7 OF 8 EXHIBIT B Thomas W. Levitt Property A parcel of land situated in the SW'/4SW'/4, the NW1/4SW1/4 of Section 28, and in the SE'/4SE1/4 of Section 29, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 29, a Garfield County Surveyor's brass cap found in place; then S. 89°55'3T' W. along the Southerly line of said Section 29, 714.33 feet; then N. 51°26'57" E. 980.26 feet to a point on the Easterly line of said Section 29; then N. 04°54'00" E. 777.70 feet to the South sixteenth corner common to Sections 28 and 29; then N. 04°54'00" E. along said Easterly line 17.48 feet to an existing fenceline; then the following four (4) courses along said existing fenceline: 1) S. 89°43'21" E. 489.10 feet; 2) N. 88°56'31" E. 162.00 feet; 3) S. 89°13'29" E. 230.00 feet; 4) N. 89°55'31" E. 78.62 feet; then S. 03°23'54" W. 1396.62 feet to a point on the Southerly line of Section 28; then S. 89°40'17" W., along said line 997.11 feet to the point of beginning; said parcel containing 36.400 acres, more or less. 486912 B-962 P-264 12/26/95 04:39P PG 8 OF 8 EXHIBIT B Molly G. Levitt Property A parcel of land consisting of the SE1/4SE1/4 of Section 29, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield and State of Colorado, EXCEPTING THEREFROM a parcel of land described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast Corner of said Section 29, a Garfield County Surveyor Brass Cap found in place; thence S. 89°55'37" W. along the Southerly line of Section 29, 714.33 feet; thence N. 51°26'57" E. 980.26 feet to a point on the Easterly line of said Section 29; thence S. 04°54'00" W. 612.23 feet to the point of beginning. GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTING HOMES FROM WILDFIRES IN THE LEVITT SUBDIVISION I. RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION All structures shall be designed and constructed in a manner to minimize the possibility of ignition from wildfire. The following design criteria shall be required for construction in the Levitt Subdivision. A. Roofs: Roof construction and materials shall meet a fire resistance classification of "Class C" or its equivalent. B. Vents: Undereave vents shall be located near the roof line rather than near the wall to prevent flames from entering the house through these openings. The vents shall be screened with corrosion resistant, noncombustible wire mesh with the mesh not to exceed, on a nominal basis, 1/4 inch in size. C. Overhangs: Eaves, the undersides of cantilevered balconies and similar undersides of overhangs including stilt supported decks shall be enclosed with materials that equal or exceed 1/2 inch nominal sheathing. D. Exterior Walls: Exterior walls shall be constructed of a least 1/2 inch nominal sheathing or equivalent material with a fire resistance rating of one to two hours and shall extend from ground to roof line. Stucco, brick and rock are recommended on sides of structures where the wildfire hazard may be higher. E. Glazed Openings: Dual pane or triple pane glazing or its equivalent is recommended on all glazed openings. Fire -resistive shutters which can be closed in the event of fire are recommended on sides of the structures exposed to a wildfire threat. F. Chimneys and Flues: Chimneys and flues which serve solid fuel appliances shall be provided with an approved spark arrester. II. DEFENSIBLE SPACE A defensible space 30 feet in width is recommended for generally flat sites, going up to 40 feet on Lots 1, 2 and 3 where building sites may have slopes of up to 20 percent. The Colorado State Forest Service recommends downslope fuel modification for a distance of one hundred feet or more for structures located at the top of steep slopes. Consultation with a local fire department official is recommended to determine appropriate fuel modifications for building sites located in proximity to steep slopes. The following fuel modification procedures should be followed in the creation of a defensible space. - Large native trees, shrub groups and clumps of small trees within the defensible space should be thinned to provide 10 feet of separation between the vegetation canopies, - New plantings should be placed to maintain 10 feet of separation of the vegetation canopies at the mature growth of the plantings. - Grasses within the defensible space should be mowed to 4 inches or less. - All trees taller than 18 feet should have lower branches pruned to a height of 6 feet. - Shrubs and trees should be thinned along driveways to assure access by emergency vehicles. - If not enclosed within a fire resistant structure, woodpiles should not be located within 30 feet from any structures, and flammable vegetation should be cleared for a distance of 10 feet around any woodpile. - Construction materials, leaves and flammable debris should be removed from the defensible space. - Leaves and debris should be removed from roofs at least once a year. - Branches should be separated from chimneys by at least 10 feet. - All liquid propane gas tanks shall be buried. land design partnership July 2, 1996 Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planner 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Levitt Subdivision - Preliminary Plan Dear Eric Attached is a proposed draft of wildfire mitigation criteria for inclusion in the Levitt Subdivision protective covenants. These were compiled from two documents provided by the Colorado State Forest Service and recommendations from the Western Insurance Information Service. Give me a call if you have any questions. Ronald B. Liston pc: Larry Green Tom Levitt P.O. Box 517 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 918 Cooper Avenue (303) 945-2246 • Fax (303) 945-4066