HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.0 PC Staff Report 05.08.1996PC 5/8/96 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 (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). II. 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 / 0 • • 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 ander 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 / l C. 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 COMMEN'T'S 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 area will need a storm water construction permit. See letter, page /2 B. Roaring Fork School District RE -1: Requests impac fees, or land in lieu of impact fees, for the subdivision. See letter, pages /3�'/ . 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 11 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 E. 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. F. 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 2/' LZ • • G. 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 3 . IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Soils: There are three (3) predominant soil types on-site, each with their 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: #43 - 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 potential varies from moderate to severe due to slope and the potential for cutbanks to cave in the Brownsto unit. Constraints to location of ISDS facilities 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 Evaporate, 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 25 #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 a uifer is ess than the pump test flow. See pump test letter dated April 2, pages 2 y . 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 •erm. ent depression in the aquifer. See supplemental pump test letter, pages r • I . It is the opinion of the engineers conducting the test that there is a su . stantial 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 staff's 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 Z3 . 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 ' • 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 rameters were within mandatory, state standards. See water quality letter, page. • • 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 Harmony Lane, across adjacent property, to the applicant's tract. Easements are in place for the access across the adjacent property north and east of the subject tract; however, it appears that Harmony Lane is a private road and access to the proposed subdivision would require easements from the owner(s) of Harmony Lane. The Preliminary Plan submittal indicates that maintenance agreements are currently being negotiated for the use and maintenance of Harmony Lane; however, discussions with representatives of the Harmony View homeowner's association, have indicated that no agreement has been met; therefore, casting doubt on a legal access to the subdivision, at this time. 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, apparently the applicant has considered offering to improve Harmony Lan to a standard largely consistent with Rural Access standards. See letter pages . Although this provision may be difficult to enforce, staff sees the pro osal 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. Staff recommends that the width of the shoulders be the standard six (6) feet, as slope is not a significant issue on this property; therefore, cuts and fills would be minimal as would potential for erosion and, further, ingress, egress and safety would be heightened. 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. Staff suggests that six (6) foot shoulders would assist in meeting these objectives. 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 originally proposed. The engineers have suggested the upgrade from a six (6) inch water line to an (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): Convective heat currents 5 It GJ 0'1 t,s s` 100' I-� setback 1 30' I 90' Structures at the ton of s401,es w,11 require 100' or more NIP! tifu to mitigate increased eKpnture due ru 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 Commission enforces the CSFS recommended setback of 100 feet, then the affected lots may need to be re -drafted. 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/Cornnmon 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. 2. 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. VL • • 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. 5. 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the application, pursuant to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 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. 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. 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: G(:>, �• "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. " "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 su measur which sh ll be a condition of the building permit." 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 ho►neowner'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.resub 'vision of the lots. 13. That all roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards in effect at the time of submittal of the Final Plat. ;i, rd o1- s/-. jp RS_ 14. The Final Plat shall identify building sites that are in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and less than 40% slope. /;5 /5-7 6-7r, 7 (lir/ 1/4 //-/ 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 comrnunity 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. J - /Y 6-" 20. That the applicant complete improvements to Harmony Lane, as specified within the letter to the Harmony View homeowner's association, dated April 30, 1996, prior to selling any lots within the approved subdivision. 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 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. • • v ^• ,`� orb t •�' _._.-.—�--.�:_____ ===G .-F•-= ',� 1, 1---, y t I I - !,, 11 /;'I r / I 111 ._---!',---__ / _� — .;r . r .=q''`_--— _.' _�_i_69/8�O09 _ , _/--7� /6�II --- 29 - er,�_-��• - 7193 11 • • 1000 7< rbo�ul2—�. • • -�� 6600% rn 0 63=8 i3i n 12 _.sem 3 I 6385 l li eR4 NNW O • /rte _______./ 7200 , ...LLL 7348./ � I � - t ^ , I......_,,,. __,_ �, t_ . 1� l/' �r'I 000 b. HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. VICINIFY MAP FoR LEVITY' 923 COOPER AVENUE Subz,N1S10N I I"= ZOOo' GLENW000 SPRINGS, CO 81601 HCE.4"950(1)0.01 2-13-9(0 (303) 945-8676 • FAX (303) 945-2555 T. PRELIMINARY PLAT LEVITT SUBDIVISION A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 28 AND THE SE1/4SE1/4 OF SECTION 29, T.7 S., R.87 W., OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO res..5 SHEET 2 OF 2 6 • t0600- E 162.00' 11C 10 15-01,41 FCC 2/1 IF -001 0.02,14. �.O O.00 01,50E OF .5cnT v c.u[111 lawn 10 -� 5.169 AC. j CLM • t30 ) r Nl ii 50 .: • 10 0 .5w 50 w) » ;i 15 45 .p oo { '9> I1 01•03 w .W W 59 05 • :f••i•f t af6Q1x63x01.66xx66a16— 6�osfaxuo-ral�E•:x� :._ 6NA6x�nIM a 0Nf2llfil6➢MO HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS 923 COOPER AVENUE GLENA00D SPRINGS. COI,ORADO 61601 (970) 945-6676 GRAPHIC SCALE ues IOC • • Subject: Levitt Preliminary plan review Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 17:18:31 -0700 From: dwatson@wic.net (Dwain Watson) Reply -To: dwalson@wic.net To: garcopin©intosphere.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 000 /Z Roaring Fork. $Ghool Oiatrict RE -1 Box 820 1405 Grand Avenue Glenvioo:d 5ptings, Colorado 81602-0820 Telephone (970) 945-6558 March 4, 1996 L:rle fvic(:illlelly (iailicld ('aunty liuil(lini; tL Planning 109 8111 Street (itemwood Springs, CO ) 1(()1 Itl Levitt Subdivision I'ICIinlinflIy Dear �Ir. MC('lIlcrly. rill ,ri -i-;..4t r194 ,iiiFitil71 VV:1--g-tir 14Al? I) 7 199x? fI DR. JAMAS L- 13ADW(S.04,0endenf JAMES C. PHILLIPS, Assistant Supetintendent SHANNON PELLAND, Budget Officer Please aCUC111 0111 rerltlesl fur in111acI Ices ur land in lieu ul impact fees fur IIIe above - referenced subdivision per IIIe attached schedule as u1 if;inally submitted lu you f\ -lay 1994. Please do not hesitate lu call ir you Have any questions Sincerely, OinA/1--0 t/L Sllannull i'cllan(I Budget ()I I iccl 1unc ,L.()(t')'‘( Roaring Fork. School, District RE - Box 820'• 1405 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs; Colorado 81602-0820 Telephone (970) 945-6558 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: CounLy and City Governments Planning Divisions Roaring Fork School District May 30, 1994 REQUEST FOR IMPACT E'EES L)R.JAMES li:. BADER, Supenntendent JAMES C, PHILLIPS, Assistant Supenntenrlent S►IAILNON PELLAND, Budget Office 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 iii this review. During the course of several months, we met with a variety of community representatives, as well as elected officials with the counties' 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 not Lo accept cash in lieu ol: laird dedication. The 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 what 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, James L . Bader Superintendent Enclosures: Supporting data HOUSING TYPE • • TABLE III IMPACT FEES IN LIEU OF LAND Number of Bedrooms 1138 21311 3B1t 4BR 5BR BLENDED (all BRs) SINGLE FAMILY $378 $1104 $2237 $3531 $1358 APARTMENTS $ 56 $344 $1.067 a b $ 312 TOWNHOUSE $162 $219 $ 656 c d $ 485 HIGH RISE $ 24 $ 24 $ 24 e f $ 24 MOBILE HOMES $254 $363 $1410 g ll $ 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 time of study. Based on interpolating data chart would be as follows: a = 1502 c = 1036 e = 24 g = 2348 i = 1411 b = 1937 c1 = 1416 f = 24 h = 3286 j = 1779 Roaring Fork School District RE -1 Box 820 1405 grand Avenue Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81602-0821) Telephone (970) 945-6558 RESOLUTION DR' JAMES L,;, BAQER. Supennlenden( JAMES C. pinups, Assistant Supenn(ondan( SILANNQN f ELLANQ, Budget officer BE IT RESOLVED: The Board of Education of the Roaring Fork School District RE -1 is hereby requesting that al.i affected entities (counties, Cities) collect an impact fee from new developments in the amount of .04 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. iL is understood that although the entities have formulas based upon different allocation methods, all entities are currently using or have available, formulas which reasonably calculate or could calculate that ))umber of students. For those areas which may not: be conducive to school development, the District may accept cash in lieu of land at its option. It would be the responsibility of the developer to establish the estimated fair market value of the land through independent: appraisers. • r-- ,111.)1,11 _1`jl—� ��.,� 1V;,11)n( ii�;�/ U {{ 1 `s;,! : i. it C3 Ir'` ' ..111 f1111 i __..1 .1 1 . March 27, 1990 Eric McCafferty Garfield County Building and Planning 109 131.11 Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 0 1 60 1 Eric, tale FOREST FORE,S'1' ;;1:111 till vivc� Building ±2.! ti. (1111 :;11ccI. 1(1111111 •1111 I;1:uI11 .Ilulrlilln. 1:n1u1:ulu 13153)3 1 cicllli ii -. ('(711) ?1)3-7.125 I inspected the Levitt SlllJ(1 iv i. E;.i oll site wi 1 0 Ron 0 i :i( 011 on March 2211d. '1'11e Sllb(11_V1Sio11 contzliIla Ilea 1 1y 1('V( -`I grass/sage raI:03S aE; well as Pinyon/ juniper It 1 1 sides LI011 (_±x0('c±(i !i09. i; 1 apes . '1'lle building enve 1 0Oes a 1:e s_; i t m11 eel o11 1 11e (1) I1) (3 above these 3L(2(9 slopes. Ron and 1 looked at Jill 13 J,)I oOo3;011 .; i Lr's; . :; i Les 1 through 10 include portions of the Pinyon/juniper vegetation. 1 recommended to Ron that the homes 1/e 111 Lu131 0(1 100 feel from the edge of the slope. This 1 ecc.xunu ucic,L 1 033 00111e31 f 1 0111 1 lice Nal. i 01 la 1. Fire Protection Association (NUPA) 299 S;I rl11W11 d fol 1'f:oLecLiui1 of Life and Property from Wildfire. The p111 J (000 oI 111 i s; recommendation is to avoid convective and 3 a(l 1111)1 heart originating from a wi I clf i re below a s;1 rucl 111 e . This heat could ignite a structure. . '1'lle Colorado State Forest. Service uses the NFPA 299 standard recommendations in all wi I d) 30 1111x.13 d mitigation. 111 dddiLion, clel(1110.3111(:1 updce :;lien1Ii 1((7 implemented around all structures. This defensible space includes i.11col:poraLi 119 landscaping a]ollll(1 the home 1 1111t c1111 he 11)11 i 111 0 i ti( -'d at 6 inches or less f0,' a 10 fool. Iles. iiiiel e1 . Vegetal 3033 beyond the 1.0 foc.)L pet:.inlet er shot! 1 (1 be 1)0111 i 1)11 I <I Led o111 to at 110101 another 30 feet. Within this 40 boot. I Ie 3 i nu l 1'. 3 cle.1Id wood s;Ilut1 1 d be removed and trees sjliou1(1 be thinned s;o the tree 1' 1 c)WII11 are 1101 touching, preferably all least 10 feet <11)dr1 1. visited with ((1 I 1 (;tivc:l t e of the ('ill hun(I,l l c• Five e 11(7(1111111(0111 about; thissubdivision. We I lIIk(:(1 about111e wale!s;l of r(9e, 1 1 i hydrants and existing r0,1(1 system. 1 also v i s i l ed .1 i 111 13011 about the roads. As we discussed <11111 what 1 :;('3 t ((II 111(' 1) 1;111(; t11(' 1 00(1 system .is sufficient fol wiIclI 310 cons 1oI p(13p0031;. '['hank you for the opportunity to I OV i Ol•J this prop.o)s a l . Feel flee to call me with any questions. Sincerely, • ir A. Vince 111.0.1.na Assistant, 1)i :i_1: _1 cl; I''ot este! cc: Guy Meyer -Garfield County Sleet i I 1' .; (Mice Bill GaveLLe -Carbondale 113!1) Ron Liston Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection li)istri 300 Iblca(lowood I)r. Carbondale, Colorado ti 1623 RAH 2 5 1996 Phone (970) 963-2491 (3,4V -41f= ILL) OOiJr(FY Fax (970) 96S-0569 March 21, 1996 1;ric NIcC'aflei ly (iiarfield County Planning 1)el►;lililleill 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, ('O 81001 ItE: Levitt Subdivision Preliminary Plan 1 have reviewed the prelinlina:y plan lit: the Levitt Subdivision comments legal(ling lire protection rot the subdivision I \mild ullei Ilse lulluwln�; The proposed access is essentially the same as pievIously I,:cpused in the sketch plan Access throughout the subdivision appeals to Ile adequate Ii" rue appa'alus The proposaI indicates Ilial wales 101 lice p:uteebo'1 will be supplied 11 0111 it 120,001) gill Ion ski: age talk with lire hydrants supplied lion (, inch wale: mains I have some cuneei 11 whelllei the enol hydrant can provide Ilse 100(1 g.p.'n lire llow indicated ul the p'opusal I noted That Ilse enol hydrant is supplied lions approximately 2210( led ()Idea(' end \valle"nann The systema is aided by the drop in elevation through the subdivision. I ani unable to dote' mune the :Mail elevation (limp lions the tank since it is not in(lieated U'1 the plans As incheated previously durum; the sl<elch plan review, the develop.' will be ie(luned lu eine' into a conlrael villi IIhe 1)islriet li,r the payment ofdevelupme'nl impact Ices'u the amount uI 1;2 I5 UO pe' sol, for a total ol- I,055.UO as approved by the (sal held ( ('umm'ssioncihis payment is due prior to the recording oldie sinal plat. Please contact me you have any questions Since yly // i 13i11 Cuvette Fire Nlarshal COLORADO GI 01.OGICAI SUIIVI:Y Division of n'llllP!I .IIs .11111 (,1'11logY )olla1Unenl of I.4,Il111,11 R1'snuI1 1 s 1 11 1 hen 1,11 Sll i•i•I I. 11)1 /1', 1 )i•, vi•i, 1. o1uln1Io 1411/111 I'I,rn (41)1) I1(,(, )(di 1 nX 1 10 11141,6 141,1 er r74 1;,1r,.}r; .1+ gtr,,,n,7zi ltd 5-1—A-1—E. r —1 1 � I 51 A I L. QQI_— L.. �[ ?a I&A, 3 ,1 � 'W-'- r • 1__Il__-i���...1. _ -1:' � I_� ' ..i March 28, 1 99 (;/A -1)(x001 I Mr. 1ric Mcnfferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 ..I',\It11\1I:N1 ( NAITMAI. I•'n, 121:111I1 'I 1110 Lu1u• � `, 11111dn .1J I .1 , 1111.1 1 1111. 111. I.I1, 11,1.1 11 I nni 11111• 1rni 1 hi,•, lu1 \ 1111111,,.111 '.1.111 • (.1 1 11, 1);e• 1 .uu11111111111 1&e: Proposed Levitt Subdivision WI I'I;tll) N1. 1 l .Ichcl ;111(l HIS( of the Garfield County -Eagle County Boundary, (ialheld ('aunty Dear Nib-. Mcnlferly: t't your request and in accordance with 5.13.:35 ( I1)/2), we have nevicwrd the materials submitted for and made a field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision indicated above. Some of (WI COIICIIISIOIIS ;11e 'MSC(' (111 Uhscrvalions Wade in nearby developing subdivisions where geologic conditions are sirllilal Io this one. The following comments summarize our findings. (1)'Ihe analysis and discussion of the sun ficial and bedrock geology, geologic conditions, and geotechnical (engineering -geology) concerns about development of this parcel as planted are thoroughly and well discussed in the submitted 1epor1 by 1lepwolth I';nvlak Geotechnical, Inc., Glenwood Spr ings. I will not repeal any ()I 111e details of their discussions here. (2) The most important corlsllaillt 011 collslruclion oil these lots is Ih;lt :111 of the steeper slopes arc either underlain by landslide deposits and of colluvium subject to I;utdsliding. These places should be completely avoided as building sites. Mol cover cal c should be taken to not direct surface and subsurface drainage into oI onto these slopes. This includes discharges front the septic sewage -disposal systems which are planned to he used for all of these Tots. This means that both houses and septic systems should be well set back from Ilse break in slope between the higher and lower parts of all of the lots. We concur with the 25 ft recoruended by 1lepworth-I'awlak. The engineei(s) designing the touud;ltious and septic systems should take this into account in their designs. "I'he sines of the proposed Tots are adequate to do this if the building envelopes shown on the plans are adhered lo. (3) Our only other serious concern is that the Eagle Valley I':vapol ite lot Illation, which underlies the basalt, could have natural voids in it caused by dissolution of gypsum of be • • Mr. Eric McAfferty March 28, 1996 Page 2 subject to dissolution in tite future. In either case, collapse of such voids could result in ground failure by formation of sink holes even where the Nagle Valley is covered by basalt. For this reason, we recommend that each building site be (hided and/or investigated by a shallow geophysical survey, such as 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 lids themselves. If the recommendations made above are followed and made condition of approval of Ihis subdivision proposal, then we have no geology -related to your approval of it. Sincerely, )atnes4M. Soule Engineering Geologist OI FIC[ OF III[ SATE FN(;INI Elt Division n1' W,4r1•i K(!suun l•s I )(pin tinen1 of )J,1lunl I(snul1) , 1 11 4 S1H•In).111 ti11,•1•), kill/11i 14114 I )(rnw•i (ull,nn O 111120 4 1'111,111! (1())) 14(,1, 1',111 I AX in II (1),l, 3 )))') Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield Courtly Planning Deia(Intenl 109 810 Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 61 601 • STAT E OF, rif` 1 4 . March 18, 1996 MAU 2 ,_ 1996 C F :IEUJ O(XAd 1 Y DO 1211y u,,, „•, 4.1.111111 (.unrcS In,1111,•.11i IW11d;vr1)111'14.11 I (.1) I1 Snn(n,m \1.111' I n1V111,, HE: Levitt Subdivision I'relirninaly Ilan SW I/41 01 Sec. 20, & SL 01 Sec. 20, Iwp. / S, 1104) 11/ W, 610 1' M. Water Division 5, Water Distiicl 30 l.)ear Mr. McCall°, ly: We are in receipt of your subdivision referral to subdivide approximately 80 acres into 13 lots, located on Missouri Heights east of LI 301)01, Colorado he subdivision will include 13 single family residences and a guest or caretaker house will) 3,000 square loot of lawn and gardens at each residence. Also inclucled will be 12 livestock units in the wale! service plan aid up to 1/2 acre of irrigated open space. Ihe p(0pose(1 water supply will 1)e burn two common wells and a storage lank. The applicant stales that Basalt Waley Cunservancy District (District) contracts will be acquired for lyre proposed wells, in(licalind that Ihe wells would he operated pursuant to the District's Substitute Wale( Supply flan that was approved by the Stale [rtgineei on December 26, 1995. The ground water in lbo subject area is tributary to Ibe I loaf lie l 1oi l( 1 liver ;Hid Colorado River Systems, which are over appIupliate(I. In general, issuance of new or expanded use permits would cause material injury lu senior water rights unless Ihe applicatit ()blains approval of a plan to remedy the injury. -I he District has a valid substitute wafer supply plan for contracted wells which provides replacernenl water to prevent injury to decreed wale! (ighls. Pursuant to Section 30 28 136(1)(11)(1), C.115., it is unlikely II al 11(0 proposed water supply will cause injury to decreed water rights. We recurt4(4(0:4(1 that Ibis clevelupn)enl not receive approval from Ihe county and lots not be sold until Ihe developer has District co1I1:acts for the proposed wells and has obtained valid pelntits lot Ihe proposed uses. A [01)041 dated I-ebruary 13, 1006 Iio i /ancanella rind Associates, states that the subdivision will divert on Ihe average 16.51 acre feet of wale' annually will' an ave(age pu(nping rale of 10.27 gl:)nt or a peak pumping rate of 17_'1 cll)rn dui ing July. Alto (((purl lurlber states that the existing wells in this area produce at va(ying';ales 1(4)14 / 5 ((1141 to ;30 ypr41. With sl(Ilicienl storage capacity, it appears tart Ihe wells can supply adequately 1111) proposed uses. Please • • Mr. Eric McCafferty Page 2 March 18, 1996 note that the long term adequacy of any ground water source may be subject to fluctuations due to hydrological and climatic If ends. If you have any questions regarding this matter, (please feel free to contact Mr. Kris Munllry of this office or Mr. Orlyr r Bell of our Division r (Alice it r Cater !woos I Sp it rqs al 9415 56135. SPL/KM/Icrn cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe L. Be; gquist, Water Con inissioner IevilI.sub \Sincerely, (( 11 - )U) f) Steve t.autensclrlager Assistant Slate Engineer John H. Case Attorney at Law Post Office Box 4203 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Telephone (970) 925-8394 Fax 920-3395 c mail joluicase « inlosphere.cont April 24, 1996 Garfield County Planning Commission Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO APP 2 1994 t,st � . , jJ Re: Application of Levitt Subdivision tur Preliminary flan Approval Dear Commission• I represent Sirous Saghatolesianui, who is the owner of Fox Run Meadows, a property bordering the proposed Levitt Subdivision. 1 wish to object to the proposed location (Witte 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 Thank you lir your consideration of this matter John H. Case JHC:ss cc: Sirous Saghatoleslami -2 3' • • 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 9711 945-8454 Phone 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 recommendations. 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 F.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1414C4NIELL4 4110 4SSOCI TES, Inc. ENGINEERING CorlsuLr4ri T5 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 /t2 Dear Mark: (970) 945-5700 970) 945-1253 Fax Irl'' nor ,a1 "i ii/'1>i 19y I1 r. t..:'/ o.r7 Enclosed for your review is our pump lest report for the Levitt Trust Well 112. 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 CM \cm \95231 \gar 2.1tr Page 1 P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 • /\<\ • Z4NC4NELL4 4 D 4550014 TES, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULT4N TS April 1, 1996 Molly and Thomas W. Levitt Missouri Heights Subdivision P. 0. Box 414740 Kansas City, Mo. 64141 Re: Levitt Trust Well /J2 Dear Tom: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax At your request, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. Inas 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 hole 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 feet from 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 112 was drilled to a depth of 320 feet and constructed with a 5.5 -inch diameter casing. The water bearing por lion of the well is in a sandstone member of the 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 251.92 feel below the top of the well casing. The available drawdown in the Levitt Trust Well /12 is approximately 65 feet ( 320 ft - 255 ft). 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 (gpnr) 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 from the 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. time curve for Well /12 as shown on the attached Figure 3. The well drawdown was approximately 1 -foot over the first Hour of the test and further dropped to 1.9 feet at the end of the 24 -Hour test. The well showed continuous drawdown with time and did not stabilize. The pumping level at 20 gpnr stayed well above the pump intake during the pumping test. Figure 4 shows the relative Pagn 1 • • 70,6 1 X7193 J 1 c — . 0 ' 20s' —.--)k_J—_,'—'7.1.f:\ t ••---,— ) ,,__.- '151-1--,' -- --,T. 0 c-"r/N- ( ' n 11\,�/ n 1 " I 1 1 i.j —2 �^ l� \`tel O `I� \/�- 29 Levitt Well # 1- `\\-_ 000 82 //�� -•mac ° 6688 "s' OAK 110. �!N 00,S 11AOC BT c11Y•0 Arm) 91 BY • /61' F: ' 28 I -7 • • I.: • Levitt Trust Well # ' 32 ." • • • 6965 33l 1, 1 11 11 _ • 1 WELL LOCATIONS iFEi Bzr T11,r- 1•-70011 I Mil. l ion o r n.. -1,n c.n.Zue wri"nn 111. Gl ---1 MIST-- .a,)i\ifvill • • '1 -\ 1 rrvrr PROPER IY • ZAttit.12L. A 41a! ASS(jfT JAC. l h!/,?U77:16 %ZI'LILV4''/J :CSI ryrK! B.1 ISM - IONS (Y.XTP ASS11R ct .rn sn,.-n, o,.n ro .•..1 1! °1 rw-.xn 1 GROUND LEVEL ESTIMATED TOTAL DEPTH 320' SOIL BASALT FORMATION INTERBEDDED MARUUN/ [AU[: VAI I FY FLIRNATIL1/4 0 40 80 1 2 0 160 200 240 no 320 CEMENT B ' ---------- 2/1 / 7" ND PLAIN CSC.i 1/2' 1,11. S(.7.1.1 '10 or Clo 55 200 PLAIN PVC 4/ELL CSG t c- wawa ledt \ WA I ER I I- VI I. 275-310 5 UP" 1.11. SrH PVC ------ 32 SLUI Ai M 17-400 AND ASIM 22AI ( PVL INC.1_1_ D[FAIL All_ mo4 n, 11;1- 1A1 n, Rni To -a-- 11111 \MP., 1 Evil 1 PP,orER Z/fAt-ltili.ta_tiN.P 1SS/A27/1/4r,US. Atr,',4r.4,47,V; ,CtIt - ,0:4,07111A,P4 41114)1, irnins crtcnnr. n,col 110,0(1,7 Frc, FFT nni.; — RAI: "or m r.l .li ill7E 11 ni Fit: DATE Ple,490. 11/0( Pf CINO Pf Arro BY CEMENT B ' ---------- 2/1 / 7" ND PLAIN CSC.i 1/2' 1,11. S(.7.1.1 '10 or Clo 55 200 PLAIN PVC 4/ELL CSG t c- wawa ledt \ WA I ER I I- VI I. 275-310 5 UP" 1.11. SrH PVC ------ 32 SLUI Ai M 17-400 AND ASIM 22AI ( PVL INC.1_1_ D[FAIL All_ mo4 n, 11;1- 1A1 n, Rni To -a-- 11111 \MP., 1 Evil 1 PP,orER Z/fAt-ltili.ta_tiN.P 1SS/A27/1/4r,US. Atr,',4r.4,47,V; ,CtIt - ,0:4,07111A,P4 41114)1, irnins crtcnnr. n,col 110,0(1,7 Frc, FFT nni.; — • TABLE 1 LEVITT TRUST WELL if 2 PUMPING TEST DATA WATER DRAW DATE TIME LEVEL DOWN 1 t' tit' Q (II) (11) (ruin) (ruin) (grim) 19 Mar 96 11:05 AM 254 97 1) rl 10 M+n 0(3 11 1)6 AM 755 42 0 5 1 2)) 19 -Mar -96 11.01 AM 255.42 0.5 20 19 -Mar -96 11:08 AM 255.50 0.6 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 0 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 0.0 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 20 19 -Mar -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 1.2 361 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 t' (11' Q (II) (It) (min) (win) (9Prrr) 20 -Mar -96 11:15 AM 256 83 1.9 1450 0 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 2 1452 7 726.0 0 20 -Mar -96 11:10 AM 756 25 1.3 1451 :1 401 3 0 20 -Mar -96 11:19 AM 256.21 1 3 1454 4 3113 5 0 20 -Mar -96 11:20 AM 256.17 1.2 1455 5 291.0 0 20 -Mar -96 11:21 AM 256 21 1.3 1456 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 0 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 12 1400 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 1500 50 30 0 0 20 -Mar -96 12:15 PM 256 00 1.1 1510 60 25 2 0 20 -Mar -96 12:45 PM 255 92 1 0 1510 90 17 1 0 20 -Mar -96 01:15 PM 255 88 1.1) 157)) 170 13 1 0 20 -Mar -96 01:45 PM 255.83 0.9 1x00 150 10.7 0 20 -Mar -96 02:15 PM 255.83 0.9 1630 180 9.1 0 20 -Mar -96 02:45 PM 255.75 0.8 1660 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 2875 1425 2.0 0 Drawdown (feet) 0 -5 - 10 - 15 - 20 -25 - 30 -35 - 40 -45 -50 - 55 - 60 - 65 1 Levitt Trust Well #21 Drawdown vs Time Si]+�. nCi`Cti`�:�n�iih\Cv�i:i� w V�n�w'.�w��ia's.CvS�vnwnwMnniJO�.".tAi:�v�l�%iwtv'LC'��'�"<W:nlmel" C�h10A%'JPlUk 24 -Hour Pump Test 3-19-96 10 100 1000 Time t (minutes) Figure 3 10000 1 4- -120 L -160 1 o -200 Levitt Trust Well #2 Water Depth vs Time - 40 - 80 I , i I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 i -240 W � - 280 •z - 320 -360 1 24 -Hour pump test 3-19-96 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 gpm. Recovery data for the well was collected for a 24-hour period after pumping Iiad 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 to 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 from the aquifer will need to be matched or remain Tess 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' (1 500 ft' residential -f- 1 500 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 he 70% resulting in a 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 rnorrth would occur in June with a dernand 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 requirement is 4.35 acre-feet, with 1.53 acre-feet attributable to "in house" uses and 2.81 acre-feet from irrigation and livestock needs. The entire 13 units will require a larger instantaneous peak demand than can be pi ovided 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 be 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. f he Levitt Well //1 (Monitoring Hole No. 27419) has been constructed but has not been tested and may be suitable for this purpose. Paine 7 Levitt Trust Well #2 Recovery as Residual Drawdown Drawdown (feet) 0 -5 - 10 - 15 -20 -25 -30 - 35 - 40 - 45 - 50 - 55 - 60 - 65 • 4::3 1 10 100 1000 10000 24 -Hour Pump Test 3-19-96 tlt' Figure 5 TABLE 2 ZANCANELLA & ASSOCIATES LEVITT SUBDIVISION DATE: 3/26/95 (values in acre feet) Diversion Domestic Commercial Lawn Open Space In-house or Other Irrigation Irrigation Livestock TOTAL (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) January 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.017 0.89 Febuary 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.015 0.80 March 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.017 0.99 April 0.84 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.017 0.92 May 0.87 0.00 0.46 0.25 0.017 11.61 June 0.34 0.00 0.59 0.33 0.017 1.78 July 0.87 0.00 0.56 0.31 0.017 1.75 August 0.87 0.00 0.35 0.20 0.017 1.44 September 0.84 0.00 0.20 0.17 0.017 1.33 October 0.87 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.017 1.03 November 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.017 0.26 December 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.017 0.89 Annual 10.23 0.00 2.39 1.34 0.20 14.16 (1)# of ECR's persons/residence gallons/person/day (2)# of EC R's (3) Sq. Ft of Lawn Irrigation/Unit Total Lawn Application (ac) (4) Acres of irrigated Open Space Cpen Space Application (af/ac) (5) # of livestock units in subdivision gallons per unit per day 26.00 3.50 100.00 0.00 1500.00 0.90 0.50 2.67 12.00 15.00 Consumptive Use Domestic Commercial Lawn Open Space In-house or Other Irrigation Irrigation Livestock TOTAL (7) (8) (9) 0.131 0.00 0.00 0.117 0.00 0.00 0.131 0.00 0.00 0.126 0.00 0.03 0.131 0.00 0.32 0.126 0.00 0.41 0.131 0.00 0.39 0.131 0.00 0.25 0.126 0.00 0.21 0.131 0.00 0.06 0.126 0.00 0.00 0.131 0.00 0.00 1.535 0.00 1.67 (7) % CU for Domestic (8) % CU for Commercial (10) (11) (12) 0.00 0.017 0.15 0.00 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 Irrigation CU (af/ac) Elevation (ft) 15.00 0.00 70.00 1.97 7000.00 70.00 1.37 7000.00 (11) % CU for liverstack 100.00 The proposed wells will be capable of providing the physical supply to the development. The legal water supply can be provided from contract water with the Basalt Water Conservancy District. The contract water enables use of district water rights to replace or "augment" diversions from 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 approval under a court approved augmentation. 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 hoar Levitt Trust Well 112 but have not yet been analyzed by the investigating laboratory. We will make the results available to you as soon as we receive them from the lab. We estimate the laboratory results will be available on 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. /ho 4^c r ZO-r.t A -G Thomas A. Zancanella, P. E. President 91/101,�/ Christoph,r Manera, P. E. Design Engineer cc: Ron Liston Larry Green CMlmaz/95231.welipr Page 10 P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Z4f`IC4fIELL4 4110 4SSOC 4 TEs, INC. EPIGI('1EEM IG COroSULr41I Ts 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 houses - 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 1 500 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 horneowners 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. 40 ikkatAAZ c ejc\ Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. President w/encl cc: Tom Levitt Ron Liston CM\cm\95231 \gar4.ltr TABLE 1 ZANCANELLA & ASSOCIATES LEVITT SUBDIVISION DATE: 3128/95 (values in acre feet) Diversion Domestic Commercial Lawn Open Space In-house or Other Irrigation Irrigation Livestock TOTAL (1) (2) (3) January 0.77 0.00 0.00 Febuary 0.69 0.00 0.00 March 0.77 0.00 0.00 April 0.74 0.00 0.04 May 0.77 0.00 0.41 June 0.74 0.00 0.52 July 0.77 0.00 0.49 August 0.77 0.00 0.31 September 0.74 0.00 0.27 October 0.77 0.00 0.08 November 0.74 0.00 0.00 December 0.77 0.00 0.00 Annual 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) (5) (6) 0.00 0.017 0.79 0.00 0.015 0.71 0.00 0.017 0.79 0.02 0.017 0.82 0.26 0.017 1.46 0.33 0.017 1.61 0.31 0.017 1.59 0.20 0.017 1.30 0.17 0.017 1.20 0.05 0.017 0.92 0.00 0.017 0.76 0.00 0.017 0.79 1.34 0.20 12.70 23.00 3.50 100.00 0.00 1500.00 0.79 0.50 2.67 Domestic In-house Consumptive Use Commercial Lawn Open Space or Other Irrigation Irrigation Livestock TOTAL (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) 0.116 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.017 0.13 0.104 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.015 0.12 0.116 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.017 0.13 0.111 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.017 0.18 0.116 0.00 0.28 0.18 0.017 0.59 0.111 0.00 0.37 0.23 0.017 0.73 0.116 0.00 0.34 0.22 0.017 0.69 0.116 0.00 ' 0.22 0.14 0.017 0.49 0.111 0.00 0.19 0.12 0.017 0.44 0.116 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.017 0.21 0.111 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.017 0.13 0.116 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.017 0.13 1.356 0.00 1.48 0.94 0.20 3.98 (7) % CU for Domestic (8) % CU for Commercial (9) % Lawn Irrigation Efficiency Annual Irrigation CU (af/ac) Elevation (ft) (10) % Open Space Irrigation Efficiency Annual Irrigation CU (af/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' 7_. — CEMENT 8-24' 24' L 7" ❑D 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 ff 32 SLOT ASTM F-480 AND ASTM 2241 PVC BEYO. DATE N REVISION YIDS CIED A1'FD BY BY BY WELL DETAIL Scut NOt rD =all DAL NR 2T. life INLET 1V2 MANN 110 OWN NN f41 Arm et RAN NO. 115.131�N LEVITT PROPERTY • !1 R j A " AI G. f N'AM F R%N CGPSL[ AN S POe1 (Ellet Sot 212 - 1W6 MDID1 MORN *dna. awns OOLONOD Sim 12103 l�s1W 2 FANIET 00TJ1 �D 0 SOIL .�I 40 - BASALT FORMATION 80- 120- 20-160-200-240- 160- 200- 24 - INTERBEDDED INTERBEDDED MAROON/ ''- EAGLE VALLEY FORMATION 280- 7_. — CEMENT 8-24' 24' L 7" ❑D 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 ff 32 SLOT ASTM F-480 AND ASTM 2241 PVC BEYO. DATE N REVISION YIDS CIED A1'FD BY BY BY WELL DETAIL Scut NOt rD =all DAL NR 2T. life INLET 1V2 MANN 110 OWN NN f41 Arm et RAN NO. 115.131�N LEVITT PROPERTY • !1 R j A " AI G. f N'AM F R%N CGPSL[ AN S POe1 (Ellet Sot 212 - 1W6 MDID1 MORN *dna. awns OOLONOD Sim 12103 l�s1W 2 FANIET 00TJ1 �D • • 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 seg., 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. QUANTITY: 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 H'VC B. CD ILYIT7 TALLOT CON 1 • • 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 any 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 will be sent by the District to the Applicant at Applicant's address set forth below. If payment is not H T ALLOT CnN 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. 3 5�3 doo 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 thne; 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 or water use other than that set forth herein or any of the Districtsli I1 berdeenned torbeha mat tted rial hereunder without the prior written approval 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 ,DIC wmLEVm.rwunr.CUM • • 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. 11: WIV+'C91EATTT TALLDT, CON APPLICANT: Thomas Levitt ss. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 5 day of , 1996 Notary Public ORDER GRAING APPLICATION FOR ALLOTIVNT CONTRACT C 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 pan 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 [he 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 holder. II:\DKIR.CD' LEVfl T TALLOT. ORD -1- 4. Any and! conditions imposed upon the release It 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 pennit for each such well before the District is obligated to deliver water for the benefit of Applicant hereunder. 7. Tlie 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 ger` day of , 1996. BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Attest: BY: \-7/ ��� / / B Barbara Mick - Secretary N ua'r.ru ar\TTT T u11.)r cnn -2- P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1 Z414CMIELL4 4t4D 455004 TES, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULT4N T5 April 5, 1996 (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax F :APR 1 v 1996 GARFIELD 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 per formed by Barringer Laboratories for the Levitt Trust Well #2. The water samples were tested for parameters required by the Colorado Department of Health for inorganic chemicals (IOC's), and volatile organic chemicals (VOC's). These parameters pass the Colorado Department of Health 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. 1 VtOyLQ� l�Q�Q Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. President w/encl cc: Tom Levitt Ron Liston CM\cin\95231 \gar3.ltr �4 l .(.)1•.11\11 If 1111' 1)l VII (1'1.91.1.11 1)IPAR 1MI. HI (MI) 3/11 111 10 • I A(11 I. (:(-)l IiNI I�Y, (.OI.(RAI)( ) 1 Mark Bean Day i.d 11 ichae 1 son curl' i e 1 (1 Couit_y I) 1 ann i 0t) 1)1(.);11 1 111:111 -1 09 t3Lh St:.reet. G.1 ;1)1' i 110:;, e'1) 11 I I,1) 1 • 1 111 ltL: l3a l:ne:; '111)11 iv i:; 1111 1•;x um3)l 11)11 Hear Marls & I)<Iv1:: r )/1 / -i/ 'ill() 1111) I' 1) 1)1 );( 1 1O I A(,I 1 ( ()1testi\Ix) /III) I I AX 1 1(111 1111 1111', 11,11 ( h 2(.1, 1O9') Thank you fol 111 1)v id ill() 11:. w 11.h 1110. 1)3,3,01 1 1111 1 1 y 1 1) 1:1,1)111)1.111 011 1 hit liar33es I: et.lueal I or 1•:xen(3)l. 1 011 1 t on( l I10 Gal 1 i 1: I )1 5111)(1 i v i:; i 1)II IZe(j0.lat. i1)31s. our 1:1133(:1:111 i:; 1,nly IIntl- (11 1111: IIa31111)11y 1,1111: all(I (,1IIy in as much as we t•/oulll :;110((:1:;1. 1hal y(1111 .11)1)11):(3111 (:1)111.1:111 h i In /lie rse I.1 w i t h use and/or Ina 1111 (111(311(:1: alit 1:t:111c1t1Ls w i t h of h1 -it 1)ro1)erLy u-nl(21 .; l:hal. u:;(.: 1 hal :;,(.(.3311 :;;1 ill 3)1 1 v;11 o 1().111. /tI IOw 111(' 1 1) furl:Iter exit 1 (-1 i 11: Iiarntony 1.,ane i :; (3 3)1• i v;lLt) I-oul ;1011 hrl:; i (:(1 I 1 y (:(311(.0 i 111.1) 1:): i r;t.clnce-1 w,f 1 h Lhe stll)(l i v i.:3 i 1111 0l: Ila, Ito 11y V 1(:31 t•,t 1 Clt 1!; I ill (11: 1 y i 11 I;aI I u c/1)1111ty . A SIUil1.1 ))01 L.ic>11 01. ►-hal-. 3,ro3)1:1.1 y i:; in (gal 11(11(3 ('1,1111 y x1111 I ha t• 31(11-1.i o(1 (,Oni:a 1110(1 a 1 I or 11.1rIno0y 3.,1111:. 1 n dt dur I o 3)) 0(:0.)111 t•1i 1 11 l he sutxll.v is.io11 t)1 Ila, lnl)11y V i 1131, 1.h1: (13)3) I i (:,1111 (3133 00(3 1...1) i 11131.Ov11 3.11a1. 111-i.vat:e ro0.l(1 l.o (3 ini111mum t;1.a11(iai-l1. 'I'll i:. 1min ov(lm'Illl Wl col LaLer a.1 .i.ze(1 LhrOtvili (3 ;;uh(1 i v i:; i 033 I nl1)I1)V( meat. hly1-(tr'u)en1. -111 I (:h hill-; Si 11(:0 been i 11:;3,3.:(:1 -.(!ll ;1011 1-)1 I ua:;011. )011 i 1111:1 tl0vcn 111330111 it 1 ailruu.nit:It. 0(1:; 011Le 13)31 i 111.1) 1)01wto1:0 (;a1 I i t: 311 and Kati I t: ('taint i Its (I i v i 33(3 I?1113 3 (1 (:c)u11Ly [he riO111 a11(1 rus3)u(I:;iI)i I i1 i1::: of :;111,(1ivi:.i011, ,'.001013 (311(l i.tn1)rovelnent-.s Lu LIo L 310r1. i 1)0 1)I Il,tt n10 ly V i I'-1 -1 i 1 11 1 11 c;,11 1 i o 1 (1 ('1)11111- y. S)IL)seclue0L.1 y , (3 131:01lo:;a I 11)1 110 t:x(13313,1 i 011 (.1 i 111 Allan(:; :) wa:. 3-01:0 i vecl ny your (LI_ rice 1.)1.03)0:.; i 111) ;tc:c0:;:; (l i l OO1.I y 1331.)) t he i.Itl})rUv((I lot -1- i on 1)1 Ila 1:111013y 1,a1ie . 1. l-. i.:; my u33llor:;1-(311(11 00 1 hat-. i-11 . Adams a3)1 313 33)1)11y V i nes Sultci iv i s i o0 (I(i It Kos4: i ) calm: Lu .l 111 1 va 1 0 .1( 31 1'3:11111111 ('()01:0111 1 1111 I.hc- 1:11LI11:e nla.i nd011a11(:(: 1)l: Ilalrnlo11y I„(0t:. C'c)n:;e(I10111".. 1 y, We 0)01 3 (I :,001)111;1 1 hat l le (:111 10111 x3)3) 1 i 1.,1111 011101• i 111 (t ,t lal: at(r11111n1111t 1(,r 133.111111.0;0(11.. (,i(h Ion 11 111t. /\(I(1tip; 3:x1.1333,1 1011 proper Ly owlll'1:0 i 3) 1;1(11 i 1 Id 1.01331 ',) and II((1 III( i3Iy V i (:tJ 1)1 ))111!1 1 y 1)-/111'1 111 i':19 I Cr! C(J11331.y - 1)0 WWI Id 1 111 I hur :;1(301'01 I hal- I h0 3101 1 i 1,0 1)I Ilarmony I,aI11_'- Lha 1. Will 1111 111 i I i ;tell by 1 1111 tit'w 11.o 110'; 3'x03313)3 i 011 Itro3)ei: ly (3111e1 0 and has 1101 3,01:11 i ni3,1 1)vt:(3 :; 1 33('1 i t. is 1101 w i t 11 i 11 t 111 Ilarnlony Viet./ 1;111)111vi:;3011, 1)0 0i1111I.l1-ly 11111, Iv( '11 to .1 111i11imum s1.andard . Thal. s1 111(1(11 11 i 11 Kan 11: (:(1101 y i 11( • I ((1111s .1 ' IiO1 1 1)31 (.3 i t 1:11(':;, 2' shottllic_I :;, 1 -11) IU' 1,111110 1(11(3 3 --I" ((3 (.())1(1),0•1 •I (:(1 (1(3(31 (,91,(I 1. 1,;1:;11 (2ot11: se . 11essrs . Bean an11 11 i (.:11a1! 1:;1,(1 !larch 2Y, 19()5 Page 2 '1'I1is Comulunic:ation i.s at: the request:. ol. un( ()1 the Harmony View properly o4nrers. As such , and i ven that: IIa1 many have i s a private a(.; ess easement, these remarks are 1Ilt:encle(l ilii :I11(1(le:i;l_ I OI16 on.I.y. Il- should pr-obal) I y yenta i n i.nc:umt,uit upon your app L i cant and I:lle of I:ecl-ed proper Ly OWIle ITS to collie to aI)I)1 opr i ilLe aq re.onients i 11 n(llc_:l1 l:I1e salve manner= that_ Adams and Ko:;l, i 1I l 1 v>.:(1 ,11. 1111 (!(In l t.<lt> I e :;() I t.l. 1 ui1 _ and al: your S1.1V1(:0 11- y(>(( td( )11 tJis;11 1'1) 111l 1 r (11!;(:n:;:; 1.111:; ulat Ler. 3incer_eLy, Pau.1 E. CI arlcsull 11 I C1' Planer Keith Mo111:a(I S id Fox J im FE.i_t:ze 13oCC Cllr onc) 50 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 IDELAN-LTY & BALCOMD, P. G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAWER 790 GLENtiOOD SPnINOS, 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 Dear David: 1 818 COLORADO AVENUE TELEPHONE 945-6546 TELECOPIER 945-8902 AREA CODE 970 LAWRENCE R. GREEN FAX -945-0769 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 Mr. David I3rown, President April 30, 1996 Page 2 consistent gravel surface road, with 11 -foot travel lanes and 2 - foot shoulders (from Fender Lane south to the point where his subdivision traffic departs Harmony Lane.) This offer seems to me to be consistent with the traffic demands which will be placed on Harmony Lane and with your stated desire to maintain the visual appearance and usage patterns of the roadway. We suggest that such improvements (or other improvements), if required by Garfield County, which would be made at Mr. Levitt's expense, be considered in satisfaction of your proposal that Mr. Levitt contribute back to Harmony View and Jim Adams a portion of the initial capital costs of Harmony Lane. It is my understanding that you are working on a draft of a proposed Harmony Lane Road Maintenance Agreement, and that you will forward it to me as soon as it is available. I look forward to receiving your draft, working with you to put it in final form acceptable to all parties, and finally resolving this matter for the benefit of all concerned. Very truly yours, DELANEY & BALCOMB, P.C. Lawrence R R. LRG:bd cc: Eric McCafferty (Gar. Co. Planning Dept.) Tom Levitt 52 • Green