HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report BOCC 04.13.92REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
ENGINEERS:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
ZONING:
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMEI\TXS
BOCC 4n3t92
Preliminary Plan review of the
Wooden Deer Subdivision
Carbondale Land Development
Corporation
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
Resource Engineering, Inc.
CTl/Thompson, Inc.
A parcel of land located in the SW%
of Section 24 and Lot 3 and the
NW% NW% Section 25, T7S, R88W;
more practically described as a
parcel located approximately 1.5
milesnortheast of Carbondale offof
C.R. 103 and 104.
A 98. I acre parcel to be split into 22
single family lots
Central water system
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
c.R. 103
A/R/RD
I.RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPRFHENSIVE PLAN
The parcel of land is located in the following Comprehensive Plan Ivianagement
Districts:
District A - Carbondale Urban Area of Influence;
District C - Rural Areas/Minor Environmental Constraints;
District E - Rural Areas/Severe - Moderate Environmental Constraints; and
District F - Rural Areas/Severe Environmental Constraints.
It appears that a majority of the property in located in Management District F.
'*r*^ ^ff* 4('-)n*/ F*'L+
IL NESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The subject property is located at northeast corner of the
intersection of C.R. 103 (Crystal Springs) and 104 (Blue Road). The property
is essentially a north/south trending rectangle running parallel to C.R. 103.
There is approximately 300 feet of relief over the length of the property.
The property is divided into two (2) basic topographic areas. The southern one-
third of the property consists of moderately sloping (5 to 20'A hillsides. One
minor intermittent drainage traverse this portion of the property and is tributary
to Crystal Springs Creek. Soils in this area vary in depth from six (6) to eighteen
(18) feet and consist of clay mixed with sands and gravel. This portion is
vegetated primarily with grasses and sage.
The northern two-thirds of the property consist of moderate to severely sloped
(25 to 40%) hillsides. This portion of the subject property is heavily wooded
with pinon/juniper vegetation, typical of a southern exposure. Soils in this
portion ofthe proposed subdivision areshallow and laden with basaltic cobbles
and boulders. The majority of this portion of the property slopes steeply to the
south from the high point of the property. The very northern portion of the
property slopes downward to the north, in the opposite direction as the
remainder of the parcel.
There are no perennial streams on the property, and only one intermittent
drainage on the southern half of the property. Groundwater is located at
considerable depth on this property.
There are no improvements on the subject property. The property has
historically been used for cattle grazing.
DevelonmentProfrosal: Theapplicantisproposingatwenty-twolotsubdivision
of the 98 acre parcel. The gross lot density will be one (1) per 4.46 acres. Lots
range in size from 9.1 to 2.00 acres in size.
Rackground: A sketch plan application was submitted to staff in December
l97l and reviewed by the Planning Commission at the January 1992 meeting.
The current plan is largely identical to the sketch plan
m.REVIEW AGENCY/PI TRLIC COMMFNTS
Colorado Geological Survey: Unable to visit the site due to the snow cover.
Garfield County Road and Bridge: Concerned abut erosion, snow build-up,
limitations on access onto C.R. 104(?) and that design work be done to illustrate
driveway grade.
C. Division of Wildlife: Property is critical deer habitat. Accepts applicant's
wildlife protection measures. Concerned about the limitations of deer and elk
harvesting.
Rasalt Water Conservancv District: A water allotment contract to apply to
benef,rcial use.Z2cubic feet ofdirect flow rights and4.2acre feet ofstorage water
for augmentation of proposed wells.
B.
C.
A.
B.
D.
-3C. -
E. CTI fllhomnson: Providing additional percolation test results for northern
portion of property.
F. Garfield CountLRegulatory Staff: Review letterto theapplicant critiquing the
application for conformance with applicable regulations.
G.
H.
L
Colorado Land Develofrment Corfroration (anplicant) : Comments concerning
proposed conditions of approval.
Garflreld County Planning Commission: Minutes lromMarch I l, l992meeting.
Mount Sonris Soil Conser-vation District: Expressed concerns about drainage,
erosion, revegetation and animal control.
Holy Cross Electric Association: Describes required easement.
?roL*-hv<-- C-.u-nr*ls
J.
t(ry. MAJOR ISSTIES AND CONCFRNS nt4u fubbo-/t 1,,27
t.
2.
Roads: The proposed subdivision will be served by a single roadway,
terminating in a cul-de-sac, roughly one (l) mile in length. The newly
constructed roadway begins at an intersection with C.R. 103 and traverses the
site partially following the existing road alignment to the high point of the
property. An emergency egress extending from the roadway to C.R. 103
through a neighboring parcel is proposed.
On Monday, April 6, 1992, the Board approved amendments to the design
standards of the Subdivision Regulations. Enclosed is a draft copy of the
proposed regulations.
According to the new standards, the grades ofthe proposed roadway will require
the Board to grant a variance. The maximum allowable grade is l0% unless the
applicant can adequately demonstrate compliance with six (6) mandatory criteria
aswell asthree (3) additional criteria if a wildfire hazard is determined to exist.
The typical section of the majority ofthe roadway still appears dehcient from the
new standards. The applicant is proposin g a24 foot section with l0 foot travel
lanes and 2 foot shoulders. Minimum standards for the "secondary access
classification require l1 foot travel lanes and 4 foot shoulders. A chip and seal
surface has been proposed for all roadways.
Dehciencies also exist with curve radii which are less than (50' vs. 80') the
allowable minimums.
Thecul-de-sac exceeds the allowable maximum of600 feet. The fire department
has consented to the excessive length as a component of hre protection plan.
The interior roadway crosses a small portion of land not included in the
subdivision as it extends from C.R. 103 into the subdivision. The applicant has
not obtained an easement to cross this land to date. Under the current road
plan, there is no legal access to the subdivision.
Water Sufply: The applicants are proposing a central water supply system. The
water source is an existing well capable of producing fifty (50) gallons per
minute. To provide adequate storage, a 50,000 gallon storage tank is proposed
-3t-
3.
4.
to be located at the high point of the subject property. The distribution system
will consist of 3" PVC mains extending to each individual lot. Some ofthe upper
lots will reqrrire booster pumps to provide adequate pressure.
The applicants have prepared and hled applications for water rights for six (6)
individual wells and an augmentation plan with District Water Court. The
applicant will augment the wells with the Basalt Water Conservancy District
water. An approved augmentation plan would be a prerequisite to hling a Final
Plat.
The proposed system does not meet the requirement of Section 9:53. This
requires a minimum of four (4) inch water distribution mains.
Water hisfrosal: The applicants engineer has indicated that soils and
topographic conditions will allow the use ofconventional septic tanMeach field
system. Percolation tests conducted on a cross section of the property indicate
adequate percolation rates. The applicants have indicated that site speciflrc
engineering and soils investigations should be conducted for each residence.
I ot Design/DeveloFment: No building envelopes have been identified on the
preliminary plan. The applicant is proposing to identify thebuilding locations
as a portion of the Protective Covenants. This issue is relevant to the
recommendations of the geotechnical report. This report recorlmends not
locating building envelopes on the slopes greater than2.5ll (>40%) restricting
excavations to less than six (6) feet into hillsides. A signihcant percentage of the
lotscontain theseconditions. Buildingenvelopes, withadequate documentation
of compliance with these requirements, should be identified.
Because of the steep side slopes in the middle of the subdivision, driveway cuts
will require considerable excavation. Each cut in excess of six (6) feet, should be
reviewed for stability. The Road and Bridge Department has recommended
"that lots with steep cross slopes should require a detailed cross section in the
vicinity of the access for the lot to illustrate the grade of the driveway."
Fire Protection: The Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District has
approved a lire protection plan based on discussion with County staff and the
applicant. Included in the plan are two (2) turnarounds adequate for fire truck
maneuvering two (2) 10,000 gallon cisterns along the roadway and a hydrant to
provide access to water stored in the 50,000 gallon domestic water storage
system. All storage facilities will be f-rtted with hydrants adequate forconnection
to the District's equipment. Also included is an ingress/egress easement for fire
protection purposes extending northward through the Martin's property into
c.R. 103.
Thisproposal appearstomeettherequirements of Section 9:70 FireProtection,
assuming the applicant can obtain an adequate secondary access easement
through the Martin's property.
Boundary Issues: The current legal description and survey for the subject
property is based on an uncontested section corner. The County Attorney has
indicated that this method of description is satisfactory. The applicant is
proposing to quit claim all that property that was included in the original
description to the adjacent land owners. The submission of these quit claim
deeds should serve as adequate verification of the uncontested boundaries of the
5.
6.
-3)-
7.
subject property.
zoning: A number of references have been made in the application to
"caretaker'sresidences." A./R/RDzoningdoesnotprovidefortheestablishment
of"caretaker's residences." Theregulations do provide fortheresidential usefor
domestic employees and their families employed on the property as an accessary
use. Additionally, a guest house is permitted as a special use, permitted by the
BOCC. This issue ne-eds to be clarified. If guest houseVdomestic employee
residences are to be allowed, their impact on traffrc generation should be
considered.
Section 5.04.01 - 3 of the ZonrngResolution requires the identification of areas
of the subdivision over 40o/r. Those portions of the lot in excess of 4}Yrdo not
count towards the minimum lot size. The applicant has submitted a modified
preliminary plan identifying those areas in excess of 40%. The plan shows gross
acreage as well as net acreage with slopes less than 40%. With these
modifications, all lots appear to meet the requirements of this section.
Comfrehensive PIan: (see map) Section 4:33 of the Subdivision Regulations
requires that the Board review an application based on compatibility with
various issues including the Comprehensive Plan. The following comments will
address theproject's compatibility and non-compatibility with these applicable
portions of the plan:
Agriculture: (Policies: all) The subdivision may have impact on adjacent
agricultural uses by its incompatibility. Impacts from agricultural
uses; noise, odor etc. will be experienced in the subdivision.
Conversely, the subdivision utilizes non-productive, non-
agricultural land. Those lots adjacent to the subdivision are the
largest, increasing the buffering effect to some degree.
Housing:(Policies: 2a,3,4b, 5 & 6) Existing platted subdivision lots do
exist in snall numbers in the Carbondale/Missouri Heights area.
Conventional zoning, not PUD, is being employed. Low and
moderate income housing is not being proposed. Limited
physical separation exists between the subdivision, ranch uses and
a gravel quarry east of the development. Themajority of lots will
have positive solar orientation.
Recreational/Open Space: @olicies: 2) While the subdivision will not create
dedicated open space, it is not located within an intercommunity
corridor.
Transportation: (Policies: 2,3, 4,5b, 6, 7, 8 & 9) County regulations do not
have any provision for off-site improvements to County roads.
The applicant is limiting traffic to one intersection, although an
existing intersection could provide ac@ss. Theproposal doesnot
discourage automobile use. The road desigu will require
substantial cut and fills. The proposed design does not meet
current standards. The road plan separates subdivision traffic
lrom truck traffrc leaving the Blue pit.
Water and Sewer Service: @olicies: 1,2,3,5 & 6) The proposal will provide
8.
*33-
rv.
adequate water and sewer services. The development could not
feasibly connect to any existing water/sewer systems. Soil tlpes
and lot sizes accommodate ISDS. This low density development
cannot reasonably connect to an existing system.
Environment: (Policies: l, 3, 4, 5, 6,7,8 & 9) A significant portion of the
subdivision is located in areas of severe environmental
constraints. Development is discouraged in these areas (over
25%). The development should have little inspection water
quality. No revegetation orslope protection has been proposed.
Development on lesser slopes should be mitigated. Development
on steeper slopes will result in loss of vegetation cover and visible
cut slopes. The development should be compatible with the
wildlife habitat with the property.
Community Service: (Policies; 1,2 & 3) The development has reasonable
accessibility to services. Fire Department has reviewed the
proposal and suggested modihcations.
SUGGESTED FTNDINGS
1. That proper publication and public notice and posting were provided as required
by law for the hearing before the Planning Commission.
2.
3.
3.
1.
2.
That the hearing before the Plan''i'^ ,.' -
that all per
parties we
That the
recommer
area of thr
Thatthep
Resolution.
s extensive and complete,
ied and that all interested
-*l compliance with the
m for the unincorporated
:Garfield County Zomng
4. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as are required by the
State of Colorado and Garheld County have been submitted and, in addition,
have been found to meet all requirements of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations.
V. RECOMMFNNATION
At their meeting on March ll,lgg2,the Planning Commission recommended approval
by a vote of 4-2 subject to the following conditions. Dissenters cited concerns about the
water system, the hre protection plan, non-compliance of road design and air quality
issues-
That all representations of the applicant, either within the application orstated
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
-3Ll'
5.
6.
Colorado Revised Statute requirements.
3. The applicant shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Improvements Agreement
addressing all on-site improvements, prior to the submittal of a final plat.
4. The applicants shall submit improvement plans for all roads, bridges, utilities,
hre protection, improvements signage and drainage structures prior to the
submittal of the final plat.
That all proposed utilities shall be placed underground.
That all cut slopes created during construction shall be revegetated with native
grasses and shrubs with adequate weed control. All revegetation shall be in
accordance with the applicant's revegetation plan. Revegetation and
landscaping shall beincluded in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. [n
addition, adequate security shall remain in place for a period of two (2) years to
guarantee the survival of all plantings.
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.
That the applicant shall pay $200 per lot in School Impact Fees prior to the
approval of the Final Plat.
That the following plat notes shall be included on the Final Plat:
a. The recommendations of the Colorado State Forester and U.S.F.S.
wildfire prevention guidelines shall be followed in the construction of all
structures.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare
and submit a soils and foundation report, an I.S.D.S. design, and a
grading and drainage plan prepared and certified by a professional
engineer. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such
measures which shall be a condition ol the building permit.
Certain lots may require pumps to increase residential water pressure.
Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Applicant shall submit an approved
augmentation plan providing for a legal water supply for the Wooden Deer
Subdivision development. Said augmentation plan, together with the Basalt
Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract and the water rights
associated with the wells, together with well permits, shall be transferred by the
developer to a homeowner's association which shall have the power and the duty
to enforce compliance by lot owners with the terms and conditions of the
augmentation plan. Appropriate Protective Covenants shall further require
compliance with the terms and conditions of the augmentation plan.
That the applicants shall prepare and submit protective covenants, articles of
incorporation and other Homeownet's Association documents including by-laws
will be submitted for review by the County Attorney prior to the approval of the
Final Plat.
7.
8.
9.
b.
c.
10.
11.
-3s-
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
t7.
18.
19.
20.
That the plat and covenants will provide that there will be no resubdivision of
the lots.
That all roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards
in effect at the time of submittal of the Final Plat.
TheFinal Plat shall identify buildingenvelopes that areinconformance withthe
recommendations of the geotechnical report.
That a plat note requiring staking and certification by a R.L.S. verifying
building location within approved envelope. This requirement shall be
incorporated into the restrictive covenants.
That adequate easements for wells, waterlines and other attendant facilities shall
provide on the Final Plat.
That ten (10) foot perimeter easements on each lot should be provided for utility
purposes.
The applicant shall provide
Manual of Tralf,rc Control.
Improvements Agreement.
The applicant shall provide
owners.
road signage in accordance with the Uniform
These should be included in the Subdivision
21.
copies of quit claim deeds from adjacent land
The applicant shall provide an access easement from John Powers to the
Homeowner's Association authorizing public accessto the subdivision priorto
the submittal of the Final Plat. Provisions for usage and maintenance of this
easement should be addressed in the covenants.
The applicant shall provide a non-access easement on those lots abutting C.R.
104 for the purpose of restricting all but emergency access onto C.R. 104.
The applicant shall provide an access easement from C.R. 103 to the subdivision
boundary from the Martins for emergency ingress/egress. This easement should
be granted to the Homeowner's Association. Provisions for usage and
maintenance of this easement should be addressed in the protective covenants.
Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit approved
plans (by Colorado Department of Health) for the proposed community water
system.
All requirements of the Road and Bridge Department contained in their memo
shall be considered conditions of approval.
The applicant should consider woodstove restrictions, further limitations on
dogs and guest house restrictions as a component of the restrictive covenants.
22.
23.
24.
25.
* 3Q-
I
*@effi,
ROY R. ROMER
GOVERNOR rEB 1 0 pez,
GA:ffiffiiounrYCOLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING _ 1313 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-261 1 !, -
--*U-*'
cA-9 2 -O 00 5February 5, L992
Mr. Andrew McGregor, Planner
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs , Colorado B l-601-
Re: Wooden Deer PreliminarY PIan
Dear Mr. McGregor:
,';",:'' t,1 ,.r,.i,
On Monday of this week we received the subdivision-review submittal
from your department referenced above. Because of the steep slopes
and gLologic- complexity of the area, w€ will need to do a geologic
field study of the area before we can make adequate review comments
in the IegaIIy required geotechnical critique of the proposal.
UnfortunatLfy, snow cover will prevent us from doing this until
into the spring months, at the earliest, mid-April. Unfortunately,
this is beyond your requested response time whichr ds indicated in
your cover memorandum, ends March 5. Therefore, we request that you
|rant us a time extension to do the work and deliver the review to
yo, in late April to early May of this year.
Please let us know if this is alright as soon as possible.
SiT4rcereIy,
/)**^ -w.- s*^z--./dmes M. Soule
blgineering Geologist
?-,|t-JU
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTURE
'rl
: f.
(SATe'FI EI.*D
F(C}AD TT]."l D
IN-TTR._(fFF
Februat^1r, 14 " 1,9c)Z
l"larh: Bean. F'I.rnning Depart.menl:
l(i. ng
lr.loo<len [ree r' 5ub<l ivisi,:rt
I
crJLrF{ -r\"
B R.I EJGI E
TC}E HE}.I(f
DATE
"r0
FROr'4
RE
Frf ter revieuling Ll-re prelimirraty plari,s f or L.lre afrcl\,/B trtri[.ionerl
subrli'.,ision I lrarze IisL.e.:l tlr* tol.Iou^li.nq1 pDint.s.fr:i^ discussion"
t.)T l'rrouglr t lie
5:otenlial e><ist-s.
cJ r i.'f t, shu t, du r i. nq
easernenl- for' snor,.J
?_ )The lot,s t.lraL liave
de ta i led c ross ::rrc L i on i. ri
l:cr i 1lust-rat.e Ll-re crr';irclri t:'f
sectjon rf raad laL,erl.eil c:Llt've CZ t.liru CS blre
bec.-lurse of l"l-re r'nail k,ei.rrg in J( ,lI'"irw, for iL t"ci
a snor,,, st.ot"ni" You trrigtliL cot-r'3i<iet" at"l
i'erice':c,iis l-r'uct ii:rn,;ii-iiJ rTlai.n Len:lrrcc.
steep cr.oss slcilles s:liot-t lcl t'i:,qltire a
f lre vicini Ly r:f t-lre iicc€:jr loi' t,lrti l.ot:
t h*r cl r i v6,tntarr, ..
;i. ) lrlo in,Jivi<lueJ. li::l- .,lcr:ess ulil. I i::e .rI1orrle,j iif l' tlre Cout"il,y
Ro,:rd lAA 'for Llre Icrt-.s; l:,ot^cler i nei i t.
4")Details shoul<J be provi.<Jed ,r:s [o sa.i] ;t,,,r[iil.j
tlrpclugilr mechanica.l ttrei:]n:i arncl resee*di trgl itt,li stt.lrk",e,:l
r,{here runo'ff r,^rai.ere l^li1I be concent.t'aL*,1. t.o prt,:ven[.
zirl-i.oi'r
a l. *ag . 01"
e r*is; i. oIr .
roM o?92
-38-
,I
"i
I
I
STATE OFCOLORADO i
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOUBCES
REFER TO
,6A,X
tuqru
l'r.ilr
FEB I I l9e2
GARF|ELD OOUNTY
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNIIY EMPLOYEF
P.rry O. Ol3on, Ol,octor
6060 Btordway
Osnvcr, Colorado 8O216
Telophono: (3O3) 297'l t 92
Itr1'.1 l e(.1 aI(:lJI'.:r:l'rr
r.) efr lg l ill r-lrl,rlt.i i-':1 i'J..irlirr i li,:l L.r(:l:':{ii ( iruii t-
ir-lr:l *,tf, ;,L. I r.,.,tt l'.jrr t. I-f,-, -ii.l:r
rl .l.+tittrr:,i,rJ Ji:, l.'I lr,.:l r:,, t l,;, :';.1.r-ir.r t
Ill'i: [',)c,crCl q, lr irt.i.i :irri,ii,l \/ r::?1,:,rr i ] r:. ,: iir i lr.rl
i..rs iil' 5: r :
I i'r.i -EI L.i ,-,.I l" ii.! i.j rrl.lir(-i I r.'1.i:')f,,-itl !..: ,il .l r i,:ii.i i,:',., .-t-i r.r,:r1,;.:1 L'':'
Ulllt.et Iirl-rtL- I(,I .i r.,,r'! !,lt ']".1,., i,','v.r ir,.r.,t'r L,l L,l.r irrlrit' i]., irtL:r'ti'
ir:e.gr3llL. rle Ittv*rit{JL'y ii:,/::,Lslli. i fri-' lr:.li lrir'.1 l. r,' ,.]x ',-r'.,i: t.i'..i.i1. I lJ
giill,ll.h iiiC:f ti,1 lllrlr.-'ii tl,l i,viilr:S, t";tl:l l'rrilll :,,lil urI c:i.i.,r.r,:,.irr i: ..1 ,:,f 'UirE'
.,ftllltidig ilVf lf,J f fr*lc ilUf lll,:l l-{i!r r'iIfri:t:r. i'i,jr.:C 'l.rr' tl.rq' l.ll:lp,ir'
lrCrl ti. ICrIr Crt'' tirri.' t. I'srr-it .(:, (tr(rVt:t eii (rILir !-, llr()l'l I,.Llre srlrt.l ttllril.ref
uI'I(1ef-i+afn oy fltOs}Liy onle e,rlIl rlrtrl D,3*A1E (:otfc'i*: l,Jltli 9p.iL'9E,
veqetBtiOt'l . 'l'ire i.Crt..t*l:'Itrf. Icl r],f tiit- tlcrct r$ \'ii(t ritirlr*r1 wirt.lr
E|.3{*IJX'UfJfr itir:l rr*1Llva ,;,r'gB:?e.E r-lr,3L frf,v* l.f,:-erl rr+.fv1iy uLlJl5.ler-l
by cleer anci e.Lit tirlE ln.irt, je.r^,' yeiiirn &rlci irrrlri,I'ltl'drr.iI i,Y (ie,el .
r a;:r1:te,t13E,E rrir. U,lr'1t,!rig fjIrirlrllri,-:! for tlrr-: c(fl'rf!.frLl(:,:l llrje
ot thr.g Err"Eir-r l.,Y \rt rcl .t It* LtY It:r]t:-r.(:-'i. ll'rc, i(.hiir"c-'irrtlIr,:, allcl
It'f lgAtlr:rn, i'Alll:ltlrJ. .311Cl ,f tfqS tfrra,Ll,JnC,Llt tft* gltl]tll tt/l.L:1 J.O11 Snd
th* EtjFCf.Ai ('::r:rl-r:1 l-cli!I'itt:.rt:rfr i:,, 1.nt'''lt-- LCrl- !.r::{:!1 c}l't Lire iCr\.}*I'
9*rlLICrll t.cr trit. l1 illl1!E l:ne dll.Bf-l)rrJal't(-'a tfr t]drLlVt: V*,:, eiir:rE.Lrfl1 .
I ;rf,pi;,r..Ljtlt ly leta-l€'[i f {:r i:C)lir liriilli,:.'ir1:E Lc, lir'. lJi.'rr-rf" thre
v€:.i,y r*.5j Ii*r1,ll ltrir cr.-r11 t)-liLlri- r.d) rr.Ilrvest, f-hx 1,ii'.ir*{rgIti(:l rrFjI'dg 0!'
E:f i( ErllCl dl*rr:l- .ltl Li,:rp irf riEr. -i t,/L,itr(:l ;rFrl:it ur::rrirl.ti ir.rJl,
Cr]l'reIlrli.,3:t'AL1rl,li ,.lI ..1 lrtr-Jdlt l.d:..:tC. l'itl (.',,r i:)irl'.:t,:lr',i!:,fr 'l':'7t.ltr.;1 . "[lUfrf,ltit:l
it-rr-i CltlfliIf E:." tCr rc:iir.t Eirt)L t..i,r, r-',.,1'ri I.:,.:. r.r.t l,rrllt-Jll,.l cilrr.i ti:{r= Cr.l
!]-}.gAfltl$ t^r1.lJ. llrri. 1r-tL tO tIe {]1.i,:'tj'{;!1. lr]l'i (:rt Lire tlrI,r\t:r)rilit}t] .9
Ac,".rcrc:i.iiI r.Crti. 'i'i,*l'r 'Lfrttry C'c-rl'r l,iirtlii.il 1l'l tirc" :i Ir.i,]ll. 1,,.t, i. ii)/ t.C,
'l.:rr'iII'':'J. i:irc: 'a,rLiii] I tre (:rI'l Ei,'i ].rtll.:.',lllirl;..Ir]l'r (../iEiil:.iilC ii,rVr. llr'J 1.r.1
1,1,,,I ! I ), i Ir* I I ,;.rI..'1, ,l r',tr!r::lr,.ilil l.'. .
'rlr.'itlii i'.-'r: l,:,r'il .'ili;'r:it:,t;'ti.trriLi.!i L,.'.,,l,i,triitt*liL rl,tl fi-lfl
r rr:,,llJ tJ-i !:.i,1-r l:,.i i,lir. t:'i.r r rr ,i trir:,, 1 -r i.ir. t: i,t' .lrll,rrl. t ,..'1.,.r:. :.(-'ll Cir
-:i,:'.:ri-l.- '"Jr. r(c:r: ::,., 1 .r..r':,1.i..: l'l',i ,n,-- -uir.r ,:.,,;l:,r:,.i'i lrttl i y i.,:, ,..',i,rirtrti"t.l.rl:,:-t.-.::
\r,. ir l,'r,, Lir ilj'rr:: r:,irI L.i ir.lilirlrrlr,.: rr.. i.: -r.:-i '".1:r.
rl-1rl-'.ja
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hegberg, Chairman . Dennis Luttrell, Vice Chairman e Eldon W. Cooper, Secretary
Felix Chavez, Member o Rebecca L. FranK Member . Gene B. Peterson, Member . George VanDenBerg, Member . Larry M. Wright, Menrber*3q-
BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
WATIIR ALLOTMEI.IT CONTITACT
Pursrant to C.R.S. 1973,37-45-131
Carbondale I:nd Development Corporation (hereinafter "Applicant") has applied to the
Basalt Water Conservancy Dhtrict (hereinafter the "f)istrict"), a political subdivision of the State
of Colorado, organized pursuant to and existing by virtue of Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973,
37-45-101, et s€{., 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. OIIANTITY: In consideration of the covenants and conditions herein contained,
Applicant shall be entitled to receive and apply to beneficial use 0.22 cubic feet of water per
secontl from the f)istrict's direct llow rights and 4.2 acre feet per year of storage water owne<l
or controlled by the District.
2. SOURCE OF AIJ.OTTED WATER: Water rights allotted pursuant to tltis
Contract shalt be from the District's water rights decreed to the Basalt Conduit, Landis Canal,
Stockrnan's Ditch Extension, or olher decrces or water rights hereafter acquired by the District,
including the District's contractual right to receive storage water from Ruedi Ileservoir. Tlre
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 ort tlte
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 suclt outlet works shall
constitute full performance of the District's delivery obligation. Delivery of water from the
District's storage rights in Ruedi Ileservoir shall be subject to the District's lease Contract witlt
the United States Bureau of Reclamation and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant
thereto.
3. PURPOSE AND LOCATION OF IISE: Applicant will use the waters herein
gmnted 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 scrval by
Applicant, which lands are described as the Wood Deer Subdivision, Garfield County, Colorado;
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 jurisrliction over lhe -
property served. Applicant's contemplatcd usage for the water allotted hereundcr is for the
following use or uses:
Domestic/Municipal
-
Industrial/Commercial
-
Agricultural
Applicant acknowledges that usage of the District's water rights as herein contemplatal
shall be in lieu of or supplemental to Applicant obtaining or adjudicating, on its own, the right
x
Other
-90 -
I
,.ii
i!'
,'r
n,
!r
i
i
.il
t.
to uso certain watrers. It is acknowledged that certain locations within the District may not be
susccptiblc to scrvice solely by the District's water rightsallotted hereunder or the District's said
walcr rights may not satisfy Applicant's needs and purposes. To the extent that service cannot
bc 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 othenryise, 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 altot-
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 avaitable
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, ffiEy 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 ivailabte it 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 tegat
proceedings for the approval of such augmentation plan to allow the Applicant to utilize ihe
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 utilizc the
wat€r allotted hereunder, Applicant shall not be obligated to bear or defray any tegal or
engineering expense of the District incurred by the District for the purpose of deveioping and
adjudicating a plan of augmentation for the District. In any event,
-tne nistrict shall have rtre
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 hcrein
at a price to be fixed annually lly the Board of Directors of the District for such service. The
initial annual payment shall be made, in full, within 15 days after the date of a notice fronr lire
District that the initial payment is due. Said notice wilt advise the Applicant, among olhei
things, of the water delivery year to which the payment shall apply and the price which,li
applicable to that year. Annual payments for each year thereafter shall bo made by tiie
-q/ -
-2-
.t
ri
li.
it
':
:
Applicant on or before each March 1. If an annual payment is not made by the due date, written
noticc thereof will be sent by the District to the Applicant at Applicant's address set forth below.
If payment is not made within ten (10) days after said written notice, the District may, at its
option, elect to terminate all of the Applicant's right, title, or interest unrler this Contract, in
which event lhe water right allotted hereunder may be transferred, leased or othenvise 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-nrunicipal entity, or governmental entity, and in the event the
Applicant fails to make payments ns 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 thc 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 hcreunder 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 thc 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 lhe owner of a portion, but less than all, of the Applicant's properly to be servcd
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 lhe
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 containerl.-'la-
-3-
7, OTHER RULES: Applicant's rights under this Contract shall be subject to the
Watcr Service Plan as adopted by the District and amended from time to time; provided that
such Warcr Service Plan shall apply uniformly throughout the District among water users
receiving the same service from the District. Applicani shall also be bound Uy ttre provisions
of the Water Conservancy Act of the State of Colorado, the Rules and Regulations of ttre Board
of Directors of the District, the plumbing advisory, water conservation, and staged curtaitment
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 hereunrler is exprcssly
subject to the provisions of that certain Stipulation in Case No. 80 CW 253 on file in the nistriit
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 witer demands upn the occurrence
of certain events and upon the District giving notice of such curtaitment, ali as more fully set
forth in said Stipulation.
9. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Applicant shall enter into
an noperation and Maintenance Agreement" with the District if and when-t-he 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 deliviry or
use of water by the Applicant for more than one of the classes of service which are defincd in
the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Directors of said District. Said agreement may
contiain, but not be limited to, provision for water delivery at times or by meani not provided
within the terms of standard allotrnent contracts of the District and additional annual monctary
consideration for extension of District services and for additional administration, operation ani
maintenance costs, or for other costs to the District which may arise through services made
available to the Applicant.
10. CHANGE OF USII: The District reseryes the exclusive right to review and
aPprove or disapprove any proposed change in use of the water right allotted hcreundcr. Any
use other than that set forth herein or any lease or sale of the water or water rights allotted
hereunder without the prior written approval of the District shall be deenred to bi a material
breach of this Contract.
ll. PRIOR RFSOLIITION: The water service provided hereunder is exprcssly
subject to that certain Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the District on Sepiember
25,1979, and all amendments lhereto, as the same exists upon the date of this applicaiion and
allotment Contract.
12. NO FEE TITI-E: 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 th" water right allottul
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 anrl_42_
-4-
ltti.r,
I
,l
'j
shatl be bound by any conservation plan hereafter adopted by the District, as the same may be
amended from time to time.
APPLICANT:
STATE OF COLORADO
CoUNTY oFeAEeEgD.
)) ss.
)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this l6rH day of FehrunnE, 1992, by
6cntk [,0rfter
.,,9'+*H [-k 'rlr o'L,-
Notary Publicv
Aspen, CO 81612
-5-
-LlLl-
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TOR ALLOTMENT CONTRACT
Carbondale Land I)evelopment Corporation
Application having becn made by or on behalf of Carbondale I-and l)eveloprnent
corporution and all prrti.I interested in the foregoing Water Allotment Contract and hearing on
saiA npptication travint U.rn duly held, it is hereby oidered that said Application be granted and
that the foregoing wier Allotm-ent contract for 0.22 cubic feet of water per second frorn the
District,s direct flow rights and 4.2 acre feet of water per year of storage water owned or
controlled by the Districi is hereby approved and executed by and o1 behalf of lhe Basalt Water
conrr**cy oistrict, for the uenirrciit use of the water allotted in the foregoing contract, upon
the terms, conditions and manner of payment as therein specified and sulrject to the following
specific conditions:
l. T6e Applicant slratl establish a Homeowners Association or other entity acceptable
to the District for thi ongoing payment of charges due under the approved Contract following
subdivision of rhc;ropJrty iirdribed in the Application on fite with the District and the
efpticant shall give noti.r to purchasers of all- 6r any .part of tlre lllrject qrope-rt] of the
outig.tion of this-Contract, and sirall record such notice in the records of the Clerk and Recorder
of Garfield countv, CJffi;. 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 the Contract.
2. The Applicant shall provide the District proof that the proposed lartd use of the
land to be benehttri
-uy
the water allotted hereunder has bcen approved by the applicable
!or"-*"ntal authorities'having jurisdiction over such land use, including evidence satisfactory
to the District that each lot or pircet to be benefitted hereunder is legally subtlivided.
3. Any and all conditions imposed upon the release and diversion of water allotted
hereunder in any water rights plan of arg*.nt^iion or other water rights decree of the Water
Court for Water Division No. 5 shall be fncorporated herein as a condition of approval of this
contract. Granting of this allotment contract does not constitute the Districts representation that
the Applicant wili receive a well permit or water rights decree for the land to be benefittetl
hereby.
4. The Applicant has acknowledged that the land to be benefitted by the waler
allotted hereunder is located within the District's seryice Area B and the Applicant is aware that
the District's temporary *ut.r supply plan approved by the State engineer is confined to District
service Area A. i..oraingly, thebisiri.t's iole obligation undcr this contract shall be to rcleast:
the water allotted hereunder at the outlet works of Ruedi Reservoir'
5. If Applicant intends to divert water through a well, Applicant shall provitle the
District a copy of iifri.unt's valid well permir before the District is obligated to allot walcr for
--4s -
thc bcnefit of Applicant hereunder.
6. lhe Applicant has acknowledged that the land to be benefitted by the foregoing
and attachod Contract is described as the Wooden Deer Subdivision, Garfield County, Colorado.
BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
nyz OL/n,l-, //,-a,^J-
President l
I hereby certify that the above Order was entered by the Directors of the Basalt Water
Conservancy District on the l3th day of Ianuary, 1992.
ATIEST:
Secretary
- L/(, -
1343- ''.?4L)CCITT E3;fl 2
9El'lT B'/: CTL-Tl-rrlrriPsorl I ilc '
March 4, 1992
j- 4-9? 4! 12Pl'l ;
8Th T.JffiHE??E+$? N I C AL A N D M AT E R I AL 5 E N G I N E ER S
tsl;3ii5#t'13'.0 Developm ant Go rporatron
P.O. Box gTOs
i"P.n, Colorado' 81612
Sublect: Addltlonal Percolailon Testg
' Wooi"n bu"r DeveloPment
Sai"ld CountY' Colorado
Job No' 18256
Dear Scott A r r_/.!,AAnr ranardiho the prgllminary
As re qu e sted I revr ewP t :"I Hll"il Y J:11il, 3; I [['ii jj'l ji*i i'i'di;ei i th'*it
reviEw oi vo'r '*lHim.",ltii'.,Li.itl; fi{'**n ,*nI "-o"ie*i
portion or the propertv' rhe
an additlonal Perct
additlonai teBts ha;;;;il;;t'"ii'iJ ihis letter presents the reeults'
we dr*ted addltronal porcorat.on tast borings at,approxrmately the locatlon showr'r on the
ettaehed ,sure. rn. .Ju. wer. a 0,"*i,, ii;;-y,fl:"^:':#;#$" ill"t ransed lrom 7 to
a5 minuteB p.r in"i.lricoration ,irt., piErrously ,un oniiJ'goile on ths.eouthern portion ol the
slta ransed rrom io'to ii.inrt", d iil;!;;a ontresl lilii'i111r1s-etandard percol.tlon
*erds ehourd o. iip*priate. Addirr"i.i'i.r;ln inaiviu'lar-ritrJ-["atrons t-ho'ra be perlormed'
r appreciate tho opportunity to work wrth you on thig proiect. * you have any questlons
please cell'
-Ll1-
. GLENWooo SPRING5' coLoRADO 81601
OARFIELD COUNTY
6nltng, F.E
234CENfEFDRIVE
(303)94$AEo€
3- 4-9? 4:13PI'1 ;1307 -?4t)CCITT g3;H 3
SEl lT B'/:CTL-ThomPson Inc'
\.1
I..
.loB No. 18,256
#
SCALE: l" s EOO'
| \ f t
r\\t,\\t,t,i---l', \, \, \i 'i il-:,'];:::^:.ho
5c
-
\ \ \. A'te..o* ' iL-oc-rr-rr' ^I \,.rn"t',
",.r q .':;'SFH
,,' 'i t, ",, i
tr, tt,,
3
\ , | ,i i I .., \
. \ / o, or t i rH--?r'. t, 1,-= F g H i I it t / -----\ y 1 I , 1 I
tllttt.l :t/
\ \r,'--.?ds- ---/ ,r' ,,' ,l i i ,r' ('\ '--*- .' / -/ I t ,'-\\i-^. --- nnt ,rt ,' ./ ,, ; ,*a
\-
**---
* --,.-' ,' ,' ," -a' :
'----
__ / / ,,r. ,, ,,-----h / j t / t ?\\ *-_ -_t ,. I _ - _ _ \ .-
It/'ttrll'/lttll.po!'-^--d'o' i i l' j F i i
-btIo/
-4t-LOCATIONS
SEl'lT B'/: CTL-TlrcrtrrPsqn lnc'' j- 4-9? 4! 13FI4 ;
TO
ti#.ilf'oo:
13A3945?4r-)cc
nu. llva
- -/{-.-
TO.-r8A3ALt
ITT G3;H 4
N
ilalrrl I;l
E
{'l-.t)
ffi*uonror.
VICINIruAE
I
I
I
I
I
Irl
l\*
I
\
ho\!1 -*
-6P-Z\o
\
\-'-)tH'q
,lri--J' I1,1
/--'--
I
6aoo/
\l
l\
l1
I
\
it.rr
EXlSTlN6
ROAO
\
\
I
I
I LEGEND:
Tt'o te=T H'LEa LocATloN(
\
F-l
o
PERCOLATION
FBOFILE
HOLE
LOCATION-r.
1- e g{OO
\ \-
)
\ -ExlsTlilc\ / RoAo-"'i\*{-- + -E.\t. '5* o '-'\
\
I/
(PLORATORY BOHINGS
\
-L+q -
FIG.
GARFIELD COUNTY
REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
February 24,1992
Scott Writer
Carbondale Land Development Corporation
Post Office Box 9705
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Wooden f)eer Preliminary Plan
Dear Sr:ott:
The lollowing comments constitrrte our preliminary revicw of your application. eaclt item or
issue is reflerence6 by the applicablc poriion o[the subdivision Regulations unless otherwise
stated.
4:50 ll. - Requires certihcation by a registered stlrveyor.
C. - I assume that the description of the current plat is based on an undisputed
corner. Prior to any action being tilken by the BOCC, we will require
clemonstration oI acceptance by the adjacent property owners'
D. - Are mineral owners and/or leasees sltown on the plat?
FI. - The existing power line is nol shown ils an eascnrent on tlre plat.
There is no tlocgntentation of an easement with I)owers providing access lrom
C.R. 103. Also, weneed docurnentirtion oflan easemen[ with the Martins for the
emergency ingress/egress easenrent. These nee<J lo be rclercnced on the
nreliminlry Plan. Also, these parties worrlcl neetl to be signators on the Final
Plat.
Roads should be depicted as tlrainage easements as well.
I. - Standard lot setbacks need to be depictecl on tlrc l)relinrinary Pltn.
J. - Requires 1land use brealidown on the Prelilninirry ['litn.
-5D -,1,
r09 BTr-f srREET. surrE 303 . 945-8212 l6ztt-s57rlz}s-7g72 . GLENWOOD sPRlNGS. cot-oRADo 81601
Scott Writer
Page 2
Februiuy 24,1992
4:60
o.-
A.-
Need to verily that all existing easements are shown on the plat.
The application neods some discussion of the terms o[dedication for roads and
anyothercommon facilities. Will roadsbepublic orprivate? Who will own and
maintain all other common facilities? What about Martin and Powers
easenrents?
Need evidence o[the easenrents lrom Powers. Same with Martins. Also, is the
existing roadway a County Road? Will it require vacation? You may want to
ask your surveyor to check this one out.
Wildlife report does not discuss habitat, only mitigation measures.
There is no relerence to the proposed method o[ Iinancing the improvements to
your water system.
What is the estimated date of approval of the plan lor augmentation? Also, as
we cliscussed with Lee, you should provide an opinion from Basalt Water
Conservancy District's counsel verilying the valirlity ol their contracls.
The percolation tests only address the soutlt half of the property. In order to
provide an adecluate analysis o[ the whole property, some percolation tests
should be dug on the north hal[, particularly on the stecp sloped portion of tlre
property.
A proposed management plan needs to address "operation and maintenance of
the on-site systems."
4:93 - Plans need to be llbelled "No[ lor Constrttction."
(1.
4:70 D. -
4:91 B2-
E.-
4:92 D. -
E.-
-51-
Scott Writer
Page 3
February 24,1992
9:21:l - Due to the steep slopes on some of the lots, and thc lack of percolation tests lor
the whole property, I'm not sure this reqrtirement can be satisfietl'
9:Zl:2,3 - Are all the proposed lots of sufficient size ancl design (particularly lots 6, 7 and
14) to meet these two (2) requirements'
9:31 - Absent an easemenl lronr Powers, there is no proof of legal access from C'R'
103.
g:34-g:36 - It shoukl be noted that the roads do not meet cttrrent minimum cottnty
stantlards. Also, there is no provision lor downsizing road width within the
conlines of the subdivision'
There is no proposed road design and location for the emergency access road as
it crosses the Martin ProPertY'
yourengineer needs to come up with a trafl-rc count (V.T.D.) b&serl on current
tTeTrip Generation standards? Also, if guest houses are to be an option, then
they will need to be hgured into the equation'
9:M - All culverts ancl relatetl drainnge stntctttres must conrply.
9:53 - Does you system meet tltese requirements?
9:55 - It appears that there is a confliot between the proposetl 3" water lines and tlre
requirement for 4" mains.
9:61 - 'l'trerc are not "representative" percolation tests covering the entire platlcd areit,
namely the north hall- of the subdivision'
9:71 - proposed changes in the fire protection plan, that were discussed in our on-sile
meeting with Ron Leaoh, shoulcl be included in the application package.
-5)-
Scott Writer
Page 4
FebruirrY 24,1992
-'rning Resoltttion
3.02.01-.03- There is no provision lor "caretaker's residences" as discussed in Section 2Aii of
you irpplication text. Employee housinll is pernritted only relative to an
agricultural operation. Guest houses are permittcd as a Special Use (3'02'03)
subjecttotheconclitionsotrtlinedinSection5.03.
3.02.08 - Do the lots meet the minimuur lot size in light of Section 5'04'01'l
5.04.01-.03- This section will recluire the identification olall portions oIthe subclivision with
slopes over 40%. Portions o[ lofs in excess ol 40Yu do not count towards
minimtrm lot size. This lot slope/area determination slrould be made by your
Project engineer'
Comprehensive Pl:rn
Our stafT review will include an extensivc
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan'
oI narrutive.
review of your application lor compatibility and
I suggest yotr address this docunrent in some type
Call mr: if you have any questions about any of this'
Sinceroly,
---A/L,-( 27--jV,
Andretv C. McGrcgor
Planner
ACMAIb
xc: Don DeFord
- 53-
Iil
CARBONDALE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORFORATION
The Carbondale I-and Development Corporation (hereinafter "CLDC"), the Applicant for
the Wooden Deer Subdivision, has rwiewed the proposed Conditions of Approval contained in
Article V of the staff comments dated March 11, 1992. As set forth below, CLDC find many
of the conditions acceptable and appropriate but believe some could be combined and clarified,
some should be deleied, and some could be revised in a manner that would make them
acceptable to CLDC.
CLDC concurs in the recommended conditions contained in Paragraphs L,2,3, 4,5, 6,
?, 8, 9(c), ll, !2, 17, 18, 20, 2L,22,24,26, and 27 '
Condition Nos. 10, 15, and 25 all address the issue of water rights for the Subdivision.
CLDC believes these three conditions can be consolidated into one condition that reads as
follows:
Prior to the approval of the final plat, the Applicant shall submit
an approved augmentation plan providing for a legal water supply
for thi Wooden Deer Subdivision development. Said augmentation
plan, together with the Basalt Water Conservancy District Water
Allotment Contract and the water rights associated with the wells,
together with well permits, shall be transferred by the developer
to a homeowners association which shall have the power and the
duty to enforce compliance by lot owners with the terms and
conditions of the augmentation plan. Appropriate Protective
Covenants shall further require compliance with the terms and
conditions of the augmentation plan.
Based upon discussions with Andrew McGregor and Don DeFord, CLDC believes that
Condition No. 13, which addresses roadway design standards, should be revised to read as
follows:
. All roadways within the Wooden Deer Subdivision shall be
constructed in accordance with the design standards in effect on
the date of the approval of the preliminary plan for the Wooden
Deer Subdivision, or such design standards, to the extent less
restrictive, as may be hereafter adopted in the future.
Condition No. 14 contained in Article V of the staff comments can now be deleted. Tlre
Applicant has simultaneously herewith submitted an approved fire protection plan.
In lieu of the provisions of Paragraph 16, which require the identification of building
I.t..r
lil!i
ll,il I i
ri,:l i
l!!lr, . I i
r i'i.i 1.. tii
..lrlilr
':i.!t, 'l I::rr"il . : !,' :
rll',iir,I ll, l'irllr,r ii! .;
,iiliriilli ii i i'
l!. ,i u, '! l. i, li I
i:ll..r !. i I r, r! :
iI::'! l.r L:,
,,!.i 1. 'l r,,.;
'i,ii': i'tll I t"
1;i; ;, :X I '
!'lr- :,.1.i l:.r.
: i r_.i Ir: I
:l'..l':i ! Lt:'i::., ,r,| L'
il,! it t, t .,1 ! i. I
t,r'iltii,'., :l i ri
il'liii:;,{il':;i'iii.rL'; I | .'
,l
:l
-l
,i
i I ,l
ii
i.,riit
.,.,t.ri'rt" !t'
I
l,:ii
l
'i1i, $i
itii
ii"
, r'ii I
' rlii,
,ii,,
. J'r,
.!'li.
t, ti, ,,
rlii:
',1,
i 'lll
,,i,,
.tl:
rlll
'il:,
:lif.
,,i
: i'.'i_! r
,.'iI '
Cr\FItlS\CLDC.IMS
Mnrch ll, l99l -5q-
l;i ' i"li 'ri
i,i
Iiti,,l,:.r'ri
l,lli '1
",;.'l"t' i:tl,,li
rlil'll.:
rr:,i
I
,i'l;:',., r"i t'l.l'lili:rl,li,: .iJ1:t i
:fl',l r: I ,
.
rl :i,lr i it, i -. :. I:t$: :' -.
rl ii..tr .,: . : I
i .,iii i:i tir r :' il:ili , ,'l : .i i':j44:!i,,, r I':,rl;!il r, i i
, ,:,,,tt:- ,l i i;lllii i:.,ii.:
.:;;irl;l;.,t.r
I i, ,11.,, , . .;
,,1,.
I
i.
,
,;',1
ii,r..,l '' i ' il',,'
l,''::,
i,:li ;" ,,
,t,i''
,i'l
,: i
envelopes that are in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the
Applicant proposes to take a different approach. First, at the time of final plat submittal, the
Appfi.*t st ai iaentify on a map attachJto the Protective Covenants those areas which contain
40 percent or greater rtop"r. T1,.r" areas have been identified on a copy of the plat prepared
by'schmueser-Gordon Meyer, Inc. The Protective Covenants shall contain a provision that
prohibits the construction of any structures or improvements within these areas which shall
remain forever as open space. et tn" time of final plat, the Applicant will identify building
iocations (as a poini on the lot) that are in conformance with the recommendations of the
geotechnical r.iort and provide that, so long as the structure, excluding declc, porches,
Zriu.*"yr, etc., is tocated at some point over the identified location, subject to normal county
setbacks, the location shall be an approved location and not subject to site review by the
Architectural Control Committee to bL created by the developer. Therefore, CLDC would
suggest that Condition No. 16 be rewritten as follows:
At the time of final plat submiital, the Applicant shall identify on
a map attached to the Protective Covenants those areas which
contain 40 percent or greatbr slopes. The Protective Covenants
shall contain the following provision: 'No structures or
improvements, other than fences, shall be constructed within those
shaded areas which contain 40 percent or greater slopes shown on
the attached map, which areas shalt remain as open space.' At the
time of final plit, the Applicant will identify building locations as
a point on the lot that are in conformance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical report. The Protective
Covenants shall provide: 'So long as the structure. (excluding
dects, porches, sheds, driveways, etc.) is over the identified point
at soml location, subject to County setback requirements, the
location of the structure shall be in an approved location and not
be subject to site review by the Architectural Contro[ Committee.'
CLDC does not believe that Condition No. 19 is appropriate or necessary. The final plat
wilt identify all necessary utility easements, which were required by the_ County and concurred
in by the ieveloper to b" und"rground. The road right-of-way is also a utility easement.
Mrr.or.r, the diveloper is concerned that utility companies cou'ld potentially abuse lO-foot
perimeter easements on each lot and cause major environmental disruptions if utilized.
CLDC believes that Condition 9(a) is too strongly worded. This condition providgs !11
the recommendations of the Colorado State Forester and U. S. Forest Service Wildlife
prevention Guidelines shall be followed in the construction of alt structures, and that language
to this effect be added ai a plat note. CLDC has reviewed the guidelines and believes they are
very appropriate; however, they ,ue just that - guidelines. CLDC does not believe that strict
adherence to a document containini "recommlndations" that purport to be no more thhn
,,guidelines" is appropriate. Moreorei, CLDC believes that the provision is more appropriately
included in the protective Covenants. Therefore, CLDC recommends that Condition 9(a) be
C:\FILBS\CLDC.tMll
Irhrcb ll, l99l -2-
::!,
i'l;ii
,xl,i
.l,i
r.ll,
r rl
.l t,i
l.:i!'ilii
..:
t:
I
i,i.:i
-5S-
.llli,
,, ,] :i: .
,.ii':' lil :
,':li: ti;,iil'
! :.ll, I
, ;,t: l:
:i. .'1.
" i..1. .
Condition 9(a) be rewritten as follows:
The protective Covenants for the Wooden Deer Subdivision shall
inctuOe a provision that provides: 'The recommendations of the
colorado State Forester and the u. s. Forest Service wildlife
prevention Guidelines shall be encouraged in the construction of
all structures'.
cLDc believes that condition No. 9O) should be revised to reflect ttre prohibition
.g"inrtif;;;;" on slopes greater than 40 percent and the construction of buildings at
approved building locations. Thirefore, cLDc bilieves that condition 9o) should be rewritten
as follows:
A plat note shall be included on the final plat that provides that:
,prior to the issuance of any building permit at a building location
other than as identified on th. final plat as an approved location,
o, ii r.auired in the discretion of the Garfield County Building
Departrnent, the owner shall prepare and submit a soils and
foul'J"tion ieport, an I.S.D.S. design, and a grading and drainage
ptrn
-prrpur.a
and certified by i professional engineer. Au
i*pioi.ri.ntt shall be constructed in accordance with such
measures which shall be a condition of the building permit''
CLDC has reviewed many of these proposed changes with Andrew McGregor and Don
DeFord. It is our understanding that many bf ctoc's suggestions as set forth above are
acceptable to both. CLDC urges the commission to apprwe the preliminary plan for the
wooden Deer subdivision, subject to the staff conditions, as modified above'
Dated this 1lth daY of March, 1992'
C:\FIIJS\CLDC.tMS
Mrrcb tf . l9gt
CARBONDALE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP.
I
I
I
-3--5Q-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
March 11,1992
MEMBERS PRFSENT
Pat Fitzgerald
Stephanie Lavorini
Frank Phelps
Harold Shaeffer
Phil Vaughan
STAFF PRFSENT
Don DeFond, County Attorney
Mark Bean, Director
Regulatory OIn6 & Femonnel
Andrew McGregor, Planner
Dave Michaelson, Planner
The meeting was called to order. The Roll Call was taken with Pete Nichols and Dick
Stephenson absent. The minutes of Febru ary 12, 1992, wereapproved with a unanimous vote.
Mark Bean stated that the Public Hearing for the St. Finnbarr Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Application was intended to be on the Agenda, but the Planning Departrnent was under the
impression that the application was going to be withdrawn. The applicant was at the meeting
to request that the application be tabled for 45-60 days. The Planning Commission and the
applicant just agreed to renotice for the Public Hearing after the floodplain issues have been
resolved.
Consicleration of Rescission oFPlanne<t ITnit l-revelopment anrl Vacation of Final PIat for
Wqstbank Ranch PIID Filing 4 - Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Bean gave the
background on the issue, which was to consider making a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissiners as to whether ornot the PUD should remain valid. This issue had been
continued for 120 days to try and resolve the water rights concerns of the Westbank
Homeowner's Association.
Billie Burchfield, attorney and representative for John Huebinger and Westbank Ranch PUD
Filing 4, noted that she and Lre Leavenworth have been working on the transfer of water rights
from Mr. Huebinger to the Homeowner's Association for quite some time. She has a firm draft
agreement and expects the agreement to be hnalized and signed in a couple ofweeks. She asked
the Planning Commission that they table the issue until the hrst meeting in April.
Lee Leavenworth, representative for Westbank Ranch PUD Filing 4 Homeowner's
Association, also asked that the Planning Commission table the matter until the first meeting
in April.
Motion
Harold Shaeffer moved to table the issue until April8,1992 meeting. Stephanie Lavorini
seconded the motion.
The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
- s1-
Preliminary Plan Review of the Wooden Deer Subdivision - Carbondale Land Development
Corporation. Mark Bean, acted in place of Don DeFord, who was late due to a meeting in
Denver, detennined that noticing and publication was proper. Andrew McGregor summ aized
the project, which was the proposal of a twenty-two lot subdivision on a 98 acre parcel. There
were several Exhibits zubmitted to the Planning Commissioners at the beginning of the meeting:
Proof of Publication
Adjacent Landowner's Notice
Posting of the Property
Scott's Comprehensive Plan Review Comments
Lee's Comments to Conditions of Approval
Colorado Geological Survey Letter of March 4,1992
Plan map package
Fire Department's Approval
Andrew noted that Ron Leach, with the hre department, reviewed the proposal in great length
and felt that with certain modifications the cul-de-sac will not be a problem. The Board has
raised some concern about the adequacy of the Basalt contracts in the past and their longetity
in their solidarity. To date, the Planning Department has not received quit claim deeds on the
Boundary issues. The applicant has provided a sixty (60) foot buffer easement for Agriculture
purposes. One quarter mile east of the proposed subdivision is an operating gravel quarry.
ThequarryusesC.R. 104. Groundwaters areatagreatdepthinthisarea. TheDivisionof
Wildlife stated that the area is a critical habitat for deer and elk.
Pat Fitzgerald questioned the potential for two (2) homes per lot with caretaker units. Mr.
McGregor noted that the guest house provision requires aminimum of three (3) acres. The
domestic employee housing can be done on any lot that meets the minimum require,ments,
which is every lot in the subdivision.
Road access issues are the main concerns for Mr. McGregor's recomnendation of denial.
Mr. Shaeffer asked if the boundary situation was resolved. Mr. DeFord stated that the
boundary issues were satisfied to his view point.
Scott Writer, developer for Wooden Deer Subdivision, stated that his number one goal in
designing the subdivision was to try to preserve the natural character of the topography as
possible. Natural character being defined by vegetation, wildlife, adjacent uses and views. Mr.
Writer designed the subdivision before looking at the Comprehensive Plan. After he was told
that heshould review the Comprehensive Plan, he felt that everything went fairly well with it.
Mr. Writer suggested that the Planning Commission look at the subdivision like an auditorium.
Each home is layered above the other home so that one can see over the other. The cul-de-sac
was measured from the emergency ingress and egress, which is only about 500 feet. An
aesthetic feature is the mail and trash turnaround that is placed quite a ways away from the
entrance of the subdivision cannot be seen from C.R. 103 or C.R. 104 and iS also a safety
feature so that no one will be stopping on C.R. 103. There will be an Architectural Control
Committee. The main residence will be required to have a minimum of 1800 square feet
(exclusive ofbasements, garages, decks etc.), maximum of 7000 square feet. No lot splits. The
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
,_16-
caretaker's unit will not be for rental purposes. It should be a maximun of 750 square feet and
must be attached to the main residence. Two outbuildings will be allowed: a greenhouse not
exceeding 500 square feet and 12feet in height, and an auxiliary building not exceeding 1000
square feet and 12fwtin height. AII the utilities will be placed underground. Themaximum
area allowable to irrigate will only be 2000 square feet including the green house. Xeroscape
landscaping will beput into thecovenants. All fencingmustbewildlife friendly. Therewill be
a maximum of three mature dogs allowed. No hunting or gun fire is allowed. Service yards
and trash must be out of sight. Lighting will be reviewed by the Architectural Control
Committee. There will be no improvements in the Open Space areas. Rather than having a
building envelopment, Mr. Writer, with the help of an engineer, will place a monument, in a
buildable space, that the home, at some point, will have to touch.
Mr. Shaeffer questioned the lifespan of the Carbondale area landfill. Mr. McGregor stated
that it was rapidly reaching its maximum capacity.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked Mr. Writer ilthe emergency ac@ss is the Martins present driveway. Mr.
Writer stated that that was correct.
Frank Phelps noted that the County requires 4" PVC mains. He wanted to know if the 3"
mains will be changed. Dean Gordon noted that the 3" mains will not be used for fire fighting.
There was a brief discussion about the water storage and fire protection.
Lee Leavenworth, representative for Carbondale Land Development Corporation, noted that
the plan for augmentation and application for water rights for wells were filed in Nove,mber
1991. There arethree conditions (10, l5 and2l)that address water rights, it was suggested that
they be consolidated into one provision that read as follows:
Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Applicant shall submit an approved
augmentation plan providing for a legal water supply for the Wooden Deer Subdivision
development. Said augmentation plan, together with the Basalt Water Conservancy
District Water Allotment Contract and the water rights associated with the wells,
together with well permits, shall be transferred by the developer to a homeowner's' Association which shall have the power and the duty to enforce compliance by lot
owners with the terms and conditions of the augmentation plan. Appropriate Protective
Covenants shall further require compliance with the terms and conditions of the
augmentation plan.
It was suggested that condition #13 regarding road design standards read as follows:
All roadways within the Wooden Deer Subdivision shall be constructed in accordance
with the design standards in effect on the date of approval of the preliminary plan for
the Wooden Deer Subdivision, or such design standards, to the extent less restrictive,
as may be hereafter adopted in the future.
Mr. Leavenworth suggested that Condition # 14 be deleted because an approved f-re protection
plan has been submitted. Carbondale Land Development Corporation strongly objected to
Condition #19. AII easements will be provided on the Final Plat. Mr. Leavenworth felt that
the wildfire prevention guidelines werejust recommended guidelines, not requirements. He
asked that Condition #9a be deleted. That Condition #9b be revised as follows:
A plat note shall be included on the Final Plat that provides that: 'Prior to the issuance
of any building permit at a building location other than as identified on the Final Plat
asan approved location, ofifrequired in the discretion ofthe Garheld County Building
Department, the owner shall prepare and submit a soils and foundation report, an ISDS
s9-
design, and a grading and drainage plan prepared and certified by a professional
engineer. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such measures
which shall be a condition of the building permit.'
Mr. Shaeffer was very concerned about the fire problem. Mr. Writer stated that he did not
want to impose sprinkler systems on the residents.
Bill Johnson, adjacent property owner, stated that there are rare birds that have only been seen
on this parcel on the western slope. Dogs are already a problem with the deer and elk.
Resolution of the boundary lines should be a condition. The current augmentation plan took
water out of Reudi Reservoir. The water rights, augmentation plan and statements of
opposition be resolved prior to any improvements. Should require some kind of drainage and
erosion control plans as a condition.
Mike Hammes, adjacent property owner, suggested that the Board of County Commissioners
keep the current road standards.
Dawn Keating, Sopris Sierra Club, was con@rned about fireplaces being limited, clean burning
or banning wood burning devices altogether. Wooden Deer area is a severe winter range for
wildlife. Roads and homesite excavation has the potential for scarring and erosion. The area
will be diffrcult to revegetate because it has very thin topsoil and lack of water on the hillsides.
Ms. Keating urged the Planning Commission to recommend denial to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Greg McKennis, Garheld Citizens Alliance, felt that the application was premature, specifically
the road map, with the fact that it will change. Pinion/Juniper forests burn very fast. Air
quality needs to be brought up. Comprehensive Plan talks about 25% slopes, doesn't say a
word about 40% slopes. The Alliance strongly discourages development on 40% slopes.
Glen Harris, adjacent landowner, was concerned about his well drying up.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the protesters have to be satisf-red or ovemrled by the water court. Mr.
DeFord stated that they can be heard at the court.
Steve Smilack, adjacent landowner, was concerned about the roads.
Daony Muse, architect in Carbondale, felt that the density is inappropriate for the slope.
Bob Schenck was concerned about water and traflic.
Paul Bussone, Resource Engineering, engineer for the applicant, state that the proposed water
supply is to come from a well. There are six wells in the augmentation plan for flexibility. One
well that was dug was 200 feet deep, and water was found at 135 feet. The 24 hour pump test
produced 58 gallons per minute (six times the average requirement for a subdivision ofthis size
and twice as much as the peak demand).
Mr. Writer noted that the average density is 6.67 acres per lot.
Mr. Phelps felt strongly about air pollution. Open burning should be stopped. The road
problem can be solved. There should be harder restrictions on water usage. The number of
dogs should seriously be considered. The attached second home doesn't seem reasonable.
Phil Vaughan was concerned about the air quality. There was some concern about the wildflrre
potential.
-Ao -
Ms. Lavorini had nothing additional
Mr. Fitzgerald felt that the application should be denied "as is."
Mr. Shaeffer was concerned about the air pollution. He felt that the hre protection plan was
inadequate. There definitely needs to be a drainage and erosion plan. The access to the
subdivision should be off of C.R. 104. The wildlile belongs on public property.
Motion
Ms. Lavorini moved to recommend approval for the Wooden Deer Subdivision Preliminary
Plan to the Board of County Commissioners with the following conditions: Conditions #9a,
#9b and #13 should stay in. Use the applicants language for #10, #15 and #25. Condition
# I 9 should stay in. The applicant should take under advisement the issues directed toward the
homeowners covenant agreement concerning wood burning devices, domestic pets and guest
house facilities. Phil Vaughan seconded the motion.
Pat Fitzgerald
Stephanie Lavorini
Frank Phelps
Harold Shaeffer
Phil Vaughan
The motion carried 3-2.
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Sketch Plan Review of theWood I anding Planned Unit Development - Gene R. Hilton. There
was a brief discussion that the time frames and extended time frames have expired. It was
determined that this issue was separate from the Sketch Plan review and that further review of
it needed to occur. Mr. McGregor summairsd the project, which was to subdivide 58 acres
of the property into 317 Single Family residential lots, with an average lot size of 5,400 square
feet.
Mr. Phelps asked if the 5400 square foot lot size was smaller than the average lot size for the
County. Mr. McGregor responded that it was smaller than what is allowed in the conventional
zone districts.
Mr. Hilton, owner, has owned the land since 1976. There is plenty of water for the proposed
number of units. If there was a Metro District, they will enter into it, if possible.
Rudy Woodruff, consultant for Wood Landing PUD, explained the uses on the surrounding
properties. Explained that the applicant plans to use the roads as the drainage. The street
pattern was designed so that it would discourage the public from going in and just cruising.
Linda Soucie, adjacent property owner, submitted a letter that expressed concerns about roads,
service district, density, schools, wildlife and consistency with the surrounding area.
Kenneth Collins, adjacent property owner, went door to door to see how people from New
Castle to Silt felt about the project and found that virtually everyone was opposed to the
subdivision.
Jim McAllister felt that it is a very good idea to have low income housing somewhere in this
County.
-(r. / -
Mr. Shaeffer felt that a subdivision of this size would put a huge burden on the residents of the
County.
Ms. Lavorini felt that a development of this density was not appropriate for a tract of land this
size. She stated that Wood Landing would have to own a Deputy and a flre department.
Mr. Vaughan had no feelings one way or the other, but the density seemed to be much too
high.
Mr. Phelps felt that this was the wrong location for this type of density, because it was too close
to the river, it was lower than the highway and it doesn't fit in.
Comfrrehensive PIan Discussion - Dave Michaelson passed out material regarding Commercial
and Industrial uses. The Planning Commission set up a meeting for March I 8, 1992, to discuss
these topics.
Other Business
The Planning Commission set up a Special meeting for the Aspen Glen Club Planned Unit
Development for April 29,1992, at 7:00 p.m.
Stephanie Lavorini volunteered to be the Board of Adjustment member from the Planning
Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
Harold B. Shaeffer
Secretary
HBS/rlb
fl:
I
I
ii
l.l'
rl:
l
:1..
:i
l,lt"1ii{
rti
,
ii! l
t;,
It:
Mr:rUFJT sr:rF'F I5 Sr-r11- (:rlrl.lsERVA-r I l:rN D i STR I C:T
F . i:l . ELJX l::toE
GLEFlhlt:ll:rD sFR I NGS . Cl:l B 1,itl1
MARCH 1d , 1'7':.'E
Arrdrew McGreg*r, Planrrer
Garf ie ld Cty. F larrn irrg Departrnent
101? Eth 5i, Suibe ::r():l
G I enw'r,:d Sp'r- i ngs , C:,1 EIC'i:)I
Dear S i r,
At the regu Iar lfl'l'rrtl-r ly rneet irrE ':'f tl're lY1':turrt S'rF r ie St' i I
Cr-rrreervati,:,ii Distr iciy tl're Ii*ar,J revie,..l*'J the aF,p I icat i':n and
p larr f r;rF the hlr:r,:,rJerr Deer Sut,,l i'/ is i,:rr aFrrl l'raVP the f 'r I lc'wirrg
C':'fnfnert'bS and CnnCerrr5 1l'-rr1 ut the frr':'ieCt.
Tl-re District'E rnairt Cnncerng c*rrtiriUe t,lr tre CC'rrtrf'I ('f
er*si*n EFul arry ,listUrbe,l areaE sl-r,:'uld t,e reVegetated and
In(rrli'b,11'Ed f*r !rcrwth t,r FtFevErrt et-'15i':rrl'
irrti
I :'
Dr
efr
ainage has 'bl're p,:'berrtial t': t'e a l-rr':'blern irr tlre area arrd
gifreef ir,g feCr:'Inlfien,lati,lfrS fr-rt- C,:,ntt.,:l l,f dfairrage Sh'fUld be
ose ly f ,: I I *r.re,1 hy the bu i I ,ler arrd/,rr h*rneawrrer . The
strict is s':,tnewhat CtrRCEt-rrEd atulrUt cr:rrtcefrtt'ated f lr;rws fft'rn
FeE whir:h caLtse err-rsirlrl'r at FiF'e ':utlet arrrl drlwrrsbrearn' Tl're
str ict wc,tt l,J I ille t,l Eee 'Jes igrr t'lr d isE ipate errergy arrd
spread f l,:,ws.
The h,tAl'd iS aiWayS C,:,nCefnerl atrr:rui arrilnal Cr'r,tr'rl in an area
where there is the p*terrtial frrt' wildlit'e t:rr ,J,trnestic
livest,:clt arrd t-ect'Inrnends arrilfial c,lrrtrc, I witirin the
sub,livisi,rn.
Dee Blue, Fresi,Jent
Mr,urrt 5,rF,ris S*i I C,rrrservatic'rr Distr ict
c
rJ
P
d
lllAR I I t992
Sirrcerely,
/d--,rr/'
*(' 3-
i
t,
rl
i
ir,i
I
I' HOLY CROSS E,LE,CTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.
3?99 HtGI{WAY 82
P. O. DRAWtrR 2ls0
GLE}IWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8I602
If you have
,lSincerely,
March 31, L992
Mr. Andrew llcGregorGarfleld County Plannlng office
Gl-enwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Wooden Deer Subdivision Easements
Dear Andrew:
EncLosed ls a map showlng our proposed facilities for the
above mentloned subdivision. ., ,
IfthedeveIoperisw111ingtograntasconstructed
easements for the new facl"lities, rto other easements fuou1d' ' ,|be reguired.
any questions,
(303) 945-s49t
FAX:945-4OBl
please contact ne.
ATION, INC.
Je nke,
sta
Enclosure
JAr: rjn
W/o*92-L3264: 65-25:Wooden Deer Subdivision
-uq
,/
{n!]i[)q
Ir
\d
S,Y61
dr*
I
q'
$
$
f',.t,i ziYz
^o')*+
,
, ir,
r-ttb
R\!F,t>lrt\.- i
hN
t_\i-t
i!.
Ir
Os"lllrb\- +
r'B
E,
hQl;-
tlt)I
o
N\
*
5
\9"/
io
l+s
4q\
$,P
r:J
i ----l
I i-iiEr\
ri
R
rtt
DS
bs
q
I
"s*u
ti
rls\5
+q
!$
B.st$
,f
+,I}'st
Ill'l "- \
,,4,;f;i,,
-a-q \E"-+.\
u+$\
*'*t\t,
\__--z
N9
ilt-
'"
"iitl
$x
\l
Dq
SQ
Iq
d
E
7v4,''-;1.
-a!ts d
La t
L\S
l;\ q,
\r-\_-----.b/-
-
'y'';)-..-j-
' ,l--.1-'i-' o
NJ-__--;
$>a
n:
i,
k;
FI ril
il il1
I! cl
Er*
\l
K
))
-"1./,,;4{4U1
t//' sx
\+
oh
I
\
\
)r
oq}T
rr!
n9
i!9
Lt
diill ,'l
isu*r lll
viiii$ s*F ii"--J*f<1_,
Sl' #$ T$ t
-Gs
Ir!
R'?
h11
s
3
ar!
P
Fr{
I
+,t
>.s
(n
tltF
t
I
-/
ilC
--JSj.
ti t((
r\r t{I
\)
)
"'ilrt
*'J1
il\i
(
I fo" r'
-/_\\)
\'\
\:.!r
,\\
I
..'gqtank
t\lsj',..,tl\ *
?lAf]
'f/,',rlil
'l$ -t
I
'i, \
.\[,eii.nainSr,i
II
ianrrr.n
I:.iiiiii:l
[*:jji!il
W
W
DISTRICT F
DISTRICT E
DISTRICT C
DISTRICT A
Rural Areas/severe Environmental Constraints
Rural AreaVsevere-M oderate Environmental
Constraints
Rural AreaVMinor Environmental Constraints
Urban Area of Influence
tt', (
\\
,,h.
l:l
It'"t
7'lt '" I.Srt \rl
,tl\.- rr
,fi
)tb'
-uG-