HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 Correspondence...
rS~
() \ \ THIS
J
lWJ\D IMP IZOVH11·:Iff f'..l.IU ·:EMEllT
AGREH1E!JT, ·made and entered into this ~T/.J. day ef
I "
, 198,0·, by an<l be tween RAHCII IHVES111ENT CORPORATIOt~,
party of th e first part, (hereinafter rcferrc<l to as "the
Developer"), and Tl!E 1301\P-.D OF CO UH TY COMI1ISS IOI~ERS OF Gl\RFIELD
COUNTY, COLORi\DO (hereinafter r eferred to as "County").
W I T U E S S E T H
WlIEREi\S, the Developer is the owner and holder of portions
of Lots 8, 9, 12, SEl/4 SWl/4 of Section 4, Lot 10 of Section 5
and NWl/4 NEl/4 of S e c t ion 9, ToVlilshi p 6 South, Ranr,e 91 West of
the 6th P.11., Coun t · of Garfield, Sta te of Colorado; and
WliEREAS, the Co unty is authorized by the provisions of
C.R.S. 1973, 30-28-101, et seq., to provide for the physical
developwent of the unincorporated territory within the County
and by the provisions of C.R.S. 1973, 29-20-104 to plan for and
regulate t he use of land by regulating d\velopraent and activities
in hazardous areas, regulating the location of activities and
deve lo pr:ient"s which may result in significant changes in popula-
~ion density, providing for phased development of services and
facilities, and regJlating the use of land on the basis of the
impact thereof on the coITII:lunity or surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Developer, pursuant to applicable County regula-
tions and resolutions, has made application to the County for a
zone district amendment anti planned unit development approval
to permfe·the construction an d development of 317 residential
lots and two multi-purpose conunercial lots on the above-describc<l
property (which pfanned unit development project is known as and
hereinafter referred to as "Hood Landing"); and
WHEREAS, tl1e County has caused to be constructed a public
road known as County .Road 335, which road is situate on the
southerly side of the Colorado River between Alkali Creek and
Divide Creek; and
WlIEREAS, Hood Landing is a<lj acent to said County Road 335;
and
WHEREAS, other persons also use or ~ay use such road for
any lawful purposes, and neither party can prohibit the lawful
......
, ' ., I f
use to which such ro:1d is puc by o chcrs; an<l
WllEREJ\S, s ignif ican t amounts of aJJi tional n·aff ic wi 11 be
generated on sai<l Cou11ly Road in the event residential an<l ·
commercial improvcmcnc s arc pcrmi t ted to be cons true tc<l upon
Wood Landing; an<l
WHEREAS, the County has dl2 t errilined that the traffic irilpac t
of Woo<l Landinlj upon Councy Ro ;1 d 335 as it presently exists, would
constitute a danger to the public safety which would prevent the
County from approving the proposed zone district amendment and
planned unit development; and
WHEREAS, the County is unable to grant the requested zone
district araendment and plan approval unless the Developer shall
enter into an agrecrne11t to provide certain improve~ents to such
road, as herein provided; and
WlIEilliAS, the parties agree that such road as initially con-
structed was never intended t o support the increased traffic
which would result from the construction 'hnd development of Wood
Landing; and
... WllEREAS, the County by its Resolution No. 80-258 duly adopted
on October 27, 1980, has indicated that it would ~pprove the
above-raentioned zone district amendment and planned unit develop-
ment for Wood Landing subject to certain conditions, one of which
is that the Developer enter into and perform an agreement with
the County wherein the Developer would, at Developer's expense,
agree to make certain reasonable and necessary improvements to .......
County Road 335.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the
covenants herein contained, it is agreed as follows:
1. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a narrative descrip-
tion of the present condition of County Road 335 which the parties
agree fairly and accurately represents the present facts as to the
construction of such road and its present condition and a narrative
descripti on of the construction thereto to be provided by the
Developer.
2. The Developer agrees to contract with an engineering firm
to design and provide the necessary engineering services fo~ the
-2-
... ..
road improvements described in Paragraph 1 above. The Developer
agrees that the engineering firm to be employed as above provided
shall be subject to 'the prior approv a l of the County, which ap-
proval shall not b e unreasonably wit h held. Notwithstanding the
above, Eldorado Eng i neering or KKBN A, Inc. are approved. Said
engineering firm sh a ll also be respo n sibl e for pr e par a tion of
an y necess a r y sp e ci f ications or dra wings. I n add ition, said
engineering firm shall b e responsible for p e riodic insp e ction
of construction of said road improve ment s a s r e quired.
3. The Deve loper or Engineering Firm s hall keep the County
apprised of all con st ruction activi t ies an d shall furnish the
County wi th all required test resul t s, soil reports and other
da ta, if any, accumulated in the con struction of the road.
4. The parties acknowledge th a t a portion of the road im-
provements contemplated by this Agr e ement require relocating and
reconstruction of certain portions o f County Road 335 over and
\
across lands not pr e sently owned by the County. The Developer
will provide the County with a desc r iption of the improvements
as const r ucted and will furnish the sixty-foot rights-of-way and
evi dence of legal title sufficient to provide the County with a
r ight-of -way, as provided for in Exh ibit "A'', across any property
t hat must be acquire d for road relocation . In the event the
Developer is not able to acquire s u ch rigpt s-of-way by the time
of recordation of the final plat o f Wood Landing, the Developer •
shall by that date provide the County with all documentation
necessary to establish the value o f the propert~es to be acquired,
including an ade9uate a ppraisal by a mutually acceptable member
of MAI or equivalent, and the Count y shall then proceed with
condemnation proceedings, if necessary, to acquire the necessary
rights-of-way to permit construction to proceed as contemplated
by this Agreement.
5. The Developer shall pay directly for all construction
and shall pay for or reimburse the County for al l costs associated
with road development, all as provided for in Exhibit "A", including,
but not limited to, reasonable att orney's fees and appraisals,
and r i ght-of-way acquisition cost s , the amount of any condemnation
awards and/or for the amount of a n y negotiated settlement with the
-3 -
.............. _________ ~_
land owner provid0r1 that such negotiated settlement shall have
been approved by the Developer in writing prior to or concurrently
. . with the negotiated settlement. In the event the County -shall not
have obtained possession of any right-of-way on or before 90 days
following recordation of final plat of Wood Landing, the Developer
shall not be required to realign any portion of County Road 335
f or wh ich tl1 e Cou nty has not obt a in e d t he necessa ry ri gh t-of-way ,
but the Developer shall chip and seal (as defined in Exhibit "A")
the existing roadway within the existing right-of-way.
6. The acquisition of all necessary rights-of-way, legal
title and all associated road improvement costs and all funds
advanced-by the Developer and the fair market value of all pro-
perties conv e yed b y the Developer to the County for these purposes
shall be collectively considered grants-in-aid from the Developer
to the County. Thereafter, as in t he past, County Road 335 shall
continue to be the property of the County and the Developer agrees
that it will have acquired no interest\in the improved realigned
road. Private uses in the existing right~of-way will be either ..
preserve d or transferred to a new location, the expense of which
will be treated as road relocation expense. Said road is being
paid f or by the Developer under this Agreement solely to comply
with terms and conditions imposed by the County's Resolution No.
80-258 in connection with the rezoning and planned unit development
application related to \•load Landing. Any portions of the present
road which the County may determine no longer to be required for
public use because of realignment of County Road 335 shall be
vacated by the ~aunty and become the property of the adjoining
landowners as provided by C.R.S. Section 43-2-113 (1973)·, and
the Developer likewise shall acquire no interest therein except
to the extent that any of them is the adjoining property owner.
The roadway relocation and all construction shall be completed
within 24 months after commencement of construction of public
improvements in the subdivision of Wood Landing, except for road
relocation and bridge construction at Garfield Creek, which shall
be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy of
any building within Wood Landing. During construction no land
owner shall be prevented from having access to his property
-4-
excepting only construction delays of up to thirty minutes. The
County shall maintain such road during construction to the extent
feasible and after ~onplction of construction in a manner consis-
tent with maintenance which it performs with respect to similar
roads in the County primary road system in conformity with the
provisions of C.R.S. Section 43-2-111 (1973).
7. It is specificall y agre e d b etwe e n the County and the
Developer that this Agreement is being entered into based upon th e
current status of d e velopment in the area affected by County Roac
335, which is that no further development is under consideration
by landowners of which the County is aware, and consequently the
sole reason for the relocation and reconstruction of County Road
335 is due to the development of Wood Landing. The Developer
has agreed to provide the road improvements required by the within
agreement and the Developer and the County desire to provide for
the contribution to such construction by any other subdivider or
subdividers whose projects will enjoy lhe direct benefits of the
road reconstruction which will result .from this Agreement. Accor-...
dingly, the County has determined that those lands contained in
the Garfield Creek drainage and those lands contained within
Township 6 South, Range 91 West of the 6th P.M. which are south
of the Colorado River, west of the Garfield Creek drainage and
northeast of the Divide Creek drainage, will directly benefit
from the construction pro.vided herein, and the County shall reqlJire
as a condition precedent to authorization of any subdivision upon ....
such lands within ten years after the date of ~his Agreement, any
subdivider sha~l repay to the Developers the amou~t proportionately
associated with each lot thereby subdivided, at a rate of $125.00
for each residential lot or dwelling unit and $500.00 for each
non-residential acre included in a subdivision or Planned Unit
Development, except land dedicated for public use shall be ex-
eluded. In the event the Developer is associated with any develop-
ment in the aforedescribed area, it agrees that any such development
shall be bound by and participate in such reimbursement. It is
expressly agreed that the total sum to be reimbursed to the
Developer shall not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the actual
-s-.,,
cost of acquisition and construction as provided for in Exhibit
"A", which is cst i m.:ited to be $250,00 0.00. All costs shall be
documented for and provided to the County prior to the time of
any reimbursement ob li goti on.
8. The Developer agrees to provi de to the Cou n ty , concur-
rently with th e fin a l platting of an y portion of ~ood Landin g ,
security and collateral to g uarant e e the Developers'· performance
hereunder, in the form of a completion and performance bond issued
by a corporat e sur e t y company licen s ed to do bu siness in the State
of Colorado, in the amou nt of S250,000.00, to insure the acquisi-
tion of land and construction of i mpr ove ments as provided for
in Exhibit "A". It is further mutuully agr eed that, as the roadHay
improvements are completed, the Developer may apply to the Board
of County Commissioners for a rele ase of all or part of the colla-
teral deposited with the Board. Upon inspection an d approval,
the Board may rele as e a p roportionat e amount of the collate ral,
~
retaining sufficient collateral to assure completion of this
Agreem ent .
"'
If the Board determines that any of the roadway is
not and will not be completed in substantial compliance with the
specifications within the time herein above limited, it shall
furnish the Developer with a written list of specific deficiencies
and shall be entitled to withhold collateral sufficient to ensure
such substantial compliance. If the County determines that the
Developer will not construct any o r all of the improvements in •
accordance with all of the speci fi cations, the County may require ...
and shall receive from the surety such funds as ~ay be necessary
to construct th~ roadway in accordance with the specifications,
the County may require and shall r eceive from the surety such
funds as may be necessary to con struct the roadway in accordance
with the specific~tions, limited to the amount of the completion
performance bond stated above.
9e In the event that any provision or provisions of this
Agreement are found to be, or become, illegal or unenforcable by
a Court of competent juri sdiction, the remaining provisions of
this Ag~~c~ent shall remain in fn]l force and effect unless any
party hereto is materially and adversely affected by such
-6-
illegality or enforceability. If any part~ is so materially and
adversely affected, such party shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement by reason a ble writt en notice to the other party. It
is mutually agreed that a determination by a Court of competent
jurisdiction that the reimburs e ment te rms are not enforceable shall
not permit the termi na tion of this Ag reement, nor excuse performance
of Developer's obligations hereunder.
10. The Developer shall indemni fy and hold harmless the County
from any and all damages and costs, of whatso ever natu re, which might
be incurred, in or as a result of any action resulting from the
County's efforts to enforce the reimbursement p rovisions of this
Agreement with reference to any activities occurring in those portions
of Garfield County defined as the affe cted area in paragraph 7 hereof
including but not r estricte d to liti gation which might result there-
from. In the event of such litigation involving the aforesaid reim-
bursement provisions, the Developer shall participate in such litiga-
tion as the true party in interest, and the County may choose to
assume the posture of a "stakeholder" in any such litigation . Inasmuch
as the Developer has a direct interest in the outcome of any litigation
arising from the eforts of the Coun ty to collect the reimbursement
to which the Developer might be entitled as well as the costs and
expenses involved therein, it is ag reed that the County . shall not
I
institute such litigation without providing the Developer with ten
days ' notice of its intention to commence such litigation, within
which period the Developer may de c line any claim to the reimbursement
at issue and the County will be released from its obligation to pursue
such reimbursement. The County shall also provide the Developer
of notice of any lawsuit against the County related to the collection
of reimbursement within twenty days of service upon the County.
Such notice shall not be required prior to the defense of any suit
i n which the County may become i n volved.
11. In the event, pursuant to the provisions of this Agree-
ment, any party is not obligated to perform its obligations as
herein provided by reason of the default of another party, or of
the failure of any condition precedent or subsequent applicable
to such party, excepting any reimbursement provisions found not
to be enforceable, then any such party who is not obligated to
perform may terminate this Agreement by notifying the other party
-7-
in writing and thereupon this Agreement shall be terminated without
futher obligation or liability upon any of the parties hereto.
12. For the purposes hereof, all notices shall be in writing
and shall be deemed delivered either when delivered personally or
when deposited in the United States mail, by certified mail, postage
prepaid, addressed as follows:
Developer:
County:
Post Off ice Box 1274
Littleton, Colorado 80160
Board of County Commissioners
of Garfield County
Garfield County Courthouse
Post Office Box 640
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
13. Nothing contained herein shall constitute an agreement
or admission or a declaration or ariy kind that either party is
the agent or representative of the other party, and each party
hereby declares that no agency is hereby created between the
parties hereto.
14. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding and
agreement -between the parties with reference to the relocation
and reconstruction of County Road 335, represents a merger of all
previous agreements relating thereto, which are deemed to be of
no force or effect except to the extent referred to herein, and
may not be altered, amended or modified or terminated other than
in writing agreed to by all parties hereto. .
15. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State
of Colorado.
16. The parties hereto agree to execute any further documents
and perform all further acts which are necessary or appropriate in
carrying out the intent of this Agreement.
17. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counter-
parts each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of
which shall together constitute one and the same instrument.
18. The parties hereto covenant and agree with knowledge
that the road improvements are of importance to them, and for
those reasons, among others, that the parties will be irreparably
damaged in the event thaL this Agreement, with the exception of
the reimbursement terms contained herein or any terms which are
-8-
determined to be unenforceable, is not specifically enforced.
Accordingly, in the event of a ny controversy concerning the right
or obligation to improve the road or to perform any other act
pursuant to this Agreement, except the reimbursement provision or
any provisions which are determined to be unenforceable, such
right or obligation shall be enforceable in a court of equity by
a decree of specific performance. S u ch remedy shall be cumulative
and not exc lusive, being in addition to any and all other remedies
which the parties may have. The County shall have no responsibility
for reimbursement in the event reimb u rsement provisions contained
herein are not enforceable.
19. This Agreement and all rights and obligations hereunder
shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto,
their respective successors, heirs, personal representatives and
assigns, but this Agreement may not be assigned except with the
prior written consent of all parties hereto, which consent will
\
not be unreasonably withheld. Wood Bro thers Homes, Inc. shall
be an approved assignee and the Coun ty agrees to consent to an
~
assignment of all rights and obligat ions of the Developer to Wood
Brothers Homes, Inc.
20. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
21. It is agreed that as . the various portions or phases of
the construction work required by this Agreement are completed,
the Garfield County Road Supervisor shall, within two (2) working.
days after written request, inspect the completed portions of the
work. The Garfield County Road Supervisor shall at the time of
making of each such inspection, giv e written notice to the Developer
of his approval and acceptance or disapproval of the construct~on
work then performed. Any notice o f disapproval shall specify in
detail the portions of the work disapproved and the specific reasons
therefor. I~ the event the off ice of Garfield County Road Super-
visor shall become vacant during the term of this Agreement, the
County shall immediately designate another competent inspector.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
-9-
as of the day and year first above wr itten.
ATTES 'r:
•. I I ": fl ~ •
t' ..-;-\ ••• :.... • .. (l ..
. ··· '··. v' .. ,·'.... ..
•. '.:,, ~."
. • "'.,,. • . .i.,,) ·.
~"
the Board
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
p
C h ~·
~ t;;;___
RANCH INVESTMENT CORPORATION
By hufj/:/&J
President
-10-
. .,
------~~--------------------
Secti.on
A
B
c
D
EXHIBIT "A"
WORK TO BE PERFORMED ON COUNTY ROAD 335
Location
Junction of C . R. 311 to
milepost 0.13
Milepost 0. 13 to
milepost 0. 30
Milepost O. 30 to
milepost 1 • 32
Milepost 1 • 32 to
milepost 1 • 57
Present Condi.ti.on
Adequate base and adequate drainage.
Fence and powerpole encroachment.
Adequate right-of-way.
Adequate base and ·adequate drainage.
Adequate ri ght-of-way except at curve
to be realigned.
Adequate base and adequate drainage.
Fence and powerpole encroachment .
Adequate right-of-way except at
curves.
Adequate b~so and drainage.
and pa.verpole encroachment.
quate right-of-way except at
r·econstruclec portions.
Fence
Ade-
Work to be Performed
C.R. 335 to have regrading From
junction with C.R. 311 easte!""ly
a maximum of 5 00'.
Curve to be realigned as propo s ed .
Reconstruction of maxim1-1m of300'
of roadway. Right-of-way acquisition
reouired. frrigation pipe placed into
culvert under C.R. 335.
Road surface p,bove the six (6) foot
diameter culvert located east of the
Goldman house shall be widened to
tvv e nty-two (22) foot width with two (2)
foot shoulders on each s'ide. Flag-
stone or river rock shall be placed
near each end of culver't to create a
rock abutment. Area betvveen existing
road and abutment shall be Filled with
rock or gravel to surface level of road.
Two curves (one adjacent to the gravel
pit and one west of gravel pit) to be
improved within existing right of way
by moving 150 feet of Fence back to
right of way line and regrading.
Maximum BOO' roadv1cy to be straight e ned
and irri.gation structures relocated.
Maximum 500' of horizontal/vertical curve
to be realigned. Relocate 300' of fence.
Ri.ght-of-way acquisition required.
~~~~----------------------------------...................... ............._
Section
E -.
G
H
I
Horse Creek
•.
EXHIBIT "A"
WORK TO BE PERFORMED ON COUNTY ROAD 335
Locatlon
Mllepost 1. 57 to
mllepost 2. 19
Milepost 2. 19 to
rni.lepost 2. 63
Milepost 2 . 63 to
m i le post 3. 2 5
Milepost 3 .25
milepost 3. 75
Milepost 3. 75 to
milepost 3. 95
Ho rse Creek
Present Condition
Adequate base and drainage.
Adequate ri.ght-of-way.
Adequate base and drainage
Adequate right-of-way except
at curves .
Adequate base and drainage.
Adequate right of way.
Not applicable.
Adequate base and drainage.
Fi.lt area -rchi.p and seal surface.
Page 2
\/\/ork to be Performed
Road to be regraded on same
general alignment. Road r'eloca-
tion not required.
Two (2) curves to be realigned on
maximum 500' radius. Recons tru ction
of maximum 300' of roadvvay (west
curve) and 300' of roadway (eas t curve).
Right-of-Nay perrr.lt required from B. L. M.
Road to be t~egraded. 150' guard rail on
north side of road west of t h e M c~.ll is te rs.
Road to be realigned and regrad e d as part
of subdivision improvements.
A drainage structure shall be p r ovide d at
Garfield Creek, capa8le of acco m odating
an HS-20 l i.ve load. The structu re a nd
roadvvay shall be re located north o f th e
pres ent bridge and may be eit h e r a con-
crete bridge, corrug a ted metal pipe 'irith
wi.ngwalls, or a concrete pipe w ·ith vving -
walls. The stru cture sha ll be. de si gne d
to accomoda te a 25 year floo d at a mini-
mum. Ri.aht of w a y acquisition req u ired .
At Horse Creek 200 feet of ~:g_a r d rai.. l to
be i.nsta l led on north side of road .
EXHIBIT "A"
WORK TO BE PERFORMED ON COUNTY ROAD 335 •
ROAD SURFACING -CHIP AND SEAL
The road from the juncti.on of County Road 335 with County Road 312 to the junction of County Road 311 with County Road 335
shall have a three (3) inch base course of gravel and a twenty-two (22) foot wide chip and seal surface with oil applied at the
rate of . 3 gallons per square yard and chip at fi~y (50) pounds per square yard.
RELOCATION -ROAD SUBBASE
Sections of the road requiring relocation shall have a nine (9) inch subbase of :;:iravel in addition to the road surfacing specified
above unless a soi.ls report prepared by a competent soi.ls engineering firm shall specify a lesser amount.
RIGHT OF WAY
The developer shall provide a 60 foot road right-of-way to the County for any road section being realigned outside of the existing
road alignment.
The developer will attempt to secure a sixty (60) foot road right-of-way or road permit (B. L. M.) from other landONners along
County Road 335 between its junctions on the west with C.R. 311 and its junction on the east with C.R. 312 as a convenience
to the County. The developer is not requi.red as a part of this Road Improvement Agreement to provide a right of way for any
road section other than areas being realigned or adjacent to the Wood Landing development.
r
Page 3
-'
. " EXHIBIT A
WORK TO BE PERFORMED ON.COUNTY ROAD 335
,
Garfield County Planner
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attention: Mr. Ray Baldwin
Dear Mr. Baldwin:
September 8, 1980
Box 1274
Littleton, CO 80160
Re: Wood Landing
The "Application for Rezoning as a Planned Unit Development" of
approximately 91 acres of land, to be known as Wood Landing, has been
reviewed during the past several weeks by the Planning Commission,
Board of County Commissioners and representatives of other organiza-
tions which are concerned with providing public services.
The planning of the proposed single-family development which would
provide up to 340 homes in the $50, 000 to $60, 000 price range has pro-
gressed to the point that you have indicated you would recommend its
approval provided the follONing improvements are made:
1 . County Road 335 West of Wood Landing
The developer will provide $93, 000 to the County to improve and
pave County Road 335 west of Wood Landing. The funds will be
escrowed at the time of final plat approval for use by the County
to improve the road during calendar year 1981.
2 . Garfield Creek Bridge
The developer will provide $15 ,000 to the County to widen or
othervvi.se improve the bridge across Garfield Creek. The funds
will be escrowed at the ti.me of final plat approval for use by the
County to improve the bridge during calendar year 1981.
•
Mr. Ray Baldwin -2-September 8, 1980
3. County Road 335 Adjoining Wood Landing
The subdivider wi 11 improve the portion of County Road 335
located along the south boundary of the residential area to
provide: no less than 22 feet width of chip and seal surfacing
and 6 foot wide shoulders on each side of the surfaced area;
proper drainage; improvement of the vertical and horizontal
alignments; and relocation of the irrigation ditch which pro-
vides water to the McAllister property . Estimated costs for
road and irrigation pipe are $63 , 000 . Contracts for these ser-
vices will be entered into and paid by the developer during Phase I.
4. The Planned Unit Development Zone District Regulations
The regulations will permit two residential lots near the east
entrance of the subdivision to be utilized for a convenience store
including self-service gasoline sales.
The regulations will also prov i de that a portion of the land reserved
for a waste water treatment facility expansion will be zoned and may
be platted to permit eight additional residential lots if the land is not
required for expansion of the treatment plant to support other lands
included in the water and sanitation di.strict.
5. Reimbursement Agreement
The developer and the County will enter into an agreement i.n which
the developer will provide 100% of the funds up to $93, 000 to improve
and pave County Road 335 westerly from the subdi.vi.si.on to the exist-
ing pavement at East Di.vi.de Creek. The County and the developer
would agree that since only 10 to 20% o f the road capacity increase
will be utilized by Wood Landing, the developer should be reimbursed
up to 80% of the $93, 000 at the rate of $60 per residential unit by new
subdivisions, exemptions or commercial operations approved by the
County which may use the road. The funds would be collected by the
County at the ti.me of final plat, permit or resolution approval and
would be distributed to the subdivider within 60 days a~er the approval.
Any and all funds not reimbursed to the developer within 10 years
from the date of final approval of Wood Landing will be written off
by the developer.
The County will incur no obligation to repay to the developer any
portion of the improvement costs not repaid by the reimbursement
agreement. A written agreement wi 11 be prer:a red to encompass
. . ...
Mr. Ray Baldwin -3-September 8, 1980
the concepts noted above by the County and the developer .
6. The Wood Landing final plat will have ten or less cul-de-sacs.
The preceding statements cover all items discussed on
September 2, 1980 and are provided for your records. Please
contact me if you should have additional questions .
Very truly yours,
l:'?d,@~~ORPORATION
Gene R. Hilton, President
cc: M r. Rudy W oodruff
Leonard Bowlby
Road Supe rvi sor
GARFIELD COUNTY
ROAD AND BRIDGE
P.O. Box 1485
Glenwood Springs , Colorado 81601
August 1, 1980
Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County Court House
Glenwood Spriags, Colo 81601
Gentlemen:
Phone 945-6111
As per your request, a review of County Road #335 from exit 105 at New
Castle to its junction with County Road #331 (East Divide) was made in ordee
to determine the effect of additional traffic expected as a result of the
proposed Wood's Landing Subdivision. The cost to improve the road in its
present location is also provided as are reviews on maintenance of the 2.2
miles of paved road within the subdiv is ion, including snow plowing.
The understanding I have is that the developer has agreed to improve the
one -half mile of paved road along the south edge of the property. It needs
minor straightening, widened to 22 feet, lowered in some areas to improve
sight distance and drainage installed. In Addition, the bridge at the junction
of Garfield Creek would need to be widened or replaced.
The road width from Interstate 70 to the west along County Road #335 to
Apple Tree Park would accomodate the traffic of both Apple Tree and Wood's
Landing, however it must be noted that at times during winter months with
snow and ice conditions, and during the peak of rush hour, it does become
congested with the present traffic flow of 1640 cars per 24 hour period. West
from Apple Tree Park to the Garfield Creek bridge on County Road #335, the road
is not as good because the shoulders are narrow, but with improvement,
primarily near the irrigation ditch crossing, the road is adequate to handle
the traffic from Wood's Landing at a 35 MPH speed limit.
The position of the road west of the subdivision is graveled, varies in width
and needs to be improved and preferably relocated in one area. The Transportation
Study prepared in 1977 by Oblinger-Smith recommended "Shape surface, apply chip
seal, no major reconstruction or grading, approximately 3.1 miles. This
wouldincrease capacity from 400 to 1000 VPD. Estimated cost $32,000.
Leonard Bowlby
Road Supervisor
2
GARFIELD COUNTY
ROAD AND BRIDGE
P.O. Box 1485
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone 945-6111
Costs to improve roads have increased since 1977, and a recent traffic
count indicates the 24 hour use of the road is 241 vehicles per day or
between 30 and 40 per hour at its bus ies t time. The amount of traffic which
would go west over the 3.1 miles of gravel road is not able to be determined
accurately. A computation assuming 20 % of the daily traffic from Wood's
Landing going west would leave most t rips during the day over the paved road
headed east. In all probability most of the 20% west bound would be during
6:00-8:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. by wor kers. Using the following 327 homes
X average 5 trips per day X 15 % per hour X 4 hours X 20% of total workers =
196 or an average of 49 trips per hour at its highest. The road would need to
be improved at anything over this traf fi c level. Several rough figures have
been discussed based on various levels of improvement. The Roan Creek Road
(County Road #204) actual costs have been adjusted to provide a representative
cost figure for the road, were it to be improved in its present location.
Gravel costs-18,666 tons
Royalty @.50 per ton
Hauling 11 miles average
Chip & Seal, extra trucking
water hauling, roller
County Costs
Labor
FUEi!l
Administration
TOTAL COST ROAN CREEK 4.6 miles
COUNTY ROAD 335-3 .1 miles estimate
Gravel costs
$ 55,639
9,333
36,087
74,192
14 ,911
4,232
4,766
$194,397
$g,333 X 67.39 % of distance X .50 r oyalty 3,246
Hauling-one mile each way average
$36,087 X 1/11 of mileage
Chip and Seal
$74,192 X 67.39 % of distance X 90 % to
adjust -for· equipment use
Gravel crushing
$2.30 per ton X 4,000 ton mile X 3.2
3,280
44,998
29,440
Leonard Bowlby
Road Supe r v i sor
County Costs
3
GARFIELD C O UNTY
ROAD AND B R I OGE
P.O . Box 14 8 5
G l enw ood Spri ngs, Co l orado 81601
$23,909 X 50% less road distance less problems
TOTAL COUNTY ROAD #335 Present a lignment west
from Woods Landing
Ph o ne 9 4 5-6 11 1
11,955
$92,919
The improvementof the road would benefit Wood's Landing because 20% of work
trips would probably use the road. The capac i ty of the road would be increased
several times over. The present traffic volume combined with the expected Wood's
Landing traffic would accomodate some future growth.
TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATE
Garfield Creek-widen bridge at present locat i on
One-half Mile Road on South Edge of Wood's La nding
$ 15,000
Chip and seal 8,000
Haul 2,200
Gravel 5,175
Drainage, 4X36" CSP @ 19.48 per f t. X 40" 3,117
Total half mile$ 18,492
County Road #335 West of Pavement $ 92,919
TOTAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATE $126 ,411
Please note: These cost figures are for min i mum improvements. Previously
discussed figures included a new bridge at Ga r field Creek,. nm:\t h o f -t he pr es ent
location, acquiring right of way for straighte ning of road, several hundred feet
of guard rail and considerable new constructio n of road west of Wood's Landing
The above cost estimates would improve the sa f ety problems at Garfield Creek and
help accomodate traffic generated west from t h e proposed Wood's Landing subdivision
plus increase the capacity of the road for fu t ure growth requirements.
The Maintenance of the 2.2 miles of road with in the Wood's Landing subdivision would
be no more than regular county road maintenanc e, and is estimated to be within
the allocated amount expected from the State Highway Users Tax distribution for
the increased mileage of 2.2 miles.
Snow plowing can be accomplished at various l evels of ma i ntenance. The level normally
provided in residential areas in other parts o f the s tate recognizes subdivisions
are secondary to plowing of main traffic route s . The a s phalt and sun e xposure will
L eonard Bo w lby
Road Supervisor
4
GARFIELD C OU NTY
ROAD AND B RI DGE
P.O . Box 14 8 5
G lenwood Spri n gs, Col o rado 81601 Phone 945-6111
assist in some snow removal when combined wi th residential traffic and some
plowing.
In Conclusion, maintenance and snow removal within the subdivision are not considered
to be out of the ordinary compared to the remainder of the county, they would
simply be an addition to our present duties . It should be recognized, however, that
major snow storms could require special atte ntion, possibly snow removal on an
occasional basis.
The road can be made to any level of improve ment and costs will vary accordingly.
The figures presented in previous paragraphs reflect the minimum amounts which
I believe would insure that traffic levels expected could be safely accomodated.
Please contac~ me if you should need additional information.
cf:~~4
Garfield County Road Supervisor
cc:Gene R. Hilton
LAB/pc
Offiee of the Sheriff
JOHN A . MC NEEL JR . GARFIELD COUNTY Sh eriff
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, C OLORADO 81601
PHONE 945-91 51
Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
August 1, 1980
Ref: Subdivision, (Hilton) west of Garfield
Creek and others.
Dear Sirs:
CE R l S L.~o ....... ~
JO LL ~y .... ~ ... ~----········"
VELASQ'lfL.:°2 .. -
This letter i s not lending support to developers or any-
one else, rather it is an impart i al display of informat-
ion regarding developements.
With the growth of Garfield County and resulting influx
of people, it is necessary have housing. This creates
problems for everyone involved and I will hold my remarks
to the Emergency, Safety and Protection of Lives and
Property aspect.
With each approval of housing whether a subdivision or a
individual housing permit ~ the demands are increased con-
siderably on Garfield County Sheriff's Office, Fire Depart-
ments and Ambulance Service. In creased demands on the
Sheriff's Office are Security and Protection from the time
excavating starts with the machine!) building materials
and then safety and protection of lives and property after
completion and occupancy. This not only involves Patrol,
Survelliance etc., but also Crime Prevention. All of which
takes time and effort along with increased costs. The
demands on Fire Departments and Ambulance Departments are
also increased.
Statistics prove that there is considerable les s demand
for these services, especially Law Enforcement in perman-
ent type housing where people are concerned about having
real property and are willing to help maintain a peacefull,
sociable atmosphere than in a transient situation such as
a mobile home park.
Office of the Sheriff
JOHN A . MC NEEL JR . GARFIELD C O UNTY
She r i ff
GLENWOOD SPRINGS , C OLORADO 81601
PHONE 945-91 51
I realize that all types of housing have to be provided
to keep up with the growth of Garfield County, but would
like to suggest that whenever possible, it be permanent
type housing as there is considerable less demands and
calls in this type housing o p p os ed to the transient type
as the type of peo ple involved have different views.
The people in permanent type housing are more concerned
with keeping a quiet safe atmos~pere as they also have
more personal money invested. Also these people are
willing to help with Crime ~revention through such pro-
grams as Neighborhood Wa tch, e t c., in cooperation wi th
the Garfield County Sheriff's Office.
Gentlemen, thank you for the t i me and effort devoted to
these problems and for the time taken to look at my
views. If you have further questions, please feel
free to call on me.
S incerely,
d.L.~ e< _511, J ,~e.-(~. J;r:n A McNeel Jr.
United States Departmen t of the Interior
Mr. Gene Hilton
P. 0. Box 1008
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Glenwood Springs Reso ur ce Area
P. 0. Box 100 9
Glenwood Springs, Color ado 81601
November 4, 19 80
Glenwood Springs , CO 81601
Dear Gene:
I have considered your ideas about a minor rea lignm ent of the County
Road on public land, south of the Colorado River between Garfield and
Divide Creeks in Lot 3, Section 8, Towns hi p 6S , Range 91W.
I do not believe, based on the pictures yo u s howed me, that there will
be any objection to str a ightening of the two curves. It appears that
the safety of the road will be enhanced. Bef ore any construction could
begin, Garfield County would have to apply and receive a right-of-way
for work to be done outside the bounds of the existing roadway.
If I can provide more help, please let me know .
cc: Ray Baldwin
Sincerely,
~~'-A -~-\~
Alfre d W. Wright
Area Ma.nag er
Director of Planning, Garfield Co. w/Enc.
Enclosure
Map of road
Save Energy and You Serve America !
IN REPLY REFER TO
2820
7-162
I C., I
/'
ON
.;r~_,,.
_L ~
Bd
I
I
I
I
1
~-------0 ::._I \
,-~
@3)
I
Road : I
RONALD NADON
I
SCHULTZ FAMILY
PARTNER S HIP
8 L . M
8
CI>
Cl. .....
~-_________ _;__ __ _.:..._j
2
~
I
Stephr-L. Vasilakis
CERIS E p .o. . 951 Nw ~a.s a.~. cq-.-
··-·-···-···-·•mtn{)ctober 6 1 rnifi ,, · 1• iJ ' 1 , JO LL EY__ ' ~"~ ··' -_..._ ___ .... -
• ..... ,.,.,.,...,~"'""••••t:i"t'll"•I' t I
VEL /\SQU EZ .•.• ,,,.,,_ ..•.• ,, i l: 0 c; T ~ ., . )
J ·.• .......... ., .................. ,,,,,,, l_ -~--
Garf ield County Com.missioners
Dear Sirs:
Fi LE
On Monday night , Sept ember 19 , Tri·0··'Boara···c;-r··'I'rustees of the Town of
New Castle had a special meeting concerning the proposed Wood Landing project,
At t hat time the Board decided to rescind it 's previously submitted letter
opposing the project . In my opinion that vote was based on the housing short-
age this area is experiencing as well as the feeling that this town has no
jurisdiction ove r matters outside its limits .
As a member of the Board of Trustees I am concerned with the future of this
town . After h e aring Mr . Hilton 's a n d Mr. Woodruff 's presentation , I feel that
very little is to be gained in this comrr..unity by this project or their token
donations . On the contrary, I feel t hat Wood Landing would have an adverse
impact on the Town of New Castle and its potential future growth . Tonight,
October 6 , Mr . Eric Williams will be coming before the Board with his pre-
liminary plans for a P .U.D. to be annexed by the Town. This would not only help
serve the needs of the estimated influx of people to this area, but would also
h e lp serve the needs of the people who have already invested their lives into
this town .
New Castle is presently trying to overcome its past record of being stagnant.
We want to do our part to help this county progress , but we will be unable to
help if we become overburdened with parasitic projects that utilize our services
and f acilities without contributing city taxes to support them. Projects of this
type c ontribute to the urban sprawl that now exists between Glenwood Springs
and New Ca s tle and the urban sprawl that has been recognized as a major problem
on the east ern slope. New Castle needs to grow from within if it is to survive .
Every man has a right to life, as does every town. Ple~se consider the enormous
adver se impacts a project of this magnitude will bring to our struggling town .
Si,,__<:e:r:,ely yo 1#,;:.s, ~ / ~,.('~·
Stephen L. Vasilakis
, I
Mr Dick Jolley
TOWN OF NEW C ASTLE
B O X 166
N E W CA S TL E, COLO RAD O 81 6 4 7
T E LEPHON E: 9 84-23 11
September 30, 1980
Garfield County Cormnissioners
P .O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, CO 816 01
Dear Dick :
ff'\f'"t~::· fj\ -~I"
.... •i •• -....
The Town of New Castle's Board of Trustees held a special Public
Hearing , September 29, 1980. This special meeting was called to hear
a presentation regarding the Woods Landing p roject, by Gene Hilton .
Following the presentation and discus sion New Castle's Board of
Trustees, voted 3-2 to rescind their previous letter dated September
18, 1980, opposing the Woods Landing project.
Sincerely yours,
Pete J. Mattivi
Mayor
PM/an
' -'•·""
Charles M. Stoddard
Attorney at Law
812 Pitkin Avenue, P. 0 . Box 697
Glenwood Springs, Colo rad o 81601
September 18, 1980
Garfi~ld County Commissioners
Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone 945-7474
Area Code 303
,. ERiSL ............... ._-
JOllf:Y -~u~...._ ....... ~ ••
\IE l~SQUEZ: ... ..JL. ..... ~
Re: Ranch Investment Corp. Ap p lication for Zone Change FILL ....... "'•·-·-·-···-----
for Lands in Secs. 4 and 9 , T. 6 S., R. 91 W., 6th
P.M., containing 91 acres , m/l
Gentlemen:
Mrs. Ethel Delaney furnished me with notice of the public hearing set
for Oct. 16, 1980 at 10:00 A.M. before the Garfield County Commissioners in
connection with the above-refer e nced reque st for zone chan g e. Frank Delaney
owned and ranched the property across the Colorado River from the proposed
development for more than 30 years. The e state continues to operate the
property as a ranch and intends to continu e to do so. Ethel Delaney, Mary
Edith Logan and Patricia Dunn, are the Co -PRs of the Estate . On their
behalf, objection is made to granting the requested zone change, there having
been no change in character or use of eith er the lands requested for zone
chance or in any of the adjoining lands, a ll of which are used for agricultural
purposes. There being no basis in fact f o r the requested change in zoning,
it is respectfully urged that the applicat ion be denied.
'9'} ? The proposed development if completed would create a new community requiring
~11 ~he services which City inhabitants e x pect and demand, but which as you fully
re~lize th~ Cou~ty is not able to, and sho uld not be expected to, provide, but
w~ich the inhabitants no doubt will d ema n d , ca u sin g a n g ui sh , f ru s t ra tion, wasted
time and expense to all concerned. ·
CMS/cl
cc: Mrs. Ethel Delaney
A torney for Co-P s of the Estate of
Frank Delaney, Dec e ased
Mr . Dick Jolley
TOWN OF NEW CA STLE
BOX 1 6 6
NEW C A STLE, COLORAD O 81647
TE LEP HO NE: 984-231 1
September 1 8 , 1980
Garfield County Commissioners
P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, CO 81647
Dear Dick:
iSc..t+1B1T pp
r --,,_ ··-·-
j \.' •· L; '1 .... '_ ....... ··~ .... .. ; .
'
I
, ..• _,'<;!:" j
l·-·.·~ --···-·-·-··--~···-··-
.:~; ~ ::·~. ··• .••••••• -_..... a
V': :_ '.S~' 'f I. . ., ........ ~""'
The Town of New Castle's Board of Trustees passed a resolution at
its meeting last night which opposed the Woods Landing project. The
members of the Board felt this project would adversely impact future
growth in areas within the Town and/or adjacent to New Castle.
The members of the Board also felt that residents of the County
living outside of the town limits utilize many of the services and
facilities in New Castle, but they do not pay city taxes to support them.
Projects of this type contribute to the urban sprawl that now exists
in the area between Glenwood Springs and New Castle. Development should be
i n existing towns or adjacent to them in an effort to eliminate the
need for numerous water systems and sewer systems.
Sincerely yours,
jJ#•mi~
Ralph Freedman
Town Administrator
GARFIELL., SCHOOL DISTRIL. r NO. RE-2
RIFLE , COLORADO Dariel Clark, Superinte ndent
625-1595
Rifle High School
Matthew V . Chambers. Pri n cipal
625-1596
David R. Crabtree, Assistant Superintendent
625-1595
SILT . COLORADO
Silt Elementary School
Roy 0. Moore , Principal
876-236 3
Forest Davis . Assistant Principal
625-1596
Lennard D. Eckhardt, Assistant Superintendent
625-2361
NEW CASTLE, COLORADO
Riverside Junior H igh School
New Castle Elementary
George L. Hesse. Principal
984 -2372
Rifle Junior High School
Grant L. Fiedler . Principal
625-1776
822 East Aven ue
Rifle , Colorado
Esma Lewis Elementary
Lawrence D . McBride. Princip al
625-2438 July 28, 1980
Mr. Ray Baldwin
Garfield County Planner
2014 Blake ·Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Baldwin:
I have reviewed the Wood Landing project with Mr. Gene
Hilton. We discussed in more det ail the phasing of the
project and considered the number of school age children
likely to come from housing in th is development.
In my judgment the New Castle School can accommodate the
youngsters from Wood Landing through the 1981-82 term
without serious strain on the fac i lity unless Riverbend
should develop rapidly.
For the 1982-83 term it is possib le mobile classrooms will
have to be used to house children in the New Castle attendance
area. The use of mobile units could be required earlier if
Riverbend develops rapidly or if the Wood Landing development
progresses faster than Mr. Hilton now feels is likely. He
indicates the project would be developed over a three to five
year period.
Growth in the eastern part of the district may well require
temporary classrooms since people are moving to the New Castle
area. Our master plan recognizes that more permanent buildings
will be needed in this attendance center and school officials
plan on the construction of these as soon as money can be
raised for this purpose.
mrm
Sincerely ,
Dariel Clark
Superintendent
GARF IELD COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO L ORADO 81601
2014 BLAKE AVEN LIE PHONE 945 -821 2
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Pl anning Staff
DATE: July 25, 1980
SUBJECT : Wood Landing P.U.D.
With regards to this project , th ere are several matters to
be considered . First of all , the idea o f houses in the $50,0fJO to
$60,000 range is filling a need in the Cou nty. The conce pt of a
developer-builder is a first for the Cou nty and is desirable. The
idea of concentrating more people on les s land i s an idea which has
been discussed many times.
However, the impacts created and t he services demanded by
this project are of greater concern. Th e concerns can be classified
into three main categories : Road, Fire an d Schools
1 . Roads -A traffic count do ne by the r oad department
during the week of July 14 indicated 1 ,640 vehicles east of the
Apple Tree Park, 287 west of Apple Tree bu t East of Garfield Creek ,
and 241 west of Garfield Creek. These we re 24 hour counts . The Road
Department feels that the service for sn ow plowing will be very
difficult due to lack of places to push sn ow and the narrow streets.
The developers indicate they are willing to part i cipate in the County
road improve~ents, but no exact fi~ures ha ve been given. The County
does not have money budgeted for their s ha re of the improvements .
2. Fire protection is going to be very minimal under
existing conditions . The response time ac cording to the department
will be at least 15 minutes . With the clo se nes s of the houses and
wind, the potential for serious problem s is high . The only real
answer is to have a fire truck in the de velopment at all times .
3. Contrary to what was stated at the July 14 Planning
Commission meeting, there is serious imp ac t on the school s ystem.
Attached is a letter from Mr. Clark indi ca ting his conce r ns .
The sketch plan check list loo ks at ta x hardships and
inefficiencies. This project will cause hardships to the e xisting County
services.
One other question which ari s es is , should t he County
encourage this type of development in th e County ? This will set a
precedent for the future and is this the kind the County should set ?
RB/hr
&1+1817 BB
GARFIELL SCHOOL DISTRIL. r NO. RE-2
RIFLE, COLORADO Darlel Clark, Superintendent
625-1595
David R . Crabtree, Assistant Superinten e~
625-1595 i., I:
SILT , COLORADO
Silt Elementa r y Schoo l
Roy D . Moore , Principal
876-2363
Rifle High School
Matthew V . Chambers. Principal
625-1596
Forest Davis. Assistant Principal
625-1596
Lennard D . Eckhardt, Assistan t Superin .'~~ent
625-2361 . '
NEW CASTLE. COLORAD O
''1.r--•. Riversi d e Junior H igh School
Rifle Junior High School
Grant L. Fiedler, Principal
625-1776
Esma Lewis Elementary
Lawrence 0. McBride, Principal
625-2438
Mr. Ray Baldwin
Garfield County Planner
2014 Blake Avenue
822 East Aven ue
Rifle, Colorado
July 22, 19 80
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Baldwin:
J ) ·'-New Castle Elementary
l...:: Ul 2 J ·George L. Hesse . Principal
c. ;98 IJ· / / 984 -2312 (,4R;:... V ·w 'c:1..v ,
{.,u. f-... 1
1..,:,,tli(f?
I understand a preliminary hearing was he l d on the Wood Landing development
proposed by Mr. Gene Hilton. To my knowl e dge I have not received information
about the project from your office. I did talk in g eneral terms about the
development with Mr. Hilton recently.
Wood Landing has some desirable features should it become a reality. The
setting by the river would be attractive and the permanent housing would be
superior to mobile homes which I am concerned will become all too common in
this lovely valley.
I asked Mr. Hilton whether land or a financial contribution would be made to
the district since the location is in the county and would be subject to the
terms of SB35. He said his preference wo ul d be mone y . Since no specifics
were discussed I have no idea whether there would be enough money to make a
significant contribution in overcoming the impact Wood Landing would have.
With the developments that have been appr oved in the New Castle area I be-
lieve the n ew building there will be at full capacity in the immediate future.
The school closed the 1979-80 term with 326 students. Under ideal conditions
the building can accommodate 400 youngsters. This would be possible, however,
only if the kids are d istributed so there a re about the same number at each
grade level.
A development the size of Wood Landing wo ul d generate more youngsters than
the New Castle facility can possibly accommodate. Until a new building can be
constructed elsewhere in the district there would be no place to take care of
them. Considering the prospect of populat ion increases i n the Rifle area it
appears certain all Rifle buildings includin g the one to be constructed soon
for elementary youngsters will be filled by students in the Rifle attendance
center.
Mr. Ray Baldwin
Garfield County Planner
Page 2
July 22, 1980
I regret having to raise concerns about d e velopments such as Wood Landin g
since I am convinced permanent housing , even on sma l l lots such as this
one would provide, is far better than trailer houses. I must point out,
however, that there could be problems we c oul d not readily solve.
mrm
cc: Mr. Gene Hilton
Mr. Dick Jolley
Board of Directors
Sincerely ,
Dariel Clark
Superintend ent
public Service Company <IDif cDmil@IralcdI@
P.O. Box 152 Ri fle CO ~1650 ~~([1 ~999.fnl
: Ii
JUL l 4 1980 _.J
Jul y 14, 1980
Garfield County Planning Commission
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: Ra y Baldwin
Dear Mr. Baldwin:
GARFIELD CO. l"li.Ar+NER
Public Service Company of Colorado wi ll provide natural g as
service to the proposed Wood Landin g Development south of
New Castle in accordance with our cur rent extension polic y
on file with the Public Utilities Co mmission of the State
of Colorado.
You r s truly,
Don al d L. Currie
Sr. Consumer Service Rep.
DLC:lu
Char l es M. Stoddard
Attorney at Law
812 Pitkin Avenue, P. 0. Box 697
Glenwood Springs, Colorad o 8 1601
DO
July 10, 1980 Telephone 945-7474
Area Code 303
Garfield County Planning Department
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Attention: Mr . Ray Baldwin
Re : Ranch Investment Corp. Application for Zone Change
for Lands in Secs. 4 and 9, T. 6 S., R. 91 W., 6th
P . M., containing 91 acres, m/l
Dear Ray :
Mrs . Ethel Delaney furnished me with notice of the public hearing set
for July 21, 1980 at 10:00 A .M. before the Garfield County Commissioners in
connection with the above-referenced request for zone change. Frank Delaney
owned and ranched the property across the Colorado River from the propos e d
development for more than 30 years. The es t a te continues to operate the
property as a ranch and intends to continue t o do so. Ethel Delaney, Mary
Edith Logan and Patricia Dunn, are the Co-PRs of the Estate . On their
behalf, objection is made to granting the requested zone change, ther e having
b een no change in character or use of either the lands requested for zone
change or in any of the adjoining lands, all of which are used for agricultural
purposes . There being no basis in fact for the requested change in zoning,
it is respectfully urged that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
denial thereof, and that the Commissioner s follow such recommendation .
CMS/cl
cc: Mrs. Ethel Delaney
Attorney for Co-PRs of the Estate of
Frank Delaney, Deceased
EXHIBIT 7
Revised 7 /7 /80
WOOD LANDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS
ZONE DISTRICT -Wood Landing Planned Unit Development
USES, BY RIGHT: Single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory
uses, including fences, hedges, gardens, wa lls and similar landscape features;
public util i.ti.es and faci.l i.ties; schools; water storage and impoundments , parks
and playgro unds, and other si.mi. lar uses.
USES -SPECIAL: None
MINIMUM LOT AREA: 4, 770 square feet
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: 40 percent ex cluding driveway and patio
MINIMUM SETBACK:
(1) Front Yard:
Local Streets
16 f eet mini.mum from habitable port i on of dwelling unit .
6 feet mini.mum to garage wa ll where side entry garage is used.
(2) Rear Yard:
10 feet from rear lot line to building wall
(3) S i.de Yard:
Ze ro lot l i.ne on one side where there i.s 10 feet or more between
dwell i.ng units . 5 f eet mini.mum i.f no adjoining zero lot l i.ne.
fV\AXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS: 28 f e e t
fV\AXIMUM FLOOR AREA RA TIO:
Fini.sh floor area relative to lot area (exclusive of garag e) . 3/1
ADDITION AL REQUIREMENTS : All u ses s hall be subject to the provisions
under Section 5 (Suppleme ntary Regulations ) of the Garfield County Zoning
Re so lution of 1978 as amended by Resolut ion No. 79-132.
EXHI B IT 4
Rev i sed 7 /7 /80
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN
300 FEET OF W OOD LANDING
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
0.Nner s of propert y located within 300 feet of t he Wood Landing Planned
Unit Development are liste d below , the owners hip and addresses were
obtained from the office of the Garfield County Ass ess or on June 2 , 1980.
1 . ~~n~neth R. and P eg gy A . Coll ins
~Grand Avenue
Gl e nwood Springs, Col o rado 81 6 01
Telephone 984-2241
2 . R. H . Hanahan Estate
Helen Gray
185 1 Logan Stree t #22
Denver , Colorado 8 0203
3. J. R. and J e an Ann McA l liste r
3325 -335 Road
New C a stle , Colorado 81647
T e l e pho ne 984-2285
4 . Richa r d Jolley
Myrie l Jolley
K e nt Jolley
B r e tt Jolley
N e w C astle, CO 8 1 6 4 7
T e l e phone 984-2 257
5. Fra nk D e l a ney E state
B ox 256
G l enw ood Sp r in g s, C o l orado 8 1 6 0 1
6 . Laure n c e Payne
Star Route
New C a stle, Col o rado 8 1 6 47
7 . W estley D. a nd Mae E . Ho l de r
B ox 918
N e w Castle, Colorado 81647
Tel e pho ne 9 84 -2 42 7
8. DonaldR. Snyder, e t al
Box 106
New C astle, Col o r a do 81 6 47
T e l e pho ne 984 -22 09
B r a nna n P ro pe rti es , Inc.
4039 -335 Roa d
N e w C astle , Colorado 81647
T e l e pho n e 9 84-2188
9a. B r a nnan Pro pe rties, Inc .
35 1 W est Redo ndo Bea ch B lvd.
Gardena, CA 902 48
10 . Ada ir Rip py
New Cast le, Col o r a do 81 6 47
T e l ephone 984-2365
11. Gene R. H il ton
Box 12 74
L itt l e t o n, C o l orado 8 0160
12. Pau li.neRip py
B ox 13 8
N e w C astle, Color a do 81647
THE EFFECT OF WOOD LANDING PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ON GARFIELD COUNTY
ROADS AND SCHOOLS
The Region XI Council of Governments' population projections for
Garfield County for the period December 1980 to December 1985 are pre-
sented belO\/V .
December 1980 Population Projection
Increase to 1985 -Excluding Energy Developme nt
Increase to 1985 -Including Energy Deve l o pment
Increase to 1985 -Due to Oil Shale Incentives
Population Projections -D e cember 1985
GENERAL
25,998
5,256
19,305
15,5 67
6 6,126
The population projection s h o ws a r eq uire m e nt for ad ditional housing
ranging from 94% to 1 5 4% more tha n presently e xi s ts in G a rfield County .
The effects that s uch a large increase in peo ple will have o n the County
schools and r oa ds is hard to compre h e nd.
The pro blem prior to the present ti m e h as been w hether or not the re
w o uld e ver be an ene rgy progra m which w ould inv o lve the d e velopment of
oil s hale .
Tod ay the pro bl e m is how to r eas on a bly accommodate a proj e cte d
growth tha t will probably double the e xis ting population in only five y e ars.
Ho u s ing and public se rvice s mu s t be provided in all communities on a
r e a s onable basis.
The con s i de r ati on given below to t ax reve n ue t o be gen erat e d by Wood
L a nding a nd its r e l a ti o n s hip to ro a d s an d schoo l s , poi n ts out tha t dev e l o pme nt
activity is a r esult of a r e quir e m e nt to h ouse peopl e associated with the
energy industry and not that hou s ing creates the oppo rtunity for indu s try.
Estimated tax r evenue for the 3 40 u nit deve l opm e nt i s c ompute d b e low:
Number of Single-Family Units
Avera ge Sal e s Price E s tima te
Total Value
Adju s tme nt to 1973 Bas e (5 0 % o f 1980)
A ssessed V a l uation a t 3 0%
Mill Levy ( 1 9 79 Levy)
Total T ax R e v e nue to C o unty
-17-
3 40
$ 55 ,000
$18,700,000
9 ,35 0,000
$ 2 ,805 ,0 00
78.2 5
$ 2 19 ,491
R e vi se d 7/10/80
Funds Available
Schools (at 45. 06 Mill Levy)
Road and Bridge (at 3 .2 5 Mi.ll Levy)
Other Revenue (at 29. 94 mill levy)
Total Tax Revenue
SCHOOLS
$126,393
9' 116
83,982
$219,491
The gravvth of the energy industry in Garfield County will r esult in
significant increases in population and school enro llment . The realization
that schools and housing must be provided c a n no l onger be avoided.
Wood Landing will provide home s for 340 families in a well planned
subdivision and in a price range which will make home s available to more
pe ople . The revenues generated from the property taxes on the homes will
re sult in over $126,393 of proper ty tax es eac h year for schools, or approxi-
mately $372 per res id e ntial unit. The alternativ e to permane nt housing,
mobile home s , generat e d only $125 per res idential unit during 1979. The
financi al advantage to the School District of the Wood Landing Planned Unit
Devel opment is apparent .
ROADS
The total length of additional roads in Wood Landin g which wa..Jld requi.re
road maintenance and snavv removal is 2. 2 mil es. This i s an increase of only
.3 of 1% to the 646 miles in the County r oad system which is presently main-
tained.
Revenue of $9, 116 would be generated annually from the Wood Landing
planned unit development for the Road and Bridge Fund. The revenue generated
would be an increase of 3.2% to the total funds collected in 1979.
SUMMARY
The road s within the development would add only a nominal amount to
the total road distance in the County. Revenues generated from taxes for road s
would be over 3% of the total tax amounts collected for r oads.
-18-Revis ed 7 /10/80
WOOD BROTHERS PROPOSAL
COUNTY FISCAL ANALYSIS
This report reviews the fiscal impacts of a proposed
single family residential developmen t by Wood Brothers
Homes. The proposal includes 327 s i ngle family homes wit h
an intended sales price of under $60,000. Roads measur i ng
11,200 linear feet will also be inc l uded.
Based on previously developed standards, th i s develop-
ment will generate :
MEASURE RA TE TOTAL
Average Daily Trips 8.0 /unit 2,616 t r ips per day
10.0 /unit 3,270 trips per day
Population 3.3 /unit 1,079 persons
Students .7 8 /unit 255 students
Elementary (K-6) .3 9/unit 1 28 students
Junior High (7-8) .1 2/unit 39 studen t s
Senior High (9-12) .2 7/unit 88 students
Costs to the County's General F und and Road and Bridge
Fund (comprising over 65% of the t ota l Garfield County 1979
Budget) are considered in this ana l -' -:;l s, General Fund costs
are approximately $200 per unit, wh i e Road and Bridge Fund
maintenance, snow removal, and per i odic resurfacing account
for annual costs of $3,280 per mil e . Total annual costs to
these funds from the Wood Brothers proposal would be $65,400
to the General Fund ($200 x 327 un i ts) and $6,960 to the Road
and Bridge Fund ($3,280 x 2.12 mil e s). It should be care-
fully noted that Road and Bridge Fu nd c osts include only
additional maintenance and resurfac ing of roads within the
development. Impacts on existing County roads are not con-
sidered in this amount.
Revenue from the development wi ll be generated primarily
through property taxes, based on a s sessed valuation.
Assessed value is calculated as:
327 units •
x $58,000/units assumed average sales price
$18,966,000 sales value
x .68 1973 market v alue/sales value ratio
$12,896,880 1973 market v a lue
x .30 assessment ra t io
$ 3,869,064 assessed value
Applying the tax mill levies f or the General Fund
and Road and Bridge Fund to this a s sessed value, property
taxes will be collected in the amo u nt of:
General Fund
$3,869,064
x .01246
$48,209
assessed value
mill levy
Road/Bridge Fund
$3,869,064
x .003
$11,607
Comparing costs and property t ax revenues shows net
results of:
General Fund
$48,209
65,500
($17,191)
Revenue
Cost
Surplus (Deficit)
Total
($12,544 )
Road/Bridge Fund
$11,607
6,960
$ 4,647
• • • • • • • • •
. .
TABLE 26
Recanmended Minimum Roadway Performance Standards
Major and Minor Co l lectors
Garfield County, Colorado
Primary Road Usage
Daily Traffic
Volume Range
0-50
50 -150
150 -500
500 -l ,000
l ,000 -5,000
Surf ace
Surface Width (ft.)
Shoulders (ft.)
Operating Speed (mph)
Surf ace
Surface Width (ft.)
Shoulders (ft.)
Operating Speed (mph)
Surf ace
Surface Width (ft.)
Shoulders (ft.)
Operating Speed (mph)
Surface
Surface Width (ft.)
Shoulders (ft.)
Operating Speed (mph)
Surface
Surface Width (ft .)
Shoulders (ft.)
Operating Speed (mph)
Agricultural Residential/Commercial*
Gravel Gravel
18 20
2 2
30 35
Gravel Gravel
20 22
2 4
35 40
Gravel** Asphalt**
22 22
4 4
40 45
Asphalt** Asphalt**
24 24
6 8
45 50
Asphalt** Asphalt**
24 24
8 8
50 55
* At least 25 pe r cent of traffic generated by rural non-farm residential or
commercial.
** An adequate base is to be provided .
62
Board of County C ommiss ione rs
Garfield County, C o l o r ad o
County C o urt House
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Gentlemen:
Janua ry 23 , 1978
Box 1274
Littlet o n, CO 8 01 6 0
·The attache d "Sketc h f:)l a n" and in forma ti o n as s oci a ted with the pl an n e d
developm e nt of 62 0 ac r es of land o n Garfield Creek is s ubmitted Fo r your
revi.ew and referral to the Planning Commi.ssi.on.
The overall concept of the sub divi sion i s to provide five acre sing le
family r es id ent ial h omes ites to be served by a c e ntral w a te r system ,
electricity, telephone and county approv e d graveled roa ds . Individual
septic systems will be provi ded b y the p u rchaser. . The de'/e l ope r expects
to construct h o u ses o n approximately one -hal f of the l ots with the bal a nce
to be sold to other builders o r to indivi d ua ls.
More specifi.c inform a tion is pr-ovided in the attac h ed "Sketch P l a n"
brochure r egar ding the su bdivi s i o n which w it l be ca l l ed 11 Winchester".
The fee for r e vi e w of the sketch plan i s e n cl osed .
Your assistance in this matter w i.l l b e a ppreciated.
Encl.
Gene R Hilton, Pr·eside nt
Ranch Inve stm e nt Corporation
Planning Commission July 28, 1980
Barbara Lorah moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of the Wood Landing P.U.D. for the fol l owing reasons :
l. The expense to the County f or roads and schools
2. The potential dup l ication o f services.
3. This is against the past County policy of encouraging
high density next to urban centers
Laverne Starbuck seconded the motion.
For: Barbara Lorah, Arnold Ma ck ley and Laverne Starbuck
Against: Dale McPherson and Al lan Bowles
Motion carried
TOWN OF NEW CASTLE
'Burning Mountain' Telephone (303) 984-2311 Box 166, Ne'A( Castle , Colo rado 81647
J ~ 1888 O'~~h-," C/ 'V~ .-.ay ~~, :.99.:
Garfie:d CoLnty Co~missionerE
109 8th s~reet •
G::.enwoJd Springs, 0 0 81602
Dear CommisEioners:
':'Le Eo3.rc. r_f T:;.-·1stees -:f -::ht:-'.:JWI'. :f N:=w .= istle ''lc.1lj ::.::J:e
t J expres.3 tlL~ir "P:>:>~ i ti Jn tc, -r i :i.p;;>roval _ f th? Wc•oj.:: Lar:c ing
PUD. Fellowing :..1re JU:: re'---Eon;: f:>r our ·pp:s:t:::i:1·
o The deas:...ty l.::"'El ~s toe, .i.l'Jl1.
o Tl:ere is .1·.)t e110-.1gh deme:r.d :Jr th.'lt. v:ir.'-· o: 11:1.l.;act.
castl:: Valle_-R:J.nch is ~-cil·::c i::..ed tc ;:; i-_15 ::.soJ unit:: ..
~ ?~e economy dces not wdr~a~t a~cther Eut~i\:s~Jn :.: thi~
are::..
o TLe ~CL .Jl ::·1ste.1 ~·1oi..·ld '::le i.~pc.rtec.'.
P::.ea:::e tc.k.= Cl:r \·:...e·!'l.:, lllt-.: ::::::-n::..id.::2.-at1.:1 1-·Len r~-_·:'._2;1L1g ::llE
Wcod.s L :i.ndir..g ?'Ir !.·'.:::1eva.:.. rec;:·.1E s-::.
If y:u ·.a\·.:: any c;:n.::sticn.:: ple:L:.:: d. i.::t :E.s~c:ite :.o c01:tact
me.
TJwn 2lerk
SC/pp
ro. ~(9 prmted on re c ycled paper
R O BERT DELANEY
K E N NETH BALCO MB
JOH N A.. THULS ON
E DWARD M U LHALL, .JR .
RO BERT C. C U T TER
SCOTT BALC OMB
L A W RENCE R . G REEN
ROBERT M . N OO NE
TI M O THY A. THU LSON
D E LANEY & BALCOMB, P . C.
A TT O R N E YS A T L A W
DRAW ER 790
GI.ENWO O D SPRI NGS, CoLOR ADO 8H302
April 8, 1 992
Garfield County Planning Commission
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
(HAND DELIVERED)
RE: Wood Landing P.U.D.
Dear Madam and Sirs:
8 18 COLOR A D O A V ENUE
TELE CO P I ER 9<45 -89 02
ARE.A. C OD E 303
At your last meeting you r eviewed the Sketch Plan of Wood
Landing P.U.D. and it is the intenti on of the De veloper to follow
the process init iated by the Sketch Plan in an orderly and
efficient manner. In the interest o f conserving b oth your time and
the Developer's time, we have e lected not to repeat that
presentation f or your April, 1992 me et i ng.
The attached letter of Decembe r 16, 1991 from Mark L. Bean
outlines the County's requi r ements f or the P.U.D. classification.
The Developer complied with those req uirements by filing the Sketch
Plan on January 14, 1992.
The Developer has designed thi s project to a nswer the need for
affordable single-family housing in Garfield County and intends to
go forward with the project approva l and construction in a phased
manner.
Very t ruly yours,
COMB, P.C.
By K
RCC:sv
cc: Don DeFord
Garfield County Commissioners
.-. .-
December 16, 1991
Gene R. Hilton
P.O. Box l274
Littleton, CO 80120
RE: Wood Landing PUD
GARFIELD COU NTY
kt:.GULATORY OFF I CES AND PERSONNEL
On November 22, 1991, this office received a Jetter fr om you, st a ting that you would be
submitting a Sketch Plan for Wood Landing. Given ou r con versa ti on about the sa me subject
the next day, I was under the impression that an appl ic ation would be submitted shortly.
Since there has been no further communication and no definite time1ines identified for
submittal, your letter was p r esented to the Board of C ou nty Commissio ners on December 16,
1991. The Board stated that if no application was re ce ived by January 15, 1992, the County
will reinitiate the process to rezone the property in ques tion from Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (NR/RD).
Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
~Kif~
Mark L. Bean, Director
Regulatory Offices and Personnel
MLB/rlb
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
" r
GARFIELD COUN T Y
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
109 8th Street Suite 3 00
G l enwood Springs, Colorado 8 1601-3303
Phone 945-9150
March 23, 1992
Gene R. Hilton
P.O. Box 1274
Littleton, CO 80120
RE: Wood Landing PUD
Dear Mr. Hilton:
At the March 11, 1992 Planning Commission meeting , the issue came up of whether or not the
Commission should make a recommendation as to whether or not the Wood Landing Planned
Unit Development desighation should be revoke d , amended or the time extended for
completion. After reviewing the record, we have concluded that the Board of County
Commissioners has not extended the time to begin d evelopment of the Wood L a nding PUD.
On May 4, 1987, the Board of County Commissio ners, after a public hearing, approved a
requested extension of the Wood Landing PUD for th ree (3) years. Since there was no action
to begin development as required in Section 4.09 .01 o f the Garfield Cou nty Zoning Resolution,
the Board referred the consideration of revocation, amendment or extension of the time for
completion of the PUD to the Planning Commissi o n in May of 199 1. At the July 11, 1991
meeting, you requested .120 days to do an econ omic feasibility study of the proposed
development. On November 8, 1991, the 120 day extension expired and the next
communication came via the phone indicati ng an intent to submit a Sketch Plan.
Subsequently, a letter received in this office on Nove m ber 22, 1991, was presented to the Iloard
of County Commissioners. You received a letter t h at was dated December 16, 1991, noting
that the Board of Count y Commissioners would n o t reinitiate the process to reconsider the
question of PUD scheduling until after January 15, 1992. On January 14, 1992, a Sketch Plan
submittal was brought into this office.
It is the opinion of this office that the Board of Cou n ty Commissioners need to act on the issue
of revocation, amending or extending the time limi ts of the PUD approval at a public hearing
-\-
·~ ,
Gene R. Hilton
Page2
March 20, 1992
after a recommendation from the Planning Commissi o n. This hearing would allow the Board
to consider the previously noted options and by Re so lution take the a ppropriate action per
Section 4.09.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Res ol ution.
By this letter, we are notifying you of our inte nt t o present this issue to the Planning
Commission for a recommendation on April 8, 199 2.
Sincerely,
County Attorney
DKD/rlb
December 16, 1991
Gene R. Hilton
P.O. Box 1274
Littleton, CO 80120
RE: Wood Landing PUD
GARFIELD COUNTY
REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
On November 22, 1991, this office received a lette r from you, stating that you would be
submitting a Sketch Plan for Wood Landing. Given o ur conversation a bout the saml! s11~ject
the next day, l was under the impression that an appl ication would be submitted shortly.
Since there has been no further communication and no definite t ime lines identified for
submittal, your lette r was presented to the Board of Co unty Commissioners on Dece111b c.!r 16,
1991. The Board stated that if no application was received by January 15 , 1992 , the County
will reinitiate the process to rezone the property in q ues tion from Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (AIR/RD).
Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated .
Sincerely,
~K~
Mark L. Bean, Director
Regulatory Offices and Personnel
MLB/rlb
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625 -5571/285 -7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
MRR-11-1992 15=15 FROM GARFIELD CO RORD & BRIDGE TO
DATE:
TO:
FROM;
GARFIELD
ROAD AND
COUNTY
BRIDGE
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
Ma rch 6" 1992
Andrew McGregor. Regulatory Offices
King Lloyd. Direct~
RE: Wood Landing Sketch Plan
9452379 P.02
~p@m!NZIB'.n
t MAR 1 1 1992 U
GARFIELD COUNTY
After reviewing the sketch plan and proposed P . U. D. text. I
have the following questions and conce r ns:
l ) With traffic counts exceeding 3,000 Vehicles Per Day
(V.P .D.l from this P. U. D., along wit h counts presently
averaging 600 V.P.D. west at the P. U. D. and 800 V.P.D. east of
the P . U. D ., vehicula r and oedestrian traffic will be effected
on County Road 335, both east and west from its ooint of origin.
rraffic lanes should be widened along with shoulders to
accommodate the pedestrian traffic. The additional traffic
loads could necessitate acceleration, deceleration lanes at the
Acple Tree and Mountain Shadows access points. as Hell as the
three C3l access points for this P_ u _ o __
During seasonal peak traffic flows there is the potential for
traffic flow problems at the intersections of Count y Road 3 12
(Garfie ld Creek) and County Road 311 (Divi de Creek) during
hunting season. Because of the narrow road corridor, a nd poor
site distance in many areas. school bus loadino zones should b8
established providing adequate room for children to wait and
board the buses.
21 County Road 335 adjacent the P. U . 0. is a concern wit h
narrow driving lanes, no shoulder, and various d rainages
problems. Because of the irrigation ditches there is nowhere
current ly fo r storm waters or ru noff to be routed away f ~om the
County road . The irrigation ditch tha t carallels the road to
the sou t h seeps in several olaces causing a soft road bed a nd
consequential failure of the driving surface. To alleviate the
road damage and seeping the ditch should be lined the full
distance it para l lels the Ccuntv road.
3) A traffic signing plan should be deve l ooed for County Road
335 in accordan c e with the Manua l of Uni form Traffic Control
[J .3vices _
MAR-11-1992 15:16 FRIJM r.:qRFIELD CD RIJAD & BR I DGE TD 945237'3
Pa ge Two
4) In the P. U. D. text it is mentio n ed that the County might
maintain the on -site roads . The Road & Bridge Department nas
neither the funds nor the equipment to do maintenance or snow
r~mo val for thi s project. As long as tha t is of no considera-
ti on I won 't go i n to a discussion of the prob lems cu l-de -sacs,
and ha lf bubbles cause with sno w re mov al.
5l The County during the past fiv e (5 ) years has been
improving and upgrading County Road 335 both east and west of
this P. U. D .. As funds have allowed we have widened and
strengthened the roadway and subg r ade to accommodate the
increasing traf fic flows and wheel loa ds traveling on County
Roa.d .335.
To date~ there are still stretches of r oadway lying east and
west of th:i :::. p 1·oposed P " U. D. thc~t wo u ld need substantial
upgrading to accommodate the wheel loa ds that would be
associated with the construc t ion of a pr oject this size . In
some areas additional R. 0. W. will ha ve to be ac a uir ed to
construct a roadway with adeouate width.
If the funding of these road improvements was to become the
burden of the County, budget i ng for it would create financial
straits for the Road & Bridge Department at current funding
levels.
cc: 1031.l92A
P.03
TCHAL F'. C13
'. • March 11, 1992
To: Garfield County Commisioners
Re: Proposed Woods Landing Subdivision.
We would Rike to express our opposition to th e development of Woods Landing
Subdivision. As property owners in the surrounding area, we feel tha t a development
of this type would be highly detrimental to the entire New Castle are a.
1. Roads and traffic
County Road 335 is insufficiently devel oped to handle the current traffic
loads. Any additional traffic on this road would pose a seri ous safety hazard to
all motorists using the road. Wild life and adverse weather conditions would only
compound the problem.
2. Impact on Garfield County Services
We do not feel that Garfield County ha s the fun ds to support the Fire
Protection, Law Enforcement, and Social Se rvic e programs that a project of this
size would require. Any tax revenue benefits wo uld sueely be outweighed by
expenditures required to support these exp a nded programs. High density developments
usually have an increased occurance of Law Enforcement problems and S,ocial Ser vice
program needs. Could our county prog rams really respond e f f icie ntly? We also feel
that the develcpmentsplanned Fire Protection is i nad equat e for the size of the
project.
3. Schools
The New Castl e School is at almost capacity e nrollment for t he 1991-1992 y ear.
An additi on of 300-500 n e w students would gro ssly exceed that capacity. The scho~l
impact fee of $200.00 per house is inadequate to cover the cost of space , mate rials,
and staff of such an increase. Th e RE-2 bus system is also unabl e to handle
transporting that increas e d volume of students. The p resent exc eptionally high
quality of education at New Castle School wo uld be seriously j eop ardized .
4. Water Sup p ly/ S e wa ge Treatment
There is no direct indicati on of an adequate wa ter suoply for this type of
development. Any diversion of ground or surface wat er of this magnitud e wo uld
adversely affect surrounding cva ter supplies and q uality . A sewage treatment plant
discharging into t he Colorado River in such close proximity to App letree/ Mountain
Shadows treatme nt pl a nt would negative ly impact the river a n d its aquat ic life.
The finding of two fish on the e nd anger ed sp e cies list, th e Colorado Squawfish and
the Razorback Sucker, in this s e ction of t he Colorado River mak e s a serious look
at river impact mandatory. Any alteration of r iver c onditions a t all is und e sireable.
i
I
I
• -2-
5. Wildlife
Allowing a deve lopment of thi s size would definitely adversely impact the
wildlife migratory patterns. Dee:-and elk, along with Canadian Geese, feed in this
area. With the loss of this area, neighboring lands face addi tional pressure from
wildlife, causing an increase in damage and resmlting damage claims from wild life
pressure.
6. Consistency with Surrounding ~~ea
The area between Garfield Creek and Silt on the South side of the Colorado
River is comprised of rural, open, agricultural-type parcels. A high density
residential project like Woods Landing is totally inconsistent with the appearence
and lifestlye of the area. Th ere is also no n e ed for a housin9 area of this type
in the valley. Castl e Valley Ranch, Ap p letree/ Mountain Sh adows , and Mountain
Mobile Home Park n e ar the proposed development already fill the n e ed for thi s
kind of housing. Th e re is not enough pressure on the New Castle/ Silt area to justify
a development such as Woods Landing.
In closing, we feel with all consideration, this project would be highly
detrimental to our area. We t:Pught lan j al ong t he Colorado River to be able to
enjoy and perpetuate the rural lifestyle. If Woods Landing is allowed to be
developed, we feel that our lifestyle will be negatively impacted a n d most
certainly lost. We v ery strpngly oppose this project.
0 456 Mid Va lley Drive
New Castle Colorad o 81647
(303) 876-2825
'
LET MAR 6
SUBJECT: WOOD LANDING SUBDIVISION GARF IELD COUNTY
...
I WOULD LIKE TD EXPRESS MY CONCER N REGARDING THE WOOD LANDING
SUBDIVISION. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING
318 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT
NOT BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR LOW
DENSITY FARMING, RANCHING, AND WILDLI F E RESERVE AREAS AS THIS
AREA IS. THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL CAUSE ENVIRONMENT AND DETRIMENTAL
PROBLEMS TD THIS AREA.
INDUSTRY AFTER INDUSTRY HAS BEEN TURNED DOWN TO PRESERVE THIS
RURAL LIFE STYLE HERE. A HIGH DENS I TY DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS IS
BY FAR WORSE TO RURAL LIFE STYLE THEN ANY OF THESE INDU S TRIES TURNED
DDvJN IN THE PA!:n.
2. ROAD AND TRAFFIC SAFETY:
THE ROADS AT AND AROUND THE DEVELOPM E NT SITE WERE NO T AND ARE
NOT DESIGNED FOR THIS TYPE OF TRAFFIC THAT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
WILL BRING. THE ROADS CAN BARELY HANDLE THE TRAFFIC NOW. DURING
PEAK HOURS AND WINTER TIME. SAFETY PROB LEMS ALREADY EXIST. WITH LESS
THEN A FOUR LANE ROAD FROM NEW CASTLE OVERPASS TO THE SILT OVERPASS,
ROAD 335 JUST CAN NOT HANDLE THIS TYPE OF TRAFFIC SAFELY. THIS WILL
COST THE TAX PAYERS QUIT A BURDEN.
3. WILDLIFE RESERVE:
A FEW YEARS AGO MR HILTON TRADED LAND TO BE USED FOR WILDLIFE
RESERVE IN THIS AREA. DOW HAS SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THIS AND
CERTAINLY HAS A INVESTMENT TO PROTECT. ALSO THERE ARE ENDANGERED
SPECIES HERE <EAGLES AS ONE OF THEM> AND WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A BUFFER
ZONE FOR THEM ALONE. <MAYBE SOMETHING THE SIERRA CLUB WOULD WANT TO
LOOK INTO>. SEWER SYSTEM DISPOSAL HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE AND AFTER
S PENDING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS REARING AND STOCKING FISH FOR THE
COLORADO RIVER. THIS WOULD DEFINATELY HAVE TO BE LOOKED INTO. ALSO
CONGESTION AND DOMESTIC PETS DO NOT FIT INTO THIS TYPE OF AREA.
4. ADJACENT LAND OWNER:
A FEW YEARS AGO MR HILTON SOLD ME THIS PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPM ENT SITE KNOWING FU LL WELL THE REASON WE BOUGHT
HERE WAS BECAUSE OF THE LOW DENSITY RURAL L I FE STYLE THAT NOW EXIST.
HE TOOK MY MONEY OBVIOUSLY THINKING OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT
THE SAME TIME. ALSO KNOWING THAT A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS WOULD CAU S E
A BURDEN TO ME AND MAKE MY PROPER T Y VALUE GO DOWN AND NOT SAYING A
WORD TO ME ABOUT IT AT THAT TIME. LADIE S AND GENTLEMEN A TRUE NOTE
IS NOT BEING STRUCK HERE FOR SOME REASON. I THOUGHT IT WAS PROPER
FOR AN ADJACENT LAND OWNER TO GET A NOT IC E OF AND AND SKETCH PLAN
OF A DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS WHICH I HAV E RE CEIVED NOTHING.
·-
•
'.5.. SCHOOLS:
THE INCREASED ENROLLMENT AND TRANSPORTATION LOAD ON AN ALREADY
OVERLOADED SCHOOL SYSTEM IS GOING TO PUT AN EVEN LARGER BURDEN ON
THE TAX PAYERS OF THIS AREA.
6. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT NOT NEEDED BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. ERIC WILLIAMS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT NEW CASTLE
2. APPLETREE PARK AND MOUNTAIN SHADOW SUBDIVISION NEW CASTL.E
3. CERISE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SILT
4. RIVERBEND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
5. LOW INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ~~EST GLENWOOD
ALL OF THESE ARE IN CONSTRUCTION NOW, DO NOT EXPECT TO BE COMPLETED
AND SOLD FOR SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
I REALLY QUESTION THE NEED FOR A DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS FOR
ALL THE PREVIOUS STATED REASONS AND SO FAR FROM TOWN? REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL BURDENS ON SERVICIES TO AN ALREADY OVER TAXED COUNTY.
THf~NK YOU
KE NNETH R. COLLINS
3839 COUNTY ROAD 335
NEW CASTLE, CO. 81647
( 30:::.) 984-·2241
ROY ROMER
Governor
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WA T ER R ESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street-Ro om 818
Denve r, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-·358 1
FAX [303] 866-3589
February 13, 1992
JERIS A . DANIELSON
State Engineer
Mr. Andrew McGregor, Planner
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Wood Landing, Sketch Plan
Dear Mr. McGregor:
SWl/4 Sec. 4, T6S, R91W, 6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 45
We have reviewed the sketch plan materials for the above referenced proposal to subdivide
a 91 acre parcel into 314 residential lots, two commercial areas, and an open space area. It is not
clear whether the water supply will be from on lot wells or form a central supply system. The
source of water is to be from surface or ground water tributary to Garfield Creek which will be
augmented under a plan for augmentation decreed in Division 5 Water Court Case Number W-3262.
This decree addresses the change in use of 980 acre feet of historic irrigation consumptive use in
a dry year.
If the proposed water service is to be from a central water system, then prior to approval
of the subdivision, the applicant should be required to submit to the County a satisfactory plan for
completion of this system and for its continuing maintenance. We suggest the plan address the
following:
1. Present evidence of sufficient funding to complete the project.
2. A framework to establish a homeowners association or other mechanism to carry out the
long term administration of the water supply system.
3. Provide any easements that will be r equired for construction and maintenance of the
system.
4. Make provisions for dedicating or deeding to the homeowners association the water rights
used in the plan for augmentation after a significant number of lots are sold.
Because of the amount of water available to the applicant, we have no objection to the
proposal at this stage, however as their engineers develop a detailed plan specifying amounts of
irrigated acreage and quantifying the proposed commercial water uses, an adequate accounting
,.
Mr. Andrew McGregor
February 13, 1992
Page 2
format must be developed reporting diversions, consumptive use replacem ents and for identifying
the lands taken out of irrigation under the augmentation plan . This information must be provided
to the division engineer and water commissioner as required by the divis ion engineer.
If you have any question, please contact John Schurer of this office.
PD/ JS/woodlndg
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Robert Klenda , Water Commis sioner
Bruce DeBrine
c
THOMAS W. STUVER
RUSSELL G E O RGE
STUVER & GEORGE , P.C .
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
120 WEST THIRD ST REET
P. 0 . BOX 907
RIFLE , COLORADO 81650
January 31, 1992
Garfield County Planning Commission
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Wood Landing--Sketch Plan
I I_;"·.> { f') r;-;;J\J~\ l D,·--.,
r'';; t .'J,-' ~i,,. ! ;f?f9J7~
'
,. ... · ... .._ '· ''/r·i.:1
--· "'-•· ......... i ............ ~, ••• J
, I
FEB .3 1992 i'
GARFIELD COUNTY
T E LEPH ONE 3 03 -62 5 -1887
FAX 303 -625-4 448
I am the attorney for Garfield Schoo l District Re-2. The District
administration has reviewed the ske tch plan submittal for Wood
Landing.
subdivision is likely to sign i ficantly impact our
increasing classroom enrollment as well as
costs from the new s u bdivis i on to e x isting school
The proposed
District by
transportation
facilities.
It is the District's position that s u fficient money should be paid
by the developer to meet the requirements of C.R.S. 30-28-133(4)a
and the Garfield County Subdivision regulations. We understand
that in the past such a payment requ irement has been imposed at the
rate of $200 per residential lot. We r espectfully submit that such
an amount is much less than five p e rcent of the market value of
residential lots and, is negligib l e compared to the cost of
providing classroom space and tra n spo r t a tion services for the
children who are likely to live in t h e subdivision . Accordingly,
we request that the Garfield County P lanning Commission reevaluate
the amount of payment in lieu of lan d dedication which should be
made for school purposes upon approva l of a residential subdivision
such as Wood Landing. Our Distri c t would be happy to have a
representative participate in discu ss i ons of this issue.
Very truly yours,
TWS: jm
cc James Bader, Superintendent
Garfield School District Re-1
P. O. Box 820
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
~~~~----------------------------.............. ..... ---··-···--·--·-··
TABLE 1 FLOOD ~UENCY-ELEVATIOO .AND DISCEARGE De\TA '};/
Cross Stationing Identification Stream Bed Crest-Elevation Feet National Geodet~c Ve~tical
Section f ran Lower Elevation Datun, and Peak Discharge c.f.s.
Design-Study Limit
nation Feet (Meters) Feet (Meters) 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year
N.G.V.D. Flood Flood Flood Flood
CO River at 5501.5 5501.5 5501 .5 5501.5
585 0 + 00 Garfield Cr 5492.1 29400 2/ 29400 y 29400 2/ 29400 2/
5504.5 5505.5 5506. 1 5507.6
586 7 + 00 Garfield Cr 5500.8 1180 1920 2380 4000
5517.0 5518.4 5519.1 5521 .7
587 12 + 50 Garfield Cr 5512.6 1180 1920 2380 4000
5537. 1 5537.7 5538. 1 5538.8
588 17 + 90 Garfield Cr 5532.8 1180 1920 2380 4000
County 5538.5 5539.4 5540.3 5544.7
589.1 19 + 30 Road 335 5533.1 1180 1920 2380 4000
County 5540.4 .'.>.'.>42.8 5.'.>43.2 554.'.>.6
589.2 19 + 52 Road 335 5553.1 1180 1920 2380 4000
5540.7 5543.7 5544.4 5546.2
590 19 + 97 Garfield Cr 5536.4 1180 1920 2380 4000
5559.9 5561.4 5562. 1 5564.9
591 26 + 97 Garfield Cr 5554.3 1180 1920 2380 4000
.Y Flood elevations pertain to the primary channel arx:l usually remain constant in a lateral direction acroos the
flood plain. However, flood elevations in the ooter portions of a cross section may differ fran the primary
channel due to road crossings, upstream diversions, etc.
2/ Discharge in Colorado River at 25 year frequency.
Table page 21
_.... .................. ----------------------~~~~
-------
~ ~ # 4 OV¥7' . ~ ~ ~, ·~nu!~~~ 71/t!'O /'r -.
=~
;~ ~4~~~=~
~:~'ft?
"o~:e
~~7#-~~~:~
'·~=~~~·~
I CUvA~ 1 ~k ~-W/ ~·
u ~ tt : _0JAI ~ .::2$ <[}2 "'/-.'(X;J e ! --ffe . ~ {_/' c7
l~--~~ &6:--~ ~..?_3~'f:oo
~l°~U~:
I
-----~-------------.
GARFIELD COUNTY
REGULATORY OFFICES AND PERSONNEL
May 28, 1991
Mr. Gene Hilton
P.O. Box 1274
Littleton, CO 80120
RE: Woods Landing PUD
Dear Mr. Hilton:
Based on the records in the Garfiel d County Assessor's office and
Planning Departments, it appears that you own property that is
zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). Since there has been no
further progress toward the complet i on of the PUD for a number of
years, the Garfield County Commissioners have referred the above
noted PUD to the Garfield County Planning Commission for a
recommendation on the rezoning of the property back to
Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (A/R/RD). The Planning
Commission will review this issue a t their June 12, 1991 meeting,
which begins at 7:30 p.m.
This action is based on Sections 4. 09. 01 and 4. 09. 02 of the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. Those
Sections read as follows:
4.09.01
4.09.02
The applicant must begin development of the PUD within
one year from the time of its final zone change approval;
provided, however, that t he PUD may be developed in
stages. The applicant mu st complete the development of
each stage and of the PUD as a whole in substantial
compliance with the develop ment schedule approved by the
County Commissioners.
If the applicant does not comply with the time limits
imposed by the preceding subsection, the County
Commissioners shall review the PUD and may revoke
approval for the uncompl eted portion of the PUD, or
require that the PUD be amended, or extend the time for
completion of the PUD.
The Board of County Commissioners has chosen to consider these
options in a public hearing format for a zone district amendment.
The hearing date before the Board of County Commissioners has not
been set yet. When it is, you will be notified.
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945 -8212/625-5571/285-79 72 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
•
Mr. Gene Hilton
Page 2
May 28, 1991
'1 \'
If you have any justif i cation f or the proposed zone district
amendment not to occur, please eithe r submit statements in writing
before or at the June 12th Planning Commission meeting. There are
a number of different PUD's being r eviewed that evening, so written
statements in a dvance of the meeti n g would be appreciated.
Any questions about this proposed ac tion may be directed to this
office. The office is open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m ., Monday through
Friday.
Mark L. Bean, Director
Regulatory Off ices and Personnel
MLB/rlb
ROBERT DELANEY
KENNETH BALCOMB
.JOHN A. THULSO N
EDWARD MULHALL, JR.
ROBERT C. CUTT ER
SCOTT BALCOMB
LAWRENCE R. GREEN
ROBERT M. NOONE
TIMOTHY A. THULSON
DELANEY & BALCOMB, P . C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DRAWER 790
GLENWOOD SPRING S , C O L ORADO BJ.6 0 2
April 8, 19 92
Garfield County Planning Commission
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
(HAND DEL I VERED)
RE: Wood Landing P.U.D.
Dear Madam and Sirs:
818 COLORADO A V ENUE
945 -6546
TE L EPHONE
945 -2 371
TELECOPIER 945 -8902
AREA CODE 303
At your last meeting you reviewed the Sketch Plan of Wood
Landing P.U.D. and it is the intent ion of the Developer to follow
the process initiated by the Sketc h Plan in an orderly and
efficient manner. In the interest of conserving both your time and
the Developer's time, we have elected not to repeat that
presentation for your April, 1992 meeting.
The attached letter of December 16, 1991 from Mark L. Bean
outlines the County's requirements for the P.U.D. classification.
The Develope r complied with those requ irements by filing the Sketch
Plan on January 14, 1992.
The Developer has designed this p roject to answer the need for
affordable single-family housing in Garfi eld County and intends to
go forward with the project approval and construction in a phased
manner.
Very truly yours,
COMB, P.C.
By R
RCC:sv
cc: Don DeFord
Garfield County Commissioners
May 15, 1987
Gene Hilton
P. 0. Box 1274
Littleton, CO 80120
GARFIELD COUNTY
PLANNING DE P ARTMENT
Re: Wood Landing P.U .D.
Dear Mr • Hilton:
Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No . 87 -4 8 , extending the validity of the
Wood Landing P.U.D. approval for t h re e (3 ) years. If you have any
questions, feel free to call or write to t his off ice at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Mark L. Bean
Director of Building, sanitation and Planni ng
MLB/emh .·
encl.
XC: Robert cutter
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 945-82 12 I 625-5571 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
December, 1991 -Page 18~
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
GARFIELD COUNTY , COLORADO
December 16, 1 991
The regular meet i ng of the Board of County Commissioners began at 8:00
A.M. on Monday, December 16, 1991 with Ch airman Arnold L. Mackley and
Commissioners Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney and Marian I. Smith present. Also
present were Adm i nistrator Chuck Deschene s, Attorney Don DeFord and
Clerk & Recorder Mildred Alsdorf.
JAIL POPULATION
Sheriff Verne Soucie reported the jail p o pulation to be 70 - 2 in other
jails, 3 DOC, 37 work release and 31 local.
EXECUTIVE SESSION -COMMUNICATIONS PERS ONNEL .[
Commissioner Smith made a motion that t he Board go into Executive
Session to discuss Communications per~9nn el. Commissioner Arbaney
seconded the motion; carried. Commissioner Sm i th made a motion that
the Board come out of Executive Session a nd reconvene as the Board of
County Commissioners. Commissioner Arbaney seconded the motion;
carried.
ELK CREEK BRIDGE
Elmer Robert, 5174 Co Rd 237, Rifle, req uested an explanation as to why
the County Road & Bridge Department do n ot construct the County bridges
themselves (referring to the Elk Creek Bridge) instead of contracting
them out and why the Elk Creek Bridge wa s contracted at this time of
year. He also wanted to be assured that his fence would be put back
the way it was before construction began . The Board assured him that
his fence would be put back the way it was and explained that there was
no increase of cost in the contract due t o weather and that there was
not the expertise or personnel in the Ro ad & Bridge Department to do
both construction of bridges and mainten ance of all the County roads.
COUNTY ROAD 118 BRIDGE/CARBONDALE FISH HA TCHERY BRIDGE
King Lloyd, Road & Bridge Supervisor, d i scussed the recommendations of
Chen Northern Engineers for repairs on the bridge crossing the Crystal
River at the Carbondale Fish Hatchery -r eplacement cost would be
$37,000 and it would still be a 5-ton b r idge. Chairman Mackley
expressed his wish to wait until they f i nd out if funds applied for are
going to be granted. King recommended r iprapping before spring run-off
to deflect the flow of water in front o f the abutment. The Board
agreed to this but will defer any furthe r decision until funding was
available from the Game & Fish and the g rant.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Mark Bean, Director of Regulatory Office s, presented and di s cussed the
Planning Department report.
WOODS LANDING SUBDIVISION -GENE HILTON
Mark discussed t he proposed submittal o f a preliminary plan for the
Woods Landing Subdivision by Mr. Hilton and the Board directed him to
send a letter to Gene Hilton requesting the application to be submitted
by January 15, 1992, otherwise a zoning action to rezone the property
to A/R/RD from PUD would be initiated.
WALTER HUBER -EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SUB DIVISION EXEMPTION APPLICATION
Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Board grant a 30-day
extension to Walter Huber for his subdivision. Commissioner Arbaney
seconded the motion; carried.
MARY ARTHUR SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
After discussion with Mark regarding t he request from Mary Arthur for a
$300 refund on their application for a s ubdivision exemption .
Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Board authorize a refund
payment of $225 of the $300 application fee to Mary Arthur.
Commissioner Arbaney seconded the motion ; carried.
BOARD OF HEALTH -RIO BLANCO RANCH SITE APPROVAL
There was a discussion with Mark regardi ng the r equest for a site
approval for the construction of domes tic waste water treatment site on
the Rio Blanco Ranch. Commissioner Sm i th made a motion that the
Chairman be authorized to sign an appl ic ation recommending approval on
the site approval of reconstruction of a domestic waste water system
for the Rio Blanco Ranch. Commissioner Arbaney seconded the motion;
,
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the following reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residential, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the amount of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent wi th the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial problems to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent millions of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State. This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need for a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
ADDRESS
D,fif 0 flu.~a!fL £. /ZwJ~
Q.323 Yid~.T)?. v:/4<2~
J&'.5'] ~!fn-,_:J33:J'z!M~
3!Jq C"'t . fiJ. :f 3S" Aw {J,£1/e.
0? 75-~/ f,15·-~?,,/ (c;,,*_z;y;
o 11 :r ace 33-s ??wtt1>--= G~
Zk2~ ?JSl?ef flew Cq.r //ed
cA ~ s 1e 3':3'/£ & 111???< r cq >#s u:;
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer i s proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the foll owing reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residen ti al, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the amou nt of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances .
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial prob lems to the serv ices available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979 , when this PUD was approved , the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent millio ns of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State . Th is proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in thi s area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need for a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an al ready over taxed county.
ADDRESS
3S 3 2 e/y fv . "15 S:_ Vew /).J/r).
.//o3c;,fld .335= Akwt!zst/c>, ~ . /
4 P stt 5 35' /?.d VRUJ f,;ff le . f!
11A .. -5 .3JJ.LL 'il:/ fctM OJ
1 IP</6 335 iill CL0 Caatlc 1C,o
15.s1 ,'3)5 t?I ~a -;&;ill{ c
0 19 l, '('(\,~()Gile '-0:s we i ~t_>'_,j Cc&"'t(-Q Cu
' v ~I <D<.f7
G\9,Lo co~~On )\tj l>"· h \QW~~\~
'3\lo~.\."1
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the following reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residential, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the amount of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial problems to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent millions of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State. This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need for a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
ADDRESS
:3t:::> '8L/ 3 t 2-.Kd
3 /2 /(cl
JV _c .
? / 7 ~ 3 I Z /(,,jJ /,, L ..
z r;~ -31<-t d ~c-,-
1v t'lo 1.1 .2 ,, t i ;J G
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the following reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residential, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the amount of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial problems to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Val ley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significan t development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent millions of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State. This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need for a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
NAME ADDRESS
t~&z4 o c]. d ~;-< €ff2 . Q.
'7 1 ;2 9 ,l()J 3 I d. A; <C _
:7/~t ~31.2 ~d$ecJ .
1s1 wcV ~.{h C 1
g~/!if#;?i ~'
J ~ ti I ~" ~c-,t i-z ~ ~1f
J/e) L~ V1 (i}n )'>_ ~)9
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the following reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residential, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the amount of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent wi th the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial problems to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent millions of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State. This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need fo r a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
NAME ADDRESS
.c) ea . "-
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the fo llowing reasons:
1. This area should remain rural res ide ntial, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the am ount of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial problems to the services availab le in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion .
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was app rov ed , the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and ha s actually started significan t development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing re sources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town . Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent milli on s of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State . This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area which will adver sely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need for~ development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an ' already over taxed coun ty.
\
I
'
ADDRESS
it,&§q3ctrf~
i);;C~ ~ cf?/1 s,d.1--~ . Y/0_s-2-•
c/±>q
l-Brt:r[}a11:; ,-/&z:~~.~&647
'~et<r ~ &£,,. ~~. f{r 1 i sy!1
~v-({_~ If{ S/6 Y7 L
~ ~ 3-/~2(7
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county app roval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This developme~t should not be approved for the fo llowing reasons :
1. This area should remain rural resid ential, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the am ount of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the exis ting rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial problems to the services availab le in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was approv ed, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing re sources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town . Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent mill io ns of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State . Th is proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need fo r a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
ADDRESS
c:S'99 / d-J J--/ !?& ti,;{1 ~it~
d-;Jcg /Jpp,ex ~ ~ CkK
t5~o5 L&m a/Vt~ 1?WJ~e,
(;qj [,m~tJSM~
E l/ 4 c_; Rel c:202C--,{)ft{,t)C45--Ue(l1i<~toLH
I
770 .) :J I Z f o N/'A.J ~Jrr.K "J-..l a 8!(-ft 7
'()0,?> .3 Id. ~(\ai&) W £:±fl~c,'Si'6y/
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the fo llowing reasons:
1. This area should remain rural reside ntial, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the am o unt of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighbor hood. The
increase in density will cause substantial p rob lems to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent mill io ns of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State . This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need fo r a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county .
NAME
u <"!X\!'!\Q... a.~ U,,,.c\1"
ADDRESS
5;$00 ~3\ Qc\ ~,l Q k .\~.&Ito$~
I
~S' 0 6' I?t.R d £"; I Z e o I~ z/ t' > ...z I
0 '1._~3 .JJ L iJ(j I'J!/ (0 [165.L
3t O't Js 1 B_,P c:;:i ; f L?,). CY/~ o -2-
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the fo ll owing reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residential, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the amo unt of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial problems to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion .
3. Since 1979, when thi s PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and ha s actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides sign i ficant housing re sources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add val ue to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent millio ns of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State. This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need fo r a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
NAME ADDRESS
~\e.lA. ~ et~ ·u1s 2-:~S Rb
/7~L ;fc~ ;2Gf , 26?S-3 ..>5 11 c
·• ( v-=;r ~-4-~ .;( ~ S'-/ 35S-RD
(
~S-9 3ss--R d rJ/ CJ ..
/
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the following reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residential, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the amount of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial problems to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when th is PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent millions of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State. This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need for a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
c ;l 8 & fh,ef/d /, 'Y
-'-""--'-TLr---=:..-;;..;'--;...-r=....~~~~~-Af-·_~w~~u5ilt1C!(j-IHl-,,L.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I -"· ....
/ i. .7
.f '/j f "
() Y SC.: .Mio v,LJCttY
/I c;i../ ; s 7Z-&
<-cJ 'l I(_, 'h
//
~--., i 7 1 ' l/ /\I('
(ft,. ,..; a_) d:.,1 '
' I , I ) '"I
--) r' I '
._I ' "'j'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county ap proval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the fo ll owing reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residential, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the amount of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances .
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause sub stantial probl ems to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town serv ices.
4. The State of Colorado has spent millions of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State. This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in th is area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need for a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
7 /1, 9 ~ '' '/a 2'.
O 9 9 D -3 J l R_d, /{lc.e.dv~ 6::.
C>&IO ( 3 if ,$;1 (t a
02:>\o\ c~~\ s \\ c ·al
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Land ing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the fo llowing reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residential, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the amou nt of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial problems to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and ha s actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent million s of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State. This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area wh ich will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need fo r a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
NAME ADDRESS
'3 1 G A-tp l.-e D t-., h?(,, la ~14:>
#fJ o I H~br ~':; l( Q, ~n w+rtf s ?p0'::fJ
a I l/ R~ /J ew (CJ) ft~
\ I
S33 g <0/~ eJJ Vnd Ca:it.
<21-;/M ,12/r~ m/JTJw' &sfle.
~ [,,..,Jofpl Af!ee
'2 ~ 5.5 • \ue.-~ k'J 3 ,{ 2 e..u\C~J.-\e...
Jco (si !/Vt« ~&3 JtJu) &rt-£_
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the following reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residen tial, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the amount of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial problems to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services .
4. The State of Colorado has spent millions of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State. This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in th is area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need fo r a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
NAME ADDRESS
s-1 <J fl !AA ~ J\/G
£>
3/ G :19,,,,c>,c:;; /€ J::¥J mc-w c&:::s-r<::.<:?
lfrd'ol /;J h fl--1-/-h.-£~ ~ ·
~()'-/c{ .:1.33 ~ {1
1'J±
I
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the fo llowing reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residential, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, limit the amount of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial prob le ms to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Landing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent millions of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wildlife areas in the State. This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need for a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
ADDRESS
scr /fqcl7 cl A!w Gr fit ({)
()d)'-18 ;?d; jjS-
11;j (!~l r_C""ft_ ~d
Q~l/CO-~ ;33.5
' PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose county approval of the proposed Wood Landing
Subdivision. It is our understanding that the developer is proposing 318 single family dwellings.
This development should not be approved for the following reasons:
1. This area should remain rural residential, as the geological and topographical
features, including wet lands, lim it the amount of infrastructure development without
major negative disturbances.
2. This subdivision is not consistent with the existing rural neighborhood. The
increase in density will cause substantial problems to the services available in this rural
area including severe traffic congestion.
3. Since 1979, when this PUD was approved, the large development of Castle Valley
Ranch has been annexed to New Castle and has actually started significant development.
Castle Valley provides significant housing resources for the New Castle area and is of
direct benefit to the town. Wood Land ing will not add value to the New Castle tax base
and will negatively impact town services.
4. The State of Colorado has spent millions of dollars developing the Garfield Creek
area into one of the prime wild li fe areas in the State. This proposal will dislocate
migration and feeding patterns of wildlife in this area which will adversely impact other
property owners.
5. In summary, we question the need for a development such as Wood Landing and
the additional services it will require from an already over taxed county.
ADDRESS
o ~q1 3 35 R.-l 1\ < ~
(J)r:J 0-ct ss-5= f?c/ fllev 4.o/le~
o;:;;3~~':£J. ilft:c~ eo.
MARCH 11, 1992
GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING & BUIDING DEPT.
109 8TH ST.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO. 81601
RE: HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN 383 9 CT Y RD . 335 & 3325 CTY RD 335, NEW CASTLE, CO.
{KE N COLLINS & J.R. MCALLISTER} RESIDENCES
I WAS INFORMED BY A NEIGHBOR THAT A HOU SI NG DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE PLANNING
STAGES ON APROX. 80 ACRES ALONG THE COL ORADO RIVER BETWEEN THE TWO RESIDENCES
LISTED ABOVE. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS APRO X. ONE MILE WEST OF THE APPLE TREE
MOBILEHOME PARK AREA.
THIS LOVELY RURAL AREA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THIS SIZE DEVELOPMENT. IT SIMPLY
WILL NOT FIT IN WITH THIS AREA. THE IMPACT FROM TRAFFIC ALONE IS A MAJOR
FACTOR TO CONSIDER. THE COLORADO RIVER ROAD IS NARROW, WINDING , WITH HAZARDS
OF FALLING ROCKS, AND A CONSTANT STREAM OF WILDLIFE {DEER & ELK} CROSSING THE
ROAD. THIS SIZE DEVELOPMENT WILL ONLY COMPLICATE AN ALREADY BAD SITUATION.
I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF A SANITATION SYSTEM IN THIS AREA, NEXT
TO THE COLORADO RIVER. THIS AREA IS ALREADY IMPACTED BY THE APPLE TREE PARK
AREA AND THE SILT, CO. SYSTEM TO THE WEST.
THIS SIZE DEVELOPMENT WOULD IMPACT OUR SCHOOLS, POLICE, FIRE PROTECTION,
EMERGENCY AND SOCIAL SERVICES. IT ALSO LAYS IN THE FLIGHT PATH TO THE
GARFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT.
PLEASE RETHINK THE SIZE OF THIS DEVE LOPMENT.
RECFIVFD '\
MAR 1 1 1992
u1o . "' GOUNTY ......
,_ ___ _....-----...... .
3-11-<f'c:(
~l},t~cl~~~
/!)~! . .2~-1 /l1ay ~~;
OA ~~(_~/ ~/~
l_/ -c;le_ ~. a_ ; Cf/ .-e u ~u ;;? d
~~ ~
,~-~~fa~~ a
/Ld -~~ _-Ck {L/cJcl/
:Ya.41~;/ ~~~
-r:o Ar9/u ~"
-17J O /JZ cl I' -{c-Pa ~ C4~
~'-u--,,'-9 ~ O' d.
~~q_ c. r C>--rL..--~
No !Lu { ~ _;:r/f ,c:r M'~
~L-c~.
tu A -!-€ !<-~ l j --e_ C . -W-/d.-/
-Ir/~ ~ ~lZ-'l , ~ ~.<-
~I~~ -;1~.
~( cJ_ 91U/ g~
tJ ;[ J? /fu 4 va.£4-£. .
)le,u) (J~ ~. /;16<!7