HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportPROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
CANYON CREEK PUD (PRELIMINARY PLAN AND MODIFICATION TO THE PUD PLAN)
OWNER: Lazier - Sills Partnership
ENGINEER: Mountain Engineering and Land Surveying
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
The property is located in portions of
Section 25 & 36, Township 5 South,
Range 90 West of the 6th Principal Meridian.
The site is north of Highway 6 & 24
immediately east of Canyon Creek and the
Canyon Creek exit from Interstate 70.
The request is to develop 44 lots on 76.5
acres. The total number of dwelling units
proposed on the Lazier -Sills property is
62.
WATER: Private community distribution system supplied
by a well.
SEWER: Private collection and treatment facility
and individual septic systems.
EXISTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
PUD
North:
South:
East:
West:
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The site lies within districts C & D of the Comprehensive Plan. The westerly
most portion of the site, along Canyon Creek, falls into district E.- Rural
areas/severe with moderate environmental constraints. It is the policy of
the county to consider this area to have poor suitability for growth. This
area has been designated as open space in district C -Rural areas/Minor Environ-
mental constraints. The county policy is to consider lands in district C as
having moderate suitability for growth when in compliance with other county
policies. And, non-agricultural areas and non-productive cropland found within
this district shall be considered best able to absorb growth. The development
was approved for this area October 6, 1981 - Resolution No. 81-316.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: The site contains approximately 76.5 acres and consists
of pinion and juniper covered upland slopes, riparian areas adjoining to
Canyon Creek and a highland irrigated meadow area.
B. Project Description: The proposal is to develop 76.5 acres into 62
dwelling units on 44 lots. There will be 15 duplex units, 1 fourplex and
28 single facility units.
III. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES:
A. CONCERNING THE MODIFICATION TO THE PUD PLAN:
1. The modification to the PUD plan are necessitated by changes to the
boundary of the PUD and text amendments. In addition, the designation
of the location of the zone districts is being changed.
2. The original boundary of the PUD is subject to change and qualification
due to a pending aliquot resubdivision of the section. The potential
loss of land on lot 44 should be noted on the Final Plat.
3. The zoning text was incorporated in Resolution No. 81-316. See page
28-32 . The resolution created 3 zone districts: 1) Single
Family Residential; 2) Multi -family Residential; and 3) Common
Open Space.
-15-
•
The present proposal proposes four zone districts: A. Single -Family
Residential; B. Condominium -Duplex; C. Multi -Family Residential; D. Common
Open Space.
4. The Single -Family Residential are similar with some exceptions:
a,. The density is increased from 2.2 acres per dwelling unit to 1.2
acres per dwelling unit.
b. The maximum lot coverage has been increased from 15 to 25%.
5. The Condominium -Duplex Residential district is a new district. The uses are
restricted to one and two family dwellings. The townhouses would have
been permitted in the old multi -family zone. The effect of this zone is
to limit the bulk of each building.
6. The Multi -Family Residential district is the same as the original multi -family
zone district.
7. General comments on the zone district regulations: (see district regulations
on pages 33-39 ,)
a. There is a section in the zone district labeled as Additional Requirements.
It should be noted that the county is not going to enforce private covenants
etc. The zone district text should not refer to the application. These
points should be clarified or more clearly, these sections eliminated.
b. A minimum lot ;size should be specified rather than refering to the Final
Plat. The PUD regulation permits final definition of zone districts at
the Final Plat stage. However, the minimum performance standards must be
prescribed within the zone district text.
c. The setback sections (section 5) of each zone district need to be clarified.
The titles should probably all read the same such as Minimum Building Setback
rather than Minimum Setback, Minimum Lot Setback, Minimum Tract setback
and Minimum Setbacks for Buildings, as the various districts presently
read. Special setbacks will be required for townhouse units.
d.i. A maximum intensity of use should be defined for the multi -family uses.
e. The Definition section should include definitions for the following:
f.
1. Passive and Active recreation
2. Recreation facilities
3. Community facilities
4. Water storage facilities
5. Sanitation facilities
6. Condominiums
It should be clarified that the Board of County Commissioners grant Special &
Conditional Use Permits. As in A. 7 (a), the county will not enforce
private convenants.
g. The building height definition should parallel the general county zoning
resolution.
h. The townhouse definition permits 7 unit buildings which is not consistent
with the subdivision plan. This should be modified.
i. The definitionSfor Rural Center and County Store should be eliminated as
they are not uses permitted in the zone district.
B. The zone district locational designations are being changed. Basically,
multiple family dwelling units are still proposed in the southern part of
the development and single family proposed for the bulk of the remainder.
The actual number of multi -family units has been decreased in the southern
area. The most significant shift in the zone designations is placing part
of the duplex zone in the northeast corner of the subdivision.
C. CONCERNING THE SUBDIVISION PLAN:
1. Comments from Reviewing Agencies:
a. The Glenwood Springs Fire Department has stated that additional fire
hydrants will be required and future development of lot 44 and land
-17-
• •
east of the PUD will require further review. See letter, page 46
b. Roaring Fork School District RE -1 requestsa fee in lieu of school
site dedication based on the value of 1.24 acres of land. The
school district also notes that bus service into the subdivision
is not planned. See letter, page 40
c. The Division of Water Resources recommends approval of the Preliminary
Plan subject to review of the Final Plan for conformance with the
final augmentation plan. See letter, page 41 .
d. The Colorado State Forest Service notes that the brushy draw in the
area of lots 12, 13 and 14 is a particular fire hazard and recommends
that the prohibition against tree cutting be eliminated. See letter,
page 42 .
e. Public Service Company notes existing power lines and gas easements
in the area. PSCO recommends against utilizing the same easements
for water, sewer, gas and electric. See letter, page 43
f. The Colorado Geological Survey notes several geological concerns and
recommends against on lot septic system in this area. See letter,
page 44
g•
The Colorado Division of Wildlife notes that lot 44 should be limited
to one building and the potential development area east of the
subdivision "should be left intact". See letter, page 45
2. The land use breakdown comparing the Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan
is as follows:
SKETCH
Total Development Area 76 acres +
Roads 12.25 acres +
Open Space 19.51 acres +
Residential 44 acres +
Total number of lots 25
(17 SF f 8 MF)
Total SFD 17
Total SFA 52
Total Dwelling Units 69
PRELIMINARY
76 acres +
12 acres +
19 acres +
44 acres +
44
(28 SF, 1 MF and 15 Duplex)
28
34
62
3. The Preliminary Plan and the Sketch Plan are similar in several key
areas. The road system is basically the same. The relationships
of lots to major open space elements is similar. The large central
open space on the center of the development has been reduced in size
from 7.2 acres to 5.65 acres.
4. A significant departure from the sketch plan is an increase in the number
of lots in the northern two thirds of the development (from 17 to 30);
6 of which are duplex lots. The impression of one walking through the
development would be that the upper portion of the development will have
houses closer together. This impression will be offset somewhat by the
less intensive development in the southern one third of the development
area.
5. There is a great deal of potential for pedestrian movement in this
subdivision. Since the school buses will not be able to pick school
children up internally, pedestrian pathways to the school bus pick up
point should be provided. The pedestrian ways should be separated from
the street for maximum safety.
6. The environmental health staff has recommended that all lots except lot
44 be served by the central sewage collection system even if that necessitates
individual pumping into the sewer.
7. The road serving an access to lot 44 should be a defined easement or right-
of-way on the Final Plat.
-1 8=J
•
8. The developer heeds to address his plans for the "equestrian/
community center".
9. All open space tracts should be labeled as not being building sites.
10. The "Canyon Creek Riparian Zone" adjacent to Canyon Creek is proposed
to be dedicated to public use. Access to this area should be open
to the public but closely controlled. The county does not have a
mechanism for maintenance of this area.
11. The final plans for the sewage treatment plant should include details
for security fencing and landscape screening.
12. Building envelopes are not shown for the duplex and multi -family lots.
Particular attention should be paid to the duplex lots in the northeast
area; specifically, the PUD perimeter treatment in this area. All
structures must be set back feet from the perimeter of the PUD.
13. The developer needs to explain why lots 43 and 44 are excluded from the
Protective Covenants.
14. The covenants and Home Owners Association documents must provide
for perpetual maintenance of all infrastructure including roads
and common open space with the express provision that if Garfield
County ever assumes the maintenance responsibility for the roads,
that obligation can expire. There needs to be a procedure established
for collecting maintenance fees.
15. The final plan should include sizing of individual driveway culverts for
each lot. Culvert details should be included in the covenants.
16. Townhouse units will each set on an individual lot. This fact should
be taken into account at the time of the Final Plat. The townhouse
lots should be subdivided at that time to avoid the necessity of re -
subdividing at a later time.
IV. FINDINGS:
1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law.
2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That the proposed zoning is in compliance with the reconmiendations set'
forth in the master plan for the unincorporated area of the county.
4. The sketch plan conforms to Section 4.01, Sketch Plan requirements of the
Garfield County Subdivision Regulations.
5. The sketch plan conforms to the requirements of the zone district in which the
development is located.
6. That for the above stated and other reasons, the sketch plan appears to 'qualify
for approval by this Board.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with the following conditions:
1. The boundary on lot 44 reflects the potential aliquot resubdivision of the
section.
2. Staff comments III. A. 7 be considered conditions of approval.
3. Additional fire hydrants be provided per the letter from the Glenwood Springs
Fire Department and included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA).
4. A school fee equivalant to the value of 1.24 acres be paid to the RE -1 School
District and the amount approved by the School District.
5. The Division of Water Resources review and recommend approval of the Final
Plat in terms of conformance with the Final augmentation plan prior to submittal
of the Final Plat.
-19-
• •
6. Provisions be made in a fire protection plan to mitigate wildfire
hazards and the conditions:iof the Colorado State Forest Service be observed
in preparing the fire protection plan.
7. All existing utility easements be shown on the Final Plat.
8. The water and sewer lines be located in separate easements from gas and
electric.
9. All lots, except lot 44, connect to the sewage collection and treaLment system.
10. The recommendation of the Colorado Geological Survey be followed.
11. A pedestrian circulation plan be prepared and submitted with the Final Plat.
12. The road in the westerly portion of the subdivision be provided for within
an easement or right-of-way on the Final Plat.
13. The Final Plans for the sewage treatment plant include security fencing and
landscape screening.
14. The covenants and Home Owners documents include provisions for perpetual
maintenance.
15. The final drainage plans shall include individual sizing of driveway culverts.
16. Townhouse lots be subdivided and shown on the Final Plat.
-20-
STA7I. OF COLORADO
County of Garfield
�I.
•
At a r.e.Qal.ar meeting of the Board of County Conmusioncrs for Garfield County, Colorado,
} c1d tt t1'.r Coust }joule in Glenwood Sprints on Tllc sda_V , the c Li) day of
October A. D. 19 81 , there were present:
Larry Velasquez , CommiscionrrChairman
Flaven J. Cerise , Commisionct
Eugene "Jim" Drinkhouse
Cheryl J. Koss[ Deputy
w1,en the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to wit:
Commissioner
County Attorney
Clerk of the B.oud
RESOLUTION n81- 316
RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A ZONE DISTRICT AMENDMENT
TO THE GARFIELD COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FOR CANYON CREEK BY JIMIMIY SILLS
WHEREAS, Jimmy Sills on behalf of Sills Mining and Develop-
ment Company, has filed a petition with the Board of County Commissions
of Garfield County to rezone the herein described property in Garfield'
County from Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density and Residential/Limi
Urban Density to a planned unit development zone district and to approv
a planned unit development plan for Canyon Creek, planned unit developer
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by this board on July 6, 1
which was continued until July 13, 1981, and which was continued until
August 4, 1981; and
WHEREAS, based on the evidence, testimony, exhibits, study of
the master plan for the unincorporated area of the County, comments of
the Garfield County Planning Department, comments of public officials a
agencies, comments from all interested parties, this Board finds as
follows:
1. THAT proper publication of the public notice is provided as require
by law forthe hearing before the Board;
2. THAT the hearing before the Board was extens-Je and complete, that ,
pertinent facts, matters, and issues were submitted and that all in
terested parties were heard at that hearing;
3. -THAT the Garfield County Planning Commission has recommended to thi;
Board that the requested rezoning be granted, provided that certain
conditions be complied with;
4. THAT the proposed zoning is in general compliance writ? the reccmnendz
set forth in the master plan for the unincorporated area of the Cou1
S. THAT the proposed land use will be compatible with the existing lanr
uses in thenearby area;
6. THAT other than in the foregoing particulars, the requested zone chi
amendment and plan approval are in general conformity with the mast[
plan for Garfield County: Colorado, and *meet all requirements of thr
zoning resolution of Garfield County, and further that the requester
planned unit development is suitable and appropriate for the subject
property concerning the location, condition circumstances of said
property, and that the proposed amendment implements the purposes ae
meets the standards and requirements of the planned unit development
provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Garfield County, Colorado:
Section 1.
THAT the petition of Jimmy Sills on behalf of the Sills Mining and
Development Company for a zone change from Agricultural/Residential/Ruri
i<csblution r81 -
page 2
• •
Density and Residential/Limited/Suburban Density to a planned unit
development district for the following described unincorporated area
of Garfield County be approved, subject to the conditions, as follows:
a. THAT active and passive recreation facilities be -provided by the
,developer in the open space of'the project.
, THAT the Canyon -Creek riparian area be dedicated for public use.
c. THAT all roads within the planned unit development meet County
standards except that portion above lots 15 and 16 which will be
a private road.
d THAT the private road access to the two lots on the creek on the
westerly portion of the property be upgraded to a set of acceptable
standards to be submitted to the County as a preliminary plat.
�e. THAT a 100 -year flood plaih study be done on Canyon Creek.
f. THAT a portion of lots 17 subject to rock fall not be built upon
THAT he concern as to the irrigation ditch be addressed.
:"h. THAT the commercial site be eliminated.
T:/ Tx. AT lot one notes be multi -family.
Gcr �, ,/0 u pL_e 6 cy X �k � C C( r egi; r-
ection_2
THAT the planned unit development shall consist of three zone districts,
the boundaries of which shall be indicated upon the final plat cr plats
of the Canyon Creek, the planned unit development, which districts shall
be designated as follows: Single -Family Residential District
Multi -Family Residential District io.olo¢
Common Open Space District
Cor f, / ``Section 1).c; p�� 1 4W-6c-6"
3�
CAD 0 WI -a �=- '�f re p°
1
THAT the uses permitted within said districts, together with the regu-
lations affecting the usage of the lands contained therein, shall be as
follows:
Single -Family Residential
1. Uses, by right: Single Family dwelling and customary accessory uses.
2. Uses, conditional: Home occupation, studio for arts and crafts.
3. Uses, special: None.
4. Minimum Lot Area: Not applicable. An average- of 2.2 acres per
dwelling unit as specified by the PUD Master Plan (Figure 3).
5. Minimum Setback:
a. Front Yard: 50 feet from street centerline.
b. Rear Yard: 25 feet from rear lot line.
c. Side Yard: 10 feet from side lot line.
6 Maximum Height of Buildings: 30 feet.
7 Maximum Lot Coverage: 15 percent. Building envelopes of approximately
4,000 sq. ft. will be designated at the time of subdivision platting.
8 Additonal Requirements: All uses shall be subject to any and all of
the provisions, covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in
this application and to additional provisions, covenants, conditions
and restrictions by the recording of any supplemental declarations.
-29-
solution 81-
9,3
•
lulti-Family Residential
Uses, by right: Single-family townhouses and customary accessory uses.
Uses, conditional: Home occupation, studio for arts and crafts.
Uses, special: None..
Minimum Lot Area: Not applicable. Multi -Family Tracts are as specifies:'
by the Canyon Creek PUD Master Plan (Figure 3).
Minimum Tract Setback:
a. Front Yard: 50 feet from street centerline.
b. Rear yard: 20 feet from lot line.
c. Side Yard: 10 feet from lot line.
Unit to Unit Setback: 0 feet
Maximum Height of Buildings: 30 feet.
Maximum Lot Coverage: 50 percent.
Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to any and all
of the provisions, covenants, conditions and restrictions contained
in this application and to additional provisions, conditions and
restrictions by the recording of any supplemental declarations.
ommon Open Space
Uses, by right: Passive and active recreation, recreational facili.tie=
community facilities, water storage facilities, sanitation facilities,
stables or paddocks.
Uses, conditional: None.
. Uses, special: None
Minimum Lot Are:: Not applicable.
Minimum Setbacks for Buildings:
a. Front yard: 50 feet from street centerline.
'b. 50 feet from residential buildings.
c. 10 feet from side and rear lot lines.
• Maximum Height of Buildings: 25 feet.
. Maximum Lot Coverage: 15 percent
Additional Reauirements: All uses shall be subject to any and all
of the provisions, covenants, conditions and restrictions contained
in this application and to additional provisions, covenants, conditions
and restrictions by the recording of any supplemental declarations.
Supplemental Regulations
1. Parking requirements:
a. Single -Family Residential: Two covered spaces per dwelling unit.
b. Multi -Family Residential: Two spaces per townhouse.
c. Common Open Space: Community facilities shall be centrally
located and designed for pedestrian access. For active recreationa
facilities located, or to be located, within deeded common open
space, parking facilities will accomodate a minimum of twenty
percent of the projected users of these facilities.
d. Rural Center District: One space per 200 square feet of floor area
-30-'
Resolution
Page 4
n81-
• •
Definitions
1. Uses, by right: A use allowed in a particular zone district with n
conditions or approval required other than_ the general terms of thi
Application.
2. Uses, conditional: A use allowed in a particular zone district tha
fulfills all of the provisions, covenants, conditions and restrictii
contained in this Application or any additonal requirements or cov-
enants recorded by any supplemental declarations.
3. Uses, special: Uses allowed by permit only.
4. Minimum Lot Area: The total land area within the boundaries of a lc
5. Minimum Setback: The minimum dimension of a required yard.
6. Building Height: Measured vertically from the average natural
finished grade line immediately adjoining the foundation to the aver
roof height.
7. Lot Coverage: The portion of a lot or tract which is covered or
occupied by buildings, structures, parking and drives.
8. Building Envelopes: Building envelopes are areas which define the
sitting of residential homes and accessory structures such as garage
or sheds. All such structures shall be confined to designated build
envelopes.
9. Townhouses: Townhouses are lineal or- clustered arrangements of
attached or semi -attached single-family homes of between four and
twelve dwelling units. Each unit is on private property and has
private outdoor space. No one unit is above another unit. Town-
houses share common walls and structure, utilities and parking.
10. Rural Center: The Rural Center District is intended to provide a
community and commercial center in a rural suburban area.
11. Country Store: A Country Store shall be a facility which may cont. -Air
convenience commercial facilities; limited recreational facilities;
or community facilities. This facility would help curtail needless
traffic to urban centers while providing a community center in rural
suburban location. All -architectural and design covenants of the
Canyon Creek PUD shall apply to the -County Store.
Section 4.
THAT, upon the Board's determination that the foregoing conditions have
been satisfied or agreed to by the applicant, the chairman be and hereby
is authorized to execute an amended zone district map to the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution, reflecting the amendment herein granted to the
following described unincorporated area of Garfield County:
'All that part of the SE1/4SW4 , Section 25 and the N -iNW 4 , 1NW4 , Section 36,
Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian lying
easterly of the center of Canyon Creek and northerly of the following
described line, to -wit:
Beginning at the intersection of the easterly line of the NE4NW4 of said.,
Section 36, and the northerly line of Riverview Subdivision as amended
and filed as Document No. 241679 in the Garfield County records; thence
along the northerly and westerly line of said Riverview Subdivision the
following courses and distances; N.84°59'W.8.0 feet more or less,;
S.82°31' W.44.90 feet; S.59°59' W.73.60 feet; S. 01401' W.350 feet,
more or less to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Old State
Highway No. 11; thence along said southerly right-of-way line the
following courses and distances; N.67050' W.310 feet; S.87°30' W.335.4
feet to the northeasterly corner of a parcel of land described in Document
No. 288281, of the Garfield County records; thence leaving said southerly
right-of-way line of said Old.State Hiyhway No. 11 S. 05°14'16", E.399.16.
feet to the county road; thence S.87°31'00", W.188.70 feet along said
-31-
Resolution r 81 -
Page 5 •
•
county road; thence N.04°42'38" W.110.98 feet; thence N.81°07'13"
W.5.89 feet; thence N.07°40'47" W.222.18 feet to a point on the southe
right-of-way line of said Old State Highway No. 11; thence along said
southerly right-of-way line the following courses and distances; S.68°
54" W.75.88 feet; thence S.69°11'59" W.189.39 feet; thence S.68°50'16"
W.132.74 feet; thence S.64°50' W.138.93 feet; thence S.57°34' W.138.40
feet to the centerline of Canyon Creek.
Excepting a tract of land conveyed to Eric C. Williams by deed recorde
as Document No. 311109 in book 563 at page 586 of the Garfield County
records.
All of the above described property contains 76 acres more or less.
By:
ATTEST:
/ \ /
Deputy clerk of,/the Board
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
r 1� r
'
Chairman
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote:
Larry Velasquez Aye
Flaven J. Cerise Aye
Eugene "Jim" Drinkhouse Aye
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Garfield
Commissioners
1, , County Clerk and ex -officio C)ezk of the Board of County Commissioners
in and for the County and State aforesaid du hereby certify that the annexed and foreaoinc Order is truly copied from the Records of
the Proceedings of the Board of County Conamissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have bcacunto set my band and afflict) the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs,
this day of , A. D. 19
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners.
-32-
•
APPENDIX 4
CANYON CREEK PUD ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS
A. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
1. Uses, by right: Single Family dwelling and customary
accessory uses.
2. Uses, conditional: Home occupation, studio for arts
and crafts.
3. Uses, special. None.
4. Minimum Lot Area: Not applicable.
An average of 1.20 acres per dwelling unit as
specified by the Final Plat.
5. Minimum Setback:
a. Front Yard: 50 feet from street centerline.
b. Rear Yard: 25 feet from rear lot line.
c. Side Yard: 10 feet from side lot line.
6. Maximum Height of Buildings: 30 feet.
7. Maximum Lot Coverage: 25 percent.
Building envelopes of approximately 4,000 sq. ft. will
be designated in the Protective Covenants.
8. Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to
any and all of the provisions, covenants, conditions
and restrictions contained in this Application and to
-33-
1
1
1
additional provisions,
restrictions by the recording of any supplemental
declarations.
covenants, conditions and
B. CONDOMINIUM -DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL
1. Uses, by right: Single-family, duplex townhouses and
customary accessory uses.
2. Uses, conditional: Home occupation, stuio for arts and
crafts.
3. Uses, special: None.
4. Minimum Lot Area: Not applicable.
Condominium -Duplex lots are as specified by the Canyon
Creek PUD Final Plat.
5.1 Minimum Lot Setback:
a. Front Yard:
b. Rear Yard:
c. Side Yard:
50 feet from street centerline.
25 feet from rear lot line.
10 feet from side lot line.
5.2 Unit to Unit Setback: 0 feet.
•
6. Maximum Height of Buildings: 30 feet.
7. Maximum Lot Coverage: 25 percent.
8. Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to
any and all of the provisions, covenants, conditions
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• .
and restrictions contained in this Application and to
the additional provisions, conditions and restrictions
by the recording of any supplemental declarations.
C. MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
1. Uses, by right: Single-family townhouses and customary
accessory uses.
2. Uses, conditional: Home occupation, studio for arts
and crafts.
3. Uses, special: None.
4. Minimum Lot Area: Not applicable.
Multi -Family Tracts are as specified by the Canyon
Creek PUD Final Plat.
5.1 Minimum/Tract Setback:
a. Front Yard: 50 feet from street centerline.
b. Rear Yard: 20 feet from lot line.
c. Side Yard: 10 feet from lot line.
5.2 Unit to Unit Setback: 0 feet.
6. Maximum Height of Buildings: 30 feet.
7. Maximum Lot Coverage: 50 percent.
8. Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to
any and all of the provisions, covenants, conditions
-35-
•
and restrictions contained in this Application and to
additional provisions, conditions and restrictions by
the recording of any supplemental declarations.
D. COMMON OPEN SPACE
1. Uses, by right:
Passive and active recreation,
recreational facilities, community facilities, water
storage facilities, sanitation facilities, stables or
paddocks.
2. Uses, conditional: None.
3. Uses, special: None.
4. Maximum Lot Area: Not applicable.
5. Minimum Setbacks for Buildings:
a. Front yard: 50 feet from street centerline.
b. 50 feet from residential buildings.
c. 10 feet from side and rear lot lines.
6. Maximum Height of Buildings: 25 feet.
7. Maximum Lot Coverage: 15 percent.
8. Additional Requirements: All uses shall be subject to
any and all of the provisions, covenants, conditions
and restrictions contained in this Application and to
additional provisions, covenants, conditions and
1 •
restrictions by the recording of any supplemental
declarations.
E. SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
1. Parking Requirements:
a. Single -Family Residential, Condominium Duplex
Residential:
unit.
Two covered spaces per dwelling
b. Multi -Family Residential:
townhouse.
Two spaces per
c. Common Open Space: Community facilities shall be
centrally located and designed for pedestrian
access. For active recreational facilities
located, or to be located, within deeded common
open space, parking facilities will accommodate a
minimum of twenty percent of the projected users
of these facilities.
d. Rural Center District: One space per 200 square
feet of floor area.
F. DEFINITIONS
1. Uses, by right: A use allowed in a particular zone
district with no conditions or approval required other
than the general terms of this Application.
• •
2. Uses, conditional: A use allowed in a particular zone
district that fulfills all of the provisions, cove-
nants, conditions and restrictions contained in this
Application or any additional requirements or covenants
recorded by any supplemental declarations.
3. Uses, special: Uses allowed by permit only.
4. Minimum Lot Area: The total land area within the boun-
daries of a lot.
5. Minimum Setback: The minimum dimension of a required
yard.
6. Building Height: Measured vertically from the average
natural finished grade line immediately adjoining the
foundation to the average roof height.
7. Lot Coverage: The portion of a lot or tract which is
covered or occupied by buildings, structures, parking
and drives.
8. Building Envelopes: Building envelopes are areas which
define the sitting of residential homes and accessory
structures such as garages or sheds. All such struc-
tures shall be confined to designated building enve-
lopes.
9. Townhouses: Townhouses are lineal or clustered
-38-
• •
arrangements of attached or semi -attached single-family
homes of between two and seven dwelling units. Each
unit is on private property and has private outdoor
space. No one unit is above another unit. Townhouses
share
common walls and structure, utilities and
parking.
10. Rural Center: The Rural Center District is intended to
provide a community and commercial center in a rural
suburban area.
11. Country Store: A Country Store shall be a facility
which may contain: convenience commercial facilities;
limited recreational facilities; or community facili-
ties. This facility would help curtail needless traf-
fic to urban centers while providing a community center
in rural suburban location.
All architectural and
design covenants of the Canyon Creek PUD shall apply to
the Country Store.
Roaring Fork School District RE -1
P.O. Box 820
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone (303) 945-6558
MA. Cindy Houben
Gcvcb,ieed County P2anvi ng Dept.
2014 B.eafze Avenue
GPenwood SpAingA, CO 81601
RE: Canyon CAeek EAtateA P.U.D.
Dean M. Houben:
NICHOLAS R. MASSARO, Superintendent
DWIGHT L. HELM, Assistant Superintendent
ROBERT D. LAFFOON, 'Assistant Superintendent, Business
4(16'2 l
Vit!`
August 24, 1982
The Boand ob Education ob Roairing Fmk Schoo.e V t'i ct RE- l Ls Aecommending
the donation ob one acne ob .land bon each b.ibty homm.i tez OA down value
ob za.id donation .to be depo4.ited with the Gwt e1d County Comm-izAioneAA .to
be used by the 4choo.e diAtAict boA the punchase ob bcitake .choo.e sites.
Sixty-two Living units woad Aepnes end 1.24 ants OA dot ecvc value the/Leg.
The Boand cL o Aequess that devetopeAs be notib,ied that extension ob bus
4 env.ice into the subdivision ,ins not p.eanned due to the -inckeas.ing costs o b
such senv,ice. Deve.eopeAA Ahoued plan .to pnov.ide a 4u.itab.ee bins Atop at the
main enhance ob the subdivision.
NRM/nw
-40-
Stincetueey youks
N.ico.eaz R. Mas.ano
^a -co
RICHARD D. LAMM
Governor
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street -Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
September 3, 1982
Cindy Houben
Garfield County Planning Dept.
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Ms. Houben:
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
f.
f SEP 7 1982
r
Re: Canyon Creek Estates
We have received preliminary plan materials for the proposed Canyon Creek
Estates. The development would consist of 62 dwelling units. The proposed
source of water is a well in the Colorado River alluvium. A plan for augmen-
tation is proposed in Water Court Case No. 82CW182.
Since the augmentation plan involves two optional supplies and since con-
tracts have not been finalized, we would ask to review this proposal at the
final plat stage, together with the signed contracts. We must also have an
indication that water is committed to serving this development prior to our
giving final plat approval. Any recommendation for final plat approval would
be contingent upon approval of the augmentation plan through the Water Court.
Since this request for approval involves the preliminary plat, we can recom-
mend approval of the preliminary plat subject to our being able to review
•
the final plat.
HDS/KCK:pkr
cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng.
Ralph Stallman
-41-
Sincerely,
.4A
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
Assistant State Engineer
4414.
FOREST SERVICE
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
COL.RADO
STATE
FOREST
SERVICE
r
Ms. Cindy Houben
Garfield County Planning Dept.
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Canyon Creek Estates P U.D.
•
Petroleum Building
1129 Colorado Avenue, Rooms 217 & 218
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephone 303 / 242-7518
SLID 51982_ ,'}H
r
September 14, 1982
Dear Ms. Houben,
The Canyon Creek Estates site was visited September 10, 1982 for the purpose of
a wildfire hazard review. Generally there are few hazards as long as homes are
built away from the steep brush and tree -covered slopes and draws. The brushy
draw in the area of lots 12, 13, and 14 is a particular hazard. If a structure
must be built within fifty feet of such high hazard fuels, non-flammable siding
and roofing materials should be used and designs with cantilevered areas of the
structure should be avoided.
The covenant forbidding the cutting of trees should be removed for the following
reasons:
1) If a homeowner may not cut any trees, he will not be able to
establish and maintain a firebreak around his house if the building
site so dictates.
2) Ips beetle is already present in the pinon on the property. If a
homeowner may not cut currently infested trees, it is likely an
increasing number of trees will be lost to this or other insects
and disease.
Sincerely,
John Denison
District Forester
014 BLAKE AVENO
GARF-IELD COUNTY
P LINING DEPARTMENT
r
�GLE�W�SPRINGS, D
COLORADOcJtiy 81601
August 16, 1982
SEP B 1982
rl,,y9 CO, P.i+
Public Service Company
Box 152
Rifle, CO 81650
Dear Review Agency:
•
PHONE 945-a212
Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Plat for CANYON CREEK ESTATES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. I would appreciate it if you would review
this information.
If you have any continents, please return them to this office by
September 20, 1982. This will give the Planning Staff, as well
as the Garfield County Commissioners and Planning Commission an
opportunity to take your comments into consideration.
Sincerely,
a d. „.„
Cindy Houben
Garfield County Planning Department
CN/eh
Enclosure
September 3, 1982
Elec: Public Service Company has an overhead electric line traversing through
lot 43 and the common open space on the west boundary of the Canyon Creek
Estates PUD. This line requires a ten foot utility easement. We also request
a ten foot front lot line utility easement adjacent to all streets and cul-de-
sacs. R.R.
Gas: Public Service Company has a twenty foot easement along the southern
boundary of the subdivision. We recommend that the water and sewer be con-
structed in the Road R.O.W. or in easements adjacent to Road R.O.W. and not
occupy both as this presents a construction problem for both gas and electric.
K.F. 9-1-82
- PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
,)
BY: �.(' � �� � K C^� DATE: 9-3-82
-43 -
RICHARD D. LAMM
GOVERNOR
O11�1'"i (r)
o
COLORADO GEOLOGICACSURVEY-
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESS`'ir
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313'SHERMAN STREET ' j
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE 1303) 86�� Ep1 r71n ^2 i
I Jtj
LJ
G%4 -E ELL
C. Pi
September 1, 1982
Garfield County Planning Department
2014 Blake Ave.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Planners:
RE: CANYON CREEK ESTATES PUD
JOHN W. ROLD
DIRECTOR
We have reviewed the plans and attendant information for the above
referenced Planned Unit Development. Geologic conditions which will
affect the subdivision include erosion, potentially unstable slopes,
flash flooding and the potential for hydrocompaction of weak low
density soils. These problems are of a magnitude such that careful
engineering and planning can minimize adverse conditions. We recommend
against allowing sewage leach fields to be scattered throughout this
development. All lots should be connected to the central sewage
treatment system. Conventional septic leach fields are questionable
on the proposed lots due to steeper slopes and soil and rock conditions.
Lot 42 contains potentially unstable slopes, debris fan hazards and
a floodway. The sewage treatment plant is adjacent to lot 43.
Building envelopes on lots 14, 21, 22, though downslope, are all within
a few hundred feet of the proposed sewage collection system, and on
lot septic systems seem inappropriate in this light.
It should also be noted that water supply problems could be experienced
during dry years due to a relatively low priority (1958) decree. Water
augmentation plans should be fully reviewed and approved by the State
Engineer's Office.
These and all recommendations contained in the technical reports
should be closely followed.
Sincerely,
Bruce K. Stover
Engineering Geologist
vt
GEOLOGY
cc: LUC STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE
STATE OF COLORADO
Richard D. Lamm, Governor
010
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
Jack R. Grieb, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216 (825-1192)
711 Independent Avenue
Grand Junction, CO 81501
rr �1
\\A
11t19,
-t4icU)
August 19, 1982
Ms. Terry L. Bowman
Garfield County Planning Department
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dcar Ms . Bowman :
Personnel of the Division of Wildlife have reviewed the preliminary plans for the
Canyon Creek Estates P.U.D. and offer the following comments.
The area is important deer and elk winter range that is already in short supply,
and development will reduce it further. If approval of the P.U.D. is inevitable
then two modifications to the plan could minimize the detrimental effects to big
game animals. Lot 45 should be left as open space. It is vegetated with shrubs
that are valuable as food and cover and as a movement corridor. Only one building
Should be allowed on lot 44. It has a stand of oakbrush that should be left intact.
If you have any questions regarding these items plcase contact me or Larry Green in
Glenwood Springs. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
JEM:ch
Sincerely,
James E. Norris
Wildlife Biologist
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Monte Pascoe, Executive Director • WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Donald Fernandez, Chairman
James Smith, Vice Chairman • Richard Divelbiss, Secretary • Jean K. Tool, Member • James C. Kennedy, Member
Michael Higbee, Member • Sam Caudill, Member • Wilbur Redden, Member
-45-
ZANCANELLA, Chief
MES MASON, Asst. Chief
ARTIN ZEMLOCK, Captain
•
•
.J. LAPLANTE, Secy. Treas.
JAMES BLANCO, Lieut.
JACK JONES, Lieut,
Glenwood Springs Fire Department
Member of Colorado State Firemen's Association
806 Cooper h
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO81601 %9 /
9/10/82
Cindy Houben
Garfield County Planning Dept.
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81601
Re. Canyon Creek Estates
Upon reviewing the Canyon Creek Estates P.U.D. this department will require the
following.
1. The addition of one more plug own by the well location, and one plug on the
second bend of Shelljo Drive. Approximate locations have been indicated by us
on the figure ten rap.
2. Development of lots 44, and 45 shall be subject to another review by us at time
of development. We will need to assess these lots for access and the additon of
hydrants when it is more clear what is going to be built on them.
Should you have any questions concerning these comments, or anything else please
feel free to call.
Sincerely,
9-‘,7iy*--4/77:4e?-‘•
James S. Mason
Fire Inspector
Cc4 -1. a-
Page 46
ZANCANELLA, Chief
MES MASON, Asst. Chief
ARTIN ZEMLOCK, Captain
•
LAPLANTE, Secy. Treas.
JAMES BLANCO, Lieut.
JACK JONES, Lieut.
Glenwood Springs Fire Department
Member of Colorado State Firemen's Association
806 Cooper
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO81601 5 2 5-
9/10/82
Cindy Houben
Garfield County Planning Dept.
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81601
Re. Canyon Creek Estates
Upon reviewing the Canyon Creek Estates P.U.D. this department will require the
following.
1. The addition of one more 5` u �by
p1 g` own the well location, and one plug on the
second bend of Shelljo Drive. Approximate locations have been indicated by us
on the figure ten map.
2. Development of lots 44, and 45 shall be subject to another review by us at time
of development. We will need to assess these lots for access and the additon of
hydrants when it is morclear what is going to be built on them.
Should you have any questions concerning these comments, or anything else please
feel free to call.
Sincerely,
3 6 C'
SO 0/
icy
James S. Mason
Fire Inspector
C' Ydr 4c,tet F'
Roaring Fork School District RE -1
P.O. Box 820
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone (303) 945.6558
Ms. Cindy Houben
Gate{ieed County Harming Dept.
2014 Beafze Avenue
Geenwo o d S ptt c:ng6 , CO 81601
RE: Canyon Cneefz E a te,,s P.U.D.
Dears M,s. Houben:
•
NICHOLAS R. MASSARO, Superintendent
DWIGHT L. HELM, Assistant Superintendent
ROBERT D. LAFFOON, Assistant Superintendent Business
Augu6t 24, 1982
The Boand o4 Education o4 Roaring Fonfz Schooe Di4tAi.ct RE -1 .us necommending
the donation o4 one acne o4 eand ion each 4i4ty hommitu on dottan vague
o4 uttid donation to be depot ed with the Gaq eed County Commizz,ionetcs to
be ups ed by the 6 chooe dizttt,ic t 4on the puttcha6 e o4 4u tette cho oe 6ited .
Sixty-two titling units wowed nepnez ent 1.24 acnes on do.Eean vague thetteo 4 .
The Boand atJso nequezts that deveeopeu, be noti4ied that extenzion o4 bu4
s env,ice into the 6 ubdiv,iz,ion ,i s not peanned due to the ,incttea�5-ing costs o4
such isenvice. Deveeopetts 6houed pan to pnov.ide a zu,%tabee but top at the
main entrance o4 the 4ubdiv,i s,ion.
NRM/mw
SJnceneey youtus,
oci? er.A.3a.te
N,ic oeaz R. Ma46ano
RICHARD D. LAMM
Governor
•
•
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street -Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
September 3, 1982
Cindy Houben
Garfield County Planning Dept.
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Ms. Houben:
17
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
SEF' 71982
Re: Canyon Creek Estates
We have received preliminary plan materials for the proposed Canyon Creek
Estates. The development would consist of 62 dwelling units. The proposed
source of water is a well in the Colorado River alluvium. A plan for augmen-
tation is proposed in Water Court Case No. 82CW182.
Since the augmentation plan involves two optional supplies and since con-
tracts have not been finalized, we would ask to review this proposal at the
final plat stage, together with the signed contracts. We must also have an
indication that water is committed to serving this development prior to our
giving final plat approval. Any recommendation for final plat approval would
be contingent upon approval of the augmentation plan through the Water Court.
Since this request for approval involves the preliminary plat, we can recom-
mend approval of the preliminary plat subject to our being able to review
the final plat.
HDS/KCK:pkr
cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng.
Ralph Stallman
Sincerely,
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
Assistant State Engineer
rn
1,
FOREST SERVICE
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
COL.RADO
STATE
FOREST
SERVICE
Petroleum Building
1129 Colorado Avenue, Rooms 217 & 218
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephone 303 / 242-7518
Ms. Cindy Houben
Garfield County Planning Dept.
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Canyon Creek Estates P.U.D.
P 3. 51982
ta. list
September 14, 1982
Dear Ms. Houben,
The Canyon Creek Estates site was visited September 10, 1982 for the purpose of
a wildfire hazard review. Generally there are few hazards as long as homes are
built away from the steep brush and tree -covered slopes and draws. The brushy
draw in the area of lots 12, 13, and 14 is a particular hazard. If a structure
must be built within fifty feet of such high hazard fuels, non-flammable siding
and roofing materials should be used and designs with cantilevered areas of the
structure should be avoided.
The covenant forbidding the cutting of trees should be removed for the following
reasons:
1) If a homeowner may not cut any trees, he will not be able to
establish and maintain a firebreak around his house if the building
site so dictates.
2) Ips beetle is already present in the pinon on the property. If a
homeowner may not cut currently infested trees, it is likely an
increasing number of trees will be lost to this or other insects
and disease.
Sincerely,
John Denison
District Forester
014 BLAKE AVENU
GARFIELD COUNTY
PIINING DEPARTMENT
GLENWOCID SPRINGS, COLORADO
SEP 81982
rikitilia CO,
Public Service Company
Box 152
Rifle, CO 81650
August 16, 1982
B1601
s
PHONE 945-8212
Dear Review Agency:
Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Plat for CANYON CREEK ESTATES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. I would appreciate it if you would review
this information.
If you have any comments, please return them to this office by
September 20, 1982. This will- give the Planning Staff, as well
as the Garfield County Commissioners and Planning Commission an
opportunity to take your comments into consideration.
CH/eh
Enclosure
September 3, 1982
Sincerely,
Cindy Houben
Garfield County Planning Department
Elec: Public Service Company has an overhead electric line traversing through
lot 43 and the common open space on the west boundary of the Canyon Creek
Estates PUD. This line requires a ten foot utility easement. We also request
a ten foot front lot line utility easement adjacent to all streets and cul-de-
sacs. R.R.
Gas: Public Service Company has a twenty foot easement along the southern
boundary of the subdivision. We recommend that the water and sewer be con-
structed in the Road R.O.W. or in. easements adjacent to Road R.O.W. and not
occupy both as this presents a construction problem for both gas and electric.
K.F. 9-1-82
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY BY:
t—�ji%v DATE: 9-3-82
RICHARD D. LAMM
GOVERNOR
/876
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY -/
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONELid 303) 865460 1982
�i 6
1,;(4, PLisplia
111
September 1, 1982
Garfield County Planning Department
2014 Blake Ave.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Planners:
RE: CANYON CREEK ESTATES PUD
JOHN W. ROLD
DIRECTOR
We have reviewed the plans and attendant information for the above
referenced Planned Unit Development. Geologic conditions which will
affect the subdivision include erosion, potentially unstable slopes,
flash flooding and the potential forhydrocompaction of weak low
density soils. These problems are of a magnitude such that careful
engineering and planning can minimize adverse conditions. We recommend
against allowing sewage leach fields to be scattered throughout this
development. All lots should be connected to the central sewage
treatment system. Conventional septic leach fields are questionable
on the proposed lots due to steeper slopes and soil and rock conditions.
Lot 42 contains potentially unstable slopes, debris fan hazards and
a floodway. The sewage treatment plant is adjacent to lot 43.
Building envelopes on lots 14, 21, 22, though downslope, are all within
a few hundred feet of the proposed sewage collection system, and on
lot septic systems seem inappropriate in this light.
It should also be noted that water supply problems could be experienced
during dry years due to a relatively low priority (1958) decree. Water
augmentation plans should be fully reviewed and approved by the State
Engineer's Office.
These and all recommendations contained in the technical reports
should be closely followed.
Sincerely,
Bruce K. Stover
Engineering Geologist
vt
cc: LUC
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE
STATE OF COLORADO411
Richard D. Lamm, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
Jack R. Grieb, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216 (825-1192)
711 Independent Avenue
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Ms. Terry L. Bowman
Garfield County Planning Department
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Ms. Bowman:
AlG2"
•
August 19, 1982
Personnel of the Division of Wildlife have reviewed the preliminary plans for the
Canyon Creek Estates P.U.D. and offer the following comments.
The arca is important deer and elk winter range that is already in short supply,
and development will reduce it further. If approval of the P.U.D. is inevitable
then two modifications to the plan could minimize the detrimental effects to big
game animals. Lot 45 should be left as open space. It is vegetated with shrubs
that are valuable as food and cover and as a movement corridor. Only one building
should be allowed on lot 44. It has a stand of oakbrush that should be left intact.
If you have any questions regarding these items please contact me or Larry Green in
Glenwood Springs. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
James E. Morris
Wildlife Biologist
JEM: ch
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Monte Pascoe, Executive Director • WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Donald Fernandez, Chairman
James Smith, Vice Chairman • Richard Divelbiss, Secretary • Jean K. Tool, Member • James C. Kennedy, Member
Michael Higbee, Member • Sam Caudill, Member • Wilbur Redden, Member
• 1
201 Eighth St. • P.O. Box640 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 • (303) 945-9158
(44/1 1(/(/"#u'74 "4*e41
September 15, 1982
Cindy Houben
Garfield County Planning Department
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Ms. Houben:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Preliminary
Plat for Canyon Creek Estates.
I am concerned about the lack of planning for pedestrian
ways throughout the subdivision. The number of children
likely to reside in the development makes pedestrian
ways for safety purposes imperative.
Lots 21, 22, 23, 24 could be provided with better access
to Wendy Sue Park by a pedestrian/bike way along the
north -south open space if that way had a spur between Lots
12 and 13 or 17 and 18.
Sincerely,
Rot er Ludw
Human Sery
RL/ewc
Planner
50li :i. i ,7777717-)
9i
, ,1,1!ni
OCT 121982 is °
111-404.11
Garfield County Planning Department
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: Dennis Stranger
Re: Canyon Creek Estates PUD
Dear Dennis:
46091 Hwy 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
October 13, 1982
My preliminary review of the Preliminary Plat application of the Canyon
Creek PUD has demonstrated several concerns that I expressed at the time
of the original zoning change hearings. They have not been, in my
opinion, adequately addressed by the drawings and data submitted by the
applicant. They are as follows:
1. DRAINAGE The drainage plan submitted shows the flows from the
PUD to drain into two locations. The primary flow is directed dir-
ectly south, down the steep bank of the south boundary of the meadow
area, and into the Johnson-Woolverton Ditch. No continuation of the
flow is shown, so I interpret this to mean the flow is assumed to be
contained at that point by the Ditch. This will mean that the Ditch
will have to accommodate increased flows from runoff, in addition to
being blocked by the mud and debris accompanying the runoff. The
Ditch already experiences these problems in the natural runoff areas
and this will add substantially to the problems. The secondary area
of flow is down the north side of the main access road. The runoff
arrow indicates the flow will run down the road to the hairpin area,
and then, I assume, will follow the low points to run down to the
culverts under the highways to the Colorado. The problems with this
are two -fold. The flow must first cross the Johnson-Woolverton
Ditch, creating the same problems and concerns as I expressed earlier,
and the applicant hasn't shown that he has a drainage easement for
the flow he is creating to pass over Jim Meeney's property to the
highway culverts. There is also a problem at the highway, where mud
flows already require the Highway Department to plow the mud from
the highways on a frequent basis in the flash flood season at Canyon
Creek. Having a house located in the path of former mud flows, I
would request that the applicant be required to direct his runoff
elsewhere, or contain it on his property. As a water user in the
Ditch, sharing in the cleaning work to maintain water flow, I would
request that the applicant make adequate provision to keep the water
and mud flow that he creates on his property, or directed to keep
it out of the Ditch.
i •
2. SEWAGE PLANT LOCATION -LACK QF INFORMATION. The location of the
sewage plant seems to be in the area below the Johnson-Woolverton
Ditch. This location will create instability during the construction
of the plant, due to excavation in the support strata of the Ditch.
Operationally, should there be a leak in the plant or an overflow,
the moisture would tend to soak the support strata for the Ditch,
creating the possibility of a failure. I would request that the
applicant be required to submit a construction plan which will address
the problem of undermining during construction, and address with a
design, the problem of leakage of the plant and potential overflow.
Also, the location of the discharge of the plant is not shown, nor
is there an easement designated for that discharge line.
3. WATER WELL - LACK OF LOCATION/PROTECTION OF EXISTING WELLS.
The plats do not show a location for the proposed water well that I
could find. I, as owner of a non -adjudicated well on my lot in
Riverview Subdivision, request that the applicant be required to
show that his proposed well location will not adversely affect the
quantity and quality of the water from my well, which is the sole
source of water for my domestic use.
4. SEPTIC SYSTEMS OF LOTS 21 and 22. The Mountain Engineering report
states that lot 21 and 22 are to be served by septic systems, or
other engineered waste disposal systems. The Terra Task report
indicates that these lots have never been irrigated, and are sub-
ject to hydrocompaction. The Terra Task report also recommends
that there be no irrigation of these lots, as well as the other
lots which have never been irrigated, due to the problem of hydro -
compaction. There is no requirement in the covenants that the
waste disposal system of a lot not served by the central system
be engineered, nor is there a limitation of the lots that they not
be irrigated. I would request that the applicant by required to
protect the purchasers from the problems that are experienced in
Glenwood by the people on Red Mountain from the problem of settle-
ment due to hydrocompaction, through use of sewage lift stations
and irrigation prohibition on the sensitive lots.
5. THE LACK OF WATER COMMITMENT FOR PROPOSED AND SHOWN USES.
I would request that the Planning Staff review in detail the
Woodward -Clyde letters and coordinate them with the plans the ap-
plicant has submitted. I found that Woodward -Clyde has assumed
an open space irrigation of the equestrian center of 4.4 acres.
and the plan shows almost 6 acres. I would request that the
applicant be required to reconfigure the plat to correspond to the
reports upon which his plan of augmentation and water commitments
are based. I would also request that, for the protection of the
homeowners in the subdivision, that the developer be prohibited
from selling or trading water taps or service commitments which
would deplete their water supplies.
6. LACK OF AGREEMENT/ADRESSING OF PROBLEM WITH THE DITCH
I would request that the Planning Department and the Planning
and Zoning Board defer further consideration of the Preliminary
Plat until such time as the problem of the Johnson-Woolverton
Ditch is addressed by the applicant and an agreement is reached.
One of the requirements of the Commisioners approval of the
zoning change request it the applicant to solve the problem of
the Ditch. The Ditch water users have expended considerable time
and money in legal fees to attempt to incorporate to accommodate
the desires of the applicant to deal with only one body. The
applicant has made no approach to the Ditch organization to propose
an agreement, and if the plat process is allowed to continue,
the applicant will come to the final step of the process and
attempt to hurry through an agreement to satisfy this requirement.
I am requesting that the plat process be suspended until the
applicant makes at least a good faith effort to negotiate with the
water users, corporation or not. We have designated leadership
who can preliminarily negotiate with the applicant. The ditch
users stand ready to uphold our responsibility in this matter,
and request that the applicant be required to do likewise.
I am making these statements and requests on my own behalf, and request
that the Planning Department and Planning and Zoning Board consider
my comments and concerns. I feel that they are legitimate and valid,
and are not made with an intent to prevent or delay the applicant's
development, but merely to insure that a quality job is done of con-
sidering the impacts of this major project in my area.
Thank you for your time in considering my comments.
SincereV
Mark E. Shumate
P.S. Please read into report.
•
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
CANYON CREEK PUD (PRELIMINARY PLAN AND MODIFICATION TO THE PUD PLAN)
OWNER:
ENGINEER:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
Lazier - Sills Partnership
Mountain Engineering and Land Surveying
The property is located in portions of
Section 25 & 36, Township 5 South,
Range 90 West of the 6th Principal Meridian.
The site is north of Highway 6 & 24
immediately east of Canyon Creek and the
Canyon Creek exit from Interstate 70.
The request is to develop 44 lots on 76.5
acres. The total number of dwelling units
proposed on the Lazier -Sills property is
62.
Private community distribution system supplied
by a well.
Private collection and treatment facility
and individual septic systems.
EXISTING ZONING: PUD
ADJACENT ZONING:
North: 0/S
South: R/L/UD
West: A/R/RD
East (North 2): 0/S
East (South 2): R/L/UD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The site lies within districts C & D of the Comprehensive Plan. The westerly
most portion of the site, along Canyon Creek, falls into district E.- Rural
areas/severe with moderate environmental constraints. It is the policy of
the county to consider this area to have poor suitability for growth. This
area has been designated as open space in district C -Rural areas/Minor Environ-
mental constraints. The county policy is to consider lands in district C as
having moderate suitability for growth when in compliance with other county
policies. And, non-agricultural areas and non-productive cropland found within
this district shall be considered best able to absorb growth. The development
was approved for this area October 6, 1981 - Resolution No. 81-316.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: The site contains approximately 76.5 acres and consists
of pinion and juniper covered upland slopes, riparian areas adjoining to
Canyon Creek and a highland irrigated meadow area.
B. Project Description: The proposal is to develop 76.5 acres into 62
dwelling units on 44 lots. There will be 15 duplex units, 1 fourplex and
28 single facility units.
III, MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES:
A. CONCERNING THE MODIFICATION TO THE PUD PLAN:
1. The modification to the PUD plan are necessitated by changes to the
boundary of the PUD and text amendments. In addition, the designation
of the location of the zone districts is being changed.
2. The original boundary of the PUD is subject to change and qualification
due to a pending aliquot resubdivision of the section. The potential
loss of land on lot 44 should be noted on the Final Plat.
3. The zoning text was incorporated in Resolution No. 81-316. See pages
17 - 21 The resolution created 3 zone districts: 1) Single
Family Residential; 2) Multi -family Residential; and 3) Common
Open Space.
• •
The present proposal proposes four zone districts: A. Single -Family
Residential; B. Condominium -Duplex; C. Multi -Family Residential; D. Common
Open Space.
4. The Single -Family Residential are similar with some exceptions:
a. The density is increased from 2.2 acres per dwelling unit to 1.2
acres per dwelling unit.
b. The maximum lot coverage has been increased from 15 to 25%.
5. The Condominium -Duplex Residential district is a new district. The uses are
restricted to one and two family dwellings. The townhouses would have
been permitted in the old multi -family zone. The effect of this zone is
to limit the bulk of each building.
6. The Multi -Family Residential district is the same as the original multi -family
zone district.
7. General comments on the zone district regulations: (see district regulations
on pages 22 - 2$)
a.
There is a section in the zone district labeled
It should be noted that the county is not going
as
to
Additional Requirements.
enforce private covenants
etc. The zone district text should not refer to the application. These
points should be clarified or more clearly, these sections eliminated.
b. A minimum lot ;size should be specified rather than refering to the Final
Plat. The PUD regulation permits final definition of zone districts at
the Final Plat stage. However, the minimum performance standards must be
prescribed within the zone district text.
c. The setback sections (section 5) of each zone district need to be clarified.
The titles should probably all read the same such as Minimum Building Setback
rather than Minimum Setback, Minimum Lot Setback, Minimum Tract setback
and Minimum Setbacks for Buildings, as the various districts presently
read. Special setbacks will be required for townhouse units.
dd: A maximum intensity of use should be defined for the multi -family uses.
e. The Definition section should include definitions for the following:
f.
1. Passive and Active recreation
2. Recreation facilities
3. Community facilities
4. Water storage facilities
5. Sanitation facilities
6. Condominiums
It should be clarified that the Board of County Commissioners grant Special &
Conditional Use Permits. As in A. 7 (a), the county will not enforce
private convenants.
g. The townhouse definition permits 7 unit buildings which is not consistent
with the subdivision plan. This should be modified.
h. The definitionGfor Rural Center and County Store should be eliminated as
they are not uses permitted in the zone district.
B. The zone district locational designations are being changed. Basically,
multiple family dwelling units are still proposed in the southern part of
the development and single family proposed for the bulk of the remainder.
The actual number of multi -family units has been decreased in the southern
area. The most significant shift in the zone designations is placing part
of the duplex zone in the northeast corner of the subdivision.
C. CONCERNING THE SUBDIVISION PLAN:
1. Comments from Reviewing Agencies:
a. The Glenwood Springs Fire Department has stated that additional fire
hydrants will be required and future development of lot 44 and land
•
east of the PUD will require further review. See letter, page 29
b. Roaring Fork School District RE -1 request$a fee in lieu of school
site dedication based on the value of 1.24 acres of land. The
school district also notes that bus service into the subdivision
is not planned. See letter, page 30
c. The Division of Water Resources recommends approval of the Preliminary
Plan subject to review of the Final Plan for conformance with the
final augmentation plan. See letter, page 31
d. The Colorado State Forest Service notes that the brushy draw in the
area of lots 12, 13 and 14 is a particular fire hazard and recommends
that the prohibition against tree cutting be eliminated. See letter,
page 32
e Public Service Company notes existing power lines and gas easements
in the area. PSCO recommends against utilizing the same easements
for water, sewer, gas and electric. See letter, page 33
f. The Colorado Geological Survey notes several geological Concerns and
recommends against on lot septic system in this area. See letter,
page 34
g The Colorado Division of Wildlife notes that lot 44 should be limited
to one building and the potential development area east oc the
subdivision "should be left intact". See letter, page 35
2. The land use breakdown comparing the Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan
is as follows:
SKETCH
Total Development Area 76 acres +
Roads 12 acres +
Open Space 19 acres +
Residential 44 acres +
Total number of lots 25
(17 SF & 8 MF)
Total SFD 17
Total SFA 52
Total Dwelling Units 69
PRELIMINARY
76 acres +
12 acres +
19 acres +
44 acres +
44
(28 SF, 1 MF and 15 Duplex)
28
34
62
3. The Preliminary Plan and the Sketch Plan are similar in several key
areas. The road system is basically the same. The relationships
of lots to major open space elements is similar. The large central
open space on the center of the development has been reduced in size
from 7.2 acres to 5.65 acres.
4. A significant departure from the sketch plan is an increase in the number
of lots in the northern two thirds of the development (from 17 to 30);
6 of which are duplex lots. The impression of one walking through the
development would be that the upper portion of the development will have
houses closer together. This impression will be offset somewhat by the
less intensive development in the southern one third of the development
area.
5. There is a great deal of potential for pedestrian movement in this
subdivision. Since the school buses will not be able to pick school
children up internally, pedestrian pathways to the sChool bus pick up
point should be provided. The pedestrian ways should be separated from
the street for maximum safety.
6. The road serving an access to lot 44 should be a defined easement or right-
of-way on the Final Plat.
-6-
7. The developloweeds to address his plans for "equestrian/
community c er'!.
8. All open space tracts should be labeled as not being building sites.
9. The "Canyon Creek Riparian Zone" adjacent to Canyon Creek is proposed
to be dedicated to public use. Access to this area should be open
to the public but closely controlled. The county does not have a
mechanism for maintenance of this area.
10. The final plans for the sewage treatment plant should include details
for security fencing and landscape screening.
11. Building envelopes are not shown for the duplex and multi -family lots.
Particular attention should be paid to the duplex lots in the northeast
area; specifically, the PUD perimeter treatment in this area.
12. The developer needs to explain why lots 43 and 44 are excluded from the
Protective Covenants.
13. The covenants and Home Owners Association documents must provide
for perpetual maintenance of all infrastructure including roads
and common open space with the express provision that if Garfield
County ever assumes the maintenance responsibility for the roads,
that obligation can expire. There needs to be a procedure established
for collecting maintenance fees.
14. The final plan should include sizing of individual driveway culverts for
each lot. Culvert details should be included in the covenants.
15. Townhouse units will each set on an individual lot. This fact should
be taken into account at the time of the Final Plat. The townhouse
lots could be subdivided at that time to avoid the necessity of re -
subdividing at a later time.
16. The remaining condition to be addressed has to deal with the irrigation
ditch. Resolution No. 81-316 contained a condition "THAT the concern
as to the irrigation ditch be addressed." The ditch company has not
indicated that an acceptable agreement has been reached with the
developer. The developer's attorney has submitted a letter outlining
the developer's response to the ditch company's concerns. See letter,
pages 36 & 37
IV. FINDINGS:
1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law.
2. That the meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That the proposed zoning is in compliance with the recommendations set
forth in the master plan for the unincorporated area of the county.
4. That the preliminary plan conforms
Subdivision Regulations.
5. That the preliminary plan conforms
in which the development is located.
6. That for the above stated and other
for approval by this Board.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with the following conditions:
to the requirements of the Garfield County
to the regAirements of the zone district
reasons, the
preliminary plan appears to qualify
1. The boundary on lot 44 reflects the potential aliquot resubdivision of the
section.
2. Staff comments III. A. 7 be considered conditions of approval.
3. Additional fire hydrants be provided per the letter from the Glenwood Springs
Fire Department and included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA).
4. A school fee equivalant to the value of 1.24 acres be paid to the RE -1 School
District and the amount approved by the School District.
5. The Division of Water Resources review and recommend approval of the Final
Plat in terms of conformance with the Final augmentation plan prior to submittal
of the Final Plat. -7-
• •
6. Provisions be made in a fire protection plan to mitigate wildfire
hazards and the conditions;)of the Colorado State Forest Service be observed
in preparing the fire protection plan.
7. All existing utility easements be shown on the Final Plat.
8. The water and sewer lines be located 'n separate easements from gas and
electric.
9. The recommendation of the Colorado Geological Survey be followed.
10. A pedestrian circulation plan be prepared and submitted with the Final Plat.
11. The road in the westerly portion of the subdivision be provided for within
an easement or right-of-way on the Final Plat.
12. The Final Plans for the sewage treatment plant include security fencing and
landscape screening.
13. The covenants and Home Owners documents include provisions for perpetual
maintenance.
14. The final drainage plans shall include individual sizing of driveway culverts.
15. The developer consider the division of the townhouse lots at the time of
final platting.
16. An agreement be reached with the ditch company prior to submittal of the Final
Plat.
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommended to the Board of County Commissioners
approval of the Canyon Creek PUD Preliminary Plan on October 13, 1982 with
the following conditions:
1. The boundary on Lot 44 reflects the potential aliquot resubdivision of the
section.
2. Comments III. A.(7) be considered conditions of approval.
3. A letter from the Fire District should be submitted with the final plat detailing
and approving the location of fire hydrants.
4. A school fee equivalent to the value of 1.24 acres be paid to the RE -1 school
District and the amount approved by the School District.
5. The Division of Water Resources review and recommend approval of the Final
Plat in terms of conformance with the Final Augmentation plan prior to approval
of the Final Plat.
6. Provisions be made in a fire protection plan to mitigate wildfire hazards and
the conditions of the Colorado State Forest Service be observed in preparing the
fire protection plan with the express understanding that the Architectual Control
Committee will allow selective cuttings. The covenants will be modified to address
the concerns of the Colorado State Forest Service.
7. All existing utility easements be shown on the Final Plat.
8. A letter be received from all utiltiy companies stating approval of all easements
and utility layouts.
9. All lots will hook onto the existing sewer lines except lots 21, 42, 14, 43 and 22;
the deieloper will prepare percolation tests and all engineering evaluations of the
suitability of septic systems of those 5 lots prior to the hearing of the Preliminary
Plat with the Board of County Commissioners.
10. The geological recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey be followed
except the recommendations for septic systems.
11. A pedestrian circulation plan be prepared and submitted with the Final Plat.
12. The road in the westerly portion of the subdivision be provided for within an
easement or right-of-way on the Final Plan.
-8-
13. The Final Plans for the sewage treatment plant include security fencing
and landscape screening.
14. The covenants and Homeowner's documents include provisions for perpetual
maintenance.
15. The final drainage plans shall include individual sizing of driveway culverts.
16. Consideration be given to subdividing all townhouse lots at the time of
Final Plat.
17. The developer and the ditch company resolve the problems of the ditch to
the Board of County Commissioners' satisfaction.
(
•{'/,//Ari, - ,c
•
LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
KEVIN L. PATRICK
JAMES S. LO EAD
,TEPID i
October 12, 1982
OCA 1 '462,L.)
Mr. Dennis Stranger
Garfield County Planning Department
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P. 0. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS,COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261
Re: Canyon Creek PUD
Dear Dennis:
Enclosed are a couple more returned receipts for the Canyon
Creek Estates Preliminary Plan hearing.
You will note that the public notice for the Planning
Commission Hearing for Preliminary Plan also included a notice
for the November 1 Commissioners Hearing regarding the modifi-
cation of the PUD Resolution. These same return receipts will
be entered, therefore, into the record for the 30 -day notice on
the PUD Resolution change.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C.
James S. tochhead
JSL:jas
Encs.
• •
PUBLIC NOTICE
Take Notice that the Lazier -Sills Partnership, a Colorado part-
nership, has applied to the board of County Commissioners,
Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request modification to
the provisions of Canyon Creek Planned Unit Development, in con-
nection with the following described property situated in the
County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit:
Legal Description of Canyon Creek Subdivision:
A parcel of land located in the SE1/4SW1/4, Section 25,
Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian, and in the NE1/4NW1/4 of Section 36, Township 5
South, Range 90 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, said
parcel being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the South One -Quarter corner of said
Section 25, a brass cap set in place by the Garfield County
Surveyor in 1954; thence S08°17'28"E, 748.11 ft. to the
North boundary of the Riverview Subdivision in Garfield
County; thence along the boundary of said Riverview
Subdivision the following courses and distances:
N85°33'17"w, 2.18 ft.; S82°07'03"w, 44.85 ft.;
S59°59'00"W, 73.43 ft.; S01°01'00"W, 339.22 ft.;
Thence, leaving said Riverview Subdivision boundary
along the South Right of Way line of the old County road a
best evidenced by a fenceline existing at the time of the
survey, the following courses and distances:
N64°38'24"W, 161.18 ft.; N73°51'31"W, 184.96 ft.;
S84°07'34"W, 287.53 ft.;
Thence leaving said South Right of Way line along an
existing fenceline S05°20'04"E, 393.98 ft. to an existing
fence corner; thence along an existing fenceline
S86°59'54"W, 188.73 ft.; thence N04°22'02"W, 111.86 ft.
along a fenceline at the time of survey; thence N87°52'24"W,
5.89 ft.; thence N07°40'47"W, 220.70 ft. to the South Right
of Way line of the old county road; thence along said South
Right of Way line S68°23'54"W, 78..06 ft. to an existing
fenceline; the best evidence for the location of the old
County Road South Right of Way; thence along said existing
fenceline, S69°07'27"W, 188.97 ft.; thence along said
existing fenceline S68°56'30"W, 134.00 ft.; thence along the
existing fenceline S63°48'56"W, 139.43 ft.; thence,
S57°47'57"W, 18.57 ft. to the Northeast corner of a parcel
of land described in Book 354, Page 119 of the Garfield
-1-
• •
County records; thence S57°34'00"W, 119.85 ft. along the
North boundary of said parcel of land to the centerline of
Canyon Creek; thence along the centerline of Canyon Creek
the following courses and distances:
N13°58'26"W, 286.76 ft.; N13°19'13"E, 256.93 ft.;
N08°00'17"W, 233.05 ft.; N14°09'31E, 279.69 ft.;
N01°22'52"E, 162.17 ft.; N20°47'54"W, 92.26 ft.;
Thence leaving said creek centerline along the South
boundary of a parcel of land described in Book 563, Page 586
of the Garfield County records S86°31'08"E, 230.07 ft.;
thence along the East boundary line of said parcel
N00°36'16"W, 945.89 ft.; thence leaving said parcel boundary
N78°10'50"E, 49.58 ft.; thence N01°05"39"W, 460.06 ft.; to
the Northline of said SE1/4SW1/4 Section 25; thence along
said northline N89°24'49"E, 1196.97 ft. to the North-South
centerline of Section 25; thence S01°02'25"W along said
North-South centerline, 1310.33 ft. to the South One -Quarter
Corner of said Section 25, and the point of beginning.
Said parcel of land contains 75.454 acres more or less.
Practical Description: Adjacent to Canyon Creek just east of
Canyon Creek interchange on State Highway 6 and 24 at Interstate
Route 70.
Said changes in the provisions of the Canyon Creek Planned Unit
Development are to permit the Petitioner to:
1) Amend the boundaries of the Canyon Creek Planned Unit
Development, to amend the legal description thereof after
resurvey; and
2) Amend the provisions of the Canyon Creek Planned Unit
Development Plan including changes to the zone district
designations within the Canyon Creek Planned Unit
Development and text amendments to the Canyon Creek Planned
Unit Development zone districts on the above-described pro-
perty.
All persons affected by the proposed P.U.D. changes are invited to
appear and state their views, protests, or objections. If you
cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to
state your views by letter, particularly if you have objections
to such P.U.D. changes, as the Board of County Comissioners will
give consideration to the comments of surrounding property
owners and other affected in deciding whether to grant or deny
the request for the P.U.D. changes. This application for the
proposed P.U.D. changes may be reviewed at the office of the
-2-
Planning Director located at 2014 Blake, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
That public hearing on the application for the above P.U.D.
changes has been set for the 1st day of November, 1982, at the
hour of 10:00 Am. at the office of the County Commissioners,
Commissioners Annex, Glenwood Spriggs, Colorado.
Dennis A. Stranger
County Planning Director
Garfield County, Colorado
-3-
I,
•
o fi %- LLE y , hereby acknowledge
[printed name, please]
on behalf of the Colorado State Highway Department, District
Construction Engineer (0279 City Road 164, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado) receipt of two Public Notices concerning the
Lazier -Sills Partnership, signed by Dennis A. Stranger (County
Planning Director of Garfield County, Colorado), which were hand
delivered this 8th day of October, 1982.
-11
•
C"-')
_A Brinkley Brown
P. 0. Box 68
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Jill Williams
270 240 Road
I Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
andra E. Wright
L)(5141 W. 6th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
$ W. & Sandra E. Wright
141 W. 6th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
$Robin D. Trebesh
45779 Hwy 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
$Cecil E. & Genola Bryson
ttention: Earl Warren
. 0. Box 638
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Rene E. & Rita R. Dhenin
45841 Hwy 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
\/ $James W. Johnson
I( 45885 Hwy 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
$Adele D. Jacobson
45885 Hwy 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
$John P. Meeney
917 Hwy 6 &24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
James & Adalene Meeney
-� 46029 Hwy 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
$Douglas Dobbin
0116 160 Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
"k1Winfried & Susan K. Bucholzer
1104 Minter Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Mark E. & Donna Lee Shumate
46091 Hwy 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
$Robert Glenn & Doris Mae Stowe
'46095 Hwy 6 & 24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
$Richard C. & Inez Gehrett
7260 Otis Court
Arvada, CO 80003
$Bureau of Land Management
4- P. 0. Box 1009
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
$Colorado State Highway Department
District Construction Engineer
279 City Road 164
WiRd884 §FFI8 ; CO 81601
• •
SCHENK & KERST
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 201, 817 COLORADO AVENUE
GLENWOOI) SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601
(303) 945-2447
,E.yi49/rG
JOHN R. SCHENK WILLIAM J. DEWINTER III
DAN KERST JOHN D. PHILLIPS
November 1, 1982
Garfield County Commissioners
Garfield County Court House
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
Re: Canyon Creek P.U.D.
Gentlemen:
As attorney for the Johnson/Wolverton Ditch Company I wish to
advise you of the Ditch Company's position regarding recent efforts by
Jimmy Sills and his representatives to "renegotiate" the prior agreement
which had been reached between Mr. Sills and the Ditch Company in
connection with the Canyon Creek P.U.D. At the Public Hearing on this
project held by you on August 4, 1981, Lee Leavenworth, counsel for Mr.
Sills, advised you of the general terms of an Agreement which had been
reached between Mr. Sills and the Ditch Company in an effort to mitigate
the long-term impact of the proposed development on the maintenance and
operation of the Johnson and Wolverton Ditches. The formation of the
Ditch Company and its incorporation under the laws of the State of
Colorado have proceded in reliance on the agreement reached and we have
been waiting for Mr. Sill's attorney's to prepare a formal written draft
of the agreement.
Mr. Sills has also identified a number of expenditures which he
feels should be credited toward his obligation to the Ditch Company.
The Board of Directors of the Ditch Company have carefully reviewed and
considered each item of expense submitted by Mr. Sills and have
concluded that there is no theory on which the Ditch Company could be
held responsible for any of the expenses, except for approximately
$300.00 for ditch cleaning performed by Mr. Sills. However, at the time
the ditch cleaning was done, a representative of the Ditch Company
offered to pay this expense and Mr. Sills indicated that he was doing
the work without charge to improve his relationship with the community.
In summary, the Ditch Company is willing to abide by the agreement
previously reached, despite very real concerns that the funds to be paid
to the Ditch Company in connection with the development (receipt of
which is totally dependant upon the success and timing of the
development) may be inadequate to cover the escalating expenses which
are likely to occur as a result of residential activity above the ditch.
• •
Garfield County Commissioners
November 1, 1982
Page 2
Only piping of the entire ditch would assure protection of the ditch
from the impacts of development. In any event, the members of the ditch
company intend to honor their agreement and they expect the developer to
do the same.
DK/rc
ubmitted,
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
KEVIN (.PATRICK
JAMES S. LOCHHEAD
PETER A. MILWID
• 4FILE Copy
LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK 6 LOCHHEAD, P. C.oat
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
October 15, 1982
Dan Kerst, Esq.
Schenk & Kerst
Suite 201, Alpine Professional Building
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P 0.DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261
Re: Lazier/Sills Partnership/Johnson Wolverton Ditch
Company Agreement
Dear Dan:
As you may know, the County Planning Commission approved the
Preliminary Plan for the Canyon Creek Estates, and the matter is
now set for hearing before the Commissioners on November 1. One
of the conditions of the Planning Commission approval was that
the Lazier/Sills Partnership and the Ditch Company continue to
work on arriving at an agreement for the resolution of the
issues relating to the development.
At the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Proctor stated that
the improvements undertaken by the Lazier/Sills Partnership to
the Ditch are satisfactory and that the only remaining issue
relates to potential for increased operation and maintenance
expenses. resulting from the Canyon Creek PUD. I am writing
to outline what we believe to be a fair and equitable solution
to this problem.
I understand that the Ditch Company does not want to
relinquish the actual maintenance responsibilities to a
homeowners association which might not have the requisite
interest to diligently maintain the ditch. I can appreciate
this and would offer that the Ditch Company personnel perform
the actual maintenance, but that the homeowners association be
financially responsible for any increased operation and main-
tenance expenses that are occasioned by the existence of the
development. Mr. Proctor expressed a concern with this proposal
by stating that the Ditch Company did not want to have to sue
the homeowners association in order to obtain reimbursement for
these costs. I think this problem can be overcome, however. I
would propose a provision in the Protective Covenants to provide
that the homeowners association will be responsible for
increased operation and maintenance expenses. This will be a
covenant running with the land of all lots within the sub-
division for the benefit of the water rights and easements owned
LEAVENWORTH, PAT
Dan Kerst, Esq.
October 15, 1982
Page 2
& LOCHHEAD, P. C.
by the Ditch Company. As part of the final plat approval, the
Lazier/Sills Partnership would be required to, as soon as the
homeowners association is formed, enter into an agreement with
the Ditch Company which provides for this repayment obligation.
Rather than having the Ditch Company incur expenses and then
seek reimbursement, I would propose that at the annual meeting
each year the Ditch Company establish assessments within the
ditch as well as an assessment to the homeowners association
which would cover their pro rata or agreed share of the main-
tenance expenses (perhaps the easiest solution to avoid future
disputes would be to agree that a certain percentage of all
maintenance costs related to the ditch will be borne by the
homeowners association). These assessments can be levied to the
homeowners association, and if not forthcoming within a certain
period the Ditch Company could recover attorneys' fees in a suc-
cessful action.
With regard to problems of children encroaching on the
ditch, I would propose that on the final plat and protective
covenants, provisions be made that signs be erected prohibiting
any person other than authorized Ditch Company personnel from
entering the ditch and that such a provision be made part of
the protective covenants.
I believe these provisions will adequately and fully protect
the interests of the Ditch Company in a fair and reasonable
manner. The Lazier/Sills Partnership feels that an up -front
payment to cover speculative increased maintenance costs is
unreasonable and unprecedented and would ask, therefore, that
the Ditch Company give serious consideration to this proposal.
If you would like to meet to discuss these matters, please
give me a call. I look forward to hearing from you.
JSL:jas
cc: Jimmy M. Sills
Dennis Stranger
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C.
James Lochhead
•
November 1, 1982
• 64
TO: Garfield County Board of Commissioners
RE: Canyon Creek PUD - Preliminary Plat
Gentlemen:
I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns about the Pre-
liminary Plat you are being requested to approve today. My concerns are of
two types - the concerns about the technical aspects of the Plat and the
concerns about the commitments that have been made and will be made by
Mr. Sills to obtain the County's approvals of his project.
My concerns about the technical aspects of the development are expressed in
detail in my letter dated October 13, to the Planning Department. -1—
.:.
•
•11
To quickly summarize these areas of concern, they
are as follows:
1. Drainage - The primary drainage flow directed into the Johnson-Woolverton
Ditch will be disastrous to the Ditch operation. It will cause overflow and/or
potential washout conditions at this point and further downstream. Flow should
be retained above or properly conduited over or under the Ditch. Secondary
flow on the road intercepts the Ditch at the road crossing. A culvert carries
the mainflow across the Ditch to a drainage onto Jim Meeney's property, adjacent
to my property. In major rain storms, this flow will come toward my property as
it has historically, as evidenced by the mudflows south of my house and the water
and mud stains in my basement. The block wall along the north side of my house
is designed and has functioned to divert the mud flow around my house. The obvious
additional runoff from this development may overflow what has worked in the past.
I request the applicant be required to show proper drainage easements and plans,
more fully than are shown on the preliminary plat, and be required to properly
direct the flows or retain them on his development. This is required by the City
-2-
• •
of Glenwood Springs of developments in congested areas for example, the CMC
Building on Blake.
2.Sewage plant location/lack of detail. The sewage plant plan should show more
detail prior to final plat approval to indicate details of how overflows/leaks
would be directed to prevent undermining of the Ditch and contamination of the
applicant's well, which I understand will be located downthe hill from the
plant. Loaction of the effluent discharge line and the easement should also be
required . Also of concern is contamination of other wells in the
area.
3. Septic Systems of lots 21 and 22. The applicant's engineering report ind-
icates problems with the use of septic systems on these lots, due to potential
settlement. Potential purchasers of lots 21 and 22 should be advised of this,
or a sewage lift station be required.
4. Water well location. No location is indicated for the water well, if that
is to be the water source. The location should be required to be shown on the final
plat so adjacent property owners can judge its impact.
5. Lack of water commitment for the proposed and shown uses. The applicant's
engineer's report, which is the basis for the plan for augmentation, is based on
4.4 acres being irrigated in the equestrian center. The preliminary plat shows
almost 6 acres in this area. The applicant should reconfigure his plan to reflect
the available water, as determined by the calculations for the augmentation plan
in his engineering report. I would also request that the applicant be prohibited
from selling or trading water taps or service commitments outside the PUD which
may eventually deplete the available water supplies for the homeowners.
This concludes my comments about the technical aspects of the Preliminary Plat.
-3-
• •
My second area of concern is about the commitments Mr. Sills has made and will
make in the approval process. This concern addresses the n +i recfthe planning
process nd the integrity of your applicant's prior commitments.
In the planning process, the Commissioners are asked to give legal blessing to
the plan of owners desiring to change the uses of their land. The Commissioners
rely on the expertise of the planning staff and the judgment of the Planning
and Zoning Board to review in detail the plans submitted for compliance with
the law, and the proper concerns of quality developmentin our county. By quality,
I do not refer to the cost of the improvements, but to the proper addressing of
the aspe•ts of any development - drainage, water supply, sewer disposal, and
other en ironmental concerns. As with any political or legal process, some things
are norm.11y left to the good judgment and common sense of the land owner, to fill
in the g.ps.
I would equest that the Commissioners, in the matter before them, require that
all the •aps be filled, all the is crossed and the i's dotted, before the applicant's
plan be .pproved so that lots can be sold to the public. The reason for this re_ est
is as follows: The applicant has attempted, in the hearing before P & Z on October
13, to r:nege on the agreement stated in detail in the PUD hearing on August 4, 1981.
Admittedly, it was an agreement in principle only, but Mr. Sills should stand by
his word He has since the P & Z hearing, in the Glenwood Post and in conver-
sations with my neighbors, acknowledged the August 4 agreement. His statements
andthose of his new attorney at the P & Z hearing show, on the record, a concerted
attempt o bamboozle the P & Z to approve his preliminary plat without a requirement
of addre•sing further the Ditch problem. He attempted to show, through use of a
trumped- p statement of charges massive costs oar Ditch improvements to date.
The costs include labor by members of the Ditch's Board of Directors, for which
they were not paid. How this can be listed as a cost escapes me. The balance of
the charges, except for the Ditch cleaning, were necessitated by his development
-4-
•
for example, the culvert in the Ditch so his road could cross over. The Ditch
cleaning, which the Board offerred to pay for, was not billed by Mr. Sills, as
he state that the work done would be for public relations purposes.
Now he a tempts to use it to offset what he agreed to pay the Ditch. The hourly
rates fo common labor state by Mr. Sills for Common labor are $30 plus 30%
overhead, and plus 15% profit.
Mr. Sill,' new attorney has requested of the P & Z Board to be able to have final
plat app
require
having a
oval prior to the augmentation plan's approval. The County's regulations
11 utility lines and services be located on the final plat, as well as
proval of the augmentation plan. Without a legal well location, established
by the plan for augmentation, the utility lines cannot be totally shown. This is
one of t e major gaps that should be filled prior to final plat approval. Without
an appro ed water supply, lot purchasers may be stuck with lots without water,
much as he Te -Ke -Ki lot owners have lots without legal access. Does the County
want tha kind of problem again? Having filed a statement of opposition in water
court to Mr. Sills augmentation plan due to concern over its impact on my own well,
I would request that the Commissioners pay special attention to this normal Couh„y
requirem-nt. Relocation by Mr. Sills of his proposed well location, on his PUD,
could drastically and adversely affect several domestic water supplies in the area.
Had Mr. Sills shown more integrity in his previous dealings regarding this matter
I may be
County's
examine
I feel i
procedu
willing to be less demanding and examining of Mr. Sill's plans and the
review process. But based on his previous conduct, I will continue to
his plans and the County's approvals in great detail.
t is in the best interest of the County to use proper and extablished
es to approve Mr. Sills' development plans, to stick to those procedures,
and to use extra care that all the gaps are filled.
In concl
inary pl
usion, I ask the Commissioners to condition their approval of his prelim -
at on proper addressing of the following technical problems:
1. Drainage
-5-
2. Sewer plant plans and details
•
3. Septic systems on lots 21 and 22.
4. Wate well location.
5. Lac i of water commitment for shown uses.
The mor: difficult concerns to express and for you to address as conditions to
approval, are those that relate to Mr. Sills' previous approach to the County
process.
I reque't that all commitments of Mr. Sills be legally binding on Mr. Sills and
his dev:lopment, prior to final plat approval, or I believe the County
Commissioners will see those commitments pass like smoke on the wind. Please
keep my concerns in mind as you review his preliminary plat.
Also, I would request that you not approve the Preliminary Plat until the Ditch
Company receives the $5000 promised by Mr. Sills' old attorney in our agreement
stated in the August 4, 1981 hearing. Thank you.
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
KEVIN L.PATRICK
JAMES S. LOCHHEAD
PETER A. MILWID
• •
LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
October 15, 1982
Dan Kerst, Esq.
Schenk & Kerst
Suite 201, Alpine Professional Building
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re:
Dear Dan:
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P 0. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261
Lazier/Sills Partnership/Johnson Wolverton
Company Agreement
Ditch
As you may know, the County Planning Commission approved the
Preliminary Plan for the Canyon Creek Estates, and the matter is
now set for hearing before the Commissioners on November 1. One
of the conditions of the Planning Commission approval was that
the Lazier/Sills Partnership and the Ditch Company continue to
work on arriving at an agreement for the resolution of the
issues relating to the development.
At the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Proctor stated that
the improvements undertaken by the Lazier/Sills Partnership to
the Ditch are satisfactory and that the only remaining issue
relates to potential for increased operation and maintenance
expenses. resulting from the Canyon Creek PUD. I am writing
to outline what we believe to be a fair and equitable solution
to this problem.
I understand that the Ditch Company does not want to
relinquish the actual maintenance responsibilities to a
homeowners association which might not have the requisite
interest to diligently maintain the ditch. I can appreciate
this and would offer that the Ditch Company personnel perform
the actual maintenance, but that the homeowners association be
financially responsible for any increased operation and main-
tenance expenses that are occasioned by the existence of the
development. Mr. Proctor expressed a concern with this proposal
by stating that the Ditch Company did not want to have to sue
the homeowners association in order to obtain reimbursement for
these costs. I think this problem can be overcome, however. I
would propose a provision in the Protective Covenants to provide
that the homeowners association will be responsible for
increased operation and maintenance expenses. This will be a
covenant running with the land of all lots within the sub-
division for the benefit of the water rights and easements owned
•
LEAVENWORTH, PATRIT LOCHHEAD, P. C.
Dan Kerst, Esq.
October 15, 1982
Page 2
•
by the Ditch Company. As part of the final plat approval, the
Lazier/Sills Partnership would be required to, as soon as the
homeowners association is formed, enter into an agreement with
the Ditch Company which provides for this repayment obligation.
Rather than having the Ditch Company incur expenses and then
seek reimbursement, I would propose that at the annual meeting
each year the Ditch Company establish assessments within the
ditch as well as an assessment to the homeowners association
which would cover their pro rata or agreed share of the main-
tenance expenses (perhaps the easiest solution to avoid future
disputes would be to agree that a certain percentage of all
maintenance costs related to the ditch will be borne by the
homeowners association). These assessments can be levied to the
homeowners association, and if not forthcoming within a certain
period the Ditch Company could recover attorneys' fees in a suc-
cessful action.
With regard to problems of children encroaching on the
ditch, I would propose that on the final plat and protective
covenants, provisions be made that signs be erected prohibiting
any person other than authorized Ditch Company personnel from
entering the ditch and that such a provision be made part of
the protective covenants.
I believe these provisions will adequately and fully protect
the interests of the Ditch Company in a fair and reasonable
manner. The Lazier/Sills Partnership feels that an up -front
payment to cover speculative increased maintenance costs is
unreasonable and unprecedented and would ask, therefore, that
the Ditch Company give serious consideration to this proposal.
If you would like to meet to discuss these matters, please
give me a call. I look forward to hearing from you.
JSL:jas
cc: Jimmy M. Sills
Dennis Stranger
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C.
J-mes Lochhead
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
KEVIN L. PATRICK
JAMES S. LOCHHEAD
PETER A. MILWID
• •
LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
October 18, 1982
Mr. Dennis Stranger
Garfield County Planning Department
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P 0. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261
P
Re: Canyon Creek PUD
Dear Dennis:
Enclosed is the final returned receipt for the Canyon
Creek Estates Preliminary Plan hearing.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C.
y<_
James S. Lochhead
JSL:ljd
Encs.
1
• •
APPENDIX 4
CANYON CREEK PUD ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS
A. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
1. Uses, by right: Single Family dwelling and customary
accessory uses.
2. Uses, conditional: Home occupation, studio for arts
and crafts.
3. Uses, special. None.
4. Minimum Lot Area: 0.40 acres
5. Minimum Building Setback:
a. Front Yard: 50 feet from street centerline.
b. Rear Yard: 25 feet from rear lot line.
c. Side Yard: 10 feet from side lot line.
6. Maximum Height of Buildings: 30 feet.
7. Maximum Lot Coverage: 25 percent.
Building envelopes of approximately 4,000 sq. ft. will
be designated in the Protective Covenants.
B. TOWNHOUSE -DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL
1. Uses, by right: Single-family, duplex, duplex town-
houses and customary accessory uses.
2. Uses, conditional: Home occupation, stuio for arts and
crafts.
3. Uses, special: None.
!i•lS
4. Minimum Lot Area: _0 -s -5 -5 -acres.
5.1 Minimum Building Setback:
a. Front Yard: 50 feet from street centerline.
b. Rear Yard: 25 feet from rear lot line.
•
-1-
• •
c. Side Yard: 10 feet from side lot line, except in
the case of subdivision of a townhouse -duplex lot, in
which case zero lot lines may be allowed.
5.2 Unit to Unit Setback: 0 feet.
6. Maximum Height of Buildings: 30 feet.
7. Maximum Lot Coverage: 25 percent.
MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
1. Uses, by right: Not more than four single-family
townhouses and customary accessory uses.
2. Uses, conditional: Home occupation, studio for arts
and crafts.
3. Uses, special: None.
4. Minimum Lot Area: 1.10 acres.
5.1 Minimum Building Setback:
a. Front Yard: 50 feet from street centerline.
b. Rear Yard: 20 feet from lot line.
c. Side Yard: 10 feet from lot line, except in the
case of subdivision of a multifamily lot, in which case
zero lot lines may be allowed.
5.2 Unit to Unit Setback: 0 feet.
6. Maximum Height of Buildings: 30 feet.
7. Maximum Lot Coverage: 50 percent.
D. COMMON OPEN SPACE
1. Uses, by right: Passive and active recreation,
recreational facilities, community facilities, water
storage facilities, sanitation facilities, stables or
paddocks.
2. Uses, conditional: None.
3. Uses, special: None.
4. Maximum Lot Area: Not applicable.
5. Minimum Building Setbacks:
-2-
i •
a. Front yard: 50 feet from street centerline.
b. 50 feet from residential buildings.
c. 10 feet from side and rear lot lines.
6. Maximum Height of Buildings: 25 feet.
7. Maximum Lot Coverage: 15 percent.
E. SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
1. Parking Requirements:
F.
a.
Single -Family Residential, Townhouse -Duplex
Residential: Two covered spaces per dwelling
unit.
b. Multi -Family Residential: Two spaces per
townhouse.
c. Common Open Space: Community facilities shall be
centrally located and designed for pedestrian
access. For active recreational facilities
located, or to be located, within deeded common
open space, parking facilities will accommodate a
minimum of twenty percent of the projected users
of these facilities.
d. Rural Center District: One space per 200 square
feet of floor area.
DEFINITIONS
1. Active Recreation: Recreational activities undertaken
on land improved with recreational or community
facilities.
2. Building Envelopes: Building envelopes are areas which
define the sitting of residential homes and accessory
structures such as garages or sheds. All such struc-
tures shall be confined to designated building enve-
lopes.
3. Building Height: Measured vertically from the average
natural finished grade line immediately adjoining the
foundation to the average roof height.
4. Community Facilities: Public restrooms and meeting
facilities designed alone or in conjunction with
recreational facilities.
-3-
• •
5. Duplex: A lineal or clustered arrangmenet of two
attached or semi -attached single-family units, located
on one lot under single ownership.
6. Lot Coverage: The portion of a lot or tract which is
covered or occupied by buildings, structures, parking
and drives.
7. Minimum Setback: The minimum dimension of a required
yard.
8. Minimum Lot Area: The total land area within the boun-
daries of a lot.
9. Passive Recreation: Recreational activities on land in
its natural state, without landscaping or any improve-
ment.
10. Recreational Facilities: Improvements such as pools,
tennis courts, playgrounds, picnic tables, softball
fields, volleyball courts, and horseshoe pits designed
to provide for active recreation.
11. Sanitation Facilities: Wastewater treatment plants,
lift stations, collection lines, trunk lines, power
line, and all other appurtenances thereto.
12. Townhouses: Townhouses are lineal or clustered
arrangements of attached or semi -attached single-family
homes of between two and seven dwelling units. Each
unit is on private property and has private outdoor
space. No one unit is above another unit. Townhouses
share common walls and structure, utilities and
parking.
13. Uses, by right: A use allowed in a particular zone
district with no conditions or approval required other
than the general terms of this Application.
14. Uses, conditional: A use allowed in a particular zone
district that fulfills all of the provisions, cove-
nants, conditions and restrictions contained in this
Application or any additional requirements or covenants
recorded by any supplemental declarations.
15. Uses, special: Uses allowed by permit only.
16. Water Storage Facilities: Treated water storage facil-
ities and all lines, pumps, and all other appurtenances
thereto.
-4-
2014 BLAKE AVENUE
0 GARFIELD COUNTY •
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
MEMO
TO: Dennis Stranger
Director, Department of Development
FROM: Ed Feld ice_
Garfield County Sanitarian
DATE: October 28, 1982
SUBJECT: Canyon Creek Percolation Tests Results
(Lots 43, 44, 42 & 14)
Please be advised I have reviewed the above referenced submitted
by Mountain Engineering and Land Company.
The percolation rates fall within the range of "suitable soil"
and would accomodate individual sewage disposal systems from
a soils standpoint.
Lots 21 and 22 which were originally proposed for "septic systems"
are now going to discharge into the central sewer system. I have
no negative comment on this point.
PHONE 945-2339