Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application• • Eo1,1-t4t7 A forts G. SUBDIVISION SUMMARY FORM Garfield County Type of Subdivision Request for Exemption PUD Date May 18, 1981 Preliminary Plan Final Plat Subdivision Name: Filing Canyon Creek PUD 2123 ' 25 ' S2 2123 ' 36 ' 1\11/2 Location of Subdivision TOWNSHIP RANGE SEC. 1/4 Owner(s) NAME Jimmy Sills ADDRESS p O. Box 981, C,1 enwond Springs C() R1602 Subdivider (s) NAME ADDRESS Designer NAME SUNDESIGNS ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS ADDRESS 1315 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs. CO 816D1 Type of Subdivision Number ofArca % of Dwelling Units (Acres) Total Area PUD 69 76 ( ) Single Family 17 39.91 S3o ( ) Apartments ( ) Condominiums ( ) Mobile Home ( ) Commercial N.A. 1.28 1.5% ( ) Industrial N.A. Townhouses 52 Roads R.O.W. Street Walkways Dedicated School Sites Reserved School Sites Dedicated Park Sites Reserved Park Sites Private Open Areas Easements Other (specify) Common Open Space 7.59 9% 37.16 11.59 Total Open Space (common and privatel 4$ 76 h49 Estimated Water Requirements 22,495 Gallons/day. Proposed Water Source well or wells Estimated Sewage Disposal Requirement 15,470 Gallons/day. Proposed Means of Sewage Disposal central sewage for townhouses single family -septic ACTION: Planning Commission Recommendation Approval ( ) Disapproval ( ) Remarks Date Board of County Commissioners Approval ( ) Remarks Date , 19 Disapproval ( ) , 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE I Introduction 1 II Objectives 1 III Land Use and Densities 2 IV Housing Types 3 V Building Siting 3 VI Open Space 3 VII Development Schedule 4 VIII Environmental Characteristics 4 Physiography Wind Geologic Conditions Vegetation Animal Ecology IX Utility Systems 6 Water Sewage Natural Gas Telephone Electricity X Roads 7 XI Pedestrian Trails 7 XII Adjacent Ownership 7 XIII Zoning Regulations 7 XIV Covenants 8 EXHIBITS Exhibit A Ownership Consent Exhibit B Water Rights Investigation Exhibit C Water Resources Report Exhibit D Sewage System Report Exhibit E Geologic Report Exhibit F Site Engineering Report Roads Drainage Water Supply Sewage Geologic Hazards MAPS Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Regional Context Vicinity Map Existing Zoning Adjacent Ownership PUD MASTER PLAN Geologic Conditions Soil and Vegetation Association • APPENDIX Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Soil Conservation Service: Soil Information Electrical Service Report Natural Gas Service Report Telephone Service Report • APPLICATION FOR REZONING AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT I. INTRODUCTION The Board of County Comissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has enacted the PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GARFIELD COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION, as authorized by Article 6 of Chapter 106, Colorado Revised Statutes of 1963 (now Article 67 of Title 24, Colorado Revised Statues of 1973). This Application for rezoning is submitted pursuant to said Planned Unit Development Amendment (hereinafter the PUD Amendment). The land which is the subject of this Application, THE PROPOSED CANYON CREEK PUD, comprises 76 acres more or less, and is shown on Figure 3 and described in Exhibit A. The aforementioned property is owned by Jimmy Sills, subject in all cases, to exceptions and reservations in the patents, rights-of-way and easements of record or in use. The Proposed Canyon Creek PUD Site is located adjacent to Canyon Creek on State Highway 6 and 24, just East of the Canyon Creek Interchange of Interstate Route 70, as is shown on figures 1 and 2. The Sills Canyon Creek Property is currently divided into 2 Zone Districts. The northern portion of the property is currently zoned Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density, and the southern portion of the property is currently zoned Residential/Limited/Urban Density. In order to facilitate comprehensive and co-ordinated planning for the Sills Canyon Creek Property, request is made by this Application that the Sills Property be rezoned as a Planned Unit Development (hereinafter a PUD) pursuant to the PUD Amendment, to be developed in accordance with the terms and provisions here- inafter set forth. II. OBJECTIVES The Proposed Canyon Creek PUD is designed to achieve the following objectives of development: A. To provide a variety of housing types including affordable multi -family housing; located in the New Castle/Glenwood Springs area. -1- APPLICATION FOR REZONING AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT I. INTRODUCTION The Board of County Comissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has enacted the PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE GARFIELD COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION, as authorized by Article 6 of Chapter 106, Colorado Revised Statutes of 1963 (now Article 67 of Title 24, Colorado Revised Statues of 1973). This Application for rezoning is submitted pursuant to said Planned Unit Development Amendment (hereinafter the PUD Amendment). The land which is the subject of this Application, THE PROPOSED CANYON CREEK PUD, comprises 76 acres more or less, and is shown on Figure 3 and described in Exhibit A. The aforementioned property is owned by Jimmy Sills, subject in all cases, to exceptions and reservations in the patents, rights-of-way and easements of record or in use. The Proposed Canyon Creek PUD Site is located adjacent to Canyon Creek on State Highway 6 and 24, just East of the Canyon Creek Interchange of Interstate Route 70, as is shown on figures 1 and 2. The Sills Canyon Creek Property is currently divided into 2 Zone Districts. The northern portion of the property is currently zoned Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density, and the southern portion of the property is currently zoned comprehensive and co-ordinated planning for the Sills Canyon Creek Property, request is made by this Application that the Sills Property be rezoned as a Planned Unit Development (hereinafter a PUD) pursuant to the PUD Amendment, to be developed in accordance with the terms and provisions here- inafter set forth. II. OBJECTIVES The Proposed Canyon Creek PUD is designed to achieve the following objectives of development: A. To provide a variety of housing types including affordable multi -family housing; located in the New Castle/Glenwood Springs area. • • B. To provide a procedure which can relate the type, design and layout of residential development to the specific site and thereby realize preservation of the land's natural characteristics. C. To realize community and recreational amenities integrated with housing and open spaces. D. To provide service and commercial needs convenient to housing in the Canyon Creek Area. E. To encourage integrated planning and development. III. LAND USE AND DENSITIES The Proposed Canyon Creek PUD Site consists of three basic environmental zones --the elevated, centrally located, irrigated meadow; the riparian areas adjacent to Canyon Creek; and the pinion/juniper covered uplands and slopes. The majority of the proposed development is contained on the meadow lands with housing surrounding a centrally located common open space, thus creating a park -like setting, where residents will have easy access to recreational facilities (figure 3). The riparian areas of Canyon Creek will also be utilized as common open space for passive recre- ation, serving also as a wildlife corridor. The proposed land uses and densities of the Canyon Creek PUD are located, defined and tabulated on the PUD Master Plan (figure 3). The uses consist of the following: A. Single Family Residential low density - 2.3 acres/d.u. 17 single family lots B. Multi -Family Residential "townhouse" areas - approximately four units/acre 3 multi -family tracts - 52 d.u.'s total - .3 acres/d.u. C. Open Space 11.59 acres of common open space D. Community Facilities land provisions for a community and equestrian center within the central common open space -2- • • E. Service Commercial Land provisions for a small convenience store IV. HOUSING TYPES A. Single -Family: The single family lots consist of rural density lots averaging 2.3 acres. B. Multi -Family; Townhouses: Townhouses are lineal or clustered arrangements of between four and twelve dwelling units. Each unit is on private property and has private outdoor space. Townhouses share such elements as landscaping, vehicular entry and guest parking. They also share common walls and structure, utilities and covered parking. V. BUILDING SITING At the time of subdivision platting, a building envelope within each lot will be located and defined in size. The objectives of this are to achieve visual harmony within a development area, protect individual view planes, maximize solar orientation and avoid site specific geologic hazards. Each single-family lot will contain a building envelope area of approximately 4,000 square feet. The envelopes will be sited on developable land avoiding steep slopes and preserving existing natural vegetation as much as possible. VI. OPEN SPACE The following defines the different open space land classifications and how they contribute to recreational usage and/or visual open space: (figure 3) A. COMMON OPEN SPACE: Common open space is located on two distinct areas within the site; 1. Irrigated Meadow: The centrally located commons on the irrigated meadow provides a park -like landscape and visual buffer between development units. The central location provides convenient pedestrian access. This area is intended for both active and passive recreational uses. • • 2. Canyon Creek Riparian Zone: The riparian lands adjacent to Canyon Creek will also be common open space. The open space in this area will serve to maintain the ecological and visual integrity of Canyon Creek. Only passive recreation will be permitted in these areas. B. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: Private open space will include private lands outside of designated building envelopes. This designation is primarily intended for the preserva- tion of the vegetated slopes on the site. The preserva- tion of vegetation would enhance slope stability and preserve wildlife habitat. The private open space is contained within the lot areas with no easements for public usage. VII. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE It is intended that the development of the Canyon Creek PUD proceed within one year of approval, and that the PUD shall be developed in one phase. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS A. Physiography: The majority of the Canyon Creek PUD site faces south. The majority of the development areas are located on unshadowed south -facing topographic sites for the best solar orientation. B. Wind: Prevailing winter winds are from the northwest and with architectural response to southern views and solar orientation, the winter wind exposure is minimized. Prevailing summer winds are from the southwest and with the above orientations these winds can be put to maximum beneficial use. C. Geologic Conditions: Consideration has been given to the following items and potential natural hazards: - Soils Hazards - Slope Hazards - Slope Stability - Floodways The above conditions are depicted on the Geologic Conditions Map - figure 4. S.C.S. soil classifications are depicted on the Soil and Vegetaion Association Map - figure 5 and appendix 1. See also the Preliminary Geologic Report as prepared by Lincoln Devore Testing -4- Laboratory - exhibit E. Proposed development areas avoid zones of potential hazard, which generally occur along steep slopes. Actual building sites will be located at the time of subdivision platting so as to avoid unmitigable hazards that are identified as the result of site specific investigation. D. Vegetation: The site contains three distinct vegetation associations --the centrally located mesa is an irrigated hayfield, the uplands and slopes are predominately in pinion/juniper cover, and riparian and low lying areas are in cottonwood/oak cover (see figure 5). The majority of development will impact the irrigated meadow area. Development units will utilize the periphery of the meadow with existing vegetation as a back drop. Much of the meadow will be preserved as a common recreational space central to ment. Areas of native vegetation located open space and common open space adjacent the develop - in private to Canyon Creek are protected against vegetation removal. E. Animal Ecology: There are two distinct wildlife habitat areas on the Canyon Creek Site: 1. Pinion/Juniper Areas. 2. Riparian Areas adjacent to Canyon Creek. The design of the Canyon Creek PUD seeks to preserve these habitat areas by incorporating the following criteria for wildlife planning: 1. Development areas avoid steep slopes which are pinion/juniper habitat areas. 2. Building envelopes and development areas are held back from drainages, ravines and riparian areas. These vegetated areas will serve as wildlife corridors. 3. The Canyon Creek riparian area will be for passive recreation only with no structures permitted. 4. Fencing will be limited as to type and location: Opaque architectural fencing will be limited to the building envelope area. Fencing located outisde the building envelope area will be that which is approved by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. -5- • 5. A dog ordinance which is at least as restrictive as the current county ordinance. IX. UTILITY SYSTEMS A. Water: Domestic water will be supplied by on site wells or well. Storage will be located in the northeast corner of the site (figure 3) with enough reserve supply and pressure for domestic use and fire protection (see exhibits: B,C, and F). B. Sewage: A central sewage collection system is planned for the multi -family dwelling units (exhibits D and F). The single family homes will be served by individual septic tanks. Abeyta Engineering Consultants Inc. of Glenwood Springs has proposed a central sewage facility utilizing a four step biological process (exhibit D). The sewage system incorporates four underground tanks corresponding to each part of the treat- ment process. Each tank is installed below ground so visual impacts of the system will be minimal. Access points to the tanks will be landscaped to further reduce or eliminate visual impacts. The sewage facility will be located in the southwest portion of the Canyon Creek PUD. Actual siting will be deter- mined at the time of subdivision platting. The sewage facility will not be sited in the Canyon Creek flood plain. Spatial requirements for the proposed system are small, therefore; the environmental impacts of excavation will be minimized. C. Electricity: At present the Public Service Company of Colo- rado has franchise rights for the provision of electric power to the Canyon Creek area, and has indicated a willingness and ability to provide such service (appendix 2). There exists and easement for electrical power lines at the southern margin of the Sills Canyon Creek Property (figure 5). D. Natural Gas: At present the Public Service Company of Colo- rado supplies gas service to the Canyon Creek area, and has indicated a willingness and ability to provide gas service (appendix 2). E. Telephone: Mountain Bell holds franchise rights for provision of telephone service to the Canyon Creek area, and has indi- cated a willingness and general ability to provide service. -6- a • X. ROADS Roads within the Canyon Creek PUD will be designed to county specifications (see exhibit F). Access to the Canyon Creek PUD is off State Highway 6 and 24 at the southern most portion of the property (figure 3). Lots 18, 19 and 20 will utilize the existing road on the western margin of the property. This road currently services adjacent landowners and is utilized for the maintenance of the Johnson/Wolverton ditch. XI. PEDESTRAIN TRAILS Pedestrain trails will be located along deeded rights of way, easements and common open space as specified by the Canyon Creek Homeowner's Association. XII. ADJACENT OWNERSHIP Adjacent ownership is documented on figure 2. XIII. ZONING REGULATIONS. Zoning for the Canyon Creek PUD shall be as specified by the terms of this application as set forth in the section therin. Those terms not specified shall be controlled by the appropriate Garfield County zone district. A. Single -Family Residences A/R/RD B. Multi -Family Residences A/G/SD Mark Shumate 46091 Highway 6 & 24 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 July 2, 1981 Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Box 604 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Re: Sills Mining & Development PUD Hearing July 6, 1981 10:00 A.M. Gentlemen: As a property owner adjacent to the proposed PUD, I would like to see the Followinf concerns addressed prior to approval of the development: 1. The commercial use shown at the frontage road is totally incompatible with the adjacent property uses. There are no other commercial opera- tions, and the people of the area have never expressed a desire for any. A convenience store will attract Interstate traffic that currently passes through the area. It will also generate casual traffic with associated problems to the area. Some of these problems are litter, vandalism.and theft. The Canyon Creek people know each other now, and can keep an eye on the few strangers that come in, which minimizes these problems. A convenience center will decrease that security we currently enjoy to a great extent. 2. I have a domestic well next to my house that may be affected if the development well is located on the hill as shown on the plan. I would like some guarantee from the developer that my current water supply would not be affected, or that he would pay the cost ($1250 plus piping) to hook me into the Riverview water system. 3. The Johnson-Woolverton Ditch runs through the development. As a water user with rights in the Ditch, I would like to with the other water users, be assured that our Ditch will continue to perfrom us well as it has for the years since its construction. I feel the developer should have an engineered plan, accepted by the Ditch Company, and have the improvements completed and accepted by the Ditch Company prior to the issuance of a building permit. • • July 2, 1981 Garfield County Commissioners Re: Sills Mining & Development PUD Hearing July 6, 1981 10:00 A.M. page 2 4 I do not feel that the development is in keeping with the County policy against isolated subdivisions with the associated Problems of fire protection (the area is served from Glenwood Springs) and police protection in areas remote from these services. Other proposals in the recent past, ie the trailer park west of Silt, were denied due to these problems and I feel it is a wise policy of the County. 5 The multi -family dwellings are incompatible with the area. There are no other multi -family dwellings in the area closer than West Glenwood or New Castle. These units will be highly visible from the Intersate and will not be similar to the rest of the area. 6 There was no provision for containment of runoff water on the develop- ment site. Adding this much paving and building will increase the runoff. A severe mud slide problem already exists in the area, and if proper plans are not made with this development, it may continue. I would like to emphasize that I feel these are valid concerns that need to be addressed prior to approval. All were expressed to the Planning and Zoning Board. Some were acted upon, some were not. I am not against development, but I feel that, as an adjacent property owner, that the developer should be made to minimize the impact as much as possible. I would like to have this letter entered upon the record of the hearing, if possible. ark Shumate Glenwood Springs, Colorado July 1, 1981 Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 C. al LiM AIL y YE:.P Qi[Z 1/ FILE Dear Larry, Flaven and Jim: I cannot emphasize to you too strongly the need to refuse the rezoning of any part of the Canyon Creek Community to commercial use. This residential area is not so far removed from shopping centers either in West Glenwood Springs or New Castle as to make such a rezoning for a convenience food store necessary, and such an installation would detract from the residential quality present at Canyon Creek at this time. Resulting traffic would make the homesites beside this installation untenable, and result in unfairness to those landowners who purchased their land in the past. I am not directly concerned, but I am concerned for the welfare of my neighbors. Sincerely yours, VIOLET GOODSELL Long Time Canyon Creek Resident COUNTY •X1,;6; Lawrence Zancanella, Chief Glenwood Springs Rural Fire District Jimmy M. Sills Sills Mining and Land Dev. Corp. P.O. Box 981 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: CANYON CREEK PUD Dear Jimmy; We have reviewed the Canyon Creek PUD application. The Canyon Creek PUD is currently within the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire District; and as such, we are willing and able to provide fire protection service for the Canyon Creek PUD. Interstate 70 facilitates access to the Canyon Creek area. The proposed road built to county specifications will pro- vide proper fire truck access and be beneficial for fire service. At the appropriate time of subdivision platting we will review the PUD plan to insure that water storage, fire flow capacity, and fire hydrants are provided for and suitably located. With regard to this development, the addition of fire flow capacity and fire hydrants in the Canyon Creek PUD could be beneficial in providing better fire protection to the existing residences in the Canyon Creek area. Sincerely, rence (Buzz) Zancanella, Chief Glenwood Springs Rural Fire District LZ:sk Developmental Impact Review i736 COLORADO STATE DEPARTM NT OF HIGHWAYS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS July 30, 1981 Mr. David W. Grounds, President Mountain Engineering & Land Surveying Co. 406 South Hyland Square, Suite A-1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: CANYON CREEK P.U.D. Dear Mr. Grounds: We have received your letter of July 16, 1981 regarding access requirements for the referenced development and have the following comments: 1. According to Tables 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 of the Access Code (copy attached), acceleration/ deceleration lanes and a left -turn lane will be required. The lengths of these lanes is obtained from Table 4.7.10. 2. In addition, 18 -inch cross drains should be installed. EG/jme CC: Prosence Campbell Spanicek File Very truly yours, R. A. PROSENCE DISTRICT ENGINEER By ED GEBHARDT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION PLANNER P.O. Box 2107 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502 (303) 242-2862 P.O. Box 640 GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone 945-9158 14 July 1981 Mr. Robert S. Zimmerman Petre & Zimmerman Attorneys at Law Post Office Box 400 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Sills Planned Unit Development Dear Bob: Your transmittal of the contract between the trustees under the will of Henry P. Williams and Jimmy M. Sills was appre- ciated. Having had a chance to examine that instrument, and particularly paragraph 8 thereof, I noted that the sellers are obligated to cooperate with the purchaser by "joining in a request for rezoning, subdivision approval," and related activities. Unfortunately, this provision is not in itself a consent to the rezoning and planned unit development sub- mittal, but rather provides for that consent when required. In view of the language of this instrument, and the require- ment of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution at section 4.08.05(1) which requires the actual consent of all owners of the property, we would appreciate being provided with a consent of the trustees to the rezoning and planned unit development application. I am enclosing a copy of the consent previously submitted, that of Mr. Sills, in the hope that this may be 'of assistance to you. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very t u -1-y-- y Arthur A. Abplanalp, Garfield County Atto ney AAA,jr.;mrd xc: Mr. Davis Farrar, Garfield County Planner Mr. Jimmy M. Sills 1602 Lincolnwood Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 n[7;717777 ^11G111031 tie b LANE?Y G l . C I 41"'. KENNETH BALCOMB JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. ROBERT C. CUTTER SCOTT M BALCOMB DAVID R. STURGES LAWRENCE R. GREEN ANDREW 0. NORELL 7)cN‘;1)'t DELANEY & BALCOMI3, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAWER 790 GLENWOOD SPU ENOS, COLORADO 81001 August 11, 1981 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: estig FILE BIB COLORADO AVENUE 945-6546 TELEPHONE 945-2371 AREA CODE 303 Re: Proposed Canyon Creek Planned Unit Development On behalf of Brinkley Brown, we offer the following statement of non-compliance, enumerating the various ways in which the proposed Canyon Creek PUD is inconsistent with the Garfield County Master Plan. I. NECESSITY OF COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN. Sec. 4.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution states as follows: CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's general plan. Thus, deviations from the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Master Plan require that a PUD application be denied. II. CANYON CREEK PUD IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GARFIELD COUNTY MASTER PLAN. A. The Proposed Canyon Creek PUD is in a "2.C" Area and Therefore Unsuitable for Development. The volume of the Garfield County Master Plan entitled "Management Districts" identifies areas of Garfield County "on the basis of existing technical services and the buildability of the area." (Page 27) A 2.0 area "is considered a very poor location for development." (Page 27) • • Garfield County Commissioners August 11, 1981 Page 2 The existing Riverview Subdivision and its environs are identified as a 2.0 area, i.e., an area adjacent to a subdivision with central water only and severe enviromental restraints. (Page 28) Thus, the Garfield County Master Plan states that the location of the proposed Canyon Creek PUD is a very poor location for development and that it has severe environmental restraints effecting buildability. Approval of the application would therefore be contrary to the stated determinations of the Master Plan. To further emphasize this point, the volume of the Master Plan entitled "Concerns and Policies" at Pages 1-5 outlines the Concerns and Needs of Garfield County. The outline states that development should be related to existing services (both water and sewer) and that development should be avoided on land with severe building constraints. Identification of the proposed Canyon Creek PUD site as an area without existing water and sewer and with severe building restraints (a 2.0 area) demonstrates clearly the County's determination that this land is inappropriate for development. Approval of the Canyon Creek PUD would contradict the Master Plan's decision that the area is inappropriate for further development. B. The Canyon Creek PUD is not Compatible With Existing Adjacent Land Uses. Sec. VI A 1 of the Garfield County Concerns and Needs outline states: New development should be compatible with existing adjacent land uses. Furthermore, Sec. VI A 4 provides: Urban density development should be adjacent to existing incorporated areas. As now proposed, the Canyon Creek PUD contemplates the construction of 52 multi -family dwelling units on approximately 11.49 acres, for a multi -family density of 4.53 dwelling units per acre. The proposed multi -family dwelling units will be Garfield County Commissioners August 11, 1981 Page 3 located on land immediately adjacent to an unincorporated subdivision consisting solely of single family dwellings. Such urban density is incompatible with the existing rural nature of the adjacent land; such urban density development will not be adjacent to an existing incorporated area. Therefore, the proposed multi -family portion of the Canyon Creek PUD directly contradicts a stated policy of Garfield County and should be denied. 1/ More importantly, a reading of Pages 5-6 of the "Management Districts" volume makes it clear that development with an urban density equivalent shall only occur within a defined Urban Area of Influence. Urban density is defined as a density of three or more dwelling units per acre. The proposed Canyon Creek PUD, with its multi -family density of 4.53 dwelling units per acre, is the equivalent of an urban density and cannot be allowed other than in an Urban Area of Influence. That the site of the proposed PUD is outside of any designated Urban Area of Influence cannot be denied. Therefore, the County Master Plan appears to absolutely forbid multi -family densities in rural areas as proposed by the Canyon Creek PUD, and the application should be denied. C. The Proposed Canyon Creek PUD Does Not Protect The Natural Resources of the Area. Paragraph 16 of the Environment Section of the Garfield County "Concern L. and Policies" document provides that development should not be allowed if it adversely affects unique natural and scenic resources, including wildlife habitat, of Garfield County. At the public hearing on this matter, Larry Green of the Colorado Division of Wildlife testified that the location of the proposed Canyon Creek PUD is breeding ground and critical winter range for a herd of approximately 125 elk. The proposal has no provision for protection, nor even mitigation of the impact 1/ It is interesting to note that the Master Plan goes even further and declares that development shall decrease in density as it moves away from a designated Urban Area of Influence. Thus, densities of three dwelling units per acre are allowed within one to two miles of a municipality, but no density greater than one dwelling unit per acre shall be allowed more than two miles from a municipality. The proposed Canyon Creek PUD would have a multi -family density of 4.53 dwelling units per acre in an area some five miles from the nearest Urban Area of Influence, clearly violating the scheme of the Garfield County Master Plan. Garfield County Commissioners August 11, 1981 Page 4 upon, this valuable natural resource. As such, the proposal contradicts a policy of the Master Plan and should be denied. D. The Proposed Canyon Creek PUD Does Not Comport With the Technical Services Component of the Master Plan. The Technical Services section of the "Concerns and Policies" document makes several demands of developers to assure that new development provides adequate, dependable, and cost effective sewer and water facilities. Among those demands are the requirements that new developments demonstrate a legal and physically reliable source of water, that new development in rural areas occur only adjacent to subdivisions with existing central water and sewer services, that development which proliferates private water and sewer systems be discouraged, and that no_ development occur which would result in a decrease in service to existing adjacent land uses. The proposed Canyon Creek PUD fails to meet each of these requirements. First, no evidence of either a legal or physical @ (.el.;,,L, supply of water has been demonstrated. The only evidence t relating to the supply of water is the opinion of a lawyer and engineer that sufficient water rights for the development will be obtained and that once obtained, a plan for augmentation will be presented to the Court for its approval. While these opinions may be oorne out, it is now premature for the County to determine that a legal and physical water supply for this development exists. Second, there is no central sewer system in existence adjacent to the proposed development. The developer proposes a central sewer system for the multi -family dwellings and individual septic systems for the single family dwellings, while a central water system will be created to serve the entire development. This is contrary to the Master Plan's direction to encourage development in areas with existing central services that have available service capacity. Further- more, the proposal to construct private water and sewer systems for this one development violates the County's desire to terminate the proliferation of such private systems. Finally, there is not adequate evidence in the record to insure that the proposed development will not adversely impact the services provided to the existing adjacent land • • Garfield County Commissioners August 11, 1981 Page 5 uses. Many nearby residents testified as to their fears concerning contamination of their ground water supplies from septic systems located physically above them. Additionally, the impacts of the as yet unlocated development wells upon existing wells have not been addressed. Clearly, the plan to provide technical services to the proposed Canyon Creek PUD does not meet the Technical Services requirements of the Master Plan. III. CONCLUSION. In this document, we have enumerated the specific provisions of the Garfield County Master Plan which directly conflict with the proposed Canyon Creek PUD. In practical every -day language, the applicant wants approval to construct a development consisting primarily of apartment type buildings perched on a hillside overlooking a small, rural subdivision. If allowed, this development will forever change the character of the existing neighborhood. We submit that this type of isolated subdivision, out of character with the existing land use, is precisely the type that Garfield County determined to avoid by adoption of its Master Plan. For the specific instances of non -conformity with the Master Plan cited herein, and for the compelling reason that the country side above Canyon Creek is simply inappropriate for development of the type proposed for the Canyon Creek PUD, the instant app'_ication should be denied. 1981. Respectfully submitted this llth day of August, DELANEY & BALCOMB, P.0 71-1177:r ( %,V, (7 l/7 —///` Lawrence R. Green Attorneys for Brinkley Brown • 771 A. IJ G 1 1 1981 RO4A{;Qcj�AN ,COUNTY KENNETH BALCOMB JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. ROBERT C. CUTTER SCOTT M. BALCOMB DAVID R. STURGES LAWRENCE R. GREEN ANDREW 0. NORELL DELANEY & BALCOML13, P. G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAWER 790 J GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81001 August 11, 1981 Garfield County Commissioners Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: • CERISE ORIMKHOUSE VEI.ASQUEZ B18 COLORADO AVENUE 945-6546 TELEPHONE 945-2371 AREA CODE 303 At the public hearing on the proposed Canyon Creek P.U.D., Commissioner Cerise asked the applicant to provide a statement of his intent with regard to the pending Application for Change of Water Right for the Johnson Ditch and the Wolverton Mesa Ditch. At that time, counsel for the applicant stated that as soon as applicant acquired title to the appurtenant real property the water application would be withdrawn. Please be advised that this firm represents Mr. Brinkley Brown who has filed the Statement of Opposition to the above referenced water application. The relevant case number is 80CW424. It is our interpretation of Colorado law that an applicant for a change of water right may not unilaterally with- draw such application after a valid Statement of Opposition has been filed. Mr. Brown has instructed us to advise you that he will not allow the voluntary dismissal of Case No. 80CW424 as his Statement of Opposition has raised several questions regarding the validity of the subject water rights which should be addressed by the the court. Very truly yours, DELANEY & BALCOMB, By LRG:pc `Lawrence R` Greeff! SUNDESIGNS ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING SOLAR CONSULTING • August 14, 1981 The Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • RE: THE CANYON CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Dear Sirs, This letter is in response to the August 11 letter written by Lawrence R. Green of Delaney and Balcomb P.C. This letter contains several gross errors, which render a false impression of the Canyon Creek Planned Unit Development. These errors are described in the follow- ing sections. I. The letter of Delaney and Balcomb states in section II that the Canyon Creek PUD is in Management Dis- trict B with a 2.c classification implying an area of severe constraints. The Management District Map of Garfield County clearly shows that the Canyon Creek PUD is Management District C - Rural Areas/ Minor Environmental Constraints, which is in stark contrast to the statement of Lawrence R. Green. II. The statement of Mr. Green's in section II of his letter concerning environmental constraints is also grossly inaccurate. The Canyon Creek PUD has a few areas of minor and easily mitigated constraints associated with areas of steep slopes (Management District C contains areas of minor environmental constraints). A careful examination of the plan shows that sloped areas are protected as common open space areas and that the development is concen- trated on the flat meadow atop the Wolverton Mesa. III. In section II B. of the Delaney and Balcomb letter the acreage and density of the PUD is misquoted. The 52 townhouses are on approximately 12.49 acres not 11.49 acres as quoted by the attorney. The density of 4.53 dwelling units per acre quoted by Mr. Green is incorrect and shows a lack of under- standing of the PUD design concept. The overall density of the Canyon Creek PUD is one dwelling unit per 1.1 acres. 1315 GRAND AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS COLORADO 81601 303/945-2201 • • Page 2 August 14, 1981 RE: THE CANYON CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The PUD design allows for the clustering of homes while providing open space for recreational use and to protect environmentally sensitive areas. IV. Mr. Green's letter (section II C.) states that there are no provisions for the protection of natural resources. Section VIII. of the Canyon Creek PUD application has a detailed descriptin of the envi- ronmental design of the Canyon Creek PUD. Specific environmental design features include: The protection of the Canyon Creek Riparian Area as common open space with public access. Protection of steep slopes by incorporation into open space areas. Maintenance of natural drainages. - Covenants protecting native vegetation. With regard to the maintenance of wildlife habitat Mr. Green has misquoted the Colorado Division of Wildlife. There are 125 elk user days on the Canyon Creek property, meaning that one elk used the prop- erty for 125 days or 10 elk were on the property for 12.5 days etc. Mr. Green's statement of the prop- erty being winter range for a 'herd" of 125 elk is obviously incorrect. Furthermore the Canyon Creek PUD application section VIII. E., Animal Ecology, clearly states the PUD plan criteria for preserving wildlife habitat areas of pinion/juniper and the riparian areas adjacent to Canyon Creek. The design criteria are quoted as follows: "1. Development areas avoid steep slopes which are pinion juniper habitat areas. 2. Building envelopes and development areas are held back from drainages, ravines and riparian areas. These vegetated areas will serve as wild- life corridors. 3. The Canyon Creek riparian areas will be for pas- sive recreation only with no structures permitted. V • • Page 3 August 14, 1981 RE: THE CANYON CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 4. Fencing will be limited as to type and location: opaque architectural fencing will be limited to the building envelope area. Fencing located outside the building envelope area will be that which is approved by the Colorado Division of Wildlife." The incorrectness of Mr. Green's letter does render a false impression of the Canyon Creek PUD Plan. The Canyon Creek PUD Plan incorporates design fea- tures which are not only sensitive to the natural environment, but provide a variety of housing options in the New Castle and Glenwood Springs vicinity. The PUD concept of clustering housing not only pro- vides open space and protects environmentally sen- sitive areas, but also allows for affordable hous- ing by clustering or sharing architectural features. It is important to remember that the southern por- tion of the Sills property is currently zoned Resi- dential/Limited/Urban Density. As this area is located on a heavily wooded slope exposed to public view the PUD planning process was undertaken to provide a better environmental and design solution for the development of this land. The location of the Sills property adjacent to the Canyon Creek interchange of I - 70 is also important to note. The Management Policy of Garfield County regarding Management District C states: 'Road access and conditions shall be used to evaluate the relative ability of areas within District C to absorb growth. Clearly, Interstate 70 provides excellent access to the Canyon Creek PUD. Sundesigns Architects and Planners is also enclosing with this letter a previously submitted statement regarding compliance with the Garfield County Com- prehensive Plan. The Garfield County Planning De- partment has stated that the Canyon Creek PUD is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. We at Sun - designs Architects and Planners also feel that the PUD plan complies with the Garfield County Compre- hensive Plan while at the same time providing an 1. Page 5, The Canyon Creek PUD Application. • • Page 4 August 14, 1981 RE: THE CANYON CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT environmentally sensitive design allowing for the development of affordable single family townhouses. If the Commissioners have any questions please call us. Sincerely, SUNDESIGNS ARCHITECTS Barton H. Donaldson BHD:sk en c • THE CANYON CREEK PUD The Canyon Creek PUD directly addresses the concerns and policies of Garfield County as outlined in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. "I. HOUSING A. The concerns and needs for housing in Garfield County are as follows: "More housing is needed. There is a critical lack of affordable housing. More variety in the housing types available through- out the county is needed. Current regulations support the expensive, single family dwelling and do not have enough flexibility to encourage more variety."1 B. Applicable portions of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of Garfield County with regard to housing: "Promote variety in housing types and spatial mix through the use of Planned Unit Development (PUD) design."2 "Utilize the cluster development technique as an incen- tive for less expensive housing, especially in areas where it is desirable to preserve agricultural land or where scenic attributes should be maintained." 3 "Utilize flexibility in housing development review and regulation to encourage residential developments other than single-family detached housing."4 C. Comment: The Canyon Creek PUD addresses the housing needs of Garfield County by providing a variety of housing types including single-family townhouses and single-family detached housing incorporated with common open space areas designed for recreational purposes and to protect environmentally sensitive areas. -1- • • The single-family townhouses will provide an afford- able housing option in the Canyon Creek PUD. Fifty-two townhouses are proposed for the PUD. Townhouses are de- fined as follows: Townhouses are lineal or clustered arrangements of between four and twelve dwelling units. No one unit is above another unit. Each unit is on pri- vate property and has private outdoor space. Townhouses share common walls and structure, utilities and parking. Townhouses also share such elements as landscaping, vehi- cular entry and guest parking. Because of common or shared elements townhouses have reduced development and building costs thus providing a more affordable housing option than single-family de- tached housing. The Canyon Creek PUD provides for 52 townhouses and 17 single-family homes. The townhouse tracts have a density of one home per .25 acres. The single-family units have a density of one home per 2.2 acres. Included in the PUD plan are 19.52 acres of common open space. The common open space parcels provide recrea- tion areas and seek to preserve steep slopes and riparian areas adjacent to Canyon Creek. The variety of housing options in the Canyon Creek PUD provides for an affordable housing option while preserving the natural features of the site. II. RECREATION/OPEN SPACE A. Applicable goals, objectives and policies concerning recreation/open space as addressed in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan are as follows: "Ensure adequate active usable park land is pro- vided in subdivisions where access to existing parks is limited, or where existing parks may become inadequate to serve additional population gener- ated by the subdivision. -2- • • Encourage subdivisions and other developments to use open space dedication to preserve en- vironmentally sensitive or hazardous lands from development." 5 B. Comment: The Canyon Creek PUD provides common open space parcels for active and passive recreation while utilizing dedicated common space to preserve environ- mentally sensitive areas. The majority of the Canyon Creek PUD encircles common open space centrally located on the meadow atop the Wolverton Mesa. Housing is situated on the periphery of the meadow with over seven acres of the meadow being dedicated common open space This design creates a park -like landscape for the recreational and visual enjoyment of the residents of the Canyon Creek PUD. Environmentally sensitive areas such as the Canyon Creek Riparian area and associated steep slopes are protected as common open space areas reserved strictly for passive recreational uses. III. ENVIRONMENT A. Applicable portions of the Garfield County Compre- hensive Plan regarding environmental design are as follows: "Protect river front/riparian areas from encroach- ment by development. Protect drainages and prevent soil erosion by requiring development to mitigate erosion and pre- serve natural drainage through the development. Protect areas of excessive slope from disturbance. Ensure the minimum disturbanc of slopes to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and runoff. -3- • • Protect natural landscape features by "fitting" the development to the land."6 B. Comment: The riparian areas adjacent to Canyon Creek are dedicated as common open space. Steep slopes ass- ociated with the southern and western edges of the Wolverton Mesa are common open space areas and protected from development. Designated building envelopes will be sited in areas that are not on steep slopes or on natural drainages so as to protect these natural features. Much of the meadowland of the Wolverton Mesa will be preserved as common open space thus preserving the "open" quality of the mesa. 1. Garfield County, Concerns and Policies Page 1 2. Ibid, Page 7 3. Ibid, Page 7 4. Ibid, Page 7 5. Ibid, Page 13 6. Ibid, Page 26 i GEORGE J. PETRE ROBERT 5. ZIMMERMAN COURTNEY G. PETRE DANIEL B- PETRE August 10, 1981 LAW OFFICES PETRE & ZIMMERMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION POST OFFICE DRAWER 400 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Mr. Loyal E. Leavenworth LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 • x1\;a+ 6) Re: Estate of Henry P. Williams/Jimmy M. Sills Dear Lee: AREA CODE 303 945-6521 As you know, the Trustees of the Will of Henry P. Williams, Jr., filed an Application for Change of Water Right in November, 1980, (Case No. 80CW424). This Application sought to establish an alternate point of diversion for the Johnson Ditch water right and Wolverton Mesa Ditch water right to a point on the west bank of Canon Creek. As you know, the Trustees of the Will of Henry P. Williams, Jr., have agreed to sell certain land commonly known as Wolverton Mesa and an additional tract commonly known as the Garden Spot to Jimmy M. Sills. At the closing, pursuant to the Contract of Sale and Purchase, the Trust will convey "all ditch and water rights belonging to, used upon, or used in connection with said property, including all of seller's interest in 1.865 c.f.s. out of the Wolverton Mesa Ditch and the Johnson Ditch from Canon Creek." As I indicated to you in my letter of February 6, 1981, the 1.865 c.f.s. referred to in the Sales Agreement consists of 1.4 c.f.s. in the Wolverton Mesa Ditch and .465 in the Johnson Ditch. I believe there is an error in the description of the quantity of the Wolverton Mesa Ditch water right conveyed in the Deed of Conveyance from the predecessors entitled to Henry P. Williams, Jr. Therefore, I believe the Trustees are willing to quit claim an additional 1.0 c.f.s. in the Wolverston Mesa Ditch. Following closing, the Trustees of the Will of Henry P. Williams would obviously have no further need to establish an alternate point of diversion for the water rights conveyed to Mr. Sills. Therefore, it would be our intention, as Trustees, to seek the dismissal of the Application filed by the Trustee's in Case No. 80CW424. LAW OFFICES • PETRE & ZIMMERMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mr. Loyal E. Leavenworth August 10, 1981 Page -2- I hope this information will assist you in the application for rezoning of this property before the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County. Very truly \ ours , PETRE &,ZIMMERMAN P.C. RSZ:clh LOYAL E.LEAVENWORTH KEVIN L.PATRICK JAMES S. LOCHHEAD • • 5)( LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW August 10, 1981 1011 GRAND AVENUE P. 0.DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS.COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Application for Rezoning of Jimmy M. Sills and the Sills Mining and Land Development Co. Gentlemen: Pursuant to the Motion passed by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, August 4, I am submitting this letter to supplement the public record in this matter. Attached is the original of a letter I received from Robert Zimmerman, one of the Trustees of the Will of Henry P. Williams, Jr. As you can see from this letter, the Trustees intend to convey at closing to Mr. Sills 1.4 c.f.s. of the Wolverton Mesa Ditch and .465 c.f.s. of the Johnson Ditch. In addition, as the letter indicates, the Trustees of the Will will quitclaim an additional 1.0 c.f.s. in the Wolverton Mesa Ditch. The Wolverton Mesa Ditch was adjudicated in Civil Action 1159 on November 15, 1905, for 1.4 c.f.s., as Priority No. 169, and in Civil Action 4004 on September 5, 1952, for 1.0 c.f.s., as Priority 254. The Johnson Ditch was adjudicated in Civil Action 1159 on November 15, 1905, for .075 c.f.s., as Priority No. 143D and in Civil Action 4004, adjudicated on September 5, 1952, for .39 c.f.s., as Priority 260. At the Public Hearing several people indicated that they did not agree with Mr. Sills' potential ownership in the Johnson Ditch. In this regard, it is important to remember two things: first, the Johnson/Wolverton Ditch as it now exists is a consolidation of the decrees originally awarded to the Johnson Ditch water right and to the Wolverton Ditch water right (which is a separate water right from the Wolverton Mesa Ditch water right), and secondly, that the transferability of any water right is normally limited to its historical use. However, as I stated at the Public Hearing, Mr. Sills intends to utilize these irrigation rights for continued irrigation. His legal domestic water supply (including lawn irrigation) will be premised upon a plan for augmentation. We are currently negotiating for augmentation water with both private and public LEAVENWORTH, PATRIC. LOCHHEAD, P C. Garfield County Board of County Commissioners August 10, 1981 Page 2 sources. However, because of the expense in acquiring this augmentation water, Mr. Sills does not desire to purchase this water until the rezoning has been approved. As Mr. Zimmerman indicates, it is their intention to seek to dismiss the Application filed in Case No. 800W424. The Application filed by the Trustees in this case was opposed by several objectors. Once a case has been opposed, the Applicant does not have the unilateral right to withdraw its Application. For example, if an objector has raised the issue of abandonment of the water right involved in the Application, that objector may, if the Court does not approve the Applicant's request to dismiss the Application, attempt to prove abandonment of the water rights involved. However, the burden of proof would be on the objector. Moreover, I would again point out that it is not Mr. Sills' intent that these irrigation rights be utilized to provide a legal domestic water supply for any development that might occur on this parcel. I trust this letter is responsive to the Commissioners' request for additional information. LEL: j as Enc. cc w/enc: Jimmy M. Sills Dean K. Moffatt Duane D. Helton Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH CK & LOCHHEAD, P.C. Leavenworth %)(19‘;10- ft i'& card Cop gin /C:3 Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Canyon Creek PUD, Jimmy Sills Gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity to examine the statement offerred by Mr. Sills explaining how his proposed development complies with the Garfield County Master Plan. I would like to make the following quotations from the Plan followed by my comments, which are based upon my review of the Plan in light of Mr. Sills' development: 1. The Master Plan states,"It is the policy of the County that... the existing rural areas of the County are not appropriate for high density or urban type development." Multi -family townhouse developments are urban -type development. The Canyon Creek PUD area is defined to by in District C, which is des- ignated as rural by the Plan. 2. The Master Plan Housing Policy states on page 9,"1.New residential developments which are not connected to and served by existing sewer and water services in the county shall be discouraged". The Canyon Creek PUD is not connected to and served by existing water and sewer services. 3. The Master Plan Concerns and Needs statement, pages 5&6, states, "A.Policies 1. New Development should be compatible with existing, adjacentTand uses. ... 4. Urban density development should be adjacent to existing, incorporated areas." The Canyon Creek PUD is not compatible with existing, adjacent land uses. The PUD is urban -type development to the extent it includes multi -family townhouse development, and it is not located next to an existing, incorporated area. 4. The Master Plan Performance Standards set up to insure compatibility with existing land uses, states on page 89, "A. Potential Problems... 3. Alteration of bass cc haracter of adjacent land uses. B.Standards 1. Adequate mitigation of potential impacts to insure maximum compat- ibility. 2. Incompatible situations shall be solved before the property development will be approved. This development will stimulate and encourage by example, urban -type multi -family development on adjacent parcels which will alter the basic character of the Canyon Creek area. There is no multi -family housing in the Canyon Creek area. The multi -family portion of the PUD is therefore a potential impact. -2- • The Performance Standards state further, "Proposed land uses with more intensive land use than adjacent land uses shall reduce or alter... until the use is compatible with adjacent property uses to the sat- isfaction of the Commissioners... Any proposed land use may be deemed incompatible... for the following reasons:...f. Altering the basic character of adjacent land uses or the entire community." The multi -family portion of the PUD is more intensive than adjacent land uses, which are all single family residential. The statement in the Sills' file correctly states certain sections of the Master Plan which are favorable to the development. There is no point in arguing those points. My letter, which I request become part of the record, states those sections of the Plan with which the PUD does not comply. These sections are the County's policies on land use compatibility, general county growth, and portions of the housing policy. I feel that the Master Plan should be followed in these areas, and that the beneficial results from the Canyon Creek PUD can and should be achieved by other developments that do not offend other, major policies of the Master Plan, as the Canyon Creek PUD does. Thank you for the opportunity to state my opinion in this matter. Si nnccerely 4.et„coe___ Mark Shumate 46091 Highway 6&24 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 { JOHN A. MC NEEL JR. GARFIELD COUNTY Sheriff Office of the Sheriff GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 PHONE 945-9151 August 4, 1981 John A. McNeel, Jr. Sheriff, Garfield County Jimmy M. Sills Sills Mining and Development Corporation P. 0. Box 981 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 RE: Canyon Creek P. U. D. Dear Mr. Sills: We have received the Canyon Creek P. U. D. application and it is within the jurisdiction of the Garfield County Sheriff's Department. As such, we will have to provide protection and law enforcement for the Canyon Creek P. U. D. Interstate 70 facilitates access to the Canyon Creek area, and if the proposed road is built to specifications, this will provide proper access to the area. With regard to this development, it will create a strain on the Garfield County Sheriff's Department to provide service, but we will provide all the service and protection we can. At the appropriate time of subdivision platting, we will review the P. U. D. plan to insure that proper development will take place to help this office provide service to not only the development, but also neighboring area. Sincerely, £U C 5/'ec John A. McNeel, Jr., Sheriff Garfield County Sheriff's Department P. 0. Box 249 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 JAM/dln DRAFT XIV. DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR THE CANYON CREEK SUBDIVISION A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Jimmy Sills (Declarant) is the owner of that certain real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and in- corporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as the PUD) which property is situated in Garfield County, State of Colorado, described as the Canyon Creek Subdivision, a Planned Unit Development (PUD), filed for record on as the same appears upon final plat , 19 as Reception No. in the office of the Clerk and Recorder, Garfield County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Declarant, being desirous of protecting property values and protecting the health, convenience and welfare of the owners of the lots and tracts in the PUD does hereby publish and declare that the following terms, covenants, uses, conditions, restrict- ions, limitations and obligations shall be deemed to run with the land located within the PUD and shall be a burden upon and benefit to any person or persons acquiring or owning any interest in the PUD, their grantees, successors, heirs, devisees, personal representatives and assigns. 1.0 DEFINITIONS. As used in these Protective Covenants, the fol- lowing words and terms shall have the following meanings: 1.1 "PUD" shall mean Canyon Creek Subdivision, a Planned Unit Development. 1.2 "HOA" shall mean the Canyon Creek Homeowner's Association. 1.3 "ACC" shall mean the Architectural Control Committee for the PUD. 1.4 "Lot" shall mean a single-family Lot in the PUD. 1.5 "Tract" shall mean a multi -family area in the PUD. 1.6 "Commercial" shall mean the commercial lots in the PUD. 1.7 "Unit" shall mean a residential dwelling within a tract. 1.8 "Ownef'shall mean the owner of a lot or of a tract in the PUD. 2.0 HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. Any and all owners of lots or tracts in the PUD shall be a member of the THE CANYON CREEK HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, A Colorado non-profit corporation incorporated for the purpose of enforcing these protective covenants and for the maintainence of the Commons Areas of this PUD. Said HOA shall also govern the water and sewer systems of the PUD with asses- ments to lot owners for water usage and assesments to tract owners for water usage and sewage treatment plant usage. The Canyon Creek Homeowner's Association (HOA), through its Board of Directors, or any owner,of any property within the Canyon Creek PUD shall have -8- • • the rights to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all covenants herein imposed. Failure by the HOA or any owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to enforce such covenant or restriction thereafter. In addition to any other remedies otherwise available, the Board of Directors of the HOA, or its designated representatives, may, upon violation or breach of any covenant herein, enter upon any property where such violation or breach exists and may abate or remove the thing or condition causing the breach, and the costs incurred in connection therewith shall be billed to and paid by the owner or owners violating or breaching these covenants, providing that the HOA has first given 30 days written notice to the owner for his correction of said breach or violation of these covenants. If the violating owner or owners fail, after demand, to pay such costs, then such costs shall become a lien upon the property of such owner or owners for the amount due and not paid, pursuant to the provisions of the Articles and By -Laws of the Homeowner's Association. 3.0 RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. The lots within the PUD shall be used only for residential purposes, provided that a barn or other out- buildings may be constructed in addition to a residence on any lot and provided further that no land within the PUD (except the lot designated for commercial) shall be occupied or used for any commercial or business purpose, except for a home occupation or profession conducted entirely within a building by the owners thereof, which use is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of said property for residential purposes. No display, stock in trade, or outside storage equipment, signs or other external ad- vertising shall be permitted. No mobile homes will be permitted in the PUD. 4.0 STRUCTURES IN THE PUD. All structures in the PUD shall be designed to blend into and complement the natural surroundings. All structures shall be sited on each lot and tract by the ACC. Unless varied by the provisions of paragraph 13.4 hereafter, no structure on any lot or tract shall be constructed outside the building envelope as located and defined on the building envelope map supplement to the final plat. In siting a structure, the ACC shall approve its location as near to the spot selected by the owner as shall not impede or restrict the view plane of other owners and otherwise meet the criteria set forth in paragraph 13.3 hereafter. The minimum size of each single-family structure shall be not less than 1200 square feet of habital floor area, exclusive of open porches, garages or carports. No structure shall be per- mitted on any lot or tract which exceeds thirty (30) feet in height measured from the average natural finished grade line immediately adjoining the foundation to the average roof height. No radio, • • short wave or television antenna over five (5) feet above the high- est roof line shall be permitted unless approved by the ACC. No structure shall be erected by means of other than new construction, it being the purpose of this covenant to insure that old building will not be moved from previous locations and placed upon a lot or tract. Exteriors of all structures shall be constructed of either brick, stone, lumber, or a combination thereof. The use of cinderblock shall not be allowed unless it is faced with another material herein approved. Each structure shall be completed within one (1) year from date of commencement of construction. 5.0 RESUBDIVISION PROHIBITED. The resubdivision of a lot or tract is prohibited; provided, however, condominiumizations of a structure on a tract shall be allowed if approved by Garfield County. 6.0 UTILITY LINES. No new gas lines, power lines, telephone lines or television cables shall be permitted unless said lines are buried underground and out of sight from their primary source at the lot or tract line to the structure and at the owner's expense. 7.0 NO TEMPORARY STRUCTURES. No structure of a temporary char- acter; trailer, basement, tent or shack of any description shall be used on any lot except on a temporary basis, not exceeding six (6) months, by the construction company constructing a structure on a lot or tract. 8.0 FENCES. Architectural screen fences, limited to six (6) feet above ground level and constructed of natural wood, are allowed provided they are located within the building envelope designated for each lot or tract and are approved by the ACC. Open post and rail fences, limited to four (4) feet above ground level, and constructed of unfinished natural wood poles, are allowed provided they are located so as to not unduly disrupt natural brush and tree vegetation nor cause soil erosion and are approved by the ACC. No metal masonry or plastic fencing of any kind, except as approved by the ACC for tennis courts or similar enclosures shall be allowed. 9.0 ANIMALS. All occupants of property within the PUD shall be responsible to maintain their pets, including dogs, horses, and other domestic animals, under control at all times and such ani- mals shall not be permitted to create a nuisance or annoyance to adjacent properties or inhabitants within the PUD. No animal shall be kept on the PUD for commercial purposes; provided that this restrictions shall not be construed to prohibit the raising of livestock on the PUD for 4-H or FFA purposes. Paddocks, or stables -10- • 1 shall be provided for horses and other grazing livestock. Horses and other grazing livestock shall be kept in paddocks or stables as required to prevent the overgrazing of native or planted grasses and from harming native brush or trees and from causing soil erosion. No hunting, shooting, trapping or otherwise killing or harming of wild- life shall be permitted, it being the intent hereof to conserve and protect all wildlife to the fullest extent possible. 10.0 VEHICLES. Vehicles which are unlicensed or which lack current Colorado State Inspection sticker shall not be stored or maintained on the premises for a period in excess of fifteen days following the expiration of such license or sticker, except such vehicle may be stored in a garage or otherwise screened from view from all other lots or parcels within the PUD and from all commonly used roadways within the PUD. Recreation vehicles, such as camping vans or trailers, boats, skimobiles and other off-road devices shall be parked or stored out of sight from public rights -of -ways. 11.0 MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY. The owner of each lot and tract shall keep the structures thereon in good repair, doing such maintenance as may be required for this purpose. No noxious or offensive conduct or activity shall be carriedon upon any lot or tract or in any structure thereon which may constitute a health hazard, nuisance or annoyance to the neighborhood. 12.0 DISHCARGE OF FIREARMS. There shall be no discharge of guns or firearms upon the PUD except for self defense or to otherwise protect one's self or property. 13.0 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. (ACC) 13.1 No improvements of any kind, including, but not limited to, commercial structures, dwellings, (both single and multi -family) drives, garages, tennis courts, swimming pools, fences, barns, outbuildings may be constructed or altered on any lands within the PUD, unless three (3) complete sets of architectural plans specifi- cations for such construction are submitted to the ACC prior to the commencement of such work. Required drawings shall include; a site plan depicting structures, yards, drives, fences, utilities, site drainage and landscaping; all floor plans and elevations of the structure(s); and a description of the exterior materials to be used. The ACC will notify all adjacent land owners of the time and place of their review of the drawings. All decisions of the ACC shall be in writing. One set of such plans and specifications shall remain on file and become a permanent record of the ACC. In the event the ACC fails to take any action within fifteen days after complete architectural plans and specifications for such work have been submitted to it, then all of such plans and specifications shall be deemed to be approved. -11- • • 13.2 The ACC shall exercise its best judgement to see that all improvements, construction, and alternations on the land within the PUD conform to and harmonize with the natural surroundings and with existing structures as to external design, materials, color, setting, height, topography, grade and finished gound elevation. 13.3 Plans and specifications submitted under Paragraph 13.1 hereof shall shown the nature, kind, shape, height, materials, floor plans, location, exterior color scheme, alternations, grading and all other matters necessary for the ACC to properly consider and make a determination thereon. The ACC shall dis- approve any architectural plans submitted to it which are not sufficient for it to exercise the judgement required of it by these covenants. 13.4 Construction shall be completed within one year of issuance of the Building Permit. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtain- ed before actual occupancy. Clean up of the site must be complete by time of occupancy. Landscaping and repair of site construction scars must be complete within one year. 13.5 The ACC may grant a reasonable variance of adjustment of these conditions and restrictions, including modifications to a building envelope, in order to overcome practical difficulties and prevent un- necessary hardships arising by reason of the application of re- strictions contained herein. Such variances or adjustments shall be granted only in case the granting thereof shall not be mater- ially detrimental or injurious to other property or improvements of the neighborhood and shall not defeat the general intent of these restrictions. 13.6 The ACC shall not be liable in damages to any person or association submitting any architectural plans for approval or to any Owner by reason of any action, failure to act, approval, disapproval, or failure to approve or disapprove, with regard to such architectural plans. Any owner submitting or causing to be submitted any plans and specifications to the ACC agrees and covenants that he will not bring an action or suit to recover damages against the ACC collectively, its members individually, or its advisors or agents. 13.7 The initial members of the ACC shall be: Neal McAbee Steve Caple Dick Stilson 13.8 A majority of the ACC may designate a representative to act for it. Should a member resign or become unable to act, the other members shall appoint a successor. Subsequent to the sale of all lots and tracts, one or more members may be replaced by -12- • • written designation recorded in the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's office showing approval by a majority of the Owners. 14.0 TRACTS, ADDITIONAL COVENANTS. These Protective Covenants and the PUD Plat and Plan shall govern the use and occupation of the land in the PUD. Additional and further covenants, homeowner's associations and other entities may be adopted and created as to each multi -family tract in the PUD: provided, however, such covenants or other internal governing documents shall be no less restrictive than these Protective Covenants. 15.0 COVENANTS RUN WITH THE LAND. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding upon all parties and all persons claiming under them until September 1, 1991 at which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years unless by vote reflected by signed documents duly recorded by the majority of then Owners it is agreed to change said covenants in whole or in part. 16.0 AMENDMENT. These Protective Covenants may be amended by an instrument signed by not less than 75% of the owners of the Lots and Tracts in the PUD. Such amendments shall become effective upon the recordation thereof in Garfield County, Colorado. 17.0 SEVERABILITY. The invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgment or court order shall not effect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. MY/db EXHIBIT A Order Number: 8410 SCHEDULE A 1. Effective date: FEBRUARY 17, 1981 AT 8:00 O'CLOCK A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: A. ALTA Owner's Policy Proposed Insured: JIMMY M. SILLS B. ALTA Loan Policy Proposed Insured: c. Commitment Number: Amount of Insurance 5325,000.00 5 s Premi un $730.75 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to In this commitment and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in. ROBERT S. ZIMMERMAN AND THE COLORADO NATIONAL BANK OF DENVER, AS TRUSTEES UNDER THE WILL OF HENRY P. WILLIAMS, JR. 4. The land referred to in this commitment is described as follows: All that part of the SEt SW'4, Section 25 and the N'ZNW14, S'ZNWl , Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.M. lying easterly of the center of Canon Creek and northerly of the following described line, to -wit: Beginning at the intersection of the easterly line of the NE'4NW14 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. 01°01' 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. 67°50' 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 Highway No. 11 S. 05°14'16" E. 399.16 feet to the county road; -j1(,i� o.-yn Autl t_ffs 5- atnrr% CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 A Page 2 '-4TENS-A1ZT '1'1TLE 1 • CONTINUATION SHEET EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE A Order Number: 8410 Commitment Number: thence S. 87°31'00" W. 188.70 feet along said 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 southerly 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°23'54" 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 Canon Creek. EXCEPTING THEREFROM parcels conveyed by the following documents: 31377, 39038, 66755, 106454, 11366.1, 12361-5-, 133749, 277835, 152775,287390, 287486, 293506, 309137, 309284, 311109, and 311682. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO Page 2 A 00`,x, ST EN N'1 1&n1' I'I7'I.I; EXHIBIT A WILLIAMS ESTATE - WOLVERTON MESA PROPERTY All that part of the SE4SW4, Section 25 and the NE4NW4, Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.M. lying easterly of the center of Canon 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. 01°01' 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. 67°50' 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 Highway 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 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 southerly 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°23'54" 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 Canon Creek. Excepting a tract of land conveyed to Eric C. Williams by deed recorded 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. EXHIBIT A Exhibit A STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP The undersigned, Jimmy M. Sills, Board Chairman of the Sills Mining and Land Development Corporation, hereby certifies that he is the Owner, by contract purchase, of all the real property covered by this Application for Zone Change, which property is de- scribed as follows: All of the real property annexed hereto as Exhibit "A". Dated this 29-n-* day of JA►-IUAg-i 1981. State of Colorado ) )ss. County of Garfield) SILLS MINING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION :'7 M. Sills Board Chairman The foregoing was acknowledged before me this T JEJJT( N I NTH by Jimmy M. Sills. day of JA►1vA, 1981, Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: MARCH 22. Ig83 a). 4404.k......Notary Pg.lic EXHIBIT A LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH KEVIN L. PATRICK JAMES S. LOCHHEAD May 15, 1981 Exhibit B Mr. Jim Sills P. O. Box 981 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Canyon Creek P.U.D. 1011 GRAND AVENUE P 0 DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS.COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (303) g.16 -226I Dear Mr. Sills: At your request, we have been working with Woodward -Clyde Consultants to develop a suitable legal water supply for your proposed development to be known as the "Canyon Creek P.U.D." Woodward -Clyde concluded that the proposed development will require 25.2 acre-feet of consum tive use annually (see attached' copy of Woodward -Clyde engineering report). We are urs ntlY negotiating with the trustees of the Estate of Henry P. Wi iams, deceasedto o a n wa er r . rom a. Trust that will provide this quantity of consumptive use water. The Trust7 .s you know, owns a large quantity of senior wate rights that would be suitable for inclusion in a plan for augmentation for the Canyon Creek P.U.D. We expect these negotiations to be successfully concluded within the next week or two. In my judgment, based upon my conversations with the representatives of the Estate, we will obtain the necessary water rights for your development. Once the specific water rights to be conveyed to you have been determined, we will prepare a plan for augmentation for approval by the Water Court. Based on my knowledge of the water rights awned by the Estate, it will be possible to obtain such approval. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P. C. LEL/j Enc. ,% cc:(...,Kr. Dean K. Moffatt Woodward -Clyde Consultants 1 E. Leavenworth • 100 r Exhibit D May 14, 1981 ABEYTA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Uean Moffatt Sundesigns Architects 1315 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Canyon Creek PUD Sir: Monty E. Abeyta, P.E. Thomas J. Buchko Allan E. Deems Maurice C. Cox Neal T. McAbee John J. Moruzzi Allan L. Sindelar William "Reggie" Nelson Lucille Laughlin Kimball A. Fischer Kenneth C. Kober Eric L. Nelson Richard T. Kocol Dennis L. Newton Steven K. Woodruff In reference to the Canyon Creek PUD project, this office has investigated the SANILOGICAL SYSTEM manufactured by the Santee Corp. for use for the multi -family units waste water treatment. Single family units will be using individual septic systems. At the time of the subdivision platting, the proposed location of. the Santee system would be on the South Western boundry of the PUD. The Santee system incorporates the use of aeration chambers and biological microorganisms for breakdown and treatment of sewage. As the raw sewage enters the tank and passes through each of four aeration chambers, it is broken down and digested by the constantly evolving microorganisms. In the final chamber, the microorganisms have grown large enough to be seen by the human eye. They will digest any remaining organic matter and eventually, themselves. The resulting effluent will be a purified, high -oxygen content wastewater, to be discharged and disposed of in a normal matter. Research by the National Sanitation Foundation for the Santec Corp. has shown the following purification figures; 97.8% BOD removal, 92.1% suspended solids removal, 96.6% ammonia nitrogen removal, 93.0% Kjeldahl nitrogen removal, and 49.0% phosphorus removal. These figures do meet minimum national health standards. The Santee system is designed for underground installation and requires minimal land usage in regard to conventional treatment facilities which are now in use. The only above grade features would be several airtight access panels and a small housing for aerators, and control panels, resulting in no undue visual, odor or noise detractions. The system is constructed of non corrosive materials and therefore, has a long operational life- time. The system does not require an on-site operator, sludge removal, comminutors, screens, or filters to maintain and clean, and only Suite 1 12, 10 Inverness Drive East, Englewood, Colorado 80112 • 303/770-6400 402 24th Street, P.O. Box 1736, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • 303/945-2555 • • t periodic inspections, and therefore, is very efficient and inexpensive to operate. The only moving parts in the system are the aerators. The system is also equipped with back-up aerator and alarm system for any possible malfunctions. The Santec system described above appears to be a viable sewage treatment system and seems to be well suited for th;s project. If you have any questions or need clarification on this subject, please contact this office. Respectfully Yours, Abeyta Engineering Consultants, Inc. ic 17 Kim A. Fischer Mechanical Designer KAF:cs • /\°\ mountain engineering St land furveying co. p.o. box 14 gypsum, colorado 81637 524-9414 945-8356 406 S. Hyland Square, Suite A-1 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 945-2045 Exhibit F May 14, 1.981 Mr. Dean Moffatt Sundesigns Architects 1315 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Re: Geologic Hazards of Canyon Creek P.U.D. site Dear Dean, We have reviewed the geologic hazard potential of the Canyon Creek P.U.D. site and found no major geologic hazards impacting the proposed development plan. The property was studied to determine if geologic hazardous conditions such as landslides, mudflows, erosion, faulting, subsidence, hydrocompaction, seismicity, radiation, flooding, and rockfall existed. A small portion of one or two lots may he within the 100 - year flood plain. Site-specific mitigating measures, determining acceptable building footprints, will be accomplished during the Preliminary Plan phase. A portion of Lot 20 may be subject to rockfall. There are numerous building sites on this lot that are acceptable. The area subject to rockfall can be designated in the Preliminary Plan phase. If we can be of further assistance, please advise. DWG:dd cc: File Sincerely, !IL/ David W. Grounds President Appendix 1 • • XSSD-Chilton channery loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes. This deep, well drained, rolling soil is on alluvial fans and valley sideslopes. It formed in alluvium from redbed shale and sandstone. Elevation ranges from 5,000 to 6,500 feet. The average annual precipitation is about 14 inches, the average annual air temperature is about 46 degrees F., and the average frost -free period is about 120 days. Typically, the surface layer is reddish brown channery loam about 13 inches thick. The subsurface layer is reddish brown channery sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The underlying layer is pinkish very cobbly sandy loam or loamy sand that extends to a depth of more than 60 inches. Included with this soil in mapping and making up 10 to 15 percent of the unit are small areas of Begay and Morval soils. The Begay soil is on 6 to 12 percent slopes. The Morval soil occupies the higher lying areas of the unit on 3 to 12 percent slopes. Permeability of the Chilton soil is moderately rapid. Effective rooting depth is 30 to 40 inches. Available water capacity is low. Surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is moderate. This soil is used mainly for wildlife habitat and livestock grazing. The native vegetation on this soil is mainly bluebunch wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, needleandthread, and big sagebrush. When the range condition deteriorates, forbs and woody shrubs increase. When the range .is in poor condition, undesirable weeds and annual plants are nr.unorous. Proper gra.zi ri1 lnaJlagr,iucnt maintains and • • r '71ppendix 1 X551) -Chilton channery loam 2 improves range condition. A reduction in brush improves deteriorated range sites. Seeding is a good practice if the range is in poor condition. Suitable plants for seeding are crested wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, and Russian wildrye. For successful seedings, a good practice is to 'prepare a seedbed and drill the seed. Wildlife using this soil for habitat include mule deer, cotton- tail rabbit, squirrel, and wild turkey. This soil is subject to occasional flooding during heavy rainfall or snow melt runoff. It is easily eroded. The main factors limiting community development are cutbanks caving, susceptibility to and stoniness. Capability subclass Vie. 9 piping, f Appendix 1 Map Unit No. XjjD SOIL CHARACTERISTICS Depth to bedrock Texture Surface Subsoil Substratum Unified Classification Permeability Percent coarse fragments (greater thaly 3 inches) Salinity (ECx10 @ 25°C) pH (surface) Shrink -swell Potential Potential frost -action (surface) Flood Hazard Hydrologic Group Corrosivity Steel (uncoated) Concrete More thab 60 inches Channery loam : Gravelly loam, very gravelly loam SM, GM -GC, GC : Moderately rapid . 5-10 1 : 7.9-8.4+ : Low . Low • None B : Moderate Low DEGREE & KIND OF LIMITATIONS (0 is Slight, M is Moderate, S is Severe) Septic Tank Absorption Fields Sewage Lagoons Sanitary Landfill Trench Area Shallow Excavations Dwellings w/basements WO basements Local Roads & Streets SUITABILITY AS A SOURCE OF... Daily Cover for Landfill Roadfill Sand Gravel Topsoil K M : S Slope, seepage, small stones Slope S S S Seepage, small stones Seepage Cutbanks cave, small stones : M Slope : M Slope : M Slope, low strength Poor Small stones, seepage Fair Low strength Unsuited . Unc;u 1 od Poor Small .zto nen, slope, tirua reclaim SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NOT TO BE USED IN PLACE OF ON-SITE INVESTIGATION • • Appendix 1 , X29EF-A ='afi-Rock outcrop complex, 12 to b5 percent slopes. These strongly sloping to steep soils are on mountainsides and sloping alluvial fans. They formed in redbed shales and sandstone alluvium. Elevation ranges from 5,500 to 7,500 feet. The avcrr'3 :e annual precip- itation is about 1() inches, the aver;ro.: ;1.11iti;il ri i,i,;:,lrr,itur•o i.t; ;shout. 42 degrees F., and the average frost -free period is about 100 days. The Arle soil makes up about 4+5 percent of thu niapp i n,_; unit, A :;ars about 35 percent, and Rock outcrop about 20 percent. The Arle soil is moderately deep and well drained. Typically, the surface layer of the Arle soil is reddish brown very stony loam about 10 inches thick. The underlying layers consist of reddish brown very stony loam about 22 inches thick. Soft reddish brown sandstone and shale are found at about 32 inches. Permeability of the Arle soil is moderate. Effective rooting depth is about 30 inches. Available water capacity is low. Surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is high. The Ansari soil :is shallow and well drained. Typically, the surface layer of the Ansari soil is reddish brown loam about 10 inches thick. The subs tratwn is reddish brown stony loam that rests on hard reddish brown sandstone. Permeability of the Ansari soil .is moderate. Effective rooting depth is about 18 inches. Available water capacity is low. Surface runoff is rapid and the erosion hazard is high. • w.wrwYSw- • r Appendix 1 ii l> )(2!)1.:10--Ilr1.a—+M1'T T'i-I1i1l'I•. IIla Lc'I'u it This complex i.., used. [rI .itiiy for Livestock CTU;;Ill' and wi ldl i1't' habitat. The native vegetation on the Arie Boil is mainly western whoa t; rays, Indian ricegrass, rnounta.intnal►oL;arry and scattered l;ambe1 oak, Utah ju.rriper, .and pinyon pine. The native vegetation on the Ansari soil is mainly Indian ricegrass, western wheatg.r:•a.:,s, hit; sagebrush, and scattered pinyon pitic and Utah juniper. When the range condition deteriorates, forbs and woody shrubs increase. When the rare is in poor condition, undesirable weeds and annual plants are numerous. Proper grazing management maintains and improves range condition. Seeding and brush removal are not a good practice because of s Leep s op, :;, licrcl c>u Lc: r'clp, and dep Lh to bc:d r•tcc i:. Wildlife using these soils for habitat include (mule deer, rabbit, and grouse. Potential for community development or for use as source material is limited mainly by depth to rock, steep slopes, thin layers of borrow material, and low strength. Special design can overcome these limitations. Drainage and snow melt runoff control structures will control erosion around construction sites and roads. Capability subclass Vile. Appendix -1 ap Unit No. X2)ELI" Part 13 SOIL CHARACTER1M CS Depth to bedrock Texture Surface Subsoil Substratum Unified Classification Permeability Percent coarse fragments (greater thaq 3 inches) Salinity (ECx10.5 @ 25°C) pH (surface) Shrink -swell Potential Potential frost -action (surface) Flood Hazard Hydrologic Group Corrosivity Steel (uncoated) Concrete : 10-20 inches : Loam : Loam, stony loam : Bedrock CL -ML, SM -SC : Moderate : 5-45 7.9-8.4 Low Low None D High Low ,--DEGREE & KIND OF LIMITATIONS (0 is Slight, M is Moderate, S is Severe) Septic Tank Absorption Fields Sewage Lagoons Sanitary Landfill Trench Area Shallow Excavations Dwellings w/basements w/0 basements Local Roads & Streets SUITABILITY AS A SOURCE OF... Daily Cover for Landfill Roadfi_ll Sand Gravel •topsoil S Slope, S Slope, S Slope, S Slope S S S depth depth depth to rock to rock to rock Slope, depth to rock Slope, depth to rock Slope, depth to rock S Slope, depth to rock Poor Slope, thin layer Poor Slope, thin layer, stones Unsuited Unsuited Poor Slope, thin layer, stones i(10 SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NOT TO BE USED IN PLACE OF ON-SITE INVESTIGATION r • • 'Appendix 1 700 -Vale silt loam, 6 Lo).. perct. nt slopes. This deep, weall drained gently sloping soil 1.s on mesas, terraces, and alluvial fans. It formed in calcareous eolian material. Elevation .raa,;:rrs from 5,000 to 7,200 feet. The average annual precipitation is about 14 inches, the average annual air temperature is about )5 degrees F., and the average frost -free period is about 120 days. Typically, the surface layer is brown silt lo,u!! about 7 inches thick. The subsoil is brown silty clay loam about 19 inches thick. The substratum is pinkish silt loam that extends to depths of more than 60 inches. Included with this soil in mapping are small a.ruas of Morva.l soil which make up to 5 to 10 percent of the mappine; unit. Norval soil has slopes of 3 to E, percent. Permeability of the Vale soil is moderate. Effective rooting depth is more than 40 inches. Available water capacity is medium. Surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is moderate. • This soil is used mainly for irrigated crops and hay. Small grains, corn, potatoes, alfalfa, and grass hay a.re grown. Irrigation water is usually applied by flooding, but furrows or sprinklers are also used. The native: vegetation UI! this sail ir:r mainly ir ll rulcJthreail, western wheatgrass, ruuttonr;rass, and bid; sa6ebrunh. • Appendix 1 700 -Vale silt loam When the range condition deteriorates, fo.r•b., and woody shrubs increase. When the range is in poor condition, undesirable weeds and annual plants are numerous. Proper grazing manus. crnent maintains and improves 1•;u'u;cr condi Lion. lieductic,rr of i 1 i+rovc•:; de Ler du 1i or- ated range sites. Seed i q.7 :'i.' n. good pr;cc1-ice i l t.trr ritn;:.:c is to poor condition. tiui t,;,.l,lr fc,r :'c.•r•d irrc ;rrc. put,c :u•i•nt wlrc•;rtc•;r, west- ern wheatgrass, and big bluegrass. For successful seeding, a good practice is to prepare a seedbed and drill the seed. Wildlife using this soil for habitat include cottontail rabbit, mourning- dove, - wild turkey, and mule deer. Potential for cc,tmnuriity development and recreation is limited by low strentrLh, susceptibility to }+ipir>";, and rro:,t heave. iionci , ditches, and building foundations can be designed to compensate for these limitations. Capability suhciass,.lile S: 2 C • • Appendix 1 Map Unit. No..�70P_„,. SOIL CHANACTL:ItIS1'lC Depth to bedrock : More than 60 inches Texture Silt loam Surface Subsoil : Silty clay loam, clay loam, silt loam Substratum : Silt loam, silty clay loam, loam Unified Classification CL -ML, CL Permeability Moderate0 Percent coarse fragments (greater than 3 inches) Salinity (ECx10• 6) 25C) 6.6 to 7.3 pH (surface) Moderate Shrink -swell Potential : Moderate Potential frost -action (surface) None Flood Hazard : Hydrologic Group • Moderate Corrosivity Steel (uncoated) • Low Concrete : DEGREE & KIND OF LIMITATIONS (0 is Slight, M is Moderate, S is Severe) Septic Tank Absorption Fields M Percs slowly M Slope, seepage Sewage Lagoons Sanitary Landfill Trench M Too clayey0 Area Shallow Excavations Dwellings • 0 w/basements • 0 w/0 basements •• 0 Local Roads & Streets SUITABILITY AS A SOURCE OF... Daily Cover for Landfill Roadfill Sand Gravel. Topsoil M Low strength Fair, too clayey Pair, low strength Unsuited Unsuited Good SUBJLCT TO CHANGE. NOT TO BE USED IN PLACE OF ON-SITE 1NVESTIGATI0T' r • • Appendix 1 AW-Torrifl.uvents, nearly level. Torrifluvent.c; consist of deep, well Lo ;omewh,_at, poorly dr airne•d soils f(Ir•m ql IH alluvium. They occupy the nearly level floodplai.ns adjacent to the Colorado and Roaring Fork Rivers and their major tributories, Hach as Four Mile Creek, Canyon Creek, Elk Creek, Divide Creek, Mn mm Creek, Government Creek, and Parachute Creek. Slopes are 0 to 6 percent. The soils are stratified and vary widely in texture and depth due to seasonal fluctuating water levels. Surface layers range from loamy sands and fine windy loams to silt 1 oams and clay loams. Underlying layers are usually sandy loams or learns that are strat- ified with sand, gravel and cobble. Some areas have gravel and cobblestone on or near the surface. Water levels fluctuate from 2 to 4 feet and may be agar the surface during spring :runoff from .crow melt. Areas of I,liis broadly defined unit, r re .;crh.lect to brief occasional flooding during late spring and early summer months. Included in the mapping and making up 15 percent of this unit, are small isolated areas of the Wann soils on 1 Lo .3 percent, slopes. Also included in mapping are small areas of moderate to severely alkali affected soils identified by an alkali ;.;pct symbol. There are isolated and small areas where water strands near or at the sur- face yeHr around. These are idrni.1fiecl by wet, :,p'l and marsh .,loot symbols. Appendix 1 AW-Torrifluvents, nearly level The native vegetation is mainly cottonwood, willow, tamarisk and water tolerant grasses, sedges, and rushes. This unit is often suited to the production of Fremont cottonwood trees. It is capable of producing 230 board feet of timber per acre from a fully stocked, •even -aged stand of 40 year old trees. Some areas of this unit are used for livestock grazing. It provides shelter and forage where access to these area;; is ava.il.able. This unit has a definite recreation potential. Wildlife popula- tions are abundant and the nearness to the river make these areas available to rafting and canoeing enthusiasts. Wildlife abound in this vegetative habitat. Mule deer, cotton- tail rabbits, coyotes, bobcats, ducks, geese, and other native birds are well adapted and use the native vegetation for food and shelter. Where it is feasible,. development of food plots, tree and shrub planting, and establishment of nesting cover would enhance the habitat for upland game. In areas of perennial high water table, open water may be developed by blasting or heavy equipment for water 1', wl usage and fish ponds. Cornmun i.I.y devel ,,Inr 'nL is very limited en this ,!nit. F1,wd i rats. t;r-:rattono1 hi 1,,h tintl.r,t I.r,f,1 tt, ,rrul VII rir!1,1, .:1,i 1 I. ,:t rr,•, r,• 1,rirr „r!-•:it.� 00i lnvr:t;I,il;nLi(di:; 1;1, 11(.1,1.1111i ne rrl,: unr,;!nr' ,1 :I' il•i proposed sites. CFI(,;al) i I i L,y :;uhr 1 a^;; V I I;.w, 1u,n i r•r• i Iyl L,.,I. 4- Appendix 3 Jim Sills Canyon Creek Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Mountain Bell P.C. Box 220 Glenwood Springs, Co.. Dear Mr. Sills, In response to your request regarding the provision of telephone service for Canyon Creek Subdivision west of Glenwood Springs, I submit the following information. 1. Telephone service, while not available to all individual lots will be provided by Mountain Bell in accordance with the Company Tarriff, Colorado Public Utilities Commission No. 5. 2. Mountain Bell is a supplier for telephone service in the area Mountain Bell is a private utilities company, and as such, is reg- ylated by the Public Utilities Commission and for interstate rates is regulated by the Federal Communiciation Commission. 3. Telephone facilities have not been extended to individual lots. 4. An estimate of schedule for installation for facilities in the area cannot be given at this time until specified information can be supplied as to telephone facilities required. Upon receipt by Mountain Bell of the requirements, it may be determined that certain costs will be borne by the purchaser of said lots. Please be advised that as of this writing, a commitment for provid- ingservice cannot be met until studiec are completed. These studies will of necessity be made upon receipt by Fountain Bell of the services and locations of service required by the developer or owners owners. Yours Truly, ;-� ) f% Raymond L. Carpen4r Engineer / / � L r • Appendix 2 public! Service Opt- ..r y 'Ir' (C©llc�n° acd..I® P.O. BOX 152 Rifle, Co 81650 May 13, 1981 Jimmy Sills c/o Sun Designs Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Dear Mr. Sills: This letter is to confirm that Public Service Co. will serve the area of the proposed Canyon Creek P.U.D. with gas and electric service in accordance with the Rules and Regulations presently on file or subsequently filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, the area being within our certificated area. Yours truly, � . /.' Public Servic.4Co. of Colo. Wally deBeque Consumer Service Rep. • • C\ mountain engineering & land surveying co. p.o. box 14 gypsum, colorado 81637 524-9414 945-8356 406 S. Hyland Square, Suite A-1 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 945-2045 Exhibit F May 12, 1981 M. Dean Mo44att 1315% GAand Avenue G.eenwood SpA,ing4, CO 81601 RE: Canyon Ctceefz PUD Dean Dean: We have tceviewed the Canyon Ctceefz PUD Ptan and vis -.ted the z,ite on aevenat occaisionz. The 4ot.eowing a-'te out comment4 AegaAd,ing eome o4 the eng,ineeA.%ng a4pecr4 o4 thio development project. Acce44 Road4 We have inveztigated yours pnopo4ed Aoad £ayouL on the z-i-te and 4ound the ae,ignmen-t at, ,indicated can be con- ztAuc,ted to County ztandatdz . The on! y "tough" z ec-t-.on o4 toad i4 the potion that ,tAavetz es the zdeep hi.e.e- zide. In th.i4 poet ion, grade o4 the Bowen 4wi-tchbaclz w.i..e.e be ta.i4 ed az much ass po.st,,ibPe to gain the needed eeevat.ion and the portion above the zw,i.-tchbac(a w-itt be de4,igned at, a "datjti.ght" cut bo .that no 6.1 U 4tope.4 ate Aequ,ined. Ate o4 the Aoad4 have good 4outhetn expotsute. Thi4 w -LU minimize w-in.tet maintenance ptob-eem4. There -is no pAobtem with meeting .the minimum County ztandand4 . These 4-andandz ,ire -Pude 8% gnade4 and 150- j oot nad.iu4 cunve4 . Dome4t,ie ;ija-et Out p-ean ,c4 to pnovLde a wee.e oA wettz that w-..e.e buppey 20 to 50 GPM. Thio wateA would be pumpe o a Drage ts.i_te on the high ground ,in the nonthea.s,t cornet o4 the prop. eAty. Adequate ztonage and ptezzute witt be pto- v,ided 4on dome44.,ic u.5e and 4iAe protection. £va.ten 4ampte4 w,itt be 6onwanded .to the .State 4oA .e44.ing Wet the wett/wettz ate dA1.P.eed. However, a contact ch.eotinatot w.i-ee ptobab.Py be the only ttea.ment nece44aty. -continued- Pan. Dean Mo66att - 2 - May 12, 1981 Sewage CottectJon Syztem The thnee mutts.-6am-U.y tot h wilt have a ,standand cottec- tLon zyztem that wife tnanzpont the waistewaten to a tneatment / acitity in the 4 o uthwe S t connen o6 the pno p- eaty. An eight -inch aewen matin with pnopen manhote 4pacing w -LU be pnovLded. Dnainag e Theta wioe be no dnainage pnob.eemz on the pnoject. The timpnovement4 aeong Canyon Cneeta and the day gulch on the east pnopenty £timtit wiet, o6 counze, need to be .eocated outzide the 100 -yeah 6tood p.eaLn. Natuna.e dnaLnage coun�e4 witt nemau.n. Cu.eventz wilt be peaced unden toad's at thus e natunat cno)sz-ing�5 . 13ecauze o6 the mtin,Lma! deve 2opment that wiL e occur on thia pnopenty and the natunat vegetation, there witt be no prob-eem caused by incneazed nuno{/ on pottut-Lon. Mini zett.eing pond can be pnovided t6 tater deemed necezzany. I6 there ane addit,.onat queztt.on4 on concenn4s, pfeause adviL e . Sincenety, David W. Gnoundis Pnezident DWG: jtb cc: FLIe :�9O9 Wt' -,t '(h1 AVi'rII P 0 R,ry-i(7:3(; „vF�l C0I,,IAtiO }Wh1.1 303 573- 8R,-,. Exhibit C May 15, 1981 Woodward -Clyde Consultants Sills Mining and Land Development Corporation 1315 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attention: Mr. Dean Moffatt Re: Summary of Water Resources Investigations Relating the the Canyon Creek Property. Job No. 20364 Gentlemen: Woodward -Clyde Consultants has been retained by the Sills Mining and Land Development Corporation to perform water resources and water rights investigations in connection with the potential development of Wolverton Mesa along Canyon Creek. As a result, we have completed a field investigation of the subject property and have prepared water demand estimates. The development of a viable water supply, adequate from the standpoint of both quantity and quality, for the potential development appears feasible to us. One possible water source may be the construction of a well on "Garden Spot" property, but a better alternative may exist. It is our understanding that the Sills Mining and Land Development Corporation is undertaking a test drilling program to determine the optimum location for a well. Also, we have undertaken water rights evaluations for eventual use in the preparation of a plan for augmentation. If you have any questions, please call. Yours truly, - Duane Duane D. Helton Chief, Water Rights Group DDH:ds (1 copy sent) Consul lIn Fndiric Vit; and FnvlfOnr!u;ni;i ifinr II I',V, Offices in OthioJ Pnrir,ih�:31 Cllu;�, • 1 ':909 7111 oVit,f11k, • P O Bmv .1(1:1G [lt'nvt'r (:(,Inr,uln 8O;'(I.1 30357,i ititV Exhibit B Woodwarci•Clyde Consultants l; April 23, 1981 Leavenworth, Patrick and Lochhead, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 1011 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attention: Mr. Loyal E. Leavenworth Re: Hydrologic Services, Sills Mining and Land Development, Garfield County, Colorado. Job No. 20364 Gentlemen: We are transmitting our estimate of the consumptive use requirements for the revised subdivision data, which Mr. Dean Moffat related to us in the telephone conversation of April 14, 1981. Our estimates are based upon the following assumptions: (1) A residential subdivision consisting of 65 units; (2) An average of 3.5 people per unit; (3) Average annual in-house demand of 100 gpcd; (4) Septic or other sewage systems averaging 85 percent return flow from in-house water; (5) A lawn area of 3000 square feet per unit; (6) Common open space area consisting of 9 acres; (7) Consumptive use from lawn and open space watering averaging 1.53 acre-feet per acre annually; and (8) Water consumption by horses equalling 25 gpd per head for 25 horses. These assumptions produce a total annual consumptive use requirement of 25.2 acre-feet annually, broken down as follows: 3.8 acre-feet consumed from in-house use; 6.9 acre-feet consumed in lawn irrigation; 13.8 acre- (;r�n;iillirnl �Julnu�r�r, („�nlrirlr.l', an[1 [.i lvir(?nni�lal r.innlr.l OIhC("; in Ot inr Pnnr;ilnnll Chir , irA • • Woodward -Clyde Consultants Leavenworth, Patrick and Lochhead, P.C. April 23, 1981 Page 2 feet consumed in the irrigation of common open space; and 0.7 acre-foot consumed by horses. We believe the value used to estimate in-house use, 100 gallons per capita per day, is sufficiently large to cover the use from the convenience store. In order to offset this consumptive use, it would be necessary to dry -up 16.5 acres o irrigated If you have any questions, please call. Otherwise, we will be waiting for further instructions. Yours truly, AttNtaiD/N"-- Duane D. Helton Chief, Water Rights Group Frank J. Holliday Vice President IFIFT DDH:ds (1 copy sent) 1 cc: Sills Mining and Land Development Corporation 1315 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attention: Mr. Dean Moffat _ '?as:++ °;.�..�.b+i� �.,.c't �mw+ an.4si� .. - ' �.+` +v::-... • • United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Glenwood Springs Resource Area P. 0. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 March 23, 1982 Mr. Flaven Cerise, Chairman Board of Garfield County Commissioners P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Mr. Cerise: IN REPLY REFER TO 9600/1786 7-162 14A,? 2 4 1982 u.I' ri:tCU cu irisy 0 r'f This is in reference to a proposed subdivision near Canyon Creek, approximately seven miles east of Glenwood Springs and north of I-70. The subdivision owner appears to be Jim Sills. The eastern boundary of the proposal is in question, with Jim Burk of Mountain Engineering and Land Survey Company attempting to establish a new quarter corner common to sections 25 and 36, Township 5 South, Range 90 West. Where Mr. Burk intends to set the corner may possibly include approximately 12 acres of Bureau of Land Management administered land within the subdivision. We request that your approval of the proposed subdivision exclude the area in question until the issue is resolved. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. litCONSERVE AMERICA'S !i: ENERGY Sincerely, 7717? -11 - Alfred W. Wright Area Manager Save Energy and You Serve America! Exhibit E Lincoln DeVore 1000 West Fillmore St. Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907 (303) 632-3593 Home Office January 27, 1981 Sills Mining and Development Corporation c/o Mr. Dean Moffat MDGA Architects and Planners 13152 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Preliminary Geologic Investigation for Proposed Canyon Creek Subdivision Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Moffat: Personnel of Lincoln-DeVore have completed a preliminary geologic investigation on the Proposed Canyon Creek Subdivision located in Sections 25 and 36, T.5.S., R9OW, of the 6th PM. The site is an eighty -acre parcel lying to the east of Canyon Creek and north of the Colorado River, located approximately seven miles west of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Geologically, the site is an older alluvial terrace deposit which has been overlapped by debris flow material derived from the outcropping Maroon Formation above the site to the north. Slopes on the_surface of the majority of the terrace are low to mo>�ata. and should not present arty stability problems. However, the gullies on the northern portion of the property, may be suscepti e t. •��- debris flow activit o Sles around the edge of the terrace are quite app_and potentially unstable. No other major hazards were noted to exist. Soils on the southern portion of the site may consist of alluvial deposited sands and gravels and should present very little problems. Soils on the northern portion may consist of silts and clays and may be prone to hydrocompaction. More detailed engineering geology and sub -surface soils should be done prior to development. 602 East 8th Street Pueblo, Colo 81001 (303) 546-1150 P.O. Box 1427 Glenwood Springs, Colo 81601 (303) 945-6020 86 Rosemont Plaza Montrose, Colo 81401 (303) 249-7838 P.O. Box 1882 Grand Junction, Colo 81501 (303) 242-8968 P.O. Box 1643 Rock Springs, Wyo 82901 (307) 382-2649 Silas Mining and Development Corporation Proposed Canyon Creek Subdivision Garfield County, Colorado January 27, 1981 Page -2- We hope this letter has provided the information necessary at this time. If we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact the office at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. I (/ r c n C7-t).t Michael T. Weaver (j-( ,4'J-Kjj Professional Geologist MTW/dls * • • GEORGE J. PETRE ROBERT 5. ZIMMERMAN COURTNEY G. PETRE DANIEL B. PETRE August 10, 1981 LAW OFFICES PETRE & ZIMMERMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION POST OFFICE DRAWER 400 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Mr. Loyal E. Leavenworth LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Estate of Henry P. Williams/Jimmy M. Sills Dear Lee: AREA CODE 303 945-6521 As you know, the Trustees of the Will of Henry P. Williams, Jr., filed an Application for Change of Water Right in November, 1980, (Case No. 80CW424). This Application sought to establish an alternate point of diversion for the Johnson Ditch water right and Wolverton Mesa Ditch water right to a point on the west bank of Canon Creek. As you know, the Trustees of the Will of Henry P. Williams, Jr., have agreed to sell certain land commonly known as Wolverton Mesa and an additional tract commonly known as the Garden Spot to Jimmy M. Sills. At the closing, pursuant to the Contract of Sale and Purchase, the Trust will convey "all ditch and water rights belonging to, used upon, or used in connection with said property, including all of seller's interest in 1.865 c.f.s. out of the Wolverton Mesa Ditch and the Johnson Ditch from Canon Creek." As I indicated to you in my letter of February 6, 1981, the 1.865 c.f.s. referred to in the Sales Agreement consists of 1.4 c.f.s. in the Wolverton Mesa Ditch and .465 in the Johnson Ditch. I believe there is an error in the description of the quantity of the Wolverton Mesa Ditch water right conveyed in the Deed of Conveyance from the predecessors entitled to Henry P. Williams, Jr. Therefore, I believe the Trustees are willing to quit claim an additional 1.0 c.f.s. in the Wolverston Mesa Ditch. Following closing, the Trustees of the Will of Henry P. Williams would obviously have no further need to establish an alternate point of diversion for the water rights conveyed to Mr. Sills. Therefore, it would be our inten Trustees, to seek the dismissal of the Applicat 57577 by the Trustee's in Case No. 80CW424. AUG 3 1 1981 ii'(C�Lf :;3. PLANNER • • LAW OFFICES PETRE & ZIMMERMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mr. Loyal E. Leavenworth August 10, 1981 Page -2- I hope this information will assist you in the application for rezoning of this property before the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County. Very tr9.y -Xours, PETRE & ZIMMERMAN P.C. RSZ:c1h LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH KEVIN L. PATRICK JAMES S. LOCHHEAD • • LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW August 10, 1981 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County P. O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1011 GRAND AVENUE R 0. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261 Re: Application for Rezoning of Jimmy M. Sills and the Sills Mining and Land Development Co. Gentlemen: Pursuant to the Motion passed by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, August 4, I am submitting this letter to supplement the public record in this matter. Attached is the original of a letter I received from Robert Zimmerman, one of the Trustees of the Will of Henry P. Williams, Jr. As you can see from this letter, the Trustees intend to convey at closing to Mr. Sills 1.4 c.f.s. of the Wolverton Mesa Ditch and .465 c.f.s. of the Johnson Ditch. In addition, as the letter indicates, the Trustees of the Will will quitclaim an additional 1.0 c.f.s. in the Wolverton Mesa Ditch. The Wolverton Mesa Ditch was adjudicated in Civil Action 1159 on November 15, 1905, for 1.4 c.f.s., as Priority No. 169, and in Civil Action 4004 on September 5, 1952, for 1.0 c.f.s., as Priority 254. The Johnson Ditch was adjudicated in Civil Action 1159 on November 15, 1905, for .075 c.f.s., as Priority No. 143D and in Civil Action 4004, adjudicated on September 5, 1952, for .39 c.f.s., as Priority 260. At the Public Hearing several people indicated that they did not agree with Mr. Sills' potential ownership in the Johnson Ditch. In this regard, it is important to remember two things: first, the Johnson/Wolverton Ditch as it now exists is a consolidation of the decrees originally awarded to the Johnson Ditch water right and to the Wolverton Ditch water right (which is a separate water right from the Wolverton Mesa Ditch water right), and secondly, that the transferability of any water right is normally limited to its historical use. However, as I stated at the Public Hearing, Mr. Sills intends to utilize these irrigation rights for continued irrigation. His legal domestic water supply (including lawn irrigation) will be premised upon a plan for augmentation. We are currently negotiating for augmentation water with both private and public AUG 3 1 1981 ,FIELD G, L. ER LEAVENWORTH, PATRICiP & LOCHHEAD, P. C. Garfield County Board of County Commissioners August 10, 1981 Page 2 • sources. However, because of the expense in acquiring this augmentation water, Mr. Sills does not desire to purchase this water until the rezoning has been approved. As Mr. Zimmerman indicates, it is their intention to seek to dismiss the Application filed in Case No. 800W424. The Application filed by the Trustees in this case was opposed by several objectors. Once a case has been opposed, the Applicant does not have the unilateral right to withdraw its Application. For example, if an objector has raised the issue of abandonment of the water right involved in the Application, that objector may, if the Court does not approve the Applicant's request to dismiss the Application, attempt to prove abandonment of the water rights involved. However, the burden of proof would be on the objector. Moreover, I would again point out that it is not Mr. Sills' intent that these irrigation rights be utilized to provide a legal domestic water supply for any development that might occur on this parcel. I trust this letter is responsive to the Commissioners' request for additional information. LEL:jas Enc. cc w/enc: Jimmy M. Sills Dean K. Moffatt Duane D. Helton Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH PAT CK & LOCHH, P.C. (44444.44 , Leavenworth • AUG 11 1981 RO A-R6€.L.A`-y, YCQUN 1 i V I, MtI. KENNETH BALCOMB JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. ROBERT C. CUTTER SCOTT M. BALCOMB DAVID R. STURGES LAWRENCE R. GREEN ANDREW 0. NORELL DELANEY & BALCOMB, P. G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAWER 790 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, GOLORADO 81801 August 11, 1981 Garfield County Commissioners Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: • CERISE DRIMKHOUSE VELASQUEZ /---- FILE 818 COLORADO AVENUE 945-6546 TELEPHONE 945-2371 AREA CODE 303 At the public hearing on the proposed Canyon Creek P.U.D., Commissioner Cerise asked the applicant to provide a statement of his intent with regard to the pending Application for Change of Water Right for the Johnson Ditch and the Wolverton Mesa Ditch. At that time, counsel for the applicant stated that as soon as applicant acquired title to the appurtenant real property the water application would be withdrawn. Please be advised that this firm represents Mr. Brinkley Brown who has filed the Statement of Opposition to the above referenced water application. The relevant case number is 80CW424. It is our interpretation of Colorado law that an applicant for a change of water right may not unilaterally with- draw such application after a valid Statement of Opposition has been filed. Mr. Brown has instructed us to advise you that he will not allow the voluntary dismissal of Case No. 80CW424 as his Statement of Opposition has raised several questions regarding the validity of the subject water rights which should be addressed by the the court. LRG:pc Very truly yours, DELANEY & BALCOMB, By /,/ /;%% Lawrence Gre fl// ILS �ir ,L AUG 3 1 1981 GAt�r! L J CO. PLANNER 111r;1 1 1981 ROBERT bELANEY °LIMY1if17+ tel. KENNETH BALCOMB JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. ROBERT C. CUTTER SCOTT M. BALCOMB DAVID R. STURGES LAWRENCE R. GREEN ANDREW 0. NORELL DELANEY & BALCOMB, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DRAWER 790 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CIOLORADO 811301 August 11, 1981 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: • tE4�SE t��tUTUSE tE'.NAJEZ 818 COLORADO AVENUE 945-6546 TELEPHONE 945-2371 AREA CODE 303 Re: Proposed Canyon Creek Planned Unit Development On behalf of Brinkley Brown, we offer the following statement of non-compliance, enumerating the various ways in which the proposed Canyon Creek PUD is inconsistent with the Garfield County Master Plan. I. NECESSITY OF COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN. Sec. 4.04 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution states as follows: CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. No PUD shall be approved unless it is found by the County Commissioners to be in general conformity with the County's general plan. Thus, deviations from the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Master Plan require that a PUD application be denied. II. CANYON CREEK PUD IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GARFIELD COUNTY MASTER PLAN. A. The Proposed Canyon Creek PUD is in a "2.C" Area and Therefore Unsuitable for Development. The volume of the Garfield County Master Plan entitled "Management Districts" identifies areas of Garfield County "on the basis of existing technical services and the buildability of the area." (Page 27) A 2.0 area "is considered a very poor location for development." (Page 27) • • Garfield County Commissioners August 11, 1981 Page 2 The existing Riverview Subdivision and its environs are identified as a 2.0 area, i.e., an area adjacent to a subdivision with central water only and severe enviromental restraints. (Page 28) Thus, the Garfield County Master Plan states that the location of the proposed Canyon Creek PUD is a very poor location for development and that it has severe environmental restraints effecting buildability. Approval of the application would therefore be contrary to the stated determinations of the Master Plan. To further emphasize this point, the volume of the Master Plan entitled "Concerns and Policies" at Pages 1-5 outlines the Concerns and Needs of Garfield County. The outline states that development should be related to existing services (both water and sewer) and that development should be avoided on land with severe building constraints. Identification of the proposed Canyon Creek PUD site as an area without existing water and sewer and with severe building restraints (a 2.0 area) demonstrates clearly the County's determination that this land is inappropriate for development. Approval of the Canyon Creek PUD would contradict the Master Plan's decision that the area is inappropriate for further development. B. The Canyon Creek PUD is not Compatible With Existing Adjacent Land Uses. Sec. VI A 1 of the Garfield County Concerns and Needs outline states: New development should be compatible with existing adjacent land uses. Furthermore, Sec. VI A 4 provides: Urban density development should be adjacent to existing incorporated areas. As now proposed, the Canyon Creek PUD contemplates the construction of 52 multi -family dwelling units on approximately 11.49 acres, for a multi -family density of 4.53 dwelling units per acre. The proposed multi -family dwelling units will be • • Garfield County Commissioners August 11, 1981 Page 3 located on land immediately adjacent to an unincorporated subdivision consisting solely of single family dwellings. Such urban density is incompatible with the existing rural nature of the adjacent land; such urban density development will not be adjacent to an existing incorporated area. Therefore, the proposed multi -family portion of the Canyon Creek PUD directly contradicts a stated policy of Garfield County and should be denied. 1 / More importantly, a reading of Pages 5-6 of the "Management Districts" volume makes it clear that development with an urban density equivalent shall only occur within a defined Urban Area of Influence. Urban density is defined as a density of three or more dwelling units per acre. The proposed Canyon Creek PUD, with its multi -family density of 4.53 dwelling units per acre, is the equivalent of an urban density and cannot be allowed other than in an Urban Area of Influence. That the site of the proposed PUD is outside of any designated Urban Area of Influence cannot be denied. Therefore, the County Master Plan appears to absolutely forbid multi -family densities in rural areas as proposed by the Canyon Creek PUD, and the application should be denied. C. The Proposed Canyon Creek PUD Does Not Protect The Natural Resources of the Area. Paragraph 16 of the Environment Section of the Garfield County "Concerns and Policies" document provides that development should not be allowed if it adversely affects unique natural and scenic resources, including wildlife habitat, of Garfield County. At the public hearing on this matter, Larry Green of the Colorado Division of Wildlife testified that the location of the proposed Canyon Creek PUD is breeding ground and critical winter range for a herd of approximately 125 elk. The proposal has no provision for protection, nor even mitigation of the impact 1/ It is interesting to note that the Master Plan goes even further and declares that development shall decrease in density as it moves away from a designated Urban Area of Influence. Thus, densities of three dwelling units per acre are allowed within one to two miles of a municipality, but no density greater than one dwelling unit per acre shall be allowed more than two miles from a municipality. The proposed Canyon Creek PUD would have a multi -family density of 4.53 dwelling units per acre in an area some five miles from the nearest Urban Area of Influence, clearly violating the scheme of the Garfield County Master Plan. • • Garfield County Commissioners August 11, 1981 Page 4 upon, this valuable natural resource. As such, the proposal contradicts a policy of the Master Plan and should be denied. D. The Proposed Canyon Creek PUD Does Not Comport With the Technical Services Component of the Master Plan. The Technical Services section of the "Concerns and Policies" document makes several demands of developers to assure that new development provides adequate, dependable, and cost effective sewer and water facilities. Among those demands are the requirements that new developments demonstrate a legal and physically reliable source of water, that new development in rural areas occur only adjacent to subdivisions with existing central water and sewer services, that development which proliferates private water and sewer systems be discouraged, and that no development occur which would result in a decrease in service to existing adjacent land uses. The proposed Canyon Creek PUD fails to meet each of these requirements. First, no evidence of either a legal or physical supply of water has been demonstrated. The only evidence relating to the supply of water is the opinion of a lawyer and engineer that sufficient water rights for the development will be obtained and that once obtained, a plan for augmentation will be presented to the Court for its approval. While these opinions may be borne out, it is now premature for the County to determine that a legal and physical water supply for this development exists. Second, there is no central sewer system in existence adjacent to the proposed development. The developer proposes a central sewer system for the multi -family dwellings and individual septic systems for the single family dwellings, while a central water system will be created to serve the entire development. This is contrary to the Master Plan's direction to encourage development in areas with existing central services that have available service capacity. Further- more, the proposal to construct private water and sewer systems for this one development violates the County's desire to terminate the proliferation of such private systems. Finally, there is not adequate evidence in the record to insure that the proposed development will not adversely impact the services provided to the existing adjacent land • • Garfield County Commissioners August 11, 1981 Page 5 uses. Many nearby residents testified as to their fears concerning contamination of their ground water supplies from septic systems located physically above them. Additionally, the impacts of the as yet unlocated development wells upon existing wells have not been addressed. Clearly, the plan to provide technical services to the proposed Canyon Creek PUD does not meet the Technical Services requirements of the Master Plan. III. CONCLUSION. In this document, we have enumerated the specific provisions of the Garfield County Master Plan which directly conflict with the proposed Canyon Creek PUD. In practical every -day language, the applicant wants approval to construct a development consisting primarily of apartment type buildings perched on a hillside overlooking a small, rural subdivision. If allowed, this development will forever change the character of the existing neighborhood. We submit that this type of isolated subdivision, out of character with the existing land use, is precisely the type that Garfield County determined to avoid by adoption of its Master Plan. For the specific instances of non -conformity with the Master Plan cited herein, and for the compelling reason that the country side above Canyon Creek is simply inappropriate for development of the type proposed for the Canyon Creek PUD, the instant application should be denied. 1981. Respectfully submitted this llth day of August, DELANEY & BALCOMB, P.C- By i /' 'y( /// /t Lawrendei. Green Attorneys for Brinkley Brown r • CANYON CREEK ESTATES 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: 0.328 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. 8. This zone district shall be comprised of the following lots as shown on the Canyon Creek Estates P.U.D. Final Plat: Lots 6 through 22, inclusive; 29 through 36, inclusive; 42, 43 and 44. 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. 4. Minimum Lot Area: 0.25 acres. 5.1 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, 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. 8. This zone district shall be comprised of the following lots as shown on the Canyon Creek Estates P.U.D. Final Plat: Lots 1 through 5, inclusive; 23 through 28, inclusive; 37, 38, 39, and 40. C. 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: 3U feet. 7. Maximum Lot Coverage: 50 percent. 8. This zone district shall be comprised of the following lots as shown on the Canyon Creek Estates P.U.D. Final Plat: Lot 1. 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: 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 Coveraye: 15 percent. E. SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 1. Parking Requirements: 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. F. 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. 1 • • 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. 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. It CHANGES AND SUPPLEMENTAL DATA TO PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR CANYON CREEK ESTATES PUD 1. The westerly boundary line on Lot 44 has been changed pur- suant to subdivision exemption Resolution No. 82-301, dated December 6, 1982, (copy attached hereto as Exhibit 1), and the lot line has been changed to reflect the potential ali- quot resurvey. 2. Exhibit 2 is a letter from the Fire District approving the location of fire hydrants, as set forth on the Final Plat. This letter will be submitted directly to the County. These improvements have been included in the schedule of improve- ments attached to the proposed subdivision improvements agreement attached as Exhibit 3. 3. Exhibit 4 is a letter of receipt from the RE -1 School District, approving the amount of the school land dedica- tion, payment of which shall be a condition of Final Plat approval. This letter will be submitted directly to the County. 4. All objectors have agreed to withdraw from the water court proceedings in the application for approval of the plan for augmentation. A proposed Ruling of the Referee has been prepared and forewarded to the Water Referee, and meetings are being scheduled with the Referee and the Division Engineer to discuss any problems or changes. A copy of the proposed Referee's Ruling is attached as Exhibit 5. It is anticipated that the final decree will be obtained shortly, and will be substantially similar to the proposed ruling. 5. Paragraphs 5.0 and 6.0 of the protective covenants has been amended to allow for selective cutting and to otherwise con- form to the comments of the Colorado State Forest Service regarding a fire protection plan. 6. All utility, ditch, road, and off-site drainage easements are shown on the final plat. 7. Letters from all utility companies approving the utility easements will be forewarded upon receipt, or will be sent directly to the County, prior to final plat approval. 8. All lots, except Lots 14, 43 and 44 will be connected to the central sewer system, as shown on Sheet 3 of the Final Plat. 9. The recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey except the recommendations regarding septic systems are of a non - substantive nature. No changes in the materials previously submitted with the Preliminary Plat have been made. -1- • • 10. A pedestrian circulation plan is shown on the Final Plat. 11. An easement is shown on the Final Plat, for a road thirty feet in width along the westerly portion of the development, for access to adjoining properties. 12. The Final Plat does not make provision for security fencing around the sewage treatment plant, since the plant will be buried with a concrete bolted lid, making unauthorized access ,ouch more difficult than would a fence. Landscaping is provided on the Final Plat. The cost of either security fencing or landscaping can be added to the exhibit to the subdivision improvements agreement if required by the County. 13. New proposed Covenants, together with Articles of Incorporation and By -Laws for the Homeowners Association, are attached as Exhibit 6. These documents provide for per- petual maintenance of those areas dedicated to the Homeowners, and specifically absolve the County of any such responsibility. (See Paragraph 3.1 of Covenants). 14. The final drainage plan shows individual sizing of driveway culverts, and the covenants require corners to size culverts accordingly (Paragraph 7.0). 15. Consideration has been given to subdivision of the townhouse lots, and it has been decided that no subdivision will be made at this time. Subdivision may occur, if desired, under separate application. 16. All reasonable efforts have been made to reach an amicable settlement with the Ditch Company, for payment of increased maintenance costs. As you know, the upper limit of that agreement was set at $50,000. The Ditch Company is asking, in addition, that the Lazier -Sills Partnership be liable for ditch assessments as well. As you know, substantial impro- vements were made to the Ditch by the Lazier -Sills Partnership, which improvements were made with full knowledge and approval of all owners of water rights in the Ditch. No further improvements or alterations are needed or contemplated to complete the development. I have attached as Exhibit 7 copies of correspondence dated January 21, 1983 from myself to Dan Kerst, together with the agreement pro- posed by Lazier -Sills, and the Ditch Company's response, dated March 9, 1983. I believe it is very clear from the minutes of the Commissioners (copy attached as part of Exhibit 7), and from the Condition No. 16 to Resolution No. 83-43, that a payment of $50,000 is the maximum amount to be paid by the Lazier -Sills Partnership, and that no further amounts will be due. Since Lazier -Sills has offered the maximum amount, and this offer has been rejected by the Ditch Company, compliance with Condition 16 has been made, and we request approval of the Final Plat as submitted. -2-