HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report Administrative Review 05.12.17Holgate / Luttrell Minor Subdivision - Exhibits
Administrative Review (File M ISA-02 -17 -8521)
Applicant is Etta Holgate
May 12,2017
Exhibit
Number
Exhibit Description
1 Public Hearinq Notice lnformation Form
2 Receipts from Mailing Notice
3 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended
4 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030
5 Application
6 Staff Report
7 Referral Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (dated April12,
2017\
I Referral Comments from Garfield County Road and Bridge (dated
April 17 .2017\
I Referral Comments from Mountain Cross Engineering (dated April 17,
2017)
10 Referral Comments from Colorado Geological Survey (dated April 28,
2017\
11 Referral Comments from Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District
(dated April 30, 2017)
12 Referral Comments from the Colorado Division of Water Resources
(dated April 28, 2017\
13 Letter from Mark Chain, dated April5,2017
TYPE OF REVIEW
APPLTCANT (OWNER)
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
REQUEST
WATER/SANITATION
ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Holgate Luttrell Minor Subdivision
MtsA-02-17-8521
May 12,2017
DP
Administrative
Subdivision
Review Minor
Etta L. Holgate
Mark Chain
The property is located adjacent to the
Town of Carbondale with access off
County Road 111. The address is 0074
County Road 111.
Section: 3 Township: 8 Range: 88 A TR
tN LOTS 18,19 (SEC 3),& LOT 1(SEC
10) on a property known by Assessor's
Parcel No. 246303400025.
Subdivision of one, 2.069 acre parcel
from an existing 4.627 acre parcel.
Town of Carbondale lSeptic
Rural
Urban Growth Area
Carbondale
Town of
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
An Administrative application was submitted for a Minor Subdivision, with a request to
subdivide an existing 4.627 acre parcel owned by Etta L. Holgate into two parcels.
The Applicant's request is to create one new 2.069 acre lot from the existing 4.627 acres
which is located adjacent to the Town of Carbondale at the intersection of CR 111 and
Highway 133. The proposed new 2.069 acre Lot B is currently undeveloped with the
remaining 2.558 acre LotA containing two legal non-conforming dwelling units thatwere
built in 1935 and 1962. The original parcel was recognized through the creation of the
neighboring 5.22 acre parcel that was created through the exemption process and left
the subject parcel as a remainder.
Domestic water for both Lot A and Lot B is proposed to be served by the Town of
Carbondale. Wastewater is to be served by Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems
(owrs).
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
The Applicant has provided the following description of the site
The site is a 4.63 acre parcel located generally at the northeast
intersection of County Road 1 1 1 and State Highway 133. Present land
use is two small single family homes, associated outbuildings and
pasture. The Western portion of the site from south to north is relatively
the flat. The area outside the single-family homes is irrigated. The East
most portion of the site has more topographical relief to it. The proposed
building site for what will become Lot B has ground surface slopes
running from between 5 and 15 degree slopes. An irrigation ditch is
located uphill of the proposed building site and extends north northwest
on the edge of the property. The hillside above the irrigation ditch is
steep and runs at 30 - 35% grade. The hillside/steep slope area is
vegetated with pinion and juniper and associated woodland vegetation.
Each of the two existing homes has access off of CR 111. No changes
will be made to these driveways or the homes associated with them.
Each existing residential structure has an OWTS. These two homes
receive their domestic water supply from the Town of Carbondale. No
other changes are ¡ntended for the property that is propose to comprise
Lot A. The outbuildings and the fencing as well as vegetation will be
upgraded with the help of Mr. Luttrell.
Vic M
Town of
Carbondale
CR 111
Subject
Parcel
Highway
r33
2
AerialView of Sub Pro
Highway
133
Existing
Non-
Conforming
Dwellings
Separate
Parcel Not
Part of
Subdivision CR 11I
J
II\,tTOT "A558 ÅC t'/-'t.HOGATE / LUTTREL LGARF I E LDMINOR SUBDIVTSIONCOUNTY, COLORADOP LAT*nrrùE F *¿r-r¡* s. ¡ãalllltæ&l: l'.æ'tìlàì\\ll\:i:t'ì":'il:l::':l'ìl;l;iiìli:':Í I'o'''i:-*--,,!¡'...ii'rúi¿.'¡'-r'r,'!-..!'r-Irb¡ür¡! r..16¡1ta1ôLIıE¡{D ,'¡ÙD Iffi,qrrr.rd a..¡rr. 4.1'rdôt¡rr.,r;t r!,J ¿rJ r.'l 't rl. a3¡rrr,t i.,lr.l¡r¡É rrt, - lr,riMCN='oTFf5
III. WAIVER REQUESTS FROM STANDARDS
The Applicant has not requested any waivers from the applicable Standards
IV. AUTHORITY - APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
A. Section 5-301 of the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC), designates the
division of land that creates no more than 3 parcels, is served by a private well or water
supply entity and does not require the extension, construction, or improvement of a
County right-of-way, as requiring Administrative Review.
B. Section 4-103 of the LUDC sets forth the Administrative Review Procedures by
which the current Application is being considered.
C. Article 7 of the LUDC sets forth General approval standards in Division 1,
General Resource Protection Standards in Division 2 and Site Planning and
Development Standards in Division 3. Minor Subdivisions are also subject to Section
5-301(C) and 5-402(F). The standards are addressed in the Application submittals and
in the Staff Analysis section of the Staff Report.
V. PUBLIC AND REFERRAL COMMENTS
The Applicant has provided documentation that all required notice mailings have been
completed in accordance with the LUDC. No public comments were received as a result
of the public notice. Referral Comments received on the Application are attached as
Exhibits and summarized below:
A. Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Mountain Cross Engineering (See Exhibit 8)
The following comments were submitted.
o The irrigation ditch runs across proposed Lot B. However, the irrigation is
proposed to remain for the benefit and use of Lot A. No easements are shown.
The Applicant should explain how irrigation water will be accessed across Lot B
without trespass.. The Applicant should address if Lot B will have any share of the irrigation water.
o The Applicant should either provide cost estimate and security for the proposed
Lot B water tap or construct the water tap themselves prior to signing of the Mylar
plat.. The Applicant will need to obtain a driveway permit for Lot B.
B. Garfield County Road and Bridge (See Exhibit 8): The following comments were
submitted.o "l met with applicant a while back and looked at options for access to Lot B. The
best access point is in the South West corner. lt is approximately 95 feet from
the nearest driveway, just short of our 100 foot minimum. A wire gate (farm
5
D
access) is currently used to access the property now. At this wire gate the
entrance could be upgraded to meet our current Driveway Standards. Road &
Bridge would be willing to work with the owners to make this driveway access
work."
C. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (See Exhibit 7): The following comments were
submitted.. "Upon review, CPW has concluded that the proposed action will have minimal
impacts on local wildlife species and their habitats. Therefore, there are no
recommendations for the applicant at this time."
Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) (See Exhibit 10)
CGS provided the following comments:
HP-Kumar's report contains a valid description of surface and
subsurface conditions and soil engineering properties, and
makes appropriate recommendations regarding design of
foundations, floor systems, and surface and subsurface drainage,
but does not address potential geologic hazards. CGS has no
objection to approval of the two-lot subdivision, but we have
several additional recommendations:
Slopes and potential slope instability. Based on topographic
contours shown on the plat (Lines in Space, March 24,2017), the
building envelope on proposed Lot B contains slopes of
approximately I 5-20o/o, but is located below steeper slopes of 45-
50o/o. An unlined irrigation ditch is located on the slope above the
proposed building envelope. Garfield County geologic hazard
mapping identifies the slope as unstable. Slopes that appear to
be stable under current conditions can be destabilized if
modifications are made through excavation of cuts and excessive
infiltration. To reduce potential hazards associated with erosion,
construction-related slope instability, and shallow failures such as
creep and slumping:
I Grading for driveways, structures, and other improvements
should be designed to minimize temporary and permanent cuts
and fills to the extent possible.
! HP-Kumar or another qualified geotechnical professional
should determine maximum allowable, unretained temporary and
permanent cuUfill heights and slope angles.
! All planned cuts exceeding four feet in height should be
evaluated for slope stability.
a
6
E
! Driveway retaining walls, building foundations, and upslope
walls that will function as retaining walls must be designed by a
qualified geotechnical or civil engineer in accordance with HP-
Kumar's recommendations (page 2), and must include adequate
behind-wall drainage.
! Existing vegetative cover should be left intact to the extent
possible, and every effort should be made to restore native
vegetation within disturbed areas as quickly as possible. lrrigation
beyond the bare minimum required to reestablish native
vegetation should not be permitted.
Hydrocompaction and subsidence due to dissolution of
gypsiferous material. The site soils are derived from and
underlain by, at an unknown depth,' Eagle Valley Evaporite
containing the soluble minerals gypsum, anhydrite, and halite.
HP's lab test results indicate significant hydrocompaction
potential. Sinkholes, subsidence, ground deformation and
settlement due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are
active processes in the Roaring Fork Valley, and are an
unpredictable risk that should not be ignored.
¡ lf conditions indicative of subsidence or sinkhole formation are
encountered during site investigations or construction, an
alternative building site should be considered or the feasibility of
mitigation alternatives should be evaluated.
n Current and future owner(s) should be made aware of the
potential for sinkhole development, since early detection of
building distress and timely remedial actions are important factors
in reducing the cost of building repairs should an undetected
subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole during or after
construction.
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District (See Exhibit 11):
The Fire District provided the following comments:
The application was reviewed for compliance with the
lnternational Fire Code (lFC) 2009 edition, adopted by the
County. I would offer the following comments.
Access
Access to the property off County Road 111 is adequate for
emergency apparatus.
Water Supplies for Fire Protection
a
7
Water supplies for fire protection to the site would be supplied
F
either by fire department "hauled water" or by irrigation water at
the site. There is a ditch lateral that runs through the property
and the Rockford Ditch runs adjacent to the west side property.
lmpact Fees
The development is subject to development impact fees adopted
by the Fire District. The developer will be required to enter into
an agreement with the District for the payment of development
impactfees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees
are due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based
upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the
agreement is executed. The current fee for residential
development is $730.00 Per lot.
Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) (See Exhibit 12):
DWR provided the following comments:
As indicated in the draft Extra-Territorial Water Service
Agreement included in the referral materials, the owner of the
current parcel historically received water from the Town for three
residences. One of the residences, a mobile home on an adjacent
parcel, will be removed and that third tap will then provide water
to the new single family dwelling that will be located on Lot B.
Therefore, it appears that there will not be a new, additional tap
required from the Town to serve the property'
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(lXhXll), C.R.S', it is our opinion
that with the Town of Carbondale as the water supplier, the
proposed water supply may be providéd without causing material
injury to existing water rights and the supply is expected to be
adequate, provided an Extra-Territorial Water Service Agreement
is completed for this proposal. We recommend that the County
obtain a signed copy of the water service agreement between the
Town and the applicant prior to the final approval of the project.
Comments have not been received from the following agencies and departments:
Garfield County Vegetation Management, Garfield County Surveyor, and the Town of
Carbondale.
VI. STAFF ANALYSIS
Article 7, Division 1: General Standards
1. Section 7-101: Compliance with Zone District Use Regulations
The development on the property is in general conformance with the dimensional
8
a
standards for the Rural zone district. The minimum lot size in the Rural zone district is
2 acres while the smallest lot proposed is 2.069 acres.
The Applicant has provided the following explanation and points of discussion regarding
zoning compatibility.
Existing uses presently comply and any future use or
development on the proposed lots within the minor subdivision
will comply with zone district criteria, including dimensional
requirements enumerated in Table 3 - 201 of the LUDC. ltems
for Discussion
1. Rear setback for accessory unit. Rear setback for a portion of
this house is approximately 12 % feet - which does not comply
with Zone District dimensional standards. However, this is an
existing situation and this adjacent lot is also owned by the same
property owner.
2. Density/Accessory Unit: Lot A, as presently proposed, will have
two units located on the Lot - the principle dwelling of the owner
and what we have always considered an accessory, dwelling unit.
However, since both of these units precede County land use
regulations by many years, this accessory/rental unit was never
been permitted. lt is our understanding that it was put in place in
1935.
Staff provides the following comments regarding the Applicant's discussion points.
- The identified "accessory unit" and rear setback are currently existing and will
not be altered as a result of this application. ln other words, the current setback
is considered legal non-conforming currently and the level of non-conformity will
not increase should this request be approved.
2.
lGAs
Both of the dwelling units on the existing parcel were built prior to County zoning
(1935 and 1962). As a result, both units are considered legal non-conforming.
This level of non-conformity will not increase as a result of this application. ln
addition, as the parcelwill remain above 2 acres, the property owner could meet
the minimum parcel size requirement (2 acres) to obtain a Land Use Change
Permit for the Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Section 7-102: Conformance with Comprehensive Plan and compliance with
Garfield County has an lntergovernmental Agreement (lGA) for Development Review
with the City of Glenwood Springs as signed on May 7th, 2001 (Reception number
580572). This IGA designates this development as an "Other DevelopmentApplication".
9
The subject parcel is directly adjacent to Town parcels. Consistent with the lGA, County
staff referred this application to the Town to receive comments that have been
incorporated within this report.
The Comprehensive Plan 2030 designates the site as Urban Growth Area as it is within
the Town of Carbondale Urban Growth Boundary. Excerpts from the Land Use
Description Section Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 - Section 1, Urban Grovuth Areas and
Intergovernmental Coordination, as well as the Town of Carbondale Comprehensive
Plan are provided below.
Gartied County Comprehensive Plan of 2030
Chapter 2 - Growth in Urban Growllt A¡eas
The Ptan recognizes fhe need for existing municipatities to be able to graduatty
expand into immediately surrounding areas. The county supports and
encourages orderly expansion of existing communities. Ihis Plan recognizes
existing municipat plans and strongly supports and encourages infill and
redevelopment of existing communities. Ihese growth areas are the preferred
locations in Gartield County for growth that require urban level seruices. They
are also the preferred locations for commercial and employmenf uses that can
take advantage of supporting infrastructure and a c/ose by client base that
reduces travel demands. The most effective way to encourage growth in
designated and planned UGAs will be by ensuring the following:
i. Each municipality's plan for its UGA is incorporated into the Gartied County
Comprehensive PIan.
ii. IJrban developments in the UGAs are encouraged to annex into the respective
municipality.
iii. tf there is a public benefit to allowing development within a UGA prior to
annexation, the County and municipality will cooperatively endeavor to facilitate
such development through such means as.'
1. County zoning in the UGAs adiusted to a close approximation ol
the municipality's plans.
2. Development in the UGA is required to obtain a local review with
comment (not approval) before submitting for county review.
3. A procedure for municipal/county review and recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners will be developed in an IGA with
each community.
10
4. Each community is expected to extend services and infrastructure
to development in the UGA that substantially complies with their plan for
the UGA (landowners and the respective. municipality are strongly
encouraged to enter into pre-annexation agreements that provide
commitments with respect to extensions of servrces and infrastructure,
densities, etc.).
Secfion 1 - Urban Growth Areas and lntergovernmental Coordination
Gartied County has worked with municipalities to direct development to
IJGAs where public seryices and infrastructure are provided in an efficient
and cost-effective manner. lntergovernmental cooperation between
municipalities and other public agencies has demonstrated successfu/
cottaboration and has resulted in the creation of new partnerships and
collaborative efforts on behalf of the residents of the county.
Policies:
1. Within defined IJGAs, the County Comprehensive PIan, Iand use code
revisions, and individual projects, will be consrsfenf with local municipal
land use plans and policies.
2. Projecfs proposed adjacent to local municipalities requiring urban
seryrces witt be encouraged to annex into the affected jurisdiction if
contiguity exrsfs.
3. Development in an UGA will have land use and street patterns that are
compatible with the affected municipality.
4. Within a tocally planned UGA, development applicants will be required
to obtain project review comments from the local community prior to
submitting for county review. The process shou/d be defined in an
executed lGA.
The Town of Carbondale identifies this area as being within Phase 1 Annexation area,
which is an area that already functions as part of the Town. The Applicant has provided
the following description of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Density of the entire subject property, if developed as
proposed, will have a density of 1.62 acres per dwelling unit. This
is slightly less than what one usually finds in the Rural Tone
District, though one of these units is considered an accessory
dwelling unit. We have two comments on this issue:
The subject parcel is in the Town of Carbondale Phase 1
Annexation area. The Carbondale Comprehensive plan does not
strictly designate density in this Phase 1 area, just conceptual
land uses. lt was always assumed that specific development
11
plans would be reviewed in depth at time of Annexation. The
Development Plan for the subject property appears to be
compatible with the surrounding area in general. Many of the
properties within a quarter mile distance, particularly those
between the subject and the Town Limits especially along
Highway 133 are often smaller than 2.0 acres in size. A
spreadsheet is attached which shows what we feel are logical
comparisons in the immediate vicinity. There are 41 such
properties as shown with the account number, owner and lot size.
16 of the 41 properties are less than 1 acre in size and three are
between 1 acre and 2 acres in size. Essentially, 460/0 nearby
properties have a density of less than one unit per 2 acres.
This Phase 1 annexation Area is encouraged for annexation in
the near term future. We did have a discussion with the Town of
Carbondale regarding a possible Annexation. However this is not
practical for in order for annexation to occur this particular
property would be required to extend the Town's Wastewater
Main in this area from the Roaring Fork High schoolto the subject
site, a distance of about /¿ mile. This would be impractical for
proposing one additional lot to be created and one single-family
detached home in its development plan.
To this end, it is Staff's opinion that the proposed development is in general
conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and the Town of
Carbondale Comprehensive Plan.
3. Section 7-103: Compatibility
The proposed use is located in a rural area just outside the Town of Carbondale. The
Applicant has represented the neighboring uses as follows:
Surrounding Zoning
North:
West:
West:
South:
East:
Surrounding Land Use
North
West:
South
East:
"R" Rural Zone District
Town of Carbondale: PUD/Open Space (River Valley Ranch)
"R" Rural Zone District
"R" Rural Zone District
"R" Rural Zone District
Single-Family Detached Residential plus 1 Church
Open Space (Town) and Small lot residential- SFD (County)
Agriculture/Ranch
Rural Residential
t2
It is Staff's opinion that the adjacent uses are compatible with the proposed new single
family parcel.
4. Section 7-104: Sufficient, Adequate, Legal and Physical Source of Water
The Applicant is proposing to supply both parcels within the subdivision with water from
the Town of Carbondale. The Applicant is currently working through the details of an
Extra-Territorial Water Service Agreement to serve both proposed Lot A and Lot B.
Basically, this agreement allows for the relocation of an existing tap from a parcel not
within this subdivision to Lot A. The dwelling units on existing Lot B are already served
by the Town of Carbondale. The Applicant has made the following representations
regarding legal and physical water to serve the subdivision:
Water System as the other two structures on the subject site are served
by the Town of Carbondale. While we are in process of applying for
domestic water use from the Town, there are still a few other details to
work out. Assuming approval from the Town for a tap on to their system
is granted, there will be an agreement between the Town of Carbondale
and the present property owner (Etta Holgate). There will probably also
be a separate agreement between the two lots within the subdivision
itself...
1. Extra-Territorial Water Service Agreement. As mentioned in the
application, the Town of Carbondale and Etta Holgate are entering into
an Extra-Territorial Water Service Agreement in order to provide
domestic water for Lot B and define the specific terms under how
domestic water will be provided. We are working on the actual text of the
Agreement at this time. I am providing the most recent "strikethrough"
so you can see the terms of the Agreement as well as its present status.
Presently, the Town provides domestic water to 2 residences on Lot A.
A third residence owned by Mrs. Holgate also receives domestic water
from the town. This residence is located on an "out lot" noted as Parcel
1 in the Water Service Agreement. This residence is a mobile home. lt
has been disconnected from the town system. This tap will be
transferred to a new single-family home to be located on Lot B.
2. Design/Hook Up Procedures. Bruce Lewis of Boundaries Unlimited,
the Project Engineer, has provided a letter regarding the steps to be
taken for the actual extension of the service line to the single-family
residence on Lot B. As noted, there are no design or record drawings.
The design scenario is outlined on a step by step basis on page 2 of the
letter. The service line will have to be located, the line exposed, and the
engineering drawings completed after inspection of the specific
conditions. Please note that we are proposing this step be taken at the
time of building permit. We assume that with the execution of the Extra-
13
Territorial Water Service Agreement between the Town and Mrs.
Holgate will suffice for proof of the legal and physical water supply.
While it is not ideal to remove a Town of Carbondale water tap from an existing metes
and bounds parcel in order to serve proposed Lot B, as long as all Lots within the
proposed subdivision have water that meets the requirements of the Code, there is no
prohibition to the practice. As a result, it is Staff's opinion that as long as a signed and
executed Extra-Territorial Water Service Agreement is provided that allows for long-
term physical and legal water to both proposed Lot A and Lot B, then this Standard is
met. Staff recommends a condition of approval that within 90 days of the Directors
Determination the Applicant should provide the Community Development Department
with a signed and executed Extra-Territorial Water Service Agreement that allows for
long-term physical and legal water to both proposed Lot A and Lot B.
Regarding irrigation water, the County designated engineer has provided the following
comments.
1. The irrigation ditch runs across proposed Lot B. However, the
irrigation is proposed to remain for the benefit and use of Lot A. No
easements are shown. The Applicant should explain how irrigation water
will be accessed across Lot B without trespass.
2. The Applicant should address if Lot B will have any share of the
irrigation water.
The provided draft Agreement from the Town of Carbondale for the water supply also
limits outdoor use as follows.
... Domestic use will be limited to normal indoor use within no more than
three single family residences. Outdoor use shall be limited to hand
watering trees bushes, shrubs, flowers, lawns and gardens within a
radius of 50 feet from each residence served by the water service. Any
other irrigation or livestock watering needs shall be separately supplied
by Owner from non-potable sources...
Staff recommends that the Applicant provide an explanation as to how the water in the
irrigation ditch located on Lot B will be legally accessed by Lot A. Should the Lot A have
rights to access the water on Lot B, then an easement should be provided to prevent
those individuals from trespassing in order to access the water in the ditch. ln addition,
the Applicant should provide a statement as to whether the property owners of Lot B
will have access to any water rights from this irrigation ditch, particularly as the available
outdoor water from the Town is very limited.
5. Section 7-105: Adequate CentralWater Distribution and Wastewater Systems
The Applicant has indicated that allwater piping will need to be extended from its current
t4
location at the corner of Highway 133 and County Road 1 1 1 and across Lot A in order
to serve proposed Lot B. The Applicant has proposed a 15'wide easement across
proposed Lot A to serve proposed Lot B. Staff recommends a Condition of Approval
inai tne water line, as proposed, be installed in accordance with the Extra-Territorial
Water Service Agreement with the Town of Carbondale. This water line extension
should also be installed to Lot B prior to signing of the Plat. ln addition, Staff
recommends a Condition of Approval that requiring a maintenance agreement for the
water line between Lots A and B.
Regarding wastewater, the Applicant has represented the following:
The lot is approximately 114 mile from the location of the closest
wastewater main of the Carbondale Municipal Wastewater System. lt is
not cost-effective to hook onto the Municipal Wastewater system (only
one dwelling unit is being proposed). lf the town's wastewater system
and associated wastewater mains ever get extended into the area, this
unit will gladly hook onto the town system. Each of the existing units has
an OWTS.
Application for an OWTS will be made to County Staff as part of the
building permit process. Please note that two Individual Septic Disposal
Systems presently exist on the site and serve the existing residences. A
brief letter from B & R Septic is included in section 5 in this letter states
that the systems are operatÍonal. A Foundation and Septic Suitability
Report from HP - Kumar is included which shows that the proposed
building site can accommodate a septic system to code.
From the information provided, it appears that the existing septic systems on Lot A are
installed and functioning appropriately. In addition, it appears that the soils should be
able to accommodate a septic system on proposed Lot B. The Applicant has
represented that the property owners for proposed Lot B will install a new OWTS at the
time of building permit. As a condition of approval, Staff recommends that the property
owner obtain an OWTS permit from the County at the time of building permit for the
dwelling unit.
6. Section 7-106: Adequate Public Utilities
The Applicant states that the property is able to be served with electric and phone
service. Any future extensions need to be in compliance with State requirements and
inspected by the State Electrical lnspector.
7. Section 7-107: Access and Driveways
a. The application was referred to the Garfield County Road and Bridge
Department (see attached Exhibit 8). Mike Prehm of Garfield County Road and
Bridge indicated that an appropriate access point has been identified for the
15
property, however some upgrades will be necessary. Staff recommends a
condition of approval that the applicant obtain any necessary driveway permits
from Road and Bridge and conduct all required improvements to the access at
the time of building permit for the dwelling unlt.
b. The Applicant has supplied information demonstrating that the existing
driveways for Lot A meet the design standards found in Section 7-107 . Regarding
Lot B, the new driveway will need to be built to conform to the Standards as
outlined in Section 7-107 . Staff recommends a condition of approval that the new
driveway be built to these dimensional standards at the time of building permit
for the dwelling unit.
8. Section 7-108: Natural Hazards
The Application represents that, with exception to some steep slopes on proposed Lot
B, there are no natural hazards on the site that would impact the proposed development.
Specifically, the application provides the following.
No significant hazards exist where development is proposed for the
newly created lot (Lot B). Above the ditch line Northwest of what will be
Lot B there are slopes in excess of 30%. This area of slope is indicated
by a line on the plat. Topography in the area where a new structure will
be located range from 5 to 15o/o. There are no slope/topographical
issues related to the two existing residential structures.
A Foundation and Septic Suitability analysis was undertaken by Kumar
Inc. Their findings are that development for the subject site can move
forward and that there are no undue hazards.
The property is not subject to debris flows, flooding, avalanche, alluvial
fan etc. lnterestingly, we have talked to the professionalwho undertook
the geologic investigation. The area does have some of the deepest soil
deposits in the area compared to similar properties.
The Geotech investigation indicates that the subject site can
accommodate an OWTS. The future land owner will submit a permit
before proceeding to any construction of an OWTS.
ln response to the identified issues with slopes in excess of 20o/o and 30%, the Applicant
has added a building envelope on proposed Lot B which keeps development out of
areas with slopes in excess of 20o/o.
The application was reviewed by the CGS (See Exhibit 10). CGS stated that they have
no objection to the subdivision but did provide a few recommendations. These
recommendations are based around concerns regarding the stability of the slope below
the unlined ditch and hydrocompaction of the soils in the area leading to sinkholes.
t6
These recommendations are as follows
n Grading for driveways, structures, and other improvements
should be designed to minimize temporary and permanent cuts
and fills to the extent possible.
! HP-Kumar or another qualified geotechnical professional
should determine maximum allowable, unretained temporary and
permanent cuUfill heights and slope angles.
n All planned cuts exceeding four feet in height should be
evaluated for slope stabilitY.
! Driveway retaining walls, building foundations, and upslope
walls that will function as retaining walls must be designed by a
qualified geotechnical or civil engineer in accordance with HP-
Kumar's recommendations (page 2), and must include adequate
behind-wall drainage.
n Existing vegetative cover should be left intact to the extent
possible, and every effort should be made to restore native
vegetation within disturbed areas as quickly as possible. lrrigation
beyond the bare minimum required to reestablish native
vegetation should not be permitted.
n lf conditions indicative of subsidence or sinkhole formation are
encountered during site investigations or construction, an
alternative building site should be considered or the feasibility of
mitigation alternatives should be evaluated.
! Current and future owner(s) should be made aware of the
potential for sinkhole development, since early detection of
building distress and timely remedial actions are important factors
in reducing the cost of building repairs should an undetected
subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole during or after
construction.
To this end, Staff recommends a condition of approval that the future property owners
abide by the recommendations made by CGS.
9. Section 7-109: Fire Protection
The Application was referred to the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District who
provided comments as excerpted previously. The comments noted that access and
water supplies for fire protection are adequate. The comments do note that the property
is subject to the impact fees for the district of $730 per lot. As a condition of approval,
t7
Staff recommends that the Applicant provide demonstration that appropriate impact
fees have been paid to the District prior to the BOCC signing the Plat.
Article 7, Division 2: General Resource Protection Standards
10. Section 7-2Ol Agricultural Lands
Staff understands that the proposed Lot A currently has some limited agriculture that is
anticipated to remain into the future. Since much of proposed Lot B is has steep slopes,
the agricultural use on that parcel is more restricted. ln addition, the only development
intended to occur on Lot B is a single family dwelling unit within a defined building
envelope. As a result, it is not anticipated that the proposed development would
adversely affect existing or neighboring agricultural uses. The application represents
the following regarding impact on agricultural lands:
No adverse effect on Ag Lands. The subject parcel is used in a minor
way for agriculture. The northern half of the property is used as a
hayfield, and this use will remain in the future. A small horse pasture on
what will be the southeast portion of Lot 2 was utilized for such purposes
by the ranch manager for the property to the south. That property is a
relatively large ranch with lots of room, and any horse pasture can be
relocated there. Therefore, the impact agriculture is minimal.
As only one house is being built in this area, the adjoining agricultural
lands, ranches and irrigated fields will not be harmed related to land use
for the subject site, increase in traffic etc.
Ditches. The existing ditches will not be modified.
11. Section 7-202 Wildlife Habitat Areas
Since only a residential dwelling unit is proposed on the proposed Lot B, very little
impact is expected to wildlife. This application was referred to Colorado Parks and
Wildlife, who provided the following feedback (See Exhib¡t 7).
Upon review, CPW has concluded that the proposed action will have
minimat impacts on local wildlife species and their habitats. Therefore,
there are no recommendations for the applicant at this time.
12. Section 7-203 Protection of Waterbodies
The Applicant has represented the following regarding the protection of water bodies.
There are no water bodies such as lakes, reservoirs or rivers on the
l8
property subject to the Minor Subdivision. There is a ditch lateral along
the north and northeast property boundary and this will not be touched.
13. Section 7-204 Drainage and Erosion
The Applicant has provided a topographic map of the proposed Lot B of the subject
property that shows general positive drainage. The Applicant has represented the
following regarding drainage and erosion.
A very small area at the Eastern portion of Parcel 2 will be built on with
a single-family house. lt is assumed any activity would be less than 1
acre an area and not subject to CDPHE permits.
Positive drainage away from such a structure will be designed. Care will
be taking to ensure that any drainage related to the access driveway
does not impact CR 111. The Engineer's Report addresses the issue of
drainage and erosion.
The provided drainage study from the Applicant's engineer was reviewed by the County
designated engineer. No additional comments regarding drainage were generated. As
a result, it is Staff's opinion that the proposed drainage on the property appears to be
adequate for the proposed use.
14. Sections 7-205 Environmental Quality
No water or air quality issues are anticipated from the proposed project.
15. Section 7-206 Wildfire Hazards
The subject property is identified as predominately Not Rated while the southwest
corner is identified as Very High according to Map 7, Wildland Fire Susceptibility lndex
of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). ln addition, some portions of
proposed Lot B contain slopes over 30% although no fire chimneys are known to exist
on the property. The Applicant has proposed a building envelope on Lot B to restrict
development to areas outside those with slopes21o/o or greater. With this development
limitation, Staff feels that wildfire danger on this property is within manageable levels
and is consistent with the Code requirements.
16. Section 7-207 Natural and Geologic Hazards
As noted in Section 8 of this Staff Report, the natural and geologic hazards identified
on the subject property are within a manageable range with the building envelope
restriction as proposed.
t9
17. Section 7-208 Reclamation
No disturbance that would require reclamation is anticipated as a result of the creation
of the proposed subdivision. As a result, a reclamation plan is not applicable. The
Applicant has provided the following regarding reclamation.
The development will comply with the standards outlined in Section 7-
208 of the Land Use Code. No significant infrastructure is being
proposed for the subdivision as a whole. Reclamation standards in
Section 7- 208 B will be followed for an OWTS and for driveway
construction as necessary. These include:
. Contouring and Revegetation.
. Weed management.
. Application of Top Soil Where Necessary.
. Retaining Walls (if applicable).
. Removal of significant Debris (if applicable)
Disturbed areas will also be treated so that noxious weeds are
controlled.
Article 7, Division 3, Site Planning and Development Standards
18. Section 7-301 Compatible Design:
The proposed 2.069-acre lot and use are generally compatible with surrounding
residential and agricultural land uses.
19. Section 7-302 Off- Street Parking and Loading Standards:
The Applicant has demonstrated through site plans that adequate off-street parking
exists.
20. Sections 7-303 Landscaping Standards:
The LUDC specifically exempts single family dwelling units from Section 7-303.
21. Section 7-304 Lighting:
All exterior lighting will need to be downcast and comply with County standards.
22. Section 7-305 Snow Storage Standards:
Adequate snow storage exists on the property.
20
23. Section 7-306 Trail and Walkway Standards:
No recreational or community facility access areas are proposed
Article 5, Division 3, Minor Subdivision Review
24. Section 5-301(CX1): lt complies with the requirements of the applicable zone
district and this Code.
As proposed, the subdivision complies with the Rural zone district.
25. Section 5-30f (CX2): lt is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
See Section2, above.
26. Section 5-301(CX3): Shows satisfactory evidence of a legal, physical, adequate,
and dependable water supply for each lot.
See Section 4, above
27. Section 5-301(C)(a): Satisfactory evidence of adequate and legal access has
been provided.
See SectionT, above.
28. Section 5-301(CXs): Any necessary easements including, but not limited to,
drainage, irrigation, utility, road, and water service have been obtained.
The Applicant has provided the following Plat Note that appears to have the intent of
allowing the property owners of Lot A to access their water in the irrigation ditch on Lot
B. The Plat Note reads as follows:
9. lrrigation Ditches
Ditch Owner(s) Rights: Colorado State Statutes 37-86-102
provides that any person owning a water right or conditionalwater
right shall be entitled to a right-of-way through the lands which lie
between the point of diversion and point of use for the purpose of
transporting water for beneficial use in accordance with said
water right or conditional water right. Any impact, change or
crossing of a ditch shall require approval from the ditch owner.
Staff recommends a condition of approval that a Plat Note be added that specifically
creates an easement on Lot B for the benefit of Lot A to obtain and transport the
irrigation water from the ditch. lt is recommended that this Plat Note dedicate an
eaıement over the whole of Lot B, with exception to the identified building envelope, for
2t
the benefit of the property owners of Lot A to access and transport the irrigation water
Regarding irrigation water, please see Section 4, above.
29. Section 5-301(CXO): The proposed Subdivision has the ability to provide an
adequate sewage disposal sYstem.
See Section 5, above
30. Section 5-301(CX7): Hazards identified on the property such as, but not limited
to, fire, flood, steep slopes, rockfall and poor soils, shall be mitigated, to the extent
practicable.
See Sections I and 15, above
31. Section 5-301(C)(8): Information on the estimated probable construction costs
and proposed method of financing for roads, water distribution systems, collection
systems, storm drainage facilities and other such utilities have been provided.
As long as the extension of the water line to serve Lot B is installed prior to signing of
the plat, then no necessary construction costs are required to be secured.
32. Section 5-301(CXg): Alltaxes applicable to the land have been paid, as certified
by the County Treasurer's Office.
The Applicant will need to obtain the signature of the County Treasurer on the final plat
indicating that taxes have been paid. This must be accomplished prior to the BOCC
signing the plat.
33. Section 5-301(C)(10): All fees, including road impact and school land dedication
fees, shall be paid.
All road impact fees shall be collected at the time of building permit
The Applicant has represented the following regarding School lmpact Fees.
The subject site lies within the RE-1 School District and is subject to
Sections 7-404 of the County Land Use Code. A payment in lieu of land
dedication is proposed. The County Land Use Code has the following
land dedication standard at this time:
. 1776 SF of land required per student
. Each single-family dwelling generates 0.49 students per dwelling unit.
. # of units = 1 (there will be a total of 3 units on site, but 2 are pre-
existing)
22
Land dedication Standard :
Land area per student X students generated per unit =
1776 SF/student X 0.49students/unit = 870 SF/unit
Formula for Fee In-lieu of dedication
Unimproved Per Acre Market Value of Land x
Land Dedication Standard x
Number of Units =
Market Value X 870 SF/Unit X 1 unit=
Market Value of land X 870 SF (0.02 ac')
Note: 1 Single -family detached unit is being added to the subject parcel.
It is our understanding that the School Land Dedication standard was
not in effect when the previous dwelling units were constructed. We are
not sure if County or RE-1 District policy requires payment of school land
dedication fees for units built prior to the Policy/standard.
Because of the small size of the project, the applicant would like the
option of providing a Brokers Price Opinion for the cost of Iand prior to
the recording of the Final Plat.
Staff recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant provide the required
Brokers Price Opinion regarding the per acre value of the land to determine the school
impact fee, payment in-lieu of school land dedication. The school impact fee, once
caiculated, shall be paid prior to the Board signing the plat. Per Section 7-404 (2Xb),
the minimum payment shall be $500.00.
94. Section 5-301(CX11): The Final Plat meets the requirements per section 5-
402.F., Final Plat.
Staff suggests that the following corrections be made to the plat as a condition of
approval.
- The name and address of the mineral owners shall be shown on the plat.
- A black and white Vicinity Map shall be added to the plat.
- The width of all adjacent right-of-ways shall be added to the plat.
- All municipal limits within 2OO' of the subject parcel shall be added to the plat.
- The width, purpose, and owners for all easements shall be shown on the plat.
- The footprint for the two homes on Lot A as well as driveway and edge of road
lines shall be removed from the plat.
- The Certificate of Dedication and Ownership shall be updated to match current
form.- The County Commissioners Certificate shall be updated to match current form.
- The following plat note shall be added to the plat: No further subdivision of the
parcels within Holgate / Luttrell Minor Subdivision are permitted by Minor
23
Subdivision, as defined in the Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as
amended.
VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends a finding that, with the recommended conditions, the proposed Minor
Subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of 2030 as well as the Land
Use and Development Code. Staff, therefore, recommends approval with conditions of
the Holgate / Luttrell Minor Subdivision application.
Suggested Findings
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the Administrative Review
Land Use Change Permit.
2. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance
with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
3. That with the adoption of conditions the application has adequately met the
requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as
amended.
Suggested Conditions of APProval
Conditions Prior to S ionature of the Plat
1. The Applicant has 90 days within which to satisfy applicable conditions of
approval and provide the following documentation for BOCC signature and
recordation:
a. A plat mylar with signed Certificates that include Dedication and
Ownership, Title, Taxes, Surveyor, and any mortgagees.
b. The following amendments shall be made to the plat prior to obtaining
signatures. This updated plat shall be provided to and reviewed by the
Community Development Department prior to creating a Mylar copy of
the plat and obtaining any signatures.
i. The name and address of the mineral owners shall be shown
on the plat.
ii. A black and white Vicinity Map shall be added to the plat.
iii. The width of all adjacent right-of-ways shall be added to the
plat.
iv. All municipal limits within 200' of the subject parcel shall be
added to the Plat.
24
v. The width, purpose, and owners for all easements shall be
shown on the plat (including ditch easement).
vi. The footprint for the two homes on Lot A as well as driveway
and edge of road lines shall be removed from the plat.
vii. The Certificate of Dedication and Ownership shall be updated
to match current form.
viii. The County Commissioners Certificate shall be updated to
match current form.
ix. The following plat note shall be added to the plat: No fuñher
subdivision of the parcels within Holgate / Luttrell Minor
Subdivision are permitted by Minor Subdivision, as defined in
the Land lJse and Development Code of 2013, as amended.
x. A plate note shall be added that creates an easement on Lot B
for the benefit of Lot A to obtain and transport the irrigation
water from the irrigation ditch. lt is recommended that this plat
note dedicate an easement over the whole of Lot B, with
exception to the identified building envelope, for the benefit of
the property owners of Lot A for this purpose.
c. Recording Fees
2. Prior to BOCC signature on the Plat the Applicant shall provide the Community
Development Department with a signed and executed Extra-Territorial Water
Service Agreement that allows for long-term physical and legal water to both
proposed LotA and Lot B.
3. Prior to the BOCC signature on the Plat the Applicant shall install the water line,
in accordance with the Extra-Territorial Water Service Agreement with the Town
of Carbondale and within the identified utility easement, to the Lot B.
4. Prior to the BOCC signature on the Plat the Applicant shall provide the required
Brokers Price Opinion regarding the per acre value of the land to determine the
school impact fee, payment in-lieu of school land dedication. The school impact
fee, once calculated, shall be paid prior to the Board signing the plat. Per Section
7-404 (2Xb), the minimum payment shall be $500.00.
5. Prior to the BOCC signature on the Plat the Applicant shall provide a draft water
line infrastructure maintenance agreement between Lot A and Lot B. This
agreement shall be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and Community
Development prior to execution.
6. Prior to the BOCC signature on the Plat the Applicant shall provide demonstration
to the Community Development Department that the appropriate impact fees have
been paid to the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. The amount of the
fee shall be determined by the District.
25
Other Conditions
7. All representations of the applicant within the application and public hearing shall
be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise modified by the Board of
County Commissioners.
8. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded and comply with Section 7-
304, Lighting Standards, of the Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as
amended.
g. The property owner of Lot B shall obtain an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
(OWTS) permit from the County prior to obtaining the building permit for the
dwelling unit.
10.The property owner of Lot B shall obtain any necessary driveway permits from
Road and Bridge and conduct all required improvements to the access at the time
of building permit for the dwelling unit.
11.The property owner of Lot B shall construct the new driveway to meet the
minimum dimensional standards identified in Section 7-107 of the Land Use and
Development Code of 2013, as amended, at the time of building permit for the
dwelling unit.
12.TheApplicant shall comply with the following recommendations from the Colorado
Geological Survey for all future development:
a) Grading for driveways, structures, and other
improvements shall be designed to minimize temporary
and permanent cuts and fills to the extent possible.
b) HP-Kumar or another qualified geotechnical professional
shall determine maximum allowable, unretained
temporary and permanent cuUfill heights and slope angles.
c) All planned cuts exceeding four feet in height shall be
evaluated for slope stabilitY.
d) Driveway retaining walls, building foundations, and
upslope walls that will function as retaining walls must be
designed by a qualified geotechnical or civil engineer in
accordance with HP-Kumar's recommendations as
submitted in the application, and must include adequate
behind-wall drainage.
e) Existing vegetative cover shall be left intact to the extent
possible, and every effort should be made to restore native
26
vegetat¡on within disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
lrrigation beyond the bare minimum required to reestablish
native vegetation is discouraged.
f) lf conditions indicative of subsidence or sinkhole formation
are encountered during site investigations or construction,
an alternative building site should be considered or the
feasibility of mitigation alternatives should be evaluated.
g) Current and future owner(s) are hereby made aware of the
potential for sinkhole development, since early detection
of building distress and timely remedial actions are
important factors in reducing the cost of building repairs
should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into
a sinkhole during or after construction.
27
EXHIBIT
Gørfield Coúlnty
PUBTIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION
Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public
hearing. lnaddition,pleaseinitialontheblanklinenexttothestatementsiftheyaccuratelyreflectthe
described action.
F My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral
owners.
-1 Maited notice was completed on the 2'6Y aay ot Ñktç ,zo1]
All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as
shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending
notice.
É Allowners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in
the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [ist]
Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice.
tr My application required Published notice.
Notice was published on the day of 20
Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram
tr My application required Posting of Notice.
Notice was posted on the daY of
Signature:
Date:
20_.
Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way
generally used by the public.
I testify that the above information is true and accurate.
Name:
f^cr)- tl
U.S. Postal Service""
GERTIFIED MAIL@ RECE¡PT
Ðomestlc Mallr{¡frr{IT
rur{fr
ru
ruE
EI
EI
E
rU6r:l
.fr{f:]
Fr
CABF0NÞåLEr;QP Sf;d!ã.'r, li .
pouå$a
Colif¡od Foê
Relum FocslDt F€€
(Endorsoment Redultêd)
llestrlcled Dellvsry Fcs
(Endorsement Requked)
$tt "
Plþql:
,rs*"
ü5ã1
trg
t+/2á/7rfl7
I
Tolal Poslage &Fães
or Po Box No.
TOWN OF
511 COLORADO AVENUE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623-21 04'-'"-"'"'"----*"-""
1
EO
r{5-
ru
ru
rurrr-l
EIE
EItf
Emrm
mÊtrlrr
4þ.9"r^r,t
<Jþera''&_
"/;.
-l:É.
LMN INVESTMENTS, LLC
757 COUNry ROAD 101
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
$tr , ttlJ
tlû
For dellvery our web8lle
Soe Rsverse lor ln6lruclions20t14'
U.S. Postal Service"'
CERTIFIED MAIL@ RECEIPT
Oomestic Maíl
I
$3,35
flnetmRæotpt¡eoctronto¡ $ Sü.0ü$-_+ËT[tg.;
!--*n;ns--
IRetum B@þt (he¡d@pyl
Rosl¡ic1€dI co¿ine¿ Meil Dolìßy
Slffnãtrren^du[RequbEd
R6l¡lct6dShoalurc Del¡very
$L't " 91
v¡slt our webs¡te at
lo¡ lnslr[ct¡ohs
U.S. Postal Serviee
CERTIFIED MAIL@ RECEIPT
Domestic Mail Only
3ti
*3,3Í
E R€tum Rælpt (ìì¡rdcoÞy)
n R6tum Roæipl (êl6c1F¡lc)
fl C€dili€d tloJl B6tdctod Þoúvêry
llAddt Slgr¡t@ Roq!!red
ll^dull Slg¡alum ñesìilcled
$--${l.sÊ-
fir-t.49
wwW.USpS,COm!ourínformation,
¿
,ìc
i3.ã5
f¡ ßoum Roøtpt (ôloctrnlc) I
llC€rlitiedMdln6ùlctodÐoliY€ry S
lf Adult slgÍìoluÞ Boqulèd 9
nAdult slgMtuÞ Ratrlclâd Dôllvêry $
-*e.8F*tffit-:-
*++-$t*HMlpt (hlrdcopy) S
lr:r.19
U.S, Postal Service''"
CEHTIFIED MAIL@ REC
Doüestic Mail Only
FÕr dellvery ¡nfornlallon, v¡slt our welrsile
Bevetse fo¡ lnsttuctions,
tl9
rumif
ru
IU
rur!
E]
EIE
EI
EImtm
tJ",
E¡t!
rl9
t.fl
rut
ru
ru.ru
rL
EI
E]
EIE
Efm
m
IJ¡
r:lErr
ü531
J&
757 COUNTYROAD 101
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
NIESANIK
757 COUNTY ROAD 101
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
r1Í31
r)'.n
W\atr:t
'-.j
7
LLC
cARg0ilffilqË,;cip ..,.,i. i¡
*û " t:rl
$tt. [tl
trltflrt
IT
rurtr
ru
rutrt
EI
EI
E
rur0
r.l
J
l{EfL
m
J
,-qr
ru
Ìjl
fI-
ru
ru
tr¡
E¡
trt
EfruÐrl
5.
r:l
tr¡t\
t_19
.¡m
11
TT
ru
rq.tr.
ru
rutrl
tr¡trl
EIru
EÐ
rl
f
r:t
EI
fL
flr
J
rL
F:ltr
rur{
IT
ru
ru[3
EIE
E
ruEt
rjl
ifr:l
E¡r!
rocffi'
Ce¡titiôd FÊs
__ . Retum RecelÞt Feê(Endorselnenl Redulred)
,fi sslrlct€d Dellvery Fee(Ènqorsom6nt Fequlred)
rorat eosr"se u Jugs'
otPO Box No,
eæSo
Cèrtiflod Fee
Ralum RecBlDt Fes
(Endorsêment R€dulred)
Reslrlctsd Doliveru Fêã
(Endorsem€nt BeqÚirod)
$tt.
Total Poslage & Foes
orPOBox No
Poslmark
Hero
¡.åcj-i. i; f $*ç
t74/1.àl}t:tt7
t:r531
Postmûk
H€rê
f-t{/2àl2fJl7
LLLP
nosËþ
cê¡$flèd Fêe
Rotum R6celDt FeÊ
(Endorsement Fedu¡rêd)
Rsstrlcted DelÍveru Feê(Endorsemont Reqúhed)
rotal postage a åËs'
üÍ31
ü?
Posftark
"\ Hsrà
.\E1'
rr4/2È/2fi17
r:r531
Poslmãrk
Here
i ¡. 'il: j
r;-
û4/?6/?rJ17
r1531
ü9
PO BOX 757
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
c
83 COUNTYROAD 167
SPRINGS, CO 8160I
or PO Box No,
JEREMY D
PO BOX 1191
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
po"Étu'
Côrt¡fied Foâ
Retum Flecs¡Dt F€e
(EndorsÊment Redutrcd)
Flèsldcl€d Del¡verv F€â
(EndorsBment Reqí,hed)
sri,
Tolâl Postage & F€es
ot PO Box No.
ORTIZ, KATHRYN WRIGHT &
10 COUNTY ROAD 111
co 81ô23-9215
CA ft ílr¡f=. '+Lry4ñ*þ i,:
E'
ÐJ. f ;r
Sr1" tn:l
$il. uu
stl,f-ltl
$û.rJü
t
Þ
qpÊ{*ffi {r EEI F:i r'$ li
sfl Ittt, ,
ürP igl6g3.,j,rå it -+'ô j--s
t*I i1-=
$11
$fr. t:rü
Þ¡{r
U{r
U
u
3ff
l
J
l
T
ì
I
po¡ü$e
Cerüt¡ãd F€ê
tìelum RscelDt Fes(Endorsemont RodUiredi
_¡esdcled Delivery Fêè(tsndorsement R6guhed)
toret eo*ase a åËJ
ù531
tt9
Poslfnilk
, r :'-ir Here
,. "i. .:rr
t4fztl?t:t|?
ETTA L
BOX¿t4t
co 81623-0441
ü531
ff9
Poslmark
t!J4/2ô/2ltL7 .
NIESLANIK, MARTIN J JERILYN
757 COUNTY ROAD lOI
CARBONDALE, CO 81ô23-891 1
ü531
Pðslmã¡k
Hsrc
i: I ü,:li¡
n4t2àt?ßt7
FOUR BAR RANCH CO, LTD
PO BOX686
GARBONDALE, CO 81623-0686
ðÉilfn¡-'r¡*e- ,
Ol44COUNTYROAD 111
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
tl?
tJ.¡
tr.m
ru
rurur!
E
EIff
EI
Em:fm
¡¡l
rlff
r\-
ü831
PoslmÉd(
Hsfo
:Ëi
t:t4/ti']:2tt1:]
l.¡
t_t531
Poslrna¡k
Hers
orPQ Box No,
q
{l{
t
Uqru
U
f,l
f,
3
u
D:l
r
ã
l
pos{åde
t6ñ¡ned Fes
R6¡urn FleceÌot FeÊ
(Endorsement Reriuired)
Resldcled Del¡veru FeE(Endorssment Rsqúlred)
Tolal Poslage &
or PO Box No.
siã:i;:äfplï'
5-ru
rurut!
Tf,
E¡
EI
E3
Ef,m:rm
r¡rt
Tfrl
ü9
ilere
7
.- ë-?e{3
-- -_--*d;ã9*.J)
F1
E¡
EI
E]
trt
EIm:rrn
¡rl,{trf-
tl9
J¡lft
f
ru
ruru
rL
r-{
trl
tr¡
EI
E3
Em
Jm
rfl
trtf-
Fì
E¡
ru
ru
rurr flÍ31
r::'-î14/2è/2tt17 ,
ü9
PostmêIk
:;:.. lls¡s
VERMEYEN, CHARLES P
TRUST
51 COUNTY ROAD 16s
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
t
$Í,35
E cod{led M.f R6ûiot6d D6wöry
DAdult SlgnâluE RoqulEd
lf Âdult SÌg¡otuF Rsst¡lctêd oôllve¡y
s--4Ë-.l]fp-
i--+r;m-
e
sE Rôtum Fæeipt (oloctÉnlc)
Fæêtpl (hûdæpfi
$ü,4?
Eñ.-t?
CRYSTAL RIVER BAPT]ST CHURCH
2632 HIGHWAY 133
GARBONDALE, CO 8I623.9206
C,.fcafübr'rüãrff ilri*aflir+;1
$r1, rlfl
c
¡';;
$s.3s
s
$-JÈ-{B_
rlAdutr D€lluo¡y
sr_t,49
$¡.er
EÊstrn R*tpt(elæronb)
I Celtffed Me¡l Rseìrlctod Detusy
nAdultSlgnabts Baquted
s
ô
I
s
I
sü. *'l
Rêtm Bælpl (hadôopyl
$[r-.49
sr. ¡Í
-Ëffiü-
EReum
-$r-L-¡]{-I -$HÈ-
s
St:t.4?
REVOCABLE
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Etta L Holeate has applied to the Garfreld County Director of Community
Development, to request a Land Use Change Permit to allow the subdivision of one, 2.069 acre
parcel from an existing 4.627 acre parcel located in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-
wit:
Legal Description:
A parcel ofland situated in Lots l8 and 19 ofsection 3, and in Lots I and 2 ofSection 10, Township I
South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, lying Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of a
County Road as constructed and in place, being County Road No. 1 I l, said parcel of land is described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Northerly right-oÊway linc of said road whence a Rock Corner found in place
and properly marked for the Section Corner conrmon to Sections 2,3,10, and l1 bears: N.7lo26'56" E.
491.69 feet, thence N. 72o38'00" W. 278.03 feet along said right-of-way line;
thence N. 39"38'00" W.12.24 feet along said right-of-way line;
thence N. 80o13'00" W.276.42 feet along said right-of-way line;
thence N. A2o58'25" 8.65.27 feet;
thence S.82"08'1lu E.40.56 feet;
thence N. 19"32'12" W. 34.58 feet;
thence N. 61"24'0'7" W. 66.85 feet;
thence S. 88o39'53u rùt/. 54.11 feet,
thence N. 10"5320" W. 344.60 feet;
thence N. 67"38'00" E. 64.23 feet;
thence S. 81"33'20u E. 77.76 feetl.
thence N. 62o27'00" 8.37.12 feet;
thence N. 05o14'00" B. 123.177 feet;
thence N. 89o53'00u E. I15.78 feet;
thence S. 28"26'27" E.25.87 feet;
thence S. 13o03'23u W. 92.33 feet;
thence S. 04"30'14" 8.47.86 feøt;
thence S. 10"22'16'E. 58.89 feet;
thence S. 3 1 "26'00' E. 22.94 feet;
thence S. 21"2420" E.246.81 feet;
thence S. 41"27'03" E.79.33 feet;
thence S. 52"49'00" E.6l-90 feet;
thence S. 65"34'03" E.l7l.22feet;
thence 5.12 feet along the arc ofa curve to the right, having a radius of 15.53 feet, the chord ofwhich
bears: S. 08o38'l2u E. 5.09 feet;
thence 44.22 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 63.88 feet, chord of which bears:
S. 19o02'00" 8.43.34 feet;
thence 73.82, feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 80.46 feet, the chord of which bears: S.
12o35'00' E. 7 1.26 feet;
thence S. 13"42'00" W. 3.59 feet to a point on the Northerly right-of-way line of said county road, the
point of beginning
Practical Description: 24:.000074 111 COUNTY RD, CARBONDALE 81623
Town of
Carbondale
Subj ect
ParcelI
I
CR 111
Highway
133
Description of Request:Administrative Review to allow the subdivision of one, 2.069 acre
parcel from an existing 4.627 acre parcel.
All persons affected by the proposed Land Use Change Permit are invited to comment regarding
the application. You may state your views by letter, or you may call the Community
Development Department at (970) 945-8212 regarding the application. The Directorwill give
consideration to the comments of suruounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding
whether to grant or deny the rcquest. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning
Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Administration Building,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday. Alternatively, the application can be viewed at http:l/recorcls.garfield-
county.coni/Weblink/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName:BuildingDocumentSearch (Search for
File No. MISA-02-1 7 -8521).
The Director will issue a decision on this application on Friday May 12,2017 therefore any
comments to be considered must be received prior to that date.
Planning Division, Community Development
Garfield County
'+'HOGATE/ LUTTRELL MI NOR SUBD I V I S I ON PLATGARF I ELD COUNTY , COLORADO ffi*ffiffiffi.:,*.".,",æ[G¡'#!@,.ù L.a. nr. ¡ts ÌL rrr -rrqi,t ri. i-t rFk ,r rFÈûrh!-¡rrl-..r.L@et@ ùt - q t -. ¡.t-. :!_lôS\!i\Ê;f:bLEGEtrÞ AtrDffiç¡a...-.,--,.-.-".@.-{ d"-.--"-,.-..*-,-,.il..rtrr. r {. cLd ¡¡ k{*.r ¡,t¡l¿¿o1 ¿t.,íãA ¿te +,/-tt)oã?or-iU)dÞ.utoIoaÀ)orrÉ+o
VERMEYEN, CTIARLES P
REVOCABLE TRUST
51 COUNTY ROAD 165
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
LMN INVESTMENTS,LLC
757 COUNTY ROAD 101
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
NTESLANIK, MARTIN J & JERILYN
757 COUNTYROAD IO1
CARBONDALE, CO 81623-89 I 1
MORRIS, JEREMY D
PO BOX 1191
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
TUTTLE INVESTMENTS, LLLP
183 COTJNTY ROAD 167
CLENWOOD SPRTNGS, CO 81601
FOURBARRANCH CO, LTD
PO BOX 686
CARBONDALE, CO 81 623.0686
NIESANIK INVESTMENT LLC
757 COTINTY ROAD 101
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
CARBONDALE, TOWN OF
511 COLORADO AVENUE
CARBONDALE, CO 81623.2144
ORTZ, KATIIRYN WRIGHT &
IIENRY
10 COUNTY ROAD 111
CARBONDALE, CO 81 623.9215
HOLGATE, ETTA L
PO BOX 441
CARBONDALE, CO 81623 -0441
CRYSTAL RIVER BAPTIST
CHURCH
2632HTGHWAY 133
CARBONDALE, CO 81, 623 -9206
NIESLANIK, MARK J &
757 COIJNTY ROAD IOl
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
SHAPIRO, MARC
0144 COUNTY ROAD 111
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
REED, SUSAN C
PO BOX 757
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
bôôg 7
EXHIB IT
^âffi1
COLORADO
Parks andWildlife
Department of Natural Resources
Gtenwosd Springs Area Office
00E8 Wlldlife Way
Glenwood Sprlngs, CO 81ó01
? 910.947.2920 | F 97A.947.2936
Aprit 12, 2017
David Pesnichak
Senior Planner
Garfietd County DevetoPment
108 8th St. Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, C0 81601
RE: Holgate/Luttrell Minor Suþdivislon Referral (À4lSA-02-1 7-85211
Dear ltlr. Pesnichak,
Colorado Parks and Witdtife (CPW) has received the apptication materials for a minor
subdivision review submitted by Etta L. Hotgate. Upon review, CPW has conctuded
that the proposed action witt have minimal impacts on local witdtife species and their
habitats.' Therefore, there are no recommendations for the appticant at this time.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and submit comments for this project. lf
there are any questions or needs for additionaI information don't hesitate to contact
Land Use Spåcialist, Taylor Elm, at PTA\947-2971 or District Witdtife Manager, John
Groves, at (970) 947'2933.
Cc
Sincerely,
l[, Area Witdtife Manager
John Groves, District Witdtife Manager
Taytor Elm, Land Use Speciatist
Fite
Bob D, Brmcireld, Dtæc¡r, Cdû'ado Pårl(s and Wftdúe . ParÌs ¡nd Wíldlfe Cormi¡sþn: f,obert W. 8ray. Jeanne Høne
John HüÁ¡ard, Vice{lrak . Oate Pizel . Janßr Priqñ, Ctìalr, Jares Vlgll ' Dean Wiôflfìeld . Ll!áelte Zlnnænnan' Sacretåry. Älêx zlpp
Gaffield County
Road & Bridge
Apnl L7,2OL7
Re: Holgate / Luttrell Minor Subdivision
David,
I met with applicant a while back and looked at options for access to Lot B. The best access
point is in the South West corner. lt is approximately 95 feet from the nearest driveway, just
short of our L00 foot minimum. A wire gate (farm access) is currently used to access the
property now. At this wire gate the entrance could be upgraded to meet our current Driveway
Standards. Road & Bridge would be willing to work with the owners to make this driveway
access work.
Road & Bridge have no other concerns with this proposal.
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to review
Sincerely
Mike Prehm
Garfield County
Road & Bridge
970-625-8601 Office
970-625 8627 Fax
MOUNT¡TIN EROSS
ENGINEERTNG. INC.
Civil and Environmental Conaulting and Design
April17,2A17
Mr. David Pesnichak
Garfield County Planning
108 8tl' Street, Suite 401
Clenwood Spriugs, CO 81601
RE: Review of the llolgate/Luttrell Minor Subdivision: MISA-02'17-8521
Dear David:
This ofhce has perfo¡med a review of the documents provided for the Holgate/Luttrell Minor'
Subdivision Application. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review
generated the following comments:
L The i6igation ditch runs across proposed Lot B. Holvever, the in'igation is proposed to
remain for the benefit ancl use of Lot A. No easements are shown. The Applicant should
explain how inigation water will be accessed across Lot B withottt trespass.
Z. The Applicant should address if Lot B will have any share of the inigation water.
3. The Applicant should either provide cost estimate and security for the proposed Lot B
water tap or constluct the water tap themselves prior to signing of the Mylar plat.
4. The Applicant will need to obtain a dliveway permit for Lot B.
Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments
Cross
,ir.-1 ¡l (
Hale, PE
EXHIBIT
7
8261hGrand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
P: 970.945.5 544 F : 97 0.945.5558 www, mountaincross-eng.com
COLORÂDO GE,OLO GIC,\L SURVtr,Y
1801 lghStreet
Golden, Colorado 80401
Apnl28,2017
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Location:
SE SE Sec. 3 and NE NE Sec. 10,
T8S, R88V/, 6th P.M.
39.3813, -107.2012
Karen Berry
State Geologist
Subject: Hotgate / Luttrell Minor Subdivision
Fite Number MISA-02-17-8521: Garfietd Countv. CO: CGS Unique No. GA-17-0008
Dear Mr. Pesnichak:
Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the Holgate / Luttrell minor subdivision referral. I understand the
applicant proposes to subdivide a2.07-acre parcel from an existing 4.63-acre parcel located northeast of
SH133 and CRll1, south of Carbondale. Proposed Lot A, 2.56 ates, contains two existing homes on the
north side of CRl11. Proposed Lot B is currently undeveloped. The referral documents include a Subsoil
Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot B, Paul Luttrell Minor Subdivision (HP-Kumar,
December 13,2016).
HP-Kumar's report contains a valid description of surface and subsurface conditions and soil engineering
properties, and makes appropriate recommendations regarding design of foundations, floor systems, and
surface and subsurface drainage, but does not address potential geologic hazatds CGS has no objection to
approval of the two-lot subdivision, but we have several additional recommendations:
Slopes and potential slope instability. Based on topographic contours shown on the plat (Lines in Space,
March 24,2017),the building envelope on proposed Lot B contains slopes of approximately l5-2ÙYo,bttt
is located below steeper slopes of 45-50%o. An unlined irrigation ditch is located on the slope above the
proposed building envelope. Garfield County geologic hazard mapping identifies the slope as unstable.
Slopes that appear to be stable under current conditions can be destabilized if modifications are made
through excavation ofcuts and excessive infiltration. To reduce potential hazards associated with erosion,
construction-related slope instability, and shallow failures such as creep and slumping:
o Grading for driveways, structures, and other improvements should be designed to minimize temporary
and permanent cuts and fills to the extent possible.
o HP-Kumar or another qualified geotechnical professional should determine maximum allowable,
unretained temporary and permanent culfill heights and slope angles.
. All planned cuts exceeding four feet in height should be evaluated for slope stability.
o Driveway retaining walls, building foundations, and upslope walls that will function as retaining walls
must be designed by a qualified geotechnical or civil engineer in accordance with HP-Kumar's
recommendations (page 2), and must include adequate behind-wall drainage.
o Existing vegetative cover should be left intact to the extent possible, and every effort should be made
to restore native vegetation within disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Inigation beyond the bare
minimum required to reestablish native vegetation should not be permitted.
cA-17-0008 I Holsate Luttreuviff,iirrr$iii
EXHIBIT
lo
David Pesnichak
Apnl28,2017
Page2 afZ
Hydrocompaction and subsidence due to dissolution of gypsiferous matcrial. The site soils are derived
from and underlain by, at an unknown depth, Eagle Valley Evaporite containing the soluble minerals
gypsum, anhydrite, and halite. HP's lab test results indicate significant hydrocompaction potential.
Sinkholes, subsidence, ground deformation and settlement due to collapse of solution cavities and voids are
active processes in the Roaring Fork Valley, and are an unpredictable risk that should not be ignored.
. If conditions indicative of subsidence or sinkhole formation are encountered during site investigations
or construction, an alternative building site should be considered or the feasibilþ of mitigation
alternatives should be evaluated.
o Current and future owner(s) should be made aware of the.potential for sinkhole development, since
early detection of building distress and timely remedial actions are important factors in reducing the
cost ofbuilding repairs should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole during or
after construction.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or need further
review, please call me at (303) 384-2643, or email carlson@mines.edu.
Jill C.E.G.
Engineering Geologist
GA-17-0008_1 Holgate Luttrell Minor Subdivision
12:28 PM,0412812017
EXHIBIT
II!ooEDavid Pesnichak
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subiect:
Follow Up Flag
Flag Status:
Bill Gavette < gavette@carbondalefire.org >
Sunday, April 30, 20L7 4:49 PM
David Pesnichak
Ron Leach
Holgate/Luttrell Minor Subdivision MISA-O2-L7-8521
FollowUp
Flagged
April30,2017
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Holgate/Luttrell Minor Subdivision
Dear David,
Sorry for the delay in getting comments to you. I neglected to get it onto my reminder calendar.
I have reviewed the application for the proposed Holgate/Luttrell minor subdivision. The application was reviewed for
compliance with the tnternational Fire Code (lFC) 2OO9 edition, adopted by the County. I would offer the following
comments.
Access
Access to the property off County Road 1L1- is adequate for emergency apparatus.
Water Supplies for Fire Protection
Water supplies for fire protection to the site would be supplied either by fire department "hauled wate/' or by irrigation
water at the site. There is a ditch lateral that runs through the property and the Rockford Ditch runs adjacent to the
west side property.
lmpact Fees
The development is subject to development impact fees adopted by the Fire District. The developer will be required to
enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact fees. Execution of the agreement and
payment of the fees are due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the
District at the time the agreement is executed. The current fee for residential development is 5730.00 per lot.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I may be of any assistance
Sincerely,
BillGavette
Deputy Chief
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
1
Æl COLORADO
Division of Water Resources
Dcparhncnt of Naturul Rcsourcet
MAS: Holgate Luttrell Minor Subdivision-CDWRComments.docx
cc: Alan Martellaro, Div¡s¡on Engineer
Water Commissioner, District 53
6"JJ,ú*
Sullivan, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
John W. Hickentooper
Governor
Robert Randa[[
Fxecr¡tive Director
Re:
Dick Wolfe, P.E.
Director/State Engineer
April28,2017
David Pesnichak
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 84601
Holgate Luttrell Minor Subdivision, MISA-02-1 7-8521
Sections 3 &10, T8S, R88W,6th PM
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. Pesnichak
We have reviewed the above referenced proposalto subdivide a parcel of approximately 4.88
acres into two lots of approximately 2.83 acres and 2 acres. There are currently two residences on what
would be the 2.83 acre Lot A. One additional single family dwelling is proposed for the other lot,
designated as Lot B. Water for the existing residences is currently provided by the Town of Carbondale
(Town). According to the information provided, the applicant is pursuing an agreement with the Town to
also provide water to the proposed single family dwelling on Lot B'
As indicated in the draft Extra-TerritorialWater Service Agreement included in the referral
materials, the owner of the current parcel historically received water from the Town for three residences.
One of the residences, a mobile home on an adjacent parcel, will be removed and that third tap will then
provide water to the new single family dwelling that will be located on Lot B. Therefore, it appears that
there will not be a new, additionaltap required from the Town to serve the property.
Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(f XhXll), C.R.S., it is our opinion that with the Town of
Carbondale as the water supplier, the proposed water supply may be provided without causing
material injury to existing water rights and the supply is expected to be adequate, provided an Extra-
TerritorialWater Service Agreement is completed for this proposal. We recommend that the County
obtain a signed copy of the water service agreement between the Town and the applicant prior to the
final approval of the project. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please
contact me for assistance.
Sincerely,
Office of the State Engineer
1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.86ó.3581
www.water.state.co. us
EXHIBIT
IZ
RE
Mark Chain Consulting, LLC
Page I
April 5, 2017
David Pesnichak, Senior Planner
Garfield County Department of Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Mineral Rights - Holgate/Luttrell Minor Subdivision
Garfield County File Number MISA-02-17-8521
Dear David
I have done further research on the mineral rights related to the Etta Holgate
property. ln the application, I noted that an oil and gas lease was entered into between
Fred and Dorothy Holgate (Etta's parents) and Francis M. Christensen dated May 26,
1960. That agreement was recorded at Reception No. 210338 on July 21, 1960. This
deed was submitted with the application and is attached again for your convenience.
Mr. Christensen did not assign this lease to any other parties to our knowledge. Mr.
Christensen did assign a number of leases to Pan American Petroleum Corporation on
June 27 , 1960 as well as on other dates. However, none of these assignments included
land that had the same legal description as the Holgate Property (part of Lot 18 in
section 3 and part of Lot 1 in section 10, T 8S, R 88W.
Paragraph 2 of the lease states that the lease shall remain in force for a term of five
years and as long thereafter as oil, gas, casinghead gas, casinghead gasoline or any of
them is produced. Paragraphs 3 and 4 describe terms of payment in royalties etc.
Paragraph number 5 states: lf operations for the drilling of a well for oil or gas are not
commenced on said land on or before one year from this date, this lease shall terminate
as to both parties, unless the lessee shall, on or before one year from tis date, pay or
tender to the lesser or for the lesser's credit in the First National bank, of Glenwood
Springs board successors, ... .and so forth.
Etta Holgate, successor to Fred and Dorothy Holgate, is not aware of any drilling on the
property or royalties or payments that may have been received by her parents.
Furthermore, paragraph 17 states: Notwithstanding anything in this lease to the contrary
this lease shall cease and terminate three years from its date unless there shall be
commenced operations for the drilling of a well for oil and gas at a location within 4
miles from the corner common to Townships 7 and I South, Ranges 87 and 88 West of
the 6th P.M.'
8l I Garfield Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 Ph 970.963.0385 Fax970.963.2916
mchain@sopris.net
EXHIBIT
lá.cIa 13
Mark Chain Consulting, LLC
Page2
As no payments or extensions to the lease were made and taking into account the
statements in paragraph 17 as well as other paragraphs, it would appear that the oil and
gas lease was terminated many years ago. Finally, Mrs. Holgate did receive notice of
the pending land-use action via certified mail as part of the regular public hearing
notices for the Holgate - Luttrell Minor Subdivision application.
ln summary, lt would appear from the research I have done that the oil and gas lease
was terminated, Mrs. Holgate still owns the mineral rights and all public notice
requirements have been met - including notifying those with mineral rights in the
subject property.
Pease contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss in more detail. Thank
you on advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
lúark Chain
Mark Chain, Planner
8ll Garfìeld Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 Ph 970.963.0385 Fax970.963.2916
mchain@sopris.net
äecorded ruru r((r#^(:"1i(,rfr. ,.,?-u-'u Book. r2B pa¡:e 4o3
,,;.i.,iÎ.l.I.,'iio¡ll'lo-.ziol:a5'fi{¡iù.ðffg.tEXsHo"hëwl(nrr..()Itl¡r'Ñ(Ì¡l¡,._--j'Jf*@..l.-*ro1*"
,t'ttt,ì ¡tr'il{f,;1,:Il¡:l;'f, tôr!'fd xilo thtß tlr- -.-?úlh--..dnr ar--*.'iía1¡to 60, ,
r,"t' n'',-... - --': ¡:-L:"1' : -' -:JA!t:î'l'Ê rnri llor-ollw.T. |lolrâl'ê- lris t¿ífe
-hara¡nElter
collcd ìssor,
t'^.âi c lt f:lìri (lr'ììÊÊn c.l)cd lÊssco. rloas eltr!¡s¡
(3 10.00- - - J
nuch jùU!rnn..<. Àðd tor iosrtna atrd ùoôrdtnr.ûr¡tôy..F. !ùc ,ollo*tng dclcrlb¡d ittcl of lond r" Gaffield ,
5cc.
t. 1¡¡r l,i,-or. t.r n¡ú ln .o¡itdlrtrrlon or rha iÙnr
Scc.
5e c. Ji''.c. I.
') : Par l:
ès
et lâges e r)c
1
ll
1
fl1-.t
¿:: I ti
e
ti 'aÞ td F': ^ñ.'ì nr-clenr'lood SPrings> ço]orâdo , o!
||lru.tÊ5jols.B1llùhßtr¡nlrcllJlutcasor!srclì!lc6!or'5trBc'Lôtrdshûll@ntlnuc¿s!h?dÉDoslloryolany¡ndÀll!uh'
Dlt¡blc lnúr lhlt lc¡so. t6
{rtdlciloldh¡ng!!ñlotrnE!¡hl}lns¡ldtnndorln¿hcollûndgôs'orlnlholèntôls|o¡ccrüothe'e!¡der,¿hEsumol.--j-.:-j.-.:-
¡N ìvlTNæg l{ttEnEOF! sG ¡18Í ¡h! dnv nnd ycßr flr6l ñbolo stlt['n'
J,a/¿ s-¿-
b{á1}.-l-b-'
r
I
Book 328
Page 40lr
STATË
COUNTY
dav
sTnlE
COUNîY
oo1 ÕTado
L7. '¡1{oÈr'f.thstandlng snythfng in thls lease to the conÈrsrythl6 leaÊe ehsll ceaee-ãn¿ t"rri"atã-ihiJ" y""r" fron ftsdeÈe untese rhe¡e shalt b" ;;;;;;;'åilrrrro.u for rhedrflling of a ¡setJ. for oll "rd ;;;-;; i'iåcatron wtthln4 nlles fror¡ the corner-cønton Èo ?ounships Z and g South,Rangeu 87 ánd 88 l¡e6t "f tn" Ortr-p]ll.;;"-"
18. "If Lceeee haE êncountêred waÈer ln a vell ïhich lt ha8,o:::Tr,:o :o plyc .na aua,ãoi, iå"ã"J"ií"lr "".rrvtessor at the arldress shown in thls-ieae.äl wno, ,irf¡inÈwen¿y-fo.rr (24) hours ttrereafter] siiir--rlotrry L""suewherher he eleccÊ r_o Èake ou",,"ia äii....r, t" doee soeLecr he ehart pay Les'ee rhe ,;;;";;i;'".tvage value ofthe casfrg ln rhe ¡rell .na "*""ui"-pîJiãr-ir"..u."nr,lnd.emnlfytng Leseee againbr_arf rrairtilieJ r¡r¡rch Eay rhere-afrer brÍ6e retartve ro satd ,"tt-i;;i;;;; rhe plussrngand abandonmenÉ rhereof. rf ;;-;.;;-".i'lå "r.". or f€ltsro timely m¡ke anv etecÈion ,¡,ir-""ã.iî" iierr rernrnaceand be of no fu¡tibr force or "ff."r-;-"
''*
4t
ss. .{CI(NOlVLEDC¡tlENT fOÊ IND¡VIDUÂL (Kanr., Oklo., nnd Colo.)
Bcfore me, the undersigncd, e NotÀry Public, 1viÈùin and fo¡ ssid couilty snd stnte, on this ' ¡ I 26 th
19-6.0-, pertonrlly appearcd nla.l r¡-. ¡.1n1 go ¡o
be the:den¿icâ¡ pe!sqn-"4\yho exccuted the within ônd foregoing inst¡ümc¡¡t and achnorvledgcd to mc
set fo¡th.
rli
ss, ACKNOWLEDCMENT FOR INDMDUAL (Kans., Okla., ond Çoto.)
.Before me,the undonigned, a Notary Publlc, rvithh âhd tor said county s¡d Etatc, otr
19-, pe¡son¡lly
to mc persona¡ly kÌowr to be the i'lenùlcrl pêtÈon-1sho executod ths vithin a¡d foregoing instrument and
"cknowledged
to methût-sxecute<l ¿he s¡me a' - , , f"eg a¡d volùntory tc¿ ¡¡d deed foù thè ùgcs and Þurposes thErein sot lo¡th.IN ì¡vtTNEss IVIIEREoF, I h¡ve he¡sunto ier mthñoå;á i,il¡ä¡rüli'it"-iöäi,ã v""ãii"åi'äuä'"i"rrt",.
lfy commisslon expi¡es-
Notary Publlc
S1,A,TE
COUNTY s5.ÀCKNOWLEDGI!Í ENT TON CORPORÂTION
Give[ undcr my hsnd 8nd !rsl the dsy and year ìast. abov€ w¡¡ttêr.
¡Iy com¡¡¡ssion expircs
Not3ry Pub¡ic,
I,
ttlllt
ÞtÉlIElÊItt
Ê'liltl
: :t ë_r<.èx
8d!n;.7
Þ
o(f)
É.
ø
$rf
L¿!
Eu tct+U9
obú
O¡ i
9ÞHãf.Y:f
rüÈÊo9
!
låhtil
IEIËFil
çah Ëil
ËËlåFil
jËl ill
a-')
Øl
côtcfl
dl
^ì!
t¿¡t/¡
IJ,J
u)
19
Õz
ı
o
È Ê.
flàF9ÉãoJD Q