The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.1 BOCC Staff Report 12.09.2013Board of County Commissioners, December 16, 2013 P Ub rIC H ean.n Q -M orton J u hi MI' nor S u bd ivision Exhibit Exhibit Letter (A toZ) 1 Publ ic notice Mail Receipts 2 Garfield County 2013 Land Use Development Code 3 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended 4 Application 5 Email from G. Thomas Morton re: request for call-up 6 Supplemental documentation submitted by Dwight and Therese Juhl 7 Staff Memo 8 Director Decision 9 Staff report and exhibits to Director Decision 10 Letter dated November 15,2013 from Megan Sull ivan, P.E. Division of Water Resources 11 Celtified Transcript of November 18, 2013 Board Meeting OMPLETE THIS SECTION U1 EXHIBIT items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete J ~ "Ililll!ml~~!!!lIIl!1IiIliJllI!l!![II!l~. f ' :estrictod Del/very is desired. ~ " name and address on the reverse r~~~~~~~~~~-rc.-;;;~;;:~ L_~!tl~~~~~~~ ~ can return the card to you. M ~ card to the back of the mailPiece. · gJ..llpostag. I .$s...-_~$O~~~r~!III!.II!~~_. Iront If space permits. -. ~ ~~~----~---1 l!Ssed to: is' M-=o--r-to-n-;&;;--D-'; ebii E. l117 Ii Springs, co 81601 ru CI ' C1 , CI I , CI CI :;::::::::::::::====:::::;:====. U1 ~ ... ,--SelVfce l}tpe . I m o Certifled Mall 0 Express Mall M o Registered D Return Receipt for Merchandise t r=I o Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. ~ 4. Restricted Oelivery? (EXtra Fee) 0 Yes ber 'm saNies labeQ 7011 3500 0002 6231 4885 11 . February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt ," 10259s<-02-M-1549 terns 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Istrlcted Del/very Is desired. lame and address on the reverse can return the card to you. , 'C"I tr ::r M card to the back of the mailpiece, m ont If space Dermitsc-------llI. . o.'~~;j~~~f:.~~~~A~~/S.c Ii ssed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: -J,~ .. -ru ..ll ~nce Re;n;;n;~l;e ;----., 'oe Circle an~ Oaks, CA 91~6f ' 3. ServIce 'tYPe o CertifledMall o Registoilld Mall D Express Mail D Return Receipt for Merchandise ru CI CI o CI CI U1 m M M o r'-or I servIce labeQ 7011 3500 0002 6231 4908 1, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02·M-1540 OMPLETE THIS SECTION 'Items 1. 2, and 3. Also complete :estricted Delivery Is desired. name and address on the reverse I can re~urn the card to you. ) card to the back of the mailplece, front If space permits. ' essed to: ru ru ,tr ::r ~~~~~': mM ' ru i ..ll Ir o.~~I~,:t~~~~~~~~~~~·I:I ~ If YES, enter I 0 , ,. C I ... ' .. ' 0 o '''SagePreserve, L""[C ~ U1 OX 1027 T~ ~~=================m~ 3. Service "TYPe " vood Sprines, CO 81602 , o CertffiedMaii o Express Mall 8 D Registered D Return Receipt forMerchanc:lise ("-Insured Malt D C.O.D. ber '" service labeO 7011 3500 0002 6231 4922 1, February 2004 Domestic Return ReceIpt Certified Fee $3 .10 Postmark Retum Receipt Fee Here .'. . (Endorsement RequIred) 1-__ .:.$2",.:..:5:.,:5-;--1 Restrlcled Delivery Fee \ ~ I (Endorsement RequIred) f-__" '$O.:."'.0" 0---;-1 <~~ f j $6.11 11/18/2013 /' -.. .... . . .-/.r'" Total Postage & Fees Thomas Morton & Debra E. Rivera Il.Ielt-cR 117 .~ U.S. Postal Service"" CERTIFIED MAIL", RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage PrOVided) . ' ' . , TH@AtlFO,w5 (lA ~~ IA l IUJ S !E $~-$0;46--Postage -0538 /~or' ,'> Certified Fee $3 .10 07 /,;:. 0(, .:: I P.6stmark Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) $2.55 ,i --Here RestrIcted OeUvery Fee 110';' 1 b $0.00 \ (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ $6.11 11/1~12"'o 1~ " -, /' , .. ~~ 'Lawrence Rennie .. '--. :> . ...----............ ........... -.. 2150 Boe Circle Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 .......................... PS Form 3800, AugusI2006 See Reverse for Inshuctlon U.S. Postal Service"" CERTIFIED MAIL" RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) . ' .. G.QP;'SIimNijS@B.161~ fL Q.lJ S E $0.46 /~., ' /:~:~ '-Postage $ 053~<,.,,-co ._ ,/.--~ . .: , . ('. Certifled fee $.1.10 07 '.' P,#oJ'" Retum ReceIpt Fee I 1 He'rel fI (Endorsement Required) $2.55 . \ . ... , .... Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement RequIred) $0.00 '-. ..-Total Postage & Fees $ $6.11 11/1812013;"' .. ·..,....,..... .. " . Silver Sage Preserve, LLC ._ .. _ ... _ .... PO Box 1027 ............. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse for Instruction items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete :estricted Delivery Is desired. name and address on the reverse o Agent o Addressee ru [J""' , ='"r I can return the card to you. B. Received by (Printed Name) r1 ) card to the back of themailpiece.n1 '"ro~n~t~lf~s~pa~c:.~p:e~rm~lts~· ___________ ll~,",~~~;;~;,;;;~';~~j)~~ __ ~ -D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? 'essed to: )chkO ' .or :kin A'v~. , " 601 od Spnngs, CO 81 ., If YES, enter delivery address below: ru Cl Cl Cl Cl ~====~===================~ 3, ServIce 'TYPe m I CERTIFIED MAIL", RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) " " , llI.(jD~Se.m$@f)J6!r. t !U S rE Postage $ $0.46 05JB Cer1ifledFee $3.10 /; \:::.:.;u--....~ " :~>07c·Q p~~l;n~rk" ': Retum Receipt Fee ' ' \ (Endorsement RequIred) $2.55 f Here .. \ Restricted DeUvery Fee ! f/O;/1 If ' "'I (Endorsement Required) $0.00) ; ) $6.11 \ \ Tolal Postage & Fees $ ,11/18/2013 /.I o Certified Mall 0 Express Mall rl =-------;0;:-o Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise rl Steven Ochko _________--:--::-E~~ln~sur~e~d~M~all~O~~c~.~O.D~.~=~~~=:;2 1011 Pitkin Ave. :-0 Yes Glenwood Springs, CO 81601" ................ .. berm service /abeQ 7011 3500 0002 6231 4892 11 , February 2004 items 1, 2, and 3. Also ~omplete :estrlcted Delivery Is deSired. nama and address on the reverse ~ can return the card to you.. , s card to the back of the mallpl9ce, -front-if-space . U,S, Postal Service", CERTIFIED MAIL", RECEIPT se tor Instruchen (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) " ,ressed to: o No o Retum ReceIpt Fee ~ (Endorsement RequIred) f--------''--irl McGregor & Stt~e~v;esrt;Jfu ,6 Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) :;2 f--------".,-i ', ~d Sl1riIlg§. CO 81@L Imber 7012 0470 0001 1249 5496 rrom seNies label) 1 Q2595-02-M·1540 I 811, February 2004 DomestiC Return Receipt ___ _ ,·~ ... ·T' ... -... <1OII-.;;u ., -------, lme and address on the reverse an return the card to you, ard t6 the back of the mailplece, nt if space permits, f-....... .l---""""''"'''''''-~'------..L'-'-I~±-'=--- : -----------; D.lsdeliveryaddressdiffe",ntfromitem1? ' ';: sed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: ru ood Land Compa-ny, LLC ' Durant Ave. '6 ,CO 81611 'r service JabeQ I , February 2004 . Service Type o Certified Mail o Registered D Insured Mall D Express Man D Return Receipt for Merchandise o C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 7012 0470 0001124'9 .S5 1 9~ -; Domestic Return Receipt ."_, 102S9S-Q2-M-1540 rl rl Cl Cl Cl o I'=r Cl ru rl Cl I I'-Total Postage & Fees Heather McGregor & Steve Smith 63 CRi\\<.o Glenwood Sprinl!;s, CO 81601 PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse for Instruchon U.S. Postal Service", CERTIFIED MAIL"" RECEIPT (DomestiC Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) .' ., , ' ~ if8f11 ~ C i A " 1 I>.~ J Postage $ $0.46 , .' Certified Fee $3.10 Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) $2.55 Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) $0.00 Total Postage & Fees $ $6.11 Glenwood Land Company, LLC 710 E. Durant Ave. ._----------------Ste. W6 Aspen, CO 81611 iM$#46i@M U.S. Postal Service", CERTIFIED MAIL,., RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) mlS 1, 2, and 3. Also complete .trlcted Delivery' Is desired. II~~~~~~~SJ::~~:::~~~~~ Ime and address on the reverse ~ :an return the card to you. uo,,.,,,,,, IJ1 . ' .. GL@,'@mW,"sf1t$ @1iJ621\ l U S IE $0.46 /.-.~,8 ·;,~ _ ~'a~ro~t~o~th~e~b~a~c~k~m~t~~t If space permits, he~m=a~IIP=le=c=e.~,_ _~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~if~--~ I0J1--~ ~ ______ --.,,~ il1~ ynthia -Rippy " l17 is.nrin!!s._CO_81@1 D Express Mall . D Return ReceIpt for Merchandise o C.O.D. ru r'l r'l Cl Cl Cl Cl I"~ Cl ru Yes M Postage $ Certified Fee $3.10 ( Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) , $2.55 Restricted DeUvery Fee (Endorsement Required) $O.OQ l Total Postage & Fees $ $6 .11 \ John & Cynthia Rippy 2111 CR 117 '. /'or;: ';i _. ~;:. -~.~?\ postma~ r_;. \ Hera ,,'J\ I . ,01' I 8 " I , ·.1.1..1. 18/2013 ./-.,~ , ".' ..................... er I servIce labeQ 7012 0470 0001 1249 5502 Cl I"-Glenwood Springs, CO 81601"'· .............. · .. 1 , February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595·02·M·1540 . PS Form 3800, August 2006 Sec Reverse ror Instruc tIOn ., , . Garfield County Community Developme 108 8th Street, Suite 4 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1/-,r/\y ,,,, l~-. y v ... .. . I II u.S. Postal Service", CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com» ;;:: L-G..L..~:o~· O..Q.!!..F.-'st~/11MNjjs~@~Ij}6~9~r~z~lr-l1l~..sl'-4'~JE.~. :--rul------~"''''J\I'''''...";::'::''''' ';; I::'~':\. ..D POStage ru Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl IJ1 Certified Fee Return ReceIpt FEle (Endorsement RequIred) Restricted DeUvery Fee (Endorsement Required) $--$0. 46-$3. 10 $2.55 $0.00 .0538-'(0 J1 or, ', ,. • l • Y \ !:;/\.(. . 07 .' f !• lio r'~~.iJ' . \ \ \. /, "-, "-rn ~,....__:~~:--:--'~ Total Postage & Fees $ $6.11 llIi8/20@:i/r'l r'l Cl PO Box 1239 I"-Glenwood Springs, CO 81601· .... · ............ .. U. S. POSTAGE PAID GLENWOOO SPRI NG.CI 81601 NOV 18. 13 AMOUNT 7011 3500 0002 6231 4915 VNI T("sr/JT~S POSTlIL SEIfVIC~ 10Q9.. ' .. John Christner PO Box 1239 G/\HFIElD COUN Y , GI d S . \III,,!"MITY DEVEl.OPI, :~:·,i:; enwoo prmgSI ro ,-. 0, ",,1'\ . , I NY X.I ·;': 8 ·0 .2 ' :F ·E' 1 -RE~U R N ~ D SE NDER ATTE'Ii PTED -NOT 'KNOWN U liA BLE TO F OR ~J AR 0 ac: 8 ~ 60~3 35 S 99 * 1668 -00 4 ~a -2~-04 .1 11, •. \,,1 , 11'111. 11. " 11 ,11'1." 11. 111 .\,111 ;1' 11.1111. 1. 1, .,1, i t f ' I ' '' , ' ji "I ' iI ' I I> i'''i ' ' I. · t ll "·, I '"~ " 1' :' 1 I l I I 09/23/2013 Garfield County Planning Commission Dear Planning Commission, Dwight Juhl and I would like to request a hearln8 In front of the Board of County Commissioners regarding what we feel to be an unreasonably difficult application to divide a piece of land. We feel that the lack of an administrative decision allowing us to be considered a minor exemption has resulted In -----Iundue frustration/excess expensnnd multiple unnecessaly-requrrements.-Although we reall~ze:-;o;"u':r; ---parcels were not technically put together as one piece by the original owner, Ilay Morgan, until January of 1975, we feel like there should have been an administrative oversight to allow that fact to not Intorfere with a simple splitting of the property Into two parcels. We Initially waited much moro thon the purported three months for a comprehensive plan being developed 8nd then we were asked to hurry so that we could qualify for a minor exemption prior to this new comprehensive plan. Then, In hastunlns to get the necessary things together for review, we found out that we did not qualify and did not get any administrative consideration of a simpler rendition, which we feal should have been easily available to us as citizens of Garfield County. We then went through tho minor subdivision proceSl, which resulted In our having to buy augmented water even though we have two established functioning wells, and resulted In an extremely expensive water test, which apparently nobody could make heHds or tolls of. An enBlneer's opinion was sought by the county, which was no value, and the bill was slven to us to pay. We resrot that things have been this complicated. We would like our travails to be reviewed In front of the county Commissioners, hoping that the process CM be made Simpler, without such black and white lines and the lack of administrative oversight to produce a more common sense solution. { G. Thomas Morton le/15/2e13 e9:e7 97e3845556 GSHS October 14, 2013 Board of County Commissioner, Garfleld County Community Development Fred Jarmln, Director Tamara Allen, Assistant Director Kathy Eastly, Senior Planner Re: call Up Meetlng/Tom Morton and Dwight Juhl Minor Subdivision A$ requested, Tom Morton and Dwllht Juhl would like to share our concerns ~nd commenu pert~lnlnB to our land I1roject. We 5UlhJus I_thance_to share our experfences as private land owners BolnB'~~~ through the lend split process. We.rt aware of the countless hours the Commissioners and staff have spent over the Int S or SO years to (fQte a new comprthenslve plan IS well as amendments adopted on July 15th, 2013. Your tire I." work Is much appreciated. Our project was Initially submitted 1$ In Exemption on May 27, 2013. Consequently, It was denied speclflcally because the land didn't 1\111 under the requirement of ·slnsle lot status" prior to January 1973. Our land was quit claimed as "sln8le lot status" on January 1975 by the previous owners. We fetl we weren't rifordtd I chance It a Director Decision to waive that requll1!ment since our projffi Is to Simply divide one lot Into two. We feel that could have been e reality considering the fact that we have not Intended to add any new dwellings that would Increasl density to the site. We feel that this project should have continuad as an exemption application. With amendments adopted In July, our project was moved Into a "minor $ubdlvlslon" process that resulted In a greatly anticipated IPprovl1 decision with conditions. One condition we have en Issue with Is the water auemantatlon requirement. We feel that this Is not necessary becavst there Ire no new dwelllnss planned. The south well, permit #280605. was dug In 1956 and provided wlter to approximately 4 people plus 3 or 4 horses until the drought of 1993 -1999. This permit represents historic uses In place prior to May 8, 1972. This well was replaced In Mey 2009 by the current ownars upon recommendation from Plannln8 and Zoning. The north well, parmlt #152042, was dug In 1988 by the previous owners and has provided water to no more than 4 people and ant horse. In the "Beginners Guide to Augmentetlon Plans· provided by the Division of Water Resources, It states augmentetion Is requlrad by ·new projects: We believe our project falls short of bel 111 conSidered. "new proJect." West Divide Water's requirement Is that we re-permlt the wells at the minimum Qf 1 acre foot which Is more than they Ire permitted for now. We dlsaaree with the Dlvtslon of Water 10/15/2013 09: 07 970384555& GSHS PAGE 03/03 R·esources opinion that material injury will occur and we ~sk that the Board of County Commissioners as well as Garfield Community Development rescind this condition because our project has no plans for expanded uses. Recently It was learned that the City at Glenwood Sprlnas approved a development for 36 town homes and 17 condos across the street from us. In early 2000·2002 a development called Red Feather Ridge was denied building 265 homes up the road from us. As a result, Four Mile Ranch was given approval for 58 -2 acre lots. Chelyn Acres, Sunll8ht View, Sunlight View II and Oak Meadows have seen el<JlOnentlal growth in the last decades. The Bersenvi property was sold to developers with the intentions of adding Over 250 new homes, some up to 5000 square feet in size just above our land. These projects are prime candidates for augmented water. Our project contains no expanded USIS. We also wish to dispute paying $260 for Mountain Cross billing for the analysis of our water quality. We paid $720 to have our water quality analvted by Acutest Labratorles in Denver. The Coloredo Department of Public Health has stated that our water meets or exceeds state requirements. We are happy to share our water analysis with the County Engineer as we know this is very valuable infonmation and can be beneficial when compared to tuture analysis. This project has been In the making since buying the property from Catherine Lucas in 200S. It was her intention as well as It Is ours to keep this location rural and remote. We are therefore arnteful for the approval from the Oirector and wish .to proceed as such and bring this project to completion. Sincerely, Dwight A. Juhl Terease E. Juht Request for Call-up -Morton Juhl Mi 7 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST PROPERTY OWNER LOCATION PROPERTY INFORMATION: ACCESS EXISTING ZONING DIRECTOR DECISION I. GENERAL INFORMATION Call-up for consideration of whether to uphold, modify or reverse the Director decision of the Administrative Review G. Thomas Morton and Dwight Juhl Bottom of Four Mile Road at 1501 and 1761 CR 117 4.72-acres County Road 117 -Four Mile Road Residential Suburban Approval with Conditions G. Thomas Morton and Dwight Juhl purchased the 4.72-acre subject property in 2005 in Joint Tenancy. --Tne siteimprovements consist of three dwelling units and several accessory structures. The three units are served by two existing wells and two individual sewage disposal systems. Access to the site is via three existing points along the 1,500' of frontage of the parcel to the County Road. 1 Request for Call-up -Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision BOCC 12/16/13 KE The owners submitted a Minor Subdivision application in July of 2013 to request subdivision of the site into two parcels so that could each be separately owned by the current Joint Tenants. A Director decision was issued on September 16, 2013, Exhibit 8, to conditionally approve the subdivision. Notice was provided as required to the Board of County Commissioners (the Board) regarding the decision, and on September 23, 2013 a request for call-up of the decision was received from the Applicant, Exhibit 5. A Public Meeting was held on October 7, 2013, at which time the Board set a date of November 18, 2013 for a public hearing to reconsider the Director decision. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicants seek to divide the 4.72-acre site into two approximately 2.4-acre parcels as indicated on the draft survey below. I • :;;:t:.:. .-'~ ;::.::-_ .. -N As you can see on the survey above the improvements are located primarily at the northern and southern portions of the site and include a dwelling unit and accessory structures at the north end, and two dwelling units and accessory structures on the southern end. Each 'pod' of development is served with permitted wells and individual sewage disposal systems. A request for a Minor Subdivision is subject to the 2013 Land Use and Development Code (LUDe) adopted by the Board, effective July 15, 2013. Section 5-301 of the LUDC provides the review process and responsibilities of the Applicant relative to submittal requirements and demonstration of compliance with minimum standards. History Planning staff has been meeting with the Applicants since 2009 regarding their request to subdivide the site. Pre-application conferences were held relative to requests for Exemption from Subdivision as contained in the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008. At that time the Comprehensive Plan of 2000 designated the site as being located within Study Area 1, Residential Medium Density which recommended density of 6 to less than 10 acres per dwelling units. The site did not comply with this deSignation and therefore the Applicants did not move forward at that time. Upon adoption of the 2 Request for Call-up -Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision BOCC 12/16/13 KE Comprehensive Plan 2030, on November 10, 2010, the site density was compliant and an application for Exemption was submitted. Initial review of the Exemption application indicated that the site did not comply with the criteria for an exemption which requires "Oivision of land by which no more than 2 parcels (one new and one remainder parcel), will be split from any parcel that was described in the records of the County Clerk and Recorder's Office as of January 1, 1973, regardless of size, so long as the resulting parcels meet the minimum lot size for the underlying zone district." The Applicant was unable to demonstrate that the site met this requirement and significant research by planning staff did not yield additional information to indicate compliance with the criteria for Exemption. Subsequent to their submittal of a Minor Exemption, the new Minor Subdivision process was being considered in code amendments that were in-process at the time so the Applicant was advised to 'convert' their application from a request for "Exemption" to a request for "Minor Subdivision" because the Applicant failed to demonstrate that they were eligible for an exemption. The submittal requirements and review process were similar and an Administrative Review resulted in the issuance of --the-DireGtor-deGision-of-approval-with-conditions~Additional-details-regarding-the-property-and-the proposed subdivision are included in a staff report contained in Exhibit 9. III. BASIS FOR THE CALL-UP The approval issued by the Director includes the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, correspondence, and meetings with county staff, shall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended or changed by the Director. 2. The Applicant has 90 days from the date of this decision, until December 16, 2013, to satisfy all conditions of approval and to submit a signed mylar compliant with this approval. The signatures required on the submitted mylar include the owners (notarized), mortgagee, title company, surveyor, and treasurer. 3. Prior to the signing of the Minor Subdivision plat, the following amendments are required: A. All easements necessary for provision of utilities shall be described on the plat. B. The plat shall be amended as itemized in the staff review letter dated August 27th and attached as Exhibit N, with the exception of Items 8 and 9. C. A note must be on the plat regarding the second driveway which will be utilized solely for emergency access. D. A note must be on the plat that 'The two wells located within this subdivision are subject to a contract for Water Augmentation that must be maintained for the life of the two wells: 4. Prior to the signing of the Minor Subdivision plat the Applicant shall submit an inventory of County listed Noxious Weeds and a Weed Management Plan for the site which shall be reviewed and determined sufficient by the County Vegetation Manager. 5. Prior to the signing of the plat the Applicant shall provide proof that a contract for water 3 Request for Call-up -Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision BOCC 12/16/13 KE augmentation has been executed and is in place to satisfy the requirement of the Division of Water Resources to mitigate a finding of "Material Injury". This plan shall be required to be maintained for the life of the wells on the parcels and shall be compliant with Division of Water Resources requirements. 6. Prior to signing of the plat the Applicant must submit all required documentation for the required Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) so that all documentation may be recorded in the correct order at concurrent times. The call-up process is provided so that the Board may reconsider a Director decision issued through an Administrative Review process. The request for call-up in this particular case results from Condition 5. which requires the Applicants contract for water augmentation to avoid the potential for material injury to existing water rights. This condition was crafted from a letter provided by the Division of Water Resources, an agency that is required by State Statute to review subdivision applications. Specifically the Division states: We have reviewed the above-referenced preliminary plan 10 subdivide a parcel of --approximately 4.72 acres-Into two resldentiallots~koH·would be 20334-acres-and would have one-single family dwelling and Lot 2 would be 2.367 acres and would have two single family dwellings. The applicant proposes to provide water to each lot through existing wells. The well on Lot 1 would have permit no. 152042 and the well on Lot 2 would have Permit No. 280605-A. Sewage disposal Is to be provided through two individual systems. The Infonmatlon provided indicates that the Intent Is to continue to use water from the wells in accordance with their current permits. The well on Lot 1 with Permit No. 152042 was issued pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(II )(a) on August 18, 1988 as the only well on a residential site of 5 t acres. The permitted use of groundwater from this well Is limited to ordinary household purposes inside a single family dwelling and the watering of the user's noncommercial domestic animals. The well on Lot 2 with Permit No. 280605-A was issued pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(0) on May 8, 2009 as a replacement and relocation of an existing well with Permit No. 280605 issued pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(5). The permitted use of ground water from this well Is limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes Inside not more than two (2) single family dwelllng(s), the watering of poultry, domestic animals and livestock on a farm or ranch and the Irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns. These uses represent the historic uses In place prior to May 8, 1972. Section 37-92-602(3)(b)(III), C.R.S., requires that the cumulative effect of ill wells In a subdivision be considered when evaluating material Injury to decreed water rights. The source of the proposed water supply would be from, or tributary to, the Colorado River. This area of the Colorado River Is over-appropriated; therefore, an augmentation plan Is required to offset depletions caused by the pumping of any wells. If the applicant Intends to use the existing wells, currentiy permitted under permit no's. 152042 & 28060S-A, to supply any portion of the subdivision, a new well permit issued pursuant to a decreed plan for augmentation will be required. The well test report by I&M Pump, Inc. dated March 11 , 2013 Indicates that the well operating under permit no. 152042 produced an average of 14.5 gallons per minute over a 4 hour period. The well operating under permit no. 260605-A produced an average of 15 gallons per minute over a 4 hour period. The water supply should be physically adequate to supply three dwellings. Please note that the long term adequacy of any ground water source may be subject to fluctuation due to hydrological and climatic trends. Pursuant to Section 30-2S-136(1)(h)(1), C.R.S., the State Engineer offers the opinion that due to the lack of an augmentation plan to offset out of priority depletions from the pumping of the well. the proposed water supply plan will cause material injury to existing water rights and is inadequale. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this malter, please contact IV8n Franco of this office for assistance. 4 Request for Call-up -Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision BOCC 12/16/13 KE The LUDC, Section 7-104, requires that all applications shall have an "Adequate, reliable, physical, longterm, and legal water supply to serve the use". Further, Section 7-104 (B)(2). includes that "A letter from the State engineer commenting on the documentation provided in the Water Supply Plan per section 4-203.M." shall be used in Board consideration of a determination of "adequate water supply". The letter from the State Engineer clearly states that the water supply associated with the subdivision is inadequate. The State Engineer's Office (SEO) administers a system for issuing groundwater well permits that allow for drilling, construction and use of a well however the SEO recognizes the priority system in place in Colorado to protect water rights. The use of augmentation is a process that assures protection of water rights while allowing issuance of a well permit for groundwater use in priority basins. The well permit holder, as opposed to the water rights holder, purchases water from a District that has stored water that can be released in the same basin to offset out of priority depletions. Water critical basins are those areas that may be subject to depletions that result in a "call" that requires all but senior water rights holders to cease use of their water. The purchase of water, known as augmentation, is a process that --allows-for-the-release-of-water-to-'augment'-the-depleted-stream-flo w5-. -Augmentation-is--<lvailable through West Divide Water Conservation District or other entities that can contract with individuals to purchase water that allows continued use of their wells. The Applicant states in their request for call-up that the Minor Subdivision process "".resulted in our having to buy augmented water even though we have two established functioning wells"." The currently issued well permits allow for the use of the groundwater and include a replacement of a 'historic use' well that was established prior to 1973 that is permitted to served two dwelling units, and for a well permitted as the only well on a 5 ±-acre parcel for household use to serve one dwelling unit. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS Should the Board determine to uphold the conditional approval issued by the Director of Community Development, staff would suggest incorporation of the following findings: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons and subject to the conditions of approval, the request for a Minor Subdivision requested by G. Thomas Morton and Dwight Juhl is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That, upon compliance with conditions of approval, the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 5 Request for Call-up -Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision BOCC 12/16/13 KE 5. That, upon compliance with conditions of approval, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code. v. BOARD DECISION The Board has three options in this call -up process: 1. Uphold the Director decision; Upholding the Director decision would allow for a finding of an adequate water supply based upon a requirement for water augmentation. 2. Modify the Director decision; Modification of the Director decision, as requested by the Applicant, would require removal of the Condition requiring augmentation and issuance of a waiver. To do so the Board must ----consider the letter-from the State-Engineer, and ultimately-make a determination that the existing water supply is adequate, despite the SED statement of material injury. The Borad of County Commissioners should be aware that moving forward in this manner will allow for the minpr subdivision but may jeopardize the Applicant's ability to convert or change these well permits in the future as this determination of adequate water supply by the Board would not affect the ability of the SED to administer the requirements of their office. Modification of the Director decision could also occur with modification to the water condition that the applicant considers hook-up to the public water supply that currently exists in CR 117. This water supply by a municipal entity would allow the Board to make a determination of an adequate water supply for the lots within the proposed subdivision. 3. Reverse the Director decision. A reversal of the Director decision would result in a denial of the application for the Minor Subdivision. 6 September 16, 2013 Dwight Juhl 1487 CR 117 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dwight@amsbasalt,com Communlty Development 108 81h Slre. l, Suil. 401, OI.llwood Spring" CO 8160 1 OCOce: 970·94~ ·8212 FII" 970·384·3470 DIRECTOR DETERMINATION -Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision Garfield County File Number MISA7583 ---Dear Dwight, This letter Is provided to you, as the authorized representative of the applloatlon for iii minor sUbdivision of property located at 1761 and 1501 CR 117. The request to subdivide the 6.72-acre site Into two parcels has been reviewed and the Director hereby Issue8 a determination conditionally approving the request. The conditione of approval are as follows: 1, That all representations made by the Applicant In the applloatlon, correspondence, and meetings with county staff, shall be considered conditione of approval unless otherwise amended or changed by the Director. 2. The Applicant has 90 days from the date of thle decision, until December 16, 2013, to satisfy all conditions of approval and to submit a elgned mylar compliant with this approval. The signatures required on the submitted mylar Include the owners (notarized), mortgagee, title company, surveyor, and treasurer. 3. Prior to the signing of the Minor Subdivision plat, the following amendments are required: A. All easements necessary for provision of utilities shall be described on the plat. B. The plat shall be amended as Itemized In the staff review letter dated August 27th and attached as Exhibit N, with the exception of Items 8 and 9. C. A note must be on the plat regarding the aecond driveway which will be utilized solely for emergency access. D. A note must be on the plat that 'The two wells located within this Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision September 16, 2013 'subdivision are subJeot to a contract for Water Augmentation that must be maintained for the life of the two welis.' 4. Prior to the signing of the Minor Subdivision plat the Applioant shali submit an Inventory of County listed Noxious Weeds and a Weed Management Plan for the site which shali be reviewed and determined sufficient by the County Vegetation Manager. 5. Prior to the signing of the plat the Applicant shall provide proof that a contact for water augmentation has been executed and Is In place to satisfy the requirement of the Division of Water Resources to mitigate a finding of "Material InJury", This plan shall be required to be maintained for the life of the wells on the paroels and shall be compliant with Division of Water Resources requirements. 6. Prior to signing of the plat the Applicant must submit ali required documentation for the required Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) so that all dooumentatlon may be recorded In the oorreot order at concurrenttlmee. Notice of this decision will be provided to the Board of County Commissioners who has the ability to 'cali-up' the application for review at a public hearing. You will be notified of the Board decision once It Is received or upon expiration of the 10 day notice period (September 26, 2013). Feel free to contact myself or Kathy Eastley, the staff planner, If you have any questions regarding this decision. Sincerely, Fred A. Jarman, ICP Director of Comm Development Attachment Co: BOCC File 2 Director Decision, September 16, 2013 Administrative Review Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision t'~ , • ,~'I :1' \"I(·"f':'·'!\'\C'.-~f.!·,1;1~.;';'>(~"~,fi,\,,' ...~ ~1'~'·"',I1,", 1-"<;";lr~~~\'Y '<·ri./i'~1.lli'r(1\·~!" .. ~~-rl~trt\d\ ,co" ''.', \.,' ",<"\.. \,;",, 4' '" ,','" "" '" ", ", ,'", "'''' '" r "", .',.;' :, •. ~\,,~,,> ''''-?i\''''~/~''':''~';'''''[l'-. ,,~,"I,') !l1'( \It));' 1~,-,~1:) ' \.1· ~.,)J,!,! }' • ~~ lIt ,\"~,:" :.: t ii. :~',,;' t .... '{ <'?~ I:' ~N':'f~ /.."( '.\~' ,:(;1, \ :, " ," ,.j 1,\ 't'r.! \1 . '. ',J ';: \' ': '. ~",," ~ ){. , {,' ~ ~t'l\ ~·1· \Ir. r.,,':1 i'V" ,'. ,'*'i,.} ~\,:~ J;-:. ~ ~I '1\' 'fly"II~" ,',I r~ ~\) ~ S'I,! " 'I; ),! (~")\ tr,\) r\ }' I~!~I i! t . "~' I ' A ",1"'1'")1J I' ' " !' "-<'\,1, f\.r} \,;::, -.l~·" __ i"'~ !<t.,{ (.;' " ',f ,h, i\ '~ 'jf:"I ~, '. ' ,'t",.: )(,,),~,: J' '\"~:I,~\.," ~J ~ . ' , ,II , ' '. t, I ,! .. ~'~l,',' < L h~ :,':'~ .)\ s.1.i.,;g~" <;,0l,n. :'";'~"'"WI'·'"IjJl "~.:\"J ", .' ,It .. ,}:,!} ~ f" , 'l·t \ ,d1i1' /, ~l~l': > ~~., I~j,~,., A Public netice Mail Receipts B Garfield Ceunty 2013 Land Use Develepment Cede C Garfield CountyCemprehensive Plan 2030, as amended D Applicatien E Staff Repert F Email dated August 8 2013 frell1 Mike Prelull • Read and Bridge G Letter dated August 2~ 2013 frem Chris Hale -Meuntain Cress EnRineerinR H Memo. dated August 20, 2013 frem Ren Biggers -Glenweed Springs FPD I Email dated August 22 2013 frem Morgan Hil l -Environmental Health J Letter dated August 22 2013 frem Steve Antheny -Vegetatien Management K Letter dated AUllust 29, 2013 frem Mellan Sullivan -Division ef Water Reseurces L Memo. dated September 12, 2013 frem Scott Aibner, County Surveyor M Email dated September 11 2013 with attachments ito.m I ony..Harrison eLCDPHK N Staff comment letter dated August 27, 2013 REQUEST APPLICANT I OWNER LOCATION SITE DATA WATER/SEWER ACCESS EXISTING ZONING Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision Administrative Decision -September 16, 2013 PROJECT INFORMATION Minor Subdivision (2 Lots) Thomas Morton and Dwight Juhl South of Glenwood Springs on west side of CR 117 at the base of Four Mile Road 5.72-acres; Parcel No. 2185-272-00-011 Existing Wells and Septic Systems CR 117, aka Four Mile Road Residential Suburban !!!III!!III' --~S]TA~F:fF:JRi!E~G~Olt!M~MD1E~N!,!;D~A!ITI!,!;O~N!---Approval with-Conditions PROPOSAL 1 The 5.72-acre parcel Is owned by tenants-Incommon who seek to divide the parcel to allow for Individual ownership of divided portions of the site. Currently there are three dwelling units, two wells, two septic systems and three driveways located on the site which would allow for the two lots proposed to exist independently. II REFERRAL COMMENTS Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision Administrative Decision -September 16, 2013 Staff referred the application to the following agencies/County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are attached as exhibits and Incorporated into the memorandum where applicable. a. Road & Bridge: EXHIBIT F b. County Vegetation: EXHIBIT J c. Environmental Health: EXHIBIT I d. Glenwood Springs Fire District: EXHIBIT H e. City of Glenwood Springs: No comments received f. Mountain Cross Engineering: EXHIBIT G g. Division of Water Resources: EXHIBIT K h. County Surveyor: Exhibit L I. CDPHE: Exhibit M 11/RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property Is located within the Urban Growth Area of the City of Glenwood Springs, as shown right. A referral was sent to-the Clty-but-no received. The City's Future land Use Plan, below, Indicates that this area Is appropriate for low density residential development L.g.nd * _ Hlghw.y -cnv611.1'. -Oount)' Aoodt • "lV"t Downtown 0 Pllttl, ~ Con •• rv,lIon ~ • P.rII. OPtn 8PfC1 ,,,onotry C,mer r J Low OtntRy "t.ldtntl,I ~:t C"" L'''''' "no~.t.""y .II, .. nu"11 -VIDen Orowth SOUnd.1V • Mu1tl.fJmllv ftfll\ft nllil C BIUt Lin. ., Mlx.CI.ut. • 8 ' u" ... aluuY""tI • Downtown 'II"¢--_ C DownIown O. vtlQ9mtl'tt APbIorIly Bound.ry • Comfl'llrGl.1 , i"/. H"IIICft Prt.,rv. llon • !odulltltI ,~ RIv.,lIo. PrOlfcllon 2 IV REVIEW CRITERIA 5-301 C. Review Criteria. Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision Administrative Decision -September 16, 2013 1. It complies with the requirements of the applicable zone district and this Code. Staff Comment: The lots proposed to be created by the subdivision of the site comply with the minimum lot size requirements in the Residential Suburban zone district but do not comply with other zone district requirements with regard to setbacks and the number of dwelling units per parcel. Several of these nonconformities are legal, pre-existing uses and structures while others require some measure to assure compliance. These measures include an Encroachment Agreement with County Road & Bridge and a Boundary Line Adjustment with 'the neighbor to the east to assure that an existing home is located wholly on property owned by the applicant and is compliant with setbacks. Staff is recommending conditions of approval to cure these deficiencies. The conditions must be satisfied prior to Board signature of the plat. 2. It is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The site, adjacent to the City of Glenwood Springs, is located within the Urban Growth Boundary as delineated on the Future Land Use Map of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030. The City of Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan envisions this area as Low Density ReSidential which is consistent with this proposal. 3. Shows satisfactory evidence of a legal, physical, adequate, and dependable water supply for each lot. Staff Comment: Each proposed parcel contains a household-use only well permit issued by the Division of Water Resources (DWR) and pump tests and water quality analysis has occurred to demonstrate sufficient legal and physical water to serve the sites. A referral to the DWR resulted in comments found in Exhibit K, which state that "material injury" will result without augmentation of these wells. This is due to the fact that the household only status of the wells requires that they serve a 5.72-acre parcel -the conversion of the wells to serve a 'SUbdivision' results in additional analysis of the use. It is this additional analysiS that results in a requirement that an Augmentation be in place. The Applicant has been referred to Janet Maddock of the West Divide Water Conservation District to commence this augmentation process. A condition of approval is recommended requiring this plan be in place prior to Board signature of the plat. 4. Satisfactory evidence of adequate and legal access has been provided. 3 Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision Administrative Decision -September 16, 2013 Staff Comment: Road and Bridge was requested to review this application and provide comments regarding the existing accesses to the site. Comments received are included as Exhibit F. It appears that proposed Parcel 1 has two existing driveways, one of which will be utilized for emergency purposes. The driveway to serve Parcel 2 currently meets Road & Bridge standards. Staff recommends a condition that requires the second driveway on Parcel 1 to serve as Emergency access. 5. Any necessary easements including, but not limited to, drainage, irrigation, utility, road, and water service have been obtained. Staff Comment: All improvements, including utilities and access, are currently in place. 6, The proposed Subdivision has the ability to provide an adequate sewage disposal system. Staff Comment: Existing sewage disposal systems have been permitted by Garfield County and appear to be sufficient for the dwellings currently existing on the site. 7, Hazards identified on the property such as, but not limited to, fire, flood, steep slopes, rockfall and poor soils, shall be mitigated, to the ex1ent practicable. Staff Comment: There do not appear to be any identified hazards on the property. 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. Staff Comment: All infrastructure is currently existing on the sites. 9. All taxes applicable to the land have been paid, as certified by the County Treasurer's Office. Staff Comment: 10, All fees, including road impact and school land dedication fees, shall be paid. Staff Comment: These fees are not applicable to the site as the dwelling units are currently in existence. 11 , The Final Plat meets the requirements p.er section 5-402.F., Final Plat. 4 Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision Administrative Decision -September 16, 2013 Staff Comment: Staff has provided requirements for amendment to the proposed plat, Exhibit N, and these recommended as condition of approval. . V ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Correction of Existing Deficiencies -One of the homes on the site does not exist wholly on the subject parcel and does not comply with required setbacks. Once structure encroaches into the right-of-way. These deficiencies can be adequately addressed and corrected to the extent possible with completion of a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) and Encroachment Agreement with Road & Bridge. B. Pre-existing, non-conforming uses and structures due to the fact that three dwelling units exist on the site, one of which is a single·wide trailer. A plat note is recommended as a condition of approval to provide notice regarding any expansion or replacement of these non-conformities. C. Compliance with water quality and quantity, both legal and physical. The Division of Water Resources states that ongoing use of the existing permitted wells on the site will result in "Material Injury" and therefore requires augmentation. Applicant will be required to demonstrate acquisition of -augmentation-as-a-conditionof-approval,prior-to-Board-signatureon-the-pJat. D. A noxious weed map and inventory is required to be submitted and if weeds are present on the site a Weed Management Plan will be required. See Exhibit J for additional details. VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper notice was provided to adjacent property owners as required by the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code; 2. That the administrative review was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that adjacent property owners had the ability to be heard regarding this request; 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Minor Subdivision may be determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County if recommended conditions of approval are satisfied; 4. That, upon satisfaction of conditions of approval, the application is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of 2030, as amended. 5. That, upon satisfaction of conditions of approval, the application has met the requirements of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code. VI STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed Minor Subdivision will comply with the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code if conditions of approval are satisfied. Staff recommends that 5 Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision Administrative Decision -September 16, 2013 the Director of Community Development approve the Morton/Juhl Minor Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, correspondence, and meetings with county staff, shall be considered conditions of approval consistent with the Director decision. 2. The Applicant has 90 days to satisfy all conditions of approval and submit a signed mylar compliant with this approval. The signatures required on the submitted mylar include the owners (notarized), mortgagee, title company, surveyor, and treasurer. 3. Prior to the signing of the Minor Subdivision plat, the following amendments are required: A. All easements necessary for provision of utilities shall be described on the plat. B. The plat shall be amended as itemized in the staff review letter dated August 27'h and attached as Exhibit N, with the exception of Items 8 and 9. C. A note must be on the plat regarding the second driveway which will be ______ utilized solely for emergency aGGess. -------------D. A note must be on the plat that an Augmentation Plan is in place for the two wells on the site. 4. Prior to the Signing of the Minor Subdivision plat the Applicant shall submit an inventory of County Listed Noxious Weeds and a Weed Management Plan for the site which shall be reviewed and determined sufficient by the County Vegetation Manager. 5. Prior to the signing of the plat the Applicant shall provide proof for a water augmentation plan that satisfies the requirement of the Division of Water Resources to mitigate a finding of "Material Injury". This plan shall be required to be maintained for the life of the wells on the parcels and compliant with Division of Water Resources requirements. 6. Prior to signing of the plat the applicant must submit all required documentation for the required Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) so that all documentation may be recorded in the correct order at concurrent times. 6 Prom, To, •• bjoct, D.'t' Mlchag! pcthm Kathy A E';Slev J.hl/MOrton Minor SubdM.'on Thur"'y, Augu ~ OS, 2013 3:00:32 PM •.. -------.--~---.. ----Kathy, Plrcel 1 hili 35' driveway thlt Is currently being used to access I glrage. Vehicles are plrklng Just off the road and have to back out onto 4·Mlle road, It Is kind of dangerous. Not sure Inythlng can be done beceuse their Is not much room to alter It. The proposed driveway for parcell I. a single rOld with a gate. Not uHd very often. I can lee this would be the only access to the rest of the property. Would like to see 8 driveway permit pulled for this one to get It up to code. parcel 2 have a driveway that currently meets Road & Bridge Standards. Have no concerns with It. Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman/Glenwood District (970) 945·1223 Office (970) 945·1318 Fax, August 20, 2013 Ms, Knthy Eastley Gal'flelc1 County PlalUlinll 108 glh SII'eet, Suito 401 Olenwood Springs, CO 8160 I _ . . ... ---~t~ RE: Juhl MOl'ton Mlnol' Subdivision: MISA·7S83 MOUNTI\IN CROSS fN(JINfERIN(J, INC. Civil and Envlronm.ntal Consulting and o •• lgn Gr ' , \ , _ d -.-.'-. ·.~ :I _ --Dcftl'Kathy::------------------------This office has performed a rcview of the dOCI1l11ents provided fol' the Minor Subdivision Application fOI' the Mli MOlion Subdivision, The submittal was found to be th01'Ough and well organized, The following comments were generated: I, The appllcatlonmatel'ial provide a septic system permit for OIliy one of the two septic systems, The Applicant does provided nn inspection report fOI' both systems showing that they seem to be in good condition howevel', the Applicant should address the adequacy of the second system size. 2, The application materials did not provide test results for radlologloal analysis of the wells, 3, The water quality analysis was provided for only one well. The Applicant shOllld address the watel' qllallty of the second welL 4. The wator quality results showed somo contaminant levels above I'ecommended limits, The AppHcftnt should addl'css proposed watel'treatment, S, No Information was Inoilided In the appllcatlonmatel'ial s for the existing dl'iveway aocesses, The Applicant should coordinate with I'ond nnd bl'idgc fol' any pel'mits 01' conditions that might be necesSPl'Y, ' Peel free to call If YOIl have any questions 01' comments, Sincerely, Irlnf' Mo." b, c=:' &0:[ Chl'is Hale, PE 826 y, Grand Av.nu., Glonwood Spring., CO 61601 P: 970,946,6644 F: 970,946,6558 www.mount.lncro •• ·.ng.oom 1-/August 20, 2013 To: Kethy Eastley, Gerfleld County Planner From: Ron Biggers, oeputy Fire Marshal, Glenwood Springs Fire Department RE: Project name, Juhl Morton Minor Subdivision, type of application minor subdivision, applicant Juhl Morton, contact person Dwlgth Juhl,-locatlon-1761-and 1487 CR-117, request to subdivide 4,72 acres-Into two 2.3 t /. lots. Comments! Because the buildings and emeraency assesses on the site are preexisting and the applicant does not plan on adding new building the staff of the City of Glenwood Sprlnas Fire Department does not have any comments on this application. However should the Garfield County officials approve this subdivision, on the subdivision documentation of record It shall state the following: Copies of plans that are submitted to the Garfield County Planning and or Building Department for chanses to one or both new parcels, they shall also be submitted to the Cltv of Glenwood Springs Fire Department for review and comments. 101 WEST 8TH STRBBT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 970·384·6480 PAX 970·945·8506 frOM. TO. lubJect. Dltll HI Kathy, MgrgOQ Hili KAthy A FUlley 'uhl Morton Minor SubdM.,on Thurld.y, AugUI! ll, l013 9:l8:l8 AM --------,-I don't have many comments for the Juhl Morton Minor Subdivision as It seems there will be no new structures or lind disturbance as a result of the property division, It appears the applicant has proper documentation for their Onslte Wastewlter Treatment Systems and drlnkln, water wells that will support the exlstln, uses for current residents, Please continue to conduct resular maintenance and sampling on private drinking water wells that will Include annual testlns for fecal coliform bacteria, nitrates/nitrites, and TDS, Septic tanks should also be pumped as needed, Are there any future construction plans as I result of the subdivision of these two parcels that would result In new lend'dlsturbance? Thanks, ------'-' MO'911H HilI Environmental Health Specialist II Garfield County Public Health 195 W, 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 Phon.: (970) 665·6383 Email: mhlll(fiarfleld·county.com www.garfleld·county.com/envlronmenta I· hea Ith GarfleldCounty VeRetatlon Manallement August 22,2013 Kathy Eutley Garfield County Communlly Development Department RE: Juhl Minor Subdivision O •• r Kathy, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit, ------~----------------------------Noxlou. weed. map & Inventory Steff request. tIlat the applicant provide a noxioul weed map and Inv.ntory of III Garfield County lI.t.d noxlou. weed" The ourrant list II attaohed, Of particular concern on this lit. are Dalmatian 10ldflax, and po .. lbly plumer ... thl,lIe and mUlk thlltle. Weed management plan PI.aae provide a weed management plan thet wilt addrelS the tr.atm. nt of any Inventoried noxioul weeda found on Ille. Please let m. know II you hive any qUllllon •. S:z~~ Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0378 County Road 352, aldg 2080 Rlfl., CO 81850 Phone: 870084801377 x 4301 'lxl t70·828·8939 GARFIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST Common name Leafy spurge Russian knapweed Yellow starthistle Plumeless thistle Houndstongue Common burdock Scotch thistle Canada thistle -Spotted knapweed Diffuse knapweed Dalmation toad flaxYeHow toadflax Hoaryeress Salteedar Saltcedar Oxeye Daisy Jointed Goatgrass Chicory Musk thistle Purple loosestrife Russian olive Scientific name Euphorbia esula Acroptilon repens Centaurea solstitalis Carduus acanthoides Cynog/ossum officina/e Arctium minus Onopordum acanthium Cirsium arvense Centaurea maclI/osa CentallreadijfiJsa linaria da/matica -Linaria vulgaris Cardaria draba Tamarix parvijlora Tamarix ramosissima Chrysanthemum lellcantheum Aegilops cy/indrica Cichorium intybus Cardllus nutans Lythrum salicaria E/aeagnus angustifolia Dl!PARTMBNT OF NATURAL RBSOURCBS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES August29,2013 Kathy Eaatley Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8111 Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 84601 Dear Mre. Eastley, Re: Juhl Morton Minor Subdivision . Section 27, T6S, R89W, 6th PM -Weter-Dlvlslon 5, Water Dlstrlct~8 lohn W. Hlck,nloop" Covomor Mil<. !(jng Bxecutlvo-Olr.dor Dick Wolle, P.B. Dlrector/Stato Bnglneer We have reviewed the above·referenced preliminary plan to subdivide a parcel of approximately 4.72 80reslnto two residential lots, Lot 1 would be 2.334 aores and would have one ,Ingle family dwelling and Lot 2 would be 2.367 8crea and would have two single family dwellings. The applicant proposes to provide water to eaoh lot through existing wells, The well on Lot 1 would have permit no. 162042 and the well on Lot 2 would have Permit No. 260eOS·A. Sewage disposal Is to be provided through two Individual systems, The Information provided Indicates that the Intent Is to continue to use water from the wells In acoordance with their current permits. The well on Lot 1 with Permit No. 152042 wae lssued pursuant to CRS 37·92·802(3)(b)(II)(a) on Augult 18, 1988 as the only well on a residential site of 5 :I: acres. The permlHed u .. of groundwater from this well Is limited to ordinary household purposes Inside a single family dwelling and the watering of the user', noncommercial domestlo animals, The well on Lot 2 with Permit No. 28080S·A was Issued pursuant to CRS 37·92·602(3)(0) on May 8, 2009 8S a replaoement and relooatlon of an existing well with Permit No. 280605 Issued purauant to CRS 37·92·602(11). The permitted use of ground water from this Willi, limited to fire proteCtion, ordinary household purposes Inside not more than two (2) single family dwelllng(I), the watering of poultry, domestlo animals and livestock on a farm or ranoh and the Irrigation of not more than one (1) aore of home gardens and lawns, Theae uses represent the hlstorlo uses In place prior to May 8, 1972. Section 37·92·602(3)(b)(III), C.R.S" requires that the oumulatlve effeot 01 ill wells In a subdlvilion be considered when evaluating material InJury to deoreed water rlghtl, The source of the propoaed water supply would be from, or tributary to, the Colorado River. Thla area of the Colorado River II over·approprlated; therefore, an augmentation plan Ie required to offset depletions caused by the pumping of any weill. If the applloant Intends to use the existing welle, currently permlHed under permit no's. 1152042 & 260605·A, to supply any portion of the lubdlvlslon, a new well permit l88ued pursuant to a decreed plan for augmentation will be required. Olllee of Ihe Sial. Enslneer 1313 Sherman Sireet, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866·3'81 • Fax: 303·866·3'89 http://water .• tato.co.u. Juhl Morton Minor Subdivision August 29, 2013 Page 2 of2 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES The well test report by I&M Pump, Inc. dated March 11, 2013 Indicates that the well operating under perm~ no. 152042 produced an average of 14.5 gallons per minute over a 4 hour period. The well operating under permit no. 280605-A produced an average of 15 gallons per minute over a 4 hour period. The water supply should be physically adequate to supply three dwellings. Please note that the long term adequacy of any ground water source may be subject to fluctuation due to hydrological and climatic trends. Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(1), C.R.S., the State Engineer offers the opinion that due to the lack of an augmentation plan to offset out of priority depletions from the pumping of the well, the proposed water supply plan will cause material injury to existing water rights and is inadequate. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Ivan Franco of this office for assistance. Sincerely, --Megan Sullivan, P.E. HIF: Juhl Morton Minor Subdlvlslon .docx cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Water Commissioner, District 38 Water Resource Engineer To: From: Subject: Dllte: Scott, Scott Blackard · Sexton Survey Company Scott Aibner -Oarlleld County Surveyor Garfield County SURVEYOR SCOTT AIBNER, P.L.S Plat Review -Morton /luhl Subdivision Exemption 09/12/2013 L--Upon review of the MOl10n /luhl Subdivision Exemption plat, I have no comments or corrections to be made prior to approval for survey content and form. Once ali flnal comments from the Community Development Department have been completed, the Mylar may be prepared for recording. The Mylar shall be delivered to the Community Development Department office with all private party signatures no later than Monday the week prior to the next oommlssloner meeting day In order to make that meeting. Sincerely, Scott Albner Oal'field County Surveyor cc Kathy Baslley -Community Development Department 109 81h Slml.Sltlte 100B. Oltllwood Sprlllgs. C08160l' (970)945·1 m. e'/IIall:salbller@gar/leld,co'flltyco/il Froml To. te. .. bjoct. Dltll Atllchmlnttl HaccMn . CpPHC Tony KOlby A EAgley QfceodpgB45J2@gooOt! com FWd: FW: Rldlochemlst:y report Wednlld,y, September 11, 2013 10:30:32 AM d9 SZ§9x.pdf d45Z69 pdf EXHIEJlr ,f IV! Good morning Ms, Eastley, I have reviewed the attached chemistry reports, and find that none of the results for the regulated analytes exceed their respective Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs) for public water supplies, The labs that did the analyses (Accutest for the Inorganic analyses and Hazen Research for the radiological analyses) are certified by the State of Colorado to perform the analyses on drinking water samples, and have been shown to provide accurate results for the tests In question. My understanding from Mr. Juhlls that the wells In question will not provide water to more than two households, and therefore would not be regulated (at least by the State) as public water supplies, so I am not sure why such extensive testing Is required, If Garfield County has It's own drinking water requirements I'd be happy to compare the results to those limits, If you could provide a link to them. ---I hope this satisfies your requirements. If you have any questions or concerns about any of this Information, or If I can be of service In any other way, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Tony Harrison, MSPH Inorganic & Radiochemistry Supervisor Laboratory Services Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 8100 Lowry Blvd. Denver, CO 80230 303 ·692·3046 I tony harrl'QQ@$!atecQ II • •••••••••• Forwarded message •••••••••• . From: Dwight luhl <~reeOdQ~B4532@gmall . com> Date: Wed, Sep 11, 20 3 at 9: 8 AM Subject: Fwd: FW: Radiochemistry report To: tonl'.harrisoo@state.co.lJs HI Tony, Thanks for looking at my wilier test results from Accutest. The contact person at Garfield County Planning Is Kathy Eastley, AICP, Senior Planner, Garfield County Community Development, 108 8TH Street, Glenwood Springs, Co., 81601. Phone 1·970·945·1377 ext. 1580. Email (keastley@garfleld·county.cooo).My contact Information Is Dwight Juhl, 1761 County Road117 , Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601. Phone 1·970·618·2075. I look forward to your response. Thank You, Dwight Forwarded message •••••••••• From: Shea GreIner <SheaG@accutest.cooo> Date: Tu~.~ep 10,2013 at 12:10 PM Subject: I"W: Radiochemistry report To: "greendog84532@gmaU,com" <greendog84532@gmaj!.cooo> Also attached is your original 1st report, Prom: Shea Greiner Sant: Tuesday, September 10, 20138:58 AM To: IdWlght~amsbasalt.coml Subject: Rafochemlstry report You Radlochemlsty report Is attached. Also attached are forms showing any standards for the testing you did. Please refer to the MCI. column on the forms for the regulated standard, For your other report, any regulated standards that exist are shown on the report of analysis pages. The column headed MCI. (maximum contaminant level) on the report of analysis pages, shows the state standard for the analyte. Where there Is nothing Shown, there Is not a regulated standard. Thanks, Shea f1t l~ IrwsID: ~-Ir......-....: , n..o.o ~II ......., DR L:Ib s-pIe ID Radios .. tides Cell tified I.ahoI2tory Report Form WQCD -Drioking Water CASi 4300 Cheny Creek Drive SouIh; Denver. CO 802~1530 Fax: (303) 758-1398: cdnbe.drinldJLowalcrtOlstate.c<u'" ~ r .be 1 4"" '4""; • t f -------.,~--"',...-w... Aaa\yb: Name (Code) Jpduding Ur.ooioom (4002) rombiDcd u.:.m.m (4806) ..... -226 (4020) IbdimD -223 (4Q30) "'" , " .. y. CAS No. 744O.1il_1 I I I I • .-"""",¥Od SoIioIs (l93O) :n.c l.tCL h Gross Bela P.cicIe.Adivil:y is 4 -cW)ea-SiDoe6ae is DO.siIIde c:c.¥Cisica 'I""; • Revision 6141), RAD -" Lat :atw~ bJafoo"". .._ • ADaIyIicaI Mc:dood TJIIc Dolo: MCL jxa.MDLI _ NlA 30ugIL NIA "NiA I SOpCjIL* NlA UIItSicJe,s SO oCiIL ID be 1be Ic:vd NlA I Gross AIpba Eo· L. fi '" " I. CaImJocrdV_ CaJmhtrd Valac 115 pCjIL I NlA SpCjIL NlA Technical Report for Client Dwight Juhl Accutest Job Number: D45769X Samplfng Date: 05/01113 Report to: 1761 COun!y Road 117 Glenwood Splings, CO 81601 ATIN: Dwight Juhl Total number of pages In report: 13 Tt.1 ,..ulll COlli.lned wllhln thtl dall plckia' mlltlM reqlllrementl of lhe N' UI)f1.1 Bnvlronm9nlll L.bor.lory Acc:rtdll.Uon Con~t4!nc' Ind/or .Itle .pcclfle cetURnUon proar.mJ IS .ppllnblo, Client Service contact: Renea Jackson 303·425·6021 p~~ Scott Heideman Laboratory Director CorunCllionll co (COOOOII), m, NE (COOOOII), NO (R,Om, NJ (CO 0007), OK (09111), VT (NBLAP COoooII), TX (TI0110111l) 'Illi' rlport .hllllKlt be rtproducdj cllcllplln '15 enllrelY, wllhou! the wrluen IpproViI oC ACCliltsl uboll\orle •• Tut ruulll reilio only 10 umpl .. Inalyzed, M"nl"n Sill" • 1031 V."8n,'d SI, • Whul Rid", co 80033,3812 ' III: 303·411·8011 ' r .. : 303·111·8151 ' hIlP://IWIW,tclUl,,',com 1m 10f13 A~~L\ICSr t.llbor~lorlu I~ Ihe 6oll! Ilullwn l~ tor IIlIlhurh:inu ed its or IIlrdIHclIlIUI1' 10 Inl.~ ~O~~T~~1i IIUCllIlll!lll, UltHtllhorlll.'U moollklillull ol'lhlft 1'~ llnrl I ~' ~irle l ty pmhihl tcd, P4U@9X I . .... .... , •• Table of Contents Se~tlons: -1 -Section I: Sample Summary 3 Section ~! Snn11))c ItcsuU-s ....... ~. t!\ ..... . ... ,, ~ ..... V ••• \H •• ~\t'!. .. ' \ t \ ._ ..... ~t'. • • v .,.tv ••. ~\ ... ~. \. tH ... . .. ......... ..... . .. . . 4 .it'fJiUH \: 1\'11'\\' II'ot'lIt' ...... " .......................... " .. " .~ .... " ... " .. , ..... . ,,, '" .. ..... ', ._ ... ...... ·.". "1 .. J. l: Chain of Custody .. "."' ... '.,' ...... ,.' ... '. ," .. "', .... " ... ,.,.,." .. ,,,, .. ,., .. ,., .. , ...... ,., .................... ,," 6 I I Acculul Laboralorlel Cllenl Dwlghl Juhl Samplo Collootod Number Dalo Tlmo By D45169.1X 01/01/13 15:30 DJ Sample Summary Job No: Mllrlx Cliont Reoelved Codo Typo Samplo ID 01/02/13 OW Drinking Waler WELL 280605A I Dm60X • [iiI ~ gf 13 AOg u T/=ST. 1?19 7D(I~ I .... " ....... . • Mountain State~ • ACCUTES"iIt LA EI 0 R" TOR 1 '~ '8' Sample Results Report of Analysis II l till 4 <1113 A ClClU TI5BT. I}"prgt)j ,~U U ' H'" Mountain stat~s; . _. J ACC UTE~~': L " 0 0 A f\ T 0 RH-! 'ii~ ~ of' Misc. Forms Custody Documents and Other Forms Includes the following where applicable: • Chain of Custody '-'-, I j ft i r f I 1 · " f , 1 t ~ ~ .f t~ II -tl-· " » I J J •J i" I ~~ I I ·t 1 J 'i --r hi I I. I ~ ----_.._ --", m~ I all I i lUi M J " ;8 I Ji .. I!, If I -ju/-~ ~ J j I 0457(19<'(: e iIUII! ofClIsto\lY \'Rf:\C lo\,ll ~. I~CCUTEST. ~ ..... . u ............... I.U •• •...•.• CHAIN OF CUSTODY ~O'd Youn.n,ld II" Wh,,1 IUdlt, co 100" 1010411.1011 PAX, 1 0' ~1l.61l 4 IIt"S ow • ~ .. .. ,,' r& .' ~ . . .. ",provtcl~ CJ OI1I.. _(0,,'1 O'mI'U "" l "~ C O.III,.ot Cit!! CltllYmbl. a ·. OOfllrulOt., ~'N~ C ',"Ironl, DtNVI~1 ·HI.'~ I'I;tcfmll'I." I:J '101' ,."'. ,uIlTIt,1 CI OI~ .. ('pt .. ttI 1.',19 Jh"~A . , ~'.U' I'" " .... " .,.. ~""'" or' ~.~"" ' , ' , I ,. Ind IILI, I"'" 5.,,.., .ALl ~ • '0. ....., !;' D45769X: Chnln of CUNio!!), l'ngc 2 01' II • IID 7 gl 1~ AClp UTe~T. 01071lO)§ , .. " •• , .. , •• D~5769X! Chnin of Cllstody 1'\lgC 3 of II I~ 8 of1 ~ AooUTSE\To Q ~ ~lI}QX , .. ~ ... ... ". , , " •.• I I •. . IIIH.lIII ."" -.11111 D45769}{: Chlliu 01' Custody I'llgo" of!l I 9 of 13 Ac:>c:>UT!iiBT. 912799)< ,~ u ... n"". '::l J IC IA 'D,o II t 3 '. ~ ~ .' ........... -... -.. " .... , ...... ~ ....... , -. ~ ... " ...... , .......... , .. , ,,, ' ' ' , I•, J ' ~II 'I I I II I '0 I I 1111 I -~. ···t. , " • • , 0' 1>45769X: Chnin of c ustody I'Rlle 5 (If II ~., -" ---045769X: Chilli' 01' CIlstlldy I'ngc (, of II I , 110113 AOClUTS§T. Q<10700X , •• " . . .... , •• CHAIN OF CUSTODY J)45769X: Chiliu 01' CIIS(O!!Y I'ngo 7 01' II 1 'J I '; 1111: i I II I {iJ . I 1· D45769X: Chili .. of CUNI'ody I'nge R of R IIIil 13 gf13 P.oClUTE!!ef. D~31110)( , .......... ". August27,2013 Dwight Juhl Dwight@amsbasalt.com ld Co".""" Community Development lOS Sih Slr"l, Suil. 401, Olenwood Sprlnjs, CO gl601 am co: 970·945-8212 Fax: 970·3S'·3470 Reference: Minor Subdivision Application -Garfield County File No, MISA-7583 Dwight; N In addition the referral comments that I have forwarded to you please amend the plat as follows: 1. The title of the Plat should reflect "Minor Subdivision" rather thaQExemptlon, 2. The plat certificates should be amended pursuant to the attached certificates, 3. A second notary seal should be placed In the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership In oase the two owners don't sign at the same time. 4. Please verify that all standard plat notes, as Indloated on the attached paperwork, are Included on this plat. 5. The encroachment of the southern home onto the adjacent property cannot be shown on the plat, Instead please move the lot line (Including required setbacks from the struotures) to which the adjacent owner has agreed, and note "Boundary Line Adjustment recorded at Reception No. _ _ ". This BLA must be recorded along with the plat. I am assuming that the northern BLA will be recorded along with the plat as well. 6. A plat note must be crafted regarding the second unit on Parcel 2 -that It may not be replaced, altered or modified without first receiving a Land Use Change Permit from Garfield County for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. 7. The encroachment of the northern structure Into the right-of-way must be addressed with a plat note holding the County harmless In any damage resulting from this enoroachment. In addition, County Road & Bridge may require an Encroachment Agreement. B. Water quality analysis on the well on Parcel 2 does not appear to meet state standards. This must be addressed -perhaps some water treatment process could rectify the Issue. Please consult with appropriate professionals to address this situation. 9. The well on Parcel 1 was not tested with regard to water quality. This must be completed to determine compliance with water quality standards. If this well Is similar to the one on Parcel 2 It may result In a requirement for water treatment . The Dlreotor Decision will be Issued on September 16th therefore these Issues need to be addressed as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. cc: File Scott Blackard via email EXHIBIT J 10 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES November 15, 2013 Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 84601 Dear Ms. Eastley: Re: Juhl Morton Minor Subdivision Section 27, T6S, R89W, 6th PM Water Division 5, Water District 38 John w. Hicken!ooper Governor Mike King Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Directo r/State Enginccr This letter is a follow-up to our letter of August 29, 2013 regarding the proposed Juhl Morton Minor Subdivision. According to the information from the referral, the proposed water supply for this two lot minor subdivision are two wells, currently permitted as Permit No. 152042 and Permit No. 280605-A. Permit No. 152042, which is to be located on proposed Lot 1, was issued pursuant to C.R.S. §37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A) on August 18,1988 as the only well on a residential site of 5 ± acres. The permitted use of groundwater from this well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside a single family dwelling and the watering of the user's noncommercial domestic animals. For wells operating under permits issued pursuant to CRS §37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A), there is a presumption that there will not be material injury to the vested water rights of others. The well on Lot 2 with Permit No. 280605-A was issued pursuant to CRS § 37-92-602(3)(c) on May 8, 2009 as a replacement and relocation of an existing well with Permit No. 280605. The permitted use of ground water from this well is limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside not more than two (2) single family dwelling(s), the watering of poultry, domestic animals and livestock on a farm or ranch and the irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns. These uses represent the historic uses in place prior to May 8, 1972. Since, according to information you provided us that this project is not an exemption to subdivision regulations, the water supply for this proposed subdivision was reviewed under applicable policies and statutes, including State Engineer's Policy 2011-1 and C.R.S. §37 -92-602(3)(b )(111). Pursuant to C.R.S. 37-92-602(3)(b)(III), the State Engineer shall consider the cumulative effect of all wells which would be located in a subdivision as defined in C.R.S. 30-28-101 (1 0), in determining injury to decreed water rights. As described in the State Engineer's Policy 2011-1, if the parcel is subdivided, the presumption under C.R.S. 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A), that there will not be Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 . Denver, CO 80203 . Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 http://water.state.co.us DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Building and Planning Department Juhl Morton Minor Subdivision November 15, 2013 Page 2 of 2 material injury to the vested water rights of others from such well, will no longer apply and that any well, existing or proposed, in a proposed subdivision will be presumed to cause injury. The wells in this proposed subdivision withdraw ground water hydraulically connected to the Colorado River. When operating, the wells remove or deplete a certain amount of water that normally contributes to the flow in the Colorado River. In terms of administration of the Water Rights Prior Appropriation System in Colorado, the Colorado River is over-appropriated and many times during the year, there is insufficient water available to satisfy all water rights in the basin. As such, during this time only water rights with a senior priority are allowed to appropriate water. When junior appropriators (such as the wells of this proposed subdivision) operate at times when there is insufficient water, they are withdrawing water out-of-priority. Without the presumption of non-injury offered under C.R.S. 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A), and according to the State Engineer's Policy, the wells of the proposed subdivision will be causing material injury to senior water rights by diverting out-of-priority. Therefore, an augmentation plan is required to offset depletions caused by the pumping of all wells within the subdivision boundaries. If you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please me for assistance. Juhl Morton Minor Subdivision2.docx cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Water Commissioner, District 38 Sincerely, Megan Sullivan, P.E. Water Resource Engineer BEFORE THE EXHIBIT GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ [I NOVEMBER 18, 2013 J -:...----CONSIDER A REQUEST TO RECONSIDER A DIRECTOR DECISION, ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2013, TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE MORTON JUHL MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION. THE APPLICANTS REQUEST THAT THE BOARD REMOVE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL RELATED TO A REQUIREMENT FOR AUGMENTATION OF THE TWO WELLS ON THE SITE . . APPEARANCES: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: COUNTY MANAGER JOHN MARTIN -CHAIRMAN MIKE SAMSON TOM JANKOVSKY ANDREW GORGEY DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: FRED JARMAN SENIOR COUNTY PLANNER PROGRAM MANAGER COUNTY ATTORNEY ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY CLERK & RECORDER TRANSCRIPT BY: MARIAN L. CLAYTON KATHY EASTLEY TAMRAALLEN FRANK HUTFLESS CAREY CAGNON JEAN ALBERICO DEPUTY CLERK TO THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IV APPLICANTS: SPEAKER: KEVIN REIN G. THOMAS MORTON DWIGHT JUHL DEPUTY ENGINEER-DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18,2013 Testimony a. Consider a request to reconsider a Director decision, issued on September 16,2013, to conditionally approve the Morton Juhl Minor Subdivision application. The Applicants request that the Board remove a condition of approval related to a requirement for augmentation of the two wells on the site. The site is located at 1501 and 1761 CR 117 and the Applicants are G.Thomas Morton and Dwight Juhl. -Kathy Eastley (Activated at 04:06:21) attachment_Morton_Juhl_Call-Up_submittaUnformat ion (Activated at 04:06:27) attachment_Morton_Juhl_Call-Up_stafUeport_and_exhibits 2 Public Haa ring : 3 Chairman Martin -This is a noticed public hearing and who was in charge of the 4 notice was it the staff or the applicant. 5 Kathy Eastley -It was the staff. 6 Chairman Martin -All right, do we have questions in reference to that hearing of 7 the notification. Counsel, would you ask those questions. 8 Carey Gagnon -Notice for this hearing required mailing to the adjacent property 9 owners as well as posting on the property. Page 1 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18,2013 Testimony 10 Kathy Eastley -My understanding is that the notice requirements were the same 11 requirements for the Administrative Review process which is the adjacent property 12 owners. 13 Chairman Martin -Counsel. This is a call up and we'll need to go under that 14 procedure. 15 Carey Gagnon -This is a call up so I have according to the Table 4-102 that 16 exactly as you stated notice is required as per the original application but pursuant to 17 Table 5-103 as a Minor Subdivision that it requires that it be both mailed and posted. 18 Kathy Eastley -Is this under the old Code? 19 Frank Hutfless -Mr. Chairman could we have just a few minutes to resolve this 20 issue please? 21 Chairman Martin -Yes you may. 22 Frank Hutfless -Thank you. 23 Chairman Martin -Thank you. Consultation between staffs please, legal as well 24 as Planning Department. And the burden is on the staff. 25 Kathy Eastley -Yes. 26 Frank Hutfless -Mr. Chairman after reviewing the code we determined that the 27 notice is insufficient technically for this particular hearing; however, the Board does 28 have the discretion to proceed and take testimony put the testimony on the record. After 29 which, you know, let me stop; that method will preserve the record then the Board can Page 2 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 30 come back later on reconsider it. We'll republish notice and then you can still consider 31 everything that has been put on the record plus open it up for additional testimony at 32 that point in time. So that's what I would recommend if you're willing to move forward. 33 Chairman Martin -What is the time line in reference to a notification still on a 34 call-up is it (10) ten days or is it the (30) thirty days? 35 Carey Cagnon -It's the time period for the original notice so we're looking at the 36 (30) thirty day time period. 37 Chairman Martin -(30) thirty days after we take testimony and then again back 38 to these folks that have to appear again or not with that added testimony. 39 Frank Hutfless -No they wouldn't; that's the whole point when moving forward 40 today Mr. Chairman we could preserve their testimony in the record. They are here 41 they're prepared to move forward and they certainly could come back at that point in 42 time and supplement anything they may say today. But you do have the discretion to 43 proceed in that manner. 44 . Chairman Martin -Since the affected party I would imagine they would want to 45 come back to see what the final verdict is in person, so that's what I say that would 46 mean a return to you at (30) thirty days after notification. Again, even though we take 47 testimony today you're still willing to go forward. 48 Frank Hutfless -But again Mr. Chairman, this is a jurisdictional matter so you 49 really don't have authority to make a final decision with respect on this ... 50 Chairman Martin -I understand; but on that second hearing we would. Page 3 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 51 Frank Hutfless -Yes sir. 52 Commissioner Jankovsky -Mr. Chair we would not be able to make a motion 53 at this time did I hear that correctly. 54 Chairman Martin -That is correct. We would have 10 go ahead and re-nolice 55 because it is faulty at this time to make a final determination; however, we can take the 56 testimony and proceed, preserve that and then come back is the way I understand it 57 and then again after proper notification we can re-open a new hearing and then make a 58 final determination. So, again that's what I have to say, is the Board willing to go forward 59 with that or do we find that there is fault in reference to the notification and to direct staff 60 to re-notify and not open up the public hearing. 61 Commissioner Jankovsky -I think it is to the determent of the applicant to go in 62 front of us now and without us being able to make a final decision. If I were the 63 applicant I'd rather and I know you don't want to wait any longer but I think it's better to 64 wait until proper notice has been done. I would apologize for that and I have concerns 65 about taking testimony now and then you guys coming back and having us make a 66 decision at that time. 67 Chairman Martin -Because it would be a different hearing and we would just 68 use this particular testimony at this particular time as the testimony in that public 69 hearing. That's what I'm saying. 70 Commissioner Jankovsky -I understand that ... Page 4 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18,2013 Testimony 71 Chairman Martin -How many people have appeared on this item today other 72 than the applicants? One, two, three, four other people understanding what we're up 73 against; any input from the applicant. Understanding the dilemma we're in reference to 74 the notice. Because it's all subject to challenge if it's improper notification etcetera and 75 the decision is not binding at that time without the proper notice. Are you willing to wait 76 another (30) thirty days for proper notification, come back, give your testimony at 77 that time in a properly noticed public hearing and be sworn in and take testimony? What 78 is it Tom? 79 Tom Morton -I kind of think we could go ahead, John. 80 Chairman Martin -You want to go ahead, now, remember we can't make a 81 decision today. 82 Tom Morton -No, I understand that. 83 Chairman Martin -But you would like to give that testimony today and I know 84 your schedule is not as flexible as many people because you've got something else to 85 do in life such as your profession and other things. 86 Commissioner Jankovsky -I guess the only thing I would say is you're not 87 going to get a chance to hear until (30) thirty days from now, you're not going to get a 88 chance to hear the final decision and our opinions and why we made that decision until 89 (30) thirty days from now. 90 Tom Morton -Right, so I understand that. 91 Chairman Martin -Okay, anything from Mr. Samson? Page 5 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18,2013 Testimony 92 Commissioner Samson -The thing I was going to say if the applicant is 93 okay, I'm okay but I don't want you to feel that you haven't had a full say by not being 94 here when it's actually decided. That's what I want you to weigh and if you feel okay 95 with that I'm okay with that but I want you to feel okay with that. 96 Tamra Allen -Commissioners if I may, we apologize for the notice that was a 97 posting error on our end but so long as the applicant here is available and willing 98 to proceed today, I think it would be beneficial in the sense that we have invited a 99 number of members from the Division of Water Resources to be here with us in the 100 case that you had questions on the augmentation and the letter we received about 101 material injury and so in I guess respect of their time and their travel, they all traveled 102 from Denver today, I think it would be helpful for us to have the conversation today and 103 then proceed in (30) thirty days with the actual decision should you so move that way 104 today. 105 Commissioner Samson -I agree but I want them to feel that way. And if you do 106 I think they would be very appreciative honestly. 107 Chairman Martin -Again, with improper notice it's in a challengeable situation 108 Counsel and if I open up the public hearing knowing there is a defect in notification I can 109 take testimony, again and put everybody under oath but then close the hearing without 110 a final determination. I'm not sure how you come about by closing a public hearing in 111 that way without a positive or a negative finding. Page 6 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 112 Frank Hutfless -Well, what you're doing is preserving the public record and you 113 can still close the hearing. In terms of actually posting this matter, it is a matter of public 114 knowledge. You are simply taking testimony; you are simply establishing a record that 115 record will be perpetuated. At the time that the matter is set for hearing again pursuant 116 to legally sufficient notice in light of our code at that point in time that record would be 117 available for you to consider. 118 Chairman Martin -That would be part of an Exhibit that would be entered into 119 the record as part of the packet itself? 120 Frank Hutfless -Yes it WOUld. 121 Chairman Martin -With those understandings does the Board wish to go ahead 122 or not. 123 Commissioner Samson -I want to make sure they feel good in going ahead. 124 Chairman Martin -To the applicant, do you want to continue or to wait? 125 Dwight Juhl -I think we should continue just understanding everybody drove far 126 to get here. 127 Chairman Martin -Understanding that the testimony taken will be an Exhibit in 128 the next public hearing and you will have subject to review of that. Ready to go ahead. 129 For those that wish to go ahead and testify in this matter, please raise your right hand. 130 And do you promise to tell the truth, I hope you guys drove all the way to tell the truth 131 and nothing but the truth so help you God because this is again a legally reviewed 132 document, so if you're going to give testimony make sure you identify yourself. Thank Page 7 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 133 you very much. All right, we will start. Miss. Eastley we do have items that you need to 134 refer to as Exhibits and do you wish to identify those that are at the present? 135 Kathy Eastley -Yes sir. 136 Chairman Martin -Please do. 137 Kathy Eastley -Exhibit one (1) is the public notice mail receipts, Exhibit two (2) 138 is the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, Exhibit three (3) is the 139 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended, four (4) is the application, five 140 (5) is the email from G. Thomas Morton regarding the request for call-up, six (6) is the 141 supplemental documentation submitted by Dwight and Therese Juhl, seven (7) is the 142 staff memo, eight (8) is the Director Decision, nine (9) is the staff report and exhibits 143 to the Directors Decision, ten (10) is the staff presentation. Ten (10) and eleven (11) are 144 added ten (10) is the staff presentation and eleven (11) is a letter dated November 145 15, 2013 from Megan Sullivan from the Division of Water Resources. 146 Chairman Martin -Applicant have a copy of all items that were listed probably 147 other than the presentation? Unless you have a written presentation. 148 Tom Morton -Yes. 149 Chairman Martin -Do you have any exhibits you wish to enter at this lime? 150 Dwight Juhl -None that I. .. 151 Chairman Martin -We will start with the presentation from Ms. Eastleyand you 152 have the floor. Page 8 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 153 Kathy Eastley -Thank you. I'm just going to briefly set up the question here 154 that's posed before the Board by going back to the Director's Decision and providing 155 a basis for you to move forward. So, the request here is for a Minor Subdivision and it 156 was for two (2) lots. The applicants are G. Thomas Morton and Dwight Juhl and the 157 parcel is 4.72 (four point seven two) acres and it's located at 1501 (one five zero one) 158 and 1761 (one seven six one) County Road 117. The access is Four Mile Road. The 159 site currently is served with two (2) wells and two (2) individual sewage disposal 160 systems. The zoning is residential suburban and the site is located in the urban growth 161 area .for the City of Glenwood Springs. So the outline in blue shows the subject parcel, 162 the yellow is the City of Glenwood Springs boundary. So here in the upper left hand 163 corner is Three Mile Road, Sopris Elementary and Cardiff Glen to the north Silver Sage 164 and Four Mile Ranch to the south. The proposed subdivision would divide the parcel 165 almost equally in half. The site currently has three (3) single family dwelling units on it. 166 One (1) unit would be located on parcel one (1) and on the southern parcel, parcel two 167 (2) there are two (2) existing dwelling units and then each parcel will have its own well. 168 So the Director Decision included the following conditions some of which are fairly 169 standard regarding representations and the timing for submittal of the plat for Board's 170 signature and some changes to the plat, an inventory of noxious weeds. 171 Condition number five (5), I believe is the one the applicant is requesting 172 reconsideration of and that's a requirement to provide proof of water augmentation. And 173 then six (6) is regarding a boundary line adjustment. So the Land Use and Development Page 9 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 174 Code does require that the applicant demonstrate an adequate reliable physical long-175 term and legal water supply to serve the use. And that determination of adequate water 176 is based upon the water supply plan that's been submitted. The comment letter from 177 the state engineer, payment to a water supply entity, or construction of the 178 infrastructure, and any other information required by the Board. So the Division 179 of Water Resources did provide us a letter that they reviewed the application and 180 determined there were two (2) well permits for the site, one (1) is for residential site 181 of five (5) acres and the other one was a replacement and relocation of the well that had 182 been existing prior to 1972 (Nineteen seven two). So the Division determined that 183 cumulative effect of all wells in this subdivision are considered in evaluating potential 184 material injury. And so the final determination was that the proposed water supply plan 185 will cause material injury to existing water rights and is inadequate. So the 186 augmentation requirement was the mitigation to get rid of this potential material injury. 187 So the applicants requested the Board review Condition number 5 (five) and the Board 188 options include upholding the Director Decision, modifying the Director Decision and 189 that modification could be the requirement removal of the requirement for the 190 augmentation if you determine that an adequate legal and physical water supply 191 currently exists or you may require the applicants to obtain water from the City of 192 Glenwood Springs. The public water supply is located less than 400 (four hundred) feet 193 from the subject site and pursuant to our code requirements could be made a 194 requirement. Then of course you can deny the request. Any of the decisions that you do Page 10 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 195 make ultimately would need to include the necessary findings to support that decision. 196 And so with that I'll tum it over to the applicants or answer any questions you may 197 have. 198 Chairman Martin -Questions of Ms. Eastley. 199 The Board -No. 200 Chairman Martin -You have the floor gentlemen. Make your argument. 201 Well we initially started this project in, well let me begin, I'm Dwight Juhl and I've 202 lived in Glenwood Springs for 33 (thirty three) years. I've lived on this property since 91 203 (ninety one) and basically I've lived in all three dwellings at one time or another. We 204 bought it from Ray and Margaret Morgan who bought the property initially in 1927 205 (ninety twenty seven) and they started off with 8/10's (eight tenths) of an acre. And in· 206 1955 (nineteen fifty five) they bought the rest of the remaining parcel which was 207 concluded from the movement of Four Mile Road to the east. It made a sliver of land 208 there that became available for sale from George Summers and Ray and Margaret 209 bought it in 1952 (Nineteen fifty two) I believe. And it was shortly after there they moved 210 a trailer up there on the north, on the south side and in 1956 (nineteen fifty six) they dug 211 a well that was used for 40 (forty) some years. But Ray and Margaret were old time 212 people that homesteaded the valley and their daughter Catherine Lucas lived there for 213 years and years. Some of you might remember an old white horse named Evon that 214 was on the corner there. But their intention was to sell the property to somebody that 215 would preserve it and keep it in a rural character. They didn't want to see it bulldozed Page 11 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18,2013 Testimony 216 and demolished or put a development of condos, four-plexus and these types of things. 217 And so we started the decision to buy the property after they passed. Their 218 daughter Catherine Lucas was still alive and she sold us the property in 2005 (two 219 thousand five) and Tom and I approached her just to come up to the agreement that we 220 would buy the property on a handshake that we would keep it as it's normal character of 221 a ranch with open space and so that's where we began with this project and then Tom 222 and I decided that we would pursue the county to see if we can divide it. And initially it 223 was determined that the size of the acreage met the requirements. Shortly after that we 224 were told to or it was recommended to have adequate water on each parcel which 225 would significantly help in the division of the property. And then fast forward to the year 226 around 2000 (two thousand) there was a proposal to do a Red Feather Ridge 227 Subdivison right up the road from us and it realigned the road to the affect where it took 228 off a swipe of land along the road to the dismay of Catherine Lucas the owner at the 229 time, she didn't have much say in what was going on, cause she was elderly and 230 basically at that point this might be a good time to talk about the requirement for 231 City water. She approached the developer to get on City water at the time and was 232 denied or it became a non-issue and so she went ahead with about $10,000.00 (ten 233 thousand) dollars worth of her own money to upgrade her water line going from the well 234 so all three houses had adequate water and it was upgraded to the effect where it 235 wasn't leaking. It went from 80 PSI water line to 200 (two hundred) PSI water line. 236 That's where Tom and I are today we've got two (2) working wells and one (1) of which Page 12 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 237 was dug in 1988 (ninety eighty eight) in the middle of the property and one (1) dug in 238 1956 (nineteen fifty six). And 1956 (nineteen fifty six) well on the south end, it remained 239 in a good producing water well until about 1997 (nineteen ninety seven) when we had 240 that heavy drought for about 8 (eight) years. It started producing mud and so we shut it 241 off and Catherine used the middle well for all three (3) dwellings because she was 242 renting it to myself and some other renters. So there was water available. And then after 243 Tom and I bought the well, once again we went ahead with the grandfather clause to 244 replace it. And we did that in May of 2009 (two thousand nine) and the result from Rick 245 Holub from J and M Pump his test shows that both wells produced about 14 246 (fourteen) gallon minute. They both have a recovery rate of less than two (2) to three (3) 247 hours for full recovery. So in his words they are really good wells. The water is 248 drinkable, it's very good-tasting water and as we all know around here water in Colorado 249 is like gold, liquid gold. But with that being said that's where we're at. We started this 250 project out hoping that it would qualify underneath the exemption so we wouldn't be 251 here talking today about augmentation of water. We feel that the wells that have been 252 producing water for a long time, we don't see this as being a new subdivision project, 253 we don't have any four-plexes, duplexes, golf courses or anything in the plans. We just 254 want to simply divide one (1) lot into two (2) and keep it as simple as we COUld. 255 However, through the process of the Comprehensive Plan changing I think back in 04 256 (zero four) and 05 (zero five) which took a couple of years that delayed us a little bit and 257 then the amendments that were passed last June we were actually asked by Kathy to Page 13 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 258 hurry up and get it under an exemption and that was basically denied because it didn't 259 fall under the single lot status of January 1973 (nineteen seven three). Ray and 260 Margaret quit claimed their whole property as one parcel in January of 75 (seventy five). 261 And we were hoping that could have been a Director's variance on a Director's Decision 262 to allow us to proceed with an exemption; however, we're here today because that didn't 263 happen. But that's where we're at today. Once again the thing on the augmentation 264 with water, we just feel that's it not, it doesn't meet the criteria because it's not a new 265 development. There's no plans for any more dwellings on the site or anything that might 266 cause material injury of which I didn't know a whole lot of about six (6) months ago. But 267 the water is a big factor I know in some subdivisions. One good example would be right 268 above us is Four Mile Ranch Subdivision, that Red Feather Ridge Subdivision was 269 slated to be 265 (two hundred sixty five) houses, it got voted down by the general public 270 and the result land turned into a 58 (fifty eight) home subdivision of which used to be a 271 hayfield. In my mind that's something that requires augmentation of water because 272 you're increasing the density of that land. This property here is basically what you're 273 seeing there is the same number of dwellings that have been there for at least 55 (fifty 274 five) years. Currently there's myself, my wife and my daughter living in the mobile and 275 we have my brother in the modular and Tom has a renter in the cabin for a total of 4 276 (four) adults and one (1) child and a couple of dogs and a cat that are currently using 277 water on there. So, in our eyes we don't see that's it's an example of an augmentation Page 14 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 . Testimony 278 condition or requirement. And we're asking to see if we could see if you guys could 279 interpret that as we see it. 280 Chairman Martin -Questions of Dwight? 281 Tom Morton -Could I add a couple things? 282 Chairman M"rtin -Sure unless there's a question of Dwight's testimony at this 283 time. Tom, go ahead. 284 Tom Morton -I guess I see it differently than Kathy and that is I think 285 augmentation of water is one requirement that seems noxious to me considering what 286 we're trying to do. But as I read the Commissioners ideas about property and division 287 and rules and regulations, it seems to me we've ended up kind of devoured by the 288 county's planning division which I find unfortunate. Seems to me if there was intelligent 289 discretion and administrative review a property division like this on a small parcel of land 290 should be easily able to be done whether or not Ray had the property put together and 291 quit claimed by '73 (seventy three) or '75 (seventy five). To me it's immaterial. He 292 owned the property from 27 (twenty seven years) through the '50's (fifties) and it 293 should have been so much easier than putting us at, we're not a subdivision, we're not a 294 minor subdivision, we're just trying to divide one (1) simple piece of property that we've 295 both had. I've lived next door to and DWight's lived on for all these years but by being 296 now in the minor subdivision we've got all these other problems. One (1) problem was 297 we go get a water test, Tamra Allen said to me why did ya get a $1,000.00 (one 298 thousand) water test. I said because your paper told us to get this water test but it Page 15 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18,2013 Testimony 299 wasn't really $1000.00 (one thousand) it was $750.00 (seven hundred fifty). We got it 300 back, nobody could interpret it. So Kathy sent it to an engineer for interpretation and 301 then nobody could interpret that. We get the bill for $250.00 (two hundred fifty) bucks 302 plus the $750.00 (seven hundred fifty) for the water test and it just seems to me 303 completely wrong the way this has happened. It could have been so much and it should 304 have been so much easier and still should be I think somehow an administrative review 305 of this planning process to make this easier. This just seems ridiculous to me. The last 306 thing they sent me was a covenant about the road and the covenant about the road, the 307 insurance company won't sell me the amount of liability, they want me to prove I have 308 and send to them every quarter because the garage is too near the road. And Dwight 309 and I feel pretty sure that the reason the garage is too near the road is when the qounty 310 and city did the joint enlarging of the road, they took some of the property that belonged 311 to Catherine Lucas but she had macular degeneration and she was being schmoozed 312 by the guy that was the Oklahoma Banker that owned Red Feather Ridge and she even 313 told Dwight and I she loves Dwight and she liked me but she told Dwight that this guy 314 was her new best friend. And so I think her property has disappeared but I get to come 315 the civil liabilities now all on me to provide this insurance. I just think this is a fossilized 316 process thai needs changing. And I have no idea whether Fred Jarman reviewed this, I 317 hope he did but I've served on the Board of Adjustment for ten (10) or so years and I 318 quit now because I just can't, I can't deal with this planning department any more. 319 Chairman Martin -Any questions otTom? Page 16 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18,2013 Testimony 320 Tom Morton -One other thing John; the other thing that really. probably the 321 most upsetting thing is that we went in early and they said wait we're going to develop a 322 simpler way to do this. We said great, we thought waiting would be a few months; 323 waiting was a couple of years. Then they said hurry and bring it in we're about to get rid 324 of this simpler thing and then they said we di~n't qualify because '75 (seventy five) was 325 not '73 (seventy three) which in my opinion somebody with intelligence an executive 326 person in that capacity ought to be able to make a decision to make that a lot simpler. 327 Chairman Martin -Anything further. 328 Tom Morton -Nothing further. 329 Chairman Martin -Division of Water Resources had a submittal, do you wish to 330 go ahead and to testify in any way. Come forward. We may have a question or two (2) 331 you never know. Thank you. I take it you are not Megan. 332 I'm not Megan; my name is Kevin Rein I'm the Deputy State Engineer with the 333 Division of Water Resources. 334 Chairman Martin -Welcome to Garfield County. 335 Kevin Rein -Well thank you for having us and inviting us up and I also want to 336 thank the Commission members and you folks as applicants for allowing this 337 testimony to be taken today. You're right, it's a nice drive up but it's a long drive and this 338 is a good way for us to use our time. We do have four (4) of us and I think it's good for 339 all of us to get in touch with these meetings and understand what goes on. It helps us 340 do our job better as we go ahead. I will just address this requirement for Page 17 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 341 augmentation because that seems to be a lot of the difficulty on the water supply for 342 these folks. The question seems to be what really is changing here. There was two (2) 343 wells before there's two (2) wells now, they're going to be used the same, what is 344 changing and simply put what's changing is the property is being subdivided. And we 345 have to go to the law then and of course there are well permitting laws as I know you 346 folks are aware of. These laws, they can be maddening for you to understand and for 347 the public to understand, we admit that and we really can't speak for what the legislature 348 was thinking in 1972 (nineteen seventy two) when they put these in place but in any 349 event the legislature did say that when property is subdivided that we have to look at the 350 water supply whether it be existing wells or new wells in a certain way. Now these are 351 wells that the law in Colorado does make a provision that for these small domestic wells 352 they can pump without having to account for their impact on the river. And, that's a fairly 353 board provision throughout the state but it also gets very narrow when we talk about the 354 type of use and then that provision gets closed off to new subdivisions. And, I 355 completely understand the testimony that we're not building apartment buildings or 356 shoppets or hundred lot subdivisions, we're doing the same thing. None the less it does 357 qualify according to the statutory definition of a subdivision. So that puts us in this box 358 where we need to look at the state law and it says that these types of wells need to 359 account for their impact on the river. The way to account for that is do one of the 360 augmentation plans that we've talked about that are available. That's what we have to 361 consider when we consult with you and give our opinion whether or not the water supply Page 18 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18,2013 Testimony 362 is adequate and whether or not it will cause injury. So, that's the letter you got from us 363 and that in a nutshell explains why we need to respond that way and we run into these 364 issues these types of situations statewide, they happen on the Front Range, they 365 happen in Garfield County and Pitkin County and all over the state. I think maybe 366 through conversation if not in the letter probably just through conversation we have 367 talked about the exemption process and I know that it's, I don't ever use the 368 Commission and the applicants to work through just what actually can be done 369 accounting to the county's rules so I won't comment on that but I will just for the record 370 say that if this can be divided through a process that's exempt from the subdivision 371 process. It's not our position, we can still abide by the law but say that that 372 augmentation is not required. So maybe that's a good opening statement and I'll be 373 happy to take questions from any of you all. 374 Chairman Martin -All right gentlemen, is there a question? 375 Commissioner Jankovsky -Yes. 376 Commissioner Martin -Alright Tom. 377 Commissioner Jankovsky -This property doesn't fall in the Four Mile Drainage. 378 It falls on probably in the Roaring Fork Drainage or Three Mile Drainage so 379 augmentation plan would have to come out of the Roaring Fork? West Divide I know 380 has augmentation plans in Four Mile Drainage and ... 381 Kevin Rein -I'll turn around and look at my staff, I know it falls into one of the 382 areas. Page 19 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18,2013 Testimony 383 Chairman Martin -It's a tributary to the Colorado. 384 Kevin Rein -I think West Divide or Basalt, yeah and we do know it falls in one of 385 the areas I can't tell you for sure which right now. 386 Kathy Eastley -I believe the applicant has spoken with the Basalt Water or I'm 387 sorry the West Divide Water District. 388 Chairman Martin -Okay. Does that answer your question? 389 Commissioner Jankovsky -Kind of. 390 Chairman Martin -Okay; any other questions? 391 Commissioner Jankovsky -No. 392 Chairman Martin -We want to thank you very much; everybody. Anybody else 393 want to speak? Did he cover everything guys? All right. 394 Commissioner Jankovsky -So who do we, do we even have an exemption 395 process? Is that back to staff to Tamra? 396 Chairman Martin -That's a question of Tamra if you wish to ask that question. 397 Commissioner Jankovsky -I do. 398 Chairman Martin -Tamra. 399 Tamra Allen -Thank you Commissioners. That is a great question as you 400 probably recall in the July version of the newly adopted Land Use and 401 Development Code, what used to be a major and minor exemption process got 402 converted into this minor subdivision process and so we don't have a land use provision 403 or process that would cover this type of exemption. We still do have the rural land Page 20 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 404 development exemption and road split exemptions for other unique situations or other 405 types of exempts, divisions of land but they would not fall under this scenario. 406 Chairman Martin -Hearing that gentlemen, do you wish to make any closing 407 statements. 408 Tom Morton -Even if you don't have that you certainly should; that seems like a 409 tragedy to lose that any more. 410 Chairman Martin -Dwight, anything from you. 411 Dwight Juhl -I just want to mention that if I read my well permits from the issue 412 dates it seems to me that its particularly the 1988 (nineteen eighty eight) well in the 413 middle it allots the land user up to 5/10's (five/tens) of an acre foot, which is in the 414 permit and talking with Janet at West Divide Water the minimum they'll sell you is one 415 (1) acre foot. And that's your dollar amount you pay them every year to join. That 416 seems to me like a no-brainer; they're selling me more water. That kind of flies in the 417 face of material injury on the water supply. That just, when I started looking through 418 that six (6) months ago I couldn't tell you what augmentation was and I still can't but 419 basically I don't understand why they would allow you to pay more money to use more 420 water. It just flies in the face of what we're talking about here. 421 Chairman Martin -You buy water and then you do a release so it goes down the 422 Roaring Fork into the Colorado and offsets what you're pulling out of the hydrology of 423 the water and the ground. Page 21 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 424 Dwight Juhl -And according to the Dwight Whitehead out in the Division of 425 Water in West Glenwood most houses that have septic systems return up to 75 426 (seventy five) to 80 (eighty) percent of that water to go back into the ground through the 427 leaching process. So just with that being said water's water, they don't make any more 428 of it. It's just how much it falls on our mountains so it comes down stream so that's fine, 429 I wish it would stay there. 430 Chairman Martin -Anyone else with testimony? And again as you heard we 431 cannot make a final determination only take testimony and ask questions and preserve 432 that as part of the record. At which time then we will have a motion to close this 433 particular public hearing without a final decision to preserve the record. And then we 434 will instruct again our staff members to notice this as a public hearing in the fastest 435 possible way meeting our requirements and then we will open up a new public hearing 436 so that we can reintroduce this testimony and make a final determination. Is that 437 understood by all? Counsel, did I cover all aspects? 438 Carey Cagnon -You have covered all aspects of the hearing portion. If you'd 439 like I can provide a little bit more structure to your decision making either at this time or 440 at the time that you reserve/resume to actually make a decision. But since you have 441 applicants here perhaps you'd, they'd like an opportunity to respond to anything I might 442 have to say as well. 443 Chairman Martin -I think that's nice. Go right ahead. Page 22 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 444 Carey Cagnon -Okay so procedurally this is before you as a call-up of 445 a director's determination and so you are instructed by the code to apply the same 446 criteria in reaching a decision as the director was required to apply when he reached his 447 decision. And so that does include the consideration that there be an adequate water 448 supply for the type of subdivision that's been proposed. I would point to Section 7-104 it 449 does outline the information that you should consider in making your decision. It is a 450 discretionary decision so this is up to you to determine whether you believe that there is 451 enough evidence in the record to support that the supply is sufficient. You are not 452 mandated to follow the state engineer's letter but you must take that into consideration 453 when you reach your decision. I would also site two (2) state law which in requiring that 454 this be referred to the state engineer for an opinion regarding material injury also 455 contains additional language to the effect that should you approve the subdivision 456 notwithstanding the engineer's opinion of material injury; then the sub-divider will be 457 required to furnish all potential purchasers with a copy of the state engineers opinion 458 prior to this sale should they sell the property and so you can approve notwithstanding 459 what the state engineer's position is but I don't know and I can't speak to what effect 460 that would have on their interactions with the state in obtaining well permits in the future. 461 If that's going to create a bind for the applicants or not. That's something I don't know 462 the answer to. But you are not mandated to follow the state engineer's opinion but you 463 must take it into consideration. 464 Chairman Martin -Thank you counsel, understood gentlemen. Page 23 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18,2013 Testimony 465 Commissioner Jankovsky -Can I ask a question of counsel? 466 Chairman Martin -You do. 467 Commissioner Jankovsky -You stated that if adequate water supply is shown I 468 guess but that's different than water rights and augmentation has to do with water rights 469 and I think they have shown that there's adequate supply of water but the question is, is 470 there injury to somebody else ... 471 Carey Cagnon -Right. 472 Commissioner Jankovsky -By using that water and again people are in; 473 numerous and many landowners are in a situation where they drilled their wells and 474 never applied for water rights and they have old wells that get caught in this situation. 475 Carey Cagnon -Right. 476 Commissioner Jankovsky -And until they go to sell or subdivide or something 477 they didn't even realize that. 478 Carey Cagnon -Right. There may be unintended consequences for the 479 applicant should you approve without their including the requirement of augmentation. 480 Chairman Martin -That is a caution. The fact that we have to determine. Mr. 481 Samson anything from you? 482 Commissioner Samson -No. 483 Chairman Martin -Counsel. 484 Frank Hutfless -Just to wrap it up if I could follow-up on your comments 485· Chairman Martin. For anybody here at the hearing to be more specific with respect to Page 24 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18, 2013 Testimony 486 this particular transcript, the Clerk and Recorder will transcribe this matter; if anybody 487 wants a copy of it, please contact the Clerk and Recorder directly and let her know, 488 Jean Alberico sitting right here and let her know that you would like to have a copy of 489 the transcript as well as the address where you'd like to have it mailed. The transcript 490 will be marked as an Exhibit as the Chairman has specified previously and will be 491 offered for admission at the next hearing. Again, just emphasis I tried to give an 492 interpretation that would allow this matter to proceed forward and accommodate people 493 but it is a jurisdictional issue and the Board cannot make a final decision without proper 494 notice, so thank you Mr. Chairman. 495 Chairman Martin -Thank you counsel. Anything in closing? 496 Tom Morton -I guess in closing John I'd say that in addition to the timeline of 497 waiting for the simpler plan then hurrying to get the simplest plan available; which took 498 several years. The thing that Dwight and I have lost most, Dwight believes that the 499 augmentation is one of the most important and I think it is important as well but the thing 500 we've really lost is we've gone from great financing to average financing, which will be 501 with us forever. And it's just been a fossilized process and I'm stunned by it myself. 502 Compared to what I read about what you guys think about, regulations which is what I 503 think about regulations. 504 Chairman Martin -Okay. We will close this public hearing with a motion. 505 Commissioner Samson -I'd move we close the hearing at this time. Page 25 of 27 Proceedings of the Board of Garfield County Commissioners November 18,2013 Testimony MOTIONER SECONDER VOTE Commissioner Commissioner UNA by roll call vote Mike Samson Tom Jankovsky 495 Chairman Martin -Alright, we will again direct staff to notice this item within the soonest 496 timeline as possible and we will revisit this on proper notification, make 497 a final determination. Thank you very much gentlemen. Page 26 of 27 Garfield County Jean Alberico, Garfield County Clerk and Recorder November 20, 2013 CERTIFICATION I, JEAN ALBERICO, do certificate this document for use as an Exhibit in the Juhl -Morton Subdivision Public Hearing for Building and Planning to be a true and complete transcript of the testimony on November 18, 2013. Sincerely yours, Jean Alberico Garfield County Clerk and Recorder