Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.02.2004Exhibits for Duane and Elizabeth Stewart CUP Public Hearing held on August 2, 2004 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Application F Staff Memorandum G Review Memo: Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District H Letter representing adjacent land owners: Leavenworth & Karp, P.C. I Letter: Heather Baker Sullivan J Letter: Pamela Glassoff K Letter: Richard and Alison Whittaker L Letter: Sarah Baker M Letter: Kate and Elliot Hayne N Letter: R.B. Veit 0 Book 0918 Page 059, Agreement and Protective Covenant P Book 589 Page 960, Exhibit B, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions BOCC 8/2/04 JWH PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Request to convert a Single Family Dwelling Unit to a Boarding or Rooming House APPLICANT Duane and Elizabeth Stewart LOCATION 1413 County Road 107 SITE DATA 10.01 acres ACCESS from State Highway 82 at State Highway 133 WATER & SEWER Well and ISDS (existing for 4 bedrooms) — EXISTING ZONING A/R/RD I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Proposed Request The Applicant requests approval to convert a single family dwelling unit into a Boarding or v,ew H: South or the property to the northwest; proposed use and adjacent uses right to left. Rooming house as allowed by Conditional Use in the A/R/RD zone district. The proposed use will have facilities to support 6-10 guests, 2 full-time (one will reside on-site) and 1-2 part-time employees, all of which will maintain a presence for support, direction and program management on site 24 hour a day, 7 days a week. Visitors will stay at the facilities from 90 days to one (1) year. Activities provided on site includes: indoor gaming and discussion and therapy groups, while off-site activities will include, daily AA meetings, attendance to 7 other undetermined events per week, 2-3 a week visits to a nearby fitness center, once a week religious services, 2-3 guided mountain treks, expedition training trips and up to 5 various and unscheduled trips. Guests, of which 50% are anticipated to originate from within Colorado and the Roaring Fork Valley, will not be allowed to bring or operate their own vehicles, and will be driven by staff in 1- 2 vehicles to all of the above-mentioned activities. Staff will arrive at the proposed site using personal vehicles. Meals are to be provided mainly by staff, occasionally prepared by the residents on-site, though guests will dine out within the surrounding community several times a week. T ere will be no allowed facilities or processing and management of detoxification, crisis intervention, incarceration or 'corrections and all residents are required by the Applicant to undergo a background check and random drug and alcohol testing to maintain status within the voluntary program. • View B: Looking south at adjacent dwelling units (circled) from the deck of the dwelling to the proposed CUP. B. Site Description The property as shown in View A, is steeply sloped and the structure to be used is present and entirely built minus the addition of needed septic services. It is located directly north of the Town of Carbondale with views of Mt. Sopris and is at the end point of County Road 107, Red Mountain Road, as seen in View B. The area immediately south of the proposed use is flat to gently sloping and currently is vacant with several owned and rented dwelling units surrounding the open space. The Applicant has built a 3,662 sq. ft. single-family dwelling unit with a five (5) -car garage of 506 sq. ft. The use is located 60ft. +/- from the rear, 300 east and 220 ft. west +1- from the side and 200 ft. +1- from the front property lines. C. Additional Staff Comment There is a question as to whether the proposed use can be operated by the applicant aside from the county rules and regulations based on the current covenants, rules and restrictions put in place 2 by the residents of the "meadow" area a seen in View B above. Staff has been provided with copies of two documents by land owners in the immediate vicinity; • Book 0918 Page 059, an Agreement and Protective Covenant which discuss the creation and use of the access easement from County Road 107 (Exhibit 0) • Book 589 Page 960, Exhibit B, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions describing private homeowner' s covenants (Exhibit P) Staff has preliminarily reviewed them but cannot comment on the validity of the proposed request versus what is allowed or prevented within these documents, consequently, if there is language within these exhibits discussing any prohibition of the proposed CUP, enforcement and relief will be found within the court system rather than as part of the decision made before the BOCC. D. CUP Process, Use and Amendment The Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, provides a process by which a Conditional Use Permit request is reviewed. It does not provide a process for amendments to an existing / approved Conditional Use Permit and the applicant would be required to submit an additional CUP is any changes involving an expansion of use is proposed in the future. Additionally, if the applicant were to gain approval, operate the proposed use then abandon said venture, the subsequent future owner would only be able to operate up to an identical CUP use without further approvals. It is worth noting that this approval does not grant other similar uses to be put in place such as a hotel or resort and that this conditional use is for a Rooming or Boarding House only and does not imply that future owners of the property are eligible for approval of any other Conditional Uses listed in the County Zoning Resolution. However, a bed and breakfast, retreat or any other similar use would be appropriate with the observance of all conditions of this approval are not exceeded. Any future operation of a Boarding or Rooming House would only allow the use requested in this application within the parameters granted and conditioned in this staff report and approval. II. REFERRAL AGENCIES Referral was made to the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District; their comments are listed later. Additionally, in keeping with the terms of the Inter -Governmental Agreement (IGA) and the fact that the property is located within the Town of Carbondale's sphere of urban influence, Staff referred the request for the proposed use to the town but received no comment. Also, a call was made to the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department, which had no comment or concerns. 3 III. REVIEW STANDARDS 1. Zoning Conditional Uses are subject to the standards in Section 5.03 of the Zoning Resolution. Staff has provided the standards in bold italics below followed by a Staff Response. A. Section 5.03 Review Standards 1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; (A97-60) Staff Finding The Applicant has adequate water resources for the proposed use, however has indicated a maximum of 6 bedrooms for the proposed use. The current use does not have adequate service from the existing Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS), which is only designed for 4 bedrooms; currently it exists as a single-family residential use of 5 bedrooms. The applicant shall augment the existing septic tank and leech field system to properly serve the proposed use. The applicant has NOT met this item 2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; Staff Finding: The proposed use had been connected to the public ROW by a gravel easement. From the property line to the proposed use the applicant has constructed a View C. leaving the proposed use an ' approaching the hairpin turn wit . outlined area indicating necessary fire district road improvements paved lane approximately 10-12 feet wide which at one point makes a rather abrupt hairpin turn (see View C) which may be difficult to maneuver around if a large 4 emergency response vehicle is called during inclement weather. The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and has two (2) requirements for approval. 1) The radius of the hairpin turn is rather tight. There is a gravel area at the turn (on the outside of the curve) adjacent to the pavement that shall be improved to make it easier for trucks to make the turn, especially during inclement weather. 2) A turnaround shall be constructed at the end of the driveway (at the dwelling unit) for emergency vehicles. Currently it would be quite difficult to turn a truck around at the top. This lane shall be maintained in the winter by the removal of snow to the easement access point by professional contract to maintain full access throughout the year. Service and delivery vehicles are stated to create Average Daily Trips (ADT) at a rate no greater than what a single-family dwelling unit will generate. The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not have statistics for the proposed use of a Boarding or Rooming House, however the manual does provide statistics for a Congregate Care Facility (CCF) which somewhat resembles the proposed use with on-site living for residents and staff, dining and recreation areas for elderly residents of the facility with low vehicle ownership levels. A CCF is no enerate 2.15 ADT per bedroom, for the six bedrooms of the proposed use is expected to gener 2.9 ADT which is 3.34 ADT in excess of the trips assigned to a single family residenceiV.56 ADT) by the ITE manual. Therefore the Applicant is in excess of the ADT allowable or attributed to the referenced CCF above comped to w1 at is allowed for a typical single-family dwelling unit. In addition to the above general comparison of ADT, the applicant expects the following trips off-site on a weekly basis: Purpose Trips per Week Local fitness center trips 3 Nearby Events (short) 7 Nearby Events (long) 3 Religious 1 Various Unscheduled 5 Total 19 The applicant has verbally amended the application and stated that there will be more trips than described initially and has not shown how the proposed use will not adversely affect the surrounding community. The applicant has NOT met this item 3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character; Staff Finding The proposed CUP has an advantage by its placement upon the side of the hill; it is up and away from normal level line of sight (View B) from the several visible residents around the meadow area. There will be no use of informational signage along the property boundary or along County Road 107 advertising the proposed use, however the applicant should maintain the property is addressed properly at all times for minimized emergency response time. There is one access point to the property. The applicant shall not allow exterior lighting to exceed normal use needs for purposes of security and standard illumination. The use fences or landscape materials are not appropriate for screening this use as the current view of the single family dwelling unit shall need no further screening. The applicant has met this item IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Conditional Use Permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a "Boarding or Rooming House" on a property located at 1413 County Road 107, Garfield County with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. This permit granted is for this specific use only as presently described. In the event any representations made in the application for which this permit is granted change and are no longer consistent with the representations in this application, the applicant shall be required to submit a new permit application to the county addressing the changes. 3. That the applicant obtains any and all future building permits and inspections consistent with the adopted rules and regulations of Garfield County for all development within the Boarding and Rooming House use. Any and all further expansion of the use will require an additional 6 Conditional Use Permit be submitted through the Garfield County Building Department for approval. 4. A final engineered plan for an Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) with an appropriate capacity septic tank and corresponding appropriate size infiltration field for 6 bedrooms at double occupancy and all associated and supportive uses of a Rooming or Boarding House and those as stated in this application shall be installed and approved by the Building and Planning Department prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 5. The Applicant shall improve the access road on the proposed property at the point of a gravel area at the hairpin turn (on the outside of the curve) adjacent to the pavement as per the requirements and specifications of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and obtain approval of said improvements prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 6. The Applicant shall construct a turnaround at the end of the driveway (at the dwelling unit) for emergency vehicles as per the requirements and specifications of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District and obtain approval of said improvements prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 7. The Applicant shall submit a thorough traffic impact analysis which describes how the proposed use does not adversely affect the surrounding residential uses; said analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the Garfield County Engineer prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 8. All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary for normal use of the proposed use and all exterior lighting shall be directed inward, towards the interior of the conditional use, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. VI.RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to APPROVE the request for a Conditional Use permit to allow for a Boarding or Rooming House for Duane and Elizabeth Stewart on a property located at 1413 County Road 107, Garfield County with the conditions listed in this report." NOTE TO APPLICANT Once the Board makes a decision regarding the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request, Staff will provide the Applicant with a signed resolution memorializing the action taken by the Board. If the Board' s approval includes specific conditions of approval to be met, this office will not issue the CUP certificate until the applicant has satisfied all conditions of approval. The CUP approval is not finalized until this office has issued the Official CUP certificate signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. 7 �2GccGGv� `oma `�Z..e._ OG✓'+d y� OZG '-fes^- /c 61--°e //x Mc x.44,06-- ff%i, Gvze; %� ��ti� y Ate V6Vf/-( &Ice^- reel,— 62(de . Ctiv d «;i7 G f2w zeAteee 674 1/ - OB7{intlai-7 /2e) de % ccs 6`as Y - /NcLi A` VILE 2 4.- l/2�� r� /- �er �--- /-1,Le 6f4 711eA4-e- t 16 -Cc ,¢%C /-G , OG. e(a e - i/ { ge ;) 0 o? 4€4,74-- "Le f . 74 ycte Y/��Av �_ .� .�, G '(k, -'fie !tea- G pod /k PA-ee6--- f‘( ,46_kreritri / A/a Na Af)/* pAzd4,1,04, /,et, ve7 (laa /G' Sr') 1(1 0 iririf i.r0 ' 7 /%05 /Va /-t`"?•&-e-e-d-t A -t4 -e • -,2/gez. 4g4-- 041- --- 1 fn-inerp, 6K/z,/-/ 44 ca-&-eeile a -e -e /Zer-re XZC 1"1114 0 Ater4-0- 74 /1-irl 7Agle 11-e_ 4.44 1,4,44e(kx-e. , K4 /'er e? Trg ,ze--;41e a/ 1, i(A-czi Afor- r,e( z C Or° rove_ ii/Ca-7/14.4,--, /JO Alit‘;" eXls- -444' 27';/(AZ-e- 44/VE ‘4---0 4;e- ire A: 4re 6)( gQie cw�-� �� �� r t/ e ("rip, c, z. ?pun_ A 0-1-t 1 ijo...,;) AL#4-e-ki /-64-€444s-iir /1 111(fre--t, 1 Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. Review of Stewart Furguson CUP Jim, I took a closer look at the road this afternoon. The driveway is paved and in good condition. I have two recommendations regarding the road access. 1) The radius of the hairpin turn is rather tight. There is a gravel area at the turn adjacent to the pavement that should be improved to make it easier for trucks to make the turn, especially during inclement weather. 2) A turnaround should be constructed at the end of the driveway for emergency vehicles. Currently it would be quite difficult to turn a truck around at the top. I checked the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition, Section 904.2) The code does not appear to require automatic sprinklers in this situation. Sincerely, Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District www.carbondalefire_org LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP DAVID H. McCONAUGHY JAMES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQUIST-HEATH SUSAN W. LAATSCH NICOLE D. GARRIMONE ANNA S. ITENBERG MICHAEL J. SAWYER TERESA L. HOCK EDWARD B. OLSZEWSKI LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1011 GRAND AVENUE P. O. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 RECEIVE' ryIklawfirm.cont JUL ` S2004Ju1y 27, 2004 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Garfield County Board of County Commissioners c/o Jim Hardcastle Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8tli Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Conditional Use Permit Application Applicant: Red Hill Partners, LLC Property: 1413 County Road 107 Dear Board of County Commissioners and Mr. Hardcastle: DENVER OFFICE:* WAZEE EXCHANGE BUILDING 1900 WAZEg STREET, STE. 203 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Office) This firm represents the owners of properties adjacent to 1413 County Road 107, including Rick Broadhurst, Chris Broadhurst, Richard Veit, Jane Baker Veit, and Alex Schwaller. All of these property owners have lived in the neighborhood for many years. The neighborhood includes a small number of residential lots surrounding irrigated pasture land. Most of the residents belong to one of a few families who have raised their children and grandchildren in this pristine valley outside of Carbondale. My clients raise horses, donkeys, goats, and other livestock, which may be regularly seen grazing in the meadows. My clients oppose the application to convert the single family home at 1413 County Road 107 into a commercial boarding house or addiction treatment facility. Based on the application as well as conversations with the applicant, the facility is proposed to be operated as a sort of 90 -day "halfway house" for the treatment of high-end clients suffering from drug and alcohol addiction. Such a use is incompatible with the existing rural, agricultural/residential character of the neighborhood. My clients face very real concerns about having a facility of this type in their neighborhood, which would be housing a continuously -rotating population of individuals who are facing serious and potentially dangerous substance -abuse problems. For the reasons set forth below, we urge you to deny this application. 1. Nature of Application First, we do not agree that the proposed use is properly categorized as a "boarding house." Section 2.02.06 defines boarding house as a "a residential building, or portion thereof, other than a hotel, motel or lodge, which is used both as a residential building and to provide lodging (with or 1'2004' Chen us\Schwalla-1870'1ettcr,'BOCC- I . wpd LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. Board of County Commissioners Page 2 July 27, 2004 without meals) for four or more persons for compensation...." (Emphasis added). Based on the application, there is no proposal to use the facility "both" as a residence and for lodging. Lodging and treatment appear to be the only uses proposed. There is no mention of continued use as a residence. To the contrary, the five -bedroom home is proposed to house up to ten guests and two staff. There are simply not enough bedrooms for continued residential use by anyone. The proposed facility also would provide more than "lodging" and appears to be directed at providing addiction treatment as well as activities including "guided mountain treks and expedition training" and other supervised events within the Roaring Fork Valley. Application Narrative at 2(C). These services appear more consistent with the definition of"Resort" under Section 2.02.448, which includes not only lodging but also recreational activities, dining services, and "other needs." Of course, the applicant has chosen to describe the use as "boarding house" because that use is listed as a conditional use under the A/R/RD district, whereas "resort" is a conditional use under the R/L district but is not listed anywhere in the A/R/RD district. Thus, at the outset, we question whether this particular use may be authorized under any circumstances in the A/R/RD zone. 2. Review Criteria If the application does fall within a conditional use in the district, then it should be denied under the applicable review criteria. Section 5.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution provides that all conditional uses must conform to all requirements of the Zoning Resolution, including specifically the following: (1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners... (2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use... (3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character.... I will address each of these criteria below: 1:12004kCli.mslSchwalla-I 8301.diers BOCC- I .wpd LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. Board of County Commissioners Page 3 July 27, 2004 A. Water The existing well permit and water allotment contract expressly limit water usage to 0.9 acre feet, and the permit defines the permitted use as a single family residence. The proposed use is more than a single-family residence and therefore would require amendment of the permit and the legal water augmentation plan. Further, the typical assumption is that a single-family home includes a statistical average of 3.5 persons or 1 "EQR." Here, the application states that up to ten guests and two full-time staff could reside at the property. 12 full-time residents would be equivalent to 4 EQR. Accordingly, both the physical and legal water supply are inadequate. B. Sewer The property is served by an existing septic system, which was presumably designed for a single-family home and not for 4 EQR. The application includes no support for the assertion that the existing system will be adequate for the increased uses. C. Traffic The property is accessed by County Road 107 and then via a private, 20 foot access easement across the property of my client, Jane Baker Veit. A copy of the private easement deed is enclosed. Neither County Road 107 nor the private easement meets county standards. Although the applicant proposes to minimize traffic by using a community van, it can be assumed that guests will be arriving and departing for their stays at different times. The application states that guests will be taken to numerous activities throughout the day including 12 -step meetings, religious services, outdoor activities, trips to fitness centers, etc. There is no suggestion that 100% of the guests will attend each event as a single group. Further, the application states that as many as four staff persons will be on duty, each of whom may be assumed to have a private vehicle. All these factors suggest that traffic will increase beyond its current level. Based on county standards, County Road 107 is already inadequate to meet the existing uses. Approving this application will only make the situation worse. Further, the private easement deed is silent as to the scope of legal access. Under this situation a court would look to the intent of the parties to determine the scope of the easement. See Lazy Dog Ranch v. Telluray, 965 P.2d 1229 (Colo. 1998). Based on personal knowledge of Ms. Veit as well as the recorded covenants for the neighborhood (see below), the intent was to grant access for a single family home, not a ten -person treatment center. The applicant cannot demonstrate adequate legal or physical access for the proposed use. I:\2 Oa\C l iauslSch wa l l cr- 16309-ntcrs\BO CC- I .wpd LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. Board of County Commissioners Page 4 July 27, 2004 D. Neighborhood Character The property is subject to recorded covenants, which are enclosed. Article III, Section 2 restricts the use of each parcel to "residential and /or agricultural purposes only." Regardless of what action the County might take, the residents intend to enforce the covenants. The proposed use is not permitted. Further, under Section 5.03, the. proposed use would significantly impact the adjacent properties. As stated above, my clients have legitimate concerns on the impacts to their wells and other water supplies in addition to concerns over vehicle traffic. But they are equally concerned over the unknown impacts of having up to ten recovering addicts receiving treatment in their neighborhood. As described by the applicant, the facility would house persons who have left a lock- down facility such as Betty Ford but who are not yet ready to return home or be integrated back into society. While guests are supposed to be restricted to the boundaries of the property, the applicant has not explained how (or if) that will be enforced. The guests will not be permitted to have cars, so if they do decide to leave the property they will have no way to travel except on foot. Thus, my clients have concerns about strangers with unknown substance abuse problems, who are unfamiliar with rural settings, wandering around their private lands, invading their privacy, and quite possibly encountering children, pets and livestock. While some of the precise impacts are speculative and will depend on the operator, there can be no doubt that the facility will essentially alter the character of this quiet residential/agricultural neighborhood. 3. Conclusion The application fails to demonstrate compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. The use proposed is not a "boarding house" and does not fall within any permitted, conditional, or special use within the A/R/RD district. The facility lacks an adequate legal and physical water supply as well as adequate legal or physical access. Most importantly, the use is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and would be in direct violation of the recorded covenants. For all these reasons, we urge you to deny the application. My clients and I will present additional evidence at the time of the public hearing. Thank you for your attention. DHM: Enclosure I:12004\ClirntsSchwallcr-1810\LettersB000- IAptl Very truly yours, LEA .ENW & KARP, P.C. 4t Da. id McConaughy f-- Subj: RE: treatment proposal Date: 07/27/2004 5:46:37 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: riverliffey@earthlink.net (Tim -Heather Baker -Sullivan) Reply -to: riverliffey@earthlink.net To: RBVEIT@aol.com (RBVEIT@aol.com) Page 1 of 2 EXH T Here it tis. Heather Baker -Sullivan riverliffeyAearthlink.net July 26, 2004 Heather Baker -Sullivan 530 Millwood Rd. Mt. Kisco, NY 10549 REc_`-' V ED JUL 28 2004 OARFlEtl� BUILDING & PLANN NG To the County Commissioners of Garfield County Plaza Building 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners: I am writing to express my concern regarding an application for a proposed drug and alcohol treatment facility to be established in an existing residence on County Road 107 in Carbondale. My mother, Jane Baker Veit, her husband, Richard Veit, and my stepsister, Alexandra Schwaller and her children have been living in this valley for the last fifteen years. We understand that revoking existing land covenants is proposed in favor of a private treatment facility with little if any state oversight. I am concerned that the isolation of the setting, which will accommodate up to ten recovering addicts, is not ideal either for the addicts themselves, or my family. I understand that the nature of the facility has not been clearly defined, i.e. the freedom of movement of the patients, and other critical aspects which could effect the security of residents of the valley. Given the uniqueness of the setting, I would have expected these issues to have been addressed by now. Has an environmental impact analysis been conducted taking into account the numbers of residents, visitors, support staff, housekeeping personnel crowding the county road, and any other effects? Without any clarity on the impact to a fragile and stunning ecosystem, how is my family and the residents of the area to assess potential damage to one of their most precious assets? The security of the facility, and the environmental impact, do not seem as yet issues which have been properly clarifed. Until they are, I will be urging my family to oppose the project as proposed. Sincerely, Heather Baker -Sullivan Tuesday, July 27, 2004 America Online: RBVEIT Subj: July 27 rehab letter Date: 07/27/2004 9:55:44 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: DGlassoff@Comcast.net (Dan Glassoff) To: rbveit@aol.com (Dick, Jane Veit) Page 1 of 2 July 27, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter as a family member who often visits the Red Hill area where the property in question is located. I am a social -service worker by profession and have much experience working with people living in rehabilitation facilities. I work in the San Francisco Bay Area for Eden Information and Referral where I have worked for 8 years. Many of my clients are people who have addictions to drug and alcohol. Due to my familiarity with the problems that these people experience I was alarmed when the proposal for a program facility was introduced near my family's property. In my experience many people who have addictions have mental health problems that they attempt to self medicate with alcohol and drugs. This is a concern because of the unpredictable nature of these residents and the possible danger it may create for my teenage nieces who live nearby. Of course a very huge concern is fire, and the use of cigarettes even within a controlled area still leaves the residents in grave danger. A fire could sweep though the valley and put everyone in harm's way. I do not think this is a wise use of this property as everyone on the property has enjoyed the sense of community and safety that it brings. I am worried about their safety and I hope that those who make this decision will see that there may be other places that will be more appropriate for a rehabilitation facility like this. Sincerely, Pamela Glassoff Headers Return -Path: <DGlassoff@comcast.net> Received: from rly-yi05.mx.aol.com (rly-yi05.mail.aol.com [172.18.180.133]) by air-yiO4.mail.aol.com (v100.26) with ESMTP id MAILINYI44-7ce410723b612; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:55:44 -0400 Received: from sccrmhcl3.comcast.net (sccrmhcl3.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by rly-yi05.mx.aol.com (v100.23) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYI52-7ce410723b612; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:55:34 -0400 Tuesday, July 27, 2004 America Online: RBVEIT Subj: Drug Treatment Boarding House Date: 07/27/2004 9:34:08 AM Mountain Daylight Time From: rwhitt@pacbell.net (rwhitt) Reply -to: rwhitt@pacbell. net (rwhitt) To: rbveit@aol.com (Dick and Jane Veit) Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT July 25, 2004 To All Appropriate Local and Garfield County Agencies, We are writing to express our strong opposition to a pending proposal to convert a single-family residential property on County Road 107 into a commercial drug and alcohol treatment facility — specifically, a "boarding house" for persons undergoing drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation. This unconventional use of what has been to date a single-family home — in a conspicuous location in a community of single-family residences -- is a highly unconventional use for the property. We believe that it would have a dramatic, negative impact on the character and safety of the neighboring community. It is inappropriate, and we urge you to reject it. While we are not year-round locals, Jane and Dick Veit, our child's grandparents, are. The Veits live on the property immediately adjacent to the proposed drug treatment house. Our own family has vacationed and visited the Veits regularly (Jane Veit is Alison's mother) over the past 10+ years, and we have a deep affection for the serenity and natural beauty of the valley and meadow. We fully anticipate a long family connection to the property and to the preservation of the valley for many years to come. We oppose commercial businesses within this recondite residential valley for a number of reasons. It is not consistent with the tradition of this valley, the hallmark of which has been single-family rural residences situated in relative isolation. While the overall neighboring community is isolated, the residence in question is relatively conspicuous, being perched on a hillside overlooking the road and meadow, and featuring a large outdoor deck. The deck, while appropriate for routine enjoyment by a single family, could take on an ominously different character when one considers its potential use as an active outdoor lounging area for a large household of transient residents, staff and visitors. Indeed, neighboring homeowners will feel a distinct loss of privacy — and an increased feeling of vulnerability. The relative dispersal of the adjoining properties, in fact, makes the proposed treatment center all the more intrusive for the Veit properties in particular. This is because there's so little else going on in the immediate meadow vicinity; that the ambient effect is to create a relatively intimate relationship between the properties. If measured in feet and yards apart, the homes may seem sufficiently separate. Yet the site of the proposed boarding house is effectively "right next- door" — it's the nearest human thing. And in the event that one or more of the boarding-house in -treatment transients should wander, either with institutional permission and supervision or without it, the obvious destinations for wandering are few and far between. The town of Carbondale is clearly too far away. The neighbors' properties and homes and driveways are the obvious ones. While not wanting to unfairly stereotype persons undergoing drug and alcohol abuse treatment (they are precisely the customers and clients of the proposed treatment center), it is fair to say that many have serious social adjustment, psychological, and behavioral problems and disorders. Concentrating this population in this unlikely neighborhood raises serious concerns. Another urgent concern is the potential for outdoor smoking and an increased risk of fires. The roads and driveways accessing these homes can become dead -ends with no routes of escape in the event of a fire. Response times by fire- fighting units are understandably strained by the locale's isolation beyond the Carbondale city limits. We share other neighbors' concerns that a concentrated population of isolated, recovering substance abusers will likely increase significantly the risks of an accidental fire due to cigarette smoking gone amok. Tuesday, July 27, 2004 America Online: RBVEIT 1 July 27, 2004 Sarah Baker, LCSW 527 Tamalpais Drive Mill Valley, CA 94941 To the County Commissioners of Garfield County: EXHIBIT I am writing to express my concerns regarding a proposed drug/alcohol treatment facility to be created in an existing residence on County Road 107. My mother, Jane Veit, and step -father, Dick Veit, along with my step -sister, Alexandra Schwaller, all live in this Valley, and I vacation with my family here at least once a year with my husband and two small children. The proposed facility is adjacent to my family's property. Aside from my concerns as a mother of having a residential treatment facility as a next door neighbor, I also have a professional perspective to offer. I have been a licensed clinical social worker for the last 10 years and have had the opportunity to work with individuals with substance abuse issues. While I believe these people are in need of treatment, I have concerns that the residence that is being proposed for a treatment facility is not appropriate. It has been my experience, working with this population, that many of these individuals suffer from severe and persistent mental illness and are in need of a high level of structure and support. Who will be supervising them? If this facility is not locked, what will prevent the clients from wandering beyond the property limits? Will there be clinical staff employed by the facility to monitor clients, and will there be a sufficient number of staff to provide the structure, safety and support they require? I imagine that the clients in this proposed facility will have visitors. Who will be monitoring these individuals, many who may well be troubled themselves? Many recovering alcoholics and addicts smoke cigarettes. A discarded cigarette butt could easily create a fire that would cut off all potential means of escape for the residents of County Road 107. As a person with considerable experience in the field of mental health, I strongly believe that people with substance abuse issues are in need of treatment; however, I strongly believe that the proposed site for such a facility would be inappropriate. Such a residential and remote area cannot possibly support the kinds of comprehensive client services nor the security necessary to ensure safety and security for those who live on County Road 107, residents and clients. To create such a facility in this location is both irresponsible and dangerous. Respectfully Submitted, Sarah Baker Licensed Clinical Social Worker <> 1 July 26, 2004 Kate and Elliot Hayne 60 California Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 To the County Commissioners of Garfield County Plaza Building 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners: I am writing to express my concern regarding an application for a proposed drug and alcohol treatment facility to be established in an existing residence on County Road 107 in Carbondale. My mother, Jane Baker Veit, her husband, Richard Veit, and my stepsister, Alexandra Schwaller and her children have been living in this valley for the last fifteen years. My husband and I and two small children visit from out of state for a few weeks every year. The natural beauty, and isolation of the land are valued assets that we feel will be threatened by revoking existing land covenants in favor of a private treatment facility with little if any state oversight. We feel strongly that a single family home, located in an isolated residential neighborhood is an inappropriate location for up to ten recovering addicts. Whether the patients of the proposed treatment facility are "locked in" or allowed to wander freely, we feel our families will suffer. Should we continue to allow our young children to play outside on our property, just outside the proposed facility? Will changing the area's land covenants permanently alter the value of our family's land? In a high-risk fire area, will unsupervised (or supervised) smoking be allowed? In addition to the patients of the proposed treatment facility, will there be visitors, support staff, housekeeping personnel crowding the county road? While we realize that few people would choose to live near a treatment center for recovering addicts, choosing to purchase property with land covenants that clearly prohibit such use demonstrates our family's desire to live and raise our children apart from such a facility. People who are suffering from alcoholism surely need and deserve treatment. Should that treatment be provided in a single family home with dubious professional supervision next-door to the homes of family's with young children? Whose responsibility does it become when something inevitably goes wrong with this inherently at -risk group? My husband and I fear that this project, which appears experimental, is one that will impinge on the security of the people in this remote valley, and as a mother, I am concerned for the welfare of my children, and the children who live in this valley year round. Sincerely, Kate and Elliot Hayne MEMORANDUM Jane and I have attended meetings with Duane Stewart, Robert Ferguson, together with their wives, so as to have explained to us details surrounding Exhibits C & D of their application which has been submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department asking for a Conditional Use Permit allowed under the existing zoning (Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density) We had read the Exhibits and were puzzled by what was the exact nature of the "use" described in the petition. Stewart stated that Ferguson was the potential buyer of his house and that the sale was conditional to a positive result from the Commissioners. We were surprised to learn that Ferguson wanted to establish a program for recovering alcoholics and addicts, inasmuch as no mention of this use had even been hinted at in his application. Indeed we had been puzzled by the number of special requirements which would be imposed upon the inhabitants of this building, especially as the description given to the planners was cited a "mountain retreat" for "high-end private - pay clientele for guests and their families", seeking a "holistic lifestyle" - a term not defined in zoning. We had asked ourselves why, for example, guests were not allowed to have cars, had to stay a "minimum of 90 days", have "a professional onsite staff 24 hours a day, 7 days a week", why be bussed to a fitness center, undergo "expedition training". At the meetings we learned that the guests would undergo mandatory drug and alcohol tests, a physical exam, not allowed beyond the boundaries of the property and be given a $200 allowance. After we asked who was going to enforce these rules, and what their estimation of recidivism rates might be, we learned that Stewart and the Fergusons were themselves recovering alcoholics which gave them a special "expertise" in the field of treatment. We also learned that Mrs. Ferguson's father, Mr. Wilkie, an Aspen contractor, was going to finance the project. This explained to us why this buyer was willing to pay such a high price for the property, which realtors had characterized as over -priced. The main concern we expressed had to do with the access road, County Road 107, also known as Red Hill Road. This road is dangerous in the winter and is often icy and, in spite of valorous efforts on the part of Road & Bridge, numerous accidents have occurred on it. We found the statement in Exhibit D that "any very slight increase in traffic volume will not place additional burden on area residents to be a gross misstatement as there was no reference to bikers and hikers that use this dirt road, often walking several abreast with dogs not on a leash around the many blind corners. There was no mention of visitors to the "guests" and the traffic they will generate. To say that this facility housing 10 adult "guests" together with 4 full-time staff generates the same traffic as the average "single-family residence" borders on the insulting. We asked what provisions would be in place to avoid fires which might be started by his clients, especially as it is well known that alcoholism and tobacco addiction are closely linked. Ferguson agreed that he was concerned about this and that he would ban smoking in the facility. He further said he would spend $10,000 to thin trees in the lot. Incidentally, this is contrary to his statement in paragraph 4A of Exhibit D. We asked also what might happen should this commercial project fail financially, questioning whether the property would revertto a single-family residence as originally envisioned by the County. Mrs Stewart volunteered that it might make a great Bed & Breakfast, a use which would generate much additional traffic. We were unable to elicit a straight answer from Ferguson as to whether this might be arranged. I researched the matter with regard as to the accuracy of the application, in which Stewart and Ferguson's description of the intended use of the buildings raises some questions. The category of conditional use they are asking for is that of a "Boarding or Rooming House", but what they describe is that of what is known in the language as a "halfway house" - a category not mentioned in our Zoning law. However, there is a category in the law called a "convalescent home", not defined in our Zoning book nor in the Websters. However, "convalescence" is defined as "recovering after a sickness or weakness". As alcoholism is called a "disease" by the National Institute on Alcoholic Abuse and Alcoholism, it follows that the definition fits quite well the description as stated by Stewart and Ferguson. It would seem that this application for a special use permit for a "Boarding house" is faulty and that the application, so as reflect the actual use of the building, should have been for a "Convalescent home". Unfortunately this would require a change in the zoning and as such a use calls for C/L classification, such a change would constitute "spot zoning", a practice subject to serious opposition. Incidentally, the definition for a boarding house requires that it be used as a "both as a residential building and and to provide lodging " Ferguson will be living in Snow Mass. R.B.Veit 963-0680 7/24/04 Garfield County Assessor Property Search Page 1 of 2 Colorado Property Information Data Updated Quarterly with the last update released on 01/14/2005 Tax information is updated as of noon each o Monda Friday d will be available for viewing by 5 pm the Assessor & Treasurer Get Map Search > Results > Detail Owner Name: Duane R. & Elizabeth G. Stewart Type: Primary Address: 734 Main Street Carbondale, CO 81623-0216 Property Address: Account number: Parcel number: Sub -division: Condo: Neighborhood: Area: Legal: Taxes 001413 107 County Rd Carbondale, CO R111793 239322300319 112002 011 SECT,TWN,RNG:22-7-88 DESC: A TR IN NWSW PRE:R111775 BK:0776 PG:0954 BK:0774 PG:0786 BK:0918 PG:0059 BK:0918 PG:0052 BK:0900 PG:0941 BK:0805 PG:0416 Total Actual 801,230.00 Value: 2004 taxes payable in 2005: Amount Paid: Land $3,718.74 $0.00 Actual Value: $230,000.00 Land size: Square feet: http://www.mitchandco. com/realestate/garfreld/propertyDisplay.cfm?AccountNo=R111793 1/28/2005 Garfield County Assessor Property Search Page 2 of 2 Acres: Building(s) Type: Actual Value: Description: Actual year built: Heated square feet: Bedrooms: Bathrooms: Stories: Architecture style: Construction quality: Type of heat: Roof structure: Roof cover: Exterior wall: Improvement(s) Actual Value: Description: Actual Value: Description: Actual Value: Description: Actual Value: Description: Actual Value: 10.00 Residential $528,610.00 SFR Jan 1 1995 12: 3962 4.0 3.7000000000000002 1 1-STRY/BSM GOOD FORCED AIR GABLE COMP SHNGL FR STUCCO $4,790.00 OPEN PORCH 251+ SF $1,410.00 JACUZZI $3,520.00 BALCONY 251+ SF $4,700.00 F/P-GOOD $14,100.00 Description: 2 -CAR CAR 400-576 SF Actual Value: $14,100.00 Description: 2 -CAR CAR 400-576 SF Copyright © 2003 Mitchell & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.mitchandco.com/realestate/garfield/propertyDisplay.cfm?AccountNo=R111793 1/28/2005 RECJr2JEj 2: so CLOCK P .,•i. ?'C ' 46J90f.0 059 OCT 0 4 1994 M1LL D :Ls��.?�, :4;,F1_L:; �' �`+r" BOOK0918 -f AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE COVENANT THIS GREEMENT AND P OTECTIVE COVENANT made and entered into on the ,-.?1== day of , 1994 by and between DUANE R. AND r ?ABETH G.STEWART (herein "Stewart"), and ANDREW SCHWALLER and ALEXANDRA SCHWALLER (herein "Schwaller"), and RICHARD B. VEIT (herein "Veit"), and JANE R. BAKER (herein "Baker"); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Stewart has recently purchased a parcel of real estate consisting of approximately ten (10) acres as described in Warranty Deed recorded as Garfield County Reception No. V69 28-? in Book q/g at Page 05.2. ; and Schwaller owns a parcel of real estate described in Warranty Deed recorded as Garfield County Reception No. 416799, in Book 788 at Page 355; and Baker owns a parcel of real estate described in Warranty Deed originally recorded in Garfield County in Book 804 at Page 405, but subsequently rerecorded as Garfield County Reception No. 125956, in Book 810 at Page 60; and Veit is the owner of a parcel of real property containing 35.001 acres which is described in a Warranty Deed recorded in Garfield County, Colorado as Reception No. 410729, in Book 774 at Page 786, less the properties hereinabove conveyed out to Stewart, Schwaller and Baker (such parcels are herein referred to, respectively, as the "Stewart Parcel", "Schwaller Parcel", "Baker Parcel", and "Veit Parcel"); and WHEREAS, with the conveyances to the parties of the various parcels, there has been created an access road which commences at County Road No. 107 just to the south of the southeast corner of the Stewart Parcel, thence continuing westerly across the Baker Parcel several feet to the south of the southerly boundary of the Stewart Parcel and approximately parallel therewith, thence crossing into the Stewart Parcel and across the southwest corner of the Stewart Parcel, thence exiting the Stewart Parcel on its west boundary, thence in a generally westerly direction across the Baker Parcel and the Veit Parcel to the termination of said access road on the east boundary of the Schwaller Parcel; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into certain agreements v with regard to the use, operation, maintenance and repair of said access road, and the parties desire that such agreements shall become covenants binding upon all of the present owners of the four rJ parcels, and any future owners thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in considerationof the mutual v promises and agreements herein contained, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. The above described access road shall be jointly maintained by the parties so that it is free of snow and debris, such maintenance to include snowplowing, grading, and necessary repairs. The cost of such maintenance shall be born equally by the owners of the four parcels herein described. Mason & Morse Real .E tate 0304 Highway 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 Bo0K0918 n;s; 060 2. If any damage should occur to the road access, which is caused by the negligence or intentional actions, or omissions to act, of any one of the parties, their guests, invitees, agents or employees, such damage shall be repaired by the parcel owner who caused the damage or whose guests, invitees, agents or employees caused such damage. 3. Except with regard to the responsibility for construction and repair of the roadway by a single owner as described in paragraph 2, above, any major improvements, repairs or maintenance to the roadway shall require the approval of three out of the four property owners. A "major" repair shall be one which requires a one time expenditure of funds in excess of $1,000.00 for one repair or maintenance transaction. 4. No parking or storage of vehicles or allowed on the road easement, which is twenty except for the turnouts at the Veit and Baker parking or storage of vehicles or equipment shall be done in such a manner so as not to passage of traffic freely over the roadway. equipment shall be (20) feet in width, residences, and any at such locations, interfere with the 5. The agreements contained herein are hereby declared to be convenants which shall be a burden upon the title to all of the four parcels hereinabove described and the burdens and benefits of said covenants shall run with the title to all of said lands and shall be binding upon the current owners, their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns to the four parcels herein described. 6. These covenants may only be altered, changed, amended or terminated by a written instrument signed and executed by all of the owners of the four parcels herein described. ECthe day and year first above written. ANDSC "A LER ALEXANDRA SCHWALLER STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The foregoing Agreement and Protective Covenant was sign7d before me by 'ANDREW SCHWALLER and ALEXANDRA SCHWALLER on the 3 < - day,µ°f 0C -714 4t/ 1994. • Witness my hand and official,seal. My commission expires: 'Z Z- 3/( —2— STATE OF COLORADO ) G ) COUNTY OF (e I �! ) NE R. STEWART SS. mu0918r.c;061 ELIZAH G. STEWART The foregoing Agreement and Protect've Covenant was ,signed before me by DUANE R. STEWART on the 3 4- day of ocrzb --/ , 1994. AND ELIZABETH G. STEWART Witness my hand and officia/se 1. / My commission expires: 237fce STATE OF COLO DO COUNTY OF67 P l ) SS. RICHARD B. VEIT The foregoing Agreement and Protecl.ive Covenant was signed before me by RICHARD B. VEIT on the 3-`* day of Ccr( ham- , 1,94>, .: N. Witness my hand and official eal. My commission expires: /2 7-3/6 :42? -,7h> Not r JANE R. BAKER STATE OF C ORADO ) / ss. COUNTY OF `l�'f/e/1 ) The foregoing Agreement and Protective Covenant was signed before em by JANE R. BAKER on the -3 4or day of cc 1999 Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: % l r 3/% 6 -(1144 -- Not ry C 6 - Notiry Pubff.ic -3- EXHIBIT B J C7t-}, '1, 1'1%I 5S2 r!r:E96U COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS In order to preserve the natural, unspoiled character of the real property hereinafter described,'and to maintain such property as a rural, residential area, the following covenants, conditions{ and restrictions shall run with the land and be binding upon all parties having any right, title, or interest in the property hereinafter described, and any part thereof, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each of said parties. ARTICLE I PROTECTED AREA The following described real property shall be subject to the restrictions, covenants, and conditions hereby imposed, and shall be referred to as the "protected area": That area originally acquired by Daniel W. Stroock, by deed recorded in Book 404, at Page 220, of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado, described as follows: Township 7 South', Range 88 West of the 6th P.M.: Section 21: N4SE4, SE4SE4; Section 22: SW' , SW4NE4, W4 SE4, SE44SE4 ; Section 27: NW4cNW4, Lot 4; Excepting therefrom the following: A. That parcel described on Exhibit A, Part I to a Contract for Deed, recorded in Book 411, at Page 274, of the Garfield County records; B. That parcel described in a'deed recorded in Book 432, at Page 448, of the Garfield County records; C. That parcel described in a deed recorded in Book 434, at Page 334, of the Garfield County records; D. That parcel described in a deed recorded in Book 436, at Page 409, of the Garfield County records. if : K 582 P!SE961. ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS Section 1. "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner or owners of any tract, whether one or more persons or entities, including contract sellers and contract purchasers, but excluding any person, or persons, claiming an interest in the protected area by reason of an interest in an easement or right-of-way, and excluding all persons having an interest in the protected area as security for the performance of an obligation. Section 2. A "tract" shall mean each parcel conveyed by Daniel W. Stroock, or his successors in interest, (herein- after referred to as "Stroock") (all subsequent references to Stroock shall be deemed to include his successors in interest unless otherwise specified) from the protected area above described with one ownership, whether such ownership be in .the name of one, or more, persons, including the parcel owned. by Stroock,.excluding, however, easements or rights-of-way; provided,however, any such parcel or "tract" may, from time to time, subject to acreage limitations hereinafter expressed, be divided into two or more tracts, each such divided parcel thereupon becoming a separate tract. The portion of the protected area not conveyed shall constitute a tract. Section 3. The "meadow" shall be that portion of the protected area described as follows: A meadow in the SWC of Section 22 and the SEh of Section 21, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the SE corner of the NE1/4SW4 of said Section 22 whence the SW corner of Section 22 bears S. 63°37'06" W. 2888.42 feet; thence N. 00°58'40" W. 430.10 feet; thence N. 64°15'54" W. 11.45 feet; thence N. 73°23'05" W. 837.23 feet; thence N. 87°43'40" W. 690.00 feet; thence N. 04°52'21" E. 142.64 feet to a ditch; thence along said ditch the following courses: S. 83°39'15" W. 259.71 feet; thence N. 80°42'23" W. 178.50 feet; thence N. 73°04'26" W. 175.11 feet; thence S. 89°23'48" W. 218.00 feet; thence S. 96°01'12" W. 212.00 feet; thence S. 82°51'42" W. 148.00 t: :K 552 ricE962 feet; thence S. 68°26'42" W. 231.00 feet;. thence S. 77°39'12" w. 283.00 feet; thence N. 69°16'33" W. 180.00 feet; thence N. 79°14'49" W. 81.00 feet; thence S. 73°31'26" W. 278.00 feet; thence N. 84°02'19" W. 170.40 feet; thence S. 55°21'11" W. 382.50 feet; thence S. 60°50'56" W. 186.00 feet; thence S. 22°46'04" E. 182.70 feet; thence S. 67°05'49" E. 336.60 feet; thence S. 74°21'59" E. 777.86 feet; thence S. 61°13'33" E. 254.00 feet; thence S. 79°08'33" E. 225.00 feet; thence 5. 68°30'33" E. 347.00 feet; thence S,. 75°09'33" E. 260.00 feet; thence S. 65°44'03" E. 212.60 feet; thence S. 55°29'48" E. 149.,90 feet; thence S. 61°09'1B" E. 260.00 feet; thence N. 55°55'42" E. 86.9D feet; thence S. 83°24'48" E. 201.00 feet; thence N. 85°27'21" E. 199.17 feet; thence N. 80°12'51" E. 361.00 feet; thence N. 72°07'51" E. 207.00 feet; thence N. 87°04'21" E. 203.00 feet; thence S. 77°22'38" E. 383.60 feet; thence N. 06°09'21" E. 117.20 feet; thence N. 70°47'08" W. 130.70 feet; thence N. 38°05'08" W. 124.00 feet; thence N. 85°20'41" E. 229.47 feet; thence leaving said ditch N. 00°58'40" W. 372.84 feet; to the point of beginning, containing 106.44 acres, more or less. ARTICLE III PROTECTIVE COVENANTS Section 1. No tract, whether or not divided or sub- divided, shall be less than ten acres. Section 2. Each tract shallbe used for residential and• agricultural purposes only, and there shall not be erected on any one tract morethan,one single family dwelling; except that four detached single family dwellings, together with guest houses, appurtenant swimming pools, tennis courts, barns or stables and garages, for not more than three vehicles each, shall be permitted on the .4.3 -acre trace described in and conveyed by the Warranty Deed from Daniel W. Stroock to Stephen Low and Helen C. Low, dated March 2, 1973, and recorded March 13, 1973, in Book 441 at Page 5n2 of the Garfield County records. Each single family dwelling may also have one guest house, together with a garage, barn, stable, and other suitable auxiliary and out buildings. Section 3. In addition to the restrictions upon con- struction or location of improvements in the protected area elsewhere set forth in this instrument (1) no dwelling or appurtenant structures shall be permitted in the WISE:, L'^:Y 582 P'3E963 5E4SE1/4 and SW;NEh of Section 22, T. 7 S., R. 88 W., 6th P.M. unless access thereto is provided exclusively by means other than the utilization of any portion of Garfield County Road of the south line of said Section 22; No. 107 lying north and (2) dwellings and appurtenant structures in the N45E4 and SE1/4SE4 of Section 21, the SW4 of Section 22, and the NW'ANA and Lot 4 of Section 27, T. 7 S., R. 88 W., 6th P.M., which utilize any portion of Garfield County Road No. 107 lying north of the south line of said Section 22 shall be limited to the following:' (i) the four dwellings with their set forth appurtenant structures permitted by the covenants in the Warranty Deed recorded in Book 441 at Page 502 of the Garfield County records, referred to in Section 2 above;, (ii) the dwellings with their appurtenant structures now or hereafter placed upon the tracts _described in Book 539 at Page 404, Book 445 at Page 493, Boox 450._at_Page.259 and Book $39 at Page 405 of the Garfield County records; and next five dwellings with their appurtenant structures constructed or located on said lands. (iii) the hereafter Section 4. All structures or improvements of any kind, except fences, walls, or other improvements defining boundaries, property line of any tract at however, (1) any the public domain or private shall be set back from the one hundred (100) feet, excepting, property line which abuts least property which is not included or (2) two adjoining in a recorded document to less than one hundred (100) foot set back with respect to their adjoining boundary. Section 5. No trees, bushes, natural foL)Jage, or vegetation shall be so cut, removed, or otherwise damaged unduly the natural, unspoiled within the protected area; tracts if the owners thereof agree as to damage or destroy character of the property, excepting, however, as may be necessary for the construction of improvements, for providing ingress and egress to such improvements, and for the con- t^'K 552 P+'E96'1 struction and maintenance of utilities and roadways. The limitations contained in this covenant shall not apply to reasonable agricultural nractices in the meadow. Section 6. No animals, livestock, or poultry shall be raised, bred, or kept or maintained on any tract, as a business; provided, however, this limitation shall not prevent the maintenance, breeding, use,.or sale, of such animals on any tract for personal uses, and incidental to the use of such tract for residential purposes. The main- tenance of a kennel and other improvements upon the tract presently owned by Leslie R. Roberts and Janis L. Roberts described in a deed recorded in Book 445 at Page 493 of the Garfield County records, is hereby specifically excluded from this covenant and from the set -back covenant to the extent that the same are presently constructed and presently operated. Should such set -back violation or stable or kennel operation be removed or discontinued, by Roberts or a future owner, for a six month period, such violations shall not thereafter be again permitted or attempted, it being understood and agreed that such use as a stable or kennel may be continued and maintained on its present scale, but not expanded. ARTICLE IV MEADOW RESTRICTIONS AND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL Section 1. In the event that the meadow, at the election of Stroock, (for the purposes of this Article IV, not including his successors in interest) shall be used for grazing animals, the owner of each tract shall have a proportionate right to graze animals upon the meadow at the then prevailing grazing rate for the area, each owner having an equal right; provided, however, only a reasonable number of animals shall be grazed upon said meadow as may be determined by Stroock during the period 582 ng9B5 that he shall be the owner of any tract within the protected area. Such right to graze shall be limited to that portion of the meadow owned by Stroock and such right shall cease and terminate at such time as Stroock's ownership of such meadow shall terminate and shall not be binding upon Stroock's successors in interest. Nothing in this Section 1 shall be deemed to modify, alter, limit or reduce those grazing rights in the meadow acquired by Stroock's grantees by warranty deed from Stroock prior to the date of recording of this instrument, and by the successors in interest of such grantees, including but not limited to those Warranty Deeds from Stroock recorded in Book 441 at Page 502, Book 445 at Page 493, Book 450 at Page 259, Book 429 at Page 179, and Book 429 at Page 166. Section 2. In the event that Stroock shall receive a bona fide offer, which offer he is willing to accept, for the purchase and sale of the meadow, or any part thereof, during the term of these covenants, Stroock agrees to notify each of the record owners of the protected area of such offer to purchase and sell, reciting in reasonable detail the terns and conditions thereof. Within thirty (30) days after the mailing of such notice, said record owners, individually or jointly, shall have, and are hereby granted, an option to purchase the premises described in said notice at the price, and upon the terms and conditions, contained in such good faith offer to purchase said property. In such case, said record owners must agree among themselves, in some manner, the means by which title to said property shall be taken. In the event that the owners, or some of them, shall not have accepted such offer within the time herein provided, Stroock may, thereupon, sell said meadow, or part thereof, in accordance with the price, terms, and conditions contained in such good faith offer; in such case, such third party purchaser shall take title to the property so purchased free and clear of owners' right to purchase same, or to graze animals thereon. Thereupon the property purchased shall be subject to the remainder of these covenants to the same extent as any other tract. Unless sooner terminated, the option herein granted shall expire 20 ,years after the death of the last survivor of all natural persons who are record owners on the date of recording of these Covenants. Section 3. The meadow may be used only for agricultural purposes, including commercial agricultural purposes; pro- vided, however, such use of the meadow shall not unreasonably alter its present or past use. In no event shall any residential structures, temporary or permanent, be placed or allowed to remain upon the meadow. ARTICLE V GENERAL PROVISIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Section 1. Motorized equipment, garbage cans, service yards, or storage areas shall be adequately screened by plantings or construction. Section 2. No obnoxious, offensive, or other activity which would constitute a public or private nuisance or annoyance to the neighborhood will be permitted. Section 3. Dangerous or wild animals may not be kept or maintained, permanently or temporarily, upon any tract. Section 4. No advertising signs, billboards, or unsightly objects shall be maintained or erected. Section 5. No junk or trash will be allowed to accumulate on any tract, and the same must be regularly removed. Section 6. These covenants and restrictions may be enforced by proceedings at law or equity against any person, or persons, violating or attempting to violate the same, either to restrain any violation, or to recover damages, or both. x 552 nrEJ& i • Section 7. Invalidation, of._anv of „these covenants or restrictions by judgment, court order, or otherwise, shall in nowise affect any other provision which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 8. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be binding:.upon all parties, and all parties claiming under them for a period ending July 2, 1991, after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years unless an instru- ment signed by the then owners of two-thirds of the then tracts shall be recorded prior to the end of any such ten- year period terminating or modifying said covenants and -restrictions in accordance with the provi--lens ci such instrument. Said covenants and restrictions may, from time to time, be modified or amended by an instrument in writing signed by the then owners of two-thirds of the then tracts. Each tract, regardless of acreage, shall be entitled to one vote, and the various owners, or co-owners, legal or equitable, of any such tract shall either combine to exercise said one vote, or may proportionately split such vote in proportion to the number of said co-owners. The owner, or owners, collectively, of the meadow shall not have a vote by reason of such ownership, if such owner, or owners, are entitled to another vote, as the owner of a separate tract. Community Residents of Red Hill County Road 107 Carbondale, CO 81623 EXHIBIT Re: Conditional Use Permit Application, Duane Stewart, applicant To Garfield County Commissioners: We are writing in opposition to this application for reasons detailed below. As a general comment, there are so many peculiarities of departure from procedures surrounding Mr. Stewart's application that we, in opposition, are having a hard time organizing our information. First, one should be reminded that the county Commissioners, who oversee the entire County, with its many departments are chosen by public election for this onerous and responsible task in promoting the public good because of their qualities of judgement and fairness. In this case, they are faced with having to make a difficult decision, namely as to whether inhabitants of a quiet and family neighborhood should have to bear the burden and cost of welcoming an influx of troubled patients—a decision forced upon the Commissioners driven by the greed of one of our neighbors. We understand that Planning has recommended approval for this "Conditional Use Permit". I. Flaws in Application We find the Permit to be flawed because the Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for commercial use under an incorrect label. Mr. Stewart is applying for a use, which is not described, in his application. Mr. Stewart inaccurately describes this as a "boarding house", when in actuality it is a half -way house or treatment center, since we were advised that in fact the "boarding house" will be a facility for recovering addicts. This information was not included in the Application to the County. (Incidentally, we were told by Mr. Ferguson that the County was not interested or concerned in who the "clintele" might be, which seemed quite curious to us.) He also refers to the use as a "Congregate Facility" implying a health care facility of some sort. What he should have described in the Application is a half way house, not a category described in the Ordinance, and which would inconveniently require a change in zoning What is described, however, is something more closely related to a resort or a convalescent home, neither of which are allowed in the existing zoning. We would argue since neither a resort or a convalescent home is allowed in the this zone, if the Commissioners approve of the petition, then they are in effect introducing "spot zoning" into our area. In order to obtain the Permit, he has had to make a faulty and deceptive definition in the Application of what he refers to as a "boarding house. Typically, the purpose of including the category of "boarding house" under this zoning is to provide supplemental income for people who have lost a spouse or encounter financial difficulties, not for a commercial facility that provides care and support to recovering addicts. II. "Clientele" as presented in Application Here is what is described in the Application as concerns the nature of the "clientele": A. They require that visitors, age 18 or older who have chosen a "holistic lifestyle" (however defined) B. They must stay a minimum of 90m days and a maximum of one year C. They are characterized as being "high-end private pay clientele" D They need "privacy of its guests and their families" E Guests may not own or operate their own vehicles F They require a "professional, on -sight staff 24/7 will be provided" (If this is in fact a "boarding house", why the 24/7 professional staff?) H They require "visits to local fitness center" two or three times a week I They require trip to Roaring Fork Valley 4 or 5 times a week J They require "expedition training" to designated recreational areas two or three times a week K they require transportation to weekly religious services It strikes us as odd that the planners would not see that this description clearly does not define a boarding house, but more accurately either a resort, or a convalescent home. Clearly, this is much more than a boarding house, with much more than a tenant/landlord relationship. In fact, the landlord will not be residing in Garfield County but in Piton County! If this were in fact, a convalescent home, we would like to direct the following questions to the Petitioner to provide to the Commissioners the information that was not included in the Application. 1. What credentials will the staff have, in as much as the Application refers to "a professional staff'? 2. How will food be prepared and provided? 3. Will there be a cleaning staff? 4. Will patients be allowed visitors on the property? If so, will transportation be provided? 5. Will this be a coeducational facility? 6. How will you plan to accommodate ten patients, a 24 hour, 2 person staff, as defined in the Application in a building in which the existing permit defines as a four bedroom? 7. Has the building been built in accordance with code applicable to commercial buildings (which requires certification by an architect or an engineer on the drawings)? 8. "Guests" are not defined in the application. Are "guests" in fact, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts? 9. Are these patients subject to periodic drug and alcoholic testing? 10. Are they required to undergo physical exams before admittance? 11. Are they restricted within the property limits? Will they be allowed to roam on BLM land? 12. Will smoking be allowed anywhere on the property? 13. Did the County tell you that the County was not interested in a description of the clientele? How do you plan to enforce these patient rules governing this most improbable "boarding house"? III. Expense and Burden to be borne by Landowners -Loss of Privacy as a Result of Viewing Deck Platform (Was permit issued for this Deck? Suspect it is over height restriction.) - Disruption of lifestyle requiring residents to lock their houses and cars. In view of high recidivism rate, the fear of possible break-ins, and harassment of adults and children. - Reduction of property values, estimated by a leading Realtor in Carbondale at 10-15% - Loss of protection afforded by Covenants voluntarily entered into by all neighbors, including petitioner. In as much as expectation is for younger patients to be housed, the possibility of noise will reverberate throughout the valley. Possible increase in fire insurance Having to deal with trespassers Having to deal with visitors unfamiliar with the area Difficulty in selling property, affected by location, location, location rule IV. Burden to be borne by County Danger of fire, and serious limitations as regards access for fire equipment Because of increased traffic on the road (incorrectly described in Petition) increased maintenance by Road and Bridge, and possible widening at certain trouble spots Sheriff's Office impacted by any possible disruption recurring caused by patients Increased possibility of traffic incidents requiring ambulances, tow trucks, police (no mention that road is much used by hikers and bikers) Enforcement of provisions mandated by the County and promised by Petitioner Possible reduced tax revenue who could apply for reduction in property taxes Breaking of Covenants might induce some property owners cease the Green Belt guaranteed by the existing Covenants , Page 1 of Subj: Drug Treatment Boarding House Date: 07/27/2004 9:34:08 AM Mountain Daylight Time From: rwhitt@pacbeit net (rwhitt) Reply -to: rwhitt@pacbell.net ((whiff) To: rbveit@aotcom (Dick and Jane Veit) July 25, 2004 To All Appropriate Local and Garfield County Agencies, We are writing to express our strong opposition to a pending proposal to convert a single-family residential property on County Road 107 into a commercial drug and alcohol treatment facility — specifically, a "boarding house" for persons undergoing drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation. This unconventional use of what has been to date a single-family home — in a conspicuous location in a community of single-family residences -- is a highly unconventional use for the property. We believe that it would have a dramatic, negative impact on the character and safety of the neighboring community. It is inappropriate, and we urge you to reject it. While we are not year-round locals, Jane and Dick Veit, our child's grandparents, are. The Veits live on the property immediately adjacent to the proposed drug treatment house. Our own family has vacationed and visited the Veits regularly (Jane Veit is Alison's mother) over the past 10+ years, and we have a deep affection for the serenity and natural beauty of the valley and meadow. We fully anticipate a long family connection to the property and to the preservation of the valley for many years to come. We oppose commercial businesses within this recondite residential valley for a number of reasons. It is not consistent with the tradition of this valley, the hallmark of which has been single-family rural residences situated in relative isolation. While the overall neighboring community is isolated, the residence in question is relatively conspicuous, being perched on a hillside overlooking the road and meadow, and featuring a large outdoor deck. The deck, while appropriate for routine enjoyment by a single family, could take on an ominously different character when one considers its potential use as an active outdoor lounging area for a large household of transient residents, staff and visitors. Indeed, neighboring homeowners will feel a distinct loss of privacy — and an increased feeling of vulnerability. The relative dispersal of the adjoining properties, in fact, makes the proposed treatment center all the more intrusive for the Veit properties in particular. This is because there's so little else going on in the immediate meadow vicinity; that the ambient effect is to create a relatively intimate relationship between the properties. If measured in feet and yards apart, the homes may seem sufficiently separate. Yet the site of the proposed boarding house is effectively "right next- door" — it's the nearest human thing. And in the event that one or more of the boarding-house in -treatment transients should wander, either with institutional permission and supervision or without it, the obvious destinations for wandering are few and far between. The town of Carbondale is clearly too far away. The neighbors' properties and homes and driveways are the obvious ones. While not wanting to unfairly stereotype persons undergoing drug and alcohol abuse treatment (they are precisely the customers and clients of the proposed treatment center), it is fair to say that many have serious social adjustment, psychological, and behavioral problems and disorders. Concentrating this population in this unlikely neighborhood raises serious concerns. Another urgent concern is the potential for outdoor smoking and an increased risk of fires. The roads and driveways accessing these homes can become dead -ends with no routes of escape in the event of a fire Response times by fire- fighting units are understandably strained by the locale's isolation beyond the Carbondale city limits. We share other neighbors' concerns that a concentrated population of isolated, recovering substance abusers will likely increase significantly the risks of an accidental fire due to cigarette smoking gone amok. Tuesday, July 27, 2004 America Online: RBVEIT Page 2 of 2 Another issue of concern is traffic --- which would undoubtedly increase with the proposed commercial use of the property. Residents, visitors and staff, coming and going, day and night, via the county road will doubtlessly disturb the current peacefulness of the neighborhood. The winding county road is already quite dicey even with the current reduced traffic of drivers familiar with the road. Near head-on collisions around blind comers are not at all uncommon. We could go on elaborating on our objections. The bottom line is, the proposed drug treatment facility is not a use of the property that complies with established community expectations, assumptions, precedents, traditions and standards. We see no compelling reason to make special allowances for it. We feel it will undermine property values and erode the quality of life in the area. Please oppose it. Sincerely, Richard and Alison Whittaker 103 Marin Street San Rafael, CA 94901 — Headers --------------- Retum-Path: <rwhitt@pacbell.net> Received: from rly-yj03.mx.aol.com (rly-yj03.mail.aol.com [172.18.180.163]) by air-yj04.mail.aoicom (v100.26) with ESMTP id MAILINYJ43-808410675cc382; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:34:08 -0400 Received: from smtp812.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp812.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.170.82)) by rly- yj03.mx.aol.com (v100.23) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYJ38-808410675cc382; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:33:32 - 0400 Received: from unknown (HELO richard) (rwhitt@pacbell.net@69.110.19.252 with login) by smtp812.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Jul 2004 14:59:16 -0000 Message-ID:<000b01c473ea$4cba8450$6401a8c0@richard> Reply -To: "(whiff" <rwhitt©pacbell.net> From: "rwhitt" <rwhitt@pacbell.net> To: "Dick and Jane Veit" <rbveit@aol.com> Subject: Drug Treatment Boarding House Date: Tue,27 Jul 2004 07:59:08 -0700 MIME -Version: 1.0 Content -Type: multipart/altemative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01 C473AF.9889DF60" X -Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X -Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X -AOL -IP: 66.163.170.82 X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:0:0: X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 Tuesday, July 27, 2004 America Online: RBVEIT rage 1 oI 1 Subj: Proposed half -way house on Red Hill Date: 07/29/2004 12:14:40 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: Hear today To: RBVEIT Dear Commissioners: I'm 90 years old and was the first to buy property on Red Hill for a second home. During that time I have regularly renewed my life and enjoyed the solitude of that lovely area. The few people who came to build there have formed a congenial, supportive community, all fervently bound by the Covenant which we all signed in good faith to preserve our privacy and our solitude. Until now. The thought of allowing a commercial property to exist in our community is simply anathema to me, and I protest with all the breath that's left in me. To think that I would have to share our small roads with commercial vans, or having the roads built into highways, apalls me. And, having been in medicine most of my life, I do not have any feeling of security with reformed alcoholics and drug users in the area. I have seen to much of these kinds of people to feel confident in their behavior. I pay my taxes regularly (they are more than my home in Denver), and have tried to be a good citizen of the Hill. Please, please, vote against this outrageous petition! Sincerely, Marion Downs, DH.S., D.Sc, Professor Emerita, Dept. of Otolaryngology University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Thursday, July 29, 2004 America Online: RBVEIT Page 1 of Subj: Protest against Stuart Property Sale to become Drug/Alcohol Rehab Centr Date: 07/28/2004 12:22:12 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: jodypikeaway@yahoo.com (Jody pike) To: rbveit@aol.com To: From: Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado July 28, 2004 Jody and Jack Pike 883 County Rd 107 Carbondale, Co. 81623 Re: Stuart Property: Proposed Commercial Zoning for 1413 County Road 107 in Carbondale Dear Sirs: We are writing to protest the proposed sale of Duane and Betsy Stuart's property on County Rd. 107 to become a high-end private -pay "lodge". When we bought our property over 30 years ago, the covenants provided that the area would be strictly residential and that no commercial structures or business would transpire. We feel deep compassion and empathy for those people who need rehabilitation from drug and alcohol addiction. However, the families in this residential area of Carbondale have small children (we, ourselves, have 13 grandchildren) and safety is a problem. 1. Increased traffic and increased danger of accidents on road that has blind curves (Providing expeditions, fitness center visits, attendance at other events in the Roaring Fork Valley, purchasing food, changing of staff personnel daily would create intolerable traffic on a quiet country road) 2. Fire hazard (people in recovery from drug/alcohol abuse frequently are smokers and "escape" to "light up") 3. Possible danger to children as well as to themselves (people in recovery often have troubled histories which may not be recognized by employees staffing the facility; additionally, the potential problems would add an increased burden on the already short-handed Garfield Country Sheriff's Office.) 4. Privacy: for 34 years we have loved Red Hill; our children and grandchildren have been free to hike, bike, cross-country ski and visit neighbors in safety. Originally the legal covenants of Red Hill provided this privacy in perpetuity. An alcohol and drug rehabilitation center, no matter how "high-end" would encroach on the neighborhood. 5. Change of zoning: If a commercial property is allowed, it may permanently change the residential nature of the community, and, by setting a precedent, allow for further commercial development. Thank you for your consideration. We earnestly hope to preserve the safety of our neighborhood by not allowing a drug/alcohol facility to be built on Country Road 107. Yours truly, Thursday, July 29, 2004 America Online: RBVEIT rage 1 011 Subj: Garfield County Protest Date: 07/29/2004 12:08:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time From: MckFam4 To: jodypikeaway@yahoo.com, RBVEIT To: From: Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado July 29, 2004 Doug and Sharon McKenzie 883 County Rd 107 Carbondale, Co. 81623 Re: Carbondale Stuart property - Proposed Commercial Zoning for 1413 County Road 107 in Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commision: We urge that you not allow commercial zoning in this area. There are both legal and historical expectations that this road is a residential community, where neighbors know and look out for each other. The current nature of the neighborhood would be significantly altered by establishing a rehabilitation center here. There would be an increase in traffic and fire risk, as well as the significant addition of residents and employees who would likely have little or no concern for the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. The families of County Road 107 purchased their property and established the covenants with the intent to retain its character, and have done so these many years. We hope you can help us to sustain that intention, and preserve the safety of our community. Please do not allow a residential rehabilitation facility to be built on Country Road 107. Sincerely, Doug and Sharon McKenzie 2 sons, ages 11 and 12 Thursday, July 29, 2004 America Online: RBVEIT rage 1 of 1 Subj: Red Hill Date: 07/28/2004 12:58:46 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: mpueland@yahoo.com (FRED AND MICKA UELAND) To: rbveit@aol.com I'm writing with great concern over the news of a possible commercial venture on Red Hill. Red Hill remains a quiet, safe, and picturesque area for residents and daytime hiking enthusiasts. A commercial project, particularly a rehabilitation center, will jeopardize this entire area. Subsequent rezoning and commercialization will further harm Red Hill's charm and is counter to city planning goals. Another sprawling Carbondale is not what the valley needs. Please strongly consider relocation of this rehabilitation unit to a properly zoned area, perhaps within Carbondale city limits. A concerned home owner, Fred Ueland, MD Associate Professor of Gyn Oncology University of Kentucky Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! Headers Return -Path: <mpueland©yahoo.com> Received: from rly-xh06.mx.aol.com (rly-xh06.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.236]) by air-xh0l .mail.aol.com (v100.28) with ESMTP id MAILINXH11-7124107f7587a; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:58:46 -0400 Received: from web51607.mail.yahoo.com (web51607.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.38.212]) by riy- xhO6.mx.aol.com (v100.23) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXH68-7124107f7587a; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:58:32 -0400 Message -ID: <20040728185832.8322.gmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.163.110.72] by web51607.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:58:32 PDT Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT) From: FRED AND MICKA UELAND <mpueland@yahoo.com> Subject: Red Hill To: rbveit@aol.com MIME -Version: 1.0 Content -Type: multiparUalternative; boundary="0-1672770961-1091041112=:7540" X -AOL -IP: 206.190.38.212 X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 1:0:0: X-AOL-SCOLL-URL COUNT:2 Thursday, July 29, 2004 America Online: RBVEIT rage t o1 2 Subj: Date: 07/28/2004 1:14:31 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: frank narum@lewan.com (Frank Narum) To: rbveit@aol.com To: From: Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado July 28, 2004 Frank & Kathy Narum 883 County Rd 107 Carbondale, Co. 81623 Re: Stuart Proposed Commercial Zoning for 1413 County Road 107 in Carbondale Dear Commissioners: I am writing to protest the sale of Duane and Betsy Stuart's house at County Rd. 107 to become a high-end private -pay "lodge". When we bought our property , the covenants provided that the area would be strictly residential and that no commercial structures or business would transpire. We are concerned for the safety of our 3 Daughters ages 10,12 and 14 as they wander throughout this area right next to our property. Thank you for your consideration. We hope to preserve the safety of our neighborhood by not allowing a drug/alcohol facility to be built on Country Road 107. Regards, Frank Narum and Family This electronic message transmission contains information from Lewan & Associates, which may be confidential or privileged. This information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 303-759-5440 or by electronic mail at webmaster@lewan.com. Headers Return -Path: <frank.narum@lewan.com> Received: from rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (riy-yd02.mail.aol.com [172.18.141.661) by air-yd02.mail.aol.com (v100.26) with ESMTP id MAILINYD24-1f94107fafe33d; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:14:31 -0400 Received: from cobgatel.lewan.com (cobgatel.lewan.com [192.131.143.1]) by rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (v100.23) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYD25-1f94107fafe33d; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:14:06 -0400 Received: from cobexchl.Iewan.com (cobexchl.Iewan.com [10.1.6.3]) by cobgatel.lewan.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id i6SJpU4Y026020 for <rbveit@aol.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:51:30 -0600 Content -Transfer -Encoding: 7bit Importance: normal Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content -Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME -Version: 1.0 Thursday, July 29, 2004 America Online: RBVEIT bear Garfield County Commissioners, July 28, 2004 I am a resident on Red Hill outside of Carbondale and I have some concerns about the proposed plan for the Stewart property. While a "retreat" would probably be acceptable, I think an alcohol drug treatment facility at this location would be a mistake in many ways. This are has many families close by that should not have to be concerned with aberrant behavior in their back yard. I also understand that the person who would be running the facility is not a licensed therapist and that the clients would be going up and down the very poor and busy road many times a day. I can not see how this would benefit anyone. I hope you will look at this matter from many perspectives, including the current homeowners before making a judgment. Thank you fo /our sideration. toning rage 1 01 z Subj: Red Hill "conditional use permit" Date: 07/30/2004 3:10:22 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: mbenge@bigstonepub.com (Michael Benge) To: rbveit@aol.com To whom it may concern: My wife, Alison Osius, and I reside at 0909 Count Road 107. We are writing to express our strong objection to the proposed "conditional -use permit" by Duane R. Stuart (1413 County Road 107, Carbondale, CO 81623). Not only does the proposal violate existing landowner convenants, it, if interpreted fairly, would violate basic zoning laws of the area. Pure and simple, they misstate the true purpose of the permit. The proposal also misstates the potential impacts in terms of road traffic. The increased traffic of this commercial operation would hugely impact the already overloaded and frequently poorly maintained road. As well, such a commercial endeavor is completely out of character with the residential nature of the area. In addition, if the proposed venture were to fail, it would leave the door open for other commercial enterprises that could (and would likely) negatively impact the area. We implore you to reject this unreasonable proposal. Thanks you. Sincerely, Michael Benge Alison Osius Michael Benge Editor, TRAIL RUNNER Big Stone Publishing 1101 Village Road #UL -4D Carbondale, CO 81623 phone: 970.704.1442 x24 fax: 970.963.4965 www.trailrunnermag.com Headers Retum-Path: <mbenge@bigstonepub.com> Received: from rly-yj05.mx.aol.com (rly-yj05.mail.aol.com [172.18.180.165)) by air-yj04.mail.aol.com (v100.26) with ESMTP id MAILINYJ43-818410ab93623a; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:10:21 -0400 Received: from mail.sopris.net (mail.sopris.net [216.237.72.68]) by rly-yj05.mx.aol.com (v100.23) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYJ54-818410ab93623a; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:10:14 -0400 Received: from [10.0.0.11) (216-237-70-38-client.sopris.net [216.237.70.38] (may be forged)) by mail.sopris.net (8.12.1/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6ULAAKf083304 for <rbveit@aol.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:10:11 -0600 (MDT) Mime -Version: 1.0 Saturday, July 31, 2004 America Online: RBVEIT Sunday, July 31, 2004 To: The Board of Garfield County Commissioners RE: "The Lodge" Boarding House As neighbors to the boarding house known as "The Lodge" being proposed by Duane & Elizabeth Steward on Garfield County Road 107, we have concerns. We find the description of The Lodge to be quite vague, but sounding much like a rehabilitation center. To operate a boarding house / rehab center would be attempting to conduct a commercial enterprise in a residential infrastructure which we find to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for our area, not to mention that the building was not permitted for that use. We feel the impacts of the staff, service people, clientele, and their families will far exceed that of a standard residence as the proposal suggests. We are curious as to the business plan and track record of the applicants and to how the county will monitor compliances in the present and in the future for such an operation. Development on CR 107 is particularly sensitive because the road has numerous difficulties. Excessive grades in sections give even the most experienced motorists problems; getting extremely slick at times in the winter, and completely corduroyed in the summer. The road has an awkward orientation at it's Highway 82 intersection. The increasing number of vehicles share the road with an even greater increasing number of pedestrians, bikes, and dogs through a long shoulder -less section with blind corners to access the Red Hill Trailhead. The road is dangerous to say the least, which is another issue needing current focus. We are against any commercial development that would increase traffic and decrease the safety of the current users of this road. We request that the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Department reject this proposal. Thank you, eI% % )9A_ Ken and Donna Riley 0919 County Road 107 POBox584 Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-0794 William Galvin & Susan Mowday 1426 County Road 107 P.O.Box 1991 Carbondale, Co. 81623 Home Phone 970-704-0799 Garfield County Commissioners Dear Sir, August 02, 2004 As long standing residents of Red Hill, County Road 107, We feel the proposed changes to the face of our "community" is and wrong and should not pass the zoning variance needed. We agree with the rest of the residents of Red Hill that the proposed type of business is inappropriate for this area. Your careful consideration of this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, William Galy Susan Mowday /j%n : -2,Z) Page 1 of 1 Jim Hardcastle From: Andy Schwaller Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 3:16 PM To: Jim Hardcastle Subject: Lodge CUP on C.R. 107 Just some observations from one who used to live on C.R.107, The well is listed with the Div. of Water Resources as a well for a single family dwelling. The septic field was built for one less bedroom they show on their application. It appears the neighbors will be present at the public meeting opposing the proposed use. Andy 6/30/2004 Job Address 1 I-1i3 No. 5307 GART7BLD COUNTY BUILDING, SANITATION and PLANNINGOBPAR7MBNT 109 alt Street Suite 303 Gleowood Spricgs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-8212 County Road 107, Carbondale Nalore orwork Usc of Budding Owner Building Permit Single Family Dwelling w/Double Garage Duane Stewart Contractor Stewart -Wa±kins AmountotpermitS 1528.72 Dale October 6, 1994 Permit: 926.50 Plan : 602.22 Paid $606.09 9-16-94 S. Archuleta Clerk `'^`S' II GARFIELD COUNTY ti; APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT OM PERMIT NUMBER S307 please print or type DATE c)gr / s / 2 TO BE FILLED. OUT BY APPLICANT, a a ADDfl SS c,.o O n/T 1r� : 1430 • 101 SUBDIVISION SSA- 417; FILING N LOT // BLOCK 11 TAX SCHEDULE H LEGAL (SEC/TW.N/RNG) W 0 0 a w NAME DVAr-E STEwet r MAILING ADDRESS 0 jL O,x,i' CITY tors' Cr Ld ••HONE qg -y3,9e/ 0 NAME ADDRESS CITY CONTRACTOR NAME STf"w.A2Y - 66447-4ivS ADDRESS 00 zip Srrnlsar DPIIrE 047 5 CITY $'.Q,41-1- (7n, PHONE 9211-31 25 LICENSE It CLASS OF WORK NEW x ALTERATION ADDITION DEMOLISH REPAIR MOVE __^___ MOBILE HOME (make/model) S.F. OF BUILDING 5c$c. S.F. OF LOT /O./ /%{,G /j OF FLOORS 4 HEIGHT SZ/7-0 /hieSPAN #, OF FAMILY UNITS / >4 OFBEDROOMS S' INTENDED USE OF BUILDING l,IOYNg. ' GARAGE: SINGLE DEL c3 CARPORT: SINGLE DBL FIREPLACE WO 0'4' /aon,2,.,,:� DOCUMENTS ATTACHED WATER SUPPLY WE GL DRIVEWAY PERMIT SITE PLAN y.4 BUILDING PLANS J/JET SANITARY SEWER CLEARANCE ON:SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT OTHER DOCUMENTS (speci f.'s. re. oa,r? PLOT PLAN NOTE: Show easements, property line dimension all other structures, specify north, and stree name. For odd shaped lots, or if space is too small, provide separate plot plan. /k QF. BUILDINGS NOW ON PARCEL USE OF BUILDINGS NOW ON PARCEL /6 r sEs. th)/K9 FRONT PROPERTY LINE /'1 ^ /J STREET NAME/ROAD NUMBER c/'orre.77. it /67 CHECK IF CORNER LOT DESCRIPTION OF WORK PLANNED I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and the above is orrect and I agree to co' • y with 11 co..ty ordinances and sta regytl>Yti y_,•, ldin• constructi 6701, t6 'FOR OFFICE SIGNAT RE SE ONLY VALUATION int cr7 ••• PERMIT FEE $ Mf.IO'LAN CHECK FEE $ 4;42.22 TOTAL FEE $/l'2t •7L SCHOOL IMPACT FEE $ 24O• DATE PERMIT ISSUED' ZONING DISTRICT TYPE OF OCCUPANCY' no, n./ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION. S.F. OF BUILDING Auer S.F.NOT MAX. HEIGHT 22 ROAD CLASS. �— SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY LINE: FRONT $ " rcw t REARM LO t• RIGHT a SOo .LEFT W /Z fl r OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED APPROVED: BITILDING D PAR FLOOD HAZARD CERTIFIED BLDG ELEVATION SPECIAL CONDITIONS PROBLEMS WITH PERMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED CERTIFIED BY COLORADO REGISTERED LAND SURVEYi OR ENGINEER O "roll APPROVED: DATE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DAT P.1 Poel-It' Fax N01B 7671 GaN�/) AR.► 3 re T From /.1 h CQ,/DepII Co. len IPA hen'.PMMx Foxy Fax* I is 1 111.rwH r7799 l GL'ALG UKJI R' wtl 133 'MCCLURE I/nsS 1414H41Ru 4 C°1-947/. 24 n +1Iu: PARK 5kbJecf pare i HIGNuAY I. Rep5Toe1E 1,409 133 mARaLC COUNTY Ino/tOs PROM GLENWOOD TO ASPEN 10 lov W. SOPS'S 102 CR RD . J6EL ¶Imn 6n5nLr' E. $)PAIS CRP.D' PUG 12'94 7UAR1ER CORNER TECl70N3 21 & 22 1,L.41f, ALUAH. CAP • 31.51 S, 88 ° 46'08"£, i 1.35. 98' EAST - SECTION Th �,�� 10.001 Ac. fE� ER I `? ,ge? 5 .73°0426 tKl M kTG Rp k0 175,11' kPPPA • (.1 r314) \ 'SIM°qWE, N.14310115"E: h ue-P/IONw' rive META 19.4141 61 43 49 10: 4 10/06/1994 15:57 3b..d274905 STEWART WA1r..NS OCT 06" 94 16: 43 THEODORE K GUY ASSOC PC A PEIGHTAL GUY ENGINEERS CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS October 6, 1994 PostAr brand fax transmittal memo PAGE 01 Duane Stewart Stewart Watkins Bidders 0020 Sunset Drive, Unit B8 Basalt, CO 81621 Re: Stewart Residence '7e2cey .;6: a 302 Dear Mr. Stewart: via FAX At your request, I haw reviewed the W12x60 floor beam over the east ganga, es Indlcated by your construction documents received 9/14/94. No other structural components are inducted in this review, and remain the responsibility of others. My review is strictly to assess design pe►famana based on your lay -out, and Eve loadings as folio's: Snow Ioad 45 PSF Floor Toad 40 0 Deck load 60 PSF Note: Dead lads to include 1 1/2" concrete tapping at deck only. CONCLUSION$ The ind sated W12x60 section is not listed n a standard wide flange shape by the ASC. The next desalt alae Is a W12x58, which will satisfy allowable materiel stress values at total load, yet I believe will exhibit excessive deflection. I recommend that a W14x61 or W16x50 beam be used, based co A36 steel. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, -6) Stephen It. tal, PE PEIGHTAL GUY ENGINEERS SKP/bd 94825 1.1 SS CAM HIGHWAY 0 PO. SOX 100 BASALT. COLORADO Ater (7 031 1P27-1610 ' AUG 13 X94 05:04PM MASON & MORSE BASALT P.9 Exhibit "A" A Metes and Bounds Description: PARCEL 2 A parcel of' land situated in the NW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 22, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado; said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point being on the East-West centerline of said Section 22 whence the West Quarter Corner of Said Section 22, a B.L.M. Aluminum Cap In place bears N.88°46'08"W. 151.31 feet; thence S.88' 46108"E. along said centerline 984.67 feet to a point on the Westerly line of a parcel of land described in Reception No. 258713 of the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office; thence 5.04°52121"W, along said Westerly line 488.17 feet; thence leaving said Westerly line S.83'39'15"W. 258.90 feet; thence N.80° 42'23"W. 178.50 feet; thence N.73'04'26"W, 115,11 feet; thence S.89'23'48"W. 218.00 feet; thence N.1507'38"W. 475.13 feet to the point of beginning; said parcel containing 10.001 acres, more or Tess. GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS for SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION including NEW CONSTRUCTION ADDITIONS ALTERATIONS and MOVED BUILDINGS In order to understand the scope of the work intended under a permit application and expedite the issuance of a permit it is important that complete information be provided. Adequate and complete information will prevent delays in the plan review process. Reviewing a plan and the discovery that required information has not been provided by the applicant may result in the delay of the permit issuance and in proceeding with building construction. The owner or contractor may be required to provide this information before the plan review may proceed. This causes delays because other plans that are in line for review may be given attention before the new information may be reviewed after it has been provided to the Building Department. Please review this document to determine if you have enough information to design your project and provide adequate information to facilitate a plan review. If you do not, it may be helpful to obtain a book titled "Dwelling construction under the Uniform Building Code. This book is available to you through this department at our cost. Also, please consider using a design professional for assistance in your design and a construction professional for construction of your project. To provide for a more understandable plan in order to determine compliance with the building; plumbing and mechanical codes, applicants are requested to review the following check list prior to and during design. Applicants are required to indicate appropriately and to submit completed check list at time of application for a permit: 1 1. Is a site plan included that indicates the distance of the proposed building or addition to property lines, other buildings, set back ease a is and utility easements? Yes No (1) Not necessary for this project (2) 2. Does the site plan include the location of the I.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage Disposal System) and the distances to property lines, welts (on subject property and adjacent properties) , streams or water cour Yes _ No �__m Not necessary for this project (a) 3. Does the site plan indicate the location and direction of the County or priv to • oad accessing the property? Yes No ____n) Not necessary for this project (2) 4. Do the plans include a foundation plan indicating the size, location and spacing of all reinforcing steel in accordance with the uniform building code or per stamped engineered design? Yes No (1) Not necessary for this project (2) 5. Do the plans indicate the location and size of ventilation openings for under floor crawl spaces and the clearances required between wood and h? Yes __ No (1) Not necessary for this project (2) 6. Do the plans indicate the size an location of ventilation openings for the attic roof joist spaces and soffits? Yes No (() Not necessary for this project (2) 7. Do the plans include design loads as required under the Uniform Building code for goof snow loads, (a minimum of 40 pounds per squa of in Garfield County) floor loads and wind loads? Yes ___ _ No (() Not necessary for this project (2) 8. Does the plan include a building section drawing indicating found t' o n, wall, floor and roof construction? Yes _S No (1) Not necessary for this project (2) 9. Does the building section drawing include size and spacing of floor joists, 11 studs, ceiling joists, roof rafters or joists or trusses? Yes No (1) Not necessary for this project (2) 10. Does the building section drawing or other detail include the method of positive, connection of all columns and beams? 2 Yes __ .� No u, Not necessary for this project 11. Does the plan indicate the height of the building or proposed addition from the highest point of the building or addition measured at mid span between the ridge and the eave down to existing grade contours? Yes No cn Not necessary for this project 12. Does the plan include any stove or zero clearance fireplace planned for installation including make and model and Colorado Phase II certifications or phase II EPA certification? Yes _2& No u Not necessary for this project (2) 13. Does the plan include a masonry fireplace including a fireplace sectio ating design to comply with the Uniform Building Code Cha Yes _ No cu Not necessary for this project 14. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that egress/rescue windows from sleeping rooms and/or basements comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code? Yes �_C No �w Not necessary for this project (2) 15. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that wino s provide natural light and ventilation for all habitable rooms? Yes No w Not necessary for this project (2) 16. Do the plans indicate the location of glazing subject to human impact such as glassdoors, glazing immediately adjacent to such doors; glazing adjacent to any surface normally used as a walking surface; sliding glass doors; fixed glass panels; shower doors and tub enclosir and specify safety glazing for these areas? Yes _ No ;0 Not necessary for this protect (2) 17. Is the location of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnaces, boilers ftnd water heaters indicated on the plan? Yes _\ No cu Not necessary for this project 7) 18. Have two. (2) complete sets of constructions drawings been submitted with application? Yes _-_ No n) Not necessary for this project 19. Have you designed or had this plan designed while considering buildirkg and other construction code requirements? Yes .02L_ No (3) 3 20. Does the plan accurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will receive a final inspection by the Garfield Building Deparinpnt? Yes No p, 21. Do you understand that approval for design and/or construction changes re required prior to the application of these changes? Yes _.Y-1\ No (3) 22. Do you understand that the Building Department will collect a "Plan Review" fee from you at the time of application and that you will be required to pay the "Permit Fee" as well as any "School impact" or "Septic system " fees required, at the time you pick up your building per it? Yes No (3) 23. Are you aware that you are required to call for all inspections required under the Uniform Building Code including approval on a final inspection prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy and occuppcy of the building? Yes _ No (3) 24. Are you aware that the person signing the Permit Application whether the "Owner", "Agent of the Owner", "General Contractor", "Contractor" or otherwise, signing the application is the party responsible for the project omplying with the Uniform Codes". Yes _ No (3) I hereby acknowledge that I have read, understand and answered these questiorssaccurately t the best of my ability. signature Phone:4z 7-3 2 S (days); // 3 date 9z 7— q3? (evenings) Project Name: 6 r Winrn,� q0 mt Project Address: 4 Notes: (1) If you have answered "No" on any of these questions you may be required to provide this Information at the request of the Building Official prior to beginning the plan review process. Delays in Issuing the permit are to be expected. Work may not proceed without the Issuance of the permit. (2) If you have answered "Not necessary for this project" on any of the questions and 1t is determined by the Building Official that the Information Is necessary to review the application and plans to determine minimum compliance with the adopted codes, please expect the following: A. The application may be placed behind more recent applications for building permits In the review process and not reviewed until required Information has been provided and the application rotates again to first position for review. B. Delay In Issuance of the permit. C. Delay In proceeding with construction. (3) If you answered "No" to this question the circumstances described in the question could result In a "Stop Work Order" being issued or a "Certificate of Occupancy not being Issued. PerApp01.94 Effective May 1, 1994 5 Nor RFpulhs 9 MTCNIP N•P /q(RI1Ir7r 0 0, roan —. t_L doom �qw an 6 i • GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 (303) 945-8212 Plan Review Correction List Stewart Residence Permit # CR 107, Co. September 28, 1994 The following comments based on the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building Code shall be resolved prior to the issuance of the building permit. The purpose of this review is to provide for minimum protection of life, limb, health, property, environment and for the safety and welfare of the consumer and general public as regulated by the UBC. 1. 1 hour construction is required between dwelling units per sec. 1202. Provide details of 1 hour wall assemblies and roof ceiling assemblies for approval. 2. Provide justifying calculations or engineering by an architect or engineer licensed in the state of Colorado (stamped plans) for the garage floor framing and the steel beam over the garage. 3. Provide 1.7 square feet additional natural light to edroom #3. Provide revised window schedule. Sec. 1205. 4. The grade and species of horizontal framing lumber was not specified. The building department has assumed HF #2 or DFL # 2 horizontal framing lumber for review purposes. Please verify. Sec. 320, 2517. 5. The fuel source for the boiler and hot water heater as not specified. Please specify source. If propane verify location of boiler and hotwater with Building Official. Sec. 504. 6. A 1 hour separation is required between the garage and the house on the garage side per Sec. 503. The attic access is shown in the garage. Please specify how the 1 hour separation between the garage and house will be aintained. 7. Refer to the conditions of permit and redlined plans for other code requirements. ,SuQpi✓itk#.• Pear motors: rser AN /irai.vois•7e0 fw►mIathis aro ste C t yj-prn .j gegvNuro Pcar t r4orrri.c nor of SICMIA. tins iF mil wfls Nor Irecooeo yr kstcreo ei47: t /y/ 6'37 0c r 925 76" Ig -C; sa7C Alt ['Mg C44Cvc»fl9 "dart (r V,-15 A /lsv (02. z 2 Tor tin 72 pth Coc,oy 9002! V9 u/9,Tlo r romc-. r88vq.7-01-' Jr COLORADO STATE ELECTRICAL BOARD C'N' I_ INSPE-CTION REPORT AND CORRECTION NOTICE Permits 07/r6S� Contractor/Hon eown/err 7 Address IJ 4[.. / 67 l,' j ?Le , _r r Jt .--✓l C. C l ec C 2 Phone # Date Received -SC— / ' Date Inspected Arrival Time Consult Time Travel Time Inspection Time Time Lapse TYPE OF I PECTION: Final 1" Partial 0 s`—/7 -7r Res. 0 Comm 0 Temp Meter 0 Rough -in 0 Temp Heat 0 Mobile Home 0 Reins 0 Service 0 Other (please specify)- -J r `'-i Servic Wiring Method r) %l -S Typ 10 r 3 0 Classified area Yes .No Size" 200 GFCI Yes'...."" No Overhead y Finished basm't Yes'No Underground //! Sub panels Yes No L" 0 Type Grnd A Elec Range Yes .,"..-No F 2i Size Grnd Conductor L' Elec Dryer Yes Nowt Date Meter Released -.. -(%a Elec Wtr Heater Yes NoJ_ ACTION: ?Accepted0 Rejected Remarks REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. A reinspection will not be per- formed until the reinspection fee is received. You are required to make the following corrections or repairs on the elec- trical installation at the above address. CORRECTIONS: Inspector / '-- ``r"� Page 1 of !NAOMI WILL NO1RE NIA% UNLESS THIS CARD IS POSTED ON THE JOB 24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS BUILDING PERMIT ABFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO i.Zoned Area Permit Nose Date Issued. AGREEMENT In consideration of the issuance of this permit, the applicant hereby agrees to comply with all laws and regulations related to the zoning, location; construction and erection of the proposed structure for which this permit is granted, and further agrees that if the above said regulations are not fully complied with in the zoning, location, erection and constructio of the above deibed structure, the permit may then be revoked by notice from Use Pm s ctor + and IM` LM ULAN V [D Use tCLfV`s�/ /if W y Y E�_ Addr or Legal Description 4.. tog Own a 0.A t. 5 _f Contracto war 'r rt1K(%I /e/ ,i6 Setbacks 'Front Side Side Rear This Card Must Be Posted So It Is Plainly Visible From the Street Until Final Inspection. INSPECTION RECORD Zoning Roof Covering s-,1-95- -/7-iCElectric-Final Footing /6 -/9 i:% ,Z, Electric-Final(by STATE inspector) 6---/ 7-7 s" S/L 2/g -c ?" Foundation /6 -4v-14. , ,...._, Plumbing -Underground Gas Piping A),.. / 7_�,:; 4, Heating Ventilation 4--_/1-5.5-- /y.-S..yFrame Frame &- ' 7-'5- /<--.--- Insulation S -g -9.r /LK Plumbing -Rough w It.% a-3.93-/ - Drywall 3 / 5- fl Electric -Rough 7s -i - -9 C (by STATE inspector) S f- Final r /7 ---f /.462,-._.) ALL LISTED ITEMS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE COVERING - WHETHER INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR, UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND. THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE Phone 945-8212 109 8th Street, County Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colo. APP ROVED ED Do NOT DEST OY THIS CARD f Certificate Of Occupancy 1 0 Building Permit No. w/Double Garage .{_±oco E bb •5 :1 l .e t / \(\ 7:1 § ! = m ira ii f )]\ a al Ca \{(l / \1( _ ƒ ( w k§/ ./0 '1 -. ) \ \ .c ® ; §2 / \] \ ., . t O « ;0 DO Ch. 20 °�/ \ 2!% \ k / / Zone District Type of Construction { d 0181 Original Road, Basalt, CO can\ OJ ) bo 5 0 ( 0 0 lo -kJ rn 4. 0} :} j/ k• ° \) e ta• t ) 0 o X00 |=m k• ® } 2_. .0og 2tu /�) -2 oll0)\ 0)% v k= I \7k oCA \\\ • • . • a F 't 1 k f g 11114 i f. GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N.. 2 3 6 0 k 109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. J Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 f a Phone (303) 945-8212 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT PROPERTY This does not constitute a building or use permit. Owner's Name Duane Stewartpresent Address 0181 Origanel Rd, Basalt Phone_ 927-4384 System Location County Road 107, Carbondale Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No SYSTEM DESIGN Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) Required Absorption Area - See Attached Special Setback Requirements: Date Inspector FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering installation System Installer 4114.) Al E k Septic Tank Capacity /..fit: Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name im p444t Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface y1( ;. Absorption Area )4*di !1 fV t-$ 411i, X �� Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name J,'j j4( q l„.•<.de..0I Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements PF S Other Date ?- A . c2... Inspector 1e., •�,•rryeA-- RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE VA C *CONDITIONS: 1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter 25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984. 2. This permit Is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con- nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. V 3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an Individual sewage disposal system in a manner which Involves a knowing and material i variation from the terms or specifications contained In the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine — 6 $ months in Jail or both). b V Applicant: Green Copy Department: Pink Copy ' INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION (AVNERDoAYvE« Th-W}'vLr- ? f+ ADDRESS ole: Q 1,4-6Z A4Ja4)14-4...,r PHONERc7-'1 9 CONTRACTOR 37 �-Lci y2 l 114 4-7'-/1 P Pi 627 ADDRESS 00Z0 d(nog er DDILLS.8 SJ4SA-G/ 81G2( mon? Z7`3(?r PERMIT REQUEST FOR: ) New Installation ( ) Alteration ( ) Repair Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surround ng areas, topography of area, habitable building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation test holes, soil profiles in test holes. (See page 4.) LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY: County GA2 F a D Near what City of Town 24c,4: ,dvrtib J Lot Size / . / 2c Legal Description /qf1F Ts S AA Q ,Qoriwdds ,�ESr i fpTOw Prate N 2 p- � WASTES TYPE: (>) Dwelling ( ) Transient Use ( ) Commercial or Institutional ( ) Non-domestic Wastes Application Approval by County Official: ( ) Other - Describe BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: Number of bedrooms 41 Number of persons 9 (y.) Garbage grinder (,X) Automatic washer (X) Dishwasher SOURCE AND TYPE'OF WATER SUPPLY: (>c) well ( ) spring ( ) stream or creek Give depth of all wells within 180 feet of system: 36'0 `T. If supplied by community water, give name or supplier: GROUND CONDITIONS: Depth to bedrock: Depth to first Ground Water Table: 300 PT= Percent ground slope: • ' DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: /412LE,S•• Was an effort nide to connect tocommunity system? •Ai6 - TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED: ()(,) Septic Tank ( ) Vault Privy ( ) Pit Privy ( ) Chemical Toilet FINAL DISPOSAL BY: (x) Absorption Trench, Bed or Pit ( ) Underground Dispersal ( ) Above Ground Dispersal ( ) Other - Describe: ( ) Aeration Plant ( ) Composting Toilet ( ) Incineration Toilet ( ) Other - Describe: Vault Recycling, potable use Recycling, other use ( ) Evapotranspiration ( ) Sand Filter ( ) Wastewater Pond WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS Pann 2 OF THE STATE? /(o •S01L PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer.) Minutes per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes per inch in hole No. 3 Minutes per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes per inch in hole No._ Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil absorption tests: Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applicant or by the local health department for purposes of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the peruift.js'subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations adopted under Article 10, Title 25, C.R.S. 1973, as amended. The undersigned hereby certifies that all statements made, information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local. department of health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further under- stand that apy falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based upon said application and in legal actigp for per- jury as provided by law. Date h(e PLEASE DRAW AND ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY Signed Page 3 •• FUG 12 '94 12:1DPM t4ASON & MORSE BASALT 00••••••••••••••••••••••••411 11111 111inW1.1 Ttt 11CALtt , !0141,1 • wy133 'MCCLV RE t' nss P.1 Port -It" Fax Note 7871 tlal.i 1, j f vj Aset . 3 To --n R_ ../... From el iaa 0o./Dept. Co. 11 11hona 1 PMM Y Fax a Faxi 1$x »)c. r c tmotueoo • la!Gum u t For 4 nor ',ARK 124 rz7 4 11 5ubjecirptape Me!) 133 1• 'EO$Th & NIGNuAY rnARLE 115 115 115 1; 13 11.2. ' COUNTY ROADS • FROM GLENWOOD TO ASPEN EL 102 JE8EL Friy.T ,i;• POW WARIER CORNER R' TLCTIONs 21 dr 22 i L.AI, ALUA4 CAP . 31.31 P.2, :.'4. PHONE:. PO! r No. 8178 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING, SANITATION, and PLANNING DEPARTMENT 109 8th, Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601(970) 9454212 Job Address /9 /3 dR /07 (of hay? o/a/'; ,o 2/62a Nature of Work �Bl Building Permit Use of Building ` 0 V Pi( ( (� Owner Si; - S l 4 ri n 4 o I Contractor 1-Q .WQ_( Amount of Permit$ 3 Del . 5`� Date ID) (q 101 (G . Cjj Clerk `LEGAL 'ESCRIPTlON OF PROPERTY SECT; I2 TWN,NG:12-7-88 DESC: A TR IN NWS BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION BK:0805 PG:0416 BK:0774 PG:0786 BK:077 UNTY(GLENL4'OOD SPRINGS), COLORADO INSPECTION LINE: (970) 945-9159 PG:0954 BK:0900 PG:0941 BK:0918 PG:005i BK:0918 'PG:0059 PRE:R111775 I r7 g O PARCEUSCHEDULE NO. v JOB ADDRESS: (41. 13 (tc 1+t Rd /07 Ca b0(. -c ck. (•Z W Ib r-3 I LOT NO. LOCK ,u 0. See 0.140 -al e SLBDNiSION/ExE\8'f[ON . 2 �u an P & ewarf R as MD t%/3 (NadaRd - /07 rbandale `3//9 `%a7 l�, 3 I ,g. �arf �1t5�om V uP fir. Z.3- 7-3I2S 12C Net , n, Siox7 4 AssocierSSACQ3t0lS'oui�15ae 71 KL(/ 325. ± ty. ).�a�i�l1 roI Park A-ve . c�aset.,if a' gy6J �C6 5 3Q.FT.oeevanma A JQ. FF. OF LOT �/� Int NO.OFFLCOW 6 / _ umE"Bmw" Res "den( e 7 oaacueewemNeew Sl9 s -PI. Covered r 'E O n 'eX-t5 i?1La� /7 lh 2 - v 8 cuss OP WOK: O EW i4nIoN cALMAIION =MOVE 0..£1012 9 GARAGE =swag 0tXXS E CMPORT. aMOLE coon Li 10 a URNEWAYPFAMT CON SRL SEWAGED19Po9.J. (SEPTIC) OWE AAV VALUA>lON OP !NOM $ S000r O J ADJ3TWVAWATION:s ¢( la,..BR' I LID YY"f(' J-+ c. SPEawrnxnmoNs NOTICE A SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PEEWIT IS REQUIRED AND MUST BE ISSUED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO. a I PLAN CHECK FEE: ti ^ •� G L PERMIT FEE: S/( (�A. --).0_ .-A THIS PEE?UCBEC'OMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WHITEN 1S0 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OK ABANDONE K$&APIIUOD 0? 110 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORN IS COMMENCED. TOTAL FEE: —i 1,/t 3�9. 1 DATE PERMIT ISSUED: 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF'' 1 WILL BE CO 1• IED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. I r• 0 OF A P: J O DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VSO a CANCEL >•'45VISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR OCC: GROUP: ,^ � , CONST: TYPE: ' 1`< ` • 1/ (ba( LOCAL LAW • • P+ G CON,P•* r 0 OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSIRU ZONING: r at SETBACKS:(�j`1 Signature of Owner, Contractor or Guth. ' • agent 'y , V • notice above. 1 /7. (� •( I . y..... :I`( I i 0 6 0/'MANU. HOME: ISDS NO. & FEE: Building Dept Approval/Date ' Planning Dept. Apptov UD . .AGREEMENT PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT AS OWNER. CONTRACTOR A.ND/OR THE AGENT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR OWNER TO CONSTRUCT TBE STRUCTURE AS DETAILED ON PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO AND REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT, THE SIGNER HEREBY AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND LAND USE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY GARFIELD COUNTY PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GIVEN N 30.21,201 CRS AS AMENDED. THE SIGNER FURTHER AGREES THAT IF THE ABOVE SAID ORDINANCES ARE NOT FULLY COMPLIED WITH N THE LOCATION. ERECTION. CONSTRUCTION .AND LSE OFTIE ABOVE DESCRIBED STRUCTURE. TSE PERMIT MAY THEN BE REVOKED BY NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY AND THAT THIN AND THERE IT SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID. ?Tit ISSUANCE OFA PERMIT BASED UPON PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS .AND OTHER DATA SHALL NOT PREVENT THE BUILDING OFFICLAL FROM THF_REAFIER REQUIRING THE CORRECRONOF ERRORS NSAID PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHERDATA OR FRO PREVENTING BUILDING OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON THEREUNDER WIIE.NN VIOLATION OF THIS CODE OR ANY OTHER ORDNANCE OR REGULATION OF THIS JURISDICTION. THE REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECT/IONS CONDUCTED THEREAFTER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACCEPTANCE OF ANY RESPONS/ ILDIES ORLABILTITES BY GARFIELD COUNTY FOR ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES. THE RESPONSEI.ITy FOR THESE HELMS AND L\PLE\ENTATTON DURING CONSTRUCTION RESTS SPECIFICALLY WTIB'fl E ARCHITECT, DESIGNER BUILDER AND OWNER. COMLMENTS ARE EN -TENDED TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND N SUPPORT OF THE OWNERS INTEREST. Garfonu.003 I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE AOR EEMENTABOVE. INTTIAL) 0',t aa 5‘kil PcL e c- 463'2-0 10 (i.I0I The following items are required by Garfield County for a final inspection: 1. A final Electrical Inspection from the Colorado State Electrical Inspector. 2. Permanent address assigned by the Garfield County Building Department posted where readily visible from access road. 3. A finished roo a lockable house, complete exterior siding, exterior doors and windows installed, a complete kitchen with cabinets, a sink with hot & cold running water, kitchen floor coverings, counter tops and finished walls, ready for stove and refrigerator, all necessary plumbing. 4. A complete bathroom, with wash bowl, tub or shower, toilet stool, hot & cold running, water, floors and walls finished an a privacy door. 5. All steps outside or inside over three (3) steps must have handrails, guardrails on balconies or decks over 30" high constructed to all 1994 UBC requirements. 6. Outside grading done to where water will detour away from the building. 7. Exceptions to the outside steps, decks and grading may be made upon the demonstration of extenuating circumstances, i.e., weather, but a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all the required items are completed and a final inspection made. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL THE ABOVE ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. ****CANNOT OCCUPY OR USE DWELLING UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (C.O.) IS ISSUED. OCCUPANCY OR USE OF DWELLING WITHOUT A C.O. WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR VACATING PREMISES UNTIL ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE MET. I understand and agree to abide by the above conditions for occupancy, use and the issuance of a Certifica e of Occupancy for the dwelling under building permit # trr9 Signature Date prmtcond.Ist 5I 1*K a(C,c)= ld,Ntf.k 199--7 3as -sy INSPECTION WILL NOT BE MADE UNLESS THIS CARD IS POSTED ON THE JOB 24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS BUILDING PERMIT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Date Issued f / ?'I JAI. Zoned Area Permit No...21 '78 AGREEMENT In consideration of the issuance of this permit, the applicant hereby agrees to comply with all laws and regulations related to the zoning, location; construction and erection of the proposed structure for which this permit is granted, and further agrees that if the above said regulations are not fully complied with in the zoning, location, erection and construction of the above described structure, the permit may then be revoked by notice from the County Building Inspector and IMMEDIATLY BECOME NULL AND VOID. Use 001' tArt e" sit Q. IC. Address or Legal Description t41 t e 101 i 04,y/ i ' dam.. Owner S I ?it, VIftecontractoritt ,204:414 .: ' Biel Setbacks Front Side Sid Re This Card Must Be Posted So It is Plainly Visible From The Street Until Final Inspection. INSPECTION RECORD p Footing /0-27.0..0( 4o, J. Foundation Underground Plumbing : Insulation Rough Plumbing Drywall Chimney & Vent Electric Final (by State Inspector) ]/ Gas Piping Final 7,/o' Electric Rough (By State Inspector) Septic Final Framing (To include Roof in place and Windows and Doors installed). Notes: ALL LISTED ITEMS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE COVERING - WHETHER INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR, UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND. THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE Phone 384-5003 09 8th Street County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado. APPROVED DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD Date (b, 11; +t) I By IF PLACED OUTSIDE C- OVER WITH CLEAR PLASTIC