Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report BOCC 10.2.89• • BOCC 10/2/89 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision Charles & Vicki Grumley A tract of land situated in Sections 5 & 6, T7S, R87W; located approximately 10 miles northwest of Carbondale off County Rd. 121. The site consists of a 252 acre tract. Individual wells Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Proposed access drive off County Rd. 121. A/R/RD A/R/RD & P.U.D. I. RELATIONSHIP 1.rO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed lot is located in District F, Environmental Constraints as designated Management District Map. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Rural Areas with Severe on the Comprehensive Plan A. Site Description: The site is located in a rural portion of the County with adjacent land uses primarily single family residential, agricultural, and open space. Slopes on the site are moderate with the majority used for agricultural/grazing purposes. Improvements include one single family dwelling and several barns and accessory buildings. B. Project Description: The applicant proposes to divide the 252 acre parcel into two tracts of 6 acres and 246 acres in size with the larger tract containing all existing improvements. (See attached map I page r ) • C. History: Deeds submitted by· the applicant establish that the overall tract has not been subdivided since January 1, 1973. III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS 1. The applicant has represented that an additional well permit for the 6 acre tract has been applied for with the State Division of Water Resources. Documentation of their issuance of a well permit should be required. 2. Soil Conservation Service information on the site indicates that the soils are poorly suited to homesite development due to shrink-swell potential, low strength, and slow permeability. 3. Approval by the County Road and Bridge Department is required for any new access point off C.R. 121 and may require improvements including culverting. -/- • • 4. The applicant is petitioning to include the proposed site in the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District. Documentation of acceptance into the district should be provided or plat notes included indicating that the location is outside of any fire protection district. IV. SUGGESTING FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required by law for the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the meeting 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 exemption is in the best interest convenience, order, prosperity and Garfield County. other reasons, the proposed of the health, safety, morals, welfare of the citizens of V. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, with the following conditions: 1. That the following plat notes be included on the Exemption Plat: A. That engineered foundations and individual sewage disposal systems may be required. B. That this 6 acre lot is being subdivided out of the Vicki Grumley and Charles Grumley property as described in Book 749, Pages 676-678, as recorded in the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's office. 2. That the applicant submit evidence of a domestic water source for the proposed 6 acre tract, consisting of an additional well permit, or other verification acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. 3. That the applicant submit $200 per lot in School Impact Fees for the creation of one new lot. 4. That the applicant shall submit an approved driveway access permit from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department for the 6 acre lot, or a letter stating that permit would be issued at a future date. 5. That the applicant submit documentation of acceptance of the site into the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District. 6. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval. r I I ) -,2 - November 16, 1989 To the Board of County Commissioners, This is a letter of formal protest against the Subdivision Exemption requested by Charles and Vicki Grumley. The Petitioners are asking to be allowed to divide a 252 acre tract into two tracts of approximately 246 acres and 6 acres. of adjacent property, adamantly oppose such exemptions. that only 35 acre or larger tracts be approved. We, the owners It is our position The upper Cattle Creek -Coulter Creek area is inhabited soley by stockmen operating well established working cattle ranches. Because these ranches are large, undivided, and adjoining properties are fenced unobtrusively, the valley view is continuous, unobstructed, and pleasing. All residences and outbuildings lie on the natural perimeter of this beautiful valley. Wildlife roam unhampered through the meadows and surrounding oak brush. Each ranch is able to bear the burden of the large deer and elk populations equally, because of unrestricted access to and through all ranches. New dwellings and development will disturb the current foraging paths. Any disturbance to the movement and grazing patterns of the large herds will destroy the tenuous balance established among the ranches. If a ranch, because of new development, is not proportionately sharing in the pasturage of wildlife, adjacent ranches will be inundated by displaced herds. Overgrazing of neighboring ranches· will result in spring and fall. Winter haystacks will be consumed, at great economic loss to the rancher, and therefore the county. If land is to be divided in this area, it must be done in tracts of 35 acres or more. Large tracts help preserve the natural openess necessary to insure free movement of wildlife. This is especially imperative as wildlife is continually forced into our area due to growth in Spring Valley, Cattle Creek, and Missouri Heights. Latg~1tr~cts will preserve the wildlife access and grazing balance between ranches better than small restrictive parcel:·~ ~v ~ . !~;Pl Water \~V' ( We are concerned .about the severely limited water supply. If an exemption is made, and a small tract is allowed, how will the water allotment be determined? Every rancher in the area will attest to the critical water situation. Many ranches are operating with under 40% of their alloted water, and are barely able to harvest a hay crop. Not only is the surface water inadequate, but our underground wells periodically run dry. If land is to be subdivided, it must be done with the water interests of all residences and ranches in mind. Additional strain of use on underground water will severely affect most local ranches. Three of the four large ranches in the valley depend on springs for partial water supply and cattle watering areas. If these springs run dry, because of depletion of the aquifer by newly drilled wells, cattle will have no watering holes. Cattlemen will be forced out of business. We feel that the surrounding ranchers and residents should not be forced into this jeopardous position by one party wishing subdivision exemption. Hunters Ranches provide taxes, but this is not all. Irrigated ranches keep wildlife herds healthy and large. If the water table lowers because of new development, ranches will be without springs and watering holes. Wildlife populations will diminish. Our county will no longer be able to induce hun~ers and their money. A ranch out of business, because of loss of water, means a lot of people in town are out of business also. We feel that this area will not support many more water wells. The proposed subdivision land has never been irrigated, It has no legitimate · water right. A manipulated water right, which would be necessary for the parcel, should not be allowed to stand. Traffic We are distressed about the future traffic increase we foresee. It may be argued that a 6 acre tract would not create a traffic problem. This is true. The concern is that if the county exempts one 6 °2or~ 0 tca¢t,1 it ·~ill .~in the future be more likely to give its permission to subdivide the remaining 246 acres into small parcels. The possible forty-two 6 acre homesights would JP> add a lot of residential and construction crew traffic. ~ Neither County Road 115 or Cattle Creek Road can handle continuous, high speed traffic. County Road 115 is winding, du$ty, and covered with loose gravel. Traffic churns up dust and generates washboard conditions. Additional county maintenance would be costly. Winter traffic here is slow and dangerous. Residents are cautious and thankful for the sparse traffic on icy, hazardous roads. Winter is a favorite time of year because few cars ven t ure by. This means fewer trespassers intruding on private land. Trespassers Ranches with wildlife and scenic beau t y will always draw those who wish to trespass. This is a major problem to our ranch which has outstanding views and animal life~ Great energy and time is spent in locating and informing these people that they need to leave the private land. We believe that more residents in the area me an more of a trespassing problem for us and our neighbors. Liability is a major concern. What if they fall off our cliff, or a bull runs them down? Trespassers and cattle ranches do not mix! One Other Concern If this land is being exempted from the regular 35 acre requirement because the proposed buyers can't afford a bigger plot, what kind of building can they afford to put on the land? We don't want shabby houses or outbuildings, trailer homes, or businesses up here. We believe all land in the area should be subject to the same requirements, that of 35 acre minimum divisions. In the past, the Planning Office and County Commissioners have shortsightedly approved overgrowth of the Cattle Creek. The damage there is irreversible. People have been allowed to build in flood and slide areas of the creek. Landcuts for roads and residences have significantly filled the stream channel with erosional debri s . After each rainstorm, publicly financed County Roadcrews are required to spend a day cleaning rock and mudslide material off the Cattle Creek Road. This is a waste of limited County resources. At the mouth of that scenic creek, and automotive junk yard was approved. Who gets to pay for the cleanup of oil an d antifreeze leaks making way to the creek and County water supply? We know these atrocities were approved in past terms, and it is there that we place the blame. The present commissioners, we believe, are wiser and won't fall into the short sighted economic blinders their predecessors fell victim to. Summary of Reasons for Objection 1. The beauty and continuity of the valley could be adversely affected. 2. Wildlife grazing patterns could be al t ered, forcing the surrounding ranches to bear the economic brunt of displaced herds. 3. Small parcels are more likely to disrupt wildlife grazing patterns than the larger 35 acre tracts. 4. The water supply is already severely s trained. The proposed parcel has no legitimate right to water. If well water is granted, it would impact the water table and economy of neighboring ranches. 5. Ranches out of business translate into fewer hunters and less money to the county. 6. Water pollution is possible, depending upon the care of the new residents, and their construction crews. 7. Traffic load and accidents will increase on what we believe should remain a remote gravel road. B. Increased residents and traffic mean more of a trespassing and liability problem for local ranchers. 9. Does the small size of the parcel imp l y financial inability to construct a nice building? 10. All land should be subject to the same requirement of 35 acre parcels. ·.·· "."'(' ' '. . "i ' .... .. ·.•.· { .. . ; '. ~· .:· : ' ' . ' . , ,I T'•t ,J -····--~~ .. ~l~·r~~; .:'.T:: . ! • r I,·! .::~ r .. ,· i .. 1.'; . ·!) '· . ~ . ·.':·''' . :·{ .·· . \. •/\ . ·~~(. . ,. ·' '' ... . . ,., . . : -,},,,;~// ... ·: tr:.·, : ' ... '~f;:: .· .. ::: \:·. '~(j·>. : ' . ,;::<S~., .. ·-: •. :·'/~; ::~f ~· :::,·: ' · ... ::~ .. -:l:·i.1.' '1'. ,• I :,</·+!:': :~ ' ''.~·~_:~,;ts"~· . . ,, . ~": .. · ' ·/',·§'···· ·.i:': '·' , ... ··t· ;' •1\ . :i~':'. ' }·" . ~ .. r··. ,: ' ·. : • l .. ' · .... . :·' ·: : '' ·. f ' ... .•J >" . l. •'' ' ~ ' .. ' h' .·· ' ,. ,; ·.~ ,~/! ...... ·I ·.l .>1 'I . ·· .. ~ ·, '' '' ' ·, ' . ·,: I . ·· . .'. ... , .·, .. ~ . \ . ,.·~ ·-~ : ' : ,• ~-·: .. ,;·.:-. ' ' ,; •',··.·, ' ,, . . . ' . . '·. \ .... ' ," , ... ,-· .. r ~ ~ \.,·• . JAMES D. PETERSON ~~I~ l~Y~ { f<. l!.. ,' G-1Z. <..nt-t Le<( So f3D1 V, > / ~ !j~.(1 ~ ~~ .. . &..~l'Tl~ @-~ CL k~ u---t:tl ~~ I 4-~o ~ "'"--~ ~. ·~~~ ~.~~u~~~ ~~ ~~~~o6~. ~~~o/-o~~ ~ ~ ' ~ 1A~1 02-~ ~ ~c(J ~ d-e ~;.f.~.,_JJ ~<Pa.<;~ ~~~~~~C<~~ ~~dr~~ ~~o~ .J!~ ~Jj__ ;:;~ ~ ~ U-t_.e_ ct.. ~~ '"°-~ )A_~ ~ ~cf ~cfJ ~ -fkk~. 4 ~~ell~~ 6~ ~~ ~u--f ~~( ~ a,L~a.-~ ~ ~~,R ~ ~ - ~u. d-4.~~(-r ~~ ~/~~ ut~ ~~. ' ~~/ POST OFFICE BOX 1714• ASPF.N,CT>l.OR@(HO: ·5·7SG5 • • JAMES D. PETERSON ~~ 1~ l~P? ( ~I!. ,r Gr IZ. v 11-(. Le-c, <::>o 13 i.) J v I > I (/-._ -!:J~# ~ ~~ : . t=~/'T/P"-' r52 ~ o._ l_~ u..--__4 ~~ I 4&o~~~ ~.~~u~~~ ~~ ~~~~%~. ~~~cfo~~ ~ < ' ~/~I 02-~ ~ ~c(J ~ ~ ~~.~~ ~4?«1~ ~~~~~~c;~~ ~~~r~~ ~~o~ .J!._~ ~ /J~ ~ ~ 6-r__e_ ~ _ _, -.{)_ ~ ~~ ~ ~ce ~cfJ~ -rtu,~ . 4 ~ J.u...-c(l M ~ ~ ~~ ~u--{ ~(:ck (J,L,..,.,a--cE..._ a{ A.-0 ~'4 ~ ~ - LV<-e.<-<. ~~ ~ r ~ ~ ~,~~ "D~ IA.._~, ~~/ POST OFFICE BOX 1714 •ASPEN, COLO NOV 2 0 1989 GAK fltLl) COUNTY COMMISSIONERS To the Board of County Commissioners, • November 16, 1989 This is a letter of formal protest against the Subdivision Exemption requested by Charles and Vicki Grumley. The Petitioners are asking to be allowed to divide a 252 acre tract into two tracts of approximately 246 acres and 6 acres. We, the owners of adjacent property, adamantly oppose such exemptions. It is our position that only 35 acre or larger tracts be app r oved. The upper Cattle Creek -Coulter Creek area is inhabited soley by stockmen operating well established working cattle ranches. Because these ranches are large, undivided, and ad j oining properties are fenced unobtrusively, the valley view is continuous, unobstructed, and pleasing. All residences and outbuildings lie on the natural perimeter of this beautiful valley. Wildlife roam unhampered through the meadows and surrounding oak brush. Each ranch is able to bear the burden of the large deer and elk populations equally, because of unrestricted access to and through all ranches. New dwellings and development wi ll disturb the current foraging paths. Any disturbance to the movement and grazing patterns of the large herds will destroy the tenuous balance established among the ranches. If a ranch, because of new development, is not proportionately sharing in the pasturage of wildlife, adjacent ranches will be inundated by displaced herds. Overgrazing of neighbor i ng ranches will result in spring and fall. Winter haystacks will be consumed, at great economic loss to the rancher, and therefore the county. If land is to be divided in this area, it must be done in tracts of 35 acres or more. Large tracts help preserve the natural openess necessary to insure free movement of wildlife. This is especial ly imperative as wildlife is continually forced into our area due to growth in Spring Valley, Cattle Creek, and Missouri Heights. Large \tracts wi l l preserve the wildlife access and grazing balance between ranches better than small restrictive parcels. • • Water We are concerned about the severely limited water supply. If an exemp~ion is made, and a small tract is allowed, how will the water allotment be determined? Every rancher in the area will attest to the critical water situation. Many ranches are operating with under 40% of their alloted water, and are barely able to harvest a hay crop. Not on l y is the surface water inadequate, but our underground wells periodically run dry. If land is to be subdivided, it must be done with the water interests of all residences and ranches in mind. Additional strain of use on underground water will severely affect most local ranches. Three of the four large ranches in the valley depend on springs for partial water supply and cattle watering areas. If these springs run dry, because of depletion of the aquifer by newly drilled wells, cattle will have no watering holes. Cattlemen will be forced out of business. We feel that the surrounding ranchers and residents should not be forced into this jeopardous position by one party wishing subdivision exemption. Hunters Ranches provide taxes, but this is not all. Irrigated ranches keep wildlife herds healthy and large. If the water table lowers because of new development, ranches will be without springs and watering holes. Wildlife populations will diminish. Our county will no longer be able to induce hun~ers and their money. A ranch out of business, because of loss of water, means a lot of people in town are out of business also. We feel that this area will not support many more water wells. The proposed subdivision land has never been irrigated, It has no legitimate water right. A manipulated water right, which would be necessary for the parcel, should not be allowed to stand. Traffic We are distressed about the future traffic increase we foresee. It may be argued that a 6 acre tract would not create a traffic problem. This is true. The concern is that if the county exempts on~ 6 ·sorp .t~a¢t,i it ·~ill .~in the future be more likely to give its permission to subdivide the remaining 246 acres into small parcels. The possible forty-two 6 acre homesights would add a lot of residential and construction crew traffic. •• • Neither County Road 115 or Cattle Creek Road can handle continuous, high speed traffic. County Road 115 is winding, dusty, and covered with loose gravel. ;Traffic churns up dust and generates washboard conditions. Additional county maintenance would be costly. Winter traffic here is slow and dangerous. Residents are cautious and thankful for the sparse traffic on icy, hazardous roads. Winter is a favorite time of year because few cars venture by. This means fewer trespassers intruding on private land. Trespassers Ranches with wildlife and scenic beau t y will always draw those who wish to trespass. This is a major problem to our ranch which has outstanding views and animal life. Great energy and time is spent in locating and informing these people that they need to leave the private land. We believe that more residents in the area mean more of a trespassing problem for us and our neighbors. Liability is a major concern. What if they fall off our cliff, or a bull runs them down? Trespassers and cattle ranches do not mix! One Other Concern If this land is being exempted from the regular 35 acre requirement because the proposed buyers can't afford a bigger plot, what kind of building can they afford to put on the land? We don't want shabby houses or outbuildings, trailer homes, or businesses up here. We believe all land in the area should be subject to the same requirements, that of 35 acre minimum divisions. In the past, the Planning Office and County Commissioners have shortsightedly approved overgrowth of the Cattle Creek. The damage there is irreversible. People have been allowed to build in flood and slide areas of the creek. Landcuts for roads and residences have significantly filled the stream channel with erosional debris. After each rainstorm, publicly financed County Roadcrews are required to spend a day cleaning rock and mudslide material off the Cattle Creek Road. This is a waste of limited County resources. At the mouth of that scenic creek, and automotive junk yard was approved. Who gets to pay for the cleanup of oil and antifreeze leaks making way to the creek and County water supply? We know these atrocities were approved in past • • terms, and it is there that we place the blame. The present commissioners, we believe, are wiser and won't fall into the short sighted economic blinders their predecessors fell victim to. Summary of Reason s for Objection 1. The beauty and continuity of the valley could be adversely affected. 2. Wildlife grazing patterns could be altered, forcing the surrounding ranches to bear the economic brunt of displaced herds. 3. Small parcels are more likely to disrupt wildlife grazing patterns than the larger 35 acre tracts. 4. The water supply is already severely s t rained. The proposed parcel has no legitimate right to water. If well water is granted, it would impact the water table and economy of neighbo r ing ranches. 5. Ranches out of business translate into fewer hunters and less money to the county. 6. Water pollution is possible, depending upon the care of the new residents, and their construction crews. 7. Traffic load and accidents will increase on what we believe should remain a remote gravel road. B. Increased residents and traffic mean more of a trespassing and liability problem fer local ranchers. 9. Does the small size of the parcel imply financial inability to construct a nice building? 10. All land should be subject to the same requirement of 35 acre parcels. • • EXHIBIT A Lots 3 (22 acres), 5 (32.10), 6 (13.20), 9 (37.0), 10 (Net 10.84) (Less schoolhouse parcel), ll (25.lG), SEl/4 NWl/4, Section 51 Lot '1. (Net 60.42 Ac.) lying South of a line drawn trom the SW corner of Lot 12 to the SE corner of Lot 2, Lot 9 (ll.86 Ac.) S1ction 61 252.58 Acres more or less. All in Township 7 South, Range 87 West o! the Sixth Principal Meridian in Gar!ield County, Colorado, tog1th1r with all wattr and ditch rights. Also described in the tax records or Garfield County as tollowai 5-7-87 Section 5, Lots 3 (22 acres), 5 (32.10 acres), 6 (13.20 acres), 9 (J7acres), Lot 10 (10.84 acres), Lot 11 (25.16 acres), SE NW. 6-7-87 Section 6, Lot 9 (ll.86 acr••), Section 6, Lot l (Net 60.42 acres) lying South of a line drawn from th• SW corner or Lot 12 to SE corner of Lot 2. Book 0192, Page 0212: Book 0655, Page 0987: Book 0659, Page 0601; Book 0668, Page 0264. consisting or 252.58 acre• more or leas a/k/a The Home Place, together with any and all ditch and water rights, County of Garfield, State ot Colorado. ROY ROMER Governor • • OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Mr. Glenn Hartmann 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 January 11, 1990 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs , CO 81601 Dear Mr. Hartmann: Re: Grumley Exemption Sec. 5, T7S, R87W JERIS A. DANIELSON State Enginee r We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to separate 6 acres from a 252 acre tract. The proposed 6 acres would be used as a residential tract and the applicant is seeking a well . We could make a household-use-only well available for the 6-acre tract. Use of this well for lawn and garden would be prohibited. If these limitations are acceptable to the applicant, we can recommend approval. We ask for a plat note or covenant to reflect the limitation on the use of the we 11. We consider this to be a one-time exemption and thus would be opposed to any future separations of the 246-acre tract of less than 35 acres. JRH/JCM/clf:7473I cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Bruce DeBrine f-,,_ I • ... 4 • '• /;: .. ' \... .) ·1 'i •. j.' I ., ... ) , Sincerely, ~1r1izdl James R. Hall, P.E. Supervising Water Resources Engineer • GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SANITATION AND PLANNING December 13, 1989 Colorado Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 818 Denver, CO 80203 Attn: Jim McDanold Dear Jim: Enclosed for your review and comment are three applications for exemption from the definition of subdivision that are pending with Garfield County. conditionally approval. The the Board of The Grumley request has been Division of Water Resources scheduled for meetings before December, 1989 and January, 1990. approved subject to the other two requests are County Commissioners in Your cooperation in reviewing these applications is appreciated. Please contact our office if you require additional information or if we can be of assistance in your review process. Sincerely, ~~~~~ Glenn Hartmann { .,b'J•~.t) Planner GH/emh encl. 109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 945-8212 I 625-5571 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 RECO~OED AT g 3 E- ~EC. '4 4<w>15 0 1 CLOCK /i .M. /-3o -<lo ~ILDRED ALSDCRF, CO.llilTY CLE~X GARFI=LD COUNTY, C~ADO BOOK •771_ P!GE921 DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF GARF IE LD, STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 4582 ORDER POR INCLUSION IN RE THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CARBONDALE AND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT This matter having come before the Court pursuant to the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes 32-l-402(l)(e), as amended, and the Court being fully advised of the premises enters the following findings of fact: 1. The Carbondale and Rural Fire Pro tee ti on District adopted a Resolution approving inclusion of real property on December 13, 1989. 2. One hundred percent (100%) of the fee owners of the real property to be included petitioned the District for inclusion. 3. The provisions of the statutes of the State of Colorado, more particularly the requirements of Article 1 of Title 32, have been complied with. NOW, THEREFORE, it ls ordered by the Court that the real property situate in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, be hereby included in the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District, whose address is 300 Meadowood, Carbondale, Colorado 81623. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that after the date of its inclusion in the Carbondale and Rural ~ire Protection District, the above-described real property shall be subject to a 11 the taxes and charges imposed by the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protect i on District and shall be liable for its proportionate share of existing bonded indebtedness of the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District, but it shall not be liable for any taxes or charges levied or assessed prior to its inclusion in the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that the real prop- erty described above shall be liable for-its propor-tionate share of annual operation and maintenance charges and the cost of facilities of the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District and taxes, rates, fees, tolls, or charges shall be certified and levied or assessed therefor. -1- • • BOOK 771. P!.Gf. 922 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that the change or boundaries or the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District shall not impair nor affect its organization, nor shall it affect, impair, or discharge any contract, obligation, lien, or change of boundaries not having been made. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that this Order shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes 32-1-105, as amended. c;/k ~ Dated this ....r:::_ day of 04Muol , 19.'Jn_. BY THE OURT File No. CAR-1-62 SD7/86 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I Certify that a copy of Foregoing was mailed to all Counse~-~t CJ. This 9J6 /. 69Err 190 c~(Yl_ -2- ourt r · ,. • • ..... BOO~ '771 P!GE923 A Tract of land situate in Section 5, being a part of Lots 9 and 10, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6th Pr-incipal., Meridia~. being more particularly descr-ibed as follows: Beginning at a point from which the S.W. corner of Section s. Township 7 South. Range 07 West of the 6th Principal Meridian b~ars s. 38°17'04" W. 1,808.99 feet; thence N. 89°44'49" E .• along the Northerly line of Cattle Creek Ranch P.U.D., Filing One, also being the Southerly line of Lots 9 and 10, 680.00 feet; thence N. 00°15'11" W. 420.00 feet; thence s. 89°44'49" H. 605.36 feet to a point on the Easterly right of way l ~ne of County Road 121 (Coulter Creek Road) thence Southerily along the Easterly right of way line of said road the following courses and distances: S.· 00°00'08". E. S. 02°05'30" E. s. 19°46'40" w. containing 6.00 acres State of Colorado .. . 43.50 feet; 158.36 feet and 232.19 feet to the Point of Beginning, more or less, all in the County of Garfield. .... E X H I B I T "A" Crumley Property • • ROY ROMER Governor Mr. Glenn Hartmann • • OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVIS I ON OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 January 11, 1990 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Hartmann: Re: Grumley Exemption Sec. 5, T7S, R87W JERIS A. DANIELSON State Engineer We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to separate 6 acres from a 252 acre tract. The propose d 6 acres would be used as a res i dential tract and the applicant is seeking a well. We could make a household-use-only well available for the 6-acre tract. Use of this well for lawn and garden would be prohibited. If these limitations are acceptable to the applicant, we can recommend approval. We ask for a plat note or covenant to reflect the limitation on the use of the well. We consider this to be a one-time exemption and thus would be opposed to any future separations of the 246-acre tract of less than 35 acres. JRH/JCM/clf:7473I cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Bruce DeBrine f ~,-t-:·. -·--. ·-'· -.. ~ --- //:. i I i . l ··; .. ·' <"" ' : ; . "' . ~\ ' -Ii e.. .. , ; >:o :; .ii . ' . t~.,, ~-• ~ ~ •. •, : r ; .. • ~ ". • ... ! ).• ' • , ~ t ,_' I ('. . . ' .. ' .'; Sincerely, ~1(10J/ James R. Hall, P.E. Supervising Water Resources Engineer