The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.02 Supplemental CommentsKarp_Neu_HAaonl�S oALAW Michael J. Sawyer rnjs(IY, mauntainlawfrm.com May 3, 2016 Sander N. Karp* James S. Neu Karl J. Hanlon Michael J. Sawyer James F. Fosnaught Jeffrey J. Conklin Andrew A. Mueller Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers Kathy Eastley Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 By Hand Delivery Matthew L. Trinidad Patrick L. Barker Jon T. Hoistad Delphine F. Janey Of Counsel Richard I. Zuber** Anna S. Itenberg Greg S. Russi Hollie L. Wieland ** Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Glenwood Springs Office 201 14th Street, Suite 200 P. 0. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Aspen Office*** 323 W. Main Street, Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 Montrose Office *** 1544 Oxbow Drive, Suite 224 Montrose, CO 81402 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 www.mountainlawfirm.com **All correspondence should be sent to the Glenwood Springs office Re: Supplemental Information for Trisch Road Split Exemption, 7225 County Road 312 Dear Kathy: This letter is provided to respond to requests for additional information and comments made on the Trisch Road Split Subdivision Exemption Application. In particular, this letter responds to your email dated April 20, comments made by neighbors at the site visit, and items raised in the referral comments. I am providing one paper copy (including a full size copy of the plat) and one electronic copy of these materials. I. The right of way prevents ioint use of the 2.13 acre parcel with the remainder of the ranch. County Road 312 splits the Trisch ranch, severing off a 2.13 acre parcel that cannot be jointly used with the larger 278 acre parcel. The 2.13 acre parcel is not used in an integrated way with the remainder of the ranch. The 2.13 acre parcel is not irrigated pasture land and the water rights associated with the 278 acre parcel can not be applied to the 2.13 acre parcel.' Occasionally non -irrigated hay is cut on the parcel. According to the ranch manager who has worked the property for 12 years, this hay is of low quality and cannot be mixed with the hay produced on the irrigated 278 acre parcel. Nor can the cattle operation on the 278 acre parcel effectively use the 2.13 acre parcel due to separation by the right of way. The 278 acre parcel is fenced allowing control of cattle and preventing them from straying onto the County Road. The 2.13 acre parcel is un -fenced. To get to 1 This is a correction to information in the original Application that indicated that ditch water from the 278 acre parcel could be used, with difficulty, on the 2.13 acre parcel. Karp_Neu.Hanlonw Page 2 the 2.13 acre parcel, cattle would need to be let out onto the County Road without the ability to corral them on the other side. Once on the 2.13 acre parcel (assuming they would stay there without a fence), the cattle cannot be watered. The Trisch ranch water rights cannot be diverted on the 2.13 acre parcel. Trisch has no decreed rights out of Garfield Creek at this location for livestock watering. Further, to get the cattle to the creek requires crossing the Young & Hess Ditch (which runs across the 2.13 acre parcel between the County Road and Garfield Creek). Trisch does not own an interest in the Young & Hess Ditch and the cattle would have no legal right to drink from the ditch. Cattle can significantly damage an irrigation ditch if they are required to cross it to reach the creek. There is no practical cattle use for the 2.13 acre parcel. During the site visit, one neighbor who attended referred to the 2.13 acre parcel as the "sacrifice" portion of the Trisch ranch. This observation is correct. For at least 12 years, the 2.13 acre parcel has only been used for sacrifice purposes: cutting some inferior quality hay, stacking yard for hay, and a place to park unutilized equipment. As noted in the application, the hay stacking yard will likely be relocated in the near future to be better integrated with the main ranch. The 2.13 acre parcel cannot be effectively used together with the 278 acre main ranch. Creation of a 2.13 acre parcel at this location is consistent with the zoning minimum lot size, the comprehensive plan and several smaller parcels nearby (2183-304-00-055 — 1 acre, 2183-311-00-009 — 1 acre, 2183- 322-00-015 — 4 acres, 2183-293-00-050 — 4 acres, 2181-252-00-281 — 5 acres, 2183-322-00-072 - 5 acres, and 2183-293-00-049 — 6 acres). II, Reasonable development of the 2.13 acre parcel can be accomplished within applicable setbacks. There are three land uses impacting the 2.13 acre parcel that require setbacks. These are: County Road 312 (25 foot setback for structures), the Young & Hess irrigation ditch (50 foot setback for septic) and Garfield Creek (50 setback for structures and septic). Further, the well requires a 100 foot setback from the septic. The site plan for the property has been updated to show each of these setbacks and the location of the overhead power line. As depicted, a home, the well and a septic system can be located on the property in conformance with all setback requirements and avoiding the overhead power line. During the site visit, neighbor Gerald Richardson indicated a concern about the proximity of a home to his property boundary. The site plan demonstrates that a home can be constructed on the opposite end of the 2.13 acre parcel (southeast) — creating substantial distance between the Richardson home and a home on the 2.13 acre parcel. III. The Young & Hess Ditch has been provided an easement across the 2.13 acre parcel. At the site visit, two users of the Young & Hess Ditch were present. Stacy Scott, an owner in the ditch, indicated that the ditch was generally maintained by driving a track hoe along the ditch and mucking it out. Stacy has indicated that a ditch easement 25 feet in width is sufficient to allow the ditch to be accessed and maintained. An easement for the ditch is included on the updated plat (10 feet from the centerline on the south and west side of the ditch and 15 feet on the north and east I:\Clients\Trisch\20160428 Supplemental Comments.docx Karp_Neu_HAanlon: Page 3 side of the ditch). This allows for operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the ditch as required by 7-201 E. 4 and 5. The headgate for the Young & Hess ditch is not on the Trisch property. Access to the headgate would be across the property where the headgate is located. The Young & Hess Ditch is an unincorporated ditch. According to Stacy Scott, the following are owners or users in the ditch: Stacy Scott, Gerald Richardson, and Lacy Orr. Mr. Scott is the ranch lessee of the Orr property. All of the ditch owners and users were provided notice as landowners within 200 feet of the Trisch property and have been afforded the right to comment on the Application. Ditch owners Stacy Scott and Gerald Richardson were present at the site visit. The applicant has adequately given notice to the ditch owners and provided a reasonable easement to allow for continued operation and maintenance of the ditch in satisfaction of 7-201 E. IV. The parcel boundary for Parcel A is limited to land contained within the legal description. Neighboring landowner John Reed attended the site visit. Mr. Reed expressed concern that the parcel boundary for Parcel A not include any land within his legal description. A boundary fence along the Trisch / Reed boundary historically was several feet into the Reed property. The surveyor has confirmed to Mr. Reed that the Parcel A boundary does not include any of his deeded land. If the subdivision exemption is approved, Trisch will give a quit claim deed to Mr. Reed for his parcel. V. Responses to referral comments. The comments of Michael Erion and the Division of Water Resources are consistent with the description of the legal water supply contained in the Application. After the subdivision exemption is granted, the Applicant will apply for an in-house exempt well permit. The Applicant understands that uses of water from the well will be limited as discussed in the letter from the Division of Water Resources. Further, Michael Erion's description of drilling a monitoring well and testing the supply is consistent with the discussion in the Application. The comments of Chris Hale have been incorporated. An easement for the Ditch has been added to the plat. There is currently no well permit for the 2.13 acre parcel. We are not familiar with a plat note required by the Division of Water Resources for existing wells. If that language is provided, we will add it for the well serving the 278 acre parcel. A revised site plan has been submitted showing that setbacks can be achieved. The referral letters from the Fire District, Colorado Parks & Widlife, and Road and Bridge indicate no concerns with the Application. 1:\Clients\Trisch\20160428 Supplemental Comments.docx Karp_Neu_HAanlYormw Page 4 The Trisch Road Split Subdivision Exemption meets the criteria of the County Code. The right of way prevents any useful joint use of the 2.13 acre parcel with the remainder of the ranch. As noted by the neighbor, this has been a sacrifice parcel. Granting the subdivision exemption will allow this parcel to be used for uses consistent with adjoining parcels in conformance with applicable zoning and the comprehensive plan. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, KARP NEU HANLON, P.C. Michael J. Sawyer MJS: Enclosures cc: Client Zancanella & Associates I:\Clients\Trisch\20160428 Supplemental Comments.docx