HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Director's Decision 05.13.2016May 13, 2016
Garfield County
Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Office: 970-945-8212 Fax: 970-384-3470
Michael Sawyer
Karp Neu Hanlon, P.C.
P.O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
mjs@mountainlawfirm.com
RE: Director's Decision Trisch Road Split Exemption
Garfield County File Number
Dear Mr. Sawyer;
This letter is being provided to you as the authorized representative of Donald
Trisch in regard to the General Administrative Review Application for a Road
Split Exemption located at 7225 CR 312. The site is known by Assessor's Parcel
No. 2183-322-00-011 and includes 280 -acres.
The Director's Decision on the Application is based on the following findings and
subject to the Applicant's representations and conditions of approval.
Findings
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the Administrative
Review Land Use Change Permit.
2. That the application is in general conformance with the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
3. That the application has met the requirements of the Garfield County Land
Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended.
Conditions
1. That all representations of the Applicant contained in the Application
materials shall be conditions of approval unless specifically amended or
modified by the conditions contained herein.
Roberts Community Meeting Facility
Director Decision May 2, 2016
2. The amended Road Split Exemption plat shall be subject to final review
and approval by the County Attorney's Office and the County Surveyor.
All requirements from the County Surveyor shall be met prior to submittal
of the plat for final execution. All plat certificates and signature blocks,
plat notes, and easements shall be subject to approval by the County
Attorney's Office.
3. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat the Applicant shall submit a valid well permit for the parcel,
well pump tests and water quality analysis, all of which must demonstrate
that a sufficient legal and physical water supply is available to serve the
lot.
4. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall submit a map, inventory and weed
management plan of Garfield County listed noxious weeds for the 280 -
acre parcel. This plan shall address appropriate management strategies
and be reviewed and accepted by the Garfield County Vegetation
Manager.
5. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall amend the proposed Road Split
Exemption Plat based upon the staff comment letter dated May 9, 2016,
and attached as Exhibit P, which requires the following:
a. Entitle the plat "Trisch Road Split Exemption Plat";
b. Add a purpose statement to the plat;
c. Two standard plat notes have been omitted from the notes - please add the
following:
i. Domestic Dogs.
Dogs kept on the property shall be in a fenced yard or on a leash to
prevent harassment of wildlife.
ii. Wildlife -Friendly Fencing.
Fencing on the property shall comply with the Colorado Parks and
Wildlife specifications for wildlife -friendly fencing.
d. The vicinity map appears to show the northern property bounty as a straight
line when in fact there is a .84 -acre parcel that is not a part of the subject
property. This map should be corrected.
e. On sheet 2 of the plat the .84 -acre parcel noted above appears to be included
in the subject parcel, it should clearly be marked as not included in the plat by
listing the legal information and ownership.
f. The intent of an exemption plat is solely to describe the parcel being created.
Clearly the overall 280 -acre site is not a part of the plat as it has not been
surveyed, therefore the future legal description of the remainder property will
be the current description with the exception of the 2.1 -acre road split
exemption parcel. The new legal description for the 2.1 -acre parcel will be
the Trisch Road Split Exemption Parcel.
2
Roberts Community Meeting Facility
Director Decision May 2, 2016
g. The above change to the legal descriptions will require amendments to the
descriptions in, at minimum, the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership, and
perhaps others. To try to explain this in another manner — remove the
Exemption Parcel B property description in the certificate of Dedication and
Ownership — the plat is not creating a Parcel B, it is only creating a Road Split
Parcel.
h. The graphics on Page 2 should be amended so that the created 2.1 -acre
parcel is the focus of the plat and the scale should allow details of the
property to be shown including the irrigation ditch and creek. The overall
parcel should be shown in detail so that it is clear where the 2.1 acre parcel is
located within the overall property.
i. Please locate a building envelope on the plat to assure that any home
constructed on the site is compliant with separation and setback distances as
indicated in the supplemental information submitted on May 3, 2016.
6. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall correct the plat by adding the location
of Garfield Creek to the subject site.
7. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall submit recording fees and a mylar with
the following signed certificates:
a. Certificate of Dedication and Ownership (notarized);
b. Any mortgagee, if applicable;
c. Title Certificate;
d. Treasurer's Certificate;
e. Surveyor Certificate.
8. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall provide letters of acceptance from the
Young and Hess ditch owners with regard to the proposed access and
maintenance easement pursuant to Section 7-201 E.(5). of the LUDC.
9. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall submit a check in the amount of
$200.00 made out to the Garfield County Treasurer to satisfy the fee in -
lieu of land dedication for the newly created lot.
10. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat, the Applicant must demonstrate satisfaction of payment of
one-half of the $2,771.48 Road Impact Fee. The remaining dollar amount
for the fee will be due prior to issuance of a building permit for the site.
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the site, a Driveway Permit shall
be obtained from Garfield County Road & Bridge and any required
improvements permit shall be completed.
3
Roberts Community Meeting Facility
Director Decision May 2, 2016
This Director's Decision will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
for a period of 10 days so that they may determine whether or not to call up the
application for further review. Once this time period has passed with no request
for review or public hearing, and provided all relevant conditions of approval have
been resolved the Land Use Change Permit will be issued.
Please contact this department if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tamra Allen, AICP
Acting Director of Community Development Department
CC: Board of County Commissioners
File
4
Director Decision, May 13, 2016
Exhibits — Trisch Exemption RSEA-03-16-8432
Exhibit
Letter
(A to Z)
Exhibit
A
Public Hearing Notice Affidavit, with attachments
B
Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended
C
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended
D
Application
E
Staff Report
F
Email dated March 28, 2016 from Dan Goin, Road & Bridge
G
Email dated April 5, 2016 from Levi Atwater, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
H
Letter dated April 14, 2016 from Katherine and Gerald Richardson
I
Letter dated April 18, 2016 from Orrin Moon, Colorado River Fire Rescue
J
Letter dated April 19, 2016 from Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management
K
Memo dated April 19, 2106 from Megan Sullivan, Division of Water Resources
L
Email dated April 22, 2016 from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering
M
Email dated April 25, 2016 from Michael Erion, Water Resources Engineer
N
Supplemental information dated May 3, 2016
O
Letter dated May 6, 2016 from Katherine Richardson
P
Plat comment letter from staff, dated May 9, 2016
Q
Letter Dated May 9, 2016 from Lynn and Katherine Richardson
R
Email dated May 10, 2016 from Mike Sawyer
S
Road Impact Fee Calculations
T
Letter received May 12, 2016 from Brooke and Stacey Stott
U
Email dated May 16, 2016 from Scott Aibner, County Surveyor
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
TYPE OF REVIEW
APPLICANT (OWNER)
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ACRES
ZONING
EXHIBIT
El
Administrative Review — Road Split
Exemption
Donald J. Trisch
Michael Sawyer - Karp, Neu, Hanlon
Approximately 7 miles south of CR 335
on CR 312 (Garfield Creek Road)
Section 31 and 32, Township 6 South
Range 90 West of the 6th P.M.
Overall parcel 280 -acres
Proposed Road Split Parcel 2.1 -acres
Rural
_ Figure 1 Vicinity Map
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
Donald Trisch owns a 280 -acre parcel
located 7 miles south of New Castle along
Garfield Creek, as indicated in Figure 1,
left. The owner requests a Road Split
Exemption to allow for the creation of a 2.1 -
acre parcel that exists on the opposite side
of CR 312 from the remaining 278 -acre
ranch.
The application states that the road
prevents joint use of the parcel in that
"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." This statement is supported by
assertions that the 2.13 acre parcel is not
irrigated and the water rights associated
with the 278 -acre parcel cannot be applied
to the 2.1 -acre parcel. The Applicant
states that in the past the parcel has
yielded non -irrigated hay but that the site
cannot be used for cattle operations due to
the existence of the County Road and the lack of fencing on the 2.1 -acre site. If cattle
were to utilize the 2.1 -acre site there are no water rights associated with the property
1IPag
Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report
May 13, 2016
even though the Young and Hess Ditch and Garfield Creek flow through the property.
Supplement information provided, Exhibit N, states that "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."
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1,9
West 1, t Ii comer
Between Section 29 & 32
A 3 1 '4` Dia. Aluminum
(79 LS No 36572 in Pince
25.0' Wide
Young 6 Hexa
Ditch Easement
94buillne.
,Duch
\ . \
\\
<i�ti\\ \
lC� o-3pa
1566
Figure 2 Proposed Road Split
Parcel
()13.
Exemption Parcel A
(2.131 Acres_)
necessary
infrastructure and a
single family home on
the lot while meeting
the minimum setback
and separation
distances required.
Figure 3 indicates the
buildable area of the
site based upon
location of the well and
septic systems while
maintaining the
required separation
from ditch and creek.
The proposed exemption parcel is 2.13 -
acres in size and in encumbered by an
overhead electric line, the Young and Hess
Ditch, and Garfield Creek. The ditch
bifurcates the triangular shaped site east to
west through the apparent center of the
parcel and the overhead electric line is
located near the center of the site running
essentially north/south. As Figure 3
indicates the site's residential developable
area is on the southwest side of the overhead
electric line.
The site is proposed to be served by well and
septic, each of which require separation and
setbacks from waterbodies as well as from
each other. The Applicant has demonstrated
that it is physically possible to fit all of the
ISDS separation
from the ditch
50 1
0
Feet
Overhead
electric line
Etiemj
12 1 areek
CREEK
\ West I/ 16 Corner Benucen 2ccrton 29 6 33
A 31/4"Dm Atummum Cap 1S No 36972 m Place
COUNTY
ROAD 25' front
cethack
'' Young and
Hess Ditch
\ PROPOSED
HOUSE FOOTPRINT
ISDS Field
4a�4���
`,O O<C�> 100' setback of
d`4 ISDS from
well
100' ISDS SETBACK
FROM WELL
25 SETBACK FROM
COUNTY ROAD R 0 W
Potential
hnilriinu sits,
50' ISDS SETBACK
FROM GARFIELD CREEK
PRELIMINARY SPACING AND
SETBACKS
TRISi H '_P:'I31`,ION EXEMPTION
- 1N'
DATE.
MAY 2, l0'
SHEET
OF
YY
66:1 NT:
TAL
MP0 6
Tat
1,R1MN1.
ME Fc.'TEF.
_.CNCANEZZA AND ASSOC/A.1/NC
EN/74tEEN Nt. :0'✓S1/2 TA
FIGURE NO.
2
PROJECT: ',6500
2IPag
Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report
May 13, 2016
Figure 4 Garfield Creek
Figure
Approximate building location
Richardson Home
III. PUBLIC AND REFERRAL COMMENTS
The Applicant has provided documentation that all required notice mailings have been
completed in accordance with the LUDC. Public comments and referral agency
comments were received and are attached as Exhibits as noted. The comments received
are summarized below:
31Page
Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report
May 13, 2016
1. Garfield County Road & Bridge, Exhibit F: Dan Goin responded to the referral that
the site will need to get a driveway permit and bring the driveway up to standards.
2. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Exhibit G: Levi Atwater responded that Garfield Creek
is a very important drainage that winters a large amount of deer and elk, and is an
area that has experienced a significant increase in development. Due to the
proximity of the home to the road CPW has no significant concerns with the
proposal.
3. Colorado River Fire Rescue, Exhibit I: Orrin Moon had no concerns.
4. Garfield County Vegetation Management, Exhibit J: Steve Anthony requests that
the Applicant submit a map, inventory and weed management plan for Garfield
County listed noxious weeds for the entire parcel. This plan shall address
appropriate management strategies for noxious weeds.
5. Division of Water Resources, Exhibit K: Megan Sullivan noted that the proposed
exemption is not defined as a subdivision by state statutes therefore the 2.1 -acre
site may qualify for a well permit that is exempt for administration in Colorado's
water rights priority system. Ms. Sullivan goes on to note that the area is
overappropriated and therefore any use of the well will be for household only
purposes associated with on single family dwelling unit. A statement is also made
that they cannot guarantee the issuance of a well permit for this site.
6. Mountain Cross Engineering, Exhibit L: Chris Hale responded that the well
quantity and quality tests are required and that a site layout is required to
demonstrate adequacy of separation and setbacks.
7. Water Resource Engineer, Exhibit M: Michael Erion responded that if the County
approves the exemption of the parcel that an exempt in-house use only well permit
will be issued by the Division of Water Resources. Mr. Erion notes that information
was included in the application that asserts a reasonable probability that a well
with adequate water quantity and quality can be drilled on the site.
8. Public Comment Letters
a. Lynn and Katherine Richardson, Exhibits H and Q — As adjacent owners to the
subject site, the Richardson's are opposed to the creation of a homesite at this
location as they state that the site has been operationally utilized with the
overall site. The site is essential to the cattle ranch operations. The size of the
parcel is also of concern due to the encumbrances on the site. In response to
the Supplement Materials, Exhibit Q states that the site is not compliant with
the Residential Low Density designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The
maintenance easement and access provided for the Young and Hess Ditch
may not be sufficient. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating
that CR 312 prevents joint use of the parcel.
b. Katherine Richardson, Exhibit 0 — Comments are related to the supplemental
information provided by the Applicant and states that it does not appear that
41
Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report
May 13, 2016
sufficient proof was included to demonstrate that the proposed site cannot be
used jointly with the larger parcel. The application should be required to go
through a full subdivision review rather than an exemption.
c. Stacey and Brooke Stott, Exhibit T — Mr. and Mrs. Stott commented that they
are the contract purchasers for the 2.1 -acre site. They had previously stated
that they plan to construct a spec home on the parcel because as long-time
residents to the area want to welcome others to enjoy the area. The letter also
states that the site is not Targe enough to pasture cattle and that the lack of
fencing on the site would cause a nuisance to have cattle cross the county
road.
IV. STAFF ANALYSIS
In accordance with the Land Use and Development Code, the Applicant has provided
detailed responses to the Submittal Requirements and applicable sections of Article 5
regarding Road Split Exemptions:
5-201. PUBLIC/COUNTY ROAD SPLIT EXEMPTION.
Pursuant to C.R.S. §30-28-101(10)(d), the BOCC has established Public/County Road
Split Exemption as exempt from the definition of Subdivision but subject to Exemption
Review.
Review Criteria.
Approval of a Public/County Road Split Exemption shall require a factual finding of
the following:
1. The right-of-way prevents joint use of affected, proposed lots;
2. Upon approval of the Road Split Exemption, the proposed exemption lot will
have the ability to be issued a well permit for a sufficient legal supply. A
recommended condition of approval is necessary regarding drilling and testing
of the well prior to Board signature on the final plat, this is to assure an
adequate physical source of water pursuant to section 7-104, Source of Water.
3. The proposed exemption lot has the ability to construct an adequate sewage
disposal system pursuant to section 7-105, Central Water Distribution and
Wastewater Systems.
4. The proposed Road Split Exemption lot will have legal and adequate access
pursuant to section 7-107, Access and Roadways.
5. The Final Plat for the Road Split Exemption will meet the requirements of
Section 5-402.F., Final Plat if recommended conditions of approval are
adopted by the decision -maker.
Wage
Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report
May 13, 2016
V. STAFF CONCERNS
1. The County Road Split Exemption process requires that the Applicant demonstrate
compliance with a criteria that the right-of-way prevents joint use of the affected,
proposed lots. The Director has found that the ROW does appear to prevent joint
use based upon the representations made by the Applicant in Supplemental
Materials, Exhibit N.
2. The proposed ±2 -acre parcel is encumbered by an overhead electric line, the
Young and Hess Ditch and by Garfield Creek, as discussed in this report. The
Applicant has demonstrated that it is possible to construct a home, septic system
and a well on the site within the allotted areas while maintaining the required
separation of these uses. However the developable area is so constrained that
Staff recommends that a Building Envelope be required on the plat to assure that
no impact results to the irrigation ditch or Garfield Creek from installation of a septic
system and well on the site.
3. The Road Split Exemption Plat does not currently meet the Garfield County
requirements. Staff provided a letter regarding required changes on May 9, 2016,
Exhibit P, and incorporates those plat changes as conditions of approval.
Figure 6 Road Impact Fee Map
4. Road Impact Fees are
required when a new parcel is
created within certain districts
of the County. The subject
site is located within Road
District 3 as indicated in
Figure 6, left. The fee
calculated for this site is
$2,771.48, of which one-half
is due at the time of plat
recording, and the remainder
is due at building permit. The
formula and calculations are
provided as Exhibit S.
5. Adjacent property owner
Katherine Richardson has
responded to the application,
Exhibit 0, that the property
has historically been jointly
utilized thus the prevention of
joint use has not been
satisfied.
61Page
Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report
May 13, 2016
6. Lynn and Katherine Richardson, adjacent property owners, responded in Exhibits
H and Q that the Applicant has not met the burden of proof with regard to the
prevention of joint use of the site. They have concerns related to the access and
maintenance for the Young and Hess Ditch, of which they are shareholders, and
concerns related to the size and numerous encumbrances on the 2.1 -acre parcel.
They seek a full subdivision review of the proposal rather than an approval of the
proposed exemption from subdivision regulations.
7. The Young and Hess Ditch is an unincorporated ditch company that appears to
serve two water rights owners that may be affected by the proposed use of the
subject site. The LUDC requires that an adequate easement be created to allow
for ditch access and maintenance purposes and the Applicant has proposed to
include a 25' easement along the ditch, based upon the agreement with Stacey
Stott, one of the ditch users. This easement would be ten foot from the centerline
on the south and west side and fifteen feet on the north and east side of the ditch.
Lynn and Katherine Richardson, the other ditch owner, questions the size of the
easement and cite volumes of legal statutes containing language regarding ditch
owner rights to access ditches. Mr. Richardson states that the ditch company may
become organized and, at that time, would discuss the necessary easement
required for the ditch.
Section 7-201 E., Ditches, requires that a maintenance easement be indicated on
a final plat and that the Applicant provide a letter from the ditch owner accepting
that the development proposal will have no impact on their ability to maintain the
ditch. This has not been the case therefore compliance with the LUDC requires a
condition of approval that the Applicant provide a letter of acceptance from the
ditch owner with regard to the proposed access and maintenance easement. This
may require amending the proposed easement and therefore the acceptance of
an easement must occur prior to the BOCC signing the Road Split Exemption Plat.
8. A letter of support for the road split exemption was received from Brooke and
Stacey Stott.
VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
The following findings are provided in support of a decision approving the application:
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the Administrative Review
Land Use Change Permit.
2. That the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan,
as amended.
3. That the application has met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use
and Development Code of 2013, as amended.
7IPage
Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report
May 13, 2016
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A Director decision to approve the Road Split Exemption should be subject to the following
conditions of approval in order for the request to satisfy the above findings:
1. That all representations of the Applicant contained in the Application materials
shall be conditions of approval unless specifically amended or modified by the
conditions contained herein.
2. The amended Road Split Exemption plat shall be subject to final review and
approval by the County Attorney's Office and the County Surveyor. All
requirements from the County Surveyor shall be met prior to submittal of the plat
for final execution. All plat certificates and signature blocks, plat notes, and
easements shall be subject to approval by the County Attorney's Office.
3. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption
Plat the Applicant shall submit a valid well permit for the parcel, well pump tests
and water quality analysis, all of which must demonstrate that a sufficient legal and
physical water supply is available to serve the lot.
4. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat, the Applicant shall submit a map, inventory and weed
management plan of Garfield County listed noxious weeds for the 280 -acre parcel.
This plan shall address appropriate management strategies and be reviewed and
accepted by the Garfield County Vegetation Manager.
5. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption
Plat the Applicant shall amend the proposed Road Split Exemption Plat based
upon the staff comment letter dated May 9, 2016, and attached as Exhibit P, which
requires the following:
a. Entitle the plat "Trisch Road Split Exemption Plat";
b. Add a purpose statement to the plat;
c. Two standard plat notes have been omitted from the notes - please add the
following:
i. Domestic Dogs.
Dogs kept on the property shall be in a fenced yard or on a leash to prevent
harassment of wildlife.
ii. Wildlife -Friendly Fencing.
Fencing on the property shall comply with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife
specifications for wildlife -friendly fencing.
d. The vicinity map appears to show the northern property bounty as a straight line
when in fact there is a .84 -acre parcel that is not a part of the subject property. This
map should be corrected.
8
Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report
May 13, 2016
e. On sheet 2 of the plat the .84-acre parcel noted above appears to be included in the
subject parcel, it should clearly be marked as not included in the plat by listing the
legal information and ownership.
f. The intent of an exemption plat is solely to describe the parcel being created.
Clearly the overall 280-acre site is not a part of the plat as it has not been surveyed,
therefore the future legal description of the remainder property will be the current
description with the exception of the 2.1-acre road split exemption parcel. The new
legal description for the 2.1-acre parcel will Trisch Road Split Exemption Parcel.
g. The above change to the legal descriptions will require amendments to the
descriptions in, at minimum, the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership, and
perhaps others. To try to explain this in another manner — remove the Exemption
Parcel B property description in the certificate of Dedication and Ownership — the plat
is not creating a Parcel B, it is only creating a Road Split Parcel.
h. The graphics on Page 2 should be amended so that the created 2.1-acre parcel is
the focus of the plat and the scale should allow details of the property to be shown
including the irrigation ditch and creek. The overall parcel should be shown in detail
so that it is clear where the 2.1 acre parcel is located within the overall property.
i. Please locate a building envelope on the plat to assure that any home constructed
on the site is compliant with separation and setback distances as indicated in the
supplemental information submitted on May 3, 2016.
6. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption
Plat the Applicant shall correct the plat by adding the location of Garfield Creek to
the subject site.
7. Prior to Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split Exemption
Plat the Applicant shall submit recording fees and a mylar with the following signed
certificates:
a. Certificate of Dedication and Ownership (notarized);
b. Any mortgagee, if applicable;
c. Title Certificate;
d. Treasurer's Certificate;
e. Surveyor Certificate.
8. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat the Applicant shall provide letters of acceptance from the Young
and Hess ditch owners with regard to the proposed access and maintenance
easement pursuant to Section 7-201 E.(5). of the LUDC.
9. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat the Applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $200.00 made
out to the Garfield County Treasurer to satisfy the fee in-lieu of land dedication for
the newly created lot.
10. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signature on the Road Split
Exemption Plat the Applicant must demonstrate satisfaction of payment of one-
half of the $2,771.48 Road Impact Fee. The remaining dollar amount for the fee
will be due prior to issuance of a building permit for the site.
9
Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report
May 13, 2016
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the site a Driveway Permit shall be
obtained from Garfield County Road & Bridge and any required improvements
permit shall be completed.
101Page
fiz-1.50-1 5 -o ,- l( - b432
Garfield County
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION
EXHIBIT
Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public
hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the
described action.
Q My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral
owners.
X Mailed notice was completed on the 29th day of March , 2016.
X All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as
shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending
notice.
X All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in
the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] which were described
in Applicant's March 22, 2016 response regarding technical completeness review.
■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice.
❑ My application required Published notice.
Notice was published on the day of , 2016.
• Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram.
0 My application required Posting of Notice.
Notice was posted on the day of , 2016.
Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way
generally used by the public.
I testify that the above information is true and accurate.
Name: P r Grabe, 4s tant to Michael Sawyer
Signatuie:
hal
Date: 4 • l `T . 1 1.D
U.S. Postal Service.
CERTIFIED MAIL,,, RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only, No Insurance Coverage Provided) i.
For da ivery information visit
SILT, co 81652
Postig4
Centred Fee
$2..8
80.00
Postm
538
21
m BUREAU C1$.2ANU gr3' 9/2016
T
COLO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE
2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD
r—
SILT, CO 81652
relpMehOn
U.S. Postal Se vice,.,
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; insurance Coverage Provided)
For delivery information visit our website at ww, ft Sps.coniit ,.
SILT, pF62
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mallptece,
or on the front If space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
COLO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE
2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD
SILT, CO 81652
A. Signal
� ', '0 Agent
0 Addressee
B.'Received by (Printed Name)
C. Date of Delivery
3 31.1(4>
II1111111111111111111111 11111111111111 11111111
9590 9403 0751 5196 4788 88
D. Is delivery address different from item 17 0 Yes
If YES. ante' delivery address below 0 No
3. Service Type
O Adult Signature
0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery
SI Certified Melte
0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery
0 Collect on Calvary
2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Dolivery
Rail 0 Signature Confirmation
7011 3500 0002 6240 8768 Sall Restricted oelNery Restricted Delivery
❑ Prlodty Mall Express®
0 Registered MalITM
❑ Raglstensd Mail Restricted
0 Return Receipt for
Merchandise
PS Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
Domestic Return Receipt
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front 9 space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
Co,
Return
(Endorsement
Restricted 0
(Endomeme
Pas
Poe
F
0
W1LL1A
795 COU s .
SILT, CO 81615
1
0538
21
Postmark
Here
03/29/2016
ITU
for Instrvatona
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
WILLIAM M & PATRICIA A SMITI-I
795 COUNTY ROAD 326
SILT, CO 81652
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
9590 9403 0751 5196 4788 28
8. Received by (Printed Name)
0 Agent
❑ Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
31Ilo
D. Is del/very address different from tem 1? 0 Yes
ft YES, enter detivety address below: 0 No
2. Artlrin Nnmher frransf+r from Remind" islse9
7011 3500 0002 6240 86
3. Service Type
0 Adult Signature
0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery
Certified Moll®
Certified Mali Restrloted Delivery
0 Collect on Delivery
❑ Collect on Delivery Postdated Delivery
Aall
8 3 Ase Restricted Delivery
0 Priority Mal Express®
0 Registered Mali.
0 Registered Mali Restricted
Calvary
0 Return Recelpt for
Merchandise
0 Signature Confirmation.
0 Signature Confirmation
Restricted Delivery
PS Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
Domestic Return Receipt t
U.S. Postal Service"
CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT
Domestic Mal(004'
.:�For ,deiivep
C,undiro
Em Se03
dRen,m ReCMPI A
❑Return ite elpt toes
D Celtim Mal Reeincted
❑ Adult syn mora Required
DMA Signature Rem(
Postage so
PERRY DAN &
5118 COUNTY ROAD
NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9624
4111on, visd our website at
t Ss
,Il - $6. 5s, 4'
0538
ark
K
21
/2016
forInstru&ions
U.S. Postal Service'"'
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic Mail Only,
For delivery information, • visit our, website' at; we
Foo $3.45
-aSFoesMa0ac'k
❑ Return Rocelpi ihardeopy)
DRotum Receipt(etaeimn
DCenmed Mmi Restrimett
DAdult SlOnmure
DMhYt0igeiere
Tot
$ UNITED OA
sa BUREAU OF LAND
su 2850 YOUNGFIELD STREET
LAKEWOOD, CO 80215-7210
sps.camt;,
0538
YW
03'/2016
21
InatluCtiatia
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
2850 YOUNGFIELD STREET
LAKEWOOD, CO 80215-7210
1111111111111111111111111111111111111
11111
9590 9403 0751 5196 4684 16
2. Article Number ()Master from service label/
7015 1730 0002 1917 7953
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
3 /21 £I
D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? 0 Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No
3. Service Type
❑ Adult Signature
Adult Signature Restricted Delivery
IS Certified Mail®
0 Certified Mae Restricted Delivery
❑ Collect on Delivery
❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
^<••� Mall
nail Restricted Delivery
PS Form 3811, April 2015 PON 7530-02-000-9053
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can retum the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mallplece,
or on the front if space permits.
0)
❑ Prlo.ty Mall EopressS
0 Registered Mail^"
0 Registered Mall Restricted
Delivery
❑ Return Receipt for
Merchandise
❑ Signature Confirmation,"
❑ Signature Confirmation
Restricted Delivery
Domestic Retum Receipt
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Sjo
. Rece ed by (Printed Name)
C. Date of Delivery
1. Article Addressed to:
PERRY DAN & MARY 13 RODRE1CK-
5118 COUNTY ROAD 3 I 1
NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9624
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
9590 9403 0751 5196 4788 59
D. Is delivery address different from Rem 1?/Ebbs
if YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
_5 9 II
/Lad _) g/6 q7
2. Article Number (Transfer from service label)
7015 1730 0002 1917 798
3. Service Type
❑ Adult Signature
o Adult Signature
.Cer[med Mall®
❑ Certified Mall
❑ Collect on Delivery
❑ Collect on Delivery
Melt
4 Readicted Dellyary
Mall Fipieas*
Mall Restricted
Recelptfor
0, : Confirmation^"
13 StgnM we Confirmation
Reetricted Delivery
PS Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
Domestic Return Receipt
N
N
D'
N
N
a
ra
10.1
Q
0
Q
m
N
a
to
r9
0
N
For dative
BASALT CO 81621
FiredWiifoe $3.45
ion• visit 041,web8iia et w
Exna. M es ✓fres tthrok
❑ Return Receipt Iherdcopyl
❑Rehm Receipt (electronic)
Certified Mali Restricted
°Adult %caters Requited
El Mull Signature Restricted
Postage
LONNIE RUBIACEY.`9'
C/O LONNIE CODY STOTT
251 EMMA ROAD
BASALT, CO 81621
03/22016
Q
.n
lr
N
N
ra
D^
r-1
1730 0002
Lr1
r
Q
N
U.S. Postal Service'"
CERTIFIED; MAIL® RECEIPT
Domestic Mall Only;
Far delivery information, visit our'website at wwwusps.comer
2112277
_647
11
Extra :. :. a
❑Return Receiptt
['Reuel Receipt
D Certified Mai reds
Darted 510Mluro R
Adult siwaena rb
nod Dot
Postage $
Del
49
1_
a_
00 --
GERALD Rita ..
& KATHERINE R1CHA fiSON
7398 COUNTY ROAD 312
NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9633
WG
0538
ash -nark
Here
0
/29/2016
21
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
0 Agent
0 Addressee
IIIComplete items 1, 2, and 3.
IIIPrint your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front if space permits.
A. si„nate re `
!
I: ri.. l . �: , _
"'•.• b5 Name)
1 nCO ....
C. to of Delivery
L47 _ / "
1. Article Addressed to:
LONNIE R & STACEY L STOTT
C/O LONNIE CODY STOTT
251 EMMA ROAD
BASALT, CO 81621
D. Is delivery : • • :.� different from Item 1? 0 Yes
If YES, enter • • Nery address below: 0 No
II 1111111111 I'III 11 1111 111110 111111 I III II III
9590'fled
9403 0751 5196 4788 35
3. Service Type ❑ Priority Mall Express®
0 Adult Signature 0 Registered Mali"
0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Fie91 eyed Mali Restricted
Ma1110
0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for
O Collect on Delivery Merchandise
0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature Confirmation"
„ ,__..._. Mali 0 Signature Confirmation
mei Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery
2. Article Number (Transfer from Service label)
7015 1730 0002 1917 7977
PS Form 3811, April 2015 PON 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverseX
to that we can return the card to you.
• Attach thls card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front If space permits.
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Signature
0 Agent
-'1 ❑Addressee
B. Recelved by (Printed Name)
C. Date of Delivery
1. Article Addressed to:
GERALD RICHARDSON
& KATHERINE RICHARDSON
7398 COUNTY ROAD 312
NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9633
IIIIIRIIIIIIIIII1I1IIIIIIIIIII BIIIillit 11 III
9590 9403 0751 5196 4788 42
D. is delivery address different from item 17 0 Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No I
Service Type 0 Ra9latriority MallExpress®
0 Adult Signature 0 Registered Mall*•^
0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Registered Mall Restricted
fit Certified Mall® Delivery
O Certified Mall Restricted Delivery ❑ Return Receipt for
0 Collect on Delivery Merchandise
0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature ConfirmationTM
-..-^^ "101 D Signature Dnature elivery
tall Restricted Delivery ery
9 Article Numher (Transfer from service !abet)
7015 1730 0002 1917 7960
PS Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
Domestic Return Receipt
D
.0
0
Er-
.3 -
1 -1J
_n
nJ
0
0
D
0
0
In
m
r -i
ra
D
r -
U.S. Postal Service„,
CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Provided)
For delivery information vis • o v w..z'te at www.usps.como
Cod
Relum Race
(Endorsement
Restricted De
(Endorsement Remit
Wel Postage 8 Fees
THE JOHNi.
MARY GIBSON TRUST
7550 COUNTY ROAD 312
NEW CASTLE, CO 81647
.D
0
N
0
ru
D
ru
(EitdoN
Retum R
0 emont
Restricted D
(Endorsemen
0
mTotal Posta
MARY G
7550 COU
f. NEW CASTL
0538
21
wane
Here
/29/2016
for tnstr ” Ions,;
U.S. Postal Service,.
CERTIFIED MAIL.. RECEIPT
(Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)`
For delivery Information visit our website at Y!WW,usps,donln.
NEW CASTLE, CO 81647
0533
21
Postmark
Here
/29/2016
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
TIIE K REED TRUST &
MARYti1BSON TRUST
7550 COUNTY ROAD 312
NEW CASTLE, CO 81647
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
9590 9403 0751 5196 4788 11
2. Article Number (Transfer from service label)
7011 3500 0002 6240 869
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
D. is delivery address different from
If YES, enter delivery address
0 Agent
0 Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
B
lisp
3. Service Type
O Adult Signature
0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery
VI Certified MOS
0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery
❑ Collect on Delivery
0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
0 alt Restricted Delivery
❑ Priority Mall Express®
0 Registered Mair°
0 Registered Mall Restricted
Delivery
❑ Return Receipt for
Merchandise
❑ Signature Confirmation*"
❑ Signature Confirmation
Restricted Delivery
PS Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mellplece,
or on the front N space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
MARY GIBSON & JOHN K REED
7550 COUNTY ROAD 312
NEW CASTLE. CO 81647
fol Ins t ucl,ons.
it I IIIIII IIfl �1I I I I I III II Milli II VIII I f IJ
9590 9403 0751 4198 4950 30
Domestic Retum Receipt
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A Signatur
X
c.
❑ Agent
0 Addressee
Date of Delivery
D. Is delivery address different
If YES, enter delivery address
3. Service type
o Adua signature
0
X Certified Adult Signature Restricted Delivery
0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery
Collect on Delivery
Article Number (transfer from service label) 0 Collect on Detivery Restricted Delivery
7011 3500 0002 6240 8706 insured Mag
"Ms Restricted Delivery
PS Form 3811 April 2016 PSN 7590-02=000:go
ss -
P5
0 Priority Mail O Registered Madre
=red Mae Restricted
❑ Astern ReeeJpt far
Merchandise
0 Signature
CSignature onfirmation
ion
Reenicted Delivery
01
Domestic Return Receipt
7011 3500 0002 6240 8744
N
m
N
0
7'
rtJ
-n
U.S. Postal Service,..,
CERTIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT
:., (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For delivery information visit our website at wwW.pspo.domv'
Pos
Certified F
Return Receipt
(Endorsement Req
Restricted Debra
(Endorsement Reg
FLOYD &
7192 COUN
NEW CASTLE,
0538
21
Postmark
Here
29/2016
U.S. Postal Service,.
CERTIFIED MAIL., RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only: No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com..
Certified
ru
0 Rstum Rocolpt F
(Endorsement RogWr
Restricted Detvary
(Endorsement Ratak
o f0.
m DANIEL WO/.
7129 COUNTY RO
o NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9634
N
0538
nto
9r0
21
9/2016
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
■ Complete Rams 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece,
or on the front If space permits.
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Sig to
X
R. ei : • by (Punted Name)
❑ Agent
0 Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
1. Article Addressed to:
FLOYD & JENNIFER HOSTETLER
7192 COUNTY ROAD 312
NEW CASTLE, CO 81647
111111
E 111 1111
1111111111
1111111111111111
9590 9402 1329 5285 2620 58
2. Article Number (Transfer from service label)
7011 3500 0002 6240 8744
D. la delivery address digs
If YES, enter dells*
17 ❑ Yes
�AtPR
GUlU ,/<i
rn
❑ No
3. Service Type ! 0 Priority Mnii Expresso
0 Adult Signature
0 Registered Mail's
o Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Registered Mall Restricted
At Certified Mate Delivery
❑ Certified Mat Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for
❑ Cotecton Delivery Merchandise
0 Collect on Delivery ResMcted Det C Signature Confirmation,.
_... '-p'3tgnatare Confirmation
+tall Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery
a)
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front If space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
DANIDO W & LISA E JENKINS
712911:, INTY ROAD 312
NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9634
Domestic Return Receipt
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Signature
x )34)
B. Received by
0 Agent
0 Addressee
C. Date of Delivery
D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? 0 Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below. ❑ No
1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII I II I VIII 3.SNnatureRea�edp ,
0ice 'type
Adult Signature
9590 9402 1329 5285 2620 65 0 Certified
❑ Certified Mat Restricted oetvery
0 Collect on Delivery
2. Article Number flianafar *000 ea„rrra 0.0.,n n rsuiwrin Delivery Restricted Delivery
7011 3500 0002 6240 873T id ictedoeteery
-
PS Form 3811, July 2016 PSN 7830-02-000-9053
0 PnodtyMat Exuma®
0 Registered Mete•
0 Realsteled Meg R�'cled
❑ Return Deily diceReceipttsr
Merchan
0 Signature Confirmation.
0 Signature Con)hma0on
Restricted Delivery
Domestic Return Receipt
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you. C
■ Attach this card to the back of the malipiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
RODNEY W & CAROLE J JOHNSON
PO BOX 65
ROLETTE, ND 58366
11!1119110119111211111!11,11218111121M II
5 5 6
2. Article Number (Transfer from service label)
7011 3500 0002 6240
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Signature
�!J
B Received by (Pan
❑ Agent
ddressee
I C. Date of Delivery
acG7 4r, fl�0•. 4-- —/.6
D. is delivery address different from Mem 1? 0 Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. SenAce Type 0 Priority Mail Express®
❑ Aduit Signature
❑ Adult Suture Restricted Dag 0 Registered Maitre
0
1 Certified Meath hared Mall Restricted
❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for •
❑ Collect on Delivery Merchandise
❑ Cotect on Delivery Resakied Delivery 0 Signature Confirm:gobe,
^' ..—• Man 0 Signature Co firmatlon
8720 mail Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02.000-9053
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mallptece,
or on the front if space permits.
Domestic Retum Receipt ;
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Signatu
❑ Agent
O Addressee
ved by
1e4.1
rT�e)
1. Article Addressed to:
OXY USA, INC. (OR ASSIGNEES)
BLM O&G LEASE SERIAL NO. 065513
5 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 110
HOUSTON, TX 77046-0521
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
9590 9403 0751 5196 4684 23
C. Date of DeltVqy
0 Yes
D. Is delivery address different from item 1?
If YES, enter delivery address below:
❑ No
3. Service lype 0 Priority Mall Expreeem
❑ Adult Slgneture 0 Registered Mall.
0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Rapletaad Mali Resaeted
Y1 Ce,Mbd MODDellverY
❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for
O Collect an Delivery Merchandise
. 2. Article Number (transfer from service label 0 CaIlect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature Cangrtnation^r
7015 1730 0002 1917 7946 hail Restricted Delivery ❑ Signature
d Confirmation
0)
PS Form 3811. April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
Domestic Return Receipt
d
ltd
N
7
ru
-0
ru
D
C7
D
D
m
ri
ra
D
D'
r-
1-4 0'
tr
rg
ru
0
D
m
N
to
rq
c
N
U.S. Postal Service,'
CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT
(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For delivery information visit ou
P
Cane
Return Rec
(Endorsement
Roatricted Do
(Endorauntonl
RODNE
PO BOX 6
ROLETTE, N
0538
21
Postmark
Here
/29/2016
ON
I.S. Postal Service'"
ERTIFIED MAIL' RECEIPT
)omestic Mail Only
.r delivery information. visit or.. tr.us t- -t www u.,ps.corn».
HoTttr% I7
Ceiifierantn Fee $3.45
zeta c BFeas(cnar: omc
ORmu a Reap m•rd opy)
❑Re<weswot (. a Mc!
❑Carteed nal Reseeded oevnry
❑ Mut SleewureReek red
Adult elae+twa Reeolcted 0tMm
o
1 11
6
Postage
$0.49 O
a� Ham
,10538
Postmiivlt
AA '.z /2016
$otr
OXY US/4.1511C. (OR ASSIGNEES)
Ser BLM O&G LEASE SERIAL NO. 065513
al 5 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 110
66 HOUSTON, TX 77046-0521
PS
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you. ,
la Attach this card to the back of the mailpleoe,
or on the front If space permits.
LACY ORR & HOWARD G SMITH
319 E MAIN STREET
• CARTERSVILLE, GA 30120
I11111111111IIII1IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II III
9590 9402 1329 5285 2621 02
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
D. te'tlefArery
If YES, enter
by (Pd ler/Name)
-.4(s'
L-111.41.—
C.
r' tom.
add stn 1�❑Yea /
In Agent
CI
C.I X'rofDentary
3. Service
0 Aden Signa
0 Adult Signet
11 Coddled Macke
0 Certified Moa
0 Collect
i{j124
9 arcwe M,,,.Naw rn.,a..o..ti..— r�nw ,a..a , , • •••••• / Heslnc* rtJ
7011 3500 0002 6240 8713 oataery
eisegre
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530.02.000-9053
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
. nw„ rlesa1otea
�Recelptror
disc
Signature Confirmation'.
0 Signature Conflmiatlon
Restricted Delivery
Domestic Return Receipt
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the maipiece,
or on the front If space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
LESTER R & SARA LEE HANKS
7518 COUNTY ROAD 312
NEW CASTLE, CO 81647
11111lI1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111
9590 9402 1329 5285 2620 41
2. Article Number Manger from service label)
7011 3500 0002 6240
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Signature
C.
❑ Agent
■ Addressee
Date of Delivery
D. Is delivery address different
If YES, enter delivery add
3. SeMce Type
o Adult Signature
Q Adult Signature Restricted Detivery
15 Certified Mall®
Q Confined Mau Restricted Delivery
0 Collect on Delivery
Q Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
Mal
8 7 51 Mail Restricted Delivery
❑ Priority Mall Express®
0 Registered Maim+
0 Regi Malt Restricted
livery
0 Return Receipt for
Merchandise
0 Signature Confirmation.
Q Signature Confirmation
Restricted Delivery
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 753D-02-000-9053
Domestic Return Receipt
m
rat
r-
. .
ru
,A
ru
Return Receipt Fr
D (Endorsement Require
RestrictednF
c3{Endorsemsem(Endorsement
Roqu Hoqulr
o $0
Ln Tn.! Pnstsma 8 Farm
m
LACY ORIP&
319E MAIN STR
CARTERSVILLE, GA
U.S. Postal Service.•
CERTIFIED MAIL,,., RECEIPT
(Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For delivery Information visit our website at www.usps.com„
P
0538
Certified Fee
3500 0002 6240 8751
rat
N
21
2016
U.S. Postal Servicers.,
CERTIFIED MAILrr.. RECEIPT
(Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For del(veiy information visit our websr^ rw.usps.com„--
Pos
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fea
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
SO
t 429/2016
LESTER R$& .SARA A. 4010” •
7518 COUNTY ROAD 312
NEW CASTLE, CO 81647
c
38
0.00
21
Kathy A. Eastle
From: Dan Goin
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:46 AM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request
Kathy
EXHIBIT
i e
At this time I don't see any concerns with this application if this passes then they will need to get a driveway permit for
the house and bring the driveway up to standards.
Dan Goin
District 3 Foreman
Garfield County Road and Bridge
0298 CR 333A, Rifle CO 81650
970-625-8601
From: Kathy A. Eastley
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 2:20 PM
To: Dan Goin; Kelly Cave; Steve Anthony; Sullivan - DNR, Megan; Scott Hoyer (scott.hoyer@state.co.us); Orrin Moon;
cjay@garfieldre2.org; Prow, Sharie - NRCS, Glenwood Springs, CO
Subject: Garfield County Referral Request
Greetings Everyone,
The Garfield County Community Development Department has received a land use application for the
proposed division of land of a 280 -acre acre parcel in a "Road Split Exemption" process. This process requests
to create a —2.1 -acre parcel and the remainder parcel of 277.9 -acres due to the fact that the 2.1 acres is
located on the opposite side of the County Road, thus preventing joint use of the parcel. The site is located at
7225 CR 312 south of the Town of New Castle.
You are receiving this email because you are a referral agency that may have an interest in reviewing and
commenting on the application. The County is requesting your comments no later than April 19th so that
those comments can be considered by the decision makers on the application.
The attached form provides you details on how to access the application on line. Please review those
instructions and then email your comments to Kathy Eastley @ keastley@garfield-county.com
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions about the requested review and locating the applications
on the County system.
Kathy Eastley, AICP
Senior Planner
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street, #401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580
Kathy A. Eastley
From: Atwater - DNR, Levi <levi.atwater@state.co.us>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 12:18 PM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Cc: JT Romatzke - DNR
Subject: Trisch Exemption - File Number: RSEA-03-16-8432
D
EXHIBIT
Kathy,
I have reviewed this proposal to subdivide 2 acres off of the 280 acres parcel at 7225 CR 312. Garfield Creek is a very important drainage,
wintering large numbers of deer and elk, and providing numerous hunters recreation opportunities throughout the fall. This drainage has
experienced a significant increase in development in the last decade, primarily due to oil/gas development. Due to the proximity to the
county road the CPW has no significant concerns regarding this proposal. As with any development, CPW recommends that landowners
consult the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal.
Levi Atwater
DWM - Rifle South/GMU 42
COLORADO
Parks and Wildlife
C 970.985.5882 F 970.255.6111
711 Independent Ave., Grand Junction, CO., 81505
levi.atwater@state.co.us I www.cpw.state.co.us
Turn in a Poacher 1.877.COLO.OGT
1
April 14th, 2016
a
EXHIBIT
k
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street 401
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: Application for County Road Split Subdivision Exemption review for 7225 County Road
312, New Castle
Ms. Eastley,
We, Gerald Lynn and Katherine A. Richardson are not only Colorado natives of the area, but
have lived on Garfield Creek at the current location for over thirty three years. In this time we
have witnessed the workings of the 280 acre ranch in question. Prior to High Wilderness Land &
Cattle Company's ownership the ranch was lived on and maintained by year round residents and
full time cattle ranchers. During their family ownership, their cattle were able to access year
round water via an under road passage located toward the southeast corner of the larger parcel.
(It is possible to identify access today) By contrast, the current owners and now seller have only
used the 280 acre -ranch for a hunting camp and vacations while leasing the production of hay.
By deleting the small parcel from the larger, the split would deny access to Garfield Creek itself
where year round water for livestock is available. And in allowing the split, the outcome of that
decision would severely affect the larger parcel from ever being a sustainable ranch again. We do
not believe this parcel to be operationally separated' from the remainder of the ranch, and the
`physical separation' existed long before Trisch's ownership, and 'Road Split Exemptions'
usually occur when the land is being forced to be divided. We will continue to address this in our
further arguments against the split as follows, but it should also be immediately pointed out that
the Young and Hess ditch also runs through that property and its presence conflicts with the
proposed site for sewage and well site.
From the application we read:
"The Property, which is approximately 280 acres in size, is physically divided by County
Road 312. The road divide isolates an approximately 2.13 acre portion of the Property
northeasterly of County Road 312 from the Property's remainder. The isolation of the 2.13 acre
parcel results in an inability to use that parcel jointly with the rest of the larger ranch ".
This statement doesn't stand scrutiny when considering the following statement, also from the
application:
"The primary use of the 2.13 acres has been to stack hay and as a boneyard for old equipment."
This clearly states this land is currently in beneficial use as part of an agricultural operation and
in a manner consistent with other Colorado farms. As described, the smaller parcel is being used
for storage of agricultural products for consumption and sale and agricultural equipment that
would be utilized in the operation of a "larger ranch". Not pointed out, however, is this parcel is
not only used for the necessary storage of hay, but allows trucks and large trailers safe access to
load hay, and more importantly is dry land farmed and produces healthy size bales.
1
As a note and by our own witnessing, we saw this parcel as being essential to a cattle ranch
operation as stock corrals, holding pens, milk stanchion , squeeze shoot, and calving sheds have
been sited there. Historically and as stated above, livestock gained access to drinking water
(Garfield Creek) by passing under CR 312, or through gates on either side of the road. Livestock
water, particularly in drier years, is non-existent on the larger parcel. It would seem to us poor
judgment for the developers of a 'new ranch compound" to relinquish the only access to year
round livestock water (Garfield Creek) associated with the land.
Reading further:
"The owner plans to relocate the hay stack and equipment storage area to a soon-to-be
developed ranch compound on the main ranch parcel where those uses will be more easily
managed "
We would suggest this is questionable logic in terms of developing a "new ranch compound".
Such an operation would find great value in continuing to use this for a place to store equipment
and the products of the farm operation, along with the current practice of cutting and baling the
hay from that parcel. Or put to use as pasture, corrals, etc, without affecting the production on
the larger parcel. We would also make the claim that the small parcel is not any less "easily
managed "than any other part of the "larger ranch".
Continuing in the application:
, "... irrigation of this portion of the ranch is difficult (getting water under the road)."
This statement can easily be shown as a falsehood. Any irrigation water on the 2 acres would
have to come from the Young and Hess ditch, which does not pass under a road before reaching
the 2 acres.
However, the Parshall Flume used to monitor and control the ditch water right is located on this
parcel (in the location of the proposed septic system). The Young and Hess ditch runs through
the entirety of the parcel (an encumbrance to future residence not addressed in the application)
and in fact does not run under a road until leaving the lot near the proposed northwest corner. At
this point the ditch runs under CR 312 via a culvert maintained by Garfield County (and
ubiquitous along Colorado county roads) for a short distance before running under the road
again. We would point out that not only is this a contrived claim in this instance but many
ranchers and farmers throughout Colorado routinely, and with little ill effect, deal with the
difficulty of "getting water under the road".
Reading further:
"It requires crossing the county road frequently on four -wheelers when the water is running
(creating a danger to ranch workers and on -coming traffic). Once the new ranch compound is
developed, there will be little reason to use the 2.13 acre parcel. It likely will be dried up and no
longer irrigated"
This too needs rebuttal. The presumption that there exists a danger to ranch workers owing to
frequent access for irrigation is patently false. There is very little land associated with this ranch
under irrigation from the Young and Hess Ditch. This application also leads one to think the 2
2
acres is currently actively irrigated. It is not. Rather, any grass used for grazing or cut for hay on
this small parcel is dry land farmed. The application goes on to say the land will be "dried up".
That would be by the owner's choice because the adjudicated water being delivered by the
Young and Hess ditch will, by necessity, continue to flow to water right holders along the ditch.
Reading further we encounter:
"7he2. l3 acre parcel simply is not integrated into the main ranch due to its severance by the
County Road"
We would point out this "severance" by CR 312 dividing these 2 acres rendering them "not
integrated into the main ranch" isn't new. This existed long before the non-resident owner
purchased the land several years ago. In fact, the Jacksons purchased this ranch in 1945 and the
road was there before then. It can be easily determined that currently it is used for the
production, storage, and loading of hay. The "...bone yard for old equipment does not exist or
was long ago cleared away along with the old calving barns, corrals, and such. Historically this
parcel has been beneficial to a cattle ranch as stated above and is currently shown to be an
integral part of a "larger ranch".
We would also state the claim of dangerous activities being necessary to benefit from the small
parcel, i.e., "....on four -wheelers when the water is running (creating a danger to ranch workers
and on -coming traffic" is ridiculous. We would cite the number of incidents of people being put
in "danger" by riding four -wheelers owing to irrigation activities pales in comparison to the
number of four -wheeler trips along the county road attributed to the current owner's use as a
Colorado hunting camp for non-residents. This is a rural road, not I-70, and current law allows
the use of ATV's.
We would go on to suggest that if the owners feel they are placing "ranch workers" in danger
by off- road vehicle travel, as they must drive farther south on CR 312 to gain access to the Rex
Ditch and the Belodi Creek Ditch, and neither one being associated with the 2 acres, but both
impacting the larger parcel and the source for "...water under the road) " their concerns could be
more completely mitigated by requiring ranch workers to use motor vehicles with appropriate
safety equipment.
In light of the marginally qualifying size of this parcel (a small error in survey or calculation
could render a 1.9 acre parcel into a 2.1 acre) and with the numerous encumbrances to
constructing a residence on this agricultural land, i.e., CR 312, Garfield Creek, Young and Hess
Ditch and appurtenances, Holy Cross power line ROW, along with the poorly reasoned affect on
any future ranching operation by conceding the only access to year round water, this application
would appear to be a developers attempt to skirt the standard subdivision process where these
concerns would be addressed. And here we would point out there are several lots currently
offered for sale nearby, with driveways, wells, utilities, etc. in place if a developer desires to
construct a speculative home for sale.
3
In summary, it certainly cannot be said this application factually describes any real burdens to
the current use of the land, nor to any proposed "new ranch compound" that would be alleviated
by development of a small residential property (the smallest land split in 50 years in this area). It
is plainly seen the plans provided with the application do not accurately reflect the true nature of
the parcel and needs to be amended and resubmitted to support proper review. With the burdens
associated with developing this subdivision not addressed in this application we feel this
exemption request should be denied and a more complete subdivision analysis be utilized. The
standard process would allow the applicant to seek the split of the parcels while providing
adequate review to ensure conformance with all County requirements.
Very truly yours, 7 ,
Gerald Lynn and Katherine A. Richardson
7398 CR 312
New Castle, CO 81647
4
Fi. R.-}\ df, c--vocsr_
COLORADO RIVER
Colorado River Fire Rescue
EXHIBIT
Kathy Eastley
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Trisch Exemption
April 18, 2016
Kathy:
This letter is to advise you that I have reviewed File Number: RSEA-03-16-
8432, Trisch Road Split Exemption located at 7225 CR 312.
I have no requirements or concerns with this proposed property split and future
single family dwelling on the 2.1 acres of land. This addition to the property will
not add any impacts to CRFR or our response to that area.
Thank you for allowing me to review this referral and please feel free to contact
me with any questions or concerns. .
Thank You,
Orrin D. Moon, Fire Marshal
CRFR.
April 19, 2016
EXHIBIT
Garfield County
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Community Development Department
RE: Trisch RSEA-03-16-8432
Dear Kathy,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit.
Noxious Weeds
• Map, Inventory, and Plan
Vegetation Management
Staff requests that the applicant submit a map, inventory, and weed management plan for all Garfield County
listed noxious weed found on the entire parcel.
The weed management plan shall address appropriate management strategies and a timeframe for treatment.
Garfield County has a new weed list that was adopted in February of this year, that list is attached.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Steve Anthony
Garfield County Vegetation Manager
0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060
Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939
GARFIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST Adopted by Board of County
Commissioners — February 16, 2016
Common name
Absinth wormwood
Black henbane
Bouncing bet
Bull thistle
Canada thistle
Chicory
Chinese clematis
Common burdock
Common tansy
Common teasel
Corn chamomile
Curly dock
Cutleaf teasel
Cypress spurge
Dalmatian toadflax
Dame's rocket
Diffuse knapweed
Hoary cress
Houndstongue
Jointed goatgrass
Leafy spurge
Mayweed chamomile
Meadow knapweed
Mediterranean sage
Musk thistle
Myrtle spurge
Oxeye daisy
Perennial pepperweed
Plumeless thistle
Poison hemlock
Purple loosestrife
Russian knapweed
Russian -olive
Saltcedar
Saltcedar
Scentless chamomile
Scotch thistle
Spotted knapweed
Sulfur cinquefoil
Yellow starthistle
Yellow toadflax
Scientific Name
Artemsia absinthium
Hyoscyamus niger
Saponaria officinalis
Cirsium vulgare
Cirsium arvense
Cichorium intybus
Clematis orientalis
Arctium minus
Tanacetum vulgare
Dipascus fullonum
Anthemis arvensis
Rumex crispus
Dipsacus lacinatus
Euphorbia cyparissias
Linaria dalmatica
Hesperis matronalis
Centaurea diiffusa
Cardaria draba
Cynoglossum officinale
Aegilops cylindrica
Euphorbia esula
Anthemis cotula
Centaurea pratensis
Salvia aethopsis
Carduus nutans
Euphorbia myrsinites
Leucantheum vulgare
Lepidium latifolium
Carduus acanthoides
Conium maculatum
Lythrum salicaria
Acroptilon repens
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Tamarix parviflora
Tamarix ramosissima
Tripleurospernum perforatum
Onopordum acanthium
Centaurea stoebe
Potentilla recta
Centaurea solstitalis
Linaria vulgaris
Colorado
Designation
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
C
B
B
B
Not listed
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
B
B
B
C
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
COLORADO
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 821
Denver, CO 80203
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 19, 2016
To: Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner, Garfield County Community Development
From: Megan Sullivan, P.E., Water Resource Engineer
Re: Trisch Exemption, File Number: RSEA-03-16-8432
EXHIBIT
This office has reviewed the proposal to divide a parcel of 280 acres to create an approximately
2.1 acre parcel in a "Road Split Exemption" process. According to the submitted materials, the
280 acre parcel is divided by a county road with the proposed 2.1 acre parcel across the road
from the main parcel of approximately 277.9 acres.
The applicant proposes to build a single family dwelling on the 2.1 acre parcel which will be
served by a new well and individual sewage disposal system (ISDS). The property is located
within the Colorado River Basin at a location where the river is over -appropriated. Since this
project appears to not be a subdivision as defined in C.R.S. 30-28-101(10), the 2.1 acre might
qualify for a well permit that is exempt from administration in Colorado's water rights priority
system. However, because the area is over -appropriated, the uses of the well under an exempt
well permit would be limited to ordinary household purposes inside one single family dwelling. No
outside use of the well would be allowed, such as lawn and garden irrigation or Targe domestic
animal watering.
While we cannot guarantee the issuance of any well permit — an application must be submitted for
evaluation — this office does not have an objection to this proposal if the applicant seeks an
exempt well permit for household use only. If the applicant wishes to use a well on the 2.1 acre
parcel for additional purposes beyond household use only, a non-exempt well permit operating
pursuant to a Division 5 Water Court approved plan for augmentation must be obtained instead of
an exempt well permit.
If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact me at 303.866.3581.
1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us
Kathy A. Eastley
From: Chris Hale <chris@mountaincross-eng.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:29 PM
To: Kathy A. Eastley; 'Michael Erion'
Subject: RE: Referral Request
Kathy:
The review of the application materials that were provided, generated the following comments:
EXHIBIT
L
The plat does not address an easement for the existing irrigation ditch.
To address an adequate physical water supply, well pump tests and water quality tests need to be provided.
I will let Mr. Erion weigh in on a legal supply.
The State Engineer's Office requires a plat note be included regarding the well (if it is permitted).
The Applicant should provide a preliminary site layout/building envelope on the plat. OWTS have setbacks from
waterbodies (Garfield Creek), irrigation ditches, and wells. The Applicant should verify that the proposed OWTS
location can achieve these setback requirements.
Feel free to call or email with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Mountain Cross
Engineering, Inc.
Chris Hale, P.E.
826 1/2 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ph: 970.945.5544
Fx: 970.945.5558
Kathy A. Eastley
From: Michael Erion <merion@resource-eng.com>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:28 AM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Subject: Referral Request - 7225 CR 312 RoOad Split Exemption
Kathy:
b
a
a
EXHIBIT
Based on review of the application materials, Resource Engineering Inc. (RESOURCE) offers the following comments
related to the potable wate4r supply from a proposed well on the 2.13 acre parcel.
RESOURCE agrees that if the County approves the exemption, the State Division of Water Resources will issue an Exempt
In -House Use Only well permit for the 2.13 acre parcel. Drilling and testing the well for adequate water quantity and
quality should then occur prior to recording the final plat for the Road Split Exemption. In support of the application and
to demonstrate there is a reasonable probability that an adequate water supply can be developed for the
parcel, Zancanella & Associates, Inc. (ZA) prepared a March 2, 2016 letter report providing data on the site geology and
nearby wells. RESOURCE concurs with the ZA opinion that there is a reasonable probability that an well with adequate
water quantity and quality can be drilled on the 2.13 acre parcel.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Regards,
Michael
Michael Erion, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
(970) 945-6777 Voice
(970) 945-1137 Facsimile
www.resource-eng.com
Karp_Neu_HAanIYonm
Michael J. Sawyer
mjs@mountainlawfirm.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. ltenberg
Greg S. Russi
Hollie L. Wieland
** Fellow of the American
Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Glenwood Sir,
201 14th Street
P. O. Drawer 2,,.,.,
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
EXHIBIT
Aspen Ofce * * *
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
***Alt 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 joint 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.HanlYonm
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_HganlYonm
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.
I:\Clients\Trisch\20160428 Supplemental Comments.docx
Karp_Neu_HanIYonm
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
mp'6mpsypegles pue 6umeds\kpadad 00591\sgof 91.0Z\FZ
W
W
Q • 0
CO
LU ctct
V) (�
� 2
2O
O
U)LL
/
0
0
0
0
L()
0
LL
0
0
co
H
0
W
0
d
TRISCH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
w
2
r
ma
0 I—
U
•
- mj Asa k ws AaamS _
1.1..0530 Lsr »IOOS
1Md N0IldV 3X3 N0ISlAIO8f1S HOSI211
L8919 00'311SVO M3N
0908 813383 0131A1V0 SZLL
HOSIal'f O19NO0
TRISCH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT
1
8
ap
58 285
;18181-
t
8e
3s
Q
8p 5p3$az I 11
{ a 3
R R
@ag
9
8938
a�
@ 9
89
81
1 1 1 i1€81'F1a 1 a
2a € easga
€p8 PI 11 1118a1°ap l}
IPi 'Ilii 111li9 g 0
55 041
11
$` ii
ar
@pp a 6p p� a8
a ria a fill ill a P III e 1 11 @ 91
ll
9 i ce ie? III 111111111
84 11111
@� pppSip
5 �hill a ei I 8 d8 1
11 I
1Al Ai5a` :s .i Sas .33 e1 A .. 1 ,I
a
8; 838 8a.
A� 0 9 5;
45i 5
411
gozugoy Ili a
a'aa
pap �pj, h1 Ph
p"�
iIi
@@@$ a
F H$ ? eFa�
as9 3@s
pa
1M oll!
lk
vwnia� .110wur
•�z,� 'sa�tn.,aS ,Gans
=.117:9xoof_
ltlld NOIldW3X3 NOISIAIOEMS HOST J.
L491.9 03'311SY° M3N
°VOL )133U0 O131d1N0 SZZL
HOSIa1 'f CNNN04
TRISCH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT
ti
's
1
i;
6
9 8 Z4EC- �I lg
I
y asp s
•-4 7 :� s. 0 1� o s a1.s..00r
11,
1
--1-
L
J
A$
NE
ma
b n q $ m
.0441,00
ar
-,I
A
0
5
g
e '
4
II
II
11
ili
111
11
III
1
II
•i�-IP \,/ ,'
a
�t,�a + jam/
LJ 1 Ivs 7
� SAA '27 V•41
\ \"j "�68
nabob
1.
J
5.00
a
?
May 6th' 2016
Garfield County Community Development Department
Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: Katherine Richardson
7398 County Road 312
New Castle, CO 81647
EXHIBIT
a
Re: Supplemental Information for Trisch Road Split Exemption, 7225 County Road 312
Dear Ms. Eastley,
As you are aware, I attended the site visit, held on April 20th, 2016 that concerned the
Application for County Road Split Subdivision Exemption Review for 7225 County Road 312, New
Castle. My husband and I were there to add our comments to help ascertain whether or not the
^'2 acre parcel did indeed fall under the County Road Split Subdivision Exemption as the
applicant Donald Trisch and his lawyer Michael Sawyer would like us to believe. More
importantly we were anxious to hear the comments that you as Senior Planner and the
Assistant County Attorney, Kelly Cave, might offer. In the end, I believe I heard you address Mr.
Sawyer stating he must still prove that this parcel cannot be used jointly with the larger parcel.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Going on the assumption that I am correct, after reading Mr. Sawyer's May 3rd letter, I do not
see where this additional information of proof is found. In fact, he seems to be reiterating the
same points he made in the application, with the addition of personalizing his argument by
involving comments made by us, and addressing remarks made by Mr. Stott as those of
authority. In other words, he is making this personal. I for one am disturbed by this approach
because in the end we, Richardson's and Stott's, will still be neighbors, and a great deal of rural
living depends on getting along with your neighbors. But now we are here.
I'm sure I am not the first to notice the elephant in the room. In staying with the subject of
whether or not Trisch's application should be approved based on the County Road Split
Subdivision Exemption, the obvious is being avoided. This exemption means not having to go
through a proper application for sub dividing this property, and automatically gets a well
permit. As pointed out in Mr. Sawyer's first letter and application dated March 9th, 2016,
sections B and C, 2nd paragraph, "...Because a subdivision exemption is sought for the 2.13 acre
parcel, if approved it will have a legal water supply with an in-house use exempt well permit."
And, stated in the letter from Megan Sullivan, Division of Water Resources, dated April 19,
2016, 2nd paragraph, "Since this project appears to not be a subdivision as Defined in C.R. S. 30-
28-101(10), the 2.1 acre might qualify for a well permit that is exempt from administration in
Colorado's water right priority system." This asset bypasses well permit application.
I believe the seller is using the County Road Split Subdivision Exemption improperly. The -2
acres has proved to be agriculturally sound in production and storage of hay. The seller is
selling, that means he's leaving and this is an easy way to make extra money. The intentions of
Mr. Stott are to buy the property and build a spec home on a parcel that is inundated with
encumbrances, and Garfield Creek splitting the property gives very little room for a domicile
and all of its requirements. The house itself is doomed to sit close to County Road 312, and
quoting from Megan Sullivan's April 19th, 2016 letter (Colorado Division of Water Resources),
2nd paragraph, "However, because the area is over -appropriated, the uses of the well under an
exempt well permit would be limited to ordinary household purposes inside one single family
dwelling. No outside use of the well would be allowed, such as lawn and garden irrigation or
large domestic animal watering." This is hardly a healthy picture of rural living, and I'm having
trouble associating this with economic value for the county.
However, if the two want to do business together, fine, but I urge the Garfield County
Community Development Department to deny Mr. Trisch's request. As an adjacent landowner
and ditch right holder, I believe the small parcel to have enough issues that it needs the
appropriate scrutiny only a proper application for subdividing would provide.
Most sincerely,
Katherine A.L.Richardson
+S)6:544-:‘-xlv—k
14-
''
Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Office: 970-945-8212 Fax: 970-384-3470
May 9, 2016
Michael Sawyer
Karp Neu Hanlon, P.C.
P.O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
mjs@mountainlawfirm.com
RE: Plat Comments
Garfield County File Number RSEA-03-16-8432
Dear Mr. Sawyer;
Garfield County has reviewed the proposed plat and has the following comments:
1. Entitle the plat "Trisch Road Split Exemption Plat";
2. Add a purpose statement to the plat;
3. Two standard plat notes have been omitted from the notes - please add the following:
Domestic Dogs.
Dogs kept on the property shall be in a fenced yard or on a leash to prevent harassment
of wildlife.
Wildlife -Friendly Fencing.
Fencing on the property shall comply with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife specifications
for wildlife -friendly fencing.
4. The vicinity map appears to show the northern property bounty as a straight line when in
fact there is a .84 -acres parcel that is not a part of the subject property. This map should
be corrected.
5. On sheet 2 of the plat the .84 -acre parcel noted above appears to be included in the
subject parcel, it should clearly be marked as not included in the plat by listing the legal
information and ownership.
6. The intent of an exemption plat is solely to describe the parcel being created. Clearly
the overall 280 -acre site is not a part of the plat as it has not been surveyed, therefore
the future legal description of the remainder property will be the current description with
the exception of the 2.1 -acre road split exemption parcel. The new legal description for
the 2.1 -acre parcel will Trisch Road Split Exemption Parcel.
7. The above change to the legal descriptions will require amendments to the descriptions
in, at minimum, the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership, and perhaps others. To try
to explain this in another manner — remove the Exemption Parcel B property description
in the certificate of Dedication and Ownership — the plat is not creating a Parcel B, it is
only creating a Road Split Parcel.
8. The graphics on Page 2 should be amended so that the created 2.1 -acre parcel is the
focus of the plat and the scale should allow details of the property to be shown including
the irrigation ditch and creek. The overall parcel should be shown in detail so that it is
clear where the 2.1 acre parcel is located within the overall property.
9. Please locate a building envelope on the plat to assure that any home constructed on
the site is compliant with separation and setback distances as indicated in the
supplemental information submitted on May 3, 2016.
These changes will be included as conditions of approval. Staff would appreciate the review of
the revised plat prior to creation of the mylar so that we can assure that all necessary changes
have been made.
Feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Kathy Eastley, AICP
CC: File
Kelly Cave, Assistant County Attorney
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Community Development
108 86 Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
May 9th, 2016
Ms. Eastley,
We would like to take this opportunity to offer comment on the Supplemental Information for
Trisch Road Split Exemption, 7225 County Road 312, submitted by Michael J. Sawyer in behalf of Donald
Trisch. We thank you for your consideration.
Recapping; the applicants must demonstrate," that the right-of-way prevents joint use of the
affected, proposed lots." Their original argument was that the 2 acre parcel hasn't been irrigated due to
the difficulty of "getting water under the road" and that the owner had been placing employees and the
public at large in danger from use of `four wheelers" as they tried to achieve this. We learned from the
application the timing of this inability to jointly use the 2 acre parcel was coincident with placing the 280
acres for sale. We learned the inability to use the 2 acres would affect the owner(s) of a nebulous "new
ranch compound". Which begs the question, how can Mr. Trisch be prevented from joint use of the 2.13
acres if he Is not in joint tenancy?
In review of the "supplemental information" we offer:
"The 2.13 acre parcel is not irrigated land and water rights associated with the 278 acre parcel
cannot be applied to the 2.13 acre parcel". The water is not segregated by acres. It goes to the entirety
of the land under the ditch and so if desired the water could be applied to currently irrigated land or
land under development. We point out seventy five per cent of this ranch is not irrigated. •
We go on to read "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 unfenced". Fence the 2.13 acres
Next we read, "...this hay is of low quality and cannot be mixed with the hay produced on the
irrigated 278 acre parcel." We live next to this property and have witnessed this hay as being cut, baled,
stacked, used and sold with all other hay from the property. If there is inferior hay produced from this
land it is most likely due to damage occurring during rain storms after the hay is cut and before it is
baled.
Reading further: "cattle would need to be let out onto the county road without the availability
to corral them on the other side". The fence parallel to the road was taken down when the High
Wildness Ranch group bought the 280 acres. Trisch and company have not shown an interest to cattle
ranching, and the only cows that have occasioned that property are from a neighboring ranch.
Obviously, there are agricultural supply dealers that sell fence posts, wire and portable corral panels.
We could point out that the small triangular parcel has adjoining neighbors with fences on two sides. It
is common that adjacent properties share boundary fence maintenance. In this case, contrary to claims,
most of the fencing is complete.
Continuing, "Once on the 2.13 acre parcel (assuming they would stay there without a fence) the
cattle cannot be watered". The lack of fencing as an obstacle to a "large ranch operation" is nonsense.
And who could make such a statement about access to water by cattle? Reviewing livestock fencing and
grazing laws in Colorado, the Taylor Grazing Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and even the
Endangered Species Act provides information about preservation of stream banks and indigenous
wildlife in coordination with stock watering.
Continuing; "During the site visit, one neighbor who attended referred to the 2.13 acre parcel as
the "sacrifice" portion of the Trisch Ranch". In full disclosure it was Lynn Richardson that made that
statement. A sacrifice lot is a place to hold livestock during times of low forage availability, bad weather
or for herd management activities like branding, castrating, birthing, etc. We offer Live Stock
Management in the Mountains found at http://www.ext.colostate.edu/samijivestock.pdf and
Managing Manure on Horse Farms: Exercise or Sacrifice Lots for Horses found
http://nJaes.rutgers.edujpubs/fs1190/managing-manure-on-horse-farms.asp
Next we find "Creation of a 2.13 acre parcel at this location is consistent with the zoning
minimum size, the comprehensive plan and several smaller parcels nearby". Reviewing the Garfield
County Comprehensive Plan 2030 we interpret maps and plans for the Garfield Creek area zoned for 1
dwelling unit per 10 acres.
Regarding a 2 acre size in particular we find:
Change in Residential Development Densities
Previously, there have been different categories for residential
development densities between the Colorado River Valley and
the Roaring Fork Valley. A significant portion of land within the
Colorado River Valley had a designation of "Outlying Residential"
with a density of 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres, while in the Roaring
Fork Valley, the comparable category was "Residential Medium
High" with a density range of 1 dwelling unit per 2 to <6 acres.
In addition to the inconsistency within the county, the 2 -acre lot
designation in the Colorado River Valley presented a number of
challenges:
• They are too small to farm,
They are difficult to maintain (mowing, irrigation.)
They typically do not get further subdivided - and
therefore inhibit further urban growth.
• Because of the above, many communities have
requested much less dense designations (1 du/10 and
20 acres) surrounding their municipal boundaries,
• When spread over a large area, they do not actually
preserve rural character.
Also:
Loss of Agricultural Lands and Rural Character - Land uses in the
unincorporated areas have been converting agricultural property to
suburban residential, with pockets of urban development. The loss of
rural character impacts one of the assets and appeal of Garfield County
We find it difficult to accept the claim of "consistent with the zoning minimum lot size, the
comprehensive plan and several parcel nearby...".
None of the parcels offered as evidence of consistency to support a new lot were created Tess
than 3 decades ago. One was land set aside for public schools under homestead laws ca. 1905. During
the site visit Mr. Sawyer admonished "times are changing". Yes they are, and that is why the parcels he
cited are poor examples of consistency with current course.
Continuing we see "... a ditch easement 25 feet in width is sufficient to allow the ditch to be
accessed and maintained". We are dubious of the authority this statement lays claim too. Volumes of
legal statutes contain language regarding "reasonable" access. We are prepared to participate with ditch
users and other affected parties to prepare and file articles of incorporation which would result in a legal
document containing definitions of easement width, maintenance cost recovery, officers, schedules etc.
This would benefit future users of the Young and Hess Ditch.
in summary, the evidence presented in the supplemental information to demonstrate the
right of way prevents Joint use of affected proposed Tots is that the seller / owner has been unable to
grow good hay on the parcels. We are told that if he had cows they wouldn't stay on one of the affected
parcels due to the condition of fences. We were informed if there were cows they would drink from an
irrigation ditch or creek passing through the affected parcels and damage something.
We feel this road split exemption request does not factually demonstrate a burden preventing
Mr. Trisch from joint use of the land. Noting here, upon completion of ongoing real estate transactions
Mr. Trisch will be unaffected by either parcel.
Referring to the Garfield County's Comprehensive Plan 2030, and with encumbrances on the 2
acres there could not be a better poster child fora parcel that is: "too small to farm" and "is difficult to
maintain (mowing, irrigation.)"
We feel that the material presented to demonstrate the 2 acre parcel is unsuitable and
inconsistent for joint use to a "new ranch compound" is unconvincing. We continue to think a more
complete analysis be used to ascertain the subdivision is consistent with County requirements. This
facilitates proceeding with plans while ensuring it is done in accordance with law and consistent with
future planning.
Sincerely,
Gerald Lynn and Katherine A. Richardson
7398 County Road 312
New Castle, CO 81647
May 9`r', 2016
(t)- r)?'
Kathy A. Eastley
From: Michael J. Sawyer <mjs@mountainlawfirm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 12:15 PM
To: Kathy A. Eastley
Cc: Kelly Cave
Subject: RE: Trisch Application
Kathy,
.0
EXHIBIT
rz
do not think it is appropriate to respond point by point to the Richardsons' letter. I do want to note that it contains
several legal and factual inaccuracies - in particular about water rights. Portions of the 280 acre parcel are irrigated with
irrigation water rights. These water rights cannot be physically delivered to the 2 acre parcel (there are no ditches under
the county road to deliver the water to that location). Mr. Trish owns no water rights decreed for use on the 2 acre
parcel or for stockwatering out of Garfield Creek at that location. Even if the 2 acre parcel were fenced, there are no
water rights decreed at that location for stock watering. The Richardsons' discussion of how they think the Trish water
can be used is factually and legally wrong.
With regard to the ditch easement, Mr. Scott is both an owner of the Young and Hess water right and the primary party
who maintains the ditch. Mr. Scott was consulted about the width and configuration of the easement shown on the
plat.
Michael
Karp.Neu.Hah1Ynlon
Michael J. Sawyer
201 14th Street, Suite 200, P.O. Drawer 2030, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
T: 970.945.2261 x117/F: 970.945.7336 www.mountainlawfirm.com
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information
contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please
immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
Trisch Road Impact Fee Calcuation
Line
Road Impact Fee Calculation Worksheet - REBUILD TEST
Notes
Fillahle Fields in
1
Project / Application
...
Traffic Study Area
•
As identified in Resolution 98-28
Land Use (Number of Total Dwelling Units, Including ADUs)
Date Prepared
2
Base Road Cost
-
As identified in Resolution 98-28
3
Road Capacity in ADT
As identified in Resolution 98-28
4
Road Cost per ADT
8226.40
Should match Resolution 98-28
5
ADT per Land Use
-
Based on HE Manual
6
Base Road Impact Fee per Laud Use
82,166.64
TAX CREDITS
7
80% of Annual R&B Property Tax per Land Use
S.'.8 lo
Road and Bridge Mill Levy for 2014 is 3.5
8
County Discount Rate
5.00%
Rate updated annually by Treasurers Office
9
Road Design Life (Years)
I i,
10
Present Worth Factor
I u 8-1
County Workbook
11
Property Tax Credit
$305.25
Multiply Line 7 by Line 10
12
UNADJUSTED ROAD IMPACT FEE
$1,86L39
Line 11 subtracted from Line 6
INFLATION ADJUSTMENT
13
Denver -Boulder CPI Year of Cost Estimate
158.1
CPI for 1997
14
Denver -Boulder CPI Year of Impact Fee Calc.
- -'
Estimated CPI for 2014
15
Inflation Factor
1.4889
Line 14 divided by Line 13
16
PRE -CONSTRUCTION INRATION ADJUSTED IMPACT FEE
$2,77148
Multiply Line 12 by Line 15
Note: Calculation not necessary if construction cost estimate is the
same year as the fee is collected
POST -CONSTRUCTION COST ADJUSTMENT
17
County Discount Rate
5.00%
Rate updated annually by Treasurers Office
Note: If the road construction was financed, derive the financed rate
from the debt repayment schedule prepared for the financing and
substitute the derived rate for the Discount Rate
18
Term (Years since the road was constructed)
19
Compound Interest Multiplier
1
County Workbook
Note: In the case of debt finning, enter the imputed multiplier from
the debt service schedule prepared for the finance instrument.
20
POST -CONSTRUCTION ADJUSTED IMPACT FEE
4N/A
Multiply Line 12 by Line 19, N/A if Line 18 = 0
TOTAL FEE FOR TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS
Multiply line 16 by Number of Dwelling Units
(
$2,771.48
1/2 OF FEE TO BE PAID AT FINAL PLAT
Total Fee divided by 2
1
$1,385.74
IMPACT FEE TO BE COLLECTED WITH EACH BUILDING PERMIT
1/2 of Fee divided by Number of Dwelling Units
$1,385.74
EXHIBIT
4
a
4
s
1
8 CR335 1
11,129 Ac Total
6.998 Ac Pnvate. No Haz
1.248 Pop 90
452 HU 90
I
372•
6: CR311-
38,357 Ac Total
17,784 Ac Prorate, No Haz
346 Pop 90
153 HU 90
•
1
1
\i
‘ 7: CR335 ill
Ci
16 21,707 Ac Total
`eStk 7.305 Ac Pnvate. No Haz
` 303 Pop 90 ■
HU 90
313 `,4`
•
` ,i
D
3
EXHIBIT
May 9, 2016
Tamara Allen, Garfield County Community Development Director
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: RESA 03-16-8432
Dear Mrs. Allen,
My husband, Stacey Stott, and I are wanting to purchase the 2 acre lot that is currently owned by Don
Trish located approximately 7.5 miles up Garfield Creek Road, County Road 312. Stacey and his family
have looked after the Trish parcel for 12+ years and it has never been used for cattle grazing or other
agricultural uses other than storing a haystack. The parcel is not large enough to pasture cattle for a long
period of time because it is less than 3 acres. It's not fenced properly to keep cattle in and it would be a
nuisance to have cattle cross back and forth Garfield Creek Road if there is no fence. To our knowledge,
the family prior to taking care of the parcel did not use the parcel for agricultural use either.
Garfield Creek is a splendid place to live and we love the area and want to welcome others to enjoy the
same area we have come to love. Neighbors are contesting the road split because it should stay
agricultural, however this particular parcel has no benefit or usage for agricultural. The current state
shows no fenced area for cattle and has been hayed for weed control. There is not enough hay produced
for monetary gain.
We hope you will consider our point of view as a realistic one and not on the notion as keeping it
agricultural as the parcel has not intended, nor used as agriculture to this day.
If you have any questions, we would be happily to attend a public meeting or council session for further
discussion.
Sincerely,
Brooke and Stacey Stott
7342 County Road 312
New Castle, CO 81647
EXHIBIT
Garfield County
To: Michael Langhorne - Bookcliff Survey Services, Inc.
From: Scott Aibner — Garfield County Surveyor
Subject: Plat Review — Trisch Subdivision Exemption
Date: 05/16/2016
SUR VEYOR
SCOTT AIBNER, P.L.S
Michael,
Upon review of the Trisch Subdivision Exemption, I have no comments or corrections to be made prior to
approval for survey content and form.
Once all final comments from Community Development have been completed, the Mylar may be prepared for
recording. The Mylar shall be delivered to the Community Development office with all private party signatures
no later than Monday the week prior to the next commissioner meeting day in order to make that meeting.
Sincerely,
Scott Aibner
Garfield County Surveyor
cc Kathy Eastley — Community Development Department
109 8 th Street .Suite 1008 • Glenwood Springs, C081601 • (970)945-1377 • email:saibner@garfield-county.com