Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2.0 Staff Report for Call-Up Request BOCC 06.13.2016
Request for Call-up — Trisch Road Split Exemption BOCC 6/13/16 K E/TA STAFF MEMO REQUEST Schedule a Public Hearing for reconsideration of a Director Decision for a Road Split Exemption Donald Trisch Michael Sawyer — Karp Neu Hanlon, P.C. Garfield Creek, 7.5 miles south of New Castle 280 -acres County Road 312 — Garfield Creek Road Rural Approval with conditions PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATIVE LOCATION PROPERTY INFORMATION: ACCESS EXISTING ZONING DIRECTOR DECISION II. BOARD DECISION I. GENERAL INFORMATION Donald Trisch is the owner of a 280 -acre property located south of New Castle. Mr. Trisch has submitted a request for a road split exemption as 2.13 -acres of the 280 -acre property lies on the opposite side of Garfield Creek Road (CR 312). Proper public notice was provided for the Director's Decision and the Director found that the application met the requirements of the 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended (LUDC) and issued a conditional approval of the request. Adjacent property owners, Lynn and Katherine Richardson, submitted a request for call-up to public hearing in order for the Board of County Commissioners to reconsider the Director's decision. Should the Board determine that a public hearing is warranted on this application staff recommends scheduling the hearing date or Tuesday July 5, 2016 which will allow for completion of required public notice pursuant to the LUDC. 1 Kathy A. Eastley From: Richardson, Lynn <lynric@tristategt.org> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 7:48 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Cc: 'Katherine Richardson' Subject: Trisch Road Split Ms. Eastley, Katherine and I submitted online comment to the BOCC regarding the Trisch Application and offer it to you. 5/16/2016 Board of County Commissioners 108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Commissioner We are writing regarding the Trisch Road Split Exemption Application to express concerns. The approval criteria necessary to support the road split exemption subdivision process is it must be demonstrated that the right of way prevents joint use of the affected, proposed Tots. The claim presented in the Application in support was that irrigation activities related to the 2 acres created a dangerous condition to on -coming traffic and ranch workers from use of four wheelers on county roads attempting to "get water under the road'. The Supplemental Information offered to elucidate the inability to jointly use the parcels states it is not the difficulty of getting irrigation water under the road that prohibits joint use, but rather the inability to use the parcel was due to the fact that the owner does not have water rights for the field and so it cannot be irrigated. The later statement is in direct contradiction to the earlier claim. The supplemental information also raised the topic of fences as a claim of burden to this ranch operation. From the Garfield County land use codes we see: C. Fences. The County is a Right to Farm County consistent with section 1-301. Fences shall be constructed to separate the development from adjoining Agricultural Lands or stock drives as required to protect Agricultural Lands by any new development and to separate new development from adjoining agricultural operations. All parts of the fencing including such items as gates, cattle guards, boards, posts, and wiring shall be maintained by the owner, HOA, or other responsible entity. We are unable to reconcile the claims in the application regarding fencing as an impediment to joint use as a ranch because requirements for fencing seem more onerous to a subdivision than a farm. In conclusion, we do not feel the evidence provided in the Application or the Supplemental Information related to the approval criteria truthfully demonstrates the county road right-of-way prevents joint use of the affected, proposed lots. We ask the Board of County Commissioners review and give serious consideration to claims made in the application and the suitability of this lot as a residential parcel consistent with law and future direction before final approval. Thank You for your time and consideration. Gerald Lynn and Katherine Richardson 1 Garfield County May 13, 2016 Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401. Glenwood Springs. CO 8160 i Officc: 970-945-8212 Fax 970-184-3470 Michael Sawyer Karp Neu Hanlon, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 mis@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 Aril 14, 2016 from Katherine and Gerald Richardson 1 Letter dated April 18, 2016 from Orrin Moon, Colorado River Fire Rescue J Letter dated April 19, 2016 from Steve Anthony, Vegetation Management Memo dated April 19, 2106 from Megan Sullivan, Division of Water Resources K 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 0 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 Email dated May 10, 2016 from Mike Sawyer R 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 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 L 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 11 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." ll. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE `TL9 lir elf 1116 C±..nef before" Sectnn it A.12 A31/4'Aa. Alunursum Cap LS No. 3(577 in Race 0,16 1#... h°r / „ f' s f '49,A, • \\ ulnen • \ P.o.11 Exemption Parcel A j.. 131 Mr.) oee� w{too\cC�g Figure 2 Proposed Road Split Parcel gea 0,01 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 b 50 1Q0 Feet Event (2 to Overhead riertrir line A )1/ lAa A9ovr rCop }i^fl fl 7' Cop am,-- :osteo agalilfrcek cDL•iY °7A° 25' from CATLK Young and Hrcc flitch HOUSE FOOTFRiNT ISDS Field \ '\OfifiC' 100' setback of ISDS from well \ IOU ISDS SETBACK OM WELL 2S' SETBACK FROM COUNTY ROAD R O W 7' Potential hnilrlino cite SP ISDS SETBACK FROM CARFIELD CREEK PPREUI.UNARY SPA,: VO AND SETDA:K`: 1cr I°s. t 1 2T6• 1-1 2), nt 911191 P.re el- D .IT h Rc r0crq IRISCN sueo1v4Sl=N EXEvencN I• c/N LULLA /`M1'S OVG LFT )} rasa .a. es.s.s r. 97 47 1110. 2 x6500 21Page Trisch Road Exemption Staff Report May 13, 2016 Figure 4 Garfield Creek Figure 3 Young and Hess Ditch Figure 5 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: 3 1 r c 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 Targe 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 concem 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 O — 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 large 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. 51Pa0e 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 t2 -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. 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. 7IPagc 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{Page 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.lacre 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 LDDC. 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. 911': 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. 101 -ft-t5a4 . -03- - S32 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. ® 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 (1ist] 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. ❑ 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. testify that the above information is true and accurate. Name: Pyr Grabe, /jssitant to Michael Sawyer Signatu Date: •; .tD M1 ru .a U -S. Fcs ' Strict+,i:, �CERTIFIED MAiI: RECEIPT ipornesa . M.14 O+rdy; No ittsrraraco Cievemee P,o, iccdl Fo,dciNe:yteramsri Craw fir CI tam elot tRsyso q G1IaryF.. C1 fraftrusini rut BUREAU (MUNI) + COLO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT, CO 81652 • Complete Mems t. 2. and 3. • PRM your mamma and address on the reverse so that we can retnm the card to you • Attach this card to the back of the meilplece, or on the front If apace permits. 1. Mede Addressed tac 38 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 21 COLO RIVER VALLEY FIELD OFFICE 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT•, CO 81652 /2016 U.S`Postal Service,' � �1 'CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic hail Only; No Msurance Coverage Provided) 7011 35013 0 Milli illi El III III III U I III I I I 1111111 9590 9403 0751 5198 4788 66 0.Adefray adder Wawa aerabin 1? ales tlYE3,gaff ddkwygibe= below DNo 3. Ser lcelype D Ad's 61;ruCn c3 cAana el Ude w° e+srw es. dwa 0 Cam1aebr.. tct.d oy o Mama eten4e Cam 2. Amos Number fflanster from eerv.4a rrba4 is cer.at oa Gray nerve sd e.n+ry 7011 3500 0002 6240 8768 Retlrktb Cotta? PS Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7630412-00041053 merr c,.!.t}'ti rt 7r rr':Srer"V. • Complete Items 1, 2. and 3. • Print your name and ed&esa on the revers so that we can return the cud to you. ■ Attach thls card to the back of the matplece, man the front It soaoa penults. 1 Antos Add used to WILLIAM M & PATRICIA A SMITI-1 795 COUNTY ROAD 326 Ar SILT, CO 81652 a Moly we Emma' 0 Rcound Mewl Meiawersa DArumralm• a a t ommestlo Repan Receipt WILLI 795 CO SILT, CO 81 lilt llllllll1Il MAI II IIIIIII( 111111 9590 9409 0751 5198 4788 28 AMA. RYeeeeor + knell erm.ku bn.11 7011 3500 0002 6240 8683 3. SentolyW hal Statham teeided Yet n.mteLd OMewy o Wed moa,.y tl Coke en oenay rwoaeo oeumy R.frteted trims? a Potrero Yam Extreme no3ehros Mem 01=s0 YY Rost tied aArum INetfunchs n.eayt ler as aaotraberm, . , �• ■�..»aearraerr P3 Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7330-02-0009053 0oraeso Sedum Receipt 1 U.S. Postal Service'" CERTIFIED MAIL(' RECEIPT barnesric Marl Only 4t - PERRY DAsA NA 5118 COUNTY ROAD NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9624 U.S.Postal Service'" CERTIFIED' MAIL RECEIPT Darnce tic dt. ? Only For da"try Information. %gait aur r;otr9110 at rmre USpp mom'. 13.45 UNITED Stiff �y' '• 4' ' BUREAU OF LAND a,:. • ,, r 2850 YOUNGFIELD STREET LAKEWOOD, CO 80215-7210 T E 0538 21 4 tn;veCa0c9 SENDER: COMPLETE- nu, seCr1ON • Compete fame 1, 2, and 3. • faint your name and od&as on the ravage so that we can Mom the card to you. • Attach ttda card to the back of the maltplece, or on the front If apace permits. t Adele Addaeed UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 2850 YOUNGFIELD STREET LAKEWOOD, CO 80215-7210 1111 111111111111111111111111111111111 9590 9403 0751 5196 4884 16 rt11.'S:If Te nr S',((41(J:1 up :;(cr,rrr 0 Paot sd by fPrtded Novy C. Data af Dsdvery. 3( a9 P D. b dirry often ddrard from dem 17U Y . YES, enter dN(very,dares* betoW; 0 No 3. SeMaloe O gravy M* ritrohn AMat1ad Dewy ▪ crtla.d u.II) O GOMM MhI posedDd,ry O Cased m Ddry 2. Mice NtmberWan( awn in*" MO O Ce.oI CM Davey Rs.alcr.d Ddrrm 7015 1730 0002 1917 7953 a Mebkbd Manly o N+.er Md Dons° a arOblred IAAAm O =rod fdY H.tru.d 0 Ramo flo:471 kr Ailmdargese 0 aware Cardenrran^' Dicer/Rechiclad P9 Form 3811, NMI 2015 PSN 7530@.000.6053 SENDER. CO:'F'LETr TH75.'jECTION w Complete Items 1, 2, end 3. • PrInt yotr name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the rnsitplece. or on the front if space patrons. Domasbo Rem Roc** (:()`:fit r-11 rllr'+!Fr'T7.')(!()Id 1;;; 'I Lin, 0 by (Prtaad Nat* C. Data at Cebiery 1. MtleleAddlwad tx PERRY DAN & MARY 13 RODREICK 5118 COUNTY ROAD 3 I 1 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9624 1111111111111191111111111111111111 9590 9403 0751 5198 4788 59 D. b defray addes* 121~1 from sem l7 Yw 11 YES, sew *Emmy address beim: 0 No 51389 co (Li ail /taj G t1 ,Ca 3/6 (17 3. Bervin1lrpe o Adult &guar. 0 Asa evokes Dc.rafr.dfrN. o dram sed 2. Anter Nimbly (Dar arrd m service 60e4 0 Maraca ochry 7015 1730 0002 1917 7984 9 PS Form 3811, Apra 2015 PSN7S30422-030a053 Domes* Re ten Pacs10 1'- 1:'- 0 N N ra N 0 t7 0 0 LONNIE Rti9FAC r`^.1 CIO LONNIE CODY STO 0 251 EMMA ROAD BASALT, CO 81621 U.S.°Postal Servicee' CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT sl 0cows rlc"' l only For de:: c• t oniornaha t t31: our vast .A‘ .- s $3.45 ..a.. Ofkownrr. 4%,.. noel OAO. Pos,Nr+.+•re OC,paeur A,e tied • 0 Aga two,. eiKuno .....m.o.A wood 10.49 GO •1 sysv ttt uitS C017I §, 21 0 D- N N rI res 0 0 0 0 _ ul ul GERALD Rita & KATHERINE RICH ON a 7398 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9633 016 U.S. Postal Service" CERTIFIED MAIL'RECEIPT Abnaaxt c t.l.4:! Only: • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. 1e Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the cad to you. • Attach this card to the back of the, mailplece, or on the Dont If aW ce peon 1 Miele Atldneaed t c LONNIE R & STACEY L STOTT C/O LONNIE CODY STOTT 251 EMMA ROAD BASALT, CO 81621 111101111111111111111111111111111111 9590 9403 0751 5198 4788 35 (] AVM 0 Adgnret a `Sof Newry -/(4, D. a de&ey t9earent tom cam 1? 13114 I YES, WO% .. addraes Wow 0 No 3. Sento%pe a MA Mangum ate$ RwmCtsOas•,ery CalledI ei5{5 dDMrsry O COW 5I 0 , 2. Mda timber(rlwhr ken naarvc. Leat2ac k l%c yeawictrd CM ", 7015 1730 0002 1917 7977 wotarem°M,ery PS Form 3811, Apr( 2015 PSN MO -M-000-000 0 Rimy oo aur o =so rAr trwi:.d Nkena Iftch l ra• b 0aydunveCkebtliftei MskiWd CMrwy SENDER- c:ua;Pter& rity; `: CCrior, • 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 tho =apiece, or on tho front tt apace Permits - Stratum Xl.ar+-p.�:,. 5. Rornd by (Proad Amery Domestic Rotten R•upt O Aorta C1 A ter..« C. Detect Delray 1. Aiade Addressed to GERALD RICHARDSON & KATHERINE RICHARDSON 7398 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9633 11111111111111111111311111111111111 9590 9403 0751 5198 4788 42 D. w dsNuy adtsn drewert tam Mm 1? Chin N YES. enter de7wry add,sa blow 0 No 1 3. 5eidee lype 0Mit Signakire o WO WRnekbd Mon 0 Maid en Wray d An Pluntw Minster ham serMnlaba( 0Collect m Weary 11901Poi bM,ey 7015 1730 0002 1917 7960 9 nM+m.do.ww7 PS Font 3811, Apd12018 PSN 753041240)-905.3 aNulty MalliZose Rooloand o Mood Wl Ploort• ori oMan pMyRrortaer lArthontioso !Aran Cordlevratto Rewlew Debery Domestic Rerun tlecepl U.S. Postal Servicer rCERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT (Domestic Matt Only; No Ireurirrce Coverage Provided) For derivory lnformauan u u r w•eL •V et u5p5 over,'+�4ss";e• ••. 0538 Ram lErrd.een.e ftuekred pdrer► S lb&.J Patau. a F. TI -IE JOHN'H MARY GIBSON TRUST 7550 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 U.S.' Postal Service`u CERTIFIED ML' ' REC (DomoStic Mal Only; NoAIrnstlrance EIPT Coverage Provided) 21 /29/2016 SENE)EFI: CO JPLEtF 71.0S .5E-CrIOj • Complete Await, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address an the Melee so that we can retum the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the malfplece, cc on the front If space panta. 1. Amide Apieeped to; TI IE JO) IN K REED TRUST & MARY,Ci1BSON 1 RUST' 7550 CQUNTY ROM) 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 8 i 647 IIIIIIrIIIIIIIIIIIHJ111IIII IIIIIIl1II1ti 9590 9403 0751 5196 4788 11 X ,,.r! »2- 1. -.. by feinted Nene) thv RPFT) D AGI rt D Addeawe C. Due of Weary a 1 dsly y hm &Want /tom 9YES, sow deeeery address US? 3. Sentealype 0 MA Amu.$ Corned IMO rc.etrt ao.r.y 0 Weld IRrR Reit cel wewy 0 Cold an 0 way Wed or DMely RWkled Whey neesae dewy 2 Mein Number lRs4tkr from sorties eaelJ 7011 3500 0002 6240 8690 aPYtery kid balm* floptiewnhero 0 =quid Berrie ee aereeraraue Return aro* ate 0 Orate pnbmamn. 0 eyrmee CsnYm.ron aaeaworr.., PS Form 3811, Apt 2015 PSN 7590.02.000.9057 SENDES CO,•.:t°LF.TE Tin; SECTION • Complete Rtes 1, 2. and 3. Pied your num and address an e "ter • sot we can return thr card to yoous • Mich this card to the back of the maliplsce, or on the front It space penitfb. t. mos AcIdmied fa: MARY GIBSON & JOhIN K REED 7550 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 Dornesac Retun Receipt MARY G ria 7550 CO o NEW CASTL 1191619101111111. IIIf11�i�1119 44030751 3196 4950 30 2.. Mb. Member (Th sbr *Urn Santa beep 7011 3500 0002 6240 PS Form 3811, Apr9 2015 w " t♦A.e sea e y o+r utle Cartled MAO Reartid NW O Midi an 011awy y 0 Cede d d err Rete ihemeriseeked Dell'y 8701, Mtnrptnie Whey 0 Pliplowed Maly Nolowis 0 Mer Wt Smicetl D�Mta jyyMb ReselostOMmy Deurteeae Raton tlenlpt N ra 7011 3500 0002 6240 N m N w U.S. Postal Service, CERTIFIED MAIL=„ RECEIPT (DorneStic Mail Gray, No Insurance Coecregc Provided? ;., Fed delvery /Morrnatron vied our webctto at wrt.v o.pa COTO 41`;'''S AF r fiff71, cyders f noun (edwrono t Pearked tdt FLOYD & 7192 COU NEW CASTLE, 38 21 9/2016 U.S. Postal Service. CERTIFIED MAILn RECEIPT (Domestic Marl Only; No Insurance Coverage Provrdeq) - a For delivery Intormattott vtall ow webs Its of www.0 05321 CfAe.d RJ Reuel (6,tt eso ale fooftesossekt f0 en TAW ...,.,. m DANIEL V0& , 7129 COUNTY RO No ? NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9634 9/2016 et Converts Sena I.2, end 3. • Pent your mares end address on the reverse so that Wu can return the card to you. • Attadt tint card to the back of the maIplerns or on the front If space peones. 1. Medi Addressed tec FLOYD & JENNIFER HOSTETLER 7192 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 11111111111l1IU 1lIIlIIIN11IIIIIII111 9590 9402 1329 5285 2920 58 D Ayre 13 Adeteee . C. DUettl.avely 3. e.vleslype 0 Milt Soot= Mat Spews llwewwdDOM Olir W lie rIcisl Wort CI CAW en Geemy 2. Pads Number (sealer 1000/ mate Mel a Caked enOOtary/Learnt 7011 3500 0002 6240 8744 ac Reelected Drewy o aelat-+ 0 lYptrol Nd 1110110rd onea4har aarrerm aetreeraDelnoy .. 1 Ps Forth 3811, July2015 p i 7Sp..cco.Yoes • Complete Rents 1, 2, and e. • Print your name end address on the meow so that we can return Ore card to you. • Attach this card to the heck of the ntdlpioce, or on the front R space 1. Mede Addeeeed ark DAN W & LISA E JENKINS 7129 ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647-9634 111111111111IIIIIIIIIII1IIlIIIIIIlII111I11 8590 9402 1329 5285 2820 65 A. Leena.. x.5`1� 5;711 by Domestic Return nealpl 1 6. Y ddwyedttiese dearest tom tea 17 D 1w 2V58.eteetdeawryaddlresb0b= D t O sant Araf+aeaa 0. DoteaD.I y 3. Sodom Apt c Rsri wlrntkwd Osieedete eteYYdOe twy o WoeattOOgq � ret oeRy 2. Miele Writer anna.,e&..JEAN ^^'"" trtaryaaekra olt►rar.aeMtarbt 7011 3500 0002 6240 8737 ,4eRm*,,idy, nrwkd.d pr.iy o t�ira�at.rtar P8 Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 740-02.0060053 Memos neem Sues* i 4 SENDER: c'<tt.;PLE IE 71,75 SCCINW • Complete ears 1, 2, end 3. • Prfit yeti' name and addrese an the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this cad to the beds of the mallpiece, a on the front if specs permlta. 1. Arods Addressed ton RODNEY W & CAROLE J JOHNSON PO BOX 65 ROLETfE, ND 56366 "!!!!!!!!!!E111 2. MY* Weber Mfrs* Stag ateete Abe. 7011 3500 0002 6240 rfrt.'P< L r£ r,ffS fl<: i!fJ c7.•J f:i.k l t FllV A. Sigruaure X ViceivedMM+►tfd a DR.atDPlv.y QbrieherYarkerrosmomentakmmemm 0 W UYES. enter Mean? address Wove ONo S. Sanrlo. type 0 Mit Samba* AbaaMtgn molted darn Canal WS Csitilul o WWI on Wen A..ttW Dolor? 8720 P8 Fonn 3811, Judy 2015 MN n330-.0oo-9031 SENDER: CGMPLL• TE TNI; a.GT1ON • Complete kens 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name end address on the nevem so that we can return the card to you • Attach this caro to the beck of the nom, a on the hunt It space pamite. 1. Nada Addressed lox OXY USA, INC. (OR ASSIGNEES) IILM O&G LEASE SERIAL NO.065513 5 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 110 HOUSTON, TX 77046-0521 u I !IIIIIIIIII�INT80II�1IIfl 95170 409 0751 5117E 466423 Restrtw Osa,ry eq Domestic Rebsa r eoelp car. PLE. JF TMS `i£ C 7107J ()NM! F! JI:EPY 04=e 0 AVIA tZI Addls.se. pa Q(/baJla'�d Q ladelveyad*Nsdef'w.ktb.etikn1? Q1M (l" 47 y YE9. enter delivery edema below: Cl No 3. Sevleelype Nei avian oLi ra.atrdo+..y O arelsd W asssterid Wows Janine o0What go tawtbe 2. Demo MI* Nun*. inanahr a.Janinet.ttep7 7015 1730 0002 1917 7946 a ll...+eao.a.wy P9 Fam 3811, Apt 2015 Ph1N 7530.02-000-00 33 Dements Haben Receipt 0 N eO 0 fU -n N 0 0 0 0 0 m m a 0 N .a tr. N 1'- r'b 1- rR to 4 0 eN 0 0 m N an 0 U.S. Postal Servir:ear. CERTIFIED MAIL,,. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For d,ll,ry 1n'ormnnor :tour r0.lta at v4VW Lisps corn 0535 Boum r u nease NoSesaesi RO▪ DN PO BOX 6 ROLETTE, 21 /29/2016 ON t.S. Postal Service" `;ERTIFIED MAIL' RECEIPT p1r:CShc Mad Only * r drLivtty irtafrtl4ML. v'5 t w• v.. fire r °lap A c5;) ram" L U91E �t 13.45 ttrnlces ors • r pre twaa'.imon Ow..7.a.onsti+ +e Ocwrsmurs.w+mmw+T Gn &OlollntJ.w.a Ontafloneamnuosorsi Curley 0 • Ct 1l}IItI I .r ,'t $0.49 0 • \0538 /r"'" M17/2016 OXY USAfRUC (OR ASSIGNEES) BLM O&G LEASE SERIAL NO 065513 Ai 5 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 110 HOUSTON, TX 77046-0521 171 • Complete Items 1, 2. and 3. Is Print your name and address on the revue so that we can return the card to you. to Mach thb card to the beck of the mallplece, or on the pont t space hennas. LACY ORR & HOWARD G SMITH 319 E MAIN STREET CARTERSVILLE, GA 30120 If YES, Moat D Anel 0. 131' cd Delvey 11:1 CSa17 APR 1 IIII1IIOUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUI oN 9590940213295285262102 0 Craw ibb alta 7 naw area...r n r..., 7011 3500 0002 6240 8713 MS -t PS Form 3811, July 2015115N 75300.o0o-9053 ■ Complete Nems 1, 2, and 3. • Print yourmune and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to !Mbar* of the indf lecq von the fiord two pamlls. 1. HS*Addeseedes LESTER R & SARA LEE HANKS 7518 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 IIIIlII III IIlHltIIIII IIIIfJIII l IIIIH 9590 9402 1329 5285 2620 41 2. Male Number dahrsalmtom semis, beef 7011 3500 0002 6240 140 . *voided few SOW=carer.ramm' 0 ergo ibemeem llorsatlual Deal" Damsons Ream Rdcebt B. Aecalvad by fRatedPtanry Sq-tvIlan D. Mvm .eaadyawaoinot datrry 500 0002 6240 8713 U.S. Postal Service,,, CERTIFIED MAIL,. RECEIPT `Demesne Mall Only; Ni fnsi rance Coverage Provided) p. For t$&I cr/ (Norms /on visit our waddle et www.uspa.com. t;Ar r��ulape, Poaa . GAMINS Fss ileum Roo* tom. hlaatard DAary Ir J 30 ..I w+I.n. LACY ORk6& I� 13(9 E MAIN STR' CARTERSVILLE, GA el N N C. Dale dDeavey as N 3. tl.dd.lybe 0 Aanmarden O�Addt eyattlrs eta�rpaa ahoy 40 CCulald 4 et aketartt Mary 17 allot atoll./ Ilaaelelhd Dolan 5751 n.aa.rsae,.F PS Farm 3811, July 2015 Ped rs3a43e.aoaooaa aLlo orhraepwrasa 17 Morefloodiplior alorthodloo oSwaim Colerrolon. .. Oaaarratort n.wtoldo.ewey Darnoadc Ream R.cet+t ; rU 0 0 0 0 hn 0 E 0538 21 2016 U.S Postal Servrcera CERTIFIED MAIL:,, RECEIPT (Demesne Mal! Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For doily [17 Information vlsll our web.." " -urv.usps-Come; I a Craned Foe wLm n.altrt F.. (Enaar.mnmt A.gnraefj 4612141 I.1 f0 C LESTER RtiL2# RA 7518 COUNTY ROAD 312 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 0.00 4' vfXr 21 20/2016 Kathy A. Eastley From: Dan Goin Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:46 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request Kathy EXHIBIT 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 @ keastlevPgarfield-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 1 Kath A. Eastle From: Atwater - DNR, Levi <Ievi.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 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 iGOLORADO Parks and Wildtitc ;.' f„eu'ol €tLyat;'Ccs C 970.985.5882 1 F 970.255.6111 711 Independent Ave., Grand Junction, CO., 81505 levi.atwater@state.co.us 1 www.cpw.state.co.us Turn in a Poacher 1.877.COLO.OGT 1 April 14th, 2016 Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 I1-4 EXHIBIT 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 Properly, 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 ofa '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 mnanag&i " 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 Tess "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 Farshall 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 -coining 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: "l het. I3 acre parcl ,amply i.s 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 Tots currently offered for sale nearby, with driveways, wells, utilities, etc. in place ifa 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, Gerald Lynn and Katherine A. Richardson 7398 CR 312 New Castle, CO 81647 4 (fLOAaio ERR Colorado River Fire Rescue EXHIBIT Kathy Eastley 108 81'' 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 2080 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 Ioosestrife Russian knapweed Russian -olive Saltcedar Saltcedar Scentless chamomile Scotch thistle Spotted knapweed Sulfur cinquefoil Yellow starthistle Yellow toadflax Scientific Name Artenrsia absinthium Hyoscyamus niger Saponaria officinalis Cirsium vulgare Cirsium arvense Cichoriunr intybus Clematis orientalis Arctium minus Tanacetunr vulgare Dipascus ftrllonrnn Anthemis arvensis Rumex crispus Dipsacus lacinatus Euphorbia cyparissias Linaria dalnratica Ilesperis matronalis Centaurea diffusa Cardaria draba Cynoglossum offtcinale Aegilops cylindrica Euphorbia esula Anthemis cotula Centaurea pratensis Salvia aethopsis Carduus nutans Euphorbia inyrsinites Leucantheum vulgare Lepidiunr latifolium Carduus acanthoides Conium maculatum Lythrtun salicaria Acroptilon repens Elaeagnus angustifalia Tamarix par-vi.1lora Tamarix ramosis sima Tripleurospernum perforatunr Onopardwn acanthiurn Centaurea stoebe Potentilla recta Centaurea solstitalis Linaria vulgaris Colorado Designation B B 13 B B C B C B B B Not listed B B B B B 13 B 13 B B A A 13 A B B B C A 13 B B B 13 B B B A B COLORAD Division of Wa .er Resources Depanment 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 K_ 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: 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 Kath A. Eastle 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: 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.HAanlonw Michael J. Sawyer mis.'rr' mounteinlawfirm.tom May 3, 2016 Sander N. Karp' James S. Neu Karl J. I [anion Michael J. Sawyer James F. Fosnaught Jeffrey J. Conklin Andrew A. Mueller • Fellow of the College of Labor and Emldoyment laryerr 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. I-loistad Dclphinc F. Jancy Of Counsel Richard 1.7_ubcr** Anna S. ltcnberg Greg S. Russi Hullle L. Wieland •• Fdlow of rhe American Academy tf.Norrinsonlal 1.aayees Glenwood Sort 201 14th Sire P. 0. Drawer 2 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 EXHIBIT Aspen Office*** 323 W. Main Street. Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 dlonlrose Office •*• 1544 Oxbow Drive, Suite 224 Montrose, CO 81402 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile (970) 945-7336 www,moantainIawli ,com •• 'All correspondence shall he fent wahe rilrn swell Springs .dire 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.Hanlon 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). 11. 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. I1I. 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 1:IClicnts7risch\20160428 Supplemental Comments.docx Karp.Neu.Hanlon ATI 1 VI a Page 3 side of the ditch). This allows for operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the ditch as required by 7-201 E. 4 and 5. The headgate for the Young & Hess ditch is not on the Trisch property. Access to the headgate would be across the property where the headgate is located. The Young & Hess Ditch is an unincorporated ditch. According to Stacy Scott, the following are owners or users in the ditch: Stacy Scott, Gerald Richardson, and Lacy Orr. Mr. Scott is the ranch lessee of the Orr property. All of the ditch owners and users were provided notice as landowners within 200 feet of the Trisch property and have been afforded the right to comment on the Application. Ditch owners Stacy Scott and Gerald Richardson were present at the site visit. The applicant has adequately given notice to the ditch owners and provided a reasonable easement to allow for continued operation and maintenance of the ditch in satisfaction of 7-201 E. IV. The parcel boundary for Parcel A is limited to land contained within the legal description. Neighboring landowner John Reed attended the site visit. Mr. Reed expressed concern that the parcel boundary for Parcel A not include any land within his legal description. A boundary fence along the Trisch / Reed boundary historically was several feet into the Reed property. The surveyor has confirmed to Mr. Reed that the Parcel A boundary does not include any of his deeded land. If the subdivision exemption is approved, Trisch will give a quit claim deed to Mr. Reed for his parcel. V. Responses to referral comments. The comments of Michael Erion and the Division of Water Resources are consistent with the description of the legal water supply contained in the Application. After the subdivision exemption is granted, the Applicant will apply for an in-house exempt well permit. The Applicant understands that uses of water from the well will be limited as discussed in the letter from the Division of Water Resources. Further, Michael Erion's description of drilling a monitoring well and testing the supply is consistent with the discussion in the Application. The comments of Chris Hale have been incorporated. An easement for the Ditch has been added to the plat. There is currently no well permit for the 2.13 acre parcel. We are not familiar with a plat note required by the Division of Water Resources for existing wells. If that language is provided, we will add it for the well serving the 278 acre parcel. A revised site plan has been submitted showing that setbacks can be achieved. The referral letters from the Fire District, Colorado Parks & Widlife, and Road and Bridge indicate no concerns with the Application. 1 '.Clicnts'.Trisch120160428 Supplcmcnuil Comments docx Karp.Neu.H^anlom 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 f:"\ClzcntstTrisch120160428 Supplemental Commcnts.dncx 0 U c 0 s e,/fl(. �r Y w w �daU .� CC moon°N 0 C c u�E oa, E� mW 5 cv cn co 190 0 2O cn2 0 cc d U_Q 4LL d W D- i UO cnW Qa= O p C~1 D 0 Q,no / W W Qw NL_) OD W / H O V a_ • J / C✓- V7 / j r f G —7_ DS i• 'r � I �r 7j4 C‘i 1 x lw rtlr r ITh I/ O 0 a) 0) LL 0 FIGURE NO. 0 0 to F- 0 0 LE a. TRISCH SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION E v Z 0 Q O Q rX Laj CD H < U) z W CL U. w X 0 0 U &w 6-w4.1p. l• au. Stansiiii94.kedu.d COSI/ lluaor it o62 ill 11'1(0 1%1d 14OU4*GK3 rocnsu dins Hrsia.t buntrtm'+oa ++trowerpoatukreo czu , gr i a i41 4521 i to 11 9 a; i� i rza 1 1 1 illiliiii III!l ill 1 t' 1 s 11[Ia's1II,11 1 1111111 � 115 o `i11Ij1 1IIE1l1 11 1 ,It ",. 1111F' ;1181; 11111Yi1II;!�. a9 I li �� Iia ai A 111 1111{11111 9�'�i 1IIi1 1 11 i 1 H111111111111 it ij I I i I !I ill 11 11111a 1' It i it l 1 11 il IPI.lioillilillii e��11� IP�li ��i �°`� ilii1.11.1 .i .. i .i .a s I lily' 1 !! litiii'lli i 1. ; 11111111 11 li 1 it . ; 1 ill .111' 1 li 1a ai°piIl111 1 .� 1l' 1a1;1a141 i i is 1 II d'h141111 i �1Ia i� jjj ! 44� t 1 1 �� ! �� �� all a IIJftIIHi li lii t 11. ,i' ,l 1l1 1 1lI11it 311IH1101;111I 'ION PLAT Ci 0.3 3 0 3 W b 0 IQ co rip o U W Ot N � CI 04 o- g ,AIAA�MAhi I�jyy�n.yti IttLitttItt • lY 7d HOU4tl 3X3 uaswoens H35011. OKI 00'T IY;J Mid UMW M AO QTJL11004CA 14:104141 1714/1100 ti tw p.t 1,,.1 L-------- , T. 1111; ,'it i-1 ��� ��/��' �' 1••'"` u �' wm k _ + '�;%f 11,.11.,, o _1::, . ; IR Oat taataas• IS tll .�s I c 1.7 XIV,/t► - iv t„1 1' I, ,; Jt. r i �i lH • ' - , + , � O `® J — •1 to May 6'11' 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 1 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 Rood 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, 2"d 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, 2"d 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), 2"d 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 May 9, 2016 Michael Sawyer Karp Neu Hanlon, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 mis©mountainlawfirm.com Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 40I I. Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Office 970-945-8212 Fax 970-184 1470 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 Eastiey Garfield County Community Development 108 8'h 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 Your 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 I Next we read, "...thls 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 alt 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 thls 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/sam/livestock.pdf and Managing Manure on Horse Farms: Exercise or Sacrifice Lots for Horses found http://nlaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/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 havo boon 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 pert acres, while in the Roaring Fork Valley, the comparable category was "Residential Medium High" with a density range of i 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 no( get further subdivided - and therefore Inhibit further urban growth. • Because of the above, many communities have requested much less dense designations (1 du110 and 20 acres) surrounding their municipal boundaries. • When spread over a large area, they do not actually preserve rural character. Also: Loss of Agriculture! Lands and Rum! Character- Land uses In the unincorporated areas have bean 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 less 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 fife 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 for a 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. S ncerely, Gerald Lynn4, k � Itli) Cci`C�- '%(.414:7\-s, and Katherine A. Richardson 7398 County Road 312 New Castle, CO 81647 May 9`h, 2016 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, EXHIBIT � R I 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. Mic6acl arp.Neu.Hanlonm Michael J. Sawyer 201 14th Street, Suite 200, P.O. Drawer 2030, Glenn.00cl Springs, CO 81602 T: 970.945.2261 x117/F: 970.945 7336 www.rountainlawfirm.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 Lie Read Impact Pa Ceicadatiee Worksbed - REBUILD TEST Notes Futudk Fields in xIur 1 Project! Application Lxrmptinn Traffic Study Arm 3 As Identified In Resolution 98-28 Led Use (Number orTotd DwrJIth Units lockstep ADUs) 1 DatoPrepaed /It=' _iii 2 Due Road Cont U830.° As identified In Resolution 9678 3 Road Capacity in ADT !6 ra As identified In Resolution 98.28 1 Road CPU per ADT 1226.40 should match Rettilution 98-24 5 ADT per lend Use: - Based on (TE Manual 6 Base Road Impact Pee per Lad Um 32,166.64 TAX CitLD(TS 7 e Nos of Amu *i RAD Property Tu pe Land Use Caney Discount Rae S.'.t ; , 2 00% Road and 8 e M9 Levy for 2014 is 3.5 Rata updated anally by Treasurers OMai 9 Road Design lift (Yeah) 3[I Present Wath Factor County Workbook 12 Property Tac Gadf 5305.25 Multiply Lime 7 by Ike ID 12 UNADJUSTED RIND =PACT FEE SI.86139 Une 11 subtracted from Unit 6 Rdd1ATIOII ADJUSTMENT 13 Derre -Boulder CPI Year of Cas! Estimate 158.1 CPI for 1997 14 eA79W1* CI''J„ eig V' IT11 ,. f, gg'Cpis. ...: = Estimated CPI for 21114 15 Inflation Factor 1.4889 Lie 14 divided by Una 13 16 PRE-CONSIRUQ1ON iNF1.ATION ADJU51ID IMPACT FEE $2.771_43 Multiply Una 12 by Lina 15 Note: Calculation not rncessary if construction cost esibnate is the sane year as the fee b collected POST -CONSTRUCTION COST ADJUSTMENT 17 County Discount Rate 5.110% Rate updated areua3y by Trousers Office Nota: If the road mrntractlon was Mand. defier the financed rate from he 1b the debt rummest sdeduh papered the nib and substltit a the derived rata for the Discount Rau 13 Term (Yeah since the road mu constructed) 19 Compound Interest Multiplier County Workfwuk Note: In the ase of debt limning. enter the imputed multiplier horn the debt service sdedla prepared for the finance instrument. 20 POST-CONSTRUCOON ADJUSTED IMPACT FEF WUJA Multiply tine 12 by here 19. WA 9 Lire 19 - 0 TOTAL FEE FOR TOTAL NUMBER OF DINEU NG UNIT* Multiply Ike 16 by Number of Dwelling Units ( $2.77148 1/201 FEE TO !lE PAiO AT RI6AL PIAT Fee dlddad by 2 1 $1,3115.74tTotaf IMPACT FEE TO 8E QkIECTED WfTN EACH WILDING PERM R 1/2 of Fee divided by Number of Dwelling Units ( 51585.74 EXHIBIT 3 6 CR311 38.357 Ac lbtat 17,784 AcPriVate, No 1433 346 Pop 90 153 HU 90 313 f' 1 EXHIBIT Y 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 1 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 3I2. 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 lmowledge, 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 4 EXHIBIT 1 _A_ 16. 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 SURVEYOR 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 100B • Glenwood Springs, C081601 • (970)945-1377 • email:saibne lgarfield-county.com