HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Supplement Part 1Table of contents for Cottonwood Hollow Subdivision Lot 7 Supplement
(Preliminary plan 3pgs)
(Final plat 2pgs)
1.&2.&3. Resolution 84-105 Preliminary Plan for Cottonwood Hollow Subdivision Please note condition
number 10 on page 2. It is the exact same condition we are facing today! I am positive that it was met at
final plat!
4. Access easement statement from https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A_Gar.Co&d=DwlFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwgOf-
v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=5SbK_OSHHelgjeYQmYYc945d Ij2YRehkC9iQs6afFik&m=rxQmBUkb0y0e_93YazVO
Adpn5Ncu7PG_L4fDulmrRJl&s=W_FrzNG5gS5zjfFKBQfDtHsD23QPFRxoEBonMQYUod4&e=. County
Surveyor stating the "easement is for the benefit of Lot 7 and should suffice as the driveway easement"
5. Access easement showing additional "driveway easement" shaded in yellow. Please note that the
labeled "driveway easement" onto Lots 9 & 10 goes completely through shaded yellow area with no
defined Road shown, indicating that the labeled "driveway easement" with no road applies! This
obviously allows the flexibility to put the road where it needs to be in the labeled easement!
6.2003 Amended Plat of Lot 8. For the obvious benefit of lots 7 and 8, stating that all streets and roads
on this plat are a perpetual right of ingress and egress. This document is signed, notarized and recorded
by current owners of Lot 8
7. This colored and shaded overlay document shows(4) separate easements.
1) The black dashed lines show the original 30' easement as shown on the preliminary and final
plat.
2) The green shaded area shows the additional clearly labeled "driveway easement" that the
developer added at final plat to satisfy condition number 10 on the preliminary plan (see page 2)
3)The wye in the easement in the middle of Lot 8 shows where the old easement was
abandoned and the new easement was put in place by the owners of lot 8 for the benefit of
accessing Lot 7.
4) The surveyed shaded gray cobble area overlay is the Road as it exists today also shown on the
preliminary plan to have existed on 1/25/84. The simple math will tell you that same road has been
there for at least 34 years and represents a very real possibility for a prescriptive easement. The fact
that the said road has been there that long is confirmed by an e-mail excerpt from the Lot 8 property
owner. (see page 8)
8. This email excerpt refers to (2) separate (lot9)Till's & (lot8) Bassett's title searches."no requirements
for an amend to the easement" I also had a title search done by Stewart Title that states that I have
"guaranteed legal access to my property." This excerpt also states that the said driveway has "been this
way for close to 30 years with no problems "
9.&10.&11. This is a brief demonstration of the back and forth attempt to work with Lot 8 on a peaceful
resolution on at sole RBE expense. line No. 20 states RBE officially gives up! That was NOT true. RBE
continued to try to get Lot 8 to cooperate for another year! UntiI9/18
12.9/18 email from Lot 8 demonstrating clear intent to obstruct the outcome of our land use change
resolution.
13. 10/18/18 Excerpt from only one of the 19 conditions that Lot 8 attorney responded to after our last
offer to relocate(at our expense) the easement to mirror the existing road. The last sentence indicates
their willingness to cooperate as long as we don't build any new residences! Our intent from the
beginning has been very clear! This is part of an ADU land use change application process. Of course that
means more than one residence!
14. View from the cul-de-sac looking up the shared driveway after Lot 7 recently widened and graded
driveway.
15. Looking down same portion of improved shared driveway.
16&17&18. Before during and after photos Lot 7 made of improvements to and widened by 6 feet
driveway easement access across Lot 8. All this was done to satisfy a condition of approval within the
easement and built to engineered standards and stamped and signed off on.
Sent from my iPhone
STATE :COLORADO ) Recorded et
WK 11q12121
a� o'clock
) shocep'4ion flo 353$39 MILDRED ALS bORF, RECORDER
County ro.f Garfield ') GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
At- a r•eAtaar meeting of the Board of County
Commis'sibners for Garfield County, Colorado, held at the Commissioners'
Annex in Glenwood •Springs On Monday , the 11th day
of . June A.D. 19 84 , there were present:
When
..Larry'. Ve?.asauez•
F'laven. J. Cerjse
Eugene :"Jim"..Tt.inkhcuse
Ear1.11hodeS
':Mildred Alsdorf
the following proceedings,
,
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
County Attorney
Clerk•of the Board
Chairman
among others were and
RESOLUTION NO. 84-105
done, to -wit:
A P.ESOLUTION CONCERNED NITH THE APPROVAL OF A -PRELIMINARY PLAN uF THE
COTTONWOOD HOLLOW SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Gallen B. Smith and Pamela D. Smith have filed an
application with the Bard of County, Commissioners. of Garfield County for
approval of. a Pr.elimin:ary plan of -the Cottonwood Hollow Subdivision; and
WHEREAS. based on the. material submitted by the applicant andthe
comments of the .Garfield County Planning Department, this Board finds as
follows-
. That proper publicatiori, public notice and -posting was provided
as required by law for the hearing before- the Planning Commission
on March 14, .1984.; and
That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and
comp•lo-te, that all pertiient facts, matters and issues were
submitted: and that all interested parties were heard at that
hearing; and
That the Garf.;.eld County Planning Commission recommended approval
of the.Pr:eliminary Plan; and
4. That the proposed subnivision.of land is in general compliance
withthe r:ecommenda.ti.on's set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for-
the.unincorporated area of the county.
5. That all data, surveys, analyses, studies, plans and designs as
arae_ required, by the State Of Colorado and. Garfield County have
.been submitted, reViewed, and found: to meet all requirements of
the Garfield County.' Subdivision. Regulations.
That the proposed :subdivision of land conforms to the Garfield
County Zoning• Resolution.
:l. That for the :above -stated and other reasons, the proposed
subdivision is in- the .best:. interest of the health,, safety,
morals., convenience., order, prosperity, and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County.
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT.RESOLVED that the Preliminary Plan of
.Cottonwood Hollow Subdivision for the following described. unincorporated
• area; ,.of: Garfield County be approved with the following conditions:
2.
1..
That prior to final plat•submittal, a depth -area -capacity curve
ire developed by survey of the. McVey Reservoir and that the
appropriate staff•.gauge be inci.;ded as a part of the subdivision
`i:mprov,ements 'agreement. Further that -a letter from. the Division
of: Water. Resources approving the water plan be received prior to
Final Plat approval.'
That plat• notes. -be included on the -final plat that state:
:- :Ther.e are =severe. .geologic .constraints to development in some
portions of this subdivision. Home builders• should note:
a That lots' may•be•sublect to severe geologic hazards as noted
in .the Lincoln -Revere General Engineering and Geology Study,
Job No. 5053.8 -G5..
0
h.
UOX 651 lace.
That individual sewage disposal systems may have to be
designed by a Colorado registered professional engineer:
c. That the design of all foundations and associateddrainage
shall be `subject to individual geologic/soils investigation
and design with the geologic/soils report and design
submitted with .the building permit application.
d `Chat_ the 'f2Qodpl2ain be delineated On the Final Plat and a
plat • note stating that the floodplain may limit some types_
of individual sewage disposal systems.
That the applicant and the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection.
District reach an agreement on annexation to the District prior
to Final Plat submittal.
4. That Holy Cross. Electric submit a letter stating that utility
easements sho.wr_ on the. Final Plat are adequate.
5. That the homeo:vners`association be incorporated and the Covenants
b.e.amended t:o include the following changes:
a. That Section 2.2 should be changed to read inspection
annually end :pumping as necessary.
b... Limit building height to 25 feet in Section 8.4.
c. That the number of horses allowed on lot be consistent with
the augmentation plan limitations.
6. That the developer Contribu.te:an agreed upon amount of cash iri
lieu of land to the RE -1. School District for school impact.
7. That the developer agrees to participate in off-site road
improvements, on a pro -rata basis, for that portion of County
Road 113.affected by the development. Further, that the
subdivision improvements agreement contain language committing
the developer to participate on a pro -rata basis for road
improvements to the portion of County Road 113 affected by the
development.
8. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the State Engineer submit a letter
of approval of the final water plan.
9. That the final road plan address the driveways to lots 7 & 8 and
9 & 10 as it intersects with the cul-de-sac.
10. That perpetual access. easements be a part of the legal
description on the..Final Plat including drives to lots 9 and 10,
7 and 8, 2 and 3.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A parcel of land situated in Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Section 12 and in the NE.
1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 12, all in Township 7 South, Range 88 W. of the 6th
P.M., according to the Resurvey of Section 12 of said township and. range
as accepted by the U.S. Surveyor General's office in Washington,D..C.. on
June 11, 1908. Said parcel also lying southerly of the East-West
Centerline of said Section 12, westerly of the North-South Centerline of
said Section 12, and easterly of the Westerly Line of said Section 12.
Said Parcel being more specifically described as follows:
BOOK 651 '6423
Beginning at the West One -Quarter Corner of said Section 12;
thence N -890.23'.1.5" E. 260:38 feet to the true point of beginning;
thcricc N'.8923'1.5"E. .2-323.08 feet along the East-West Centerline of said
thence E. 1592.04 feet along the North-South Centerline of
.said SeCti.'on;
, . .
thence7.77,029::'141!-W 190.4..-.45 feet;
theri0.0.269.93. feet;
thence -260,9,6 feet;
:thence N qp.ovowl E. 1314.84 feet to the true point of beginning.
ATTEST:
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Upon 'motion .dulymaffq. and. seconded the foregoing Resolution was
adopted by the fallowing vote:
tarry lre1a6que7
Flaxen J Cerise
Eugen67. !rjimr!, DrinkAbuse
COLORADO
County of Garfield:
Aye
Aye
Aye
)
)ss
.14. , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk
of tie Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State
aforesaid do hereby .00.tifYthat the annexed and foregoing Order is truly
copied from the Records of the Proceedings' of the Board of County
Commissioners far said Garfield County, now in my office.
1-101ITNgss WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
Of Said COOntY4: At -.Glenwood Springs, this day of
Board ' of County, Commissioners.
seal
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the
Roger Neal
High Camay Engineering,Inc.
1517 Blake Ave, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
IS _ a! --r
*►'� H a:�' 1:•... ;S.I}I ACRES
_ . 'ils•xrsJr µDr'
y r r
6.005 ACRE'S
After our phone conversation and a review of the Cottonwood Hollow Subdivision Plat
and more particularly the -Reservoir. Drainage, Utility and Driveway Easement"
as noted within Lots 3, 8.9 and 10, I have fotmd that a defined easement is clearly shown
as indicated on the atlas exhibit.
The only element that is nol clear is why the additional driveway asmtmt was created
wfim it appears the 30' driveway and utility easement set forth on the plat within Lots 8
and 9 for the benefit of Lots 7 and 8 should suffice as the driveway easement_
•.ioVrivr+:rr r +
17!(!rr (Yt[r1Kr
1
ales:waft: own
Sincerely.
• r.
Scott E Aibner. P.L.S.
ACCESS EASEMENT
:frrWct•, '�
roti: 8 Amended P
at
AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 8 COTTONWOOD HOLLOW SUBDIVISION
`u.. GARF I ELD COUNTY , COLORADO
r r}
r2`� ,l1
f'...-
i
rf' 1►f I
Lor 7 f 1
•
Lor 6
099 Ac
Lor
le -a0 tNtt_.iNU__NVT10
9
•
CERTIFICATION OF DEDICATION AND ONNERSHIP:
.:`..'„a:'
•. ”"i�'i'.irl:'I.�'.; l' i:�l�:y�Y+.,;.1,11
•
''i: i.11:: .S�.'. ; I.,
u Y
1;.•
.D ' . A.......1. 1A..
nr•,e n vcrosx
(J1.1T1 0 Oak ilio "
n.
•IkC1;%Y N4O 11.4 7.111,, •• , r
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Marc Bassett and Eris -Bassett bei%g- t-he-orners
p.roperty situated in the County of Garfield. State of Colorado. des`orl'S'ed as follows:
Lot B. Cottonsood Hollos Subdivision. Garfield County, Colorado
That said osners hove caused real property to be Ioid out•o*d surveyed -os the
Amended ~Anal Plot of Lot 8. Cottoarood Hollow Subd.vision. Garfield county..COleir-gd :',:
That said owner doss hereby dedtcote rind set apart all of the Streets and reeds
on the accoepanyiAg plot for The use of the public forever and hereby
dedicates to the Public titiiiries those portions of said real property rhich ore •
lobated 01 utility easeeents on the accasapoay,ey plat os.perpetual amitosis
for the inatollottoa and staintenanee of utilities- irrigation and droteoge facilirres.
includiay but not hilted to. electric lines gas limes and :eiephoee.i.tnss: together
with the right to trio inrerfetieg trees clad brunt: sift% perpetual right of ingress
and egress For iesrellotiotr and sa=aisaoeca of such linea_ Such eon Tt and
rights %bolt be uritizsd in a eeosanabie clod prudent saaner.
Thor ell expense for street povisg clad ieprose.ents shall be furnished by the
seller or purchaser not by the County of Garfield.
IN WITNESS WEREBF said owner hos caused his bale ro be hereib-sob-*cribed
this day of A.D..
By -
Marc Bassett
BY
CATTLE CREEK
r OF 100- YEAR
9 PLAIN
4
3.025 ACRES
CV - U//L/ 1 r o i•. el .
EASEMENT ��/ • ' �,
022 y0
V. \6 I
,
i
036 •
' 4a 4,.
a
/09.: e'88'59'g,�"
12. S9
3.087 ACfiFS
Exispke
UTILI•rY E.41MENT 'i=
ti
`
10 To:
5
77 AC
4
11.1.! -EU az E_ 33.30
�•.. 61 'Qti d"E
4' 58.00 c
30.24 .
S87°42`34"E ;
r33°41`24'
36.06'
hl
.IP.>=SERVQIR, s AGS
11Tiurr .4N;) 1R/V
EASEMENT
'ala _._'•.:
\\
•
•
1'64 'A
1.1
- .•y0''Oft)vf'irar
UtIUTY E4SEMENT
ti gra
J+iu
II
II
J;•
•
and 'cop
317
FOand pili and cop
L.S. No. 3317
•
t
•
•
z�.
'E'SEkVvIR,
DRAINAGE, Limn
-
AND DRIVEWAY
Asea E -Nr
91.21
r
\i \
•N.\ •
,t..• 4.4
' Urr
F.�` EASEPoIITIMENT
1' v
I
• 1 °.
!y
'••
•
• lt '� - y
..10,
•
1 1 . Yo ' U t iLIrY f'A311
ia "Y
\ \
k r,
1 i 9' _
`� ♦ • tom~ '• �� 4 �-
�_ , a� iJiB ACRES ,
-. „<sl,•- EA/SI-MEW To ENTLN 7 Ip..
ROLE
--.' ,,er,-if sr p£ FUTURE ELECTRIC
•1. •
NST 0.29 r/1 '"M'
qw
•
: EXfbr,NB • r
•�,�15' UTILITY .F4
4904 15 r
In regards to the easement, looked at the
Till's title commitment as well as puffing one
for my property and there are no
requirements for an amend to the easement if
we were to sell our properties, so we still do
not have a clear idea/reason as to why this is
needed, its been this way for close to 30
years with no problems. You will have to finish
the road to your property whether or not this
agreement is in place so we are not sure what
difference it makes at this point. if you can
enlighten us any further please do.
Thank you.,
Erin Bassett, GR1, ABR, SFR
Hi Kim,
I chronicled my sorted history with the
Bassetts. I'm warning you it's not pretty.
In the summer of 2015 I hired Highcountry
Engineering to give me an exhibit to present to
the Bassetts in regard to changing the
easement. I had also hired Jeff Cheney to help
me draft a presentation to them for both the
easement and road sharing agreement.
1.11/7/15 RBE first contacts B. about signing
easement and road sharing agreement.
2.12/6/15 RBE contacts B. again.
3.12/6/15 RBE provides B. with appropriate
exhibits from HCE
4.1/18/16 RBE offers money for past road
maintenance and a reasonable RS agreement.
5.4/25/16 RBE again offers B.money for past
road maintenance.
6.All this while Jeff Cheney has tried to contact
0
C)
the Bassetts by phone and email. He had
gotten minimal or no response.
7.8/25/17 RBE has hired a new attorney and
gotten her to write a new easement and a new
road sharing agreement. RBE has also hired
HCE to revise the easement. It is re -submitted
to the Bassetts.
8.8/25/17 RBE has done the same as in (#7.
Above )with the road sharing agreement. His
new attorney has rewritten it to simplify the
document.
9.9/22/17 RBE visited the residence of B. had
been personally informed that B. had not
received the documents and resubmits both of
them.
10.9/22/17 RBE notifies B. that docs should be
ea 8 pgs
11.9/24/17 RBE asks if docs rec. B.say docs
rec.
0
11.a.9/30/17 RBE responds to B. wondering
what work to be done in ease.RBE explains
work to be done ONLY in ease. past B. ADU on
unshared part of ease.
11.b. 10/10/17 RBE asks again for response
12.10/10/17 RBE explains timeline
12.a. B. Agrees to cooperate
13.10/10/17 RBE explains timeline again
14.10/28/17 RBE thx B. for co-op in allowing
turnaround during const. and again asks when
they will sign.
15.11/3/17 RBE thx again after they agree to
sign.
16.11/3/17 RBE inquires as to when to p/u docs
17.11/6/17 RBE asks again when to p/u docs
18.11/9/17 RBE asks again!!!
19.(?date) B. informs RBE ease. is fine been
that way for 30 yrs.
20. RBE officially gives up!!
Marc Bassett 1 talked to the county planner
about why you need what your asking for. So I
will write a letter to the effect that it is ok for
you to use the current easement for the house
you are building. The only reason according to
him why you need all this other stuff is for
another house. 1 will not sign off on that. please
try to be a decent person and stay off my
property and do some work on the road witch 1
have spent many thousands of dollars building.
Hang Em High Inc
8. Use of Easement. Bassett and Eshelman, at their expense, shall have the right to construct,
operate, use, maintain, and repair a road within the Easement for access by motor vehicle to
and from Lot 7 and Lot 8. Either Party may install underground utilities in the Easement,
provided that the Party installing such utilities restores the Easement to its condition prior
to the utility installation and its sole cost. Use of the Easement by the owners of Lot 7 and
Lot 8 shall be non-exclusive. The owners of Lot 7 shall not expand or enlarge the use of
the Easement in any way without a written amendment to this Agreement signed by the
owners of Lot 8. Expansion shall include the addition of any new residential structures on
Lot 7 or use of the Easement to access any property other than Lot 7 and Lot 8.
I
i
VIG_6475.JPG
http s://mail. google. com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxv zI ,hcgMMwRFFb...
of 1
11/15/2018, 3:50 PM
VIG_6688.JPG
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxvzLhcqMMwRFFb...
i7
of 1 11/15/2018, 3:50 PM
VIG 6796.JPG
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxvzLhcqMMwRPI-b...
�8
of 1
11/15/2018, 3:51 PM