Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application1 2' 0 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384,3470 www.garfeld-countv.com LIMITED IMPACT REVIEW LIMITED IMPACT REVIEW [AMENDMENT] RECE;D MAR 1.3 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Last Revised 12/29/08 �' y/le/01 GENERAL INFORMATION (Please print legibly) > Name of Property Owner: AiC g m/l m/e4,J c es Mailing Address: V© /'1,}r 91 Telephone: (f7-/})�40-91/xs City:e State: Zip Code:24,3D Cell: (97e) D2-411/ > E-mail addr s: Co/4ili iAe/%%flnnvn*nai , hrrFAX: (qlb) a fl /!raz > Name of Owner's Representative, if any, (Attorney, Planner, Consultant, etc): > _2n'' De Mailing dress: 7i1 eh' 8/ Telephone: (4970) 9f/dp � ,7?3_ > City: �l/PV' fore State: Lt Zip Coder'/4/o Cell: ( ) E-mail address: FAX: (9Th )2,93-$2.4?- Requested Use from Table 3-501 or 3-502: > Street Address / General Location of Property: q01, oilier AN ej �i i4 a ,I- Lirid > fril/le'do ON X' 4 ,�' 44I. > Legal Description:N� HP %y .Pith; +/ 9 iiivAin 1, IS 141 e 9i W Sling An Ce2221 h' Bea Assessor's Parcel Number:. 2L/ AL - iAL-_aL>--0-0._r Existing Use: > Property Size (in acres) 8o 14ebs' Zone District: Qt... Last Revised 12/29/08 �' y/le/01 I. Limited Impact Review Process The following section outlines and describes the Limited Impact Review process for the variety of uses that are governed by the Board of County Commissioners by the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR). Please refer to Articles III and VII in the regulations themselves for a higher level of detail. [The following process is required for applications for land use changes that are subject to Limited Impact Review as defined in Table 3-501 or 3-502 in Article III.] A. Outline of Process. The Limited Impact Review process shall consist of the following procedures: 1. Pre -Application Conference (4-103 (A)) •2. Application (4-103 (B)) 3. Determination of Completeness (4-103 (C)) 4. Evaluationby the Director/Staff Review (4-103 (E)) 5. Public Hearing and Decision by the Board of County Commissioners (4-103 (G)) / rr r e3 z d MAW" t" / a i — J, 4-% ubmittal Materials: The following materials shall be submitted with a Limited Impact Review application and are more fully defined in Section 4-502 of Article IV of the ULUR. The Director may waive or alter any of these requirements if they are determined to be inappropriate or unnecessary to determining if the application satisfies applicable standards. 1. Application Form and Fees 2. Site Plan (4-502(0)(3)) 3. Land Suitability Analysis (4-502(D)) — 4. Impact Analysis (4-502(E)) II. Limited Impact Review Amendment Process Any proposal to change conditions of approval or a site plan approved under these Regulations as a Limited Impact Review permitshall require application to the Director for Amendment of a Limited Impact Permit Approval. The Director shall review the application to determine whether the proposed change constitutes a substantial change to the Limited Impact Permit approval pursuant to Section 4-107 of Article IV. A. Outline of Process. The review process for a proposed Amendment of an Approved Limited Impact Review shall consist of the following procedures. 1. Pre -Application Conference (4-103 (A)) 2. Application (4-103 (B)) 3. Determination of Completeness (4-103 (C)) 4. Evaluation by the Director/Staff Review (4-103 (E)) 5. Decision by Director (4-104(8)(5)) 6. Public Hearing and Decision by the Board of County Commissioners (4-103 (G)) B. Submittal Materials: The following materials shall be submitted with a Limited Impact Review Amendment application and are more fully defined in Section 4-502 of Article IV of the ULUR. The Director may waive or alter any of these requirements if they are determined to be Inappropriate or unnecessary to determining if the application satisfies applicable standards. 1. Application Form 2. Supporting documents necessary to evaluate the proposed revision(s) 3. Written Statement of proposed amendment(s) which includes how the requested amendment does not result in a substantial change defined here: Substantial Change. A change to and existing approved land • use resulting in one or more of the following: 1. A change in land use category. 2. A change in site design which increases a. The number of dwelling units. b. The maximum square footage of structures less than 10,000 sq. ft. over 100% and structures over 10,000 sq. ft by 10%, if a maximum has been specified in a permit or approval. c. Protected traffic such that a highway access permit or an amendment to a highway access permit Is required as a result of the change. d. The size of the land which is the subject of the permit or approval 3. A change in land use which creates or increases the incompatibility of the use. 1 have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. i gnafure of P erty 0 ner). Da ( GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT PAYMENT AGREEMENT FORM (Shall be submitted with application) 0 GARFIELD COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and %0 FNK.C,e0da re Property Owner (hereinafter OWNER) agree as follows: c� 1 OWNER has sybmitted to COUNTY an application for J)tw /$P.J.uf (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. OWNER understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No. 98-09, as amended, establishes a fee schedule for each type of subdivision or land use review applications, and the guidelines for the administration of the fee structure. 3. OWNER and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, It is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. OWNER agrees to make payment of the Base Fee, established• for the PROJECT, and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to OWNER. OWNER agrees to make additional payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. 4: The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners for the consideration of an application or additional COUNTY staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial Base Fee, OWNER shall pay additional billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the PROJECT mentioned above. OWNER acknowledges that all billing shall be paid prior to the final consideration by the COUNTY of any land use permit, zoning amendment, or subdivision plan. PROPERTY OWNER (OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) �orrG%Cis 7)ca✓r Print Nartie Mailing Address: DP00 4. �Ce silo is 3%iZjo 9 Date Page 4 NARRATIVE EXPLAINING PURPOSE OF #10 ENTERPRISES DOG KENNEL APPLICATION The proposed structure is a dog kennel, in which dogs will be housed, groomed, bred, boarded or trained. The dogs are used on the High Lonesome Ranch for bird hunting. Ranch owners, staff, and guests will access the dog kennel when caring for the dogs or utilizing them for hunting purposes. rql xwe.nfee., �G FEB 6 2 I* Rag��/g ,g mion No '^' 1yt,, /�1 e .. S_nf uwNv1001093O;.zci 534 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, Made this 31st day of January 19 95 ,batman Western Properties, L.P. a Mississippi Limited Partnership hIt�,��� 'Goody of Lauderdale and See of tar bruterprisea, C.L.C. whore kgd addrtssis 1050 Merest. Houston, Texas FEB 021995 GARFii4D Stale DOC Fag B2' of the Cowell Cuumy of and sweet GXatRib, gnarls): WITNESSETH, Thal the grulwgg for end In ennnidentIon of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration 52I1=9,1, the raeipt and sufficiency of which h herby acknowledged, ha s granted. bargained. sold and con ped. and by these peanut t do grew, bargain. sell. convryondcoMrm, unto diegnlee(W, its heirs and susigns forever, all ides red progeny. together with Improvements, if luny, sinus, lying and being k Inc County of Garfield and Sae of Colorado, described as follows: See attached Exhibit "A" also known by neat and number u: N/A asmsortadsduleorpareieumben TOGETHER wish all and singular dor bwediumedw and appunenueu tenons* belonging, or In any wire eppendning. and this inn:Aldemand whatsoever remaede aed.ru,nindur„nusykxuec,.andlo uba.tbend„raniell.nbaevua,dght,.lowW,.ddm.noh demand whatsoever of the grumr(sk either In law or equity, of, in and m the above bugalmd penises, with the banedlumenu awed apWnennaes. TO HAYS AND TO HOLD rhe said pismiresshin bargained and deanbed, writ lheappunenurse unto thgrateef$ its Min and assign. femur. And the gruntn(st Inc i Eel f , its ban, and personal representatives, du wrnaM,grant, bargain and etre towed with the granleekt its hcinad cadges, thorn Unlimber the nsenlhrg and delivery nfthese mums is well seized offh pamlua elbow enwyed. M good, sur, pcd'on, absolute and indefeasible cnar ofideritaae, in law, in fee dingle, and ha s good dgbt, full power and lawful authority to grant. bargain. sell end coney tbe same in manner end fern as aforesaid, and dist the same arc free and clear from WI toner and oder peau. bargains. Wen. lions. was. assessments. cntembaaces and rendekm otwhauar kind or name =Van except such exceptions set forth on Exhibite"A"and E hereto. The unmade) shell and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the .b,ne-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee* its helm andasignr,agakndl and every penonapeaaons lawfedlycdaiming rhe whole orauy pan thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The gnnter(H has executed this deed nn the date Ant wrimn abate. Western Properties* L.P. By: g E Ranch, Inc.. its General Partner Bye (b elf In Dae, 'Reyna.' Angelia T.aoving ton, V.P. Ne 36. gen 491. WARRANTY DEAD S Aa/.it%w. `, aNfordNMisi;n,lore_L,.R.,n.Nlm'—Ianlaa02.2 4_.I1.H" Pc,4..d 3y3b, TrwJ4S— Ivy/$s1 e L 0 *Lauderdale MISSISSIPPI STATE OF MENEM LAUDERDALE County el 1 m419301161535 TERESA ROBERTS , • Notary Public in and for said -frEGELeftriLreebalbETOW* County. In the Stale aforesaid. do hereby certify ON Angelis T. Covington, V.P. of Big II Ranch, Inc as General Partnerqba pumedly known to me ta bs the person whom name subscribed to Ow foregoing Deed, appeared before me Otis day In person nod acknowledged Mat signed. seakd and delivered the said Insitummt of writing as free and waltunary set mid deed for the uses and purposes set froth Cilmarundtrwryliaadwislafficialuesh (hi, 38T11. dmpd. My commission expires My terwhilen Norm Ming tr, l9fl CALLE-41a. wflawmwismet>wm• owinesnomatottaal.) **of Western Properties, L.P., A Mississippi Limited Partnership AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO; Rich Rrohn 744 Horizon Court. 1300 Grand Junction. CO 81506 1 a 1 1 BooM930,4c1536 EEUTEIT" "Am The following .reel property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, Tar Schedule Ium1e,n, 24n3-uu1-00-0o7 If Nth.}ogi-UU• 7113-1,11-00-003 001 2111,1-042_00005- 241$-271.-00-006 21,111 -GILL -00-003 21117-20:-00-003 2441-031-00-002 21117-1511-00-005 2417-1511-00-005 21011-022-00-001 TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH RANGE 99 WEST, 6TH P.a, Section 162 s91/4491// Section 171 4 Rection lel 891%/981%/, NE1/48E1/4 section 19s Lot L, N1/211E1/4 Section 201 91/241/2 Rection 281 Lots 1, 2, 3 and 7 Section 291 Lot 2, 891/49w1/4, 01/2NE1/1, N1/2891/4, 8W1/48W1/4, Rection 308 LotB 6 Lots 10111 and 131 SE1/0181/4. &batten 32i 8E1/4991/4 Section 35s NE1//991/4 and Lots 2 and 5 Section 36, Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 Tract 508 Being the same land described under the original survey as the )41/2891/4 of Section 26, the )461/1951/1 and Tract SSi 081/4881/4 of. Section 27 Being the same land described under the original survey es the 61/28141/1 of section 26, 891/401/4 of Rection 27 Track 521 and the H51/49141/4 of Section 35 Being original ashedescribed E1/2)491//,Id under Ilse 9141/6891/1 of Tract 51, Section Being land described under the original survey es and t the sion 34, 991/424141/4, B1/29x1/4, and4 of Seaton 27, h the l/8141/41 of 801 tSection (less35 three Tract 558 Silhgth same lanacres the original survey as the 81/291/2 of section 28 Trent 56s Being, the same land described under the original survey as the 891/4961/4, 691/4881/4 and the 91/29141/4 of Tract 591 Section 28 Being the same and bed original asthe )1/2961f4 and the 681/4861/Ir he of Section 35,8 and Tract 601 the 891/6)491/6 of Section 36 Being the same land described under the original survey Tract 618 as the 111/28111/4 and the 81 /2891/4 of Section 36 Being the sane land described under the original survey ae the Lot 4 in Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 98 Nest; and the BEL/6961/1 of Section 36, Township 7 South, Range 99 West TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 100 WEST, 670 P.M. oaotion 15, 81/2s61/4, 981/4991/4, and Lots 1, 2 and 4 Section 161 Lot 2 Tracts /e0 and felt continued on page 2 ecc:09301ci537 PAGE 2 EXHIBIT h1' - Continued Tract 391 Being the same land described under the original survey Tract 40: Beinas tg the landldescri1b/4 ed 2original survey as the E1/20W1/4, and W1/2831/4 of Section 25 Tract 42: veiny the sane land described under the original survey as the 81/2851/4 and 881/4831/4 of Section 23, and Tract 431 Be ng the am landmdescribed under the original survey as the 851/41151/4 and N81/48w1/4 of Section 25, and SE1/4NE1/4 and E1/46E1/4 of Section 26 Tract 44: Being theH sane land described under the original survey as the NB1/4NE1 4 of Section 26 Tract t5.- Being -the same Ianddasoribed- under CBe original survey as the 851/IH111/4, 551/4631/4 AND NE1/48W1/4 01 Section 26 Tract 57: Being the sane land described under the original survey as the N81/48E1/4 of Rection 25, Township 7 South, Range 100 West; and Lot 3, that 1181/49111/4 and the N51/4681/4 Tract Set of Sectiow 3Oy Tawnabig 7'eouth, Range 9T Wast Being the same land described under the original Survey se the 881/4681/4 of section 25, Township 7 South, Range 100 Wast; Lot 4 of Section 30 and Lot 1 of Section 31 in Township 7 South, Range 99 West, and NE1/411E1/4 of Section 36, Township 7 South, Range 100 West TOWNSHiP 0 BOOTH, RANGE 98 WEST, 6TH P.M. Beatien 61 N11/4631/4, Ne1/4851/4, 831/41151/4,- 651/41181/4, under the originand al st urvey as theesame NW1/41151/4 dofcrsaid Section 6 Section. 71 N1/2NE1/4, EXCEPT a one acre tract as described in deed recorded in Book 101 at Page 317, records of the Section 91 Garfield County Clark and Recorder Section. 5. 1151/41131/4, N1/21151/4, 851/41151/4 Section 101 g /24n/'j, B&1/4AE1/4 Rection 11: N1/281/2 4. 8t8W3/< TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 99 WEST, 6T5 P.N. Section 1: Tract 37 being gh the same land described in the original Section 2: Tract 43, tbeinglthe8same land 4 of idescribed in the original survey as the 6W1//1/E1/4 of Section 2 Section 31 Treat 42, being the same land described in the original Survey as the 831/41131/4 of said Rection 3 Tract 39: In Sections 3 and 4, Doing the same land described In the original Section 6: Tract4survey of 2, being the same as Lot 4 land odeloribed under the original survey as Lot 4 of said Section 6. continued on page 3 11 31 '35 1.7';J 52111112553453 111.101AX3. THOMAS PAGE 3 B00i0930BACI 538 ■rely "As - Continued Together with all Teter and rater rights. ditches sed. A4 tach rights eppurt®Jmt or belonging to or teed Sa connection with the Property conveyed hero to may be included under the following g subject to the liaitationj hereinafter following; c 1.0 second -feet of Water allowed to flow in the And Ditch under priority No. 61; and 8ayee 1.3 second -feet of water allowed to flow in the Noyes Ditch under priority No. 05; 3.0 seooad-feet of water allowed to flow in the PeLaNatyr and Anderson Ditch under priority No. li; 0.7 second -teat of dater allowed to flow in the Dry Pork Ditch under priority Na. 64; 0.5 second -feet of water allowed to flow in the. Dry York Ditch 11t 1.0a0 asgeontfeeetunder priority No. 135; f Water allowed to flow in the Gunnison i fleet Ditch under priority No. lar 0.5 wooed -fact of water allowed to flow in the Griswold Enlargement r largement under priority No. 1541; 1.lest of water allowed to flow in the Cottonwood Ditch No. 29 under priority No. 36; 1.0 second-featof water allowed to flow in the Cottonwood bitch let Enlargement under priority No. 113; 0.5 second -feet of meter shwa to floes in_ the 7. selaw under priority Na. 113; aseoh.IgJ- 7.3 second -feet of water allowed to flow in the Arnstroag Dttoh 691 under, priority No. 1347 1.7 second -feet of ester allowed to' flow in the Soidt Ditch (Springs) 073PP under priority No. 1148; and and together with 3.7 acre feet is the eoldt Reservoir No. 124 under priority No. la. Grantor m.11w and quitclaims to Grantee any other water, water rights. ditches, or ditch rights awned or controlled by Grantor in Garfield or Nesa Counties. Colorsde, inciuding. without limitation, any water or water rights historically used in connection with the Property net specitloelly listed above, which -may Jacinth' the following water right's 1.7 second -fast of water allowed to flow in Toldt Gulch Ditch under Priority No. 1148; 1.0 alt of water allowed to flow in the gwn4san a Frost Ditch under Priority No. 88; 2.3 second -feat of water allowed to !low in the Armstrong Ditch 001 under Priority No. 134; .7 second -feet of Water allowed to flow in the Dry York Ditch under Priority No. 64and .S second -feet of water allowed to flow in the Dry Fork Ditch let Enlargement under Priority Na. 135. continued an page 4 41.1040930!:G;539 PACS 4 EXHXEIT "A" - Continued The following real property situated in the County of Mesa. State of Coloradot Tax Schedule Noss 2441-143-00-005 2441-271-00-003 Resurvey Tract 49, formerly Rio SWW, NW SEW of Section 14, Township 8 South, Range 99 West; and Resurvey Tract 57, in Sections 26, 27 and 28, Township 8 South, Range 99 West, 6th P.M. Together with all permit■ and grazing authorities and leases, whether federal or state or both, as related to the lands above described and issued to Grantor withreference to said lands. Grantor doom not and will not warrant title or any continuing rights with respect to such permit., leases or grazing authorities and transfer or assignment will be solely in accordance with the conditions and limitations which appear on the face of such authorities and as further limited by applicable rules and regulations of the issuing authorities, and federal and state statutes. Grantee will maintain such permits, and authorities in full force andeffect so. long as Grantor retains any security interest in the lands. to be conveyed a. above. Together with all of Grantor'. right, title and interest in and to oil, gas _ and other minerals in, on or under the. lends conveyed hereunder, to the extent, and only the extent, such interests may be owned by Grantor on the date of execution of this Deed, excepting all oil, gas and other minerals as have been previously excepted, reserved or conveyed by conveyance, patent, or otherwise; and subject to all existing and recorded 1 permits and authorities to enter, explore for and remove such oil, gas and other minerals. It ie the intention of Seller to convey all of the land, water rights, •tate and federal leasee and grazing privileges owned or controlled by Western Properties, L.P., in Garfield and Mesa Counties, near D•Segue, Colorado. 00093011c1540 RBIIIBIT ^BPI She- following. exceptions apply be. property located. in Garfield. County, Colorado. S. Rights or claims of partiesin' possesriurt not' shown -by- the. Public records of which Grantee has actual knowledge. 2. lntentionilly omitted. 3. Intentionally omitted. 4. Intentionally omitted. 5. Intentionally omitted. 6. Intentionally omitted. 7. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments for tax year 1994 and subsequent years. 8. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, and a right of way for ditches or canals as constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in the United States Patents. Map and Statement of the Gaff Ditch, filed April 25, 1005 as Reception No. 1507. 10. Map and Statement of the Armstrong Ditch filing June 15, 1800 as Reception No. 7715. 11. All coal, the right to mine and remove the same by Act of June 22, 1910 as reserved in United States Patent recorded February 18, 1892 in Book 112 at Page 370. continued on page 2 ioc10930, :n 541 PARE. A 12. Right of way for Anderson and Dela Satyr ditch as contained in statement recorded June 11, 1896 in Book 26 at Page 373. 13. Map and Statement of the L. T. Stewart Reservoir tiled July 11, 1902 as Reception No. 26630. 14. Map and Statement of The Boldt Ditch, filed August 16, 1905 as Reception No. 30980. 15. Hap and Statement of The Third Enlargement of The Cottonwood Ditch filed June 6, 1910 as Reception No. 39632. 16. All coal and other minerals, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove the sane as reserved in United states Patent recorded August 19, 1937 in Book 172 at Page 598. 17. A11 Goal end other ninerals, the right to prospect for, sine and remove the same as reserved in United States patent recorded November 9,. 1937 in. Hook 191 at Page 172. 19. A perpetual easement and right -of way for an irrigation ditch 7 feet in width across the 51/2921/4 of section 6, Township 9 south, Range 9e Rest of the 6th P.H. as. granted 1n instrument recorded June 26, 1939 1n Dock 1Bl.at Pages 316 and 319. 19. A11 coal and other minerals, together with the night to prospect for, mine and remove the same, as reserved in United states Patent recorded November le, 1939 1n Book 194 at Page 596. 20. A11 coal and other minerals, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove the same as reserved in United States Patent recorded February 9, 1943 In Book 201 at Page 519. 21. Reservation of an undivided one-half interest 1n .and to any and all oil and gas lying under and upon said lands with the right of ingress and egress from said lends for the purpose:of exploring, mining, drilling, extracting and removing such oil'and gas, and in that connection with the right to erect improvements and lay pipelines and do such other necessary and expedientimp is as might be required for the operation of oil and gas production but without interference to tbs' isprovements on such lands as reserved by Phillip • A. Moore in deed recorded rebruary 17, 1947 in Book 226 at Page 154 and any interests therein or assignments thereof. 21. Undivided 5/10 of 1 percent of the minerals as conveyed to Mayne N. Aspinall by mineral deed recorded Hay 27, 1947 in Hook 227 at Page 165. 23. An undivided 1/10 interest of the minerals as conveyed to N. E. Pyeatt by mineral deed recorded December 15, 1946 in Hook 239 at Page 630. continued on page 3 100109301101542 PAGE 3 24. An undivided 1/10 interest of the minerals as conveyed to N. 0. Pratt! by mineral deed recorded December 15, 1961 in Book 239 at Page 632. 25. Undivided one -halt interest in all oil, gas and other mineral rights, as reserved by L. W. Tilton in the deed to A. G. Tilton, recorded March 23, 1950 in Book 249 at Page 197, and all assignments thereof or interests therein. 26. Reservation of all oil, gas and other minerals oa, in, or under all of said lands,together with the right of ingress and egress in, on and over said lands for the purpose of mining, drilling, extracting or exploring said land for oil gas and other minerals and removing the sane therefrom; together With the use of the surface of said • lands al is necessary or essential to produce, gave, transport or remove therefrom such otr, gas and other mtnsrrbs me reserved-W.A. G. Tilton in deed recorded October 4, 1950 in Book 254 at Page 278, and any and all interests therein or assignments thereof. 27. One-half interest in all remaining oil, gas and other mineral rights, as reserved by A. G. Tilton in the deed to Harry H. Satterfield recorded April 3, 1951 in Book 257 at Page 476, and any and all assignments thereof, or interests therein. 28. A11 oil, gas and other mineral rights, as reserved by O. C. Tidwell in the deed to Charles E. and Dorothy E. Burg, recorded November 26, 1952 in Book 266 at Page 573, and any and all assignments thereof, or interests therein. 29. Undivided one-half interest in all oil, gas and other mineral rights, which have not been previously reserved by Harry H. satterf ield in the deed to Joseph 8. Clarkson and Norma 8. Clarkson, recorded July 1, 1960 in Book 328 at Page 82, and any and all assignments thereof, or interests therein. 30. Undivided one-half interest in all oil, gas and other mineral rights, as reserved by Charles B. Burg aka Chas 8. Burg in the deed to W. H. Metzler and Winifred A. Metzler, recorded January 26, 1963 in Book 346 at Page 531, and any and all assignments thereof, or interests therein. 31. Undivided one-eighth interest in all oil, gas and other mineral rights, as reserved by Norma 8. Clarkson in the dead to Richard D. parley recorded December 7; 1966 in Book 362 at Page 336, and any end ell assignments thereof or 1plerasts therein. 32. Terme andconditions of Oil and Gas Lease by and between William T. spears and Clara A. Spears, as Lessors, and N. Peyton Buoy, as Lessee, recorded March 13, 1972 in Book 628 at Page 202 and in Book 428 at Pages 180, 200 and 202. 33. Terme and conditions of Oil and Gas Lease by and between William T. spears and clara A. 8psars, as Lessors, and Such Industries, Ina., AM Leasee, recorded Bepteaber 4, 1981 in Book 580 at Page 791. continued on page 4 98o40930Pio 543' PAGE 4 34. Terns and conditions of Hancock Gulch Unitization Agreement as referred to in Certificate of Unitization reworded February 16, 1979 in Book 522 at Paget 959. 35. Right of way ag t between William T. Spear and Clara Spear to Cyao Petroleum Corporation recorded AUgust 21, 1981 in Book 579 at nags 671, and as modified by instruments recorded May 31, 1983 in Book 628 at Page 119, and February 22, 1984 in Book 644 at Page 702 and March 21, 1906 in Book 685 at Page 450. 36. Reservations as contained in deed from William T. Spears and Clara A. Spears to Swirliest, Inc. recorded August 25, 1901 in Book 579 at Page 069, and Page 884. 37. A sixty foot t and right of way for pedestrian and vehicular ingemaa, sad: agrees on• over end- torn* and through- a 60. foot strip• of land lying thirty feet torn* on either side of tba centerline of County Road NO. 200 as Conveyed to Mum -west, Inc. in deed recorded August 25, 1981 in Book 579 at Page 891. 30. Terms and conditions of Agreement for the veldt Springs Pipeline described in instrument recorded August 25, 1981 in Book 579 at Page 918. 39. Right of way easement granted to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas in instrument recorded January 25, 1962 in Book 591 at Page 449 (Affects Section 11, Township 8 South, Range 98 West of the 6th P.M.) 40. Pipeline Easenants as granted to Northern Natural Gas Company by Enerwast, Ina., by documents recorded January 26, 1982 in Book 591 at Page 541, and recorded June 25,1982 in Book 602 at Page 84. 41. Easement and right of way 50 feet in width for the operation, construction and maintenance to operate a pipeline, or pipelines, and appurtenances thereto as granted to Northern Natural can Company in instrument recorded -January- 26,. 1991 in. Book. 5AL at Page 553 and as contained in instrument recorded June 16, 1982 in Book 601 at Wage 344. 42. Easement and right of way for the construction, operation and maintenance of a pipeline or pipelines being 50 feet in width as granted to-Northerm Naturrl dar Company la instrument recorded y 26, 1902 in Book 591 at Page 560, and as contained is - instrument recorded June 18, 1982 in Book 601 at Pagn 351. 43. Pipeline easement 'granted to Northern Natural Gas Company in instrument recorded January 26, 1982 in Book 591 at Page 560 and in instrument recorded Juno 1a, 1982 in Book 601 at Page 351. (Affects Section 11, Township 8 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.M.) 64. Pipeline right of way granted to Getty Trading and Transportation Company in instrument recorded July 5, 1983 in Book 630 at Paye 14. (Aflectn Sootion 11, Township a South, Range 98 West of the 6th P.M.) continued on page 5 100609301t61544 PACE 5 45. Terme and conditions of oil and gas lease from William T. Spears and Clara A. Spears, es Lessors, to Celsius Energy Company recorded June 2, 1989 in Book 755 at Page 296, and any interests therein or assignments thereof. 16. Terms and conditions of oil and Gas Lease by and between William T. Spears and Clara A. Spears, as Lessors, end Celsius Energy Company, as Lessee recorded February 7, 1990 in Book 772 at Page 406. 47. Right of way easement granted to Celsius Energy Company In instrument recorded December 31, 1990 in nook 796 at Page 175. (Affects Section 11, Township 8 South, Range 98 West of the 6th P.N.) 49. Basement granted to Conquest oil Company in instrument recorded March 1, 1991 in Book 799 et Page 726. 49. Right of way and easement granted to LFC GC 91 Corp., A Delaware Corporation in instrument recorded April 29, 1991 in Book 601 at Page 82. 50. Road and wellslteright of.way granted to Celsius Energy Company in instrument recorded January 27, 1992 in Book 622 at Page 400. 51. Any interest of Otis C. Coles, Jr. and Susan K. Colasin and to the boundary conflict between Tracts 41 and 42 In Township 7 South, Range 100 West as shown on the independent- resurvey accepted by the Department of the Interior General Land Office on January 21, 1928. 52. Lack of a right of access from the land to any open publio road, street or highway. NOTE; Pertains only to the following lands; N1/2821/4, NE1/48w1/I4, and Lots 1, 2, and 4, Section 15,. Lot 2, Section 16 and Tracts 460 end 4611 all in Township 7 South, Range 10o West. SN1/48W1 4 Section 16, 051/4921/4 Section 17, SW1/48E1/4, RE1 4821/4 Section 18, Lot 9 and NI/211E1/4 Section 19, N1/2N1/2 Section 20 all ih Township 7 South, Range 99 West. Tracts 39, 41, 42 and 43, in Township 7 South, Range 99 Neat. Section 11, Township 8 Routh, Range 98 Nast. 53. Easement and right of way for the Dry Fork Ditch No. 44, Omundson Ditch and Frost Ditch No. 62 insofar es they may effect subject property. 54. Rights of way for any County Roads. 55. Any end all mining claims, arising from or on account of recorded Location Certificate, Affidavits of Labor, Assignments end Conveyances of such claims or interests therein. continued on page 6 rAGR 6 ao0a0930 1'[61545 The following exceptions apply to property located in llama County, Colorado. 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the Public records of which Grantee has actual knowledan. 2. Intentionally ondtted. 3. Intentionally omitted. 4. IntenLlonally omitted. 5. Intentionally omitted. 6. Reservation of right of way for any ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States In U. 5. Patent recorded March 31, 1925 in Book 285 at page 63 and in Patent recorded May 4., 1957 1n Book 362 at page 199. 7, Excepting and reserving however to the United States, all the coal and- other minerals in- the lands- sr entered- ant p lentesh tugether with the right to prospect for. mine and remove the same pursuant to the provisions and limitations of the Act of Dec. 29, 1916 (39 Slat 862) as reserved In U. 5. Patent recorded May 4, 1937 In nook 362 at page 199. affecting Tract 57. 8. Reserving unto Grantors an undivided 1/2 Interest in and to all minerals now owned by grantors lying in and under the lands herein conveyed together with right of ingress and egress for purpose of prospecting. for. mining and removing the same subject however to payment to the surface owners or full compensation from Licencess or Lessees of Grantors for any damegesoccasioned thereby , as reserved by Charles E. Burg aka Chas. E. Burg and Dorothy E. Burg In Deed to R. M. Metews and Winifred A. Metews recorded February 0, 1963 in Book 839 at page 366 and any and all assignments thereof or Interests therein. 9. Rights of surface entry and other Incidental rights used, claimed or asserted under any mineral reservation, lease ar conveyance identified in items 7 and 8 hereof. 10. Right of way between Winifred A. Metzler and W, W. Metzler and State of Colorado. retarded Augur[ 31., 1966 in book. 900.a1.- page 109. Purr roadway, as set forth an the sheets attached hereto. continued on page 7 Booa0930r5,G1546 PAGE 7 11. Grantors reserve a non-exclusive right of way for ditches and canals as constructed and existing from the points of diversion which exist to and for the benefit of the lands described on Exhibit 6 hereto and all running of the reserved water rights therein and together with a non-exclusive right of way along said ditches and canals for the sole purpose of repairing and maintaining the same, as reserved by Nilliam T. Spears and Clara A. Spears In Deed recorded August 25, 1981 in Hook 1330 at page 5, as set forth on the sheet attached hereto. 12. Right of way and easement grant recorded June 22, 1992 in book 1907 at page 177 as set forth on the sheet attached hereto. 13. Latk of a right of access from the land to any open public road, street or highway. NOTE:This exception is necessary because it does not appear from the instruments in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of the County in which subject property is situate that any right of access exists to an open public roadway. 11111 'iliPe 'llittliaPILIMANINUWII * 411111 Raoeptlmatk-765799 ; 04/07/2009 00:54:44 AN 4440 Rlberieo 1 of 1 Ree. Fee:$6.00 Doe Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY pursuant to C.R.S. §38-30-172, the undersigned executes this Statement of Authority on behalf of #10 Enterprises, a -Limited Liability Corporation(corporation, limited liability company, general partnership, registered limited liability partnership; registered limited liability limited partnerships limited partnership association, government agency, other), -an entity other than an individual, capable of holding title to real property (the "Entity"), and states as follows: The name of the Entity is #10 Enterprises LLC. and is formed under the laws of The State of Texas. The mailing address for the Entity is P.O Box 88, DeBeque, Colorado 81630. The name and/or,position of the person authorized to execute instrumentsf.conveying, encumbering, or otherwise affecting. tit] to real property on. behalf of the Entity is Paul R. Vahldiek, Jr., President. The limitations upon the authority of the person named above o: holding the:position described above to bind the Entity are as follows: None (if no limitations, insert "None") Other matters concerning the manner in which the Entity dealswith any interest in real property are: (if n ermatter, leave this section blank) EXECUTED this / day ofr/ 2009. Signature: Name(typed of printe Title (if any): STATE OF /15,M= ) 11�� OO�� )SS. COUNTY .OF p/uY•"S ) The foregoing instrument was ackno led re'. 2009 by (pns4S LLG a Witness my hand and official seal. mo rnmmission expires: bP-4LI—oat/Q orpp meg th s aieCkr /Ob day on behalf 444;40(Notary datyskakPabl c) ATTACHMENT E VICINITY MAP GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department 108 8'" Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470 www garfield county com PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Scott Hall PROJECT: High Lonesome Ranch OWNER: Colin Kenny� REPRESENTATIVE: dolf{n Kenny rsi PRACTICAL LOCATION:Of1/4 NE 114 Section 9 Township 8 S Range 98 W Sixth P.M TYPE OF APPLICATION: Dog Kennel in Resource Lands Assessors # 2443-101-00.009 DATE: February 12, 2009 I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION To build a Dog Kennel in the Resort Area of High Lonesome Ranch for the purposes of hunting. II. REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS (DEVELOPMENT CODE / COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, STATE STATUTES, ETC.) Article 16 Definitions Kennel: An Establishment in which adult dogs or domesticated animals are housed, groomed, bred, boarded or trained dogs used as a legitimate agriculture activity are exempt form the fixtures. Article 3 Section 3-501 _ . Kennel as a use in the Resource Lands/Gentle Slope Zone needs a Limited Impact review. III. PROCESS In summary, the process will be the following: Steps Pre app App TC Evaluate Review Request Action Public Hearing Approve/Denial Approve/Denial Hearing Body Staff Staff Staff Director BOCC 0/01 IV. APPLICATION REVIEW a. Review by: Staff for technical completeness recommendation and referral agencies for additional technical review b. Application Type: General Administrative Permit _x_ Limited Impact Review (Amendment) _ Major Impact Review (Amendment) _ Minor Exemption (Amendment) Major Exemption (Amendment) _ Rural Land Development Optfon Exemption (Amendment) _ Variance Floodplain Development Permit — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Vacating Public Roads & Rights -of -Way _ Boundary Line Adjustment — Sketch Plan (Optional) Conservation Subdivision _ Preliminary Plan (Amendment) _ Final Plat (Amendment) ._ _. Corrected Final Plat _ Combined Preliminary Plan & Final Plat — Pipeline Development Plan (Amendment) Rezoning: Text Amendment Rezoning: Zone District Amendment Planned Unit Development (Amendment) Small Temporary Employee Housing _ Minor Temporary Employee Housing c. Public Hearing(s): _ None Planning Commission x Board of County Commissioners _ Board of Adjustment c. Referral Agencies: (Division of Water Resources, Colorado Department of Transportation, etc.) BLM V. APPLICATION REVIEW FEES a. Planning Review Fees: $_400 b. Referral Agency Fees: $ c. Total Deposit: $ (add hours are billed at 40.50 /hour) General Application Processing Planner reviews case for completeness and sends to referral agencies for comments. Case planner contacts applicant and sets up a site visit. Staff reviews application to determine if it meets standards of review. Case planner makes a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the appropriate hearing body. Disclaimer The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the County. The summary Is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. This summary does not create a legal or vested right. Pre application Summary Prepared by: Scdtt's'iatl, Senior Planner /Date IA LLI.010-100006499L£0- 4 @ P M m 9 P w¥ / $ Assessor's Information. ƒ a } N A f. Existing and proposed roads, railroad tracks, irrigation ditches, fences and utility lines on or adjacent to the parcel, shown by location and dimension. a y EXHIBIT(S) CITATION NARRATIVE 4-502(C)(3). Site Plan. Site plans shall be scaled at 1 inch to 200 feet for properties exceeding 160 acres in size, or 1 inch to 100 feet for properties less than 160 acres in size. The Director may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, a more detailed version of all or part of the site plan. The site plan shall include the following elements. A a. Legal description of the property. The legal description is shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. A b. Boundary lines, comer pins, and dimensions of the The boundary lines, corner pins, and dimensions of the property erty are shown on subject property, including land survey data to identify the Survey, Exhibit A. the parcel with section corners, distance and bearing to corners, quarter comers, township and range. A c. Existing and proposed topographic contours at vertical The topographic contours are shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. It is not intervals sufficient to show the topography affecting the anticipated that the existing topography will be affected beyond the "Limits of development and stomr drainage. Disturbance" shown on the Survey. e. Existing and proposed parking areas, driveways, emergency turn -outs and emergency turnarounds, sidewalks and paths, shown by location and dimension. d. Significant on-site features including: natural and artificial drainage ways, wetland areas, ditches, hydrologic features and aquatic habitat; geologic features and hazards including slopes, alluvial fans, areas of subsidence, rock outcrops and rockfall areas, radiological and seismic hazard areas, soil types and landslide areas; vegetative cover; dams, reservoirs, excavations, and mines; and any other off-site features of the same type that influence the development Significant on-site features, including but not limited to drain fields, and drainage ways, alluvial fans, and earthen berms, are shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. The Survey also shows the limits of the proposed disturbance of the existing site features. A narrative description of existing drainage features is contained in Section 2.0 of the Drainage Report, Exhibit J, and supplemented by attached topographic maps. Existing and proposed parking areas, driveways, emergency turnarounds and access paths are shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. Existing and proposed roads and an earthen berm are shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. Utility lines, including electric and water lines, and water wells are shown on the Survey. 8 IN a a x m a o a m a m m M rM m. Description of the source and capacity of the water supply, including location and size of well(s) and/or water lines to serve the proposed use. 1. Description of the proposed wastewater treatment system, including location and size of leach field, sewer service lines, and treatment facilities to serve the proposed use. k. Elevation drawings showing existing grade, finished grade, and height of the proposed structures above existing grade. j. Location and dimension of all structures, existing and proposed, and distance of structures from property lines. i. Zone district in which the site is located. h. Area of the individual parcels, and the total square feet of existing buildings, driveways and parking area. g. Uses and grantees of all existing and proposed easements and rights-of-way on or adjacent to the parcel, shown by location and dimension. CITATION Proposed features of the wastewater treatment system are shown on the Survey; Exhibit A. Pictures of proposed wastewater system appear in Exhibit I-1, along with specific options featured in selected model of the biological recycle/discharge system to be installed on the property. The Geotechnical Investigation, Exhibit K, addresses the on-site sewage disposal system at Section 5.0. Water wells, storage tanks and water lines are shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. Summary of source and capacity of water is included in Exhibit I. Well permit application pending at the state water engineer's office with approval expected — copy of permit will be provided to the County upon issuance. Elevation drawings of the kennel building are contained in Exhibit E, with existing grade and height of the building depicted. The location of all structures is shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. Dimension of kennel structure is referenced above in "h" and in Exhibit E. Garfield County on-line zoning maps indicate that the property is zoned as "Resource Lands" and Assessor's Information, Exhibit D, lists the property as "Agricultural." The area of the individual parcel is shown on in the legal description on the Survey, Exhibit A, as 39.83 acres. The area of the driveways and parking area is also shown on Exhibit A. The proposed kennel building is shown on the elevation drawings, Exhibit E. The measurements of the kennel building will be: Width: 33.5' Length: 177.5' An apparent, but unrecorded, easement is shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. Exhibit F, Easements, describes the existing easements affecting the property. No additional easements are anticipated as a result of the construction of the improvements. NARRATIVE LA LUMP - 100000/E690E0 -3(1% a a t.t a a n a .7i EXHIBIT(S) CITATION NARRATIVE A n. Location and size of signs for the purpose of The Survey, Exhibit A, shows that the only signs located on the property are identification, advertising and traffic control. underground gas line markers. No additional signs are planned for the kennel project. o. Additional information that may be reasonably requested Not applicable. by the Director to enable an adequate evaluation of the proposal. 4-502(D). Land Suitability Analysis. The Land Suitability Analysis shall include the following information, unless specifically waived by the Director. A 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to The Survey, Exhibit A, shows that public access to the property is by County or through the site. Road 200. 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope Topography and slope determination are shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. determination. The Geotechnical Investigation, Exhibit K, addresses topography and its effect on the proposed construction and infrastructure installations. 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site Significant natural features are shown on the Survey, Exhibit A, and the and off-site. Vicinity Map, Exhibit B, and include, but are not limited to, slopes, alluvial fans and drainage ways. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and The Drainage Report, Exhibit J, addresses drainage features. Existing impoundments, natural and man made.. drainage features are shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or An apparent, but unrecorded, easement is shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. allowing use types and access. Exhibit F, Easements, describes the existing easements affecting the property. No additional easements are anticipated as a result of the construction of the improvements 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to The Survey, Exhibit A, shows that public access to the property is by County adjoining roads and site distance and intersection Road 200. constraints. 6 m IJI 4-502(E). Impact Analysis. The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the applicant will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis. Exhibits D(1) 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property Adjacent Property Owners are listed on Exhibit D(2) and shown on Exhibit and D(2) of adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing D(1), attached to the original Limited Impact Review Application. original address for each of the property owners. application 0 7 x " rrl W 4 a 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered There are no known Protected or Registered resource areas located on the Archaeological, cultural, paleontological and historic property. resource areas. 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, "Preservation of Native Vegetation," Exhibit G, addresses existing flora and wetlands, migration routes. fauna habitats. 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as The Geotechnical Investigation, Exhibit K, discusses soils. applicable. 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. The property is not located in a floodplain. 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water Water wells, storage tanks and water lines are shown on the Survey, Exhibit demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to A. Summary of source and capacity of water is included in Exhibit I. Well Section 7-104. permit application pending at the state water engineer's office with approval expected — copy of permit will be provided to the County upon issuance. n a °z The Geotechnical Investigation, Exhibit K, lists collapsible soils and the deep slopes to the northwest of the proposed improvements as possible geological hazards on the site, at Section 4.1. NARRATIVE 01 x 0 x a a r1 M 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. CITATION Summary of source and capacity of water is included in Exhibit I. Well permit application pending at the state water engineer's office with approval expected — copy of permit will be provided to the County upon issuance. Natural water supply is also addressed in the Drainage Report, Exhibit J, as it relates to drainage on the land. The Geotechnical Investigation, Exhibit K, lists collapsible soils and the deep slopes to the northwest of the proposed improvements as possible geological hazards on the site, at Section 4.1. Soil characteristics are discussed in "Preservation of Native Vegetation," Exhibit G, and the Geotechnical Investigation, Exhibit K. Site features are shown on the Survey, Exhibit A, and the Vicinity Map, Exhibit B, and discussed in the Drainage Report, Exhibit J. According to Garfield County Zoning maps, the property abuts Bureau of Land Management public lands on the north, east and west. The lands south of the property are in the ownership of the Applicant and are classified as "Resource Lands" used for agricultural uses by the Zoning maps and Garfield County Assessor. The adjoining landowners are shown on the Survey, Exhibit A. z 1 m 0 Wy c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat. (1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources. a. Determination of the long tenn and short term effect on flora and fauna. 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplain, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. n a 0 °z Not applicable because there are no known archaeological, cultural, paleontological, or historic resource issues present. See Exhibit G. "Preservation of Native Vegetation," Exhibit G, states that the proposed development is to have as limited an effect on environmental conditions as possible, in keeping with the intent of the Applicant to maintain "a natural and healthy environment." Runoff is addressed in "Preservation of Native Vegetation," Exhibit G. The Drainage Report, Exhibit J, and the Geotechnical Investigation, Exhibit K, address soils and subsoils, waste disposal, slopes, sewage, runoff, stream flow and groundwater. NARRATIVE 00 0 m 53 q 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212. 10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. 9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4- 602 J. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. CITATION "Preservation of Native Vegetation," Exhibit G, discusses the reclamation plan. There will be no impact on adjacent properties. Applicant's research indicates that there are approximately six vehicles per day using the intersection of County Road 200 and the driveway at 4400 CR 200. Not applicable. Not applicable — no known potential radiation hazards present on the site. NARRATIVE Land Detail Page 1 of 1 Garfield County Assessor Land Detail Information Assessor/Treasurer Property Search I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search Parcel Detail 1 Value Detail 1 Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Land Detail I Photographs I Mill Levy Revenues Detail 1 AccountNumber R290151 Top of Page Assessor Database Search Options I Treasurer Database Search Options Clerk & Recorder Database Search Options Garfield County Home Page The Garfield County Assessor's Office makes every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Garfield County Assessor's Office are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2005 - 2008 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www.garcoact.com/assessor/Land. asp?AccountNumber=R290151 4/23/2009 Land Occurrence 1 Characteristics ACRES: 200 ABSTRACT CODE: GRAZING LAND - AGRICULTURAL LAN» CODE: GRAZ VIB USE CODE: AGRICULTURAL Top of Page Assessor Database Search Options I Treasurer Database Search Options Clerk & Recorder Database Search Options Garfield County Home Page The Garfield County Assessor's Office makes every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Garfield County Assessor's Office are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2005 - 2008 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www.garcoact.com/assessor/Land. asp?AccountNumber=R290151 4/23/2009 Parcel Detail Page 1 of 3 Garfield County Assessor/Treasurer Parcel Detail Information Assessor/Treasurer Property Search 1 Assessor Subset Query 1 Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search Parcel Detail Basic Building Characteristics 1 Tax Information Value Detail 1 Sales Detail 1 Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Land Detail 1 Photographs 1 Mill Levy Revenues Detail Tax Area 029 Account Number 8290151 Parcel Number 244309100001 2008 Mill Levy 32.108 Owner Name and Mailing Address #10 ENTERPRISES, LLC ATTN: ANNETTE FRISBIE 5701 WOODWAY DRIVE, STE 300 HOUSTON, TX 77057 Assessor's Parcel Description (Not to be used as a legal description) SECT,TWN,RNG:9-8-98 DESC: SEC. 9 Wi/2NE, SENE SEC. 10 SWNW, NESW BK:0579 PG:0869 BK:1780 PG:312 RECPT:694070 BK:1780 PG:307 RECPT:694069 BK:0930 PG:0534 BK:0926 PG:0984 BK:0861 PG:0348 BK:0858 PG:0317 BK:0839 PG:0343 BK:0834 PG:0193 BK:0834 PG:0186 BK:0805 PG:0129 BK:0802 PG:0838 BK:0801 PG:0765 BK:0800 PG:0340 BK:0728 P0:0435 BK:0715 PG:0620 BK:0715 PG:0584 Location Physical Address: Subdivision: http://www.garcoact.com/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=8290151 4/23/2009 4400 200 COUNTY RD DEBEQUE Parcel Detail Page 2 of 3 2Q08 Property Tax Valuation Information Land Acres: 200 Land Sq Ft: 0 Section Improvements: Township Range 9 8 98 2007 2Q08 Property Tax Valuation Information Additional Value Detail Most Recent Sale Sale Date: Sale Price: 12/29/1987 1,854,000 Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential Buildings: Number of Comm/Ind Buildings: 0 0 No Building Records Found Tax Information Tax Year Actual Value Assessed Value Land: 7,370 2,140 Improvements: 0 0 Total: 7,370 2,140 Additional Value Detail Most Recent Sale Sale Date: Sale Price: 12/29/1987 1,854,000 Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential Buildings: Number of Comm/Ind Buildings: 0 0 No Building Records Found Tax Information Tax Year Transaction Type Amount 2008 Tax Payment: First Half ($34.36) 2008 Tax Amount $68.72 2007 Tax Payment: Second Half ($30.90) 2007 Tax Payment: First Half ($30.90) 2007 Tax Amount $61.80 2006 Tax Payment: Second Half ($28.62) 2006 Tax Payment: First Half ($28.62) 2006 Tax Amount $57.24 2005 Tax Payment: Second Half ($36.48) 2005 Tax Payment: First Half ($36.48) 2005 Tax Amount $72.96 2004 Interest Payment ($0.41) http://www.garcoact.com/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber=8290151 4/23/2009 $100.741 Parcel Detail 2004 2004 2004 2004 2003 2003 2003 2002 2002 2002 2001 2001 2001 2000 2000 2000 1999 1999 1999 Interest Charge Tax Payment: Second Half Tax Payment: First Half Tax Amount Tax Payment: Second Half Tax Payment: First Half Tax Amount Tax Payment: Second Half Tax Payment: First Half Tax Amount Tax Payment: Second Half Tax Payment: First Half Tax Amount Tax Payment: Second Half Tax Payment: First Half Tax Amount Tax Payment: Second Half Tax Payment: First Half Tax Amount Mill Levy Revenues Detail 1111 $0.411 ($41.21)1 ($41.21)1 $82.421 ($50.37)1 ($50.37)1 ($50.56)1 ($50.56)1 $101.121 ($50.13)1 ($50.13) $100.261 ($51.56)1 ($51.56)1 $103.12 1 ($63,88)1 1 ($63.88)1 $127.76 Page 3 of 3 Assessor Database Search O tions Treasurer Database Search O tions Clerk & Recorder Database Search O•tions Garfield County H� ome pace The Garfield County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Garfield County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2005 - 2008 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www, garcoact.com/assessor/Parcel. asp?AccountNumber=R290151 4/23/2009 Let 00 111.1 NMI -BI• EIM la- PPM !a -� MBE NNE �_� NM nit=I- 0 3 9u x V 5? Bx EXHIBIT F EASEMENTS 1. The Kennel Property is affected by an apparent, but unrecorded, easement in favor of Grand Valley Electric, as revealed by the Survey, Exhibit A, as running across the southerly portion of the property, continuing at both ends into adjoining properties. 2. The Kennel Property is affected by a Pipeline Easement between Enerwest, Inc. and Northern Natural Gas Company, a Division of InterNorth, Inc., dated October 29, 1981, recorded on January 26, 1982 at Reception No. 324060 in Book 591 at Page 541. The proposed location is shown on a plat attached to the document as Exhibit "A." 3. The Kennel Property is affected by a Pipeline Easement (Corrective Document) between Enerwest, Inc. and Northern Natural Gas Company, a Division of InterNorth, Inc., dated October 29, 1981, recorded on June 25, 1982 at Reception No. 328874 in Book 602 at Page 84. This document corrects and replaces Item 2 above. The actual location is shown on a plat attached to the document as Exhibit "A." 4. The Kennel Property is affected by an easement in favor of Celsius Energy Company running across the southerly portion of the property, continuing at both ends into adjoining properties, dated October 18, 1991, recorded on January 27, 1992 at Reception No. 431119 in Book 822 at Page 400. The proposed location is shown on a plat attached to the easement document as Exhibit "B." \\\DE- 034643/000001 - 415092 v1 PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED AT THE HIGH LONESOME RANCH Several improvements are proposed at The High Lonesome Ranch for a 40± acre parcel (N W'/ of NE'/< of Section 9, Township 8 South, Range 98 West, 6th Principal Meridian) located on the north side of Garfield County Road 200, Improvements include a kennel facility where dogs will be temporarily boarded and trained at other locations on the Ranch, a residential duplex facility for ranch personnel, and a. bird enclosure area to maintain a healthy stock of game birds for Ranch clientele. The improvements will be located away from Garfield CR200 (approximately 800 to 1000 feet) at a distance that could be seen by passing motorists (if looking), but discreetly screened by the natural topography and native vegetation. The total surface area that these improvements will encompasses is about 3 to 4 acres, with areas of non disturbance between the improvements to maintain homogeny of the native environment. The native vegetation located on these building envelopes will be removed. Native vegetation consists primarily of sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and greasewood with native grasses on the flatter areas. Pinyon and juniper trees occur on the steeper sloping areas and will remain essentially undisturbed. This area occurs on an active alluvial fan and therefore, the density of the vegetative growth varies across the site and new deposits of debris and sediments accumulated during significant runoff events. Please refer to the Drainage Report for further details pertaining to drainage. Removal of native vegetation will be minimal and only include those areas where improvements for ranch operations are necessary. Since much of The High Lonesome Ranch's success depends on maintaining a natural and healthy environment, it is known that disturbance to the environment will be kept to a minimum. Wildlife populations, both small and large game also depend upon native vegetation and surroundings for cover and food. Obviously, with this in mind, the ranch will attempt to preserve native vegetation as much as possible. It is believed that none of these improvements will affect the current migration corridors for wildlife, or alter their existing habits. All disturbed areas that will not have structures or facilities constructed on will be reseeded with native species, or non-native vegetation capable of supporting post -disturbance land use. iolegical Recycle/ischcirge System This system offers models available for either Recycle or Discharge operations. Each unit offers Ided benefits, such as: • Lower maintenance than any recycle system on the market today. • Low operating cost. • Simple equipment operation. NIMMINSIMENKI RP:OgpTION1E`,A011111.1.111, 111,„ Ltr. NEMA -4 rated corrosion- ; proof control panel for safe and reliable operation. Recycle systems are equipped with a bronze manifold to withstand heat and high pressure. Model # BIO -20D -0M10 B10 -200-1M10 BI0-25R-0M10 B10 -25R -1M10 Flow Rate Biological Tank Media Capacity 0-20 GPM 0-20 GPM 0-25 GPM 0-25 GPM BIO -35R -0M10 BIO -35R -1M10 0-35 GPM D - designates discharge R - designates recycle 0-35 GPM 2,304 sq.ft. 2,304 sq.ft. 3,456 sq.ft. 3,456 sq.ft. 6,480 sq.ft. 6,480 sq.ft. 890 gal. 890 gal. 1,434 gal. 1,434 gal. 2,244 gal. 2,244 gal. • 0 i•aay. Mazzerventuri air injection system sustains beneficial aerobic microbes, while destroying odor causing anaerobic bacteria. Options: Part # WX-0005 WX-0015 Description Ozone for B10 -25R -1M10 Ozone for BIO -35R -1M10 *Ozone not available on aluminum models Material of Construction Marine Aluminum Stainless Steel Marine Aluminum Stainless Steel Marine Aluminum Stainless Steel Sump Pump Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Power Requirements 230V, 10, 20 amps 230V, 10, 20 amps 230V, 10, 25 amps 230V, 10, 25 amps 230V, 10, 25 amps 230V, 10, 25 amps BIO -25R-0410 Dimensions LxWxH 8'x4'x4' 8'x4'x4' 12' x 6'x 4'c, 12'x6'x4' 12'x6'x5' 12'x6'x5' Shipping Weight 950 lbs. 950 lbs. 1,400 lbs. 1,400 lbs. 1,900 lbs. 1,900 lbs. EXHIBIT I Water Supply See attached water quantity report from Resource Engineering, Inc. The well permit application is pending at the state water engineer's office with approval expected. A copy of the permit will be provided to the County upon issuance, along with the results from the recently - performed water quality tests that will be submitted along with other materials in satisfaction of Section 7-104 of the County Land Use Code. ""'RESOURCE ....■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Collin Kenny Building Construction and Maintenance Manager #10 Enterprises, LLC PO Box 88 DeBeque, CO 81630 RE: #10 Enterprises, LLC Kennel Water Supply Sufficiency Dear Collin: April 24, 2009 In partial compliance with Section 7-104 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution adopted January 1, 2009, this letter summarizes the opinion and findings of Resource Engineering, Inc. RESOURCE) regarding the adequacy of the physical water supply for the proposed kennel. Opinion The well drilled to serve the kennel has adequate quantity and reliability for the intended purpose The well is capable of reliably and continuously pumping a minimum of 15 gallons per minute (gpm), the maximum pumping rate allowed under an exempt well permit. This is approximately 85 times the estimated demand of the kennel. The minimal groundwater withdrawal will have negligible impact on the regional groundwater resource. This opinion is based on a 24 hour well pumping test conducted on April 17 and 18. 2009, my educational background in groundwater hydrology, and my 25 years of professional experience in groundwater evaluations. Well Construction The kennel well was constructed in late February, 2009 by Shelton Drilling, Corporation under monitoring and observation well permit No. 279876. The well is 95 feet deep and is completed with.7 5/8" steel surface casing and 5 inch PVC production casing. Slotted casing was installed in the producing zone from 75- 95 feet below the top of the surface casing. At the time of drilling the static water level was 56 feet from the top of the well casing (TOC). A two hour pump test was conducted by Samuelson Pump Co. on March 2; 2009 which concluded that the well was capable of 21 gallons per minute (gpm) with total drawdown of only 2.8 feet. 24 Hour Pump Test A 24 Hr. pump test was conducted under the direction of Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) on April 17 and18, 2009. The pump was set approximately 68 feet below the top of casing. The initial water level was 54.84 feet below the TOC. The pumping Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 [970) 945-8777 * Fax (970)945-1137 Mr. Collin Kenny, Building Construction and Maintenance Manager #10 Enterprises, LLC 4/24/2009 Page 2 of 3 rate was adjusted over the first 10 minutes of the test. After 10 minutes the pumping rate was a constant 15.5 gpm. Drawdown data was collected at 1 minute intervals during pumping and recovery using a pressure transducer and data logger. Hand data was collected for the first 30 minutes using a well sounder. The drawdown in the well during the pumping period is shown in Figures 1 and 2. The maximum drawdown was 1.76 feet (56.60' from TOC) after 573 minutes of pumping. The pump was off from 573 — 599 minutes after which time pumping resumed. The data suggests that the total drawdown at the end of the 24 hour test might have been approximately 1.9 feet had the pump run continuously. The majority of the drawdown occurred in the first 5 minutes of the test; there was only 0.17 feet of drawdown from 5 minutes to the maximum drawdown of 1.76 feet at 573 minutes. At the end of the test approximately 38 feet of water remained in the well. This is a Targe safety margin against the well pumping dry. Over the 24 hour pumping period 22,180 gallons was pumped. This is 85 times the a maximum estimated daily demand of 260 gallons for the kennel (see Demand section below) Figure 3 depicts the water level recovery in the well in the 24 hours after pumping ceased. The well approached, but did not reach complete recovered at T/T' = 2 indicating that, at the time of the test, the well was not completely recharged at a rate equal or greater than the 15.5 gpm pumping rate. This is very typical of wells situated in aquifers that are seasonally recharged. The well can be expected to drawdown for most of the year and then recover during snowmelt or rainfall events. The majority of water wells in Westem Colorado exhibit this behavior. Water Demand The kennel will house up to 46 dogs and require two full time employees. There will be sanitary facilities for the employees and washdown capability for the kennel. Wastewater will be treated in a septic system. The kennel washdown system will use a water treatment and recovery system so the water is recycled and reused for washdown. Only makeup water is required for the washdown which makes the entire kennel operation very water efficient. The maximum annual kennel demand has been conservatively (on the high side) estimated to be 94,900 gallon per year (260 gallons per day) based on the following assumptions: i. 2 employees @ 15 gaVday ii. 46 dogs @ 5 gal/day. The majority of this demand is allocated to washdown with the conservative assumption that there is no recycling system. ? ==RESOURCE ...U. E N G I N E E R I N G INC. Mr. Collin Kenny, Building Construction and Maintenance Manager #10 Enterprises, LLC 4/24/2009 Page 3 of 3 With the recycling system annual demand is estimated to be approximately 30,000 to 50,000 gallons per year, well below the exempt commercial limitation (80 — 140 gallons per day). Conclusion The kennel well is an excellent well and more than adequate to reliably supply the amount of water required by the kennel. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, •= J%.CP ADO Ar�IPi RESOURCE ED1G- SiItruty .(110 /4—i ' •13ai /gip it z John M. Currier/r.C• .•c� jd Water ResourcesrEQ nea �� JMC/jmc file:848-1.9 attachments cc: Jeff Dolan, Esq. Rob Pierce, Esq. .:::RESOURCE N [: I N E E R 1 N G O O O n J c _ E N d O N C E O .n w E a. Y o O. a' o g 0 O N a t0O 000 O N 0 0 O O O , , (jeej) UMOpMBJQ O O a fO 0 O o 0 q O O p C O O pMq N 0 0 0 r0 O a in (001 wog pal) umopmeJO O O O 0 0 N t 0 O O O O O O O O O o O O G in o N O N N M G O O O 0 0 0 (pal) umopmeJQ jenpisej M O O O M 1 1 1 C_ DRAINAGE REPORT for THE DOG KENNEL FACILITY, RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX, AND BIRD ENCLOSURE AREA AT THE HIGH LONESOME RANCH GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO SUBMITTED TO: GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT 108 8m STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 PREPARED FOR: The High Lonesome Ranch PO Box 88 Debeque, CO 81630 PREPARED BY: Rhino Engineering, Inc. 1229 North 23rd Street, Suite 201 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 February 25, 2009 RE Project No. 28053.02 "I hereby certify that this Drainage Report for the Dog Kennel Facility, Residential Duplex, and Bird Enclosure is located in the NW'% NE' of Section 9, Township 8S, Range 98W of the 6th Principal Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado, was prepared by me or under my direct supervision in accordance with the provisions of the Stormwater Management Manual for the owners thereof. I understand that Garfield County does not and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others." John Emil Kornfeld, P.E. Registered Professional Enginee State of Colorado No. 33064 FDR -CERTIFICATION PAG E TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 A. Background 1 B. Property Location 1 C. Description of Property 1 D. Previous Investigations 2 2.0 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 2 A. Existing Drainage Conditions 2 B. Master Drainage Plan 2 C. Offsite Tributary Area D. Proposed Drainage System Description 2 E. Drainage Facility Maintenance 4 4 3.0 DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CRITERIA 5 A. Regulations B. Development Criteria 5 C. Hydrologic Criteria 5' D. Hydraulic Criteria 5 5 4.0 POST CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5 C5.0 CONCLUSIONS 6 A. Compliance with Manual 6 B. Design Effectiveness 6 6.0 REFERENCES Appendix A Appendix B NRCS Soils Map Drainage Calculations 6 APPENDICES FIGURES Figure 1 Proposed Improvements at The High Lonesome Ranch EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Drainage Basin Map (USGS Quadrangle Map) Exhibit 2 Existing Drainage Map (24" x 36" In Map Pocket) Exhibit 3 Post -Development Drainage Pian (24" x 36" In Map Pocket) FDR -TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. Background This drainage report for the Dog Kennel Facility, Residential Duplex, and Bird Enclosure Area was prepared by Rhino Engineering, Inc. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the impact (or change) to the existing drainages, in relation to the historic drainage pattern and peak runoff, due to the proposed improvements for The High Lonesome Ranch. B. Property Location The improvernents are located north of Garfield County Road 200 (north of Debeque) on approximately 40 acres of land owned by The Lonesome Ranch. Only about 5± acres of the total 40 acres are proposed for the improvements. The site will be accessed by a gravel road from Garfield County Road 200. Garfield County Road (Garfield CR) 200 is accessed from Mesa County Road X.5, north of Debeque. By legal description, the property is located in. the NW'/ NE'/4 of Section 9, Township 8S, Range 98W of the 6th Principal Meridian in Mesa County. Refer to Figure 1 — General Location Map. C. Description of Property The 40 acre site is presently undeveloped. Proposed improvements will include a modular duplex residential unit, a dog kennel facility, and a future bird enclosure. The property is situated in a more or less remote area north of Debeque, north of Garfield CR 200, Current vegetation on the site is high desert shrub and sagebrush with fair to good ground cover. The general area slopes to the south. Two existing site drainages (washes) collect and convey runoff from the offsite drainage basins through the site. Near the confluence of these two washes, a much larger third wash from the east joins the two washes immediately north of Garfield CR 200. Runoff is conveyed under Garfield CR 200 near the confluence of the three washes. There have historically been flooding and sediment problems at this culvert crossing, maintained by Garfield County. Once clogging of the culvert occurs due to debris from the alluvial fan, runoff then overtops the county road. There are no irrigation facilities on the site. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the soils in this area consist mostly of the Happle very channery sandy loam on the flatter slopes and Biedsaw-Sunup gravelly loams on the steeper slopes. The Happle soil series is classified as Hydrologic Group 13 and the Biedsaw-Sunup soils are classified as Hydrologic Group C soils. These soils are well drained and are comprised of coarse grains soils. Refer to Appendix A for the soils map and further information. FDR -PAGE 1 1 "i-fr r Dso r z FIGURE i — PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AT THE HIGH LONESOME RANCH z 3 Magnetic Declination 12°E Copyrighl (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc. c D. Previous Investigations The project site is not included in any known master drainage plan nor is it located in a FEMA designated floodplain. 2.0 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION A. Existing Drainage Conditions The topography across the site vanes of gently sloping alluvial fans to moderate sloping side slopes rising from the fans. Slopes across the site average approximately 5% on the flatter areas to near 40% on the steeper slopes. Drainage from this site flows into the Dry Fork drainage, which lies about 500 feet south of Garfield CR 200. Refer to Exhibit 1— Drainage Basin Map and Exhibit 2 — Existing Drainage Map. Construction of the improvements, i.e., the dog kennel facility, residential duplex, and future bird enclosure, will not significantly impact the existing site drainage in terms of runoff. Increase in runoff due to these facilities will be relatively minor. The primary drainage concern is how the offsite drainages (runoff) may affect the location of these proposed facilities. The dog kennel facility and the bird enclosure are situated near the outfall of the two offsite drainage basins. Discussion about the offsite drainages is included in the "C. Offsite Tributary Area" section which follows. The proposed improvements will have negligible impact on site drainage due to the minor amount of impervious disturbance the improvements will create in relation to the size of the drainage. Therefore, no further discussion is provided for site runoff. B. Master Drainage Plan There are no known master drainage plans or adjacent developments which affect the site. C. Offsite Tributary Area The proposed improvements are located in the Dry Fork Drainage. More specifically, several smaller unnamed natural drainages ages dissect the site. There are two main offsite drainage basins that flow to the site and impact the site, especially the kennel facility. A third drainage basin, including the steeper side slopes adjacent the duplex and kennels, also impacts the site. Refer to the Site Plan/Post Development Drainage Plan. Drainage Basin 1 flows near the proposed location of the kennel facility and Drainage Basin 2 drains near the future bird enclosure area. The residential duplex lies "around the slope" such that any flows in Drainage Basin 1 will not directly impact the structure if proper routing is maintained. There is not any development in either offsite drainage basin. Vegetation consists mostly of desert shrub and sagebrush. 8° 20' '0.00" • (1A* Magnetic Declination 7[ 12° E game: LONG POINT )ate: 2/13/2009 >cale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet • Location: 039° 23' 03.22" N 108° 19' 11.40" W NAD 27 /1/•,.261Q3.sr �`in �`,.s .s:: (tr•r/1" Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc. The 40 acre property is affected by offsite runoff from two drainage basins totaling 133th acres. An SCS Curve Number of 85 is estimated for offsite conditions, as most of the offsite soils include the Bledsaw-Sunup gravelly loams (C Hydrologic Soils). Runoff rates are presented in Table 1. Offsite runoff from the two drainage basins is shown below. t, 1.8(1.1-0.21)x300X=9.4min 26' t = 4400 ft _ 4889s=81.5min 3 3.0x0.0905 — t, = t, + is = 9.4 min+ 81.5min = 90 9 min The time of concentration for Offsite Drainage Basin 2 is: t =1.8(1.1-0.21)x300X=102min 20X __ 3300.. t, 2.7 x 0.07°s = 4620s = 77 Omin t, =t, +ts=10.2min+ 77.0min = 87.2min As mentioned above, a third drainage area, Basin 3, contributes minor runoff from the steeper side slopes immediately north of the duplex and kennel facility. Runoff from this drainage area can impact the location of these two structures and is therefore discussed below. Table 1— Offsite Runoff Drainage Basin Area 25 -Year Runoff 100 -year Runoff (Ac) (cfs) (cfs) Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 93.6 39.6 3.2 37.3 17.1 6.0 57.0 26.0 7.3 D. Proposed Drainage System Description Due to the proximity of Drainage Basin 1 outfall in relation to the location of the kennel facility, conveyance of offsite stormwater through the site is imperative. The kennel facility and residential duplex are situated on an alluvial fan that was formed by alluvial deposits from runoff of Basin 1. Likewise, the bird enclosure area is also situated on a fan from deposits froth Basin 2. Alluvial fans are generally active and ongoing erosional processes are dynamic. Alluvial deposits will continue to pose a problem and therefore protection of the facilities is necessary. Based on the natural topography, a combination of several hydraulic features are necessary. First a berm is recommended east of the kennel. The berm should extend from the edge of the steeper slopes to the south, beyond the kennels. This berm will divert runoff past the kennel thereby protecting the facilities from stormwater and debris. Secondly, a vee shaped channel is recommended and constructed between the kennel and duplex and the steeper side slopes to the north. This swale will collect and convey runoff from Basin 3 to the west. An additional swale should be constructed between the septic absorption field and the steeper side slopes to convey and route stormwater away from the drain field. To insure proper protection of the absorption field, a clay cut-off wall should also be constructed on the uphill side of the drain field. Runoff from the swales will. then drain under the access roadway to the facilities. The berm to divert runoff and debris from Basin 1 beyond the kennel should have a top width of 4 feet with 4H:1 V side slopes. The height of the berm should be 6 feet to insure adequate conveyance for major storm runoff and alluvial deposits associated with the stormwater runoff. The berm should be seeded with native rangeland plants to insure stability of the embankment. The vee swale should be a minimum of 2 feet depth with 4H:1V side slopes. The minimum slope should be 2.0%. If slopes exceed 3.0%, erosion protection should be used. Such protection could be either riprap or permanent erosion control matting. Assuming a 2.0% slope, the normal flow depth of the ditch is 0.8 feet for a flow rate of 7.2 cfs (100 -year peak flow). This ditch cross section geometry should adequately convey offsite runoff from Basin 3. Refer to Appendix B for calculations. Rip -rap aprons should be placed at the culvert inlet and outlet to prevent erosion. Refer to Exhibit 3 — Post -Development Drainage Map for details. Due to the nature of the bird enclosure, no structural hydraulic improvements are necessary for runoff from Basin 3. However, it may be desirable to construct a berm upstream of the bird area to route runoff away from this area. If the berm is constructed, it should divert runoff westerly around the bird area and then returned naturally to the south. This runoff will then collect with the runoff diverted by the berm at the kennel facility. This will maintain the historic drainage as it flows southerly toward Garfield CR 200. If the berm is constructed, it should be similar to the berm specifications to protect the kennel facility. E. Drainage Facility Maintenance Periodic maintenance of the berm and "cleaning" of the conveyance way beside the berm(s) will be necessary. Likewise, maintenance will also be required to maintain positive drainage in the vee swale. This will be the responsibility of The High Lonesome Ranch. Sediment removal may be required as build-up occurs; native vegetation may need to be "trimmed" to maintain good hydraulic conveyance. All culverts on the facility will also need to be periodically checked for blockages and sediment accumulation, particularly after large storm events. 3.0 DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations The drainage criteria used in this report exceeds guidelines specified in the Garfield County's New Land Use Regulations (effective 1-1-09) for Article VII Standards, Section 7-206 Drainage. B. Development Criteria There are no drainage constraints placed on the project by major drainage or floodplain studies or adjacent developments. C. Hydrologic Criteria Peak runoff rates were determined using the SCS Runoff Method. Curve numbers were used per the guidelines listed in Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 55. Times of concentration were calculated using Equations 701 through 703. Precipitation depths for the 24- hour storm were identified using the Federal Highway Administration's Hydrain program. Refer to Appendix B for program output. The 25 -year and 100 -year storms were considered "minor" and "major" events respectively. D. Hydraulic Criteria The Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's Sewer and Culvert Hydraulics software was used to size and calculate capacities of culverts. Ditch capacities were calculated using Manning's Equation. 4.0 POST CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT No stormwater management facilities are proposed for this site due to the nature of the alluvial fans. The fans continue to "build" in elevation as debris from the drainage areas are deposited on the fans. This is due to the flattening of the gradients from the drainage basin outfalls to the alluvial fans. Maintaining the native vegetation on the fans is important as this will improve the stability of the area. Therefore, surface disturbance outside of the proposed improvements is not recommended. All disturbed areas should be seeded with native species.5.0 1 ( 5.0 CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Manual This drainage report complies with current Garfield County drainage criteria. B. Design Effectiveness The drainage facilities outlined in this report including culverts and ditches were designed to effectively control impacts of storm runoff to adjacent properties. 6.0 REFERENCES The following manuals, computer programs, and engineering reports were used as references in the preparation of this report. • Garfield County New Land Use Regulations (effective 1-1-09) for Article V11 Standards, Section 7-206 Drainage. • Stormwater Management Manual, City of Grand Junction and Mesa County, May 2008. • The NRCS method Technical Release 55 entitled "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds" was used to calculate times of concentration. • Hydraflow Hydragraphs 2004 Software was used to calculate runoff volumes and for detention routing • Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Open Channel Design Version 1.01, April 2004. APPENDIX A NRCS SOILS DATA FDR-APPENDD{ A • weo oou purvey Centaet Gs I Download Soils Data I Archived Soil Surveys I Glossary 1 Preferences I Logout 1 Help Area of Interest AOL) Soil Ma_ Soil Data Ex Page 1 of 2 lorer Shop•Ing Cart Pre 14A1A1 Intro to - Sultabilitles and Soil Properties Solis Limitations for Use end Qua ities Ecological Site Assessment Soil . Reports Search Properties and Qualities Ratings Soil Chemical Properties Soil Erosion Factors o)rarl"JBI: i,"yearo"bl':eeee Soil Physical Properties CD Soil Qualities and Features AASHTO Group Classification (Surface) Depth to a Selected 5011 Restrictive Layer Depth to Any Soll Restrictive,Layer Drainage Class Frost ActIOn Frost -Free Days Hydrologic Soll Group View Options Map G Table r DesMption of r Rating Rating Options �wla`w:Desc)ip)lon ORD r 7 Detailed Description I ®® Advanced Options Aggregation DornNanl ConGaon Method 'r Component Percent Cutoff 71e -break Rule ,S, Lower 0 Higher V)etyrya {fy Aa Vie ert ny Map Unit Name Parent Material Name Representative Slope Unified Soll Classification (Surface) Water Features (A® Warning: Soil Ratings Map may not be valid at this scale. You haavvge zoomed In beyond the sole at which the soil map for this area is Intended to be used Mapping at soils:000 Thne e at gntiof map units and soil of that shown In theAmloiting soil map are dependent on that map scale. g Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of contemapping and accuracy of soli line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of sting sobs that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Tables — H rologic Soil Group — Summary By Map Unit Summary by Map Unit — Douglas -Plateau___ Colorado, -------. Counties -ol --- Map unit symbol 7 32 44 Happle very channery sandy B loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes Totals tor Area of Interest Map unit name J_ Bledsaw-Sunup gravelly C foams, 10 to 40 percent slopes Rating Dominguez clay loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes C Description — Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Sons are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water Infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual lasses (ND, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Solis having a high Infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of Water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Sons having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that Impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Solis slow tion rate consist chiefly of days that ha a aihighh shrink-swelllpot poteh ntial, soils thatlhave a high when thoroughly atewet.r table, sobs that have a daypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly Impervious Acres le A01 72.6+ 0 Percent of AOI 63.0% http://websoilsurvey.nuts.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 9/1 7/7nnn 1 1 1 1 1 I( APPENDIX 13 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FDR -APPENDIX E Hydrograph Summary Report Hv ' Hydrograph type (origin) 2 SCS Runoff SCS Runoff Rational Kennels.gpw Peak flow (cfs) 37.33 17.07 6:00 Time interval (min) 6 6 1 Time to peak (min) 774 768 10 Volume (cuft) 364,727 152,403 4,804 Inflow hyd(s) Maximum elevation (ft) Return Period: 25 Year Maximum storage (cuft) Basin 1 Basin 2• Basin 3 Hydrograph description Wednesday, Feb 18 2009, 6:28 AM Hudroflnu. 1-..._. _.. . Hydrograph Summary Report Hyd. Hydrograph type (origin) 1 2 3 Peak flow (cfs) Time interval (min) Time to peak (min) Maximum elevation (ft) Maximum storage (cult) Hydrograph description SCS Runoff SCS Runoff Rational Pnnels.gpw 56.98 26.03 7.27 546,377 228,306 5,826 Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Return Period: 100 Year Wednesday, Feb 18 2009, 6:28 AM Hydrograph IDF Curves IDF file: The High Lonesome Ranch Kennels.IDF Ir' '-Uhr) 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 C 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 7.00 — 100-11 6.00 — - 25 -Yr 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450.00 50 55 60 ' Time (min) Hydraflow Hydrographs 2004 *************** HYDRO - Version 6.0 ST * * HEC19 / Design Event vs Return Period *Program *** * Date of Run: 02-13-** THR --- Input File: C:\HYDRO\THR.HDO IDF THR IDF CURVE Option Selected ... LOC 39 22 108 gg es19 --- The Latitude --- The Longitude�s is39 108edegrees222 19inutes. minutes. RPO 25 --- The Selected Return Period is 25 years. *** End of Command File 0 Page No 1 ***** HYDRO ***** (Version 6.0) ***** Date 02-13-** Page No 2 THR IDF Curve for Various Return Periods Intensities (in/h) Duration 25 Yr 2 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 5 min 50 Yr 100 Yr 15 min 4.616 2.836 3.586 4.038 5.034 5.430 15 min 3.566 2.057 2.680 3.065 3.935 4.289 30 min 2.837 1.516 2.050 2.389 3.171 3.496 1 60 min 909 .941 1.323 1.572 2.165 2.417 120 min 1.185 .550 •796 .96096 1.358 4 h .764 .355 .514.876 1.530 .446 .300 .362 .512 .987 16 h .128 .113 .164 .197 .279 .576 .059 .086 .315 24 h .087 .040 .058 .070 .099 •112 .112 intensity curve for THR Year Return Period Rainfall Intensity (in/h) versus Duration (h) 4.62* 3.46* 1.15. * .00 D .00 * * 6.00 12.00 ***** HYDRO ***** (Version 6.0) THR _= File Created on Intermediate Directory: THR.IDF Page 1 * 18.00 24.00 Date 02-13-** Page No 3 RATING CURVE FOR TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL tj Z ƒ$o« /& ) < LO 2 co co fD LO co LO w co 0) co cci co 7 co aS co 03 CD $ co to co co co 03 co in CO CO CD co to 03 CD 1.13 CD cm cd co ] 07 co / CD co CR CO 03 01 CO OD CO co STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL ufric awaiNE tac RECOMMENDED IMPERVIOUSNESS VALUES Land Use or Surface _Characteristic Business Commercial Areas Neighborhood Areas Residential Single Family Multi -unit (detached) Multi -unit (attached) Ralf -acre lot or larger Apartments Industrial Light industrial Heavy industrial. Parks, cemeteries Playgrounds Schools Railroad yards Undeveloped Areas Historic flow analysis Greenbelts, agriculture Off-site flow analysis (when land use not defined) Streets Paved (concrete/asphalt) Gravel Drives and walks Roofs Lawns (all soils) Percentage Imperviousness 95 85 (see figures) . 60 75 (see figures) 80 80 .90 5 10 50 15 45 100 40 90 90 0 NOTE: The imperviousness values are representative of land uses shown and are for future development projections only. Impervious values for existing land uses may vary. REFERENCE: UDFCD 2001. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1 Revision aw[iNAL'!SS(%E TABLE 701r STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL RATIONAL FORMULA RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS Equation: CCD = kco + (0.858P - 0.786/2 + 0.7741+0.04) CA = KA + (1.3113 - 1.4412+1.1351-0.12) CB = (CA + Cp0/2 NRCS Soil C and D A 0 -0.101+0.11 -0.081+0.09 -0.181+0.21 -0.141+0.1 -0.2811..33 0.191+0.24 Impervious • Decimal 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 • 0.6 • 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Type A -0.331+0.40 -0.221+0.28 -0.391+0.46 -0.251+0.32 2- ear 5 -yea, l0 -year 25 -year SO -year 100- ear 0.00 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.19 0.25 0.30 0 35 0.38 0.41 0 25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.42 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.54 0.56 0.54 0.56 0.60 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.77, 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.95 Impervious Decimal 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 2- ar 0 06 0.12 0.18 0.23 0.29 0.37 0.45 0.57 0.71 Type 13 5- ear 10- ear 50- ear 100- ear Impervious Decimal 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Type C and D Soil 2 ear 0.11 0.17 0.22 0.28 0.34 0.41 0.49 0.60 0.73 50- ear 100- ear 02 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.63 0.75 0.90 0.34 0.38 0.42 0.46 0.51 0.57 0.66 0.77 0.92 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.57 0.62 0.70 0.80 0.94 0.50 0.53 0.55 0.57 0.61 0.66 0.73 0.83 0.96 0.53 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.63 0.68 0.74 0.83 0.96 mem* issia- Otte J10706 REFERENCE: UDFCD 2001. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL TRAVEL VELOCITY FOR RATIONAL METHOD 100 - t Forest w ith heavy ground litter & — fallow — M fallow or nininum tillage cultivation — A short grass, pasture & lawns 10 %nearly bare ground.. • =..grassedwaferway —t paved areas, sheet fow,& a -- ,shallow gutter flow Velocity 0 • 0.001 0.01 0 1. Watercourse Slope (ft/ft) Review; Oeh' 0w6AAL astir :%1n/OS WITREFERENCE: t, Adapted from USDA, SCS 1975. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. TR 55 FIGURE 701 GEOTECHNICAL DWESTIGATION HIGH LONESOME RANCH - KF,NNELS DEBEQUE„ COLORADO PROJECT# 00815-60k smimmandrorater HIGH LONESOME RANCH 0275 222 ROAD DEBEQUE, COLORADO 81630 NOVEMBER 24, 2008 *1-luddieston-Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC • 640 White Avenue, Unit B Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A geotechnical investigation was conducted for a proposed new kennel facility at The High Lonesome Ranch near DeBeque, Colorado. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with respect to on-site sewage disposal, geologic hazards, foundation design, pavement design, and earthwork for the proposed construction. This summary has been prepared to include the information required by civil engineers, structural engineers, and contractors involved in the project. Subsurface Conditions (p. 2) The subsurface investigation consisted of eight test pits, excavated on November 6th, 2008. The locations of the test pit are shown on Figure 1 — Site Plan.. The test pits encountered sandy lean clay and clayey sand with gravel soils. Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits at the time of the investigation. The native clay soils were indicated to be slightly to moderately plastic and slightly collapsible. The native clayey sand soils were indicated to be slightly plastic. Summary of Foundation Recommendations • Foundation Type — Spread Footings or Monolithic Structural Slabs (p. 3) • Structural Fill — Minimum of 24 -inches below foundations. The native soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable for reuse as structural fill. Imported structural fill should consist of pit -run, CDOT Class 6 base course, or other granular material approved by the engineer. (p. 3) • Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity —1,250 psf. (p. 4) • Subgrade Modulus —150 pci for native soils and 250 pci for pit -run or CDOT Class 6 base course. (p. 4) • Lateral Earth Pressure — 50 pcf (p. 4) Summary of Pavement Recommendations (p. 5) Automobile Traffic EDLA = 5 Structural Number = ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT SECTION aches) Hot -Mix Asphalt Pavement CDOT Class 6 - Base Course CDOT Class 3 Subbase Course Rigid Pavement TOTAL Full Depth HMA 6.0 6.0 A 3.0 10.0 13.0 B 4.0 6.0 10.0 C 3.0 4.0 7.0 14.0 Rigid Pavement 6.0 5.0 11.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Truck Traffic EDLA = 20, Structural Number = 3.19 ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT SECTION (Inches) Hot -Mix Asphalt Pavement CDOT Class 6 Base Course CDOTCIass3 Subbase Course Rigid Pavement TOTAL Full Depth HMA 8.0 8.0 A 3.0 14.0 17.0 B 4.0 11.0 15.0 C 3.0 6.0 11.0 20.0 Rigid Pavement 6.0 6.0 12.0 For gravel pavements, a minimum of 12 -inches of gravel is recommended. On -Site Sewage Disposal (p. 6) Percolation testing indicated percolations rates of between approximately 12.3 minutes - per -inch to not percolating at all in the native clay soils. Therefore, the clay soils are generally not suitable for on-site sewage disposal. The percolation rates in the native clayey sand soils ranged from approximately 5.7 to 12.0 minutes -per -inch. Therefore, the native clayey sand soils are generallysuitable for on-site sewage disposal. However, four feet of suitable soils are generally required below the bottom of the absorption beds. Therefore, based upon the results of the subsurface investigation, over -excavation of unsuitable soils and replacement with suitable materials will likely be required for ISDS construction at this site. Ruddluslou-Bcuy Magian Tellbr., 1.0 INTRODUCTION As part of extensive development in western Colorado and surrounding areas, The High Lonesome Ranch near DeBeque proposes to construct a new kennel facility. As part of the development process, Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC (HBET) was retained by The High Lonesome Ranch to conduct a geotechnical investigation. The field investigation, laboratory testing, and analyses were designed to identify most of the geologic hazards common to the area including unstable slopes, swelling or collapsible soils and/or bedrock, soluble sulfates, and shallow groundwater. These issues can impact construction and will be discussed if present. 1.1 Scope As discussed above, a geotechnical investigation was conducted for a proposed new kennel facility at The High Lonesome Ranch near DeBeque, Colorado. The scope of the investigation included the following components: ■ Conducting a subsurface investigation to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site. • Collecting soil samples and conducting laboratory testing to determine the engineering properties of the soils at the site. • Providing recommendations for foundation type and subgrade preparation. • Providing recommendations for bearing capacity. • Providing recommendations for lateral earth pressure. • Providing recommendations for drainage, grading, and general earthwork. • Providing recommendations for pavement section alternatives. ■ Evaluating the site soils for on-site sewage disposal. The investigation and report were prepared by a Colorado registered professional engineer in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of The High Lonesome Ranch. 1.2 Site Location and Description The site is located along Garfield County Road 200, northwest of DeBeque, Colorado. At the time of the investigation, the site was generally open and sloped slightly down to the south. Vegetation at the site was minimal because ground work had been started. A gravel access road was also under construction at the time of the investigation. The site was bordered to the north and west by hills with fairly steep slopes, to the east by open land and to the south by open land and Garfield County Road 200. P:\2008 ALL PRO.IECTS100815 - High Lonesome Ranch\00815-OWI High Lonesome Ranch- High Lonesome Ranch l200- Gco100815-0001 Kennels RI I]A08.doc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 The laboratory testing results indicate that the native clay soils are slightly to moderately plastic. In addition, the native clay soils were shown to be slightly collapsible with up to approximately 3.0% collapse measured in the laboratory. The native clay sand' soils were indicated to be slightly plastic. Water soluble sulfates were detected in the site soils in a concentration of 100 parts -per -million (ppm). 4.0 . .CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Geologic Hazards The primary geologic hazards identified at the site are the presence of collapsible clay soils and the steep slopes northwest of the proposed structure locations. The collapsible soils are addressed in the Foundations section of this report. With regard to the steep slopes, no instabilities were observed in the slopes at the time of the investigation. In general, there are no geologic hazards which should preclude development of this site. 4.2 Foundations Based upon the subsurface conditions and nature of the proposed construction, shallow foundations are recommended. Spread footing and monolithic (turndown) structural slab foundations are both appropriate alternatives. However, the native clay soils were indicated to be slightly collapsible. Therefore in order to limit the potential for excessive differential settlements, it is recommended that the load bearing portions of the foundations be constructed above a minimum of 24 -inches of structural fill. With careful moisture control and proper compaction, the native soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable for reuse as structural fill. Imported structural fill should consist of a granular, non -expansive, non -free draining material such as pit -run or CDOT Class 6 base course. However, if pit -run is used as structural fill below the foundations, a minimum of six inches of Class 6 base course should be placed on top of the pit -run to prevent large point stresses on the bottoms of the foundations due to large particles in the pit -run. Prior to placement of structural fill, it is recommended that the bottoms of the foundation excavations be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 -inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density within ±2% of the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D698. Structural fill should extend laterally beyond the edges of the foundation a distance equal to the thickness of structural fill. Structural fill should be moisture conditioned, placed in maximum 8 -inch loose lifts, and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density for fine grained soils or modified Proctor maximum dry density for coarse grained soils, within ±2% of the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D698 or D1557C, respectively. Pit -run materials used as structural fill should be proofrolled to the Engineer's satisfaction. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Huddlaton.Bcny .}.ne,auw> LLC For the foundation building pad prepared as recommended with structural fill consisting of the native soils or imported granular materials, a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 1,250 psf may be used. In addition, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci may be used for structural fill consisting of the native clay soils. A modulus of 250 pci may be used for structural fill consisting of pit -run or CDOT Class 6 base course. Foundations subject to frost should be at least thirty-six inches below the final grade.. As discussed previously, water soluble sulfates were detected in the site soils in a concentration of' 100 ppm. This concentration represents a negligible degree of potential sulfate attack on concrete exposed to these soils. Therefore, sulfate resistant cement may not be required for construction at this site. 4.3 Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork In order to limit the potential for differential movement of slabs -on -grade, it is recommended that floor slabs and exterior flatwork be constructed abovesubgrade soils, below the topsoil, that have been scarified to a depth of 9 to 12 -inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density within *2% of the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D698. Slabs -on -grade should not be tied into or connected to the foundations in any manner. 4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures Any retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures. For backfill consisting of the native soils or imported granular, non -free draining, non - expansive material, we recommend that the walls be designed for an equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pcf in areas where no surcharge loads are present. Lateral earth pressures should be increased as necessary to reflect any surcharge loading behind the walls. 4.5 Drainage In order to improve the long-term performance of the foundations and slabs -on - grade, grading around the structures should be designed to carry precipitation and runoff away from the structures. It is recommended that the finished ground surface drop at least twelve inches within the first ten feet away from the structures. Downspouts should empty beyond the backfill zone. In addition, automatic irrigation is not recommended within five feet of the foundations. 4.6 Excavations Excavations in the soils at the site may stand for short periods of time but should not be considered to be stable. Trenching and excavations should be sloped back, shored, or shielded for worker protection in accordance with applicable OSHA standards. The site soils generally classify as Type C soil with regard to OSHA's Construction Standards for Excavations. For Type C soils, the maximum allowable slope in temporary cuts is 1.5H:1V. PA2008 ALL PROJECTS \ 00815 - High Lonesome Ranch100815.0001 High Lonesome Ranch- High Lonesome Raich1200. Geo100815-0001 Kemds R712408.doe 4 4.7 Pavements Huddleston -Bent nrJI.eb etnnt .Lsc The proposed construction is may include asphalt and/or gravel pavements: As discussed previously, the pavement subgrade materials consist primarily of lean clay soils. Due to the collapsible nature of the native clay soils, the minimum recommended Resilient Modulus of 3,000 psi will be used for the pavement design. Based upon the subgrade conditions and anticipated traffic loading, asphalt pavement section alternatives were developed in accordance with the Guideline for the Design and Use of Asphalt Pavements for Colorado Roadways by the Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association and concrete pavement alternatives were developed in accordance with AASHTO design criteria. The following minimum pavement section' alternatives are recommended: Automobile Traffic EDLA = 5, Structural Number = ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT SECTION (Inches) Not -Mix Asphalt Pavement CDOT Class 6 Base Course CDOT Class 3 Subbase Course Rigid Pavement ' TOTAL Full. Depth HMA 6.0 8.0 6.0 A 3.0 10.0 14.0 - 13.0 B 4.0 6.0 11.0 10.0 C 3.0 4.0 7.0 11.0 14.0 Rigid Pavement Rigid Pavement 6.0. 6.0 5.0, 11.0 Truck Traffic EDLA = 20, Structural Number = ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT SECTION (Inches) Hot -Mix Asphalt Pavement CDOT Class 6 Base Course CDOT Class 3 Subbase Course Rigid Pavement TOTAL Full Depth HMA 8.0 8.0 A 3.0 14.0 - 17.0 B 4.0 11.0 15.0 C 3.0 6.0 11.0 20.0 Rigid Pavement 6.0 6.0 12.0 Gravel pavement design was conducted in accordance with the FHWA Gravel Roads, Maintenance and Design manual. For gravel pavements at the site, a minimum gravel thickness of 1 2 -inches is recommended. Prior to pavement placement, areas to be paved should be stripped of all topsoil, fill, or other unsuitable materials. It is recommended that the subgrade soils be scarified to a depth of 12 -inches; moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density, within f2o% of optimum moisture content as determined by AASHTO T-99. Aggregate base course and subbase course should be placed in maximum 9 -inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 95% and 93% of the maximum dry density, respectively, at -2% to +3% of optimum moisture content as determined by AASHTO T-180. In addition to density testing, base course should be proofrolled to verify subgrade stability. P:1008 ALL PROJECTS100815- High Lonesome Ranch100815-0001 High Lonesome Ranch- High Lonesome Rnnch1200- Geo 100t15-0001 Kennels R1124084= 5 Buddlesion-Baty uMm¢,6 Talylse It is recommended that Hot -Mix Asphaltic (HMA) pavement conform to CDOT grading SX or S specifications and consist of an approved 75 gyration Superpave method mix design. HMA pavement should be compacted to between 92% and 96% of the maximum theoretical density. An end point stress of 50 psi should be used. In addition, pavements should conform to local specifications. Concrete used in pavements should consist of CDOT Class P concrete or alternative approved by the Engineer. The long-term performance of the pavements is dependent on positive drainage away from the pavements. Ditches, culverts, and inlet structures in the vicinity of paved areas must be maintained to prevent ponding of water on the pavement. 5.0 ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL As discussed previously, an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) is proposed for the site. In order to evaluate the suitability of the subsurface materials for on-site sewage disposal, percolation testing was conducted at the site on November 7th, 2008. Percolation testing was conducted in the native soils in Test Pits TP -1, TP -2, TP -3, TP -6, TP -7, and TP -8. In the native clay soils, the percolation rates ranged from 12.3 minutes -per -inch to not percolating at all. In the native clayey sand soils, the percolation rates ranged from 5.7 to 12.0 minutes -per -inch. The percolation testing data are included in Appendix D. Generally, percolation rates of between 5 and 60 minutes -per -inch are acceptable. C Therefore, the native clay soils are generally not suitable for on-site sewage disposal. The native clayey sand soils are generally suitable for on-site sewage disposal. However, four feet of suitable soils are generally required below the bottom of the absorption bed. For an absorption bed in the vicinity of TP -1, TP -2, and TP -3, it will likely be necessary to remove the clay soils to a depth of at least four feet below the bottom of the absorption bed and replace them with suitable granular material. In addition, as indicated in the test pit logs, the low percolation clay soils were encountered below the clayey sand soils at a depth of only 4.0 feet in TP -6. As a result, it may be necessary to over -excavate a portion of the clay soils and replace them with clayey sand soils or other suitable granular material to provide four feet of suitable soils below the bottom of the absorption bed in this area also. In addition to the percolation rate of the soils, the seasonal high groundwater elevation is an important factor in determining the suitability of the site for Individual — Sewage Disposal Systems. For ISDS suitability, the seasonal high groundwater elevation should be at least four feet below the bottom of the proposed absorption bed. As discussed previously, groundwater was not encountered in the test pits at the time of the investigation. In general, shallow groundwater is not anticipated to impact on-site sewage disposal at this site. P:�?008 ALL PROTECTS 00815- High Lonesome RanchW08154001 High LonesomeRanch- High Lonesome RanchL00. Ceo100B15-0001 Kennels RI 12408.doe 6 Auddlesron-Reny With proper design, construction, and maintenance of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems, HBET believes that the effluent produced from the proposed kennels and duplex residential structure are not anticipated to adversely impact surrounding properties 6.0 GENERAL The recommendations included above are based upon the results of the subsurface investigation and on our local experience. These conclusions and recommendations are valid only for the proposed construction. As discussed previously, the subsurface conditions at the site were slightly variable. However, the precise nature and extent of subsurface variability may not become evident until construction. Therefore, it is recommended that a representative of HBET be retained to provide engineering oversight and construction materials testing services during the foundation, pavement, and earthwork phases of the construction. This is to verify compliance with the recommendations included in this report or permit identification of significant variations in the subsurface conditions which may require modification of the recommendations. Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC is pleased to be of service to your project. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report. Respectfully Submitted: Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC Michael A. Berry, P.E. Vice President of Engineering E.UIDHTReccm ltrgccIs1008I5- IRA lonesome Ranch\00815-0001 ILO Lonesome Ranch- Ffigh lonesome RanchVA0- CW00815.0001 Krnub R1124011.doc 7 FIGURES 3/41 ‘.iiii- _= 1iiIljliili �.'1 �: '/�)/ii,/Illi/'i%:'= / 11jjj1111111\ ii/1/4 .- i" -___ ��/ 11l I tf 111111 //�i'_�'"' -`--.../ //H i,M ill 7//1 -' � / ////?I r/'/ ,' i -.' i /' '/j / III >�i a, vl / / , . -/ / // / I I1 /......) i0i// / �, k�� , / !" , / /"' - ! 1 111 1 ! -- WHIM' 1!rr/ / ""// ".. i / \11\ / 111111!//1,00 1 / 1 1 /" ' :..........„1 \111 I11/1/1///f 11 1 1 I " ." "'"'/'".'"�as./.11 Il1111 P l ! I 1 F+ \ � I\ \ 1 i / � /4" '' '' /'/'"I It ifh111j1 1 \j, \ \• I-\\\ I\ 1\ 1\ '� j / / // / i II �jlilt \ 1. • 11+:\ \ \ \ •I ' / / 1 1 l\\\\�� ''P1 - \\ \`\` \\\\ I ! � / / / I151�� \ \\\\\\ �\ \`\''''s.`\\ \\\ t / / 1 ti 1n}nn� Itt �N s, \‘.....‘••%N• \\\\ \\ \\1\t \1 1\\I`I II I j / ti I 111, \\\\ \ \\ �`v N.%•‘%'....;%\ \ \ \ t I l j \I \ 11 11 \\ t \ I ! \\\ 1 11 \\ f `.`\ \ "'P P. I I I I I I I 1 1 \l 1 \\ \1 \\ \\ •\\\ \\ °\. lin" i101‘ I 1 \\iC'1r_ tip+\l !1t?!l +1?1\t.\ •_ p p qty 111I/ 11 IIII 10 R�—� l l l I Ib 11{ W 11111 1111 h.Ilf 1111 p111 I1. a1 t1 .1 111 ii.1 !.1 1w1 1 ! I -. 11/AiIiN:iv va It ik•t441 E44 / r - \\ ♦++�H 141/ /. r : _ .i/ \\\II 4.,, ▪ - \‘\\\••\‘‘\\\\\\\\\ \‘`,.‘, �_(I" \off'., /I�y 1\11 �\\\\x-,r\\\o\\ »•\�\• F•` -- /i �.... q w -. • • \ \ \ • q • •- s 4 11 11 I rm I\A .\ • • 1311. etsk! eta: t,a E 1 I 1 1 CLIENT High Lonesome Ranch 8 0 x r Huddleston -Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC 640 White Avenue, Unit B Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-255-8005 970.255-6818 PROJECT NUMBER 00815-0001 DATE STARTED 11/6/08 COMPLETED 11/7/08 DRILLING CONTRACTOR Client DRILLING METHOD Backhoe LOGGED BY AS CHECKED BY MAB NOTES 0.0 0 0 BORING NUMBER Kennels TP -2 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME High Lonesome Ranch PROJECT LOCATION DeBegue, CO GROUND ELEVATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF DRILLING d AT END OF DRILLING dr AFTER DRILLING — HOLE SIZE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2.5 Sandy CLAY with Organics (TOPSOIL), trace gravel, light brown, dry Sandy Lean CLAY (d), brown to purplish brown, dry, stiff Bottom of hole at 3.0 feet. rr ATTERBERG ung LIMITS rt OZ O 2U O� 276Th Huddleston -Bevy Engineering & Testing, LLC 640 White Avenue, Unit B Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-255-8005 970-255-6818 CLIENT Hiqh Lonesome Ranch PROJECT NUMBER 00815.0001 DATE STARTED 11/6/08 COMPLETED 11/7/08 DRILLING CONTRACTOR Client BORING NUMBER Kennels TP -5 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Hiqh Lonesome Ranch PROJECT LOCATION DeBeque, CO DRILLING METHOD Backhoe LOGGED BY AS CHECKED BY MAB NOTES GROUND ELEVATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF DRILLING dry HOLE SIZE AT END OF DRILLING dry AFTER DRILLING — 1 a•-• Ov 0.0 2 QO rc J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w I} w m a Z Clayey SAND with Gravel and Organics (TOPSOIL), light brown, dry •L�4. • Sandy Lean CLAY (CL),trace gravel, light brown, dry, medium stiff 0 a 5.0 0 x 0 8 _ o 9 7.5 GB -1 Lab CLassified MC 1 7GB 1 wg ccW 0z M ATTERBERG LIMITS off 0- -1 J U' 6 29 15 14 69 APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Results 0�,,� . t� Huddleston-Beny Engineering & Testing, LLC 640 White Avenue, Unit B Grand Junction, CO 81501 �• 970-255-8005 970-255.6818 CLIENT Hich Lonesome Ranch PROJECT NUMBER 00815-0001 60 50 P L A s 40 T 1 C 30 Y I p 20 E X 10 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS PROJECT NAME High Lonesome Ranch PROJECT LOCATION DeBegue, CO CO CL -ML 0 0 Specimen Identification • TP -1, GB1 11/2008 26 18 8 62 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) CD TP -4 G61 11/2008 33 15 18 83 LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL) — TP -5 GB1 11/2008 29 15 14 69 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) * TP -6 GB1 11/2008 24 14 10 38 CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC) 20 LL PL 40 PI #200 60 LIQUID LIMIT Classification 80 100 LONESOME RANCH- HIGH LONESOME RANCH.GPJ GINT US LAB.GOT 11/21/08 Huddleston -Bevy Engineering & Testing, LLC 640 White Avenue, Unit B _ Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-255-8005 970-255-6818 CLIENT High Lonesome Ranch PROJECT NUMBER 00815-0001 CONSOLIDATION TEST PROJECT NAME High Lonesome Ranch PROJECT LOCATION DeBeque, CO • a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 100 1,000 STRESS, psf 10,000 Specimen Identification Classification Yd MC% • Kennels TP -1 2.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 89 8 C7 Huddleston-Berry Engineering & Testing, LLC MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP 640 White Avenue, Unit B Grand Junction, CO 81501 970-255-8005 S970-255-6818 :LIENT High Lonesome Ranch PROJECT NAME High Lonesome Ranch PROJECT NUMBER 00815-0001 PROJECT LOCATION DeBeque, CO 150 Sample Date: 11/7/2008 Sample No.: 1 145 Kennels Source of Material: TP -5 Description of Material: SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) ASTM D698A Test Method: 140 135 TEST RESULTS Maximum Dry Density 112.6 PCF Optimum Water Content 14.5 % 130 GRADATION RESULTS (% PASSING) #200 #4 3/4" 125 69 99 100. _ _1g w120 ATTERBERG LIMITS 0 I PL PI o 15 14 i 115 \i9L Curves of 100% Saturation for Specific Gravity Equal to: reN\ 2.80 110 2.70 2.60 105 - 100 95 \ 900 5 10 15 20 25 30 WATER CONTENT, % PERCOLATION TESTING Project Name: High Lonesome Ranch- Kennels Location: DeBeque, CO Testing Conducted By: Pit Dimensions: Length Water Level Depth: SOIL PROFILE A. Sigler Project No. 00815-0001 Test Pit No. TP -1 Date: 11/7/2008 Supervising Engineer: M. Berry ; Width ; Depth 7 ft Not Encountered X Remarks 0-1 Sandy CLAY with Organics (TOPSOIL), brown, dry Change (in.) 1-7 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), brown to purplish brown, dry, stiff 5 5.4375 3.6250 10 7.0000 1.5625 15 8.1250 1.1250 Test Number. 1 Top of Hole Depth: 0 ft Diameter of Hole: 4.5 in Depth of Hole: 15 in Time (min.) Water Depth (in.) Change (in.) 0 1.8125 5 5.4375 3.6250 10 7.0000 1.5625 15 8.1250 1.1250 20 9.0000 0.8750 25 9.7500 0.7500 30 10.5000 0.7500 35 11.1250 0.6250 40 11.7500 0.6250 45 12.2500 0.5000 50 12.7500 0.5000 55 13.1875 0.4375 60 13.5625 0.3750 r 1 Rate (min/in): 12.3 Average Percolation Rate (min/in): Test Number. 2 Top of Hole Depth: 3 ft Diameter of Hole: 4.5 in Depth of Hole: 13 in Time (min.) Water Depth (in.) Change (in.) 0 1.5000 5 2.8750 1.3750 10 3.2500 0.3750 15 4.2500 1.0000 20 4.9375 0.6875 25 5.3750 0.4375 30 6.0000 0.6250 35 6.3750 0.3750 40 6.7500 0.3750 5 7.0625 0.3125 50 7.4375 0.3750 55 7.7500 0.3125 60 8.0625 0.3125 r 1 Rate (min/in): 15.2 Test Number. 3 Top of Hole Depth: 6 ft Diameter of Hole: 4.5 in Depth of Hole: 14in Time (min.) Water Depth (in.) Change (in.) 0 1.0625 5 3.6250 2.5625 10 4.6250 1.0000 15 5.2500 0.6250 20 5.7500 0.5000 25 6.3750 0.6250 30 7.0000 0.6250 35 7.3750 0.3750 40 40 7.8125 0.4375 45 8.1875 0.3750 50 8.5000. 0.3125 55 8.7500 02500 60 ' 9.0000. 0.2500 1 Rate (min/in):18.5 c PERCOLATION TESTING Project Name: High Lonesome Ranch- Kennels Testing Conducted By: Pit Dimensions: Length Water Level Depth: SOIL PROFILE A. Sigler Location: DeBeque, CO Project No. 00815-0001 Test Pit No. TP -7 Date: 11/7/2008 Supervising Engineer: M. Berry ; Width ; Depth 3 ft Not Encountered X Remarks VGFAi 1 0-1 V6JVI 1p11.nI Clayey SAND with Gravel, Cobbles and Organics (TOPSOIL), light brown, dry Change (in.) 1-3 Clayey SAND with Gravel (sc), light brown, dry, medium dense 5 4.8125 3.6250 10 7.5000 2.6875 15 9.3125 1.8125 20 10.7500 Test Number. 1 Top of Hole Depth: 0 ft Diameter of Hole: 4.5 in Depth of Hole: 14 in Time (min.) Water Depth (in.) Change (in.) 0 1.1875 5 4.8125 3.6250 10 7.5000 2.6875 15 9.3125 1.8125 20 10.7500 1.4375 25::: :11`.7500 1.0000;' 30 12:6875 ` 0.9375 35 13.2500: 0,5625 40 EMPTY 0.5000 45 11:2500 0.4375 50 11.6875. 0.4375 55 12.1250 0.4375 60 12.5000 0.3750 Rate (min/in):6 Average Percolation Rate (min/in): Test Number. 2 Top of Hole Depth: 3 ft Diameter of Hole: 4.5 in Depth of Hole: 14 in Time (min.) Water Depth (in.) Change (in.) 0 1.1875 5 4.2500 3.0625 10 5.7500 1.5000 15 7.0000 1.2500 20 8.0000 1.0000 25. 9.0000 1.0000 30 9.7500 0.7500 35 10.3125 0.5625 40 10.8125 0.5000 45 '' 11:2500 0.4375 50 ' 11.6875. 0.4375 55 12.1250 0.4375 60 12.5000 0.3750 Rate (min/in): 11.9 Test Number: Top of Hole Depth: Diameter of Hole: Depth of Hole: .....""'RESOURCE ■... ■ ....■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Collin Kenny Building Construction and Maintenance Manager #10 Enterprises LLC PO Box 88 DeBeque, CO 81630 RE: #10 Enterprises, LLC Kennel Water Supply Sufficiency Dear Collin: April 24, 2009 In partial compliance with Section 7-104 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution adopted January 1, 2009, this letter summarizes the opinion and findings of Resource Engineering, Inc. RESOURCE) regarding the adequacy of the physical water supply for the proposed kennel. Opinion The well drilled to serve the kennel has adequate quantity and reliability for the intended purpose The well is capable of reliably and continuously pumping a minimum of 15 gallons per minute (gpm), the maximum pumping rate allowed under an exempt well permit. This is approximately 85 times the estimated demand of the kennel. The minimal groundwater withdrawal will have negligible impact on the regional groundwater resource. This opinion is based on a 24 hour well pumping test conducted on April 17 and 18. 2009, my educational background in groundwater hydrology, and my 25 years of professional experience in groundwater evaluations. Well Construction The kennel well was constructed in late February, 2009 by Shelton Drilling, Corporation under monitoring and observation well permit No. 279876. The well is 95 feet deep and is completed with 7 5/8" steel surface casing and 5 inch PVC production casing. Slotted casing was installed in the producing zone from 75- 95 feet below the top of the surface casing. At the time of drilling the static water level was 56 feet from the top of the well casing (TOC). A two hour pump test was conducted by Samuelson Pump Co. on March 2, 2009 which concluded that the well was capable of 21 gallons per minute (gpm) with total drawdown of only 2.8 feet. 24 Hour Pump Test A 24 Hr. pump test was conducted under the direction of Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) on April 17 and18, 2009. The pump was set approximately 68 feet below the top of casing. The initial water level was 54.84 feet below the TOC. The pumping Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO B1 901 • (970) 945-8777 ■ Fax (970)945-1137 Mr. Collin Kenny, Building Construction and Maintenance Manager #10 Enterprises, LLC 4/24/2009 Page 2 of 3 rate was adjusted over the first 10 minutes of the test. After 10 minutes the pumping rate was a constant 15.5 gpm. Drawdown data was collected at 1 minute intervals during pumping and recovery using a pressure transducer and data logger. Hand data was collected for the first 30 minutes using a well sounder. The drawdown in the well during the pumping period is shown in Figures 1 and 2. The maximum drawdown was 1.76 feet (56.60' from TOC) after 573 minutes of pumping. The pump was off from 573 — 599 minutes after which time pumping resumed. The data suggests that the total drawdown at the end of the 24 hour test might have been approximately 1.9 feet had the pump run continuously. The majority of the drawdown occurred in the first 5 minutes of the test; there was only 0.17 feet of drawdown from 5 minutes to the maximum drawdown of 1.76 feet at 573 minutes. At the end of the test approximately 38 feet of water remained in the well. This is a large safety margin against the well pumping dry. Over the 24 hour pumping period 22,180 gallons was pumped. This is 85 times the a maximum estimated daily demand of 260 gallons for the kennel (see Demand section below) Figure 3 depicts the water level recovery in the well in the 24 hours after pumping ceased. The well approached, but did not reach complete recovered at T/T' = 2 indicating that, at the time of the test, the well was not completely recharged at a rate equal or greater than the 15.5 gpm pumping rate. This is very typical of wells situated in aquifers that are seasonally recharged. The well can be expected to drawdown for most of the year and then recover during snowmelt or rainfall events. The majority of water wells in Western Colorado exhibit this behavior. Water Demand The kennel will house up to 46 dogs and require two full time employees. There will be sanitary facilities for the employees and washdown capability for the kennel. Wastewater will be treated in a septic system. The kennel washdown system will use a water treatment and recovery system so the water is recycled and reused for washdown. Only makeup water is required for the washdown which makes the entire kennel operation very water efficient. 'S The maximum annual kennel demand has been conservatively (on the high side) estimated to be 94,900 gallon per year (260 gallons per day) based on the following �l?( r. .; . assumptions: i. 2 employees @ 15 gal/day ii. 46 dogs @ 5 gal/day. The majority of this demand is allocated to washdown with the conservative assumption that there is no recycling system. �J P' ::� "".RESOURCE 1.111 E N G I N E F R 1 N 6 I N C. Mr. Collin Kenny, Building Construction and Maintenance Manager #10 Enterprises, LLC 4/24/2009 Page 3 of 3 With the recycling system annual demand is estimated to be approximately 30,000 to 50,000 gallons per year, well below the exempt commercial limitation (80 — 140 gallons per day). Conclusion The kennel well is an excellent well and more than adequate to reliably supply the amount of water required by the kennel. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, ,—J\ -.p AO.., to1t' RESOURCE EJ GINEE1l'N$, ,( j yid y. y/ i/gyp : o: O. / -' John M. Currier,r ..•' -i Water Resources'Epttto `t— JMC/jmc file:848-1.9 attachments cc: Jeff Dolan, Esq. Rob Pierce, Esq. :::::RESOURCE N f. I N E E R I N G INC O O 0 N J E y d d O .2 o o Lies 11) O o a itit O o O N a 9°00 O N 0 0 •- (4884) UMOPMBJQ O 6 O 0 0 Y 1O O W m 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M a N (O N- (001 woi;;aa;) uMopMeJ0 o o co ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Ln O 0 in 0 10 0 o N N M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 (;ee;) umopmeia unwed in 1h 0 3 _a) W. CC. I 0: (0 /W; u.. rs� M 0 0 T z O N C 0 3 .6 1 n (D (D (, sD N O C r -r 1 „ON x„85x„8S o, 0 0 v 0 'D (0 rt (7) rt 3 (D X X N W 0 F-� -o N 0 3 0 J00(3 peatpan W 0 73 N O Jal8 oilsawoa vo v (D ca. 0 00 F' (D r, n 0 QO (D 3 Suimn8 alsem pasodoid Biological Recycle/Discharge System elk V This system offers models available for either Recycle or Discharge operations. Each unit offers lded benefits, such as: • Lower maintenance than any recycle system on the market today. • Low operating cost. • Simple equipment operation. RIM MI=TM•ceRPonAl ou, NEMA -4 rated corrosion - proof control panel for safe and reliable operation. Recycle systems are equipped with a bronze manifold to withstand heat and high pressure. Mazzer venturi air injection system sustains beneficial aerobic microbes, while destroying odor causing anaerobic bacteria. Options: Part # Description WX-0005 Ozone for BIO -25R -1M10 WX-0015 Ozone for BIO -35R -1M10 zone not available on aluminum models BIO -25R-011910 Model # Flow Rate Biological Media Tank Capacity Material of Construction Sump Pump Power Requirements Dimensions L x W x H Shipping Weight BIO -200-0M10 0-20 GPM 2,304 sq.ft. 890 gal. Marine Aluminum Standard 230V, 10, 20 amps 8' x 4' x 4' 950 lbs. B10 -20D -1M10 0-20 GPM 2,304 sq.ft. 890 gal. Stainless Steel Standard 230V, 10, 20 amps 8' x 4' x 4' 950 lbs. BIO -25R -0M10 0-25 GPM 3,456 sq.ft. 1,434 gal. Marine Aluminum Standard 230V, 10, 25 amps 12' x 6' x 4'e, 1,400 lbs. BIO -25R -1M10 0-25 GPM 3,456 sq.ft. 1,434 gal. Stainless Steel Standard 230V, 10, 25 amps 12' x 6' x 4' 1,400 lbs. BIO -35R -0M10 0-35 GPM 6,480 sq.ft. 2,244 gal. Marine Aluminum Standard 230V, 10, 25 amps 12' x 6' x 5' 1,900 lbs. BI0-35R-1M10 0-35 GPM 6,480 sq.ft. 2,244 gal. Stainless Steel Standard 230V, 10, 25 amps 12' x 6' x 5' 1,900 lbs. R - designates recycle Scott Hall From: Deborah Quinn Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 2:42 PM To: Scott Hall Subject: high lonesome Scott: Comments: 1. Ownership issues: need a Garfield County recorded DEED and statement of authority. The deed provided was recorded in Mesa county. 2. I couldn't find any assessor map that shows what the total property is or identifying adjacent owners or a list of mineral owners. The Mesa County deed lists a number of mineral estate severed interests and all the urrent i owners of those interests must be identified and notified. -- ; �{ „z � lor ) 3. It's unclear what the overall property is. The 2006 SUP approval (page 2 of which was missing in my packet) and the staff report says that SUP for the Resort was for 30-50 acres of a 13,000 acre ranch. Some of the drawings seem to indicate there may be more than one non-contiguous parcels included in the ranch, but it is really unclear. The cabins seem to be spread out everywhere. We need an assessor's map that clearly delineates all the "ranch" property with parcel ID #'s, and clearly delineates all the adjacent properties and relates the PID's to the owners of the adjacent land in some fashion. 4. The two well permits do not allow for use of these wells other than from water monitoring and sampling. So, no evidence of any water supply. 5. What are they asking for? One of the documents on preservation of native vegetation says the application is for a duplex, kennel and bird enclosure for game birds. Since part of the original SUP approval is missing, I am just guessing that the existing "Resort" is for bird hunting??? So now they are adding dog training as well as a bird storage area, so to speak. And I'm assuming they are continuing the original use, but this seems to be an accessory or an amendment to the original SUP. Planning issue, for you and Fred to figure out, just a comment from me. That's it, call if you have questions. Deborah Quinn Assistant Garfield County Attorney 108 8th Street, Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9150 Fax (970) 384-5005 CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or other use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete the email without further disclosure. 1 HOGAN & HARTSON May 4, 2009 Fred Jarman Director of Building and Planning Garfield County 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Fred: RE CEIVED MAY 0 5 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: #10 Enterprises Dog Kennel Application Hogan & Hartson LIP One Tabor Center, Suite 1500 1200 Seventeenth Street Denver, CO 80202 +1.303.899.7300 Tel +1.303.899.7333 Fax www.hhlaw.com Jeff Dolan (303) 454-2484 jjdolan@hhlaw.com Thank you for your April 29, 2009 letter announcing that the application for the #10 Enterprises Dog Kennel has been deemed technically complete. We are pleased that the approval process is moving forward, and are looking forward to the June 8th hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. We are working diligently to ensure that we comply with all aspects of the County's notice requirements that you explained in your letter. In addition, you requested eight copies of the completed application. Please find those copies enclosed. If you need anything else, or if you need additional information from us prior to the June 8t'' hearing, please do not hesitate to let us know. Again, thank you for your assistance, and your continued attention to our application. With best wishes, and S' cere J-ff of Enclosures . 1. ..cr . , � � I � Neo Cnyon ets-kti ENE • NJl m' Cu/ ry �.4 H The High Lonesome Ranch EXACTLY AS WILD AS YOU WANT. The High Lonesome Kennel Site Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212. The site results in approximately 4 acres of disturbance. A. Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural -appearing land forms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed slopes per the site plan exhibit A. B. Contouring and Revegetation. Abrupt angular transitions and linear placement on visible slopes shall be avoided. Areas disturbed by grading shall be contoured so they can be revegetated, and shall be planted and shall have vegetation established and growing based on 70% coverage as compared with the original on-site vegetation within two (2) growing seasons, using species with a diversity of native and/or desirable non-native vegetation capable of supporting the post -disturbance land use. B1. All disturbed areas further than 10 feet from the buildings will be revegatated to 70% coverage within 2 growing seasons. All areas will be revegatated with dry land native grasses (Mixture of Blue grama - Bouteloua gracilis(HBK) Lag. ex Steud., Indian Ricegrass - Oryzopsis hymenoides (Roem. and Schult.), Ephraim Crested Wheatgrass - Agropyron cristatum 'Ephraim' , Western Wheatgrass - Agro pyron smith Rydb., applied at a rate of 6 lbs. / acre. Seeding will be proceeded by working the soil with a disc, harrow„ combination. A light mulch of grass hay will be applied at 2000 pounds per acre after seeding. 82. The areas within 10 feet of all buildings will be established into a xeriscape low maintenance, low water environment with native grasses (Black Grama Bouteloua eriophoda, Buffalo Grass Buchloe dactyloides, Spike Mukly Muhlenbergia wrightii, applied at a rate of 3 lbs. / 1000 sq. ft. with wood and rock accents as appropriate. This will assist with rainfall runoff from the buildings and a fire suppression a. B3. Areas B and E will have a low use watering system. The site will have trees planted (Deciduous Varieties along the border of the reclaimed area and xeriscaping.) C. Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. To the maximum extent feasible, disturbed areas shall be revegetated t desired plant community with composition of weed -free species and plant covert g o a exhibit 8.ypical to that site. See D. Application of Top Soil. Top soil shall be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas. All top soil will be stored on disturbed areas during the construction process with replacement at and around all structures to provide adequate coverage for plant growth. E. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls made of wood, stone, vegetation or other materials that blend with the natural landscape shall be used to reduce the steepness of cut slopes and to provide planting pockets conducive to revegetation. Should not have excessive slopes to deal with. F. Slash Around Homes. To avoid insects, diseases and wildfire hazards all vegetative residue, slushiness branches, limbs, stumps, roots, or other such flammable lot -clearing debris shall be removed from all areas of the lot in which such materials are generated or deposited, prior to final building inspection approval. All slash, vegetative residue, slushiness, branches, limbs, stumps, roots, or other such flammable lot-clearin debris will be removed from the property as an ongoing activity to the building g before final inspection. g process. Completely removed Post Office Box 88 + 0275 County Road 222 + DeBeque, Colorado 81630 + 970.283.9420 + TheHighLonesomeRanch.com G. Removal of Debris. Within six months of substantial completion of soil disturbance all brush, stumps and other debris shall be removed from the site. AH debris will be removed from the disturbed areas of the construction sites before the building construction begins. H. Time Line Plan. Every area disturbed shall have a time line approved for the reclamation of the site approved by the County and a security shall be provided to Garfield County in an amount of $2,500 per disturbed acre to be reclaimed prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. H1. Upon acceptance of a grading permit, immediately the top soil will be removed and stock piled. All subsoil will be removed and stockpiled separately. H2. Once the building construction is complete the reclamation will begin, Topsoil will be replaced in disturbed areas. Placement of all trees will be first. Following that a watering system will be installed for the trees and xeriscape areas. Then the disturbed areas will be tilled and prepped for seeding. Once ready the seeding will take place. After seeding we will place the mulch covering over seeded areas. H3 A security will be provided prior to the issuance of the land use change permit. Issuance of Permits: assumed mid June 2009 Removal of topsoil's and subsoil's: Completed in two weeks. Replacement of top soils: After completion of construction approx. eight weeks later Placement of trees and install xeriscape area: First week after completion of construction Install watering system: First week after completion of construction Prepare seeding areas: Second week after completion of construction Plant seeding areas: Third week after completion of construction Mulch seeded areas: Third week after completion of construction Collin Kenney Building Construction & Maintenance Manager t ilin .11 11 1�'r?' 111.6-14111,;* rlyl.Vllllllllll,,((I t / ! •� \\.:4.%\,,,c \ Q\ .,111t11\111't� I ' / ✓ ' \ • 1114 1(1\"Ines _ \ \\\:1UIT11\ / k\\ • 4j ��— _ \."1114 '.i,'I � 1-'- J. \ �Ilil—v... j / if uw!N"c x \\\\\\1`\III / // \ % - /i' �``�: _ �__ ,lilli�l,lllllliiill I II -`�. \ \�._ 111' /aS\�`\\�\1i I 1 / // /� -- — �.:11hn1fQ@li'f�lll'�' \ 5'f� 111111 a a y.;\\� l\\ 1/ — \ !I,{I I I d till l`il . �; q+° I I 1 i f r 4\b 1 / l i _ `\ 1 I l ,lid ��p I I 1 �74�i11 `\�\\ \ / / // �i \\\lill/lll !I�IIILIl111i�'i 9"� Illll'4l / / ;� ) f . , �\,o1i14.U\ \1, 1 / — \ b p i' �r411i 9' y o Illlll,l i q-'1 —' 1 1,4:.i71i ��;1\1\�\\`\�\ 1 %` �. �J / \ 11 l'' 1�S'-fd- `�=•'.5 III\�� // %"7 \per �1I l� / / _— 1111117.11,11.,11:1,0411,:, >"r.`�F �11111\ ` / �,A\\\\-., t l ! / / ��\ `tip 11111y11 ' ���.' / / / i` — _ IIIII le a`9 likes.. — i2" -.' 1\`�„�tl ��% `�y"R�. \\ i / I / / / 11111 L,- 5�`• � i��\� ` = / / l i • «,,i1 /�ilE•\\� / ,r ^\ r'llJ/J/%J. /// ^ \I N. „ �, I.IgrneIfiE's BEE Stertl // OS // Wets - \ -\ 1 1 s %\ l I til --• /-- \ \ � / _\ t i \ ` \ ALLU A \ — \ \ \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ N. \ \ \ / %, Ifa i • 1 I1 rS7D. > - sem— 10_ --ENTERPRISE t / f 6(411;1 4. n n D D ww ww Pi w IP 9 tri 9 N 0 0 0 O 3.g.? n w > w 9 6 6 0. 6 gt 2 2 2 2 y w w w w m m m 00 00 w N 00 N N N ' m tel r 3 a o a -n /A Nn k' w •J TDI N m . �� 0 0 N N 7• / 0 0 0 0 0 a X HLa The High Lonesome Ranch EXACTLY AS WILD AS YOU WANT. Rhino Team Response to Garfield County Comments— The High Lonesome Ranch Kennels Project Page 21 Item #8 — ISDS System An engineered ISDS design is complete. Wastewater effluent entering the ISDS includes staff/visitor use, food prep area, and dog grooming area. No effluent from the kennels is planned to enter the ISDS system. The system includes a minimum 1250 gallon capacity septic tank and a 12 feet by 60 feet seepage bed with four feet of soil replacement to insure an adequate soil media filter. See Rhino Engineering Individual Sewage Disposal System Exhibit A Page 22 #16 (Garfield County Engineer Comments) a. Storage Tank Volume The water distribution system for the Kennels and Duplex are engineered systems. Rhino Engineering, Inc. completed the design to supply watertoeach facility. The final water supply and system design report will be completed during the week of June 8th. The size of lines and storage tanks are based on system hydraulic losses and anticipated storage based on daily usage rates. Materials are based on typical projects of this type under current industry standards. The recommended storage tanks for the project include a 6,000 gallon tank for the duplex and an 8,000 gallon tank for the kennels. These tank sizes are larger than the minimum required for daily usage in case of power outage to the well pumps. Storage reserves will allow satisfactory time to service electric shortages. b. Duplicate Water Lines Two separate water systems are required by the State of Colorado and are based on type of usage, i.e., use at the duplex, and use at the dog kennel. This will be discussed in the forthcoming water supply and system report. c. ISDS/Water Line Separation During construction, coordination with Garfield County Building Department will be maintained such that the minimum required separation distances between domestic water and wastewater systems will be maintained. The project is aware of minimum setback distances required for health regulations. e. Pipe Route on Hillside The intent of installing the water lines on the hillside, instead of along the narrow driveway winding around the hill, is to have a "more or less" straight line from point to point to minimize hydraulic losses in the system. This will create less disturbance and be more economical. By installing the water lines "up the hill", less damage may occur to the water distribution system due to potential freeze under the road and structural damage due to vehicular traffic. Any visual impacts occurring on the slope because of installation of the buried pipes will be addressed by revegetation of the slope. Native grasses will be applied upon completion of water project. Post Office Box 88 + 0275 County Road 222 + peBeque, Colorado 81630 + 970.283.9420 + TheHighLonesomeRanch.com Kennel Solid Waste The ISDS system is only accommodating wastewater effluent from the staff usage, food prep area, and the dog grooming area. No waste from the kennels is entering the ISDS system. f. Solid Waste The solid waste will be manually removed and disposed of in an approved landfill. g. Recycle Water Storage Tank The design/construction plans are per the manufacturer's specifications (Custom Industries) for recycling of water for the washing/wastewater operations of the kennels. h. Sludge The sludge will be disposed in an approved landfill. It will not be sent to the septic tank. i. Treatment System Drain The flow chart and "arrows" shows the routing or recycling of the treatment water and wastes. None of the flow is sent to the septic tank. The drain coming from the three circulation tanks is routed back to the initial separation tank and inserted back through the waste system. No waste effluences are introduced into any septic or surface areas. See exhibit B ecember 18, 2008 1229 North 23rd Street, Suite 201 • Grand Junction, Colorado 61501 (970) 241-6027 • Fax: (970) 256-7992 www.rhinoengineers.com • email: reinc23@gwest.net Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8t Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Individual Sewage Disposal System Kennels Facility The High Lonesome Ranch Garfield CR #200 To Building and Planning Department: The design for the individual sewage disposal system, located at The High Lonesome Ranch, accessed via Garfield County Road #200, north of Debeque, Colorado, is attached. The site is located about 2 miles east of The High Lonesome Ranch Headquarters. The design includes wastewater projections from staff employees, visiting clients, food preparation area, and dog grooming. No wastewater is assumed from the actual kennel area as the washing and wastes will be collected in a separate system. The design includes a seepage bed design, with 4 feet of imported soil material. The surface five feet of existing soils shall be excavated prior to the placement of the imported soil material. Existing soils will be used for the "cap" over the system. With five feet of existing soil excavation, an import of four feet of suitable soil, one foot of gravel and piping, and one of native soil "topdressing", the finished grade of the seepage bed will be about one foot above the adjacent ground. This would be desirable to prevent any stormwater ponding on the surface of the bed and to route stormwater runoff away from the drain field. Pere tests were completed by Huddleston -Bevy Engineering & Testing, LLC in November 2008. The soils vary from sandy clays to clayey sands. Because of the variability of pert rates in the existing soils, the geotechnical engineers recommend a 4 -feet layer of soil replacement with granular soils. The enclosed wastewater design is based on this recommendation. There is no seasonal water table that affects this ISDS system. If you have any questions, please call me at 970-241-6027. Sincerely, RHINO ENGINEERING, INC. By: John E. Komfeld, PE. Project Engineer Enclosures xc: Collin Kenney, Project Manager for The High Lonesome Ranch File: Wastewater Design/Kennels Facility Unit The High Lonesome Ranch Serving Colorado, Utah & Nevada 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A geotechnical investigation was conducted for a proposed new kennel facility at The High Lonesome Ranch near DeBeque, Colorado. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with respect to on-site sewage disposal, geologic hazards, foundation design, pavement design, and earthwork for the proposed construction. This summary has been prepared to include the information required by civil engineers, structural engineers, and contractors involved in the project. Subsurface Conditions (p. 2) The subsurface investigation consisted of eight test pits, excavated on November 011, 2008. The locations of the test pit are shown on Figure 1 — Site Plan.. The test pits encountered sandy lean clay and clayey sand with gravel soils. Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits at the time of the investigation. The native clay soils were indicated to be slightly to moderately plastic and slightly collapsible. The native clayey sand soils were indicated to be slightly plastic. Summary of Foundation Recommendations • Foundation Type — Spread Footings or Monolithic Structural Slabs (p. 3) • Structural Fill — Minimum of 24 -inches below foundations. The native soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable for reuse as structural fill. Imported structural fill should consist of pit -run, CDOT Class 6 base course, or other granular material approved by the engineer. (p. 3) • Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity —1,250 psf. (p. 4) • Subgrade Modulus — 150 pci for native soils and 250 pci for pit -run or CDOT Class 6 base course. (p. 4) • Lateral Earth Pressure — 50 pcf (p. 4) Summary of Pavement Recommendations (p. 5) Automobile Traffic EDLA = 5. Structural Number = 2.59 ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT SECTION ( nches) Hot -Mix Asphalt Pavement CDOT Class 6 Base Course CDOT Class Subbase Course Rigid Pavement TOTAL Full Depth HMA 6.0 6.0 A 3.0 10.0 13.0 B 4.0 6.0 10.0 C 3.0 4.0 7.0 14.0 Rigid Pavement 6.0 5.0 11.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 Truck Traffic EDLA = 20, Structural Number = 3.19 ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT SECTION (Inches) Hot -Mix Asphalt Pavement CDOT Class 6 Base Course CDOT Class 3 Subbase Course Rigid Pavement TOTAL Full Depth HMA 8.0 8.0 ' A 3.0 14.0 17.0. B 4.0 11.0 15.0 C 3.0 6.0 11.0 20.0 Rigid Pavement 6.0 6.0 12.0 For gravel pavements, a minimum of 12 -inches of gravel is recommended. On -Site Sewage Disposal (p. 6) Percolation testing indicated percolations rates of between approximately 12.3 minutes - per -inch to not percolating at all in the native clay soils. Therefore, the clay soils are generally not suitable for on-site sewage disposal. The percolation rates in the native clayey sand soils ranged from approximately 5.7 to 12.0 minutes -per -inch. Therefore, the native clayey sand soils are generally suitable for on-site sewage disposal. However, four feet of suitable soils are generally required below the bottom of the absorption beds. Therefore, based upon the results of the subsurface investigation, over -excavation of unsuitable soils and replacement with suitable materials will likely be required for ISDS construction at this site. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Huddleston -Reny toom.nost<on,.uc As part of extensive development in western Colorado and surrounding areas, The High Lonesome Ranch near DeBeque proposes to construct a new kennel facility. ,As part of the development process, Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC (HBET) was retained by The High Lonesome Ranch to conduct a geotechnical investigation. The field investigation, laboratory testing, and analyses were designed to identify most of the geologic hazards common to the area including unstable slopes, swelling or collapsible soils and/or bedrock, soluble sulfates, and shallow groundwater. These issues can impact construction and will be discussed if present. 1.1 Scope As discussed above, a geotechnical investigation was conducted for a proposed new kennel facility at The High Lonesome Ranch near DeBeque, Colorado. The scope of the investigation included the following components: • Conducting a subsurface investigation to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site. • Collecting soil samples and conducting laboratory testing to determine the engineering properties of the soils at the site. • Providing recommendations for foundation type and subgrade preparation. • Providing recommendations for bearing capacity. • Providing recommendations for lateral earth pressure. • Providing recommendations for drainage, grading, and general earthwork. • Providing recommendations for pavement section alternatives. • Evaluating the site soils for on-site sewage disposal. The investigation and report were prepared by a Colorado registered professional engineer in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of The High Lonesome Ranch. - 1.2 Site Location and Description The site is located along Garfield County Road 200, northwest of DeBeque, Colorado. At the time of the investigation, the site was generally open and sloped slightly down to the south. Vegetation at the site was minimal because ground work had been started. A gravel access road was also under construction at the time of the investigation. The site was bordered to the north and west by hills with fairly steep slopes, to the east by open land and to the south by open land and Garfield County Road 200. P:\2008 ALL PROJECS'\00815- High Lonesome Ranch\00815-0001 High Lonesome Ranch- High Lonesome Ranch \200- Geo10O815-0001 Kennels 10 12408.doc 1 Huddlcsion•Beny ,M: a Tecw. LLC 1.3 Proposed Construction The proposed construction is anticipated to consist of an approximately 6,000 square -feet dog kennel building, a duplex residential structure, an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS), utility installation, and pavements. The proposed structures are anticipated tot be constructed over reinforced concrete foundations. Foundation loads on the order of 600 to 2,000 pounds per linear foot wall loads and 8 to 20 kip column loads are expected. 2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The subsurface investigation consisted of eight test pits, excavated on November 6`s, 2008. The locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 1 — Site Plan. The test pits was located in the field relative to existing site features. Typed test pit logs are included in Appendix A. Samples of the subsurface soils were collected using hand driven brass tubes and bulk sampling methods at the locations shown on the logs. The test pits were excavated to depths of between 3.0 and 10.0 feet below the existing ground surface. As indicated on the logs, the subsurface conditions at the site were slightly variable. Test Pits TP -1, TP -2, and TP -3, conducted in the vicinity of a proposed location for the ISDS absorption field, encountered 1.0 foot of sandy lean clay with organics topsoil above brown, dry, stiff sandy lean clay to the bottoms of the excavations. Groundwater was not encountered in TP -1, TP -2, or TP -3 at the time of the investigation. Test Pits TP -4 and TP -5, conducted in the vicinity of the proposed structures, encountered 1.0 foot of clayey sand with gravel and organics topsoil above brown, dry, medium stiff to stiff sandy lean clay to the bottoms of the excavations. Groundwater was not encountered in TP -4 or TP -5 at the time of the investigation. Test Pits TP -6, TP -7, and TP -8, conducted in the vicinity of an alternative location for the ISDS absorption field, encountered 1.0 foot of clayey sand with gravel, cobbles, and organics topsoil above, brown, dry, medium dense clayey sand with gravel. The sand extended to a depth of 4.0 feet in TP -6 and extended to the bottoms of TP -7 and TP -8. Below the sand in TP -6, brown, dry, stiff sandy lean clay extended to the bottom of the excavation. Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits at the time of the investigation. 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING Selected soil samples collected from the test pits were tested in the Huddleston - Ben -y Engineering and Testing LLC geotechnical laboratory for natural moisture content and density, gradation, Atter-berg limits, soluble sulfates content, swell/consolidation, and optimum moisture/density (Proctor). The laboratory testing results are included in Appendix B. P:200S ALL PROJECES100S 15- high Lonesome Ranch100615-0001 High Lonesome Ranch- High Lonesome Ranch\200- GeMOOS 15.0001 Kennels RI 12408.doc 2 Huddleston -Bary aces Teuh.Lle The laboratory testing results indicate that the native clay soils are slightly to moderately plastic. In addition, the native clay soils were shown to be slightly collapsible with up to approximately 3.0% collapse measured in the laboratory. The native clay sand soils were indicated to be slightly plastic. Water soluble sulfates were detected in the site soils in a concentration of 100 parts -per -million (ppm). 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Geologic Hazards The primary geologic hazards identified at the site are the presence of collapsible clay soils and the steep slopes northwest of the proposed structure locations. The collapsible soils are addressed in the Foundations section of this report. With regard to the steep slopes, no instabilities were observed in the slopes at the time of the investigation. In general, there are no geologic hazards which should preclude development of this site. 4.2 Foundations Based upon the subsurface conditions and nature of the proposed construction, shallow foundations are recommended. Spread footing and monolithic (turndown) structural slab foundations are both appropriate alternatives. However, the native clay soils were indicated to be slightly collapsible. Therefore in order to limit the potential for excessive differential settlements, it is recommended that the load bearing portions of the foundations be constructed above a minimum of 24 -inches of structural fill. With careful moisture control and proper compaction, the native soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable for reuse as structural fill. Imported structural fill should consist of a granular, non -expansive, non -free draining material such as pit -run or CDOT Class 6 base course. However, if pit -run is used as structural fill below the foundations, a minimum of six inches of Class 6 base course should be placed on top of the pit -run to prevent large point stresses on the bottoms of the foundations due to large particles in the pit -run. Prior to placement of structural fill, it is recommended that the bottoms of the foundation excavations be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 -inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density within ±2% of the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D698. Structural fill should extend laterally beyond the edges of the foundation a distance equal to the thickness of structural fill. Structural fill should be moisture conditioned, placed in maximum 8 -inch loose lifts, and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density for fine grained soils or modified Proctor maximum dry density for coarse grained soils, within ±2% of the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D698 or D1557C, respectively. Pit -run materials used as structural fill should be proofrolled to the Engineer's satisfaction. Pi0008 ALL PROJECTS,00815- High Lonesome Ranch100815-0001 High Lonesome Ranch. High Lonesome Ranch'200- GCo100815-0001 Kennels RI 12408.doc 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �I Huddleston -Berry flet:er.ex. MC For the foundation building pad prepared as recommended with structural fill consisting of the native soils or imported granular materials, a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 1,250 psf may be used. In addition, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci may be used for structural fill consisting of the native clay soils. A modulus of 250 pci may be used for structural fill consisting of pit -run or CDOT Class 6 base course. Foundations subject to frost should be at least thirty-six inches below the final grade. As discussed previously, water soluble sulfates were detected in the site soils in a concentration of 100 ppm. This concentration represents a negligible degree of potential sulfate attack on concrete exposed to these soils. Therefore, sulfate resistant cement may not be required for construction at this site. 4.3 Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork In order to limit the potential for differential movement of slabs -on -grade, it is recommended that floor slabs and exterior flatwork be constructed above subgrade soils, below the topsoil, that have been scarified to a depth of 9 to 12 -inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density within ±2% of the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D698. Slabs -on -grade should not be tied into or connected to the foundations in any manner. 4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures Any retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures. For backfill consisting of the native soils or imported granular, non -free draining, non - expansive material, we recommend that the walls be designed for an equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pcf in areas where no surcharge loads are present. Lateral earth pressures should be increased as necessary to reflect any surcharge loading behind the walls. 4.5 Drainage In order to improve the long-term performance of the foundations and slabs -on - grade, grading around the structures should be designed to carry precipitation and runoff away from the structures. It is recommended that the finished ground surface drop at least twelve inches within the first ten feet away from the structures. Downspouts should empty beyond the backfill zone. In addition, automatic irrigation is not recommended within five feet of the foundations. 4.6 Excavations Excavations in the soils at the site may stand for short periods of time but should not be considered to be stable. Trenching and excavations should be sloped back, shored, or shielded for worker protection in accordance with applicable OSHA standards. The site soils generally classify as Type C soil with regard to OSHA's Construction Standards for Excavations. For Type C soils, the maximum allowable slope in temporary cuts is 1.5H:1V. P9_'008 ALL PROJECTS\00811- High Lonesome Ranch100815-0001 High Lonesome Ranch- High Lonesome Ranch1200- Geo'00815-0001 Rowels Rl 12408.doc 4 v v '""" b` 9 N b M•4 P ?c W N Y ' P rm xm• C a C kD�u cox m O a; y4n C i< A y 9 m O � i�n g A O C. 9 mr a 1 A� 2 n 0M F 'n 6 a m g N A zD A9� m 0 m M a o C 4 m 3 r IJ ▪ Op y N Gl A W of "0> F4 iN Y D x D Y A 2 " K o m N 5i D I, 74 H x o • O a 3 n ox s 9 Z ma N O AO N n ^: Z m NI w N n 3 N 20 N 0 A L ti Y I 2 r 0 m N 0 m Z n m Z Z m r m n 2 z 00 0 m 13NN3N HDNV J David Moskowitz Wildlife Photography, Tracking, and Consulting Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Associated with Proposed Development The following assessment pertains to the proposed development of a parcel of property owned by the High Lonesome Ranch (HLR) focusing around the construction of a dog kennel. The building site is located on the north side of Garfield County Road 200, about three-quarters of a mile east of the HLR headquarters (NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of S. 9, T. 8 south, R. 98 W, 6th Principle meridian). It is my conclusion that HLR has adequately addressed all provisions of the Garfield County Planning Department code, Section 7-202, Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas. This conclusion is based on a review of planning documents, topographic and critical wildlife habitat maps, written and verbal correspondence with Collin Kenney (HLC Building Construction and Maintenance Manager), and personal familiarity with the specific site and wildlife usage of similar habitat in the area. A. Buffers: Building design, site layout, and planned use and management of kennel facilities reduce the visual and auditory impact of the kennel on the surrounding wildlife habitat. B. Locational Controls of Land Disturbance: The building site is located adjacent to the existing county road. This, along with relatively limited planned usage of the access road, does not pose significant increased obstacles for wildlife movement across the broader landscape or an increase in the danger of animal -motor vehicle accidents. Its topographic location, tucked against the northern edge of the Dry Fork valley bottom minimizes the impact of the development on the valley bottom habitat as a whole. C. Preservation of Native Vegetation: The site is xeric and has no riparian or wetland habitat, nor is it within any relevant buffer zone for such habitat. Construction plans call for the maintenance of existing native vegetation and the planned facility layout will allow for connectivity of native vegetation throughout the property. There are no noxious weed issues on the site that need to be addressed. D. Habitat Compensation: There is no critical habitat Loss for a threatened or managed species due to this construction project. The building site falls with in the designated overall range of wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), severe winter range for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Due to the retention of existing native vegetation, severe winter range loss for mule deer will be limited to the building footprints and immediate vicinity of these buildings. E. Domestic Animal Controls: The proposed kennel and management of the resident dogs would preclude the possibility any destructive dog -wildlife interactions. David Moskowitz Consulting Biologist June 7, 2009. www.nwWildliferracking.com 425 891 4745 P.O. Box 595, Carnation, WA, 98014 David Moskowitz P.O. Box 545 Carnation Washington 98014 425 891 4745 moskowitz_david@hotmail.com QUALIFICATIONS Biology and Natural History: 15 years of experience in research and consulting on wildlife ecology, wildlife tracking and other natural history and conservation topics. Consulting clients include Western Transportation Institute, Central Washington University, Conservation Northwest, and Rite of Passage Journeys. Writing: Published articles in a variety of professional and popular periodicals, regional publications, organizational training manuals and newsletters. Proven skill with biological technical and narrative writing. Author of forthcoming book on Pacific Northwest Wildlife (Timber Press). Education and Leadership Experience: Extensive teaching, leadership, and managerial experience including: research design and management of field operations for biological research projects, training field technicians and outdoor educators, administration of wilderness programming and leadership of wilderness expeditions. Photography and Artwork: Skilled photographer and illustrator of wildlife tracks, sign, and natural landscapes. My work has been used for marketing materials, in conjunction with publications, and for teaching presentations. Research Experience: Diverse research skills including project design and management, field data collection and literature searches. Experience with a variety of database programs including Access, Excel, Arc -view and Cybertracker. Skilled Communicator: Experience working with a wide variety of state and federal land management and resource agencies, interagency projects, and facilitation of collaborative projects between NGO's and public agencies. RELEVANT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2006- Project Manager Cascade Wildlife Monitoring Project present Duvall, Washington 2005- Tracking Instructor & Program Coordinator Wilderness Awareness School Present Duvall, Washington 2000- Course Director, Trainer, Instructor Outward Bound Wilderness Present Mazama, Washington 1997- Board Member Rite of Passage Journeys Present Bothell, Washington • Safety Committee Chairperson 2002- Biological Field Technician Conservation Northwest Present Bellingham WA • Forest Carnivore Detection Project • Woodland Caribou Project 2004- Research Consultant Borealis Centre of Environment and Trade 2005 Research. Sointula, British Columbia 2002- Biological Field Technician Friends of the Loomis 2003 Loomis, WA • Lynx and marten snow tracking surveys 2002 Site Supervisor Northwest Outdoor Science School Hillsboro, Oregon 2000- Roadless Area Inventory Oregon Natural Resources Council 2003 Bend and Portland OR Tracking Team Leader Cascadia Wilda Portland, Oregon 2000- 2002 • Lynx and Wolverine Detection Projects 2001 Colony Monitor, Field Station Supervisor Realtime Research Bend, Oregon 2000 Research Assistant Arid Lands Ecology Reserve Eastern Washington 1998- Teaching Assistant, Nature and Vision Tracking School, 1999 Lynchburg, Virginia. 1995 Naturalist, Hiram House Camp, Moreland Hills, Ohio. EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION Prescott College. (2002) • Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Studies and Outdoor Adventure Education. • Coursework included: Forest Carnivore Ecology, Wildlife Tracking, Plant Ecology and Taxonomy, Mammal and Avian Field Ecology Practica, Outdoor Leadership. Tracking Rare Carnivores (2001) Central Oregon Chapter of the Wildlife Society Wilderness -EMT certification. Wilderness Medical Associates. (1997 -present) Level I Avalanche Training certification. Northwest Avalanche Institute (2001) DE BEQUE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PO Box 180 De Beque, CO 81630 Fire Chief Secretary (970) 283-8632 phone (970) 283-1071 phone (970) 283-8632 fax (970) 283-1082 fax To whom it may concern; I have had a follow up meeting with Mr. Kenny and have reviewed the site plan and the construction plans for his Dry Fork Kennel project. With the existing water wells and the existing elevated water tanks there will be adequate supply for fire suppression. I have also discussed with him the implementation of an access tap into the water lines to adapt to our pump trucks. Should there be any further questions please feel free to contact me at (970) 216-3305 for information. Nick Marx )71,A X47) Fire Chief gg ab 13; 1P 1i $1 EI I. 1 11' $ I q'f ` l I ; 1 1 1 FAN SCHEDULE _ e ! gg 19 HIGH LONESOME KENNELS WINO It, i� !"a1 v ° f Bighorn CYnsul(e�einews, Inc. Mechwa&Haiti aV^ws txnw..µ.wsxa u.,119ln...uYMai .a Ib<SroM,Jfi9.NyMUHA. 11 iP 6 9 9 p 9 i6 6 i£ P 3 i 1 31003HDS dWOd i 1 311103HDS a31V3H 11NN 11 a 1 If al 1 a 1 GAS FIRED HOT WATER BOILER SCHEDULE 5 2Ri d 1 I O c 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 D A c v to 0 r 1 1i 8 1 z 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 r 0 In A v ti O 0 r $ �Ita^� �1 ... s° { .\si 19 HIGH LONESOME KENNELS WINO It, i� v ° PROJECT DF.BEQUF., coLOHAI)0 Bighorn CYnsul(e�einews, Inc. Mechwa&Haiti aV^ws txnw..µ.wsxa u.,119ln...uYMai .a Ib<SroM,Jfi9.NyMUHA. Pll,��e� I i'I�Iv III IIli��jhl | ! 111111; , {7} 1 | 0 \ ( "|1i'( � s KD + e . a P`YI iiou i i ' it 11111�l .I • 0 N • {O ;y m 0 0 0