HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.07 MV-SkylarkPacket-finalSkylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
November 19, 2013
Initial non‐complete letter received December 12, 2013 (dated December 10, 2013)
Resubmitted with added information and clarification: January 20, 2013
Molly Orkild‐Larson and Kathy Eastley
County Planner
108 West 8th Street, Suite 201
GWS, CO 81601
Re: Mountain View Church Educational Facility (a.k.a. The Skylark School) application for
Administrative Land Use review, December 2013. Site known as “Mountain View Church of Glenwood”,
a/k/a “Mountain View Baptist Church”.
Dear Kathy,
Thank you for your time in the pre‐application conference and the information you sent to us to aid in
the assembly of our information for your review. We trust this packet will provide all the necessary
details but please let me know what else you may need and we will get it to you.
In this packet you will find:
This cover letter with summary responses to the requested items
A summary checklist of included items
The Land Use application form
Copy of the fee receipt
Authorization form
Property Deed
Your initial letter to us
Address list for notice mailing
Previous building permit inspection list
Floorplan
General property information including the
o Parcel map
o Google Aerial
o Assessor data (2 pages)
o Table 3‐403 from County LUC
o Floorplans, lower and upper
o Floodmap
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
o Site plan
o Signed Statement of Authority Form
o Soil data (6 pages)
o Traffic tables (2 pages)
Signed Letter of Endorsement for The Skylark School representatives to present this application
Additional letter of support from neighboring property owners
$250 check for the review fee
REVIEW PROCESS
It is our understanding and hope that this application is a staff review, administrative process as noted
Table 3‐403 of the Land Use Code and as noted in Sections II and III of your letter to us (attached) and
hereby duplicated below.
II. REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPLICANT IS REQURED TO ADDRESS
• Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030
• Garfield County Land Use and Development Code
• Administrative Impact Review (Section 4‐103)
• Article 7, Divisions 1, 2, and 3
• Table 4‐102, Common Review Procedures and required Notice; and Table 4‐203, Application
Submittal Requirements
Ill. REVIEW PROCESS
1. Pre‐application Conference. (Held September 13th, 2013)
2. Application. (This document).
3. Determination of Completeness.
4. Submittal of additional material (if needed) and copies for referral reviews.
5. Set date for Director's Decision.
6. Public notice 30 days prior to the Director's Decision to property owners within 200 feet
and mineral right owners on the subject property.
7. Director Decision.
8. A 10 day call‐up period after Director's Decision is made.
INITIAL APPLICATION LETTER
In response to your initial comments (letter dated December 10, 2013) I have briefly summarized our
attempts to provide you better information. Following, in summary form, that letter:
4‐202 Waiver Requests – A summary sheet of the application requirements has been provided with the
sections requesting waivers and, in the body of this letter, those sections with waiver requests. We
understand now the need for a Site Plan and that has been provided via Peak Surveying, Inc.
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
4‐203
‐Ownership data has been provided, deed attached.
‐A Google Vicinity map has been provided. The County Map gave errors in printing we could not get
around.
‐A site plan has been provided, stamped by a PLS in the State of Colorado.
‐Water/WW supplies have been shown on the site plan
‐Several Impact analysis items we are requesting a waiver. We have provided basic information from
publicly available data, namely the county maps but request waivers on any further studies for reasons
stated in this letter.
‐Traffic study has been submitted to Mountain Cross Engineering for a preliminary review and
methodology and is attached at the end of this letter, signed by myself, a registered engineer in the
state.
‐LUDC Article 7. A response to each of the items in Article 7, Divisions 1, 2 and 3 is provided in this
letter. As may be expected many items we do not see an impact.
‐Ownership and mineral rights are with the Church. Verified by Ms. Kathy Westley and Commonwealth
Title.
‐School Permits via the State are noted and minimal.
‐A clearer floorplan has been provided based on the 1999‐2000 expansion.
‐Modulars have been excluded from the application.
‐Legal description is provided (you also found a copy and thank you).
The below is the updated letter body from our initial application.
SUMMARY OF INTENT OF USE
The Skylark School intends and has entered into a lease agreement with Mountain View Church for the
use the existing facilities for weekday school, pending County use approval. The desired spaces in the
facility include up to six classrooms, restrooms, hallways, sanctuary (weekly) and kitchen (on occasion—
meals will not be regularly provided, only microwave uses). Lunch will be on campus, however, negating
any lunchtime traffic. Counter to our initial discussions, we realize use of the modular units on site is
not feasible and are excluded from our desired plan.
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
The initial estimation of use for 2014 is 20‐30 students in three classrooms consisting of grades K‐8.
Pending response from the community, we eagerly anticipate expanding through 12th grade in the near
future. The building had recent internal remodel upgrades including a balcony in the sanctuary (2004)
and kitchen remodel (2011), both of which passed through the County process and have passed all
necessary inspections and met all requirements. The permit from the building addition from 1999,
which was a full depth construction project and included all necessary inspections from foundation to
wiring and fire sprinklers.
The facility has all elements we require for our intended use. Classrooms are finished and the structure
has a functioning fire sprinkler system. Ample parking exists. The general operating hours are 7:30 to
4:30, Monday through Thursday with occasional Friday meetings. Classes will be held 8 to 4. We submit
that this is a great use for an existing facility that is centrally located for our anticipated target clientele.
It is located where easy access for down valley customers can drop off their children as they proceed to
work up Highway 82, and otherwise near an existing, lighted intersection with controlled left and right
turn lanes onto CR 154.
Below are the specific responses as we understand the RFI per section 4‐203 of the County Code. Unless
otherwise noted, these attachments are included in order shown. As might be expected, since our
application is very limited in scope, pertaining only to the use of the existing facilities with no planned
changes, our application has several requests for waiver.
SUMMARY RESPONSES TO REVIEW REQUESTS
2030 Comprehensive Plan – According to the Future Land Use Map for 2030, it is anticipated that the
Mountain View Parcel will be incorporated into the Urban Growth Area of Glenwood Springs. As we are
adding no new physical feature, we do not see a reason that the proposed school would be an
impediment to that plan, nor the plan negatively impact our school plans. Our use will utilize an existing
facility and the services therein so there is no new development impact. The specific issues within
consideration of the 2030 plan, and thereby enumerated to be addressed in the Land Use Code, are
hereby presented below with attachments to follow.
Application Form – Attached. The Skylark School representatives Rick Barth (Chairman) and Nicole
Wenger (Director) have assembled this application on behalf of Mountain View Church, owner of the
parcel. The Statement of Authority form and an endorsement letter are attached.
Public Notice – We agree to pay for and send out and/or provide public advertised notice, as required
by code and your review and understand the basic language for such noticing will come from County
standards. We have the attached list of neighboring properties for notification.
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
4‐203.C, Vicinity Map – Included are the county maps for parcel and tax ID and the Assessors’ summary
page. The Parcel ID is 2185‐271‐00‐026, Tax Area 6, with a physical address of 2195 CR 154. The aerial
map is from Google Earth as the county website gave printing errors.
4‐203.D, Site Plan – An updated site plan from Peak Surveying of Rifle, CO, is provided showing
neighboring properties and pertinent site issues including building location and floodplain boundary. No
changes to the site are anticipated other than we will hang a small sign on the existing Mountain View
Church sign (indicated on the site plan).
Site history: In 1984 the initial structure was built for the church. An expansion was completed in 2000
to the current configuration you see today (floorplan attached). The parking area is paved with asphalt
and the water and sewer alignments are shown. The only external change is Skylark will have a small
plaque added to the existing sign location shown on the site plan.
4‐203.E, Grading and Drainage Plan – With no exterior changes required or planned for the operation of
the school, we request waiving the requirement of providing a new grading and drainage plan,
submitting parts c.1 and c.4 of section 4‐202. We submit there is good cause (no external impact) and it
is non‐material to the application.
4‐203.G, Impact Analysis – The address list of adjacent property owners is attached. Mountain View is
the current mineral owner.
According to the County Zoning map for the Glenwood Springs area, adjacent zoning and land use within
1,500 of the property is mixed. To the west, across the Roaring Fork with no physical connection, is the
subdivision Sopris East. Beyond it are the Glenwood Airport, both in City zones. To the southwest
mixed light industrial uses noted as commercial/general. Neither of those areas have access to our
parcel in question as the river is a physical barrier. To the immediate south, the old Buffalo Valley
parcel, the El Rocko Mobile Home Park, and Holy Cross Energy. To the east, across Highway 82,
additional Commercial/Limited zoning. All else appears to be resource lands or residential/suburban
with little apparent organized development.
Glenwood Springs 2030 Future Land Use map indicates anticipating this area to be Low‐Density
Residential.
The primary site feature that impacts the site is the Roaring Fork River to the immediate west and well
below the site operating surface. Again, with no external changes to the site, no impact is anticipated
and we submit it is not material to the application (4‐202‐c1 and c4). Vegetative cover is mixed
landscaping and native vegetation with no anticipated changes.
We have attached the NRCS Soil Survey data for your review including the general and building
properties. Soils are entirely Atencio‐Azeltine complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes. The structure has
experienced no soil issues, either in settlement or corrosiveness. The County Maps reveal no known soil
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
hazards on the property itself but there are moderate soil hazards on the east side of Highway 82,
similarly with slope hazards. The site is well drained from NE to SW toward the river via surface flow
and a small irrigation overflow channel shared by this site and the parcel to the south. We do request a
waiver of any further analysis per section 4‐202‐c1 and c4.
For wildlife virtually all species noted on County maps may be near or on the site with the exception of
antelope. We eagerly hope they do show up for our students’ nature studies. We do request a waiver
of any further analysis per section 4‐202‐c1 and c4.
Due to the existing conditions and no site changes as part of this application, we request a waiver for
further analysis of soil characteristics, geology, groundwater issues, wildlife and environmental impacts
as we submit they are not‐material to the application (4‐202‐c1 and c4).
4‐203.L, Traffic Impact, I have provided a traffic count summary. I, as a Civil Engineer licensed in the
State (36749), reviewed the 7th Edition ITE Trip Generation catalog, 2004 publishing, and discussed with
Mr. Chris Hale of Mountain Cross Engineering, to confirm the legitimacy. We do request a waiver of any
further analysis per section 4‐202‐c1 and c4. Analysis letter attached.
Floorplan – The 1997 floorplan which was used in the building expansion of 1999 is attached for
reference in occupancy calculations. On the pdf I have noted the changes and redrawn the wall lines for
better clarity and the SF and capacity of each of the desired rooms with dimensions to the nearest foot.
We have indicated the targeted rooms for full use (K‐12), even though our initial use will likely be only
three perimeter rooms of K‐6 grades. Nonetheless, we do seek full approval for all desired rooms at this
time. From this plan, and following the IBC codes for occupancy, we calculate the following:
Room A – 20x15 or 300 SF / 20 SF per Student = 15 students
Room B – 22x16 or 352 SF / 20 SF per Student = 18 students
Room C – 25x35 or 875 SF / 20 SF per Student = 44 students
Room D – 21x30 or 630 SF / 20 SF per Student = 32 students
Room E – 21x20 or 420 SF / 20 SF per Student = 21 students
Room F – 22x20 (L shaped) or 400 SF / 20 SF per Student = 20 students
Room F – Sanctuary/Assembly – Existing Capacity of 300+ (occasional use only)
Therefore, Skylark would have, per this application and our desired lease agreement, capacity for 150
students. For our maximum K‐12 we anticipate per our umbrella school criterion would limit us to 108
(12 in K, 16 in each of the rest doubled grades (1‐2, 3‐4, 5‐6, 7‐8, 9‐10, 11‐12).
Landscaping Plan – The Skylark School has no planned changes to the exterior of the building or site
improvements. Nothing in our business plan or anticipated operating procedures requires such. We
respectfully request waiving the requirement of providing a landscaping plan as it is not‐material to our
application (4‐202‐c1 and c4).
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
4‐203 M and N, Water/Sewer Supply – The church is currently on City of Glenwood Springs water and
sewer. No planned changes or need for increased peak demand are required as school usage will be less
than typical church assembly day (Sunday). At maximum desired capacity, our school will have 108
students plus staff of 8‐12. A typical Sunday services is 150 to 300 attendees. The water and sewer
locations are shown on the site plan.
ARTICLE 7 – DIVISION 1
7‐101. It is our understanding that the presented use is allowable under the County zoning upon
administrative review as a CL zone district. The application is within the land use and site functionality
and will not harm adjacent properties as the use is very similar to Sunday morning uses. Therefore, per
this section and 4‐203‐H, no zoning change is required nor requested.
7‐102. The County Comprehensive Plan indicates that by 2030 it is anticipated the immediate region
around the Mountain View parcel will be within the Glenwood Springs planning boundary. As a low‐
density residential, we submit this school is well suited for such a neighborhood and will be an asset to
the community using an existing facility with quick access to major roadways.
7‐103. We submit the site is well suited for our application as there are many similarities between the
church’s use and our proposed educational facility. The existing structure provides all we need to
provide the educational system we desire.
7‐104, 105. The water supply is the City of Glenwood Springs municipal system (billing slips provided).
There is no change required as the school peak use should be below typical Sunday morning usage for
the church. Wastewater is via an internal site lift station to Glenwood Springs force main collector line
in County Road 154. Locations of those lines are shown on the site plan.
7‐106. The facility already has adequate electric and gas supply via Xcel Electric and SourceGas (again,
billing provided). Utility service locations are shown on the site plan as well as any easements. No new
easements are required for this application for any utility.
7‐107. The site has two existing access points to CR 154 near the north and south ends of the parcel.
No change is required for this application. A traffic analysis is provided for the anticipated “full capacity”
use of the school, should that occur. In the near term, we do not anticipate being even at half capacity.
Drainage is all surface flow with a general direction of NE to SW, toward the Roaring Fork River. An
existing, small irrigation ditch doubles as a surface overflow along the south property boundary. No
external surface impacts will be done to this site requiring no change to the drainage pattern (4‐202‐c1
and c4).
7‐108. No road dedications are anticipated and no heavy or frequent truck traffic is required as there is
no construction anticipated. Therefore, the design standards do not apply.
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
7‐109. Internal circulation is adequate for the anticipated use and for fire access without vehicles
backing up. No new public rights of way or streets are required. The building has internal sprinklers
which will not be modified. The existing fire system direct‐connect is shown on the site plan near the
main, east‐side entry.
ARTICLE 7 – DIVISION 2
7‐201. There is no agricultural land use adjacent to the property in question. Even so, the anticipated
use would not negatively impact agricultural uses, livestock or associated fences. No external site
changes are planned. The existing irrigation ditch to the south is an overflow and has been under
shared maintenance as long as Mountain View has owned the parcel and will continue to be so.
7‐202. No changes to the site are planned therefore wildlife and native vegetation will not be altered or
impacted by the school. No domestic animals will be kept on site by the school.
7‐203. The structure has an edge of patio approximately 40 feet from the mapped floodplain and the
nearest structural element is just over 60 feet. In either case the element in question is greater than 5
feet above the floodplain. No structures are planned whatsoever outside of the existing building.
7‐204. With no external impact or disturbance, there shall be no need for an erosion control plan or
drainage design. Drainage patterns shall remain as they are and as noted above.
7‐205. Air quality and water quality should not be impacted as there are no external site changes.
7‐206. The existing structure has a reasonable fire protection barrier with Highway 82/CR 154 and open
space to the east, the parking lot to the south and west, and open area to the west and north. This
application and added use will not alter this condition. The structure has typical, asphalt shingles and
brick facing.
7‐207. The existing structure is well set back from potential areas of avalanche, landslide or mudflow
areas, being protected by Highway 82 and CR 154 as County maps indicate there is moderate slope
hazards northeast of Highway 82. No new development will occur to alter this condition. The site
useable area is less than 20% cross slope. No alteration is planned. The Atencio soils have “somewhat
limited” features which can be addressed in engineering design. Again, no new structures are planned
and the existing facility has no indications of soil failure or problems and the previous building permit
with foundation inspection is provided.
7‐208. With no exterior changes, there is no reclamation that can be applied.
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
ARTICLE 7 – DIVISION 3
7‐301. The existing site has a strong solar exposure with the parking on the south side. Operations will
function much as on Sunday mornings with primary vehicular and pedestrian traffic at the main, south
side entry, with an available pull‐through for vehicles as needed.
No exterior changes are planned and no additional noise pollution is anticipated. The general hours of
operation shall be 7:30 to 4:30, Monday through Thursday.
7‐302. There is no additional off‐street parking needed or planned. The facility has ample parking for
Sunday services which typically has three‐times our anticipated maximum head count, with most of ours
being students who have been dropped off for the day. All spaces are the typical 9x19 passenger vehicle
space. Accessible parking is available on site, again greater than for our needs. No backing or awkward
access onto CR 154 is required. The two drive accesses provide full, forward movements at all times.
7‐303. No landscaping changes are anticipated nor desired.
7‐304. The building has some available exterior lighting but operation hours for the school will be
during typical, daylight hours.
7‐305. Snow storage and removal is already done by the church and the school will share in the costs.
7‐306. The existing Highway 82 trail is just to the east of the parcel, across CR 154. No new trails are
anticipated.
Our understanding of the next steps of the process:
1) Your completeness review or further RFI.
2) Confirmation on public notifications/advertisement and certified mailings.
3) County review comments.
I, Rick L. Barth, a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado have assembled and provided
this information on behalf of Skylark School and Mountain View Church and hereby verify to the best of
my knowledge it is true and accurate. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the below provided
phone or email.
Respectfully,
Rick L. Barth, P.E. 36749
Ph: 970‐366‐2806
Email: rbarth@rifleco.org
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
Application Forms
Location/Tax Maps
Property/Title/Assessor Data
Address List for Mailings
Utility Billing Slips
Garfield County
108 8th Street Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-
Phone: (970)945-8212 Fax: (970)384-3470RECEIPT
Invoice Number:
Invoice Date:
Plan Case:
INV-11-13-22716
11/22/2013 12:00:00AM
General Administrative, GAPA
Fee TypeFee Name Fee Amount
General Administrative Fee $250.00 Fixed
Total Fees Due: $250.00
Amount Paid ChangeDateCheck NumberPay Type
Check11/22/2013 1644 $250.00 $0.00
$250.00 Total Paid:
PAYMENTS
Total Due: $0.00
Friday, November 22, 2013
RE
V
I
E
W
CH
E
C
K
L
I
S
T
FO
R
:
S
K
Y
L
A
R
K
SC
H
O
O
L
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
:
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
VI
E
W
CH
U
R
C
H
,
SO
U
T
H
GL
E
N
W
O
O
D
SP
R
I
N
G
S
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
2
1
9
5
CR
15
4
RE
V
I
E
W
:
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
V
E
LA
N
D
US
E
RE
V
I
E
W
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
:
R
I
C
K
BA
R
T
H
ON
BE
H
A
L
F
OF
MO
U
N
T
A
I
N
VI
E
W
CH
U
R
C
H
GE
N
E
R
A
L
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
:
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
EX
P
L
A
N
A
T
I
O
N
(I
F
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
)
AP
P
FO
R
M
Y
FE
E
Y
C
O
P
Y
OF
11
/
2
2
RE
C
E
I
P
T
PA
Y
M
E
N
T
AG
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
Y
ST
A
T
E
M
E
N
T
OF
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y
Y
AU
T
H
O
R
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
Y
DE
E
D
Y
F
U
L
L
DE
E
D
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
PR
E
‐AP
P
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
LE
T
T
E
R
Y
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
BY
MS
.
OR
K
I
L
D
‐LA
R
S
O
N
AD
D
R
E
S
S
LI
S
T
Y
S
P
R
E
A
D
S
H
E
E
T
PR
I
N
T
O
U
T
VI
A
CO
U
N
T
Y
WE
B
S
I
T
E
PR
E
V
I
O
U
S
BL
D
G
PE
R
M
I
T
/
I
N
S
P
LI
S
T
Y
1
9
9
9
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
WI
T
H
IN
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
DA
T
E
S
FL
O
O
R
PL
A
N
Y
P
R
E
V
I
O
U
S
FL
O
O
R
PL
A
N
,
PD
F
MO
D
I
F
I
E
D
SE
C
T
I
O
N
I
T
E
M
OF
RE
V
I
E
W
WA
I
V
E
R
RE
Q
U
E
S
T
4 ‐20
3
C
V
I
C
I
N
I
T
Y
MA
P
,
8.
5
X
1
1
Y
G
O
O
G
L
E
MA
P
WIT
H
SC
A
L
E
D
RA
D
I
U
S
(C
O
U
N
T
Y
MA
P
GA
V
E
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
ER
R
O
R
)
N
4 ‐20
3
D
S
I
T
E
PL
A
N
Y
P
E
A
K
SU
R
V
E
Y
N
4 ‐20
3
E
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
AN
D
DR
A
I
N
A
G
E
PL
A
N
N
P
E
R
4 ‐20
2
‐C.
1
AN
D
C.
4
,
NO
T
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
Y
4 ‐20
3
F
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
PL
A
N
N
P
E
R
4 ‐20
2
‐C.
1
AN
D
C.
4
,
NO
T
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
Y
4 ‐20
3
G
I
M
P
A
C
T
AN
A
L
Y
S
I
S
Y
C
O
U
N
T
Y
MA
P
S
,
BR
I
E
F
DI
S
C
U
S
S
I
O
N
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
4 ‐20
3
L
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
ST
U
D
Y
Y
B
A
S
I
C
AN
A
L
Y
S
I
S
OF
VE
H
I
C
U
L
A
R
CO
U
N
T
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
4 ‐20
3
M
W
A
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
Y
Y
G
W
S
MU
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
,
BI
L
L
I
N
G
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
4 ‐20
3
N
W
A
S
T
E
WA
T
E
R
Y
G
W
S
MU
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
,
BI
L
L
I
N
G
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐10
1
Z
O
N
I
N
G
IS
S
U
E
S
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
,
CO
N
D
US
E
NO
T
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
,
PR
E
‐AP
P
LE
T
T
E
R
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐10
2
2
0
3
0
PL
A
N
A
P
P
E
A
R
S
AL
L
O
W
E
D
WI
T
H
CO
U
N
T
Y
/
G
W
S
US
E
S
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐10
3
S
U
I
T
E
D
FO
R
US
E
Y
E
S
,
NO
CH
A
N
G
E
S
TO
FA
C
I
L
I
T
Y
AR
E
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
FO
R
US
E
(P
E
N
D
I
N
G
RE
V
I
E
W
)
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐10
4
WA
T
E
R
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
MU
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
SY
S
T
E
M
WI
T
H
FI
R
E
LI
N
E
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐10
5
W
A
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
MU
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
SY
S
T
E
M
VI
A
LI
F
T
ST
A
T
I
O
N
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐10
6
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
X
C
E
L
AN
D
SO
U
R
C
E
GA
S
,
BI
L
L
I
N
G
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐10
7
A
C
C
E
S
S
T
W
O
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
AC
C
E
S
S
PO
I
N
T
S
ON
CR
15
4
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐10
8
R
O
A
D
DE
D
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
N
O
SI
T
E
CH
A
N
G
E
S
,
NO
NE
W
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
SO
NO
NE
W
AC
C
E
S
S
PO
I
N
T
S
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐10
9
S
I
T
E
AC
C
E
S
S
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
SI
T
E
HA
S
AM
P
L
E
VE
H
I
C
U
L
A
R
AN
D
PE
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
SP
A
C
E
(S
I
T
E
PL
A
N
)
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐20
1
A
G
R
I
C
U
L
T
U
R
A
L
US
E
S
N
O
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
US
E
S
CU
R
R
E
N
T
L
Y
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐20
2
W
I
L
D
L
I
F
E
AN
D
VE
G
E
T
A
T
I
O
N
N
O
CH
A
N
G
E
S
TO
TH
E
SI
T
E
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐20
3
F
L
O
O
D
P
L
A
I
N
/
R
I
V
E
R
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
>3
5
FE
E
T
FR
O
M
FL
O
O
D
P
L
A
I
N
AL
R
E
A
D
Y
,
NO
CH
A
N
G
E
S
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐20
4
ER
O
S
I
O
N
CO
N
T
R
O
L
/
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
N
O
EX
T
E
R
N
A
L
CH
A
N
G
E
S
,
NO
T
H
I
N
G
TO
PL
A
N
FO
R
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐20
5
A
I
R
/
W
A
T
E
R
QU
A
L
I
T
Y
N
O
EX
T
E
R
N
A
L
CH
A
N
G
E
S
,
NO
T
H
I
N
G
TO
IM
P
A
C
T
AI
R
/
W
A
T
E
R
QU
A
L
I
T
Y
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐20
6
F
I
R
E
PR
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
E
X
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
IS
WE
L
L
SP
A
C
E
D
FR
O
M
WI
L
D
F
I
R
E
ZO
N
E
S
(S
E
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
MA
P
)
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐20
7
S
N
O
W
/
L
A
N
D
/
M
U
D
SL
I
D
E
S
E
X
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
IS
WE
L
L
SP
A
C
E
D
FR
O
M
HA
Z
A
R
D
AR
E
A
S
(S
E
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
MA
P
)
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐20
8
R
E
C
L
A
M
A
T
I
O
N
N
O
RE
A
S
O
N
FO
R
RE
C
L
A
M
A
T
I
O
N
,
NO
EX
T
E
R
N
A
L
CH
A
N
G
E
S
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐30
1
S
I
T
E
FU
N
C
T
I
O
N
,
EX
P
O
S
U
R
E
T
H
E
SO
U
T
H
FA
C
I
N
G
SI
T
E
RE
C
I
E
V
E
S
GO
O
D
SU
N
AN
D
FU
N
C
T
I
O
N
AS
ON
SU
N
D
A
Y
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐30
2
O
F
F
‐ST
R
E
E
T
PA
R
K
I
N
G
T
H
E
SI
T
E
HA
S
AM
P
L
E
PA
R
K
I
N
G
AS
TH
E
CH
U
R
C
H
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
S
GR
E
A
T
E
R
SP
A
C
E
S
TH
A
N
O Y,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐30
3
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
N
O
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
CH
A
N
G
E
S
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐30
4
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
LIG
H
T
I
N
G
L
I
T
T
L
E
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
EX
I
S
T
S
,
MA
I
N
HO
U
R
S
OF
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
AR
E
DA
Y
L
I
G
H
T
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐30
5
S
N
O
W
ST
O
R
A
G
E
/
R
E
M
O
V
A
L
A
L
R
E
A
D
Y
DO
N
E
BY
TH
E
CH
U
R
C
H
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
7 ‐30
6
T
R
A
I
L
S
N
O
NE
W
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
OR
TR
A
I
L
S
PL
A
N
N
E
D
,
EX
.
RA
I
L
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
TR
A
I
L
Y
,
FO
R
AN
Y
FU
R
T
H
E
R
ST
U
D
I
E
S
GARFIELD COUNTY LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3-24
Table 3-403: Use Table
/P/ By Right /A/ Administrative Review /L/ Limited Impact Review /M/ Major Impact Review
Use Category Use Type
Residential
Districts
Nonresidential
Districts
Resource Land
Zone Districts
Unless exempted, all
uses must comply with
Article 7 Standards
including Use-Specific
Standards. R RS RU RM
HP CL CG I PL RL
P
RL
E
RL
TS
RL
GS
Group Living Foster Home P P P P P P P P
Group Home Facilities L L L L P P L 7-704
Temporary
Employee Housing Facility, Major M M M M M M M P L L L L 7-705
Employee Housing Facility, Minor A A A A A A A P A A A A 7-706
Employee Housing Facility, Small P P P P P P P P P P P P 7-707
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL USES
Assembly
Community Meeting Facility A A A A P P A P L L
Place of Worship A A A A A A A P A
Public Gathering A A A P A
Cultural Facility Library A A A P P P A A
Museum A A A A A A A P A A
Day Care
Adult Day Care A A A A A A A P
Child Care Center A A A A A A A P L 7-804
Family Child Care Home P P P P P P P A A 7-804
Parks and Open
Space
Cemetery A A A A A A A P
Park P P P P P P P P P P P
Community
Service Facility
Corrections Facility M M M M M M P M
Educational Facility L L L L A A A P A
Emergency Shelter L L L L L L L P
Fire Station A A A A A A A P A A
Hospital M M M M L L L P
Public Building A A A A A A A P A A
Transportation Access Route A A A A A A A P P P P P
Aircraft Landing Strip L L L L P L L 7-802
MV Parcel Map
Thu Sep 12 2013 08:31:38 AM.
Account #Parcel #Owner Address Tax Area Situs
Market Taxable Legal
R060075 2185-271-00-026 MOUNTAIN VIEW CHURCH
OF GLENWOOD PO BOX 222
GLENWOOD SPGS, CO
81602-0222
006 2195 154 COUNTY RD
$855,000 $247,950 Section: 27 Township: 6 Range: 89 TR OF LAND IN E2NE LYING WRLY OF OLD HWY 82 & ERLY OF
THE ROARING FORK RIVER STATE EXEMPT #23-01089-01
Account Search Summary PDF
<webuser> @ Sep 13, 2013 11:04:27 AM Garfield County Page 1 of 1
R060075
218527100026
MOUNTAIN VIEW CHURCH OF GLENWOOD
PO BOX 222, GLENWOOD SPGS, CO, 81602-0222
2195 154 COUNTY RD, GLENWOOD SPRINGS
Section: 27 Township: 6 Range: 89 TR OF LAND IN E2NE LYING WRLY OF OLD HWY 82 & ERLY OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER STATE EXEMPT #23-01089-01
006
Account:
Parcel:
Owner Name:
Owner Address:
Property Address:
Subdivision:
Legal:
Tax Area:
Year Land Actual Imp Actual Total Actual Land Assessed Imp Assessed Total Assessed
2013 300,000 555,000 855,000 87,000 160,950 247,950
2012 300,000 585,000 885,000 87,000 169,650 256,650
2011 300,000 585,000 885,000 87,000 169,650 256,650
Taxable Values History
Model Attribute Name Attribute Value
LAND 0
ABSTRACT_CODE EXEMPT/NONRES RELIGIOUS-LAND
AREA_ACRES 5.54
AREA_SQFT 0
NEIGHBORHOOD GLENWOOD - EXEMPT
XFOB 0
ABSTRACT_CODE EXEMPT-NONRES RELIGIOUS-IMPS
ACT_YEAR_BLT 1985
XFOB_CODE TAX EXEMPT
NEIGHBORHOOD GLENWOOD - EXEMPT
AREA_UNITS 1
Property Details
Account Information
Garfield County Assessor Data Site
Jim Yellico, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601
(P) 970.945.9134 | (F) 970.945.3953 | (E) jyellico@garfield-county.com
feet
meters
500
100
mile s
km
6
9
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
OW
N
E
R
S
WI
T
H
I
N
20
0
FE
E
T
OF
TH
E
MO
U
N
T
A
I
N
VI
E
W
CH
U
R
C
H
PA
R
C
E
L
AS
OF
20
1
3
OW
N
E
R
M
A
I
L
I
N
G
AD
D
R
E
S
S
CL
H
PR
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
,
LL
C
P
O BO
X
62
0
B
A
S
A
L
T
C
O
8
1
6
2
1
EL
‐RO
C
K
O
MO
B
I
L
E
HO
M
E
PA
R
K
LL
C
2
3
0
7
CO
U
N
T
Y
RO
A
D
15
4
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
SP
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
PA
R
T
N
E
R
S
II
I
LL
C
3
5
3
GO
O
S
E
LA
N
E
C
A
R
B
O
N
D
A
L
E
C
O
8
1
6
2
3
GL
E
N
W
O
O
D
SP
R
I
N
G
S
,
CI
T
Y
OF
1
0
1
W 8T
H
ST
R
E
E
T
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
SP
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
DU
P
L
I
C
E
‐MC
G
O
W
A
N
FA
M
I
L
Y
TR
U
S
T
DA
T
E
D
12
/
0
2
/
9
8
1
2
1
7
CO
U
N
T
Y
RO
A
D
11
6
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
SP
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
UN
I
T
E
D
ST
A
T
E
S
OF
AM
E
R
I
C
A
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
D
C
MO
U
N
T
A
I
N
VI
E
W
CH
U
R
C
H
OF
GL
E
N
W
O
O
D
P
O
BO
X
22
2
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
SP
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
2
‐02
2
2
JA
N
U
S
Z
,
CH
R
I
S
T
O
P
H
E
R
M & AS
T
R
I
D
B
3
6
4
2
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
82
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
SP
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
WE
L
D
E
N
,
KA
R
E
N
T
2
1
7
7
CO
U
N
T
Y
RO
A
D
15
4
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
SP
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
DU
P
L
I
C
E
‐MC
G
O
W
A
N
FA
M
I
L
Y
TR
U
S
T
DA
T
E
D
12
/
0
2
/
9
8
1
2
1
7
CO
U
N
T
Y
RO
A
D
11
6
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
SP
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
TA
U
F
E
R
,
JO
H
N
L & MA
U
R
I
N
E
C
2
1
6
5
CO
U
N
T
Y
RO
A
D
15
4
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
SP
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
Floorplans
Floodplain Map
Traffic Analysis
Previous Building Permit/Review Correspondence
NRCS Soil Data
Support Letter
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
TRAFFIC COUNT ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING OPINION:
For any provided equations or charts, the input variables were larger than our anticipated largest school
by a fair margin, including a potential expansion to 12th grade. All samples were of schools of several
hundred or greater. Since we have no available model to present a exact comparison, we propose the
following calculation and comparison to current county statistics. The following has been presented to
the consultant reviewer for the County, Mr. Chris Hale.
In maximum use of 108 students and 12 staff, if each of the students of the 10‐12 grades drove
individually and each staff person, that would equate to 36 students and 12 staff. That would be 48
total trips in addition to the approximately 4 staff the church already sees on a normal workday. Plus
presuming one (1) trip each way per 2 children of non‐driving age (K‐9), equates to another 38 trips.
This would then be a total of 48 + 4 + 38 or 90 total trips during a peak hour coming in at two potential
entrances. It is reasonable that the AM hour will be a more noticeable peak as the school will start
around 8 AM, but end at 4 PM, an hour before typical PM rush hour. As a comparison with the nearest
ITE chart (#536), the equation T = 0.86(X) – 34.44 gives a resultant 58 trips. This was with a small sample
size of schools much larger than Skylark intends. In reality, our experience with schools like this in the
valley, there is much more carpooling and shared family rides than as presented here, albeit anecdotal.
Driveway access consists of two points on CR 154. That connection either heads toward Glenwood on
154, or takes you immediately to the stoplight at Highway 82. The Highway 82 connection is anticipated
to be the main access point as it is already a lighted, controlled intersection with left and right turn
lanes.
As a comparison, we took the 2002 County ADT data for CR 154 plus a 3% growth rate for each year
since (12 years to 2014). That total (highlighted) equates to 3655 vehicles in all directions.
Therefore, the addition of the school equates to a 2% increase in total ADT for CR 154. Again, you would
see nearly all of that additional traffic in the peak AM hour, and most of it in the peak PM hour as the
morning impact will be more concentrated than the evening departure. With this, we respectfully
request the scenario presented be accepted and suggest that no changes to CR 154, the driveways to
the site, nor Highway 82 are required.
Respectfully,
Rick L. Barth, P.E. 36749
Ph: 970‐366‐2806
Email: rbarth@rifleco.org
1352
1 . f Phone No.GARFIELD COUNTY Address
945 -8241 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2014 Blake Ave
Job Address u Hinhway 82 next to buffalo Valley Type oeepen
Nature of Work Building Permit
Use of Building Church
Owner i,:un tin View Baptist Church
Contractor sunlight. Masonry
Amount of Permit $ 515.00 Date February 11. 1980
j Tani LC nod
Building Permit Application
N° 1038
Garfield County, Colo.19
Owner: LiC t.'_: /] ?n 1/ j= -{3 t _ Ci•1c%
Contractor or Builder:G /91 14S 1 y
Location: S`!_L'r% 7 Me <c y
Purpose for which building is to be used:
Size of Lot:2 C_Ce" S
Distance of building from property line at:LC Fs:
Front _I t°Rear 9
Left side _ l<-_ - -- . Right side /96
Distance from nearest building: SC' Yi'1 S Number of stories: _ •
Source of water supply: P. - V e C-Number of rooms: ____ C
Type of sewage disposal c >c't7i c Sv5 /r. Type of foundation: —
Width of Building: c _ _ - -'C (Material in outside walls: eel- C('
Length of Building: rC'-Exterior Finish:
Height of walls: _ .— S / _Type of roof:Yiri /i C
Floor space in sq. ft.:-S ,(T
oto
Estimated Cost: $ —
Date construction will start: _ C r!'2±i Date of completion:yet Oa qr° c )'
Permit Charge: 3yy mo per 1st $1,000 Valuation.
7 A"rvirw 7L= per each additional $1,000 Valuation.
TOTAL 37h m
And I /We hereby agree to build strictly to the terms of the above description, and also to clear the
grounds adjacent street or streets of all rubbish and debris caused by the construction of said building.
Respectfully , r-+
I
The County Commissioners hereby grant the above permit as per terms therein stated. This y/
day of_ /- _ br_19W.
Building Inspector
Clerk
RECEIVED JAN 1 6 1980
lE•A STATE OF COLORADO
SENATE BILL NO. 43' 1977
ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD
BUILDING ENVELOPE COMPLIANCE
ASHRAE STANDARD 90 -75R
DATE: 11/13/79 DATA INPUT BY NT
PROJECT: MOUNTAIN VIEW DAM 1ST CHURCHLOCA GLEENWOOD SPRINCS
ARCHITECT: WOODWORTH & ASSOC
BUILDING TYPE: El 2.5% SUMMER DRY BULB: 94 DEGREES F
DECREES NORTH LATITUDE: 40.0 HEATING DEGREE DAYS: 7000
DESIGN INPUT
WALLS AREA U VALUE:
3779 170
GLASS AREA U VALUE
365 580
DOORS AREA U VALUE
147 580
ROOF AREA U VALUE::
395/050
LIMITING CRITERIA
U0 WALL: 257 ( BTU /HR*SC7.FT.*F' )
U0 ROOF: 068 (B1'Ll /HR*SO.F1.8F' )
MINIMUM R VALUE OF SLAB INSULATION: 5.55 (FWiiW.EI.nHF•: /B'TU)
HEATING COMPLIANCE CHECK
COMPLIANCE DESIGN BTU /HR*'F )
WALLS 1103 939
ROOF 269 198
TOTAL 1372 1137
BUILDING ACCEPTABLE : FOR HEATING.
PREPARED BY:
ABEYIA ENGINE:EFtING CONSULTANTS INC.
10 INVERNESS DRIVE: EAST SUITE 112 402 24th STREET
ENGL.EWOOD COLORADO 80112 GL.ENWOOD SPRINGS, COL..ORADO
303-770--6400 81601 303-945 8088
1
1
F OCCUPANCYCERTIFICATEOfl,I
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Issued Without Fee
March 17. 1sf • •
Permission is hereby granted to Mountain View Ralitiet Church
Zone DistrictBuildingPermitNo._— — 2 i
situated at ___'r 1 r'6 county Rortd 1S4. rlrnwnnd Springs Lot Blk.Addition
for the following purpose Church
State Nature of Use)
Contractor -__ _ Svoli9ht Mhsonry
TAKE NOTICE White: Owner
No change shall be made in Green: Lending Agency
the use of this building with- Gold: Contractor GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT •
out prior notice and certili- Yellow: Building Department 4
cats from the Building Official. Pink: Assessor By
GARFIELD COUNTY
STATE OF Colorado
Office of Building Official 1g
REQUEST FOR INSPECTION 1a
1 1
Oate I Permit No. ---17
TimeReceived T .M,District N
2 IIa—
Job F\ndres ,_ (,
r
corny
Owner's I
t
Name 11 rO'Contractor
C—.BUILUING:ELECTRICAL PLUMBING HEATING
Foundation fl Wire Rough Wiring .0 Rough Rough
Chimney Lath Finish Wiring Final Flnat
Framing Scratch Fixtures Sewers Water el
Final Brown Motors.Gas
Finish Cesspobl
Wallboard
READY FOR INSPECTION 1 : 7 A.f,I _To s.Wed.Thurs.Fri.CP Ml
Inspection Made/ 0 /2 ¶
lnapeceor
flab.. 300.1
OF
GARFIELD COUNTY 1/1/ •ColoradosTnTSTATE
h Office of Building Official
0 REQUEST FOR' INSPECTION
Date y , < -__ -- ..__-Permit No., 1 --
Time 7 t2'
Receive c "J s -- .` M,District No.
WA 0.2_Job Aress pp Locality
Owner's RNamei ! -/ . 1„, .0 11/- contractor___
DILDING t PLAST RING ELECTRICAL HEATING
Foundation 0 Wire Rough Wiring .0 Rough
Chimney Lath Finish Wiring.. Final Final 0
Framing Scratch Fixtures Sewers Water Heater..
Final Brown Motors. Gas
i-- Finish Cesspool
lOL Wallboard s 6etie"READY FOR INSPECTION L/A l
Mon.Tues.Wed.Thurs.—
Inspection Made_ ;74 S A u C
Inspector 1.j f _
r0JM 300 .1 / -
GA{2FIolo rado
COUNTY
STATE OF Colo
t
Office of Building Official
1 q1 REQUEST FOR INSPECTION
Date_ if C / Permit No. 7.3
Time f(7' e ' .C M.
Received 1__ -_ V_. t)District No.
Cy / •LN1c) d
Job Address Locality
f/J)J/ Name /II et [ce IL' rest /c! ( !/_-_ _Contractor_
BUILDING PLASTERING ELECTRICAL P WRING -
T
HEATING
Foundation Wire Rough Wiring .0 Roug Rough
Chimney Lath Finish Wiring Final Final
Framing Scratch Fixtures Sewers Water Heater..
Final Brown Motors Gas
Finish Cesspool
Wallboard Le I
READY FOR INSPECTION .-q1Mon.T / ue } .{ / /Wed.hurt.Fri., // i 3n
Inspection ade _.__ 7 --- 8. ! . —_ ___ -1714 - --
fnspecwr
e.0 gd.t
GARF I RD COUNTY 1
STATE OF_ Col ora do
Office of Building Official
ir I\ LOLL LS T i OH 1NSPF_CT ION
Date tir I' LCD
Time 1 . .4-S -Received_District No._ _ ______________ _ _
Job Address 1S2./.- \-\ -11:31'—c 11
Owner'sN i AinAAN CSCI4
BUILDIN PI ASIERING ELECTRICAL 1 HEAT ING
Foun•anon ..... .. 0 Wire 1E1 Rough Wiring-0 Rough r Rough 0
Chimney 0 Lath 0 Finish Wiring 0 Final o Final 0
F raming 14 Scratch 0 Fixtures 0 Sewers 0 Water thaw.. 0
inst..0 Mown
ooti ngs 0 r intsh 0
gnWiroli A wanba,aC
0 Motors
0
READY FOR INSPECTION
0 Gas
Cesspool
0
Underground p3 e
Mon.Cir Wed.Thurs. Fri._
Inspection Niade.J.
rlion . spmecr000r.._lh- ^-s I —
I GARFIELD COUNTY
t
STATE oF_ Colorado
Olficc of Building Official V
Date
RI:OUGST FOR INSPFS'CTION
114 3 . ! Vv. . --Permit No. 1 _
Time 1 t • 6bReceived L,, District No.
C' '.InCAtloicss
w
I
1_ocatlly
Owners O •VY"N._Nam contra __
BUILD r PLASIFRIN ELECTRICAL PLUMBING]HEATING
Foun•ation Wire 0 Rough Wiring .0 Rough Rough
Chimney I - ash Finish wiring CI final 0 Find
Framing Scratch 0 fixtures Sewers le Wale/ Heater.. crib,hewn Motors Gas
ootings finish Cesspool
eatherprf Wallboard Underground
nsulation 81 MARY 1 OR INSPECTION #a
Mon.Tues.Wed FA. -NZiiir..C 3 T
P
Inspection Mach_.1 a
Inspector1IORM300.1
GARFIELD COUNTY.
ColoradojsTATEOF_ __—Office of 6uitdin9 Official
REOU EST FOR INSPECTION
Pc mit No. 1 —
Date_ l_l 5C
r'J 2 : __ . -
Time Q '/9 District No.
Receive v Lo-
Job
pp
st
t_ocautY
p.•.eri V I f [(l .. 91 t 1=-- L`AC'- °ntract or HEATINGNamIN - - - - -ELECTRICAL PLUMBING
Roush
Chimneyon....... tale._._.._.._ .... Rough is ng-0 Final FinalFinishWising-0 Final OLSewers Water H.•tv..
Chimney........... Stench_Fiatmre
Ftaming ........_ Mows Gat
Final .......... bE Mown_ _._ . .Ccsspool
W fQ
herp wi .__ -_.Underground
Ins u [of t''a ""a'°AM
Mon:
at1 On R[nDY (oft INSPECTION Thurs.Frt. -- - - iToes.Wed.
Inspection Ma P "_
Insprcwr_.._ —y-v
Report—Physical Soil Properties
Physical Soil Properties–Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Map symbol
and soil name
Depth Sand Silt Clay Moist
bulk
density
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Available
water
capacity
Linear
extensibility
Organic
matter
Erosion
factors
Wind
erodibility
group
Wind
erodibility
indexKwKfT
In Pct Pct Pct g/cc micro m/sec In/In Pct Pct
8—Atencio-
Azeltine
complex, 1 to
3 percent
slopes
Atencio 0-11 -66--19-10-15- 20 1.35-1.50 4.23-42.34 0.10-0.13 0.0-2.9 2.0-4.0 .20 .20 3 3 86
11-23 -57--18-20-25- 30 1.25-1.40 1.41-14.11 0.10-0.13 0.0-2.9 1.0-2.0 .10 .17
23-28 -66--19-10-15- 20 1.35-1.50 4.23-42.34 0.07-0.10 0.0-2.9 0.5-1.0 .15 .28
28-60 -95-- 2-2- 4- 5 1.45-1.60 141.14-705.00 0.01-0.02 0.0-2.9 0.0-0.5 .02 .20
Azeltine 0-18 -66--19-10-15- 20 1.35-1.50 4.23-42.34 0.07-0.10 0.0-2.9 2.0-4.0 .10 .20 2 3 86
18-60 -98-- 2-0- 1- 2 1.45-1.60 141.14-705.00 0.01-0.02 0.0-2.9 0.0-1.0 .02 .17
73—Water
Water —————————
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008
Physical Soil Properties---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Mountain View general area
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/19/2013
Page 4 of 4
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection
of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction,
and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect
dwellings and small commercial buildings.
The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate
the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building
site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very
favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can
be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are
moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or
minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and
moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has
one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations
generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or
expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can
be expected.
Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The
ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate
gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative
impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation
(0.00).
Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without
basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced
concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum
frost penetration, whichever is deeper. For dwellings with basements, the
foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on
undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7 feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on
the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without
movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The
properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table,
ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and
compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification. The
properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water
table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of
bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.
Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and
do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings
of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth
of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the
soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement
and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties
that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding,
flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and
compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification). The properties that
affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table,
ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a
cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
Mountain View general area
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/19/2013
Page 1 of 2
Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use
alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction.
The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data
generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to
7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included
within the mapped areas of a specific soil.
The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite
investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the
design and construction of engineering works.
Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose
specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table.
Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site
selection, and in design.
Report—Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
[Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and
to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns
range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation.
The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have
additional limitations]
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings–Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Map symbol and soil
name
Pct. of
map
unit
Dwellings without basements Dwellings with basements Small commercial buildings
Rating class and
limiting features
Value Rating class and
limiting features
Value Rating class and
limiting features
Value
8—Atencio-Azeltine
complex, 1 to 3
percent slopes
Atencio 45 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited
Large stones content 0.01 Large stones content 0.01 Large stones content 0.01
Azeltine 45 Not limited Not limited Not limited
73—Water
Water 100 Not rated Not rated Not rated
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa
Counties
Mountain View general area
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/19/2013
Page 2 of 2
Physical Soil Properties
This table shows estimates of some physical characteristics and features that affect
soil behavior. These estimates are given for the layers of each soil in the survey
area. The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these and
similar soils.
Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated.
Particle size is the effective diameter of a soil particle as measured by
sedimentation, sieving, or micrometric methods. Particle sizes are expressed as
classes with specific effective diameter class limits. The broad classes are sand,
silt, and clay, ranging from the larger to the smaller.
Sand as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.05 millimeter to
2 millimeters in diameter. In this table, the estimated sand content of each soil layer
is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters
in diameter.
Silt as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.002 to 0.05
millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated silt content of each soil layer is
given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters
in diameter.
Clay as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0.002
millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated clay content of each soil layer is
given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters
in diameter.
The content of sand, silt, and clay affects the physical behavior of a soil. Particle
size is important for engineering and agronomic interpretations, for determination
of soil hydrologic qualities, and for soil classification.
The amount and kind of clay affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil and
the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture. They influence shrink-
swell potential, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), plasticity, the ease of soil
dispersion, and other soil properties. The amount and kind of clay in a soil also
affect tillage and earthmoving operations.
Moist bulk density is the weight of soil (ovendry) per unit volume. Volume is
measured when the soil is at field moisture capacity, that is, the moisture content
at 1/3- or 1/10-bar (33kPa or 10kPa) moisture tension. Weight is determined after
the soil is dried at 105 degrees C. In the table, the estimated moist bulk density of
each soil horizon is expressed in grams per cubic centimeter of soil material that is
less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Bulk density data are used to compute linear
extensibility, shrink-swell potential, available water capacity, total pore space, and
other soil properties. The moist bulk density of a soil indicates the pore space
available for water and roots. Depending on soil texture, a bulk density of more than
1.4 can restrict water storage and root penetration. Moist bulk density is influenced
by texture, kind of clay, content of organic matter, and soil structure.
Physical Soil Properties---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Mountain View general area
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/19/2013
Page 1 of 4
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a
saturated soil transmit water. The estimates in the table are expressed in terms of
micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the
field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity
(Ksat) is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank
absorption fields.
Available water capacity refers to the quantity of water that the soil is capable of
storing for use by plants. The capacity for water storage is given in inches of water
per inch of soil for each soil layer. The capacity varies, depending on soil properties
that affect retention of water. The most important properties are the content of
organic matter, soil texture, bulk density, and soil structure. Available water capacity
is an important factor in the choice of plants or crops to be grown and in the design
and management of irrigation systems. Available water capacity is not an estimate
of the quantity of water actually available to plants at any given time.
Linear extensibility refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture
content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. It is an expression of the volume
change between the water content of the clod at 1/3- or 1/10-bar tension (33kPa or
10kPa tension) and oven dryness. The volume change is reported in the table as
percent change for the whole soil. The amount and type of clay minerals in the soil
influence volume change.
Linear extensibility is used to determine the shrink-swell potential of soils. The
shrink-swell potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent;
moderate if 3 to 6 percent; high if 6 to 9 percent; and very high if more than 9 percent.
If the linear extensibility is more than 3, shrinking and swelling can cause damage
to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. Special design
commonly is needed.
Organic matter is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of
decomposition. In this table, the estimated content of organic matter is expressed
as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in
diameter. The content of organic matter in a soil can be maintained by returning
crop residue to the soil.
Organic matter has a positive effect on available water capacity, water infiltration,
soil organism activity, and tilth. It is a source of nitrogen and other nutrients for crops
and soil organisms.
Erosion factors are shown in the table as the K factor (Kw and Kf) and the T factor.
Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by
water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)
and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average
annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The
estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and
on soil structure and Ksat. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being
equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion
by water.
Erosion factor Kw indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are
modified by the presence of rock fragments.
Erosion factor Kf indicates the erodibility of the fine-earth fraction, or the material
less than 2 millimeters in size.
Physical Soil Properties---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Mountain View general area
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/19/2013
Page 2 of 4
Erosion factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion
by wind and/or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a
sustained period. The rate is in tons per acre per year.
Wind erodibility groups are made up of soils that have similar properties affecting
their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group
1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the
least susceptible. The groups are described in the "National Soil Survey
Handbook."
Wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind
erosion, or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion.
There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the surface
layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, organic matter, and
a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind
erosion.
Reference:
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. (http://soils.usda.gov)
Physical Soil Properties---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Mountain View general area
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/19/2013
Page 3 of 4
Skylark School
Mountain View Church, Property Owner
County Use Review Application, 12/13
Site Plan
County Study Maps
70
70
Rifle Silt Glenwood Springs
New Castle
Carbondale
Parachute
Wildfire Hazard, Garfield County, CO
L:\Mapfiles\Wildfire\Website\Wildfire1711.mxd Revision 6: 3-9-11
1 Land Cover/Land Use Map, Leadville Quadrangle, US Geological Sur- vey, 1:250,000, digital ArcInfo data retrieved from EPA Internet site (1982).
2 USGS 30m Digital Elevation Model (1987).
3 Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, Technical Committee on Forest and Rural Fire Protection, National Fire Protection Association, (1991).
The wildfire hazard information depicted on this map was generated by Garfield County GIS based on Colorado State Forest Service wildfire hazardmapping practices. For a complete description of the methodology used, see"Wildfire Hazard Mapping: Garfield County GIS Development Methodology",Hykys, Robert P., (1996).
WILDFIRE DATA SOURCE:
0 5 10 15 20Miles Relative Wildfire Hazard
Negligible/Indeterminate ExtremeModerateLow
U
T
A
H
U
T
A
H
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
70
70
13 325
82
139
133
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
70
70
13 325
82
139
133
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
70
70
13 325
82
139
133
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOOD
SPRINGS
CARBONDALE
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLE
NEW
GLENWOOD
SPRINGS
CARBONDALE
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
1) Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS), Colorado Division of Wildlife,
ArcInfo digital GIS data, 1:50,000, revised biannually (October 1997).
This wildlife distribution map is a product and property of the Colorado
Division of Wildlife. Care should be taken in interpreting these data.
The information portrayed on these maps should not replace field studies
necessary for more localized planning efforts. Written documents may
accompany this map and should be referenced. The data was gathered at
a scale of 1:50000; discrepancies may become apparent at larger scales.
The areas portrayed here are graphic representations of phenomena that
are difficult to reduce to two dimensions. Animal distributions are
fluid; animal populations and their habitats are dynamic. The accuracy
and/or interpretation of these data may be subject to error and shall not
be guaranteed. In addition, the State shall not be liable for any cost,
loss, or damage resulting from furnishing inaccurate data. These data
cannot be sold, transferred, or otherwise exchanged without first
obtaining the express written permission of the Colorado Division of
Wildlife.
WILDLIFE HABITAT SOURCE:
Legend
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout, Purity Grade A or B
Razorback Sucker
Other Stream Fish
NATIVE and OTHER STREAM FISH
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
Legend
Wild Turkey, Field Sighting
Wild Turkey, Overall Range
Wild Turkey, Production Area
Wild Turkey, Roosting Site
Wild Turkey, Winter Range
City or Town
WILD TURKEY
Legend
Sage Grouse, Historic Range
Great Blue Heron Nesting Area
Osprey, Active Nest Site
Peregrine Falcon, Nest Site
Sage Grouse, Overall Range
Sage Grouse, Production Area
Sage Grouse, Winter Range
Ptarmigan, Overall Range
GREAT BLUE HERON, OSPREY, FALCON,
PTARMIGAN, SAGE GROUSE
Legend
Bald Eagle, Active Nest Site
Bald Eagle, Inactive Nest Site
Bald Eagle, Active Roost Site
Bald Eagle, Winter Range
Golden Eagle, Nest Site
BALD EAGLE, GOLDEN EAGLE
Legend
Wolverine, Field Sightings
Kitfox, Field Sightings
River Otter, Overall Range
Lynx, Potential Habitat
Boreal Toad, Field Sightings
LYNX, KITFOX, WOLVERINE, OTTER, BOREAL TOAD
Legend
Bighorn Sheep, Overall Range
Bighorn Sheep, Production Areas
Bighorn Sheep, Winter Range
Bighorn Sheep Migration Pattern
Pronghorn Antelope, Overall Range
Pronghorn Antelope, Winter Concentration Areas
BIGHORN SHEEP, PRONGHORN ANTELOPE
Legend
Mule Deer, Highway Crossings
MULE DEER: Highway Crossings
MULE DEER: Winter Range
Legend
Mule Deer, Migration Patterns
Mule Deer, Summer Range
MULE DEER: Summer Range
PARACHUTE
RIFLE SILT
CASTLENEW
GLENWOODSPRINGS
CARBONDALE
Legend
Elk, Highway Crossings
Elk, Production Areas
ELK: Production Areas and Highway Crossings
Legend
Elk, Migration Patterns
Elk, Winter Range
Elk, Winter Concentration Areas
Elk, Severe Winter Range
ELK: Winter Range
Legend
Elk, Migration Patterns
Summer Range
Elk, Summer Concentration Areas
ELK: Summer Range
Legend
Canada Goose Brood Concentration Areas
Canada Goose Production Areas
Canada Goose Wintering Areas
Canada Goose Feeding Areas
Chukar, Concentration Areas
Chukar, Overall Range
CANADA GOOSE, CHUKAR
Legend
Overall Range
Summer Concentration Areas
Fall Concentration Areas
Bear/Human Conflict
BLACK BEAR
Legend
Resident Population
Overall Range
MULE DEER: Overall Range
Legend
Limited Use Area
Overall Range
Resident Population
ELK: Overall Range
g:\plan\mapset\26wildlife Revision 14: 3-27-02
Wildlife Habitat Profile, Garfield County, Colorado
Legend
Mule Deer, Migration Patterns
Mule Deer, Severe Winter Range
Mule Deer, Winter Concentration Areas
Mule Deer, Winter Range
This map shall be considered to be
ADVISORY ONLY
MAP 26
The information contained herein is believed to be accurate and suitable for the limited uses set forth above.
Garfield County makes no warranty as to the accuracy or suitablity of any information contained herein for any
other purposes. The user shall assume all risk and responsibility for any and all damages, including consequen-
tial damages, which may propagate from the user's application of this information.
This map was produced by Garfield County Geographic Information Services utilizing the ArcInfo Geographic
Information System (GIS). The GIS and its components are designed as a source of reference for answering
queries, modeling, and planning. The GIS is not a substitute for official government records maintained by the
Planning Department, the County Clerk and Recorders Office, the Assessor's Office, or for any legal descrip-
tion information in the chain of title. In addition, the representation of geographic locations by the GIS may
not be substituted for actual legal surveys. Always refer to the sources cited for the most current legal docu-
mentation utilized in the composition of this map.
DISCLAIMER:
0 10 20 30 405
Miles
1 inch equals 13.7 miles
CDOW DISCLAIMER:
230
253 2 4 3
2 1 7
292
2 4 9
245
219
252
249
2
5
2 2 43
226 247
24
5
226
2 4 1
2 3 7
2
5
7
245251
242
2
8
9
4 5 6
2 3 7
1 3 7
297
2
3
3
2 6 1 A
250259a 2 3 9
2 6 6 1 3 2290215215
2
5
9
244 2 9 8
2 6 1
240228
2
3
8
2 6 0
233 4 5 1233
248 291
2 2 9
1 2 9
2 3 1
2 2 5
216 335223214214
214227
2 3 3
210 262236
1 3 4335229
218293 96221235
265 3143
1
2294
335311
331
120346
3
1
1
246
A
319 365346 315352332
2
4
6
134319321
1
2
8
3 3 1
320 3 2 0320
3
5
6
1151
5
4 1 1 5
3 17
127334A
3
1
1
320
119
3
2
5
333
1
6
3
3 2 3
312309 1 1 7
326 326E320309
3
1
5
154
115309
215
340
337 3 2 9 1 1 3
301 1 1 4
3 5 5
301
3
0
8
114
3
3
1
1223
3
8
336 311350 328322315
3 1 0
3
1
7
1 10354126
1 1 3
300 113
3 0 7
302 113
324
324319 170308
303 112
3
4
2
313
8
9316319
3 1 1
1 0 3
327
8
91683433
3
8 1 0 5
3 1 5
300 1023
5
3
1 0 7
3
0
0
162331109
104
3
0
4
10 0
106 10 3
1
2
5345306
1 17306
344
3
1
1
3 3 9
1 0 8
100
318 101
306
3 4 2
344
1533
1
3
1
1
1
117 1 0 8
123124 118
1 2 1
Soil Hazard
Profile, Study
Areas 1 ,2, & 3,
Garfield County,
Colorado
g:\plan\mapset\23soilhaz Revision 4: 2-6-02
Glenwood
Springs
70
Carbondale
82
133
E
A
G
L
E
C
O
E
A
G
L
E
C
O
M E S A C OMESA C O P I T K I N C OPITKIN C O
R I O B L A N C O C ORIO B L A N C O C O
New
Castle
Silt
6
Rifle
13 325
Parachute
70
MAP 23
Legend
Soil Hazard
COAL MINE
MAJOR
MODERATE
Extent of Geologic Study
MAJOR SOIL HAZARD:
MODERATE SOIL HAZARD:
DEFINITION OF TERMS
AREA OF MODERATE HAZARD, SUCH AS SOME SUBSIDENCE PROB-
LEMS. iNVESTIGATION INCLUDES DETAILED GEOLOGIC STUDY,
TEST DRILLING, AND LABORATORY ANALYSES. GEOPHYSICAL OR
REMOTE SENSING METHODS MAY BE USEFUL. MITIGATION USU-
ALLY INVOLVES SPECIAL SITING AND DESIGN.
AREA OF MAJOR HAZARD, SUCH AS OUTCROPS OF CORROSIVE,
SUBSIDING, EVAPORITE ROCKS. INVESTIGATION INCLUDES
DETAILED GEOLOGIC STUDY, INTENSIVE TEST DRILLING, AND
SOILS AND CHEMICAL TESTING, GEOPHYSICAL AND REMOTE
SENSING WORK AND OFFICE ANALYSIS. MITIGATION WILL INVOLVE
SPECIAL SITING, DESIGN AND USE LIMITATIONS, AVOIDANCE
USUALLY HIGHLY ADVISABLE.
ACTUAL EXTENT OF HAZARD UNKNOWN, MUST BE INDIVIDUALLY
EVALUATED.
COAL MINE:
1 inch equals 2.8 miles
SOIL HAZARD SOURCE:
1) "Geologic Hazards Identification Study", Lincoln-Devore Testing
Laboratory,prepared under the supervision of the Colorado Geologic
Survey (1975-76).
230
253 2 4 3
2 1 7
292
2 4 9
245
219
252
249
2
5
2 24 3
226 247
24
5
226
2 4 1
2 3 7
2
5
7
245251
242
2
8
9
4 5 6
2 3 7
1 3 7
297
2
3
3
2 6 1 A
250259a 2 3 9
2 6 6 1 3 2290215215
2
5
9
244 2 9 8
2 6 1 240228
2
3
8
2 6 0
233 4 5 1
2 3 3
248 291
2 2 9
1 2 9
2 3 1
2 2 5
216 3 3 5223
214214
214227
2 3 3
210 262236
1 3 4335229
218293 96221235
265 3143
1
2294
335311
331
120346
3
1
1
24
6A
319 365346 315352332
2
4
6
134319321
1
2
8
3 3 1
320 3 2 0320
3
5
6
115
1
5
4 1 1 5
3 17
127334A
3
1
1
320
119
3
2
5
333
1
6
3
3 2 3
312309 1 1 7326326E320309
3
1
5
154
115309
215
340337 3 2 9 1 1 3
301 1 1 4
3 5 5
301
3
0
8
114
3
3
1
122
3
3
8
336 311350 328322315
3 1 0
3
1
7
1 1 0354126
1 1 3300113
3 0 7 302 113324324319 170308
303 112
3
4
2
313
8
9316319
3 1 1
1 0 3
327
8
91683433
3
8 105
3 1 5
300 1023
5
3
1 0 7
3
0
0
162331
109
104
3
0
4
1 00
106 1 03
1
2
5345306
117306
344 3
1
1
3 3 9
108
100
318 101
306
3 4 2
344
15331
3
1
1
1
117 1 0 8
123124 118
1 2 1
Slope Hazard
Study Areas
1, 2, & 3,
Garfield County,
Colorado
g:\plan\mapset\22slopehaz Revision 4: 2-6-02
Glenwood
Springs
70
Carbondale
82
133
E
A
G
L
E
C
O
E
A
G
L
E
C
O
M E S A C OMESA C O P I T K I N C OPITKIN C O
R I O B L A N C O C ORIO B L A N C O C O
New
Castle
Silt
6
Rifle
13
325
Parachute
70
MAP 22
Legend
Slope Hazard
MAJOR
MODERATE
Extent of Geologic Study
AREA OF MAJOR HAZARD, SUCH AS ACTIVE LANDSLIDE. INVESTI-
GATION INCLUDES GEOLOGIC STUDY, INTENSIVE DRILLING, AND
SOPHISTICATED STRENGTH TESTING, STABILITY ANALYSES, AND
MONITORING OF SOIL, ROCK, AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS.
MITIGATION MAY BE POSSIBLE, BUT WILL PROBABLY BE EXPEN-
SIVE, REQUIRE SPECIAL SITING, AND WILL INVOLVE SOME RISK.
AVOIDANCE MAY BE RECOMMENDED FOR PROJECTS OF LOWER
ECONOMIC VALUE.
AREA OF MODERATE HAZARD, SUCH AS SOME DEBRIS FANS AND
MINOR ROCKFALL AREAS. DETAILED GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
SHOULD ACCOMPANY AN ENGINEERING STUDY, INCLUDING TEST
DRILLING, SIMPLE STRENGTH TESTS, GROUNDWATER EVALUA-
TION, AND STABILITY ANALYSIS. MITIGATION IS USUALLY POSSI-
BLE, BUT WILL USUALLY BE EXPENSIVE AND MAY INVOLVE LARGE-
SCALE CONSTRUCTION WORK. SPECIAL SITING MAY BE HELPFUL.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
MODERATE SLOPE HAZARD:
MAJOR SLOPE HAZARD:
1 inch equals 2.8 miles
1) "Geologic Hazards Identification Study", Lincoln-Devore Testing
Laboratory,prepared under the supervision of the Colorado Geologic
Survey (1975-76).
SLOPE HAZARD SOURCE: