Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.20.2010PralaC STA 6+21-117/A. Board of County Commissioners — Public Hearing Exhibits John Nieslanik Ranch Rural Land Development September 20, 2010 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P Q R Exhibit Mail Receipts Proof of Publication Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended Application StatFReport Staff Presentation Email dated August 12, 2010 from Karlyn Adams, Division of Water Resources Letter dated August 31, 2010 from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Memo dated August 27, 2010 from Steve Anthony, Vegetation Manager Email dated August 12, 2010 from Jim Rada, Environmental Health Letter dated August 13, 2010 from Kamie Long, Colorado State Forest Service Letter dated August 27, 2010 from Jill Carlson, Colorado Geologic Survey Letter dated August 31, 2010 from Martha Cochran, AVLT Email dated September 3, 2010 from Janet Buck, Town of Carbondale Response letter dated September 9, 2010 from Doug Pratte Drainage Report, dated September 9, 2010 prepared by Sopris Engineering Nieslanik East Mesa Slope Analysis prepared by Sopris Engineering Nieslanik East Mesa Engineering= Plansrelp�aared by opris Engineering -r Wm* Gee[ 9frlilfi ,ca.. ktJazio�5 -o 9(7) d ipyleff 0.ccee.5 p r S P6t1C,FigtAAIMI r2 CAMtL �1 enywaiAN-15 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Rural Land Development Option PROPERTY OWNER Nieslanik Investment, LLC and Cecelia L. Nieslanik Bypass Trust REPRESENTATIVE Mark Nieslanik Doug Pratte — The Land Studio LOCATION Southeast of the Town of Carbondale in Sections 2 and 11, Township 8 South, Range 88 West PROPERTY SIZE: ±180 -acres ACCESS CR 101— White Hill Road EXISTING ZONING Rural COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Study Area 1 — Residential, Medium Density and Residential Low Density I. GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The John Nieslanik Ranch site is located approximately one mile southeast of the Town of Carbondale on a mesa separating the Roaring Fork Valley from the Crystal River Valley. The family has maintained ranch and cattle operations on the site since they purchased the property in 1963. The agricultural activity includes approximately 250 tons of grass and alfalfa produced by two cuttings a year, as well as 250 to 300 head of cattle on the site from late October to early May. Leases exist on the BLM and United States Forest Service for grazing the remainder of the year. 1 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE The site contains agricultural structures and a single family dwelling in the northeastern section of the property which the conservation easement delineates as the 'Ranch Headquarters Envelope' which contains a majority of the existing site improvements as shown on the aerial photograph below. A second dwelling unit exists in the west central portion of the site and is proposed as Lot 5 of this application. The existing homes are served by well and Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS), access is provided via CR 101, White Hill Road. Conservation Easement A perpetual conservation easement, administered by the Aspen Valley Land Trust and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, has been in place since December of 2006 on ±167 -acres of the site. This easement was acquired in part by a grant from Great Outdoors, Colorado and with funds from the 2 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE Commodity Credit Corporation through the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection program administered by the National Resource Conservation Service. The Conservation Easement states that the "property possesses significant agricultural, scenic, open space, and natural values of great importance to Grantor, the people of Carbondale, Garfield and Pitkin Counties and the State of Colorado." Specifically those values are summarized as: • Scenic — The site is visible from the Highway 82 corridor and scenic overlook however is 'relatively secluded from the major viewsheds in the area' and 'the property commands wide vistas of the Crystal River valley and Mount Sopris to the south and Sunlight Mountain to the west' (RMES Baseline Survey); • Open Space — Large expanses of irrigated meadows provide the dominant agricultural character in the area; • Agricultural — 'The Nieslanik Ranch is one of the largest contiguous ranches in the valley" and 'the ranch provides significant acreages of contiguous agricultural production in the form of hay meadows and cattle production.' (RMES Baseline Survey) The ±167 -acre conservation easement encumbers 93% of the property with the remaining 7% (approximately 12 acres) available for development of five (5) family home sites. The developable area will remain outside of the agricultural production area thus preserving the intent of the easement. 11. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The John Nieslanik Ranch is seeking approval for a Rural Land Development on a 179.435 -acre property to create six (6) lots, five (5) of which are proposed for single family development on ±2-3 acres Tots. The remainder parcel, the sixth lot, is proposed to contain ±167 -acres which will remain in agricultural production. Four (4) new homesites are proposed to be located at the northeast section of the ranch, outside of the Ranch HQ area, clustered in a pinion/juniper hillside area adjacent to Aspen Crystal River Estates Subdivision (as shown right). 3 Ranch House - in Ranch HQ area John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE III. PROCESS The Rural Land Development Option Exemption is a subdivision process described in Article V, Division of Land, of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. The hearing process is determined upon the number of lots proposed to be created - less than ten (10) lots requires a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, while creation of a greater number of lots requires two (2) public hearings with Planning Commission recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The intent of the Rural Lands Development Option Exemption is to allow for the clustering of development on a property while retaining a minimum of 80% of the land as open space. The calculation for the number of lots to be created is as follows: 1 lot per 35 acres: 180/35=5 1 lot per 100 acres: 1 1 lot for process: 1 In the case of the ±180 -acre Nieslanik property, the Applicant could create up to 7 Lots with provision of a minimum of 144 -acres of open space placed in a 40 -year conservation easement. The Nieslanik RLDEO is requesting to create six (6) lots. A perpetual conservation easement is currently in place, as shown to the right, encompassing 167 -acres (93%) and is described on the proposed plat as Lot 6. The areas outside of the easement will contain the five (5) single family lots. John Nieslanik Ranch Conservation Easement IV. LOCATION, ZONING AND ADJACENT USES Located on the east side of the Town of Carbondale, the site is accessed via White Hill Road (CR 101), either through the Town of Carbondale or from the west end of CR 100. The subject site is ±180 -acres of agricultural land zoned Rural. The adjacent zoning includes Residential Urban zoning related to Aspen Crystal River Estates Subdivision to the northeast, and Industrial Zoning to the north. The Town of Carbondale is located to the west northwest. Pitkin ResMeoeal Umar, John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE County is located less than one (1) mile to the south of the site. Current adjacent uses are primarily agricultural in nature as the adjacent Residential Urban and Industrial zone districts are currently vacant and have either never been developed (in the case of Aspen Crystal River Estates) or have ceased operation. V. REFERRAL AGENCIES Comments have been requested from the following agencies. 1. Road and Bridge: No comments received 2. Vegetation Management: EXHIBIT J 3. Environmental Health: EXHIBIT K 4. Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of County): EXHIBIT I 5. Division of Water Resources: EXHIBIT H 6. Water Conservancy Board: No comments received 7. Colorado Geologic Survey: EXHIBIT M 8. Colorado Division of Wildlife: No comments received 9. Carbondale FPD: No comments received 10. Colorado State Forest Service: EXHIBIT L 11. RE -1 School District: No comments received 12. Town of Carbondale: EXHIBIT 0 13. Holy Cross Electric: No comments received 14. Aspen Valley Land Trust: EXHIBIT N VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Roan is arva f� I ! RC3 M 6 < 10 acres/Ju 5 This site is located in Comprehensive Plan Study Area 1 and, as the adjacent Land Use Districts Map for Study Area 1 indicates, the site is appropriate for residential densities in a range of 6 to less than 10 acres per dwelling unit on a majority of the site, with Low density designated on the eastern portion that recommends a density of >10 acres per dwelling unit. The overall proposed density of the site would be 30 -acres per unit. The Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs of the Comprehensive Plan were reviewed and the John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE proposal is compliance with the following: • 5.0 - Recreation/Open Space —Support and encourage creation of open space; • 6.0 — Agriculture — Ensure that existing agricultural lands are allowed to continue; • 8.0 — Natural Environment — Recognize the environmental sensitivity of the land' • 10.0 Urban Area of Influence — Ensure that land use policies and development that will affect a municipality are compatible with existing and future land use of objectives of the town. Town of Carbondale 3 -Mile Plan, 2000 Approximate Area of development 3 Mlle Nae Props' ed Lad Uie caa+aa-re. BourAlary 111111 CM NAM MB :q ran14731074 "1-4 caul. MIT II1L ltE301.111.CE EXTRACTION MIX TRopERre LIE L,(IO*A R111 AA (L! ACM) Ree21(0741W22AMU) Seg. nal se, 3 et 74 tr. 2E as 2R ac 5417 13,134 as 212 or. The 3 -Mile Plan designates low and medium density residential uses to the East Mesa Area. Bast Mesa Alternative The East Mesa Alternative is relatively close to the existing Town boundaries, and the fact that the property is in common ownership would allow a single, master planned approach to its ultimate build out. Primary constraints include txc issues associated with using the existing White Hill access, the potential for sprawl onto adjacent properties and impacts to prime agricultural lands. 6 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE VII. REVIEW CRITERIA & STANDARDS Rural Land Development Exemption submittal requirements include the following sections of the ULUR. The criteria and standards for review are listed in bold italics below, followed by a Staff Response. A. Rural Land Development Exemption Plat Staff Response: An exemption plat has been submitted for review and will be finalized if the development proposal is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. B. Open Space and Open Space Manaeement Plan Staff Response: The open space is held within a perpetual conservation easement administered by the Aspen Valley Land Trust and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. This perpetual easement ensures that the land will be adequately managed by the Grantor. Provisions exist for the grantee to assume this responsibility if necessary. C. Section 4-502(0) Land Suitability Analysis 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. Staff Response: There is no public access through the site. Access is via CR 101, White Hill Road. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. Staff Response: Access to adjoining roadways is sufficient given the proposed increase in traffic volume. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. Staff Response: Easements are indicated on the Exemption Plat as required. 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. Staff Response: A slope determination has been provided for the area proposed to be developed into four (4) single family homesites. This map is attached as EXHIBIT R and indicates that the majority areas in the proposed building envelopes are less than 20% slope. 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. Staff Response: The Baseline Survey, performed by Rocky Mountain Ecological Service, Inc. has inventoried the property prior to placement of the conservation easement. This report includes the significant features of the site such as the large un -named draw which bisects the property, the East Mesa Ditch, the large expanse of agricultural meadows and the pinion/juniper hillside. 7 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Staff Response: A revised drainage report was submitted on September 9th which added information requested by the reviewing engineer (see EXHIBIT I). This information in included the provision existing drainage patterns on the site. 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. Staff Response: Sufficient information has been provided in the submittal regarding the adequacy of the water supply plan, see Section 7 for the Resource Engineering Well Quantity and Quality Report. The site has historically been irrigated by the East Mesa Ditch with the 185 shares of the ditch owned by the Nieslaniks. This allows for 5.8 acre feet of ditch water to be used for irrigation of the meadows. 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. Staff Response: Not applicable. 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. Staff Response: Soils information was provided which indicate a variability in the site soils. The Applicant has proposed mitigation that will place a note on the plat stating: Building permit applications for each Lot shall include plans and specifications for an Onsite Wastewater System (OWS). Each system shall be designed by a State of Colorado Registered Engineer and must be approved pursuant to the Garfield County Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) Regulations before a building permit will be issued. The type, size, and location of each individual OWS will be site specific based on existing Garfield County and State ISDS design criteria and required site-specific geo-technical evaluations. Soil absorption/dispersal systems shall be located within the building envelope on each Lot or within the OWS septic easement for the benefit of Lot 3 as identified on the Rural Land Development Exe®ption Plat. 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. Staff Response: No significant geologic hazards were identified on the site, however Jill Carlson, Engineering Geologist with the Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS), EXHIBIT M, discussed hazards which include potential slope instability, sinkholes and subsidence hazards. Precautions were recommended which include: 1. Site grading and drainage plans should be prepared and reviewed by a qualified engineer who is familiar with slope stability concerns; 8 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE 2. Minimal irrigation and retention of existing vegetation is recommended; 3. Drainage features must be designed and maintained to quick channel surface runoff away from structures and road. 4. Foundation perimeter drain systems should be constructed on all lots; 5. Steel that will be in contact of site soils should be epoxy -coated to prevent corrosion. In addition to the plat note above in number 9. (above) the Applicant proposes the following plat notes: All proposed excavation into slopes steeper that 30% shall be addressed by a geotechnical engineer on a site-specific basis and the information shall be provided to the Building and Planning Department as part of the Building Permit Application. Due to varying site soil conditions, all Lots are required to have an individual site- specific geotechnical study prior to application for a building permit. 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. Staff Response: The property is contained within DOW mapped Mule Deer Winter Concentration and Winter Range and Elk Sever Winter Range and Winter Concentration Area. Existing flora and fauna include the pinon/juniper hillside where the development is proposed to be located. Habitat does occur on the site included within the un -named draw and in the irrigated meadows. 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, palentological and historic resource areas. Staff Response: The development of an addition four (4) single family homes on the site will not adversely impact historic resource areas. The conservation easement provides protection for the remainder of the property. Section 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 Ana lysis. 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. Staff Response: A list of adjacent owners was provided in the submittal materials. 9 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. Staff Response: An adjacent use map was provided indicating a predominance of agriculture and rural residences in the vicinity (outside of the Town area). 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. Staff Response: The Baseline Inventory includes a description of the site features, including the fact that the site is at an elevation of 6,315 to 6,500 feet and has a southerly aspect good for solar orientation. 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Response: Soils on the site are variable and plat notes are proposed that will require submittal of additional information with building permit application. 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. Staff Response: Potential hazards include the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite which sometimes results in sinkholes and subsidence issues. Given that a residence already exists on Lot 5, four remaining sites will require additional investigation prior to issuance of a building permit. 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. Staff Response: The adequacy of the water supply has been determined sufficient as two wells are currently permitted, drilled and tested as adequate to provide potable water for the proposed units. Wells #2 and #3 will serve the development with well #2 providing water to Lots 1, 5, and 6 and well #3 providing water to Lots 2, 3 and 4. The agricultural irrigation will be maintained by the shares of the East Mesa Ditch. 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately 10 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. Staff Response: A site drainage study was included in the original submittal and an update was provided, EXHIBIT Q. CGS recommends numerous mitigation measures which staff recommends the Board require as conditions of approval. These include requirements for a site-specific geologic hazard investigation; proper design, construction and maintenance of grading, drainage and irrigation systems; foundation perimeter drains and protection from corrosive soils. 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna. b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, palentological, historic resources. 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. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. Staff Response: The proposal for four (4) additional homesites on a ±180 -acre parcel will not cause adverse impacts to existing environmental conditions on the site. 9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(J). Staff Response: A basic traffic study, prepared by Sopris Engineering, was included in the application. This study states that the existing access to the site is from County Road 101 which terminates just north of the ranch parcel at a Town of Carbondale cemetery. Two access points currently exist — one to serve the existing dwelling unit on proposed Lot 5, and the second provides access to the existing ranch headquarters and proposed Lots 1-4. The addition of approximately 40 vehicles per day would result in a 10% increase to the traffic on CR 101. 10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. 11 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE Staff Comments: Little impact to adjacent land will result from the addition of four (4) single family homesites. Fugitive dust control will require that each driveway will be washed, course gravel at least 2 -inches thick, speed limited to 25 m.p.h., and dust suppression (via water trucks) during construction activities. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, dated March 16, 2010, is recommended to be included as a component of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the development. 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212. Staff Response: Reclamation is limited to a weed management plan which discusses the revegetation of disturbed areas. Staff recommends that the Weed Management Plan be included as a component of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the development. D. Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions Staff Response: The Rural zone requires a 2 -acre minimum lot size for single family use. The proposed development complies with this minimum. 2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements Staff Response: The site is in general conformance with the Study Area One Proposed Land Use District Map, the Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and with the Town of Carbondale Comprehensive 3 Mile Plan. 3. Section 7-103 Compatibility Staff Response: The low density residential proposal, with preservation of the agricultural character of the site, is compatible with uses in the vicinity. 4. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water Staff Response: A sufficient legal and physical source of water has been provided to serve the proposed units. 5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply Staff Response: Not applicable (refers to developments with greater than eight (8) single family equivalents). 12 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE 6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems Staff Response: The Applicant has provided information relative to the proposed location of the water distribution system on the plat. Proper easements will be necessary for the two distribution systems (one from each well) with those easements conveyed to a Homeowner's Association for construction and maintenance of the system. WATER SYSTEM NOTES: 1, WATER PiF S'rAu. 8E 2" HIOR DR -9. P'Sr— f + dD AWi'A C9)1/C9€6 PPING 2. DEPTH' OF COVER JS d' MINIMUM 3. PAWS TO 6E FURNISHED AWD INSTALLED IWELL 13) 7R MCa7IriED (WELL 12) MIR PRESSURE SWITC•r AUrCVATJ CT'LRATh N. ▪ PUMP AT WELL 4F3 TO BE FURAN13H'EO AiC INSTALLED BY CCJ FRAcrag. • EXISTING PIM' Ar WELL 02 TO GE MQaF1 L) FOR MJrouARC CP. RAT/ON, $, CONTFAC1'..R TO SUPPLY SHIP CIRAVINSS =all NrrER .A rumP synrtM COMPONENTS PGR APPROVi._ J!r EF1GIr N. _p.1•: i • 2c'1 .. . . The Applicant has provided standards for the construction of this system and proposes collateral in the form of a plat note restricting the sale of Lots 1-4 until such time as adequate infrastructure is constructed to serve the lots. Lot 5 is not a part of this restriction as the existing single family home is currently served with adequate infrastructure. 7. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities Staff Response: Adequate Public Utilities are available to this site. "Will Serve" Letters have been provided by Holy Cross Electric, Qwest and Source Gas. All utilities in the proposal are required to be underground. 8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways Staff Response: Access to the site is via CR 101 which terminates just past the entrances to these sites. The proposed access to serve Lots 1-4 will meet County standards for semi -primitive roads which requires a 40' ROW width with two 8' lanes, 2' shoulders and 4' ditch. 13 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE 9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards Staff Response: Mitigation in the form of plat notes requiring site specific studies at building permit are appropriate to mitigate concerns from natural hazards. E. Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands Staff Response: The intent of the perpetual conservation easement is to protect the irrigated meadows on the site. 93% of the property is contained within the easement. 2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Staff Response: The four new homesites will have minimal impact to wildlife habitat areas. 3. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies Staff Response: The waterbodies on the site are in the form of ditches — the East Mesa Ditch and laterals (see below) to serve the site. No development is proposed to impact these areas. 4 • • • • • • • 'IYI'IKAL DITCH iFCTI±Jti • 1 f a (1.)• • i a r a � . t � • • � t •� 1 __MAW& • :••�� D-l6SIANO4 E.i?I 4,41PP PAW,5 14 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE 4. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants Staff Response: Best Management Practices are proposed and the conservation easement contains included on the engineer drawings, EXHIBIT S, and Drainage Plan, EXHIBIT Q. 5. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation Staff Response: The drainage plan contains the following statement: The project area includes off-site areas that contribute to the storm runoff that will pass through the site. However, most of the project is proposed in areas that are at the hili point in the each drainage basin and these areas will contribute essentially no additional storm runoff in the developed conditions. Therefore, the drainage plan is designed to minimize erosion potential, increase retention and absorption with small roadside dispersion swales and to generally convey the runoff into the historic drainage path across the existing ranch pastures. 6. Section 7-206 Drainage & Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off Staff Response: Adequate measures are proposed within the Drainage Plan with regard to drainage and stormwater run-off on the site, including ditches and swales to direct run-off to the irrigates pastures for infiltration. 7. Section 7-208 Air Quality Staff Response: Vehicle emissions will be minimal based upon the proposed 40 trips per day and a Fugitive Dust Plan exists. Staff recommends that the Plan be incorporated in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the development. 8. Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards Staff Response: The site is subject to wildfire hazard according to the County Wildfire Hazard Map. Referral to the Colorado State Forest Service, see EXHIBIT L, resulted in comments including a rating of the lots for hazard. Lot 1— Moderate hazard Lot 4 — Severe hazard Lot 2 - Low/moderate hazard Lot 5 — Low hazard Lot 3 — Moderate/severe The recommendation is to make the State Forest Service Defensible Space standards required for every structure on the property. Staff recommends a plat note be required regarding compliance with these standards. 15 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE The Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District will provide service to the development. A letter was included in the submittal from Chief Gavette recommends a requirement for automatic sprinkler installation in all new residences on the site. Staff has included a condition regarding this requirement. 9. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards Staff Response: Site-specific investigations will be required prior to construction on any of the proposed Tots. Investigation will also be required to assure stability of the road platform. 10. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance Staff Response: The preservation of 93% of the site for irrigated meadow and agriculture protects a vast portion of the site. Minimal impact will result from the construction of four (4) additional homesites. 11. Section 7-212 Reclamation Staff Response: Reclamation is limited to a weed management plan which discusses the revegetation of disturbed areas. Staff recommends that the Weed Management Plan be included as a component of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the development. F. SECTION 7-300 SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Section 7-301 Compatible Design Staff Response: The location of the lots exists outside of the protection area for the agriculture production areas. The site is located atop a pinion/juniper knoll at the northeast corner of the site. 2. Section 7-302 Building Design Staff Response: Not applicable. 3. Section 7-303 Design and Scale of Development Staff Response: The proposed development of the site was considered during the conservation easement process. The scale of the proposed development is well below what the existing Rural Zoning would otherwise permit. 4. Section 7-304 Off-street parking and Loading Standards 16 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE Staff Response: The Applicant will comply with required off-street parking standards.. 5. Section 7-305 Landscaping and Lighting Standards Staff Response: The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions contains information related to the exterior lighting standards. In addition the covenants require non -reflective materials be used in the construction of the dwellings. The Weed Management Plan, which staff recommends be incorporated into the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, contains seed requirements. 6. Section 7-306 Snow Storage Standards Staff Response: Snow storage standards have been agreed to which should not pose any difficulties given the proposed lot sizes. 7. Section 7-307 Roadway Standards Staff Response: The proposed road to access the four homesites meets the semi - primitive road standards. EXHIBIT 5 contains plans and profiles of the road which indicate a maximum grade of 10% - this was amended from the original road design had 300' of 12% road grade. 8. Section 7-308 Trail and Walkway Standards Staff Response: Not applicable. 9. Section 7-309 Utility Standards Staff Response: The plat will be required to adequately TRAFFIC EXHIBIT MAP OF: Nieslanik una1 Land E, en tivu fiat LOCATED IN A PORTION OF SEC11014 2. TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH. RANGE 8O WEST_ COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO STATE_ r11G+1,anv B2 - STATE FII Co NAY 173 SITE ACCESS PAIN" _ SITE ACCESS POINT *Z EXISTING RANCH ACCESS ROADS ROAD 0131M I NGINFERING -ILC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 ALAIN STREET, SUITE A2 CAROONUALE, COLORADO 81828 {0717] 184-8211 PARCEL RGi1NAARY 7,.64-6E5 62/76J2o16 2T(.73.1 -662..,i. 17 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE describe all easements of record, as well as designate utility easements as necessary. The easements will be dedicated to the Homeowners Association or the relevant service provider. G. SECTION 7- 400 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 1. Section 7-401Genera/ Subdivision Standards Staff Response: Domestic animal control is contained in the Declarations and should be considered conditions of approval of this development. The stipulation of one (1) dog per lot should be removed as the County no longer has that requirement. The Declarations also contain the standards for installation of solid -fuel burning appliances. 2. Section 7-402 Subdivision Lots Staff Response: The proposed lots are developable and comply with the requirements of the Land Use Resolution. 3. Section 7-403 Fire Protection Staff Response: The Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District is the service provider for fire protection to the site. The submittal documentation included a letter from Chief Gavette, right, that made numerous recommendations including a requirements for automatic fire sprinkling in new structures. 4. Section 7-404 Survey Monuments Staff Response: State Stature requirements for setting of permanent survey monuments will be further reviewed as part of the plat review by the County Surveyor. FIRE EMS i RESCUE tuned, 2009 Fred Jarmo Director, t'larficld County Building €Planning 10S grit Streee, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 111601 Nlealnnik korai Loral Development Exemption Pint Dein Fred: 1 fire ae Amid an drswim for dee pr repand Nre Rlllul Lora Det&omen( 8umlrtion. The appluapmt was If 11e4nl lo1C eWrdilete w1111 du irdrrraliwW Vac cm&I.II L-! NO Wind is aduplrlby Mammy. Flverrr+r Irnw arc Ivrpr..sd re beet -gaited w Ith tett Rettig; alit eaiuleig ra ddrncc 1.:orad offer she fdhnniv can d rds The ases. r,1r the pnyt!srd au1Wh'isinn 7ppran Altai adequabefor elm erge1cy ippu1Prc: The maces a1e prvpoK1 to direr relay .uindanh Maddilinaal email di isprepared foethe Med thee will prrlohte nceere to Ines 1 rhnnalh S. Watee,aj'Ir=Um Iorr Pyr Pralel1Ilen The M why created lx• will he aen ked by exining well,, Nn %i aka wpplics for fire protection ore prSpnrnd. Irriparuni rhrehen ury .Ooifnblo for pnn of dreyrae along the euisliug mad. Iwnahl recommend that oil toms 0Cfire rpeiotters be intls6led in any new residences, IHI4llrc linnnrdt Tfaprnpeted r9141iv1 don cantaia0 areas which protein a wiidfi3O hazard Defensible spaces should be NI pre routed following rho gulden roes or the Colorado State Fore0r Service. 'j>pp lent is subject to development impact gees adopted by lire Diatrior The developer will he required to enter into on agreement with the Dlstriet tine dM payment of &v.tertieot impact fees. Literal ion of the. agieritteor and peymcnr of the foes me due prior to rhe rvlesding of the final plat Fees are based upon the Impact fees adopted by dee plAatlrf at the time the Amourcnl is empoed. The current fee for residential devekap mein i50704_00 per unit. Plan se eonnWl mr if you have any goslions or if l tan be or any aniisursee. Sinreedy.. 0111 Gerald Deputy Chief cc: Bill Sappington, Snprisl:ngineering Doug Print. The Lund Design Studio Carbondale & Rural Etre Protection District 300 Meadowoonl Dene+ Carbondale, CO 01023 •970.963-2491 Fav 970-963-0569 18 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE 5. Section 7-405 Standards for Public Sites and Open Space Staff Response: School Land Dedication is required, or fee in -lieu of land dedication. An appraisal must be submitted for determination of the fees. That appraisal must have been performed by an individual qualified in the State of Colorado to establish the unimproved market value of the property. The Code requires that this be completed prior to signing of the plat. A condition is recommended that an appraisal and submittal of the fee are required prior to signing of the plat. This site is not contained in a Road Impact Fee Zone as shown on the map below. Traffic Study Areas, Garfield County, CO 1.071 i • PA:( jilt - ri '„t, 41.1 V feral d72 Proposed Area Additional Standards Applicable to Rural Land Development Exemptions Section 7-601 Rural Land Development Exemption Standards Other fees due will be impact fees for the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District which requires a fee of $704.00 per unit. The fee for the development will be based upon the new dwelling units that will be served (4 x 704 = $2,816.00) and is due prior to the signing of the plat. A. Rural Character. Proposed division and development of the land minimizes the impacts of residential development on agricultural lands and agricultural operations, and maintains the rural character of lands. 1. Proposed division and development of the land maintains the opportunity for agricultural production on the most productive and viable parcels of land. Staff Response: The intent of the conservation easement is to protect the agricultural character of this property. 93%, or ±167 -acres, of the site is protected in a perpetual easement. B. Eligible Parcels. The Rural Land Use Development Exemption may be used to create a cluster subdivision development on a parcel of land 70 acres or more in any unincorporated area of the County. 19 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE These Regulations do not preclude owners of adjacent properties from combining their properties for the purposes of forming a parcel eligible for division under the provisions of the Rural Lands Development Exemption Option. Staff Response: This site meets the eligibility requirements required for this process. C. Open Space. Eighty (80) percent of the parcel shall be preserved as contiguous open space to be used as wildlife habitat, grazing land, critical natural areas or similar uses. Staff Response: The proposal exceeds the 80% provision of open space. E. Residential Land Use. The proposed division of land shall be for single-family dwelling use only. Staff Response: Single-family use is proposed. F. Density. The residential density does not exceed (1) residential units for every thirty-five (35) acres plus one (1) lot for every one hundred (100) acres contained in the eligible property plus one (1) additional lot, with a maximum of forty-two (42) lots plus remainder parcel. The rural lands development option is illustrated below using the same 105 acre ranch as in the example 20% of 105 acres fo lots (21 acres) 2 3 4 5 6 7 1) The land owner would place 80% of the land in an easement for 40 years; 8 2) The land owner would be entitled to create up to 8 lots to be located in the remaining 20% of the ranch (21 acres). This is figured as follows: 80% of 105 acres (84 ac.) preserved as "open space" Staff Response: formula above. This property • 1 lot for every 35 acre lot that could have been created = 3 lots; • 1 lot for each 100 acres in the parent property = 1 lot; • 1 lot for going through the Rural Land Development Option = 1 lot; and 3 lots for exemption lots if the property qualifies. 3) Therefore, a total of 8 lots could be created for development leaving the remainder 80% to be placed in an easement for 40 years. has the ability to create up to seven (7) parcels based upon the The Applicant has requested six (6) parcels. G Remainder Parcel. Development and use of the Remainder Parcel shall be restricted to one dwelling unit plus an accessory structure to agricultural use. 20 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE Staff Response: Proposed Lot 6 is the remainder parcel which currently has a Ranch Headquarters envelope, as defined by the conservation easement, which does contain one single family dwelling unit, accessory and agricultural outbuildings. H. Roads, Water and Wastewater Services. Roads, water and wastewater services shall be adequate to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: The proposed infrastructure to serve the four (4) undeveloped sites will be adequate to serve the subdivision. I. Ratio of Wells to Lots. Where well water is used, the annual withdrawal rate shall not exceed the rate of one acre-foot for each thirty-five (35) acres within the cluster development unless a water augmentation plan is approved. One well shall be allowed per residential lot in accordance with Section 30-28-404, C.R.S. Staff Response: The water supply plan proposed to utilize two exempt wells to serve the six lots. Engineering Reports and Plans Staff Response: It appears that sufficient information has been submitted which demonstrates that the site can be served by a semi -primitive road for access, two wells and a water distribution system sufficient to determine an adequate legal and physical water supply to serve the development, standards for construction of the water distribution system and easement for the conveyance of the water to the homesites. Improvements Agreement Staff Response: The Applicant had utilized the agreement for the Tybar Angus Rural Land Development Exemption Option and Staff and the Applicant have been working to update this document to include all the required provisions contained in our standard Improvements Agreement. Ultimately it will be the Board's decision regarding the allowance for a plat note restricting sale of the parcels as is proposed to be used as collateral for the public improvements. Though not a standard practice in Garfield County, the Board has allowed this plat note restriction on the Tybar Angus RLDEO that was approved in 2008 under the Subdivision Resolution of 1984, as amended. VIII. STAFF CONCERNS AND ISSUES A. Improvements Agreement — As stated above, this document has not been finalized but will be further considered upon Board approval of this application. B. Formation of HOA - Transfer of required improvements and easement to the HOA is required as they are the entity proposed to be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the 21 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE necessary improvements. This is required to occur, and transfers completed, in conjunction with the signing of the plat. C. Plat — If this request is approved by the Board, §4-103 G.8.a.(1) states that the Board's decision to approval shall be effective for a period of one year or until the exemption plat has received a Determination of Completeness. IX. SUGGESTED FINDINGS The following are suggested findings for should the Board of County Commissioners approve the John Nieslanik Ranch Rural Land Development Exemption Option: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Rural Land Development Option Exemption to create six (6) lots may be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County if recommended conditions of approval are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Comprehensive plan of 2000, as amended. 5. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the John Nieslanik Ranch Rural Land Development Exemption Option with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. This approval shall be valid for a period of one year, within which time the following documentation shall be finalized and submitted for review and approval by Garfield County: a. An Exemption Plat; b. An Improvements Agreement; c. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; d. Formation of the John Nieslanik Ranch Homeowner's Association. 3. Prior to signing of the plat the Applicant shall provide the following to the County: 22 John Nieslanik Ranch BOCC 9/20/10 KE a. A check to the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District for the residential impact fees; An appraisal performed by an individual qualified in the State of Colorado to establish the uni roved m ket v—a.hieAtlatal us been • - • : e• we six (6) m s of the approval date; c. A check for fee in -lieu of school land dedication (calculated upon receipt of the appraisal); d. A well -sharing agreement to be recorded with the plat; e. The Applicant shall include the following provisions as an element in the protective covenants to be managed and enforced by the HOA. • The Weed Management Plan; • The Fugitive Dust Plan; • Lighting standards; • Animal control (with one dog restriction removed); • Solid fuel burning restriction. The Applicant shall include provisions to this effect in the covenants to be submitted and recorded with the final plat. 4. The plat shall contain the following notes: a. Notes 1 through 9 as contained on the draft plat; b. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, as recorded, are applicable to this development; c An Improvements Agreement, as recorded, is applicable to this development; d Lots 1 through 4 as depicted on this plat, or any fractional interest therein, may not be sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred until such time as a "RELEASE OF COLLATERAL" is approved by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. The recorded Improvements Agreement stipulates the improvements to be construe ed, including roads, drainage, water, sewer, gas and electricity service. Prior to scheduling review of the requested release by the Board of County Commissioners the Applicant shall provide as -built drawings stamped by an engineer licensed to practice in the State of Colorado certifying that the improvements were constructed and are in compliance with Garfield County requirements; or alternative collateral may be provided; e. The conveyance of Lots 5 and 6 are exempt from the above plat note as adequate infrastructure exists to serve those lots; f. Foundation perimeter drains shall be required on all new structures in the developments Okj9-51 g. Sulfate resistant cement shall be used in all concrete that will be in contact with the site �M soils. h. All steel that will be in contact with site soils shall be epoxy -coated to prevent corrosion; i. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in all new residences constructed in this development; On-site water storage is required of each lot in the development and plans associated with that storage must be a part of the building permit application ; k. New construction must comply with the Colorado State Forest Service Defensible Space standards for wildfire mitigation which will be reviewed at building permit. 5. Prior to recordation of the Plat the Applicant shall form a homeowners association to accept construction and maintenance responsibilities for all roads and utilities serving the development. The Protective covenants shall be administered by the HOA 23 From: Adams, Karlyn To: Kathy A. EastleY; Subject: John Nieslanik Ranch Rural Exemption Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:08:47 AM Kathy, EXHIBIT We have completed a preliminary review of the John Nieslanik Ranch Rural Exemption, however per the March 4, 2005 Memorandum to All County Land Use Planning Directors concerning State Engineer's Actions on Proposed Water Supplies for Land Use Actions, a physical adequacy review has not been completed. Two wells are proposed for use in the exemption involving six parcels, Parcel Wells No. 2 and 3 with well Permit Nos. 280848 and 281789. Parcel Well No. 2 is permitted as the only well on 40 acres for three single family dwellings, one acre of lawn and garden, and the watering of poultry, domestic animals and livestock on a farm or ranch; it has a pumping limit of 15 gpm. Well No. 3 is permitted as the only well on 35.18 acres for three single family dwellings, one acre of lawn and garden, and the watering of poultry, domestic animals and livestock on a farm or ranch; it has a pumping limit of 15 gpm. Well Construction and Test Reports have been submitted for both wells. Per the Pump Installation and Test Reports submitted for Well Nos. 2 and 3, both wells were tested using 24 hour pump tests and were capable of pumping at least 15 gpm. It appears that the wells would be physically and legally adequate for the development if the two existing wells with permit nos. 280848 and 281789 are used. However, we recommend the applicants enter into a well sharing agreement for as long as the wells are used for more than one lot. If, in the future, the applicant wishes to obtain well permits for each lot the existing well permits must be cancelled and new, household use only well permits, would have to be obtained. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you or the applicant have any questions please contact this office. Karlyn Adams, E.I.T. Water Resource Engineer Colorado Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 Denver, CO 80211 (303) 866-3581 office (303)866-3589 fax August 31,2010 Ms, Kathy Eastley Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street: Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 8 601 MOUNTAI ENGINEERING, INC. ANI) Fh4VIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN RE: Review of Nieslanik Ranch, Rural Landleveloprnent pplication: RLDE 6408 Dear Kathy: This office has perfOrmed a review of the documents provided for the Nicslanik Ranch, Rural Land Development Application, The submittal was found to he thorough and well organized. The following questions, concerns, or comments were generated: 1. To share the wells between the proposed Lots some system of connection to the well with piping, tel disinfection, pumping, storage and pressure boosting will be necessary. Some design andlor parameters should be provided. per Section 7-106.A.3, 2. Along with the above, some language may need to be included. in Article IX of the Declaration of Covenants. Conditions, and Restrictions, per Section 7-104.B.2.e. 3. The Applicant. proposes to install well pumps and piping as part of building permits for construction on the proposed lots. This may not be permissible; generally speaking all public improvements need to be constructed by the developer per the development agreement. Common well pumps and water lines that serve more than one lot are considered improvements and are required to be installed and secured by the developer. The Applicant should discuss this with the Legal Department of Garfield County. 4. The drainage report does not compare proposed to historic discharge rates. The engineering report states that there is no measurable increase in storm runoff from the proposed development however the report docs not show comparative calculations for verification, Detention may be required per Section 7-207.C. 5, The proposed construction of roads and utilities will disturb areas larger than one acre and will require a CDPHE permit tbr stormwater discharges. No documentation was provided of the permit. or application per Section 7-205. 6. The Application proposes a road grade of 11.5%. This is steeper than the maximum of 10%. This steep grade also coincides with a curve on the top and a steep fill slope at the bottom. Cars can not be expected to navigate die curve on steep grades. In some, cases the Board of County Commissioners can approve steeper road grades; however it is not recommended with this alignment. The Applicant should consider alternatives per Section 7-307.A. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincere, Moulin •o.,s En n C[L flC. Hale. PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 l'H: 970.945.S.344 • FAX 970.945.5358 • www.mountaincross-eng,coni MEMORANDUM To: Kathy Eastley From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Nieslanik Ranch RLDE6408 Date: August 27, 2010 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this project. My comments are as follows: Revegetation Please quantify the area to be disturbed by the construction of the internal road. The figure doesn't need to include the road itself, but it should include the areas off of the road shoulders that will need to be revegetated. This will help us determine if we need to request a revegetation security. Erosion control Any straw or hay bales used in erosion control shall be certified weed free. From: Jim Rada To: Kathy A. Eastley; Subject: RLDE6408 - John Nieslanik Ranch Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:37:25 PM Attachments: Jim Rada(iradatadarfieid-county.com).vcf Kathy, I located the information I was looking for related to ISDS. The information provided indicates that soils on the property should be acceptable for ISDS, although soil inconsistencies and individual site constraints may exist that could create localized issues. The stated requirement for an engineer -designed ISDS on all lots should be adequate to overcome any such issue. The recommendation for disinfection and filtration of the water system will be up to individual homeowners or the association. One total coliform contaminated sample does not indicate that the source waters are contaminated. The landowners should do additional sampling when the water supply system is constructed to determine treatment needs. Thanks for the opportunity to review this application. Jim Kada, RE11 c5 Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 Phone 970-625-5200 x8113 Cell 970-319-1579 Fax 970-625-8304 Email jrada@garfield-county.com Web www.garfield-county.com August 13, 2010 Garfield County Building and Planning Department Attn: Kathy Eastley 108 8th St Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ado FOREST SERVICE Grand Junction District 222 S. 6th. St., Rm.#416 Grand Junction, CO 81501 (970) 248-7325 Garfield County Building and Planning Department: am writing in response to a request for the Colorado State Forest Service's comments on the John Nieslanik Ranch application. After looking at the property using aerial photos and looking through the application, the proposed project is in a moderate to severe wildfire hazard area depending on the lot. The wildfire hazard rating is based on the high density of combustible vegetation on or near the property and the slope of the land. The wildfire hazard rating by lot is: Lot One- Moderate, Lot Two- Low to Moderate, Lot Three- Moderate to Severe, Lot Four- Severe, Lot Five- Low. Regardless of where the bulk of the vegetation is growing, a spark from a nearby wildfire could potentially land in a pile of dead leaves against a structure or in tall grass growing too close to a structure; this is why I make the following suggestion: 1. Make the Colorado State Forest Service Defensible Space standards required for every structure on the property. The area called Defensible Space has three zones. Zone One is where the bulk of the vegetation modification takes place. The size of Zone One is at least 15 feet, measured from the edge of the structure. It can vary in size depending on the percent of the surrounding slope, as slope becomes steeper, the vegetation must be mitigated at a greater distance to compensate for the heat and wind moving up the slope. Within Zone One, several specific treatments are recommended: A) Plant no large shrubs or trees or allow any plants to grow within 3 to 5 feet of any structure. If landscaped grass is allowed to grow in the area around the structure it must not grow taller than 6 inches. A large percent of structures are lost in a wildfire due an ember landing in a bed of dead twigs and leaves created by vegetation located next to the structure. This can be avoided by following Defensible Space standards and keeping the area around the structures maintained. B) There is an exception to the above rule if the structure(s) are built with non-combustible siding, such as rock or stucco. Widely spaced foundation plantings of low growing shrubs or other "fire -wise" plants are acceptable within 3 to 5 feet of the structure. These shrubs must be kept small, watered, and given yearly maintenance to prevent any amount of dead leaves to accumulate. A fact sheet of FireWise plant material, no. 6.305, has been produced and can be found at the Colorado State University's Extension's webpage at www.ext.colostate.edu. There is also a publication on FireWise Construction, design and materials that can be directly downloaded from the Colorado State Forest Service's website at http://csfs.colostate.edulpdfs/construction booklet.pdf. C) It is ideal to remove all flammable vegetation, specifically native trees, in Zone One to reduce fire hazards. If a native tree is kept in Zone One it should be considered part of the structure and the zone extended out around it and the tree should be isolated from other surrounding trees by 15 to 20 feet. Landscaped trees, particularly deciduous species (leaves drop in fall), are allowed in Zone One as long as there are no shrubs growing beneath them which increases the amount of fuel available to the fire and the plants are on a watering system to insure adequate plant moisture. Zone Two is an area of fuel reduction designed to reduce the intensity (wind, heat, smoke) of any wildfire approaching the structure. Within this zone, the following is recommended: A) Trees and shrubs should be thinned so there is at least a 10 foot space between the edges of tree crowns. Crown separation is measured from the furthest branch on one tree to the nearest tree branch on the neighboring tree. On steeper slopes, allow more space between tree crowns as fire moves faster uphill. B) Trees may be clumped together in twos or threes to create a more natural appearance, but adequate spacing between clumps must be maintained, 10 to 15 feet. C) Ladder fuels, such as small shrubs, young trees and very low growing branches, should be removed from beneath remaining trees. These fuels can feed a wildfire and produce greater heat and intensity. The main goal of defensible space is for a wildfire to encounter Zone Two, slow down its rate of movement and decrease its intensity, then encounter Zone One where combustible vegetation is minimal, therefore the wildfire cannot make direct contact with the structure and the wind will move the wildfire past without too much destruction to the vegetation. Defensible space is not a onetime activity; it must be maintained by the homeowner every year as vegetation continues to grow. Additional information from the Colorado State Forest Service can be found at our website, http://osfs.colostate.edu/ I will e-mail Mr. Pratte, Land Studio, Inc, a copy of this e-mail for his records and mail a hardcopy with factsheets to the Nieslanik Family. Please feel free to contact me by email at kamie.lonq©coiostate.edu or at 970-248-7325. 9(sunie Fong Colorado State Forest Service Assistant District Forester - Grand Junction STATE OF COLOF EXHIBIT M COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone 303.866.2611 Fax 303.866.2481 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES August 27, 2010 Kathy Eastley Location: Garfield County Building & Planning Department Section 2 108 8th Street, Suite 401 T8S, R88W Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 of the 6th P.M. Subject: Review of John Nieslanik Ranch — Rural Land Development Option Case No. RLDE6408; Garfield County, CO; CGS Unique No. GA -11-0002 Bit Ritter, Jr. Govemor Mike King Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist Dear Ms. Eastley: Colorado Geological Survey has completed its site visit and review of the above -referenced project. I understand the applicant proposes to subdivide a 179.4 -acre parcel into six lots. Five of the proposed lots will be approximately 2 to 3.7 acres, and the remaining parcel, approximately 167 acres, includes the ranch headquarters envelope and will remain in a perpetual conservation easement. With this referral, I received a Rural Lands Development Exemption Option application (The Land Studio, Inc., August 4, 2010). The applicant states in several sections of the application, "The Baseline Inventory and Present Condition Report included in this application contain descriptions of the area and list no potential natural hazards that would be a factor in this proposal." The Baseline Inventory and Present Condition Report (Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc., June 2005) does not discuss geological conditions or hazards. The application includes soil survey information but, in general, soil survey data is relevant for only the uppermost five feet below the ground surface. No other geologic or geotechnical information was included with the referral. Potential hazards include sinkholes and other collapse -related hazards, and slope instability. Collapsible soils and bedrock. Proposed Lots 1 through 5 are mapped as underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite (White, Jonathan L., 2002, Collapsible Soils and Evaporite Karst Hazards Map of the Roaring Fork River Corridor, Garfield, Eagle, and Pitkin Counties, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey, Map Series 34, scale 1:50000). Evaporite minerals include gypsum, anhydrite and halite (rock salt), all of which are soluble in water. Sinkholes, settlement near sinkholes, and subsidence -related ground deformation can occur as a result of existing void collapse and ongoing dissolution of the evaporite rock. Soils derived from evaporite contain soluble minerals and also have high potential for significant collapse under wetting (hydrocompaction). Settlement and ground deformation caused by sinkholes, hydrocompaction and other collapse features can cause significant damage to structures. A sinkhole has been mapped in the area immediately south of proposed Lots 1 and 2, and another has been mapped about 500 feet south-southwest of proposed Lot 5. These features, and the underlying geology, indicate that subsidence hazards on this property must be addressed. A site-specific geologic hazard investigation is needed to identify sinkholes, near -surface voids, filled or concealed sinkholes, and hydrocompactive soils, and to characterize subsurface conditions, including the density, strength and thickness of any overlying alluvium, and collapse potential of soils and bedrock beneath proposed lots. If mitigation is determined to be necessary to reduce risk of GA -11-0002 1 Nieslanik Ranch.doc 10:43 AM, 08/27/2010 Kathy Eastley August 27, 2010 Page 2 of 2 damage to the proposed development and residents, mitigation options may include ground modification, structural reinforcement of shallow foundations, and/or deeper foundations that transfer building loads through any collapsible soils to a competent soil or rock layer. Proper design, construction and maintenance of grading, surface drainage, and irrigation systems are critical to help reduce risks associated with excessive wetting and to prevent saturation of subsoils below structural features. Slopes and potential slope instability. The building envelopes on proposed Lots 1 through 4 are located on slopes of approximately 30% to 40%, and are located above steep slopes of 50% to 75%. Construction -related slope instability is therefore a concern. The following precautions are recommended for hillside developments: 1. Grading for roads, driveways, building pads and other improvements should be designed to minimize temporary and permanent cuts and fills to the extent possible. A qualified geotechnical professional should determine maximum allowable unretained, temporary and permanent cut/fill heights and slope angles, based on site-specific, measured shear strength values. Site grading and drainage plans should be prepared and reviewed by a qualified engineer who is familiar with slope stability concerns. 2. Existing vegetative cover should be left intact to the extent possible, and every effort should be made to restore native vegetation within disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Irrigation beyond the bare minimum required to reestablish native vegetation should not be permitted. 3. If the soils on or near any part of the development become saturated through rainfall, snowmelt, a water or sewer pipeline failure or unchanneled road runoff, the soils could lose strength and fail slowly or catastrophically. Drainage features must be designed and maintained to quickly channel all surface runoff away from structures and roads and off of slopes as efficiently as possible. It is imperative that water is allowed to drain quickly and NOT pond anywhere within or near developed areas. Other potential geologic constraints on this site include: Shallow groundwater and perched water conditions on proposed Lot 5. An unnamed, intermittent drainage is located near the southern boundary of proposed Lot 5. Groundwater and/or perched water should be expected to occur at shallow depths on this lot. Since lowermost floor and crawlspace levels must be located at least three feet above maximum anticipated groundwater levels, below -grade space, including a partial or full -depth basement or crawl space, should not be considered feasible on proposed Lot 5 unless site-specific groundwater monitoring indicates that the required separation distance can be maintained year-round. Foundation perimeter drain systems should be constructed on all lots to help control wetting of potentially expansive and collapsible soils in the immediate vicinity of foundation elements and floor slabs. It is critical that the perimeter drains are sloped to discharge to a pumped sump or a gravity outlet that discharges water as far as possible away from all structures. Corrosive soils. According to the soil survey, all of the site soils are known to be highly corrosive to steel, and the soils beneath proposed lots 1 through 4 present a moderate risk of sulfate attack to concrete. All steel that will be in contact with site soils should be epoxy -coated to prevent corrosion. On proposed Lots 1 through 4, sulfate -resistant cement should be used in all concrete that will be in contact with site soils. ISDS. According to the NRCS Soil Survey, the entire site is severely limited in its suitability for conventional ISDS (septic tank absorption fields) due to slopes, "large stones content", shallow bedrock, and slow percolation rates. Engineered septic systems will likely be required on all lots. GA -11-0002_1 Nieslanik Ranch.doc 10:43 AM, 08/27/2010 Kathy Eastley August 27, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or need clarification of issues identified during this review, please call me at (303) 866-2611 ext. 8316, or e-mail jill.carlson u@state.co. us. Jill Carlson, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist GA -11-0002_1 Nieslanik Ranchdoc 10:43 AM, 08/27/2010 August 31, 2010 EXHIBIT I N Permanently preserving open lands for agriculture, wildlife, scenic enjoyment and recreation Kathy Eastley, Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 Eighth St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: John Nieslanik Ranch Dear Ms. Eastley: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed John Nieslanik Ranch development. As you know, Aspen Valley Land Trust holds a conservation easement on the balance of ranch property no proposed for development. This amount and the location of the proposed lots were contemplated at the time the conservation easement was implemented and certain land was exempted for that purpose. Aspen Valley Land Trust has not objections to the Rural Lands Exemption Option. The Nieslanik family has been a good steward of the land and consistent in its commitment to conserve and manage land for the benefit of future generations. Sincerely,_z(F6e,ttio, �^ % Martha Cochran Executive Director Aspen Valley Land Trust 320 Main Street • Suite 204 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • 970.963.8440 phone . 970.963.8441 fax www.avli.org . . From: Janet Buck To: Kathy A. Eastley] cc: "landstudio2@comcast.net"; Subject: RE: Nieslanik Date: Friday, September 03, 2010 10:01:15 AM Thank you for responding to my question. I understand that four of the lots are clustered up by the trees. My concern was the fifth lot and whether any future structure on the lot would be skylined. I called Julie Pratt today to discuss the location of the lot. Julie explained that the proposed single family structure would be in the meadow area and would not be skylined at the top of the hill. It apparently is near an existing structure. It would be helpful to have some topo maps or other visual tool to ascertain any visual impacts on the Town of Carbondale. But based my discussion with Julie, it sounds that the structure would be set lower than I had originally thought. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this item. Janet Buck Town of Carbondale From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:06 PM To: Janet Buck Subject: FW: Nieslanik Here is the answer to your questions. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garfield-county.com_ Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Douglas Pratte[mailto:landstudio2@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 11:13 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: Re: Nieslanik Kathy, the hillsides that surround the knoll that the highest 4 lots are located on are all higher in elevation than the homesites so that they are not skylined. Item 20. Reflective Finishes in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions states that "Reflective finishes and reflective glass shall not be used on any exterior improvement surfaces, including without limitation walls, roofs, windows, doors, trim, retaining walls, and fences; provided however, that the foregoing restrictions shall not prohibit skylights to be installed in residences." Hope that this helps and thanks. Doug On Aug 20, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Kathy A. Eastley wrote: Doug, The Town of Carbondale is questioning whether any of the proposed lots will skyline, and if there will be a prohibition of reflective roof materials. They would like to know these answers prior to making formal comments. I would appreciate a response from you on these particular items, thanks. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastIey@garfield-county.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Douglas Pratte, ASLA The Land Studio, Inc. 1002 Lauren Lane Basalt, Colorado 81621 (970) 927-3690 Office (970) 948-6033 Mobile Iandstudio2@camcast. net Date: September 9, 2010 Re: John Nieslanik Ranch Referral Comment Response To: Kathy Eastley/ Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning From: Doug Pratte/The Land Studio, Inc EXHIBIT Garfield County Rural Land Development Exemption Referral Comments Compiled September 2, 2010 The following information summarizes the responses to the referral comments received to date that the John Nieslanik Ranch RLDEO applicant has received. The referral comments are italicized and the applicant response is in bold. To: Kathy Eastley From: Jim Rada, REHS Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:37 PM The information provided indicates that soils on the property should be acceptable for ISDS, although soil inconsistencies and individual site constraints may exist that could create localized issues. The stated requirement for an engineer -designed ISDS on all lots should be adequate to overcome any such issue. The recommendation for disinfection and filtration of the water system will be up to individual homeowners or the association. One total coliform contaminated sample does not indicate that the source waters are contaminated. The landowners should do additional sampling when the water supply system is constructed to determine treatment needs. The following note has been added to the Sheet 1 of the Exemption Plat: Building permit applications for each Lot shall include plans and specifications for an Onsite Wastewater System (OWS). Each system shall be designed by a State of Colorado Registered Engineer and must be approved pursuant to the Garfield County Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) Regulations before a building permit will be issued. The type, size, and location of each individual OWS will be site specific based on existing Garfield County and State ISDS design criteria and required site-specific geo-technical evaluations. Soil absorption/dispersal systems shall be located within the building envelope on each Lot or within the OWS septic easement for the benefit of Lot 3 as identified on the Rural Land Development Exemption Plat. To: Kathy Eastley From: Jill Carlson, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 1 Collapsible soils and bedrock. Proposed Lots 1 through 5 are mapped as underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite. Evaporite minerals include gypsum, anhydrite and halite (rock salt), all of which are soluble in water. Sinkholes, settlement near sinkholes, and subsidence-related ground deformation can occur as a result of existing void collapse and ongoing dissolution of the evaporite rock Soils derived from evaporite contain soluble minerals and also have high potential for significant collapse under wetting (hydrocompaction). Settlement and ground deformation caused by sinkholes, hydrocompaction and other collapse features can cause significant damage to structures. A sinkhole has been mapped in the area immediately south of proposed Lots 1 and 2, and another has been mapped about 500 feet south-southwest of proposed Lot 5. These features, and the underlying geology, indicate that subsidence hazards on this property must be addressed. A site-specific geologic hazard investigation is needed to identify sinkholes, near-surface voids, filled or concealed sinkholes, and hydrocompactive soils, and to characterize subsurface conditions, including the density, strength and thickness of any overlying alluvium, and collapse potential of soils and bedrock beneath proposed lots. If mitigation is determined to be necessary to reduce risk of damage to the proposed development and residents, mitigation options may include ground modification, structural reinforcement of shallow foundations, and/or deeper foundations that transfer building loads through any collapsible soils to a competent soil or rock layer. Proper design, construction and maintenance of grading, surface drainage, and irrigation systems are critical to help reduce risks associated with excessive wetting and to prevent saturation of subsoils below structural features. Slopes and potential slope instability. The building envelopes on proposed Lots 1 through 4 are located on slopes of approximately 30% to 40%, and are located above steep slopes of 50% to 75%. Construction-related slope instability is therefore a concern. The following precautions are recommended for hillside developments: 1. Grading for roads, driveways, building pads and other improvements should be designed to minimize temporary and permanent cuts and fills to the extent possible. A qualified geotechnical professional should determine maximum allowable unretained, temporary and permanent cut/fill heights and slope angles, based on site-specific, measured shear strength values. Site grading and drainage plans should be prepared and reviewed by a qualified engineer who is familiar with slope stability concerns. 2. Existing vegetative cover should be left intact to the extent possible, and every effort should be made to restore native vegetation within disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Irrigation beyond the bare minimum required to reestablish native vegetation should not be permitted. 3. If the soils on or near any part of the development become saturated through rainfall, snowmelt, a water or sewer pipeline failure or unchanneled road runoff, the soils could lose strength and fail slowly or catastrophically. Drainage features must be designed and maintained to quickly channel all surface runoff away from 2 structures and roads and off of slopes as efficiently as possible. It is imperative that water is allowed to drain quickly and NOT pond anywhere within or near developed areas. Shallow groundwater and perched water conditions on proposed Lot 5. An unnamed, intermittent drainage is located near the southern boundary of proposed Lot 5. Groundwater and/or perched water should be expected to occur at shallow depths on this lot. Since lowermost floor and crawlspace levels must be located at least three feet above maximum anticipated groundwater levels, below -grade space, including a partial or full - depth basement or crawl space, should not be considered feasible on proposed Lot 5 unless site-specific groundwater monitoring indicates that the required separation distance can be maintained year-round. Foundation perimeter drain systems should be constructed on all lots to help control wetting of potentially expansive and collapsible soils in the immediate vicinity of foundation elements and floor slabs. It is critical that the perimeter drains are sloped to discharge to a pumped sump or a gravity outlet that discharges water as far as possible away from all structures. Corrosive soils. According to the soil survey, all of the site soils are known to be highly corrosive to steel, and the soils beneath proposed lots 1 through 4 present a moderate risk of sulfate attack to concrete. All steel that will be in contact with site soils should be epoxy -coated to prevent corrosion. On proposed Lots 1 through 4, sulfate -resistant cement should be used in all concrete that will be in contact with site soils. ISDS. According to the NRCS Soil Survey, the entire site is severely limited in its suitability for conventional ISDS (septic tank absorption fields) due to slopes, "large stones content'; shallow bedrock, and slow percolation rates. Engineered septic systems will likely be required on all lots. The following note is already on Sheet 1 of the Exemption Plat: All proposed excavation into slopes steeper that 30% shall be addressed by a geotechnical engineer on a site-specific basis and the information shall be provided to the Building and Planning Department as part of the Building Permit Application. The following notes have been added to Sheet 1 of the Exemption Plat: Due to varying site soil conditions, all Lots are required to have an individual site- specific geotechnical study prior to application for a building permit. Building permit applications for each Lot shall include plans and specifications for an Onsite Wastewater System (OWS). Each system shall be designed by a State of Colorado Registered Engineer and must be approved pursuant to the Garfield County Individual Septic Disposal System (ISDS) Regulations before a building permit will be issued. The type, size, and location of each individual OWS will be 3 site specific based on existing Garfield County and State ISDS design criteria and required site-specific geo-technical evaluations. Soil absorption/dispersal systems shall be located within the building envelope on each Lot or within the OWS septic easement for the benefit of Lot 3 as identificd on the Rural Land Development Exemption Plat. Also attached is a slope analysis demonstrating that the building envelopes on Lots 1-4 avoid 30% slopes. To: Kathy Eastley From: Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Manager Date: Friday, August 27, 2010 Please quantify the area to be disturbed by the construction of the internal road. The figure doesn't need to include the road itself but it should include the areas off of the road shoulders that will need to be revegetated. This will help us determine if we need to request a revegetation security. Erosion control Any straw or hay bales used in erosion control shall be certified weed free. The area to be revegetated is 23,477 S.F. The following note has been added to Engineering Sheet 1 of 3: Any straw or hay bales used in erosion control shall be certified weed free. To: Kathy Eastley From: Kamie Long, Colorado State Forest Service Date: Friday, August 13, 2010 After looking at the property using aerial photos and looking through the application, the proposed project is in a moderate to severe wildfire hazard area depending on the lot. The wildfire hazard rating is based on the high density of combustible vegetation on or near the property and the slope of the land. The wildfire hazard rating by lot is: Lot One - Moderate, Lot Two- Low to Moderate, Lot Three- Moderate to Severe, Lot Four- Severe, Lot Five- Low. Regardless of where the bulk of the vegetation is growing, a spark from a nearby wildfire could potentially land in a pile of dead leaves against a structure or in tall grass growing too close to a structure; this is why I make the following suggestion: 1. Make the Colorado State Forest Service Defensible Space standards required for every structure on the property. 4 The area called Defensible Space has three zones. Zone One is where the bulk of the vegetation modification takes place. The size of Zone One is at least 15 feet, measured from the edge of the structure. It can vary in size depending on the percent of the surrounding slope, as slope becomes steeper, the vegetation must be mitigated at a greater distance to compensate for the heat and wind moving up the slope. Within Zone One, several specific treatments are recommended: A) Plant no large shrubs or trees or allow any plants to grow within 3 to 5 feet of any structure. If landscaped grass is allowed to grow in the area around the structure it must not grow taller than 6 inches. A large percent of structures are lost in a wildfire due an ember landing in a bed of dead twigs and leaves created by vegetation located next to the structure. This can be avoided by following Defensible Space standards and keeping the area around the structures maintained. B) There is an exception to the above rule if the structure(s) are built with non-combustible siding, such as rock or stucco. Widely spaced foundation plantings of low growing shrubs or other "are -wise "plants are acceptable within 3 to 5 feet of the structure. These shrubs must he kept small, watered, and given yearly maintenance to prevent any amount of dead leaves to accumulate. A fact sheet of FireWise plant material, no. 6.305, has been produced and can be found at the Colorado State University's Extension's webpage at www.ext.colostate.edu. There is also a publication on Fire Wise Construction, design and materials that can be directly downloaded from the Colorado State Forest Service's website at C) It is ideal to remove all flammable vegetation, specifically native trees, in Zone One to reduce fare hazards. If a native tree is kept in Zone One it should be considered part of the structure and the zone extended out around it and the tree should be isolated from other surrounding trees by 15 to 20 feet. Landscaped trees, particularly deciduous species (leaves drop in fall), are allowed in Zone One as long as there are no shrubs growing beneath them which increases the amount offuel available to the fire and the plants are on a watering system to insure adequate plant moisture. Zone Two is an area offuel reduction designed to reduce the intensity (wind, heat, smoke) of any wildfire approaching the structure. Within this zone, the following is recommended: A) Trees and shrubs should be thinned so there is at least a 10 foot space between the edges of tree crowns. 5 Crown separation is measured from the furthest branch on one tree to the nearest tree branch on the neighboring tree. On steeper slopes, allow more space between tree crowns as fire moves faster uphill. B) Trees may be clumped together in twos or threes to create a more natural appearance, but adequate spacing between clumps must be maintained, 10 to 15 feet. C) Ladder fuels, such as small shrubs, young trees and very low growing branches, should be removed from beneath remaining trees. These fuels can feed a wildfire and produce greater heat and intensity. The main goal of defensible space is for a wildfire to encounter Zone Two, slow down its rate of movement and decrease its intensity, then encounter Zone One where combustible vegetation is minimal, therefore the wildfire cannot make direct contact with the structure and the wind will move the wildfire past without too much destruction to the vegetation. Defensible space is not a onetime activity; it must be maintained by the homeowner every year as vegetation continues to grow. The following note has been added to Sheet 1 of the Exemption Plat: Establishment of wildfire defensible space around each home will be the responsibility of the individual Lot owners and must be approved by the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. To: Kathy Eastley From: Chris Hale PE, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Date: Friday, August 31, 2010 1. To share the wells between the proposed Lots some system of connection to the well with piping, telemetry, disinfection, pumping, storage and pressure boosting will be necessary. Some design and/or parameters should be provided per Section 7-106.A.3. Performance standards have been developed by Sopris Engineering to address the water system design and are included on Engineering Sheet 2 of 3. 2. Along with the above, some language may need to be included in Article IX of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, per Section 7-104.B.2.c. In addition to Article IX of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, the John Nieslanik Ranch Rural Land Development Exemption Development Agreement addresses improvements, payment and security for 6 improvements, water supply, utility easements, conveyance of the water supply system, and asbuilt/record drawings. 3. The Applicant proposes to install well pumps and piping as part of building permits for construction on the proposed lots. This may not be permissible; generally speaking all public improvements need to be constructed by the developer per the development agreement. Common well pumps and water lines that serve more than one lot are considered improvements and are required to be installed and secured by the developer. The Applicant should discuss this with the Legal Department of Garfield County. Exemption Plat note 10 restricts the transfer of Lots until they are adequately served by roads, drainage, water, sewer, and electricity. Plat note 10 has been coordinated with the Garfield County legal staff. 4. The drainage report does not compare proposed to historic discharge rates. The engineering report states that there is no measurable increase in storm runoff from the proposed development however the report docs not show comparative calculations for verification. Detention may be required per Section 7-207. C. The Drainage Report has been amended to include a comparison between proposed and historic discharge rates. 5. The proposed construction of roads and utilities will disturb areas larger than one acre and will require a CDPHE permit for storm water discharges. No documentation was provided of the permit or application per Section 7-205. Stormwater Management notes on Engineering Sheet 1 of 3 address the requirements for a CDPHE permit for storm water discharges. 6. The Application proposes a road grade of 11.5%. This is steeper than the maximum of 10%. This steep grade also coincides with a curve on the top and a steep fill slope at the bottom. Cars can not be expected to navigate the curve on steep grades. In some cases the Board of County Commissioners can approve steeper road grades; however it is not recommended with this alignment. The Applicant should consider alternatives per Section 7-307.A. Sopris Engineering has revised the road grades to a maximum of 10%. See updated Engineering Sheet 1 of 3. To: Doug Pratte From: Kathy Eastley, AICP Garfield County Senior Planner Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 First, the combination of steep grades and curves {{should be avoided" pursuant to 7-307 A.9. The old code used to allow the Board to increase the 10% maximum allowed in 7 certain instances, particularly if the fire district was ok with it. You may want to check in Article VII, Standards (I will as well) to see if there is any language that gives the Board discretion to vary that maximum grade. Sopris Engineering has revised the road grades to a maximum of 10%. See updated Engineering Sheet 1 of 3. Second, the dead-end road is unacceptable because it exceeds 600' in length, and it doesn't have a cul-de-sac. Pursuant to 7-307 A 7. dead end streets are 'discouraged' and it discusses a turnaround that may be acceptable. A hammerhead turnaround at the end of the road is now included on Engineering Sheet 1 of 3. Additionally, a turnaround is shown at the bottom of the hill that accesses Lots 1-4 and an emergency pullout is located between the upper and lower turnarounds. Bill Gavette of the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection district notes in his letter that "The access for the proposed subdivision appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus." Third, the provision of engineered drawings for the water distribution system is required In addition the easements for that distribution must be shown on the plat as they will be required to be transferred to the HOA upon approval of the plat. This is a major issue as it may involve obtaining a variance from the Board of Adjustment for not complying with the required standards (the BOCC may not have the ability to waive standards). Performance standards have been developed by Sopris Engineering to address the water system design and are included on Engineering Sheet 2 of 3. In addition to Article IX of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, the John Nieslanik Ranch Rural Land Development Exemption Development Agreement addresses improvements, payment and security for improvements, water supply, utility easements, conveyance of the water supply system, and asbuilt/record drawings. 1 PAGE 1 OF 6 E)�dl@(� Drainage Report for Nieslanik Rural Land Exemption Plat Carbondale, Colorado Prepared for: Mr. Mark Nieslanik September 9, 2010 SE Job Number: 24084 SorBis ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 PAGE 2 OF 6 Drainage Report for Nieslanik Rural Land Exemption Plat Carbondale, Colorado Table of Contents • Introduction • Site Conditions, Soil Mapping and Hydrology • Runoff Analysis • Drainage, Storm Water Management and Erosion Control Plan • Grading and Drainage Plan • Road Plan and Profile • Conclusion • Exhibits Introduction The Nieslanik Ranch is being platted with a Rural Lands Development Exemption Plat to create four new residential lots on a parcel of land that contains almost 180 acres. The existing ranch including its residential and ranch structures will be retained as four new lots are created on an overlooking hillside area of the ranch. The lots are proposed to be located in an area that will afford secluded but accessible areas of the ranch that have existed for many years in essentially their native state. The vicinity map is also shown on this plat from a U.S.G.S. quadrangle at a scale of 1" = 2,000' showing the relationship of the ranch to the surrounding area. Site Conditions, Soil Mapping and Hydrology The drainage plan area of concern consists of the access driveway construction for the four new lots. The area is located on the eastern side of the ranch. Home sites were carefully designed to take advantage of the topographic features. The home sites are generally located near the top of the hillside areas at nearly the high points of all drainage paths. A gravel roadway will be constructed to the lots that will be a continuation of the existing ranch roadway. The soil types are designated by the USDA as (1) 106 Tridell-Brownsto story sandy loams, 12 to 50 percent slopes and extremely stony and (2) 35-Empedrado loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes. SOPRIS ENGINEERING •LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 PAGE 3 OF 6 The majority of the lots are in the Tridell-Brownsto soil area with a small portion of lot 1 and the lower portion of the proposed roadway are in the Empedrado loam soil area. A description of each soil type is attached as an exhibit. The project area includes off-site areas that contribute to the storm runoff that will pass through the site. However, most of the project is proposed in areas that are at the high point in the each drainage basin and these areas will contribute essentially no additional storm runoff in the developed conditions. Therefore, the drainage plan is designed to minimize erosion potential, increase retention and absorption with small roadside dispersion swales and to generally convey the runoff into the historic drainage path across the existing ranch pastures. The drainage basins are shown on the attached drainage plan. Basin A is the largest basin and it includes offsite runoff. All other basins originate within the project area. Rainfall for the area is presented with the attached IDF Curve used in previous studies in the area. The 25 and 100 year events have been evaluated for the property. Runoff Analysis There are three basins that make up the ranch property, Basins A, B, and C. Basin A encompasses an area of 63 acres, most of which is offsite. The basin is over 2800 feet in length and has a vertical elevation difference of 240 feet, equating to an average slope of 8.5%. Using the Rational method for the Pre Development conditions, with a time of concentration of 26 minutes, and an average coefficient of imperviousness of 0.25, the runoff values for the 25 year and 100 year storm event are 39.2 and 48.6 cfs respectively. Runoff for Basin B and C are 15.9 and 24.7 for the 25 year storm and 19.5 and 30.4 cfs respectively for these basins. Calculations are presented in the exhibits. Tabulation of the values is presented in the following table: Pre Development Runoff CFS Basin A B C Q25 39.2 15.9 24.7 Q100 48.6 19.5 30.4 Basin B and Basin C are impacted by road construction and lot development in a very minor manner. The upper reach of each of these basins is the location of the proposed development. The roadside swales and roadside dispersion swales will effectively allow these areas to maintain the historic runoff pattern at close to the predevelopment conditions. Using an average value of 3600 square feet for lot development and also adding in gravel roadway surface per basin, the Post Development runoff values are as follows: SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 PAGE 4 OF 6 Post Development Runoff CFS Basin A B C Q25 40.0 16.3 25.1 Q100 49.5 20.0 30.8 The increase in runoff is less than 1.0 cfs for the 100 year storm in the largest basin and less than that in the other basins. As the rural nature of the site is guaranteed by the conservation easement, the gently sloping agricultural fields will effectively spread out the storm runoff over a wide field, allowing for percolation of the storm flows rather than concentrating flows to specific points and the flood irrigation ditches will also act as detention channels allowing flows to be dispersed over the site as they normally do for flood irrigation purposes. In this manner, natural storm retention is provided for the small incremental increase in storm runoff. Drainage, Storm Water Management and Erosion Control Plan Project construction will consist of gravel roadway and site utilities improvements. This construction is proposed to include a storm water management plan and erosion control plan as shown on the attached site plan. The plan includes road side ditches to contain the storm runoff. The uphill side of the roadway will have a 2 -foot shoulder and then a 4 to 1 slope to create a drainage path. The uphill side of that ditch will be sloped at 2 to 1 to tie into the hillside. The ditch is designed to discharge into vegetated swales on the adjacent hillside areas, to return the runoff to historic drainage patterns. Hay bale check dams will be placed in the drainage path approximately every 100 feet and will remain there until the ditch is stabilized and construction of the roadway and utilities are completed. The proposed gravel roadway as it crosses through Basin A will have a roadside ditch to intercept and convey the hillside portion of the Basin A runoff. Overall, runoff in Basin A tends to become sheet flow as it nears the downstream side of the basin. As a safety factor, the roadside swale will be sized to convey the 25 year developed peak flow even as the runoff becomes sheet flow at that point. Plans for building permits for specific lot improvements should include plans to route drainage onsite into similar swales and vegetated lot specific basins to contain runoff for absorption. Grading and Drainage Plan The grading and drainage plan is designed to minimize surface disturbance and create as little as possible potential for erosion or increases in runoff. There will only be grading where the roadway is to be located. The proposed lots 1 through 4 are located near the high points of the area and generally slope from each lot to the surrounding open space of the Sorois ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 PAGE 5 OF 6 Ranch. The lots are located in such a manner to promote positive drainage away from all future buildings. Lot 5 will have no additional grading as it is part of the current Ranch. The grading shows the existing and proposed site conditions, and indicates the surface grading, roadway improvements, drainage improvements, storm water management facilities and associated infrastructure. Road Plan and Profile The roadway system is shown on the attached plans. The design is per Garfield Country standards as a semi -primitive template design. A 40 foot ROW is provided. The road consists of a gravel surface, 16 feet wide with minimum 2 foot shoulders and drainage ditches on the uphill side. The drainage ditches are routed to vegetated swales adjacent to the roadway and to culverts for discharge under the gravel roadway at low points and other transitions as necessary. Culvert discharge is dissipated with rip rap energy dissipation and then swales and contouring. The road grade begins with a climb parallel to the valley floor at a grade of between 6.59% and 5.50% as it climbs to the first switchback. To minimize disturbance to the hillside, the roadway climbs along the hillside at a grade of approximately 10.0%. As the roadway reaches near the top of the site, the vertical alignment transitions into a crest vertical curve of 3.0% up followed by an 8.0% down to its final sag curve. The roadway then rises at 6.5% to its end point. At the end point of the road, a culvert is provided under the roadway to allow passage of collected runoff. A roadway pull off has been provided after consultation with the Carbondale Rural Fire and Protective District to allow adequate sight distance and space for passage of emergency vehicles. The District has reviewed and previously approved the plan with slightly steeper grades that have now been reduced to 10% maximum. Conclusions The drainage plan for the Nieslanik Ranch Rural Land Exemption Plat development will provide for the historic drainage and the post development improvements in a manner to be in compliance with Garfield County regulations. The plan also minimizes any increase in post development drainage through the use of vegetated swales and agricultural field dispersion basins and basically keeps the area's drainage patterns to the historic conditions of runoff. The small increase in storm runoff from this proposed development is due to the minimal amount of development in relation to its large rural and native vegetated areas and is not significant. SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 PAGE 6 OF 6 Exhibits • Exemption Plat • Soil Types • IDF Curves • Calculations • Drawings, including Drainage Basin Map, sheets 1, 2 and 3 Nieslanik Rural Land Drainage Report SOPRIS ENGINEERING •LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 Map Unit Description: Empedrado loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes—Aspen-Gypsum Nieslanik Area Soil Map Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties 35—Empedrado loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 6,500 to 9,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 40 to 44 degrees F Frost -free period: 75 to 95 days Map Unit Composition Empedrado and similar soils: 80 percent Description of Empedrado Setting Landform: Fans, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material. Alluvium and/or eolian deposits Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Available water capacity: High (about 11.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability (nonirrigated): 4e Ecological site: Deep Loam (R048AY292C0) Other vegetative classification: DEEP LOAM (null_11) Typical profile 0 to 5 inches: Loam 5 to 14 inches: Clay loam 14 to 40 inches: Clay loam USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5/5/2009 "'� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Empedrado loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes—Aspen-Gypsum Nieslanik Area Soil Map Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties 40 to 60 inches: Clay loam Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Survey Area Data: Version 5, Jun 9, 2008 r3sIA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/5/2009 Page 2 of 2 Map Unit Description: Empedrado loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes—Aspen-Gypsum Nieslanik Area Soil Map Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Map Unit Description The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions in this report, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. USIA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5/5/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Map Unit Description: Empedrado loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes—Aspen-Gypsum Nieslanik Area Soil Map Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. All the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of a given series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Additional information about the map units described in this report is available in other soil reports, which give properties of the soils and the limitations, capabilities, and potentials for many uses. Also, the narratives that accompany the soil reports define some of the properties included in the map unit descriptions. Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties 35—Empedrado loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 6,500 to 9,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 40 to 44 degrees F Frost -free period: 75 to 95 days Map Unit Composition Empedrado and similar soils: 80 percent USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5/5/2009 "aim Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Description: Empedrado loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes—Aspen-Gypsum Nieslanik Area Soil Map Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Description of Empedrado Setting Landform: Fans, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium and/or eolian deposits Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Available water capacity: High (about 11.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability (nonirrigated): 4e Ecological site: Deep Loam (R048AY292C0) Other vegetative classification: DEEP LOAM (null_11) Typical profile 0 to 5 inches: Loam 5 to 14 inches: Clay loam 14 to 40 inches: Clay loam 40 to 60 inches: Clay loam Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Survey Area Data. Version 5, Jun 9, 2008 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5/5/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description: Tridell-Brownsto stony sandy loams, 12 to 50 percent slopes, extremely stony—Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Nieslanik Area Soil Map Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties 106—Tridell-Brownsto stony sandy loams, 12 to 50 percent slopes, extremely stony Map Unit Setting Elevation: 6,400 to 7,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 42 to 44 degrees F Frost -free period: 85 to 105 days Map Unit Composition Tridell and similar soils: 45 percent Brownsto and similar soils: 35 percent Description of Tridell Setting Landform: Mountains, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from sandstone and/or colluvium derived from sandstone and/or alluvium derived from basalt and/ or colluvium derived from basalt Properties and qualities Slope: 12 to 50 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 25 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 7s Other vegetative classification: Pinyon -Juniper (null_10) Typical profile 0 to 2 inches: Stony sandy loam 2 to 14 inches: Very cobbly fine sandy loam 14 to 25 inches: Cobbly sandy loam 25 to 37 inches: Very stony fine sandy loam 37 to 60 inches: Very stony loamy sand NM Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5/5/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Tridell-Brownsto stony sandy loams, 12 to 50 percent slopes, extremely stony—Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Nieslanik Area Soil Map Description of Brownsto Setting Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from basalt and/or coarse textured alluvium derived from calcareous sandstone Properties and qualities Slope: 12 to 50 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 30 percent Maximum salinity. Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 4.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated): 7e Ecological site: Stony Foothills (R048AY287C0) Other vegetative classification: Stony Foothills (null_81) Typical profile 0 to 11 inches: Stony sandy loam 11 to 30 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam 30 to 42 inches: Very gravelly loamy sand 42 to 60 inches: Gravelly sandy loam Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Survey Area Data: Version 5, Jun 9, 2008 IJ`,{ 1•\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5/5/2009 '°'� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 IDF CURVE IDF CARBONDALE COLORADO - -- The Latitude is 39 degrees, 24 minutes. - -- The Longitude is 107 degrees, 12 minutes. --- The Selected Return Period is 25 years. ***** HYDRO ***** (Version 6.0) ***** IDF Curve for Various Return Periods Intensities (in/h) Duration 25 Yr 2 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 50 Yr 100 Yr 5 min 4.947 3.167 3.905 4.359 5.374 5.780 10 min 3.858 2.329 2.951 3.342 4.239 4.605 15 min 3.101 1.747 2.288 2.636 3.450 3.789 30 min 2.111 1.105 1.498 1.757 2.381 2.646 60 min 1.321 .655 .910 1.083 1.505 1.688 120 min .852 .422 .587 .698 .971 1.089 4 h .498 .247 .343 .408 .567 .636 8 h .272 .135 .187 .223 .310 .347 16 h .142 .071 .098 .117 .162 .182 24 h .096 .048 .066 .079 .110 .123 CARBONDALE COLORADO Intensity Curve for 25 Year Return Period Rainfall Intensity (in/h) versus Duration (h) 4.95* 3.71* 2.47. 1.24. .00 • * * .00 6.00 12.00 18.00 24.00 Nieslanik Rural Land Development Project Carbondale Colorado Runoff Calculations Item Description Basin A Basin B Basin C Length ft 2800 579 502 Elev 1 6680 6535 6530 Elev 2 6440 6425 6406 Delta 240 110 124 Slope % 8.6 19.0 24.7 Avg V fps 1.8 2.5 3.5 Length ft Elev 1 Elev 2 Delta Slope % Avg V fps n/a 1.8 925 1120 6425 6406 6400 6375 25 31 2.7 2.8 1.1 1.3 Travel time minutes T 1 25.5 3.9 2.4 T2 n/a 14.0 14.4 T total 25.5 17.9 16.7 Q=ciA Calculations Pre Development: 25= (inches per hour) 2.38 2.90 2.99 100= (inches per hour) 2.95 3.56 3.67 c 0.25 0.25 0.25 Area acres 65.9 21.9 33.1 pervious 65.9 21.9 33.1 Q 25 Q100 Runoff Calculations: Q=ciA Post Development cfs 39.2 48.6 15.9 19.5 24.7 30.4 Area acres 65.9 21.9 33.1 pervious 65.45 21.70 32.93 impervious 0.45 0.20 0.17 weighted c 0.25 0.26 0.25 Q=ciA Post Development cfs Q 25 Q100 Q 25 increase Q 100 increase Sopris Engineering 9/9/2010 40.0 49.5 0.7 0.9 16.3 20.0 0.4 0.5 25.1 30.8 0.4 0.4 15+00 14+00 13+00 I2+00 14+00 10+00 \ilko‘, SO it R A 1 C Yir Air drofise 9+00 8+00 DRIVEWAY PROFILE GRAPHIC SCALE 13 20 >a 7+00 fP ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 50 IL EARTHWORK, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: 1. ALL WORK PEIidHM5051MLLR 1M Acroxvorte WTMGAREEW cowry RULES Ala REGLLATIGILS. 2 EXISTNGCOW'OLFSARE ATI'FOOT INTERVALS. 3. PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE AT 1' INTERVALS. 0. 12091FACf10NIM EXCAVA100 AREAS SHALL BE 95% STANYIRO PROCTOR DENSITY. B TIE5TORIA SYSTEM SHALL BE INSPECTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER C 010113Cf1041 B ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS OUTSIDE OF TIE CONSTRICTION D157lRBANCE ZOE SWILL BE REVEGETATE0 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER GRADING IS COMPLETE. ALL SBFIIEDABEAS SFW1 BE MILCRED AND MATTED. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL TEMPORARY EROSION COMP. FAOUTESINGOOD WORONG ORDER UNTL PERMANENT EAU -RIES ARE N PLACE 11. SET FENCE CN TIE 00AWIEL SIM OF ANY DISTURBED AREASIWLL BE CONSTRICTS)PRCRTO CC ANENCEMEIR OF SITE GRADING. SHOULDER (TYPICAL) 20 0" 40' 0• ACCESS h UTILITY TRAVEL LANE (TYPICAL) SLOPE 0 35 STRIP ALL TOPSOIL, SCARIFY ANO RECOMPACT ASFRi AOE A 0I000.0 OF Y DEPTH TO 955 STANDARD PROCTOR. 12 ALL EROSION Ala 5EDREM C3NTOL DEVICES 814001BE KCU+Yi11ISFEG"60A: 1E047 EVERY 10 DAM API911.19.13111ATRLY I1ti1ITMNGAIR 3AC0RTATUI EVENT. *NW:SWIM M REPCR1 %P11 BEMA0E 00 A copy MWRAY®AT'IIE SITE. ALL WOOF= f0PW6'.:F' MALI COMPLETED AIC MACE N ATNELY NEMER- ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AM DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ANY SEDIMENT TRAPPNG DEVICE °RATANT TIME THAT RE SEGMENT OR DEBRIS AWETSELY IMPACTS 11E FUNCTIONING OF THE SEDIMENT -TRAPPING DEVICE. 14. TOPSOIL SHALL BE 5TOCKPLEO TO TIE EXTENT PRACTICAL ON SITE FOR USE d! AREAS TO BE REVEGETATEC ANY AW ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE LOCATEC AID PROTECTS) FROM EROSIVE ELS\ENMS. 14. TIE CONTRACTOR LS ESPONSELE FOR ANY TRACKING CF SEDIMENT ONTO TIE ROADWAYS. ROADWAYS ARE TO BE KEPT CLEAN TINCUGHO1T THE CONSTRICTION PHASE IS TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTMN HS COM -MICRON OPERATIONS TO TIE SITE BOUNLARE . TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE OUTSIDE THIS AREA MIODLRTIE PRIOR EXPRESSED CONSENT OF THE OWER DST CAUSED BY EXCAVATION TOPSOIL REMOVAL OPERATORS, OR ROAD BASE PLACEMENT SHALL BE CONMOU.ED BYTE CONTRACTOR AT ILS EXPENSE. TIE EIK0EER MAY REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR AT ANY TIME TO DISCONRNOE CONSTRICTION ACTIVITIES UYRL DUST 000/041000 ARE REDUCED TOTE OATE2S SATISFACTION 16. TECONTRACTORWBL BE REQUIRED TO FURBISH AND APPLY A DIST PALLIATIVE ONTESITE AS DIETED BY GAFIELD COlN^Y. DIST PAWATIVE MAY CONDIST CF WATER CRA NCNFCLLUDNG SOLUTION. SPREADING OF WATER OR WATER MDOUE SHALL BE DOLE WITH ACCEPTABLE SPINNING EQUIPMENT. ALL DUST CONTROL SINAL EMSD BEYOND TE CONSTRICTION AREA PROPER TOTE SIDE STREETS ENTERING AA EXISRGTE PROJECT, WEE MW AND DIRT FROM C0STRJLTION EOUPMENT, AS WELL AS LOCAL TRAFFIC MAY (ET ONTOTHE SCE s I RC2 15 CLEANUP OF 'MESE MEAS WEL BE REQUIRED AS NECESSARY GRAS DIRE_4ED BYTE OWNER 17. VEHCLE TRACKING CONTROLDEVICES MW RAOKSI SHALL BE PROVISO ATCOPLS'RB0TON ENHANCES. 1110 CO TRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF TESE DEV/OES 15. MMNTENAME OF PROPER CPARAGE AIa CLEWIDTd0PURARM SEDNEI0P1TDAM%1E� CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE COMPACTED TO 95 STANDARD PROCTOR. TYPICAL ROAD N T.S. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NOTES: 1. ALL CONSTRICTION PROJECTS OVER 1 ACRE REOURES A CONSTRUCTION STORAYAI DISCHARGE PERMT FROM TIE CCLCRMO DEPARTMENT OF PVBLO IEAITH& ENVRC (CDPHE), WATER DUALITY CONMOL PVISION MOM/ 2. TIE PERMIT APPUDATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRICRTOTE STM CONSTRUCTION AC M1100. 3. THE PERMIT APPLICANT (5) SHAH BE TRE OWNER AND'ORTIE SITE CONTRAZUO. TR APPUCATCN SHALL BE mown BY THE OWER AND/CR TIE SITE CONTRACTOR 0. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PIANS (SWMPO) ARE REQUIRED EMAIL PROJECTS REO CONSTRUCTION STCRMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT AND SHALL BE MANTMNEDAMLI 511E. TIE PER.PT Hd0ER MUST IMPLEMENT, MAINTAIN AND DEFECT SIORMN'ATSRA ERSICN CONTROLS CEMEATED CNTE SWMPa UNTIL TIE SITE IS PERAAMNTLY ST AND TIE PFRMT S INACTIVATED TIE PERMIT COVERS ALL NCO( ONTE PROJECT WORK PERFORMED BY SIE- CONTRACTORS AND OPERENITI1ES. RIS RECOAIMEAE WOO) THAT ASWAN A0I1012ATRR BE TESIGNATE) FDR THE PR]IEGT. '11ESWAdi K EPT ON SITE FOR USE BY TIE ADAVgRRTOR AND REVIEW BY WOO) PERGONEL S TIE SWM! SHALL BE PREPARED NACCCROAICE WR1e 0•2012EI1098A9. HYDOI Pall:RCN CONTROL PRACTICES. TIE SWNP NEED POT BE PREPARED BY A RECASTS E000011 THE OBJECTIVE OF TIE RML SHALL BE TO IDENTIFY BEST MANACEI.B11 (MPS) W140H WHEN IMPLEMENTED WILL MEET TIE TERMS AND 00/0110/1 °FTE PERMIT. TE SWMP SHXAD BE AME MED AS METED TO RERECTTE CINNGESINPROVEMENTS MADE L TE PERM0 EOURES THAT INSPECTION OF TE STORMWATER MANAGEMIX4SYSTEA PERFORMED AT LEAST EVERY 14 OATS AM) AFTER ANY PRECIPITATION OR SNOWTIELT OCLUE. INSPECTION 0EPORT5 MUST BE MANIW EO ON SITE AID MACE AVAILABLE I REVIEW BY WOO)PESOMEL TE OBJECTIVE OF THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PIAN PLLEES BUT IS NOT UM" MINI/RING T0E AM0JNT OF DISTURBED SOIL, PREVENTING MELEE FAM OFFSITE FLOWING ACROSS DISTURBED AREAS, SLOWING DOWN THE 841!000 FLOWINGACRCGI AND REMOVING SEDIMENT FROM ON60TE RUNOFF SEMITE R LEAVES TE SITE L THE INSTALLATION OF BMPS AA SPE3FICAT01113 FOR EROSION CONTROLS SHALL BE COMPLIA00E WTIH TE CWT EROSION AND CONTROL STORMWATEROUMIIY GUILE l- �"�_ \ n d ">;Jb�nDO m � m PN STA • PVI ELEV • A.D. .. K - yr ono' 71SRRUI.TION .HON 11 �0P0� OF NEW RAVEL +3212, ELEV. 12' H-D.P.E DRIYEWA 1529.55' CULVERT \ \ _` EXISTING GRADE e \ �y PROPOSE() FINISHED GRIME a 15 LF. LS IN: NV N: NV aur O'n.00 srn.y5 O 2.OX/ 6sz7.3' fi526.0 ,, �\ 6,.H C.SO s.so T-� '" w w PROPOSED FINISHED DDMK J 5- `� \\\ �80,.,1y 0E34 EXIS1194 CONSTRUCTIOP M ATC( AT STAT 640004450 1 ft e� weDNG [PAM — .., � 15+00 14+00 13+00 I2+00 14+00 10+00 \ilko‘, SO it R A 1 C Yir Air drofise 9+00 8+00 DRIVEWAY PROFILE GRAPHIC SCALE 13 20 >a 7+00 fP ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 50 IL EARTHWORK, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: 1. ALL WORK PEIidHM5051MLLR 1M Acroxvorte WTMGAREEW cowry RULES Ala REGLLATIGILS. 2 EXISTNGCOW'OLFSARE ATI'FOOT INTERVALS. 3. PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE AT 1' INTERVALS. 0. 12091FACf10NIM EXCAVA100 AREAS SHALL BE 95% STANYIRO PROCTOR DENSITY. B TIE5TORIA SYSTEM SHALL BE INSPECTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER C 010113Cf1041 B ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS OUTSIDE OF TIE CONSTRICTION D157lRBANCE ZOE SWILL BE REVEGETATE0 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER GRADING IS COMPLETE. ALL SBFIIEDABEAS SFW1 BE MILCRED AND MATTED. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL TEMPORARY EROSION COMP. FAOUTESINGOOD WORONG ORDER UNTL PERMANENT EAU -RIES ARE N PLACE 11. SET FENCE CN TIE 00AWIEL SIM OF ANY DISTURBED AREASIWLL BE CONSTRICTS)PRCRTO CC ANENCEMEIR OF SITE GRADING. SHOULDER (TYPICAL) 20 0" 40' 0• ACCESS h UTILITY TRAVEL LANE (TYPICAL) SLOPE 0 35 STRIP ALL TOPSOIL, SCARIFY ANO RECOMPACT ASFRi AOE A 0I000.0 OF Y DEPTH TO 955 STANDARD PROCTOR. 12 ALL EROSION Ala 5EDREM C3NTOL DEVICES 814001BE KCU+Yi11ISFEG"60A: 1E047 EVERY 10 DAM API911.19.13111ATRLY I1ti1ITMNGAIR 3AC0RTATUI EVENT. *NW:SWIM M REPCR1 %P11 BEMA0E 00 A copy MWRAY®AT'IIE SITE. ALL WOOF= f0PW6'.:F' MALI COMPLETED AIC MACE N ATNELY NEMER- ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AM DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ANY SEDIMENT TRAPPNG DEVICE °RATANT TIME THAT RE SEGMENT OR DEBRIS AWETSELY IMPACTS 11E FUNCTIONING OF THE SEDIMENT -TRAPPING DEVICE. 14. TOPSOIL SHALL BE 5TOCKPLEO TO TIE EXTENT PRACTICAL ON SITE FOR USE d! AREAS TO BE REVEGETATEC ANY AW ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE LOCATEC AID PROTECTS) FROM EROSIVE ELS\ENMS. 14. TIE CONTRACTOR LS ESPONSELE FOR ANY TRACKING CF SEDIMENT ONTO TIE ROADWAYS. ROADWAYS ARE TO BE KEPT CLEAN TINCUGHO1T THE CONSTRICTION PHASE IS TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTMN HS COM -MICRON OPERATIONS TO TIE SITE BOUNLARE . TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE OUTSIDE THIS AREA MIODLRTIE PRIOR EXPRESSED CONSENT OF THE OWER DST CAUSED BY EXCAVATION TOPSOIL REMOVAL OPERATORS, OR ROAD BASE PLACEMENT SHALL BE CONMOU.ED BYTE CONTRACTOR AT ILS EXPENSE. TIE EIK0EER MAY REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR AT ANY TIME TO DISCONRNOE CONSTRICTION ACTIVITIES UYRL DUST 000/041000 ARE REDUCED TOTE OATE2S SATISFACTION 16. TECONTRACTORWBL BE REQUIRED TO FURBISH AND APPLY A DIST PALLIATIVE ONTESITE AS DIETED BY GAFIELD COlN^Y. DIST PAWATIVE MAY CONDIST CF WATER CRA NCNFCLLUDNG SOLUTION. SPREADING OF WATER OR WATER MDOUE SHALL BE DOLE WITH ACCEPTABLE SPINNING EQUIPMENT. ALL DUST CONTROL SINAL EMSD BEYOND TE CONSTRICTION AREA PROPER TOTE SIDE STREETS ENTERING AA EXISRGTE PROJECT, WEE MW AND DIRT FROM C0STRJLTION EOUPMENT, AS WELL AS LOCAL TRAFFIC MAY (ET ONTOTHE SCE s I RC2 15 CLEANUP OF 'MESE MEAS WEL BE REQUIRED AS NECESSARY GRAS DIRE_4ED BYTE OWNER 17. VEHCLE TRACKING CONTROLDEVICES MW RAOKSI SHALL BE PROVISO ATCOPLS'RB0TON ENHANCES. 1110 CO TRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF TESE DEV/OES 15. MMNTENAME OF PROPER CPARAGE AIa CLEWIDTd0PURARM SEDNEI0P1TDAM%1E� CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE COMPACTED TO 95 STANDARD PROCTOR. TYPICAL ROAD N T.S. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NOTES: 1. ALL CONSTRICTION PROJECTS OVER 1 ACRE REOURES A CONSTRUCTION STORAYAI DISCHARGE PERMT FROM TIE CCLCRMO DEPARTMENT OF PVBLO IEAITH& ENVRC (CDPHE), WATER DUALITY CONMOL PVISION MOM/ 2. TIE PERMIT APPUDATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRICRTOTE STM CONSTRUCTION AC M1100. 3. THE PERMIT APPLICANT (5) SHAH BE TRE OWNER AND'ORTIE SITE CONTRAZUO. TR APPUCATCN SHALL BE mown BY THE OWER AND/CR TIE SITE CONTRACTOR 0. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PIANS (SWMPO) ARE REQUIRED EMAIL PROJECTS REO CONSTRUCTION STCRMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT AND SHALL BE MANTMNEDAMLI 511E. TIE PER.PT Hd0ER MUST IMPLEMENT, MAINTAIN AND DEFECT SIORMN'ATSRA ERSICN CONTROLS CEMEATED CNTE SWMPa UNTIL TIE SITE IS PERAAMNTLY ST AND TIE PFRMT S INACTIVATED TIE PERMIT COVERS ALL NCO( ONTE PROJECT WORK PERFORMED BY SIE- CONTRACTORS AND OPERENITI1ES. RIS RECOAIMEAE WOO) THAT ASWAN A0I1012ATRR BE TESIGNATE) FDR THE PR]IEGT. '11ESWAdi K EPT ON SITE FOR USE BY TIE ADAVgRRTOR AND REVIEW BY WOO) PERGONEL S TIE SWM! SHALL BE PREPARED NACCCROAICE WR1e 0•2012EI1098A9. HYDOI Pall:RCN CONTROL PRACTICES. TIE SWNP NEED POT BE PREPARED BY A RECASTS E000011 THE OBJECTIVE OF TIE RML SHALL BE TO IDENTIFY BEST MANACEI.B11 (MPS) W140H WHEN IMPLEMENTED WILL MEET TIE TERMS AND 00/0110/1 °FTE PERMIT. TE SWMP SHXAD BE AME MED AS METED TO RERECTTE CINNGESINPROVEMENTS MADE L TE PERM0 EOURES THAT INSPECTION OF TE STORMWATER MANAGEMIX4SYSTEA PERFORMED AT LEAST EVERY 14 OATS AM) AFTER ANY PRECIPITATION OR SNOWTIELT OCLUE. INSPECTION 0EPORT5 MUST BE MANIW EO ON SITE AID MACE AVAILABLE I REVIEW BY WOO)PESOMEL TE OBJECTIVE OF THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PIAN PLLEES BUT IS NOT UM" MINI/RING T0E AM0JNT OF DISTURBED SOIL, PREVENTING MELEE FAM OFFSITE FLOWING ACROSS DISTURBED AREAS, SLOWING DOWN THE 841!000 FLOWINGACRCGI AND REMOVING SEDIMENT FROM ON60TE RUNOFF SEMITE R LEAVES TE SITE L THE INSTALLATION OF BMPS AA SPE3FICAT01113 FOR EROSION CONTROLS SHALL BE COMPLIA00E WTIH TE CWT EROSION AND CONTROL STORMWATEROUMIIY GUILE FIELD 0R LANDSCAPE AREA _ 12' TOP 5011 6' MIN. DEPTH OF COVER 40' PRVAIE AGMS & UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 5 LOT 5 Ali A:L .' rnsE WATER .14E :11 ERIC LOTS 2. 5 & N EGS1040 WELL PERMIT NO. CONNECT 10 DIETING WATER SUPPLY UNE ESSING WATER SUPPLY LINE TO LOT 5 30'-.WOE TT EASEMEI A.. VARIES LOT 5 005T1NG RANCH HOUSE 12' CHANEL ROAD El/RB 5TU (TTP.) NRNAROUND. END 2 HEWS (LDE 2) LOCATE AT HIGH KENT EN ROA70LY OENTTFAL8E OF 1 EASEMENT° ' '\ CAfR'TRUCTRWI� OF NEW DNINEWAY a END 2 HOPE (UNE 1) 1/ NSTALL I NEI2 P"' WA1ER E 70 SERVE `,,10151, 3&4 - r 6' CLASS 6 AGGREGATE /12 TRACER WIRE t• 7'. 2' HDPE PIPE WATER LINE TRENCH CROSS SECTION N T.5 SLOPE TRENCH WALLS FOR SAFETY PER CURRENT 00HSA & COSH REQUIREMENTS SELECT MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 9511 IF LOCATED IN ROADWAY EASEMENT. COMPACTED TO 900 IF LOCATED IN OTHER EASEMENTS, LOTS OR SPACES. CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE RILL BE REQUIRED. IF THE ENGINEER DETERMINES THAT THERE 15 N0 SUITABLE SELECT MATERIAL ON ATE. CLASS 6 BEDDING MATERIAL OR APPROVED EQUAL EIOSIIN0 WELL 13 PERMIT NG 201708 LOT 6 INSTALL 2-Y HOPE 00SIOIG WELL HOUSE u70UTY PROP0SE0 PULLCUT 50' LONG AND 11' WOE FURNISH AND INSTALL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP 10N 335' 0 10 GPM MIN. CENTERLINE OF IT RIKAKM MITA 0001010 GRAVEL ROAD PROPOSED BOIA4ARY 40U0'I YDE UTILIT & EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT GRAPHIC SCALE YA 15'- NOE TY & EU MER ACCESS EASEMENT 110 (IN FEET) 1 inch- 2008 NOTES I. LOTS 1 7HR0UGH F SHALL HAVE INDIVIDUAL ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS (0.11'5.) DESIGNED PER STATE OF COLORA00 ANO GARFlELO COUNTY REGULATIONS AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMR. 2. 0/001190 RANCH HEADQUARTERS AND LOT 5 HAVE FUNC710NING 0.W.S FOR WASTEWATER. 3. TEEPNONE AND ELECTRIC SERVICES TO LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 SHALL BE PROVIDE/ AS UNDERGROUND UNES TO EACH L01. WATER SYSTEM NOTES: I. WATER PIPE SHALL BE 2' HDPE DR -9, NSP -61 AND AIWA 0501/C906 PIPING 2. DEPTH OF COVER IS 6' MINIMUM. 6 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION I OF NEW DRIVEWAY. 35 PLICATION DITCH EASEMENT 50' PINLIA71 DITCH EASAIL71 50' 316 ▪ 1 \ \." ,- �� \ C) .1. t 33.09 ACRES Y�rrorri80 ' sr s r▪ ``�'`"` r1 ' -♦s _ ` r � F r � r 1 � 1 1 im j ' 1 tym 6 mit h i f. 11r �!?\:y,•. �`-." : `� ,i - Ir L. .1' ..itis _,._ - - • _ + U �: Illy �� • } ri `54 `+ t 1'. 4. . . , ... . J .sr + OD I1'1 r -\.-:I -1 x ' '' 21"85 AURES ti tr 'S - ^i,- TYPICAL ,54'56 ACRES 1 1 = ' . - _ - r -A `t C i• r o 1 f'� r -` �'-. 5r r rte'•- \ ♦ i - 1eft1J�.1 1 '. f � / 1l#Il ji`� ark:bI MI II Ii tI Ii>� I I r 11 r I 1 S 11 NINA I 71.11 r.I I'1#a.1 PROPOSED LEGEND PROPOSED GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PRSPOSEO LOT WE 1' GRAPHIC SCALE 1 EXHIBIT Slope Analysis Color Range Beg. Range End 0.00 9.99 10.00 19.99 20.00 29.99 30.00 .39.99 40.00 10000.00 GRAPHIC SCALE CAMOMILE. COiWNAOU NIESLANIK EAST MESA SLOPE ANALYSIS GRADING, DRAINAGE f EROSION CONThOL ,i t*S Is TiGK rTN nu NO 1kr#, AW t.}{}A rnml PAW w 101 I EXHIBIT •----IL - _ 5 HIGH PONT &EV ..• 6331 TSCA PONT EX/ - e1X.2J BICC PONT STA . 14+19.90 115WLe51I PN STA -7.11,95 PN NIGH POINT !STA - 17+12E� PM ST - 17+0871 Ij _ PM ' - 0532.83 Ad + -170 PM STA - 11154010 PM ELEV -. 851190 AD. - -18,01 AD. - A.O. 6!O K - 2: 10[la j� 447177 j 0p1� I leg liq 1{' K`1. ]r g.5 gm y P! 7113 SVC 301. VC R 71i - -;�T4'/ [�{� W I. -�� - WO -MO ma imo T` � E + 91 fG2 PM STA PM ETEV�• A.D. K -.- 9Ql< - 3-30 eape.88 -LOB 45.75 VC -w- PM STA PM imm.r w 2+40 .100/7 \ END CONNLIBT0N SI AT STAMEN 141-32.72.E1EN PROP OF NEW aur0. 71 '' HELP.E. ... SANER A 1929.88' OLVERT . _ _ \ ^ ExSIINE ORATE\� ~ 1 y - pppp0�3 F11YfiEl05 SFE jj FF --..- A.D. K - 130.e -3.59 1092 VD --A-- 652f - $� �. a 3 ,1``�- 0 /AA' (} V >J LF. ,� INV ITE INV OUT 14.0x 3275 85260' { \ \ 455006 �.., , ��_ `� o �1 N S 2 pNj 3 6310- LOW PLAT LOW P1U47 PM PM 1010' VC EDEV - 857,1.08 STA - 18+,A35 !TA - 111+311 EV - 11827.78 IR LG. - H30 --- .• •: D MASHED ONCE 1•�, eSD16L61 ` i • 110111-- K - 0.90 \ N. . •• E]14IIN0 CONSIRUMAW AT 5141004 GRADE OF KEW C4.414J. 1 ORALE OF MONO 2210-0, • RROROAD M. 8410.14' _ .... µ1q e,� 61116.44/1 rs3o EDSTN612 plll0RT RETAIN AND PROECT __J/ P IDR: VSRT: IOFILE 'SCALE 1" 1" �+ = 50' = 10' 01 -1,, Ii M 1 li 4 ,s s i ..„, gi .2 1.1 - ii It 17+00 184-00 12+00 14+00 13+00 12+00 11+00 10+00 G000 6+00 7+00 Ft00 91-00 4100 3+00 2+00 1+00 DRIVEWAY PROFILE Li A \ - ; L N.-. r •L. t---.\ GRAPHIC SCALE / \ P I di.L Llkl[R1 40 41Y-0- ACCESS & ]7-?•ALVEL URUTY WNW' / • ; � _� IfIYiD; !S[CTICw1 1 -� .. �_ Lill_ 7-0' � 20' p • . _ \/ J:gkiir I f OP NY O Q,..../. '{ r1� �AIE NCH RFTAP 1 X001 )!L , (w a 5x LA a SC GRAVEL. SURFACE SLOE 0 3x e m I' -CA' 0 E rA ON Cr ..6 DRAM]. ROOD • '':'1 ��,. PROPOSED SILT FENCE 1 ,>� OK •• _ I1((r�..��AAyyyy,���rr,,��,, 4 I .• - C1'K'.'.:tti' \ l, ,, M EARTHWORK, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: Sr ••-�'-� ,: 9 r -m. `� �:�' •-�`ISi • }' LOT 1! ` 1 'l 411 fly' MCI 1E7 GRAVE 0AIYEWAIY a VW AROUND AT 1TAT55 1 414/0 ts I. ALL WORK Pe RFOR.VeO SMALL BE IN ACCORDANCE VITAaLI1FELD OdA71T'RLLEBAPESTRIP Il` . ', FRIfrNm vxTER* \ ,r' RHTLUTONB aCw�A40445 IMAM OF SCAT,• DEP54 TIES4- ` Q► \ j � 1 E]® Vq COH 9 119 ARE AT I' DOT IHTERVNS STANDARD PROCTO CIAS4 F A06flEGAlE MP ICOMATE L04ADOF OF COURSE COMPACTED PROCTOR. ' COMO CRAWL IUM 11 1 PRO'BEO CONTOURS ARE AT 1' INTQtVN1 TYPICAL 8'' 4. CCAPACTdi IN EXCAVATE O ARUM 81NLLOe BML 5TAI AR° PROCTOR ME11BOY. k x PICAL ROAD iTa+n� le' RCM b BASE CUES 2 AOQROA7E BASE ro 93x COURSE COMPACTED TO 901< STAPNpBRp PROCTOR. SECT1OI P011 55ROAD sEcTicH OLTa BE 0 REPORT'1 PRICE 70 RKIDING PERMIT: OE+&LK ERY, WOW t E. N. T.& - F ROADWAY :e TVI corsT1RET D 1110 _ ,2' •� � . ONTRE iE+NO1R RETRACE I rAN NEGRO AT ' �r 'lI MIMEO a0' AC0:88 E THE STORM MITTEN MALL 8!INeP[CIEO A8SODA M 11088144E AFTER fpPIRICO: [XO rr.mlSlW.eTloN Al PANT OF rI ���'� ■ Ij1A' • UTIll1Y EASO/ENT -1/// G ALL LANDSCAPED NEAR OUTSIDE°P meC NATTRUC ON DISTURBANCE ZONE 8IMLL BE -- ' ROEDETATED AS El CON AS PO SBELE AFTER GRADM3 a CDM4-1-0 . ALL sumo AREAS eW41 ONMIITHA} PROFT® NAY E,VLS � ) 7� 1'• i \ BE MLLGED AND MATTED, x.= �!R HAY ENEEs PROPOSED LEGEND CTE W �-- N•%.74,,,4 \\ L0T 1 o.°armAeonMruLwATONAL TeMPapwrERomaNmNRD FAalMES lNaoao 9TORMWATERAANWAGEMENTNOTES: ,i tY N rig* PROPOSED � � \ \ WORKING CINDER ANTI PERMANENT PAM/TEE ARE IN PULE f+ROPOg9 HAY B/LFS I. ALL COPETRUCTION PROJECTS OVER I ADE RPAtLRLE A CdETUCITON BICEIWATER - 8220 PROPOSED CO NTOVR INTERVAL � �a, \, ,N ii7 /,�q5/ 1 • N� \ MACAO }}},1■�, Af'' II el LT ONCE Op THE DOWNHILL SIE OF ANY INSTUREe0 AREA MAL BE CONSTRUCTED POOR TO DISdWtDE POSIT FROM THE comma CEPA/WENT HEAL -111 FTA7lbONR1EM - V _ PRapBWwATYER CAKE IN\ CEASE.MENEM OF ERE WADING. K9PHEI WATER OUNEIYCplIR0.0M1�/BYpLy �.'. y` y� . yA' I I PPOPO9EOURAVEL DRIVEWAY +I�l 1 LOT 9 a lrj�,w► 1 I } N. AU, Emole•MIAIAWrT•lVi LWTR0.UETIcE4 GAIL BE REOfAARLT WEEMS/ M LUDT 2 THE PeRNTAPAH10 TSN BHNW Bee ME1®ATU�J8Tm0AM PImRTOINE WART OF PROPOSED W MOLDER •J \ I 1� I T.{{ EWE? [4 OIri ANO U.NEGATULYFOAGMAANO ANN POEOHTYADOV HEMA OONHTIRIICfION.WIlrlllEd • � -AMNION PROPOSED LOT UNE r Air FF]NZ RIAORT WU/ NE JNDEAM A DIY. uA-NTANaO Al TEO SITE ALL BEWARED MOANS MALL EE a THE FORAM APPLICANT WUIBETIE dVI01A1ppIT1l MITE CONEMLZOR. TIC - - PROP08EDBWDINO BETBAII( 47 ,/ • �� F .. / it. , { \ NAAWFfIDAMO MADE INATAIELY MANNER AQIaOUTEO SEDIMENT ANO DECUB 9FV1l1E lx) I , Af7LIGSCN MALL BY OWHERAIBOITE CIE WNIRALTIOR PUO'iOEfO MA/NW -%1YF�" ���K r jji 1' RBIOVED RACE AMY TRAPPING OR AT MY THE OR ..- Ti PREPONE IV `4� vt -1 DEEM ACMERI ELY IMPACTS TIKE FM/MIDAIR/ W THE BELYMENT-TRAPRNO DEVICE EF-----•MnPW86eIlTFn%E ••J' TINIA/ { f 4 MIMTIUCTANMERADVAMA ArlREi18IM]OE IEbRiJE NAEIT418!6A10 ElMTIDbIal. PRDFOEiO PAT ELME • - • { 1 11 TOPSOILSMALL BE PRACTICAL FOR BE �•• STE THE PERMIT HOLDER MINT MPIEMENT, imam AIM INSPECT REONUNATER AND REVEOETAlE1 AMINO ALL BTOtlIaEB SHALL lIGGATEOAND PROTECTm FROIEROaNE / Mr NEA Y1A4'! TAE 'c 1 BMA AND CEDFRC/1E C PROPOBEO CULVERT • �. 2 .� •L.. ELEMENTH EROSIONCONTROL/ 01100TEOONTHE 6IAL/Y UNTIL THE OFTEN PESIAIEHRr STABO)ff0 LOT 2 h 3' l \ ANO THE MAST E INAC MAT®. THE PERMIT COVENNLMOK DEEM PROJECT NODOSE ' ` �I ` /J'[ OEELN 4-6 9i I"'iVp2-SD ♦] WOOD THAT AiWl9 ar f a KW!,:r Anuv) Iyi{� \ 'a OROMENEFTpLEArFw+ R�aWI RWowArB EXISTING LEGEND AOCESTMf� OIIENE®Fdl'DECP� amyl/UMW RbTHEADAu MIETeE . ' KEPI ON ME FOR UB[eY11EAOENCTMTORAIM 55 rWBYWOm PER00NHE1. mama CONTOUR 16 THE COHTRA010 R69*11 DOMAIN NIB OONNTRIlCTI0N 0PPM7MIE TO TN NTBBOUNMPoEB S TIE SYAIPeWU.L EPREPARED NACCORIANCBRYfTH 13000 MNENELNW4 FIYOROCOICANo MIEN/ CONTOUR NRRVA TIE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTOPERATE OUT9MI THIN AMAMTREIN TIC POOR EXPRESSED I• • 1Y ROPE 01L10T T 1 ) Po■LmaN CONTROL PRACTI� TE ACIP N® NOT BE PREPARED WARN/STEREO W E10BTNG WATER LINE =MGM O THE OWNER°INTOAEED BY EADAVATON, TOMOS RFSDVAL OPERATIONS, OR ENEMA THE OBJECT/FE DETERMINED -INTO WENRPVNCT MANA06CM PRACTICES CION LEM MI6 11' Y/fC' WOW/ -r-I !� ROTO BASE PIACEMEMeINILBE CONTROLLED ET THE COMIRACfORAT NOB EO•EHIeE THE METING GRAVEL ROAD V. BNAOK WHICH WHEN IMPIPMENTEDWEL MEET THE TEEN AND =mom OF THE GENERAL LIT. Rams NAY REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR AT ANY TIME TO OBCONRNR CONORIETON ( ) �G� PERMIT. THE EWA WOAD ENCNOEOAB 1•1110137 To REMELT -0E CGJTF10 Broo WA EIV N: 7.5 - -, ACTVREL lAf11L 044184- fDNOTI0NB ARE MOOED THE BATIEPAITON-_-.. _ OUTAR � FIV 61f2A0• de1111C4 - , �, OMNIE�INPRWFINIXT8IMGE ^I • MEW EAAELCNT TA PRO REAL WIN eE611 0>aIRULYDK OT . T le THE CONTRACTOR WLLEREQAPID l0 FERMI AND APPLY GENT PALATINE ON TFE ITEM r--r•r- SPAM T• 4 ANE PERMIT REQUIRES THAT EEPECBON OF TIE BIORMWATEIWNMDEMEM MSTELI BE A. OR'-SY GARFIELD COURT. DUST PALLIATVE MAY OMBIET W WATER ORA NE WPM PERPORMED AT LEAST EYENWNdYIANDAFTERANYPREOIRNIOI OR BIgNMELTEVENT /30111/21. INCE �� • ' [• , SOLUTION.APREACISE LL OLE WATER "ATM GUMC A EDEA 1411.14W MIMI //�/ � ACCEPTAS a HOMALL EXTEND IXTURE BEBEJ. YONDTH .w• • ' �• �� � AT iTAT10J 2412J'1 ELM EiN.SA Jd�• REVIEW INE =PER PERSONNEL MICTBEMVpTANPO CIE ME NAME AVAx Am vlOp - MUM �� �/'y CWSVINIEFIEMUD ANMUPROM CONTRULTEB1sEETS MR AB WELLOl LCCAL CTNOTC PC, MAY REVIEW [FIVE= PeRBON18 ,�.// 1' •� v'rt, ONTO EMANOTIREFRACCONBIETAM ARENA U. AE 0001 0*14ECESSA MAY OEToF - _-• - = •/ 406 55 BH71.E. STREETS CLEANUP OF TAME ARENEWILLSEREGIIIREON NECESSARY OR AB 1. TIEOBECTHE AMOUN8TGMWATEDSM.56 IT PIANEATING NNEF FROM •OF.1F10NOT ITED Ta �._ d+f MWMIZING -a5 ��' Minim OF054JEEDWAIM FROMOEACRES - PROP64D BGI,'NOM'! NGACREME 91LNT ! _ L n•• DONNTNERUNOFF THE VII�' NE RUNQFROMNG ACRES THE BYTE A 3 Hi- �� �Z CRAM TI AIM REDADDBNDIJN MONONB1ERI/IFP BEFORE / AND RBIONNOBmalM MON TO L0AWBTE BITE : •R. PEOLGEDEN TEOCTMAGTRMAIL MAMMON FON mANIXIm•NDF.R.GRIaavo j P01RIY.E6 TNFc'�OI.TTHOTWWLL IC KBPbEq,E POR uaN[gW.ZF THgFDMITR. R �,p?7' 11871NRD NOTES IIS . _ OF ' I THE INOT0101-1 M OF SWINE 1PFgICATNNE FOREWARN UTRIpMANWL DE IN 1 1/.4 4 R4V1S5D PER CLIRNT YkETINC WS !rte ,:N IS MM NT EINCE OF PROPER DAMMOE NID CLEANING TEMPORARY a 1DIMENT PT WEND THE COMPLMNCEWTM TIE COOT EROSION AHO COMM ETOMWATEIQMLNI.GUIDE J -E1.404 12'OAWRi PROGR� OF T IE E ANY AA" DATL REYLSION BY �� •': CONTRACT REQS PEI DAMAGE DUE T° IMPROPER MVf.CMNCE OF �. '_ • WAN BRROW aka DRAINA0E PROs TO RNA ACCEPTANCE of THE Pols= WU E THE CONTRACTORS a A COPY OF THEEPLAM METRE KEPE MIME, FOR REPOT AVASABEETT011iE OPERATOR ..7../...- .. ANO BO THAT ONISMRI OR EPA PEIiBOSNLGNRMIWRONSIOANSEPLL7MN IRAN OFFICE � rJ AILPC!®LTY. Af E1 ORE WHEN CONSTRYOTIONACIM1EeAREOCLTMNGENla NOT AVAILABLE AT Tic EDE. mums, mum 1E W¢,IVEFANOTIEEWERINA IG ALISST1fEE0 ARF11MUST BE R&VEOETATE0. BEE DRYIANDSEEDINp BPEGFlGl10N5-BEE SUPERINTENDENTS VEMOL2) �. EKETNO OUCH IfTIlIlY SHEET, SHEET tlOF3 M, CGITRACTOR MUST UnU2E'EBE MANAOEAENi PRACTI�ESro CONTICL EROSION ANO -•• - _ _�'� Y ',� Beo NO8eo1Mranwr U,rESTTEOIOAA°"Tie CARBONDALE, COLORADO NIESLANIK EAST MESA DRIVEWAY PLAN PROFILE .rrATONOUNNOCONeTRUCTION •`.{)L^l ,.. �- \ - :' , PRGPIam'eEYDNO ALLOWED LAME GF OIBTURRA101 DURINGmrNTNEcnov. S��y �'T AF_�!rrarr GRADING, DRIiAG6 k EROSION CONTROL f_- .• f 21. THE COIIRIICIORBWLLL HIRE ATEBTNG IABOiATORY, APPROVED MI TO LOCAL °OVERNMENT, �,+nCID coxswains! TO PERFORMmAGMs/ATEACTI0N TESTI OF AGGREGATE BASEAGMs/ATE BURSAEE AND BL60MDE. I, , PROPOSED 40' ACCESS EASEMENT IlIINYBTAW OR HILT BALE!! IIBEOINEPGSION D]NTR0.SHALL BE CERTETEO WEED FREE pN iF A3 Rpt LINK gA AES. CJB CX YTN FILE NO. 144667 ? r/-" lU111f1Y �f, _ / J ,� /, O �M�.y (679) 7C4-0.441 DR CJB DATE 5-1-09 84084.01 Or 3 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. ALL CONTRACTORS MC SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL HAVE A ET OF APPROVED COHRRRTON HANOI IEAOOJARIER3 ENVELOPE PM _nr DOCUBNTS ON GREAT ALL IAEA CCEIEEVATEN Mamma f �� E mow- m� 1 TLB! 1lrAwE.J NOrETMM:]IMMN1. le REAOON/at 0 FDR TRE LOGIOW AM I•IaO;N01'Yf1 OP `_�_ _ ELE01RTROtsrumperw w. ALA 9 011l 01410. WI a MTWIl AND NL r `� - T N1NTi1 ON TWO EWE'Hue BSYrB'i ErRET LN estwou.ND OR OVIR EARL WALL EE �- m CORfPtlOLR 161WtS fl.c.O4Cut 110 ENURE rawer wCTRN WRIOD. 'ET '---Ty01FIlEL[D '----• ••- • "- ._ •^� • • `� • 1 I EW44OEO CICARG00t0R REEL EE R0PO4ELRE AVO L1.UL! tial ANY DAM.AW TTI CA EIIYREVC>aN Or 000110E1 CAIATED BV RE MISICEDO N L TIE WIERAL CONTRACTOR SNAIL le RESPONBBIE FOR TMOTECRPO IDtAMclORIONB DOME THE DOM. ED MEMS ERP ARIA 7010.7 OOMNZ. A.'n' CANOE TO SOME' OClPOD MPROOMOR ANODU01O COOST0CP9WELL At A ARSAe01114.0E 116XATE MINILAM, BE RERORLO TOA STATE SOUKTO Re PRECOY1IRIETION RATS , I P 1 , `H �r�1' r ■ . 40A SOP (TTPa MLMO �•a'C LATINS TOCOMPLETE WORN TH00000 A. TIE DBIEML %M ACTOR ALLLCCOI ALAE. ND FEDERAL THE RLI FSEM O*F( r.INEP RR0OCAL,STATE•ANOFEDFIMLREOOIATI*4I IDENTIF RIVEN ELEMS' I Er 0% 0W LW TIAAANCP MALE4L190 0L"rV AL,V COMA. 1041400704 ECLsa rY.4NC10 WEL DC 101E TOTAL NES:'0rJ6. T1100'OE Tile ODIEML CONTRACTOR A COW OF ALL PEIESTS MET BE ON GMAT ALL EATS E THE CONFAAL CONTRACTOR MAIL 4004404 THE WOW ESOROROTO ALL IO'x Dvr1 44.414• COUNTY. RATE, AND BEMIAL1AlRYAIO!WAL4*lI R74N1.M 9AL4OMTIFETRETIGWIONO1CPANELCAVATWIF CRE.ir.TKAIB 7011 COW WTRI ALL '•` 1 - I I 4d PRIVAE ACCESS i ♦ - � T / 1 MUTT EASSIAINT 141 BOAT 09 LOT 0 / . _ L� 4 ❑ il O �� \ t ENO ON `T \ AI NEW OR1VEW'AY! 71EBIARdN6 •� r WG11C AT NIA1 POINT CH Y CdiF1dRE f CURRENT COOHA REGULATORY R 1 ALL WOES SALLEE. WARRAACY%1OPE 001L IMPONOEY TO TIE PRORL'TGUWQN WM Es NANO TO PELT COMITIUCIEWWM MOTEL 01221TSICATON mon AM NM t} 0 EAXU?,tiL ' k� fI X10moi*LOT!.0440 -= I , .-'. " YMI HOT BONO ADHERED T0.• T. ITE GENERAL CONTRACTURES/ALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURE] THOfl OWN DISPOSAL af1E - - � J .-_,.-1E-_-_-- ORONO 1l j OCTINEC( TO i 4 EE r H7PE QBNE 1) PURR Na •_ WATER 4 r ... PoonSC0 WATER SUPPLY LIMES TO 1Di L L a A 4 FDi ALL CEOBED MATERAL& i TIE CONTRACTOR SAO BE nee Roams FOR cosoDAT64 Sm4FE]L'TIOVRPIMPOr00EORP' MEN 2NEIUMETTAL ACMES% AS MASCO= N THEE3 MOO AAO APPROWES 111 �l , �+ { .0f ` INSTAL. 2-r IEEE . li! I 1\ .-- { •I �I A THE CONTRACTOR MIAl1NRALLMDMN4NN FENCER. aAWUEF,lKBf1EAMSIOE THAT ARENECESOFI' TOME ADEQUATE WARNING TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL EMO, 10. Y04WTENA4 OR Tow -writ/ 0w1 AP STORED N ATE PUBLIC IMONTO`AYAYAA'iSSIM AL %NRwI:. NOLANt AT THE ENO CP AMP GREs ME AM ATO- nitO-11VE11IRERCORRITNIC[OII OPERATIONS ARE SUSPENDED FORME( REAM" THE mN4RACI10 SNAG REMOVE ALL EC/ABSENT AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS FROM THE PIiWCPo01T4]FART. COSECT TO RETRO '. \ IjI WRIER SUPPLY INE (yl0{'�, 1 �EWrt ET 1 0 �L U Y l \ .. I 1I J , 'T IE t444}\PULLOUT 50' LONO AND - II coWP,� wRLDETERMINE WHICH CONTRACTORS RAVE CONITTRUCTION PRIORITY OVER TE ORER CONTRA0IORSAM THE TERM OF SUCH mlEIR9.TIDM POORNIY'. -- RA ' "• - ��--. p40' :.-•: WAE100 4405•RpAO ._ I EILSdEFLT .M �` Afir FURNISH A/C INSTALLPROMEII NU 1 �y --'-'..- 16' ROAD A DDCTTT�� ACCESS i l TM 12. fY]RfTR/OTOR SIINl. EMT ALL PIEUCOR PRIVATE IITNTYD�M49O F0[TY.00ITI WPB PRIOR TO CELMEN®IB4I OP WORK ADJACENT TO THE Unum. ta, ALL ER®1WTERALLL BKEPOSEDFROM TIE MIENCREANE THE IEEPOOEEl1YDF THE [ONtRACTORAHD M1AlLEMPOaE'O HHr�Px a,r 14. ALL ITEMS BEO NOCr. THE P1b}105 MALL BE0WE TIE PMER4110 CF REWN0AC0ON NREM O'TNPAV/IBE NOTED. 10 ALL OOT!CHNICAL RECONMEH64nONe TO REAMOESTO LOT a R 1 _ <E E PUP 1lB) .l �� 415\10� YBL I I� gEBN � I aF IECBr ofE� v. '� .1_:...1;'-'........-j 1 I LOTS LOT e -.T.'9, �.� II P J I DRYLAND SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS: _. DEMO RANCH HONK 411,0.-TY 0 TMOE �T IfUTILIi j I 1 oGSLAPnON: FUPNIRALLIATEMALJ.EDePLE11T, AND IAaDI1 111440 FOR P1EPNATDaL MANE FERrnoND, L OC UNA AM PRDIiw1AN CFRWEOEAR APSE MO TRAIL E MEMO M NCNCNEES THAT NIO#TIE FDYOWNS EFDM111Cr2 WE, NNLOT NUNEE R PET 1 , I 1t y WEER, Yp®TAIE OF EMIT, SEPONATON.WW Nt00ERTMATERAL EDD TAT NAB WEEL.raAD% El O IMERL. DEMO WLL NITRE ALPllm O ODIECT CONDMRONR DONOR WEWO1aowser4KORNDEWO11 RS 0040 R /MEN21011 OR OTIERWOE ATMABIE 1 M IM/22240A/LAnEaDTIa01EAFOAr0091 FOM RANO, DAM WIN RD emumOm 000.9 saws Ar TRA NAR CY/FOYOOA4 ADEPTAADA PERMED AT TIE Warm RAE ANDI RENEE En imeMeA,R.Ormenren moll tel. ALL Arco ruPPcmymcmomr GRAELMEWP.DEPE Vx RE ATTR wmaNA SOR Ori DEEM DECAEGJ MHoreera mom,1 I 11 REGARD./R 1 01054]104 I I SC De0CATla4 21401 0010041191 i II I 1 I REI pateMACEMAMMA MRL Norms O0E1201cmOl E I.t11AT NDAUWM0MAL 11.1%02222ECw'.LOONMA WM A Auv:CRRrLL Ru040EWER I •�•-•^�% 0 CDFT TO THE. amok m%twYm e1,0•0.7.71:1.7 THRAmprwp .r • MEDIERANCS 0A4rtF N2 PERIOD 2•1021 WEINEMA1OY ARM /LWNEA 00000 N0 C I41IME UM MALAGG070.NS DF ENTIRE NEA401. WEE MI TBE, LNICGRAPEOWMPACTIE FOR MOM%RFER/EL 1WEDEWAAO ALL MATED WORMS OCEIM TTD 004/44/4410 J ENSUE TMTW WEER MINTS NE N A MOROUI OCEms cc1C2TEL WM RIALA[OP1ANS. ILS 0 IDDRO WLDC MECIONARle WOOD ODLLLOW ERR Mumma M WMH ORDORaATIOR n®A RTW0 WRRANces AI1DLEp0 A.(TOMER) M N ODRMO, MJ11NM1E DA SUTADE COLOR TO FAMIE Rr�B1TT. R SOLBa0LY0 ANENT: SEENDINO WENT MIL COEMTOF NWE=110@OMMRLE EATER.. THAT AEEWERM ETALLV WE FIELD OR T. SEFDMJO MAME REWIE EC A MCCUE OF NAM OREMERIEMNORNEEM MW1E0 TO LANDSCAPE AREA MMS GRAVEL ROAD RE NORTERNERCT RAW LW NIEROINTAN MOMS RR WEE 0000, R%ATAM5 EPEE FC.RAGE ANWAR FORMAN MK FALL EOM ADED APTTOO MAY BOLTER N08LVATIDE OR spm TO leAOaPRom. Bon Arms ROTI em. RLELLAR IR ETON WOW RATE: tl40 PER TY OP 20% LEWIN 21.1001112ME SQL 8111 WE MUMS WME/,IORAS! MM WIIDR[Ne tax DEEM 1'J .. 16 OP" 1/CY I- 15% mine o-nwREmA 1 L• •� F 10% VOMNO TEIMROO rElE1MAL WE EEe, aIEm.41 t0% Remus %eAw 1 - a' CLASS B ., AGGREGATE M%i. �rL5,V S1LS TTREOr/ea..Hs. 0. Turmas/0 PROE rOmusER Aa ER / V0 L MENAIDIM VE16YIAVOR OP MEW AREAS M 00.1TE0 PO01 IORARTNGOPRAT0NO. VENEYTMTrpc Duce22 ■ AIME RN WORM WACO MIGTED. ASJO TATEDOAREAE ME FIS DRAWIE DEM AND ROM WFE01 MAY FENCER MOW OR EIISRtatEDIT 0r9ATICNS DEAN E OF ACMEIIAT® DEI. B®® NAL IN WSLL4TRBD ME FNM Ort FRAELS NOD LOST OEM TMT!® CAREE RAOLDATMEmN0 Dome sPecIFIED TARE RENEW AND 0' 004. IDRT 1NEOumerTAPE LEON E22.11EAW TO METRO ARO PO4VOT SOL SOWN. EMIRS SAND 7 COYER Ars, 40DMLLA70N0FW000,03100001048 OM If ENE Tl0001001T 00701 APRV wTawid AT THE 70,00040 RATE: HYDRIALLC14 AT C LE. PER IDE ELME /ST. Torur1 DEPTH its TRACER UK SLOPE TRENCH 12A115 ECM GRAPHIC SCALE SAFETY PER CURRENT 0.45E 3 00571 REIXEtpEN 75 MI PO 4 EAE 40 0• SD' SWAMI e Sew AT RATER ODOM WITH a®COL 6 SELECT MATERIAL DM ` IR c BER EL 92R aauTrWrIoEIERmurcm) D Mt: e.oE ODER. AT 1 La FR IDE 20u EMr. NMEMEIIGIIxa SHOED OOOIPA6AE@N1Ali MOMS 4804 NYDROaEFDNO DDNDT Mx SEED AM MALTATaLETIRRNOW WATER A1R101T0N DECALS/EMI MLLPItlw1®BFRON COMPACTED TO BNS IF ,p - =ATMEAMIW ROADWAY (� �E) • 801470ENr. COMPACTED TO 1. MAD - 200 !L SOS IF LOCATE N OTHER EASEMENTS LOTS0CA err r / 11111 7 COMMO ALTO CONTNRMTHTEa0.t 0�Ear4LLNOr se Dee EIRIO maw%m4&1'T1,14 AErR1G 110 ROAMED EDv1ALY WV RATMTTC40RM�E, griTRACICe1HW1i L+T HTR MAM8ll 14:41 5 0EVR®. DREA0aL EMPLAWFWMO 0ELows01. BmmED AMEN SHALL SE PERFORM FROM APRA I TD ARE1°RR101 S�RTSR I TO Nl4.T41 1. [a 14151 aP1'A001wAlO1N TLE GAITNOAo-]Ir MEW AO0TMJWS BULTNAORATd ROM PUhr A 0WINUOU OPARLICTUATND WPM IR HOCREELOIE ELLER TORWIDSA UNRO1M DETRMM01 OF MOW WO WERATED ARSE 10 wwsaw..O1• w00010n54./w4A w1LWva10RTUSrTALLR.9DAMRewsmonotecue R 0 0000 CL.222/E, IMITI445 RE/ MSRWPFORCITNOLD A4ELEAU ERE werLD cTO1; DTMR4TR4E01L ECOR CS 2' HOPE PIPE 11 AREAS LIORCAORTDPBae rAIll11 TD MONA MORN awe OI Own MEAL Be ENEEOAT �S : 4n� ./'...•. 4......‘6p40N -A,127•rn+ .W 1 MN- .44 ACCREW TE BASE COURSE ems` WILL BE REOIIIREO F 7HE THAT EDI O SUITABLE THERE IS NO SUITABLE 1. LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 SHALL HAVE WOM2IAL 051 TE 501091 NA7ERLLL 0.V 970 N'ASTEWA R MOM (0.01) OEeAL'41RD PER KATE a COLORADO AMC OAF7LLD 440087Y 1 1NE.L7LDHS AT 710 TINE Cr BULLING PERMIT. 2 E7007040 RANCH HEADQUARTERS AND LLT S HAW C_L♦i S rMWNNO MATERIAL OR FUNCTIOVING 0.WS FCR WASTEWATER. / / / P,lCOIRIAISMADTRM WATER LINE PAR0110 9011A1 S TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC SEANCES 10 LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 12 MAPERFORM CAMEO DIRAN N9OR TAUARON TEMME/ LON CO0 ECON OEMSHALL BE PROVIDED AS UNRAGROUND LINES TO EACH LOT. LINE WOW. TEAMS MOM aREAll. Mos SARENB, BOR. Dom, AND K41P0Er1L IS NR ANT n FT WA7ER STS7TEJ NOTES: 41 4 .O .110 VArSeiwis NOTES & DETAILS 17 *0040 ®2150 lNla4awDNDa 01010. TRENCH CROSS SECTION 1 D REVISED NDrdS 10' 1. WATER PIPE SHALL BE 2' HOPE OR -D, 050-41 AND ANNA NTS.1001/C906 PIPNG \ 2 2 0 EASEMENTS ADDED T. S. 1 9 4/90 REVISED PER CU4ENT wormy; 1.5. z DEPTH OF 00404 Is e' MNMUM. ND. DATE REVISION BY 3. PUMPS TO BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED (WELL /0) OR 1107.11CD /2) 'ETH PRESSDRE SWIM AUTOMASC PROPOSED LEGEND EXISTING LEGEND 4. PUMP AT NEL. #3 TO BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY • CARBONDALS COLORADO NIESLAN1K EAST MESA CONTRACTOR. - V - 15441.90EOWATER UNE ROPING OVERHEAD E ECRi'C U'IMIT7 PLAN - 09 S. DOMING PUMP AT WELL /2 TO BE 00019100 FOR AUT08450 -_ 1547p[DOMVEL DRIVEWAY woo OPERATION. . - y1111'4100M4a_ __.. _ 0011:W 10A007 VWSOPRM �1 EHVINEIR%A4r' TCA'. _le0L01OFF 70 SUPPLY SHOP .---. FOR WARM IIID n.I 1100 �a - - - _ _ MDT N0 EASEMENT 0• PMP TRACTOR WIG C01I1TIL7111P0 -MEVT PUMPCOMPONENTS FOR APPROVAL BY ENGINEER. 1022 NAR 5)001. Bum A8 .DES. CM CIL YTN FILE NO. '5F007 2 LDf to NlO*o 4.osmI Sce CAILBOLLOALE. GO 67021 (870) 704-0.11 DR CJD DATE 5-1-09 Z4084.01 OF 3 I ! w f Ili■ ` 1 1 . 1 \ \■ \\ r 4'-0^ h _ "4,\moi Luiipp_ \ �� / , / . ,\ ` - 7 \ \ `. ` ` ' 5% AVERAGE SLOPE TYPICAL DITCH SECTION \ \ \ \ :\ 1 Y N-T.S- \.�I r a MI 1 mil" 40't FLOW CALCULATIONS t �, `l - - .\ L \ I ,. i i .......`� _ _I . \ "' .. .. - \ _ USING MANNINGS Q=Rk049/n)R S `' n=0.015, s=0.05, A=69.5 S9.50 ACRES `'. ._ 110 .. DEPTH ..Y.. cfs r, ,, 1 _l 0.87 38 0.94 47 f -, - 1 _ t0,\ • i! 33.09 ACRES \' ,1 r I _f • l - / / r 1 r ,,•�' I. rte_-.� I ` I• , f \ ' \ �.- J 1 �\ ` t�trwl!ir I .'r \ .\ ,`, t �r 12"1 _i1 r 1 r11=i1 riI 1 MO I J.. iar lit �` ` ,5' 4,r - I I y I I. ! .I ' �_ l r i /- - %°‘'1.% _ T 414. 21.85 ACRES /, ' r • t1-!' 1 • ti r • 11 a 1 , ,mi , ,r r • .. 1•'� r i l r f� i S �� tlllO r.l ri 1 1 � l I I I- , I� i l w l r� l l w l lM I 1 1 l A l 1, `- I - PROPOSED LEGFDIO GRAPHIC SCALE AY PROPOSED GRAVEL ORNEYIAV y/10p DITCH DETAIL II•S. PNOPCGED LOT UNE x• • m •w NO, DATE REVISION 1 BY CARBON+ALL COLORADO m ��� EXISTING LEGEND� (ixeat) 1d9ETE00 6YA.ARR 1 loch-100 n E%IBTINO CONTOUR I EXISTING CONTOUR INTERNAL NIESLAN1X EAST MESA DRAINAGE Hi.SD'( E7Q31BTT E]®TNO GRAVEL ROAD r I 1 w 1 : IN E]OGnE1 awwwE 3wN Lode SWAN EJIGLYl1NL1C` LEC WEL cosuritTAHT ® MONA b4iN10E 1.11...... •WE tax ISM IRA r, sum A3 DES. CID CIL YTN FILE Na 9fll1T 3 cxmolewt—HMI ro70 700.• amtE� DR CJB DATE 6—f-00, N084.01 OF 3 a— To: Mark Beckler: Sopris Engineering — LLC From: Scott Aibner — Garfield County Surveyor Subject: John Nieslanik Ranch - Review Date: 09/17/2010 EXHIBIT T Garfield County SURVEYOR SCOTT AIBNER, P.L.S Dear mark, Upon review of the John Nieslanik Ranch Rural Land Development, I have prepared a list of comments or corrections to be made prior to approval for survey content and form. 1. Exterior boundary comer monumentation needs to be more evident, particularly monuments found or set shall be noted on the plat. 2. Detail shading on page four could be sent to back to free up the text. Once these and all final comments from Building and planning have been completed, the Mylar may be prepared for recording. The Mylar shall be delivered to the Building and Planning office with all private party signatures no later than Monday the week prior to the next commissioner meeting day in order to make that meeting. Sincerely, 02. Scott Aibner Garfield County Surveyor cc Kathy Eastley — Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite201 • Glenwood Springs, C081601 • (970)945-1377 • Fax: (970)384-3460 • e-mail:saibner@gaeld-counrycom 1 1 EXHIBIT JOHN NIESLANIK RANCH RURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION PLAT NOTES By Applicant September 20, 2010 THE FOLLOWING PLATS NOTES WERE REQUIRED BY GARFIELD COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. AND AS SUCH ARE NOT A PART OF THE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION HEREON. NO FURTHER DIVISIONS OF LOTS 1-5 BY EXEMPTION FROM THE RULES OF SUBDIVISION WILL BE ALLOWED. LOT 6, ALSO KNOWN AS THE "REMAINDER RANCH PARCEL," IS BURDENED BY A CONSERVATION EASEMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 20, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 688879 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY REAL PROPERTY RECORDS, UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, LOT 6 CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED NOR DIVIDED BY SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION. 2. NO NEW OPEN HEARTH SOLID -FUEL FIREPLACES WILL BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE WITHIN LOTS 1-6. ONE (1) NEW SOLID -FUEL BURNING STOVE AS DEFINED BY CR.S. 25-7-401, ET SEQ., AND THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER, WILL BE ALLOWED IN ANY DWELLING UNIT. ALL DWELLING UNITS ARE ALLOWED AN UNRESTRICTED NUMBER OF NATURAL GAS BURNING STOVES AND APPLIANCES. 3. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT NECESSARY. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL BE DIRECTED INWARD AND DOWNWARD, TOWARDS THE INTERIOR OF THE LOTS, EXCEPT THAT PROVISIONS MA Y BE MADE TO ALLOW FOR SAFETY LIGHTING THAT GOES BEYOND THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. 4. ALL FOUNDATIONS SHALL BE ENGINEERED BY A PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED ENGINEER LICENSED TO PRACTICE WITHIN THE STA TE OF COLORADO. 5. COLORADO IS A "RIGHT- TO -FARM" STATE PURSUANT TO CR.S. 35-3-101 ET SEQ. LANDOWNERS, RESIDENTS AND VISITORS MUST BE PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE ACTIVITIES, SIGHTS, SOUNDS AND SMELLS OF GARFIELD COUNTY'S AGRICUL TURAL OPERATIONS AS A NORMAL AND NECESSARY ASPECT OF LIVING IN A COUNTY WITH A STRONG RURAL CHARACTER AND A HEAL THY RANCHING SECTOR. ALL MUST BE PREPARED TO ENCOUNTER NOISES, ODOR, SIGHTS, MUD, DUST, SMOKE, CHEMICALS, MACHINERY ON PUBLIC ROADS, LIVESTOCK ON PUBLIC ROADS, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF MANURE, AND THE APPLICATION BY SPRAYING OR OTHERWISE OF CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS, SOIL AMENDMENTS, HERBICIDES, AND PESTICIDES, ANY ONE OR MORE OF WHICH MAY NA TURALL Y OCCUR AS A PART OF A LEGAL AND NON - NEGLIGENT AGRICUL TURAL OPERATION. 6. ALL OWNERS OF LAND, WHETHER RANCH OR RESIDENCE, HAVE OBLIGATIONS UNDER STATE LAW AND COUNTY REGULATION WITH REGARD TO THE MAINTENANCE OF FENCES AND IRRIGATION DITCHES, CONTROLLING WEEDS, KEEPING LIVESTOCK AND PETS UNDER CONTROL, USING PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING, AND OTHER ASPECTS OF USING AND MAINTAINING PROPERTY. RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO LEARN ABOUT THESE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACT AS GOOD NEIGHBORS AND CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY. A GOOD INTRODUCTORY SOURCE FOR SUCH INFORMATION IS "A GUIDE TO RURAL LIVING & SMALL SCALE AGRICUL TURE" PUT OUT BY THE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION OFFICE IN GARFIELD COUNTY. THE ENTIRETY OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE REMAINDER RANCH PARCEL A.KA LOT 6 AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT IS GOVERNED BY A PERPETUAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PITKIN COUNTY. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS EASEMENT ARE MORE FULL Y DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "NIESLANIK RANCH DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT" RECORDED IN THE RECORDS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE WITH THE RECEPTION NUMBER OF 688879. ALL FUTURE ACTIVITY ON THE REMAINDER RANCH PARCEL A.KA LOT 6 SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THIS DOCUMENT. 8. ALL PROPOSED EXCAVATION INTO SLOPES STEEPER THAN 30% SHALL BE ADDRESSED BY A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ON A SITE-SPECIFIC BASIS AND THE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS PART OF A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. THE MINERAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN PARTIALLY SEVERED AND ARE NOT FULLY INTACT OR TRANSFERRED WITH THE SURFACE ESTATE THEREFORE ALLOWING THE POTENTIAL FOR NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION ON THE PROPERTY BY THE MINERAL ESTATE OWNER(S) OR LESSEE(S). 10. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, AS RECORDED, ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. 11. RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER: LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 DEPICTED ON THIS RURAL LAN N DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION PLAT, OR ANY FRACTIONAL INTEREST , MAY NOT BE SOLD, CONVEYED OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED IOR TO THE RECORDING OF A "RELEASE OF PLAT RESTRICTION" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR RURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION DATED , 2010, ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, NIESLANIK INVESTMENTS LLC, AND CECELIA L. NIESLAN/K BYPASS TRUST, AND RECORDED ON , 2010 AS RECEPTION NO. . N PARCEL, BLOCK, LOT, UNIT, OR FRACTIONAL INTER T OR PORTION OF : Y PARCEL, BLOC,yK,'LOT, OR UNIT WITHIN THE PROPS Y SHOWN ON THIS ' RAL LAND DEVEL�f MENT EXEMPTION PLAT MAY BE ONVEYED UNTIL S. "VED BY ROAD, DRAINAGE, WATER, SEWER, AND, E CTRICITY SERVIC _ AS SUCH IMPROVEMENTS ARE REQUIRED BY HAT CERTAIN ,RURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN NIESLAN/K INVESTMENTS LLC, AND CECELIA L. NIESLANIK BYPASS TRUST "(OWNER)" AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO "(BOCC)" RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. AND THE BOCC HAS APPROVED SAID IMPROVEMENTS BY MEANS OF THE PROCESS OUTLINED IN PARAGRAPH OF SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UPON CERTIFICATION TO THE BOCC BY OWNER'S PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE FINAL, COMPLETE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS. 12. THE CONVEYANCE OF LOTS 5 AND 6 ARE EXEMPT FROM THE ABOVE PLAT NOTE AS ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTS TO SERVE THOSE LOTS; 13. A FIFTEEN FOOT (15') IRRIGATION EASEMENT CENTERED OVER ALL EXISTING IRRIGATION DITCHES IS HEREBY GRANTED FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES INCLUDING ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE RIGHTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HOLDERS OF THE WATER RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH SAID DITCHES. 14. THE MINERAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY WILL NOT BE TRANSFERRED WITH THE SURFACE ESTATE THEREFORE ALLOWING THE POTENTIAL FOR NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION ON THE PROPERTY BY MINERAL ESTATE OWNER(S) OR LESSEE(S). 15 ALL FIRE PROTECTION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF WILDFIRE DEFENSIBLE SPACE AROUND EACH HOME WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CARBONDALE AND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. 16. DUE TO VARYING SITE SOIL CONDITIONS, ALL LOTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL SITE-SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL STUDY PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. 17. ON-SITE WATER STORAGE IS REQUIRED OF EACH LOT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT STORAGE MUST BE A PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION; 18. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR EACH LOT SHALL INCLUDE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN ONSITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM (OWS). EACH SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A STATE OF COLORADO REGISTERED ENGINEER AND MUST BE APPROVED PURSUANT TO THE GARFIELD COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC DISPOSAL SYSTEM (ISDS) REGULATIONS BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED. THE TYPE, SIZE, AND LOCATION OF EACH INDIVIDUAL OWS WILL BE SITE SPECIFIC BASED ON EXISTING GARFIELD COUNTY AND STATE ISDS DESIGN CRITERIA AND REQUIRED SITE-SPECIFIC GEO-TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS. SOIL ABSORPTION/DISPERSAL SYSTEMS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ON EACH LOT OR WITHIN THE OWS SEPTIC EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 3 AS IDENTIFIED ON THE RURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION PLAT. JOHN NIESLANIK RANCH RURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION PLAT NOTES By Garfield County Staff September 20, 2010 4. The plat shall contain the following notes: a. Notes 1 through 9 as contained on the draft plat; b. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, as recorded, are applicable to this development; c. An Improvements Agreement, as recorded, is applicable to this development; d. Lots 1 through 4 as depicted on this plat, or any fractional interest therein, may not be sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred until such time as a "RELEASE OF COLLATERAL" is approved by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. The recorded Improvements Agreement stipulates the improvements to be constructed, including roads, drainage, water, sewer, gas and electricity service. Prior to scheduling review of the requested release by the Board of County Commissioners the Applicant shall provide as❑built drawings stamped by an engineer licensed to practice in the State of Colorado certifying that the improvements were constructed and are in compliance with Garfield County requirements; or alternative collateral may be provided; The conveyance of Lots 5 and 6 are exempt from the above plat note as adequate infrastructure exists to serve those lots; f. Foundation perimeter drains shall be required on all new structures in the development; g. Sulfate resistant cement shall be used in all concrete that will be in contact with the site soils. h. All steel that will be in contact with site soils shall be epoxy❑coated to prevent corrosion; Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in all new residences constructed in this development; On❑site water storage is required of each lot in the development and plans associated with that storage must be a part of the building permit application; k. New construction must comply with the Colorado State Forest Service Defensible Space standards for wildfire mitigation which will be reviewed at building permit.