Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationBlizzard Administrative Land Use Change Permit Application Prepared by: Western Slope Consulting LLC 0165 Basalt Mt. Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-7172 wsconsulting@a,sopris.net May 15, 2018 Table of Contents Item Page Application Submittal Letter 3 Land Use Change Permit Application Form 4 Payment Agreement Form 6 Evidence of Ownership 7 Statement of Authority 9 Authorization Letter 10 Pre-Application Conference Summary 11 Vicinity map 17 Project Description 18 Impact Analysis 18 Compliance with Zone District Regulations 24 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan 25 Well Permit 29 Adjacent Property Owners 31 Site Plan Attached Grading and Drainage Plan Attached Vegetation and Critical Wildlife Report Attached Sopris Engineering Report Attached Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation Attached Page - 2 Application Submittal Letter May 20, 2018 Mr. Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Dear Mr. Hartmann I am pleased to submit herewith an application for the Blizzard Administrative Land Use Change Permit for a small contractor yard, nursery/greenhouse and single-family residence. This application conforms to the requirements of Articles III, IV, VII, and XVI of the Garfield County Unified Land -Use Regulations and the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. The Blizzard Administrative Land Use Change Permit fits on the existing 4.38 acre site and the site plan is laid out to conform to the characteristics of the site in a manner that protects the site's natural features, provides safe access and minimize impacts. I look forward to reviewing this application with the County at the earliest convenience. After the submittal has been deemed technically complete, please process the submittal in conformance with the County Regulations. If you have any questions about the application, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970-963-7172) wsconsultingnu,sopris.net. Page - 3 Sincerely, . X111 Davis Farrar Western Slope Consulting LLC Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 www.garfield-county.com LLAND USE CHANGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM TYPE QF APPLICATION 0 Development in 100 -Year Floodplain NI Administrative Review ❑ Limited Impact Review 0 Development in 100 -Year Floodplain Variance ❑ Major Impact Review 0 Code Text Amendment ❑ Amendments to an Approved LUCP 0 Rezoning ■ LIR • MIR ■ SUP ■ Zone District ■ PUD ■ PUD Amendment • Minor Temporary Housing Facility 0 Administrative Interpretation ❑ Vacation of a County Road/Public ROW 0 Appeal of Administrative Interpretation ❑ Location and Extent Review 0 Areas and Activities of State Interest ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment' 0 Accommodation Pursuant to Fair Housing Act • Pipeline Development 0 Variance ❑ Time Extension (also check type of original application) INVOLVED PARTIES Owner/Applicant Name: Steven Blizzard Phone: ( 970) 927-4447 Mailing Address: 0350 Original Road City: Basalt State: CO Zip Code: 81621 E-mail: blizzland@aol.com Representative (Authorization Required) Name: Western Slope Consulting, LLC - Davis Farrar Phone: ( 970 ) 618-4708 Mailing Address: 0165 Basalt Mt Dr City: Carbondale State: CO Zip Code: 81623 E-mail: wsconsulting@sopris.net PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION Project Name: Blizzard Landscaping Small Contractor's Yard, Nursery/Greenhouse & Single -Family Residence Assessor's Parcel Number: 2393 _ 202 _ 00 _ 108 Physical/Street Address: East side of HWY 82, Sec 20,T7S,R88W, .7 Mi S of Cattle Creek Legal Description: Lot 1 Sec 20,T7S,R88W of 6th PM, Garfield County, CO See Attached Legal Description Zone District: Rural Property Size (acres): 4.38 Page - 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Existing Use: vacant Proposed Use (From Use Table 3-403): Small Contractor's Yard, Nursery/Greenhouse & Single -Family Residence Description of Project: Project will include a small contractor's yard with equipment & materials that include, but not be limited to, skid -steer, trailers, dump trucks, pick-up trucks, stored materials. A nursery/greenhouse Including, but not limited to, office, landscaping plants/ shrubs/trees, and related materials and equipment. A single-family residential unit. REQUEST FOR WAIVERS Submission Requirements ❑ The Applicant requesting a Waiver of Submission Requirements per Section 4-202. List: Section: Section: Section: Section: Waiver of Standards ❑ The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Standards per Section 4-118. List: Section: Section: Section: Section: I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Property Owner Date OFFICIAL USE ONLY File Number: ____----- Page - 5 Fee Paid: $ Garfield County PAYMENT AGREEMENT FORM GARFIELD COUNTY ("COUNTY") and Property Owner ("APPLICANT") Steven Blizzard agree as Follows: 1. The Applicant has submitted to the County an application for the following Project: Administrative Land Use Change Permit 2. The Applicant understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No. 2014-50, as amended, establishes a fee schedule for each type application, and the guidelines for the administration of the fee structure. 3. The Applicant and the County agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. The Applicant agrees to make payment of the Base Fee, established for the Project, and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to the Applicant. The Applicant agrees to make additional payments upon notification by the County, when they are necessary, as costs are incurred, 4. The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners far the consideration of an application or additional County staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial Base Fee, the Applicant shall pay additional billings to the County to reimburse the County for the processing of the Project. The Applicant acknowledges that all billing shall be paid prior to the final consideration by the County of any Land Use Change or Division of Land. I hereby agree to pay all fees related to this application: Billing Contact Person: Steven Blizzard Phone: ( 970 )379-9909 Billing Contact Address: 0350 Original Road City: Basalt Billing Contact Email: blizzland@aol.com State: CO Zip Code: 81 621 Printed Name of Person Authorized to Sign: Steven Blizzard Page - 6 / /2 f (Signature) (Date) Evidence of Ownership WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this 30th day of September, 2008, between Robert Dean Burry Recorded Electronically Io outy of the said County of Garfield and State of Colorado, Grantor, and D e Time Steven Blizzard simplirle.com $00.460.5657 whose legal address is: 0350 Original Road, Basalt CO 81621 of the said County of Garfield and State of Colorado, grantee: Recording Fee; $15,00 WITNESS, that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of State Doc Fee:$30.50 ( $305,000.00 ) Three Hundred Five Thousand dollars and Zero cents, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the grantees, their heirs and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Garfield and State of Colorado described as follows: A Parcel of land situated in Lot I of Section 20, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian County of Garfield, State of Colorado; said Parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of said Section 20, a BLM aluminum cap in place; Thence S. 89°05'58" E. along the Northerly line of said Section 20 792.58 feet to a point on the Northeasterly Right-of-Way of Colorado State Highway No. 82, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving said Northeasterly Right-of-Way S. 89°05'58" E. along the Northerly line of said Lot 1 523.86 feet; Thence S. 00°05'52" W. along the Easterly line of said Lot 1 728.19 feet to a point on the Northeasterly Right- of-Way of said Colorado State Highway No. 82; Thence leaving said Easterly line N. 35°21'30" W. along said Northeasterly Right- of-Way 903.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. County of Garfield State of Colorado Reserving and excepting therefrom, however, all of Grantor's right, title and interest in all mineral rights in the Property for the Grantor and Grantor's heirs, executors, successors and assigns. This mineral reservation v'-! includes without Iimitation by its terms, oil, gas, other hydrocarbons, base and precious metals, all other � '' minerals and mineral rights, and all sand and gravel and any other minerals on, in and under the lands above J 0- described. alsoknown by street and number as: Vacant Land , CO TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the grantor, for himself, his heirs, and personal representatives, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and Af t erl 'ftJ : _350 Pd— Order Number: 18458 J- si / No. 932A - Warranty Deed (For Photographic Record) Page 1 of 2 Page - 7 with the grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, clear from alI former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and nature soever, except (a) General taxes for the year 2008 and subsequent years; and those specific exceptions recorded documents as reflected in the Title Documents accepted by Grantee(s) in accordance Review) of the Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate relating to the above described real easements (including, cable TV); those specifically described rights of third parties not which Grantee(s) has actual knowledge and which were accepted by Grantee(s) in accordance Not Shown by the Public Records) and Section 8.3 (Survey Review) of the Contract to Buy to the above described real property; inclusion of the Property within any special taxing and of' any recorded declaration and party wall agreements, if any. (b) Grantee covenants that the lands conveyed herein shall be used in accordance Covenants and Deed Restrictions. he is well seized of the premises fee simple, and has good right, full and that the same are free and restrictions of whatever kind or described by reference to with Section 8.1 (Title property; distribution utility shown by the public records of with Section 8.2 (Matters and Sell Real Estate relating district; the benefits and burdens with the attached Restrictive in the quiet and peaceable the whole or any part thereof. be applicable to all genders. Dean Burry '1 The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above -bargained premises possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming The singular numbed' -11 include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall IN WITNESS ' ERE 0. ", t : ntor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. .- I / Robert Deur furry le STATE OF Colorado ) ) ss. COUNTY OF Garfield ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30th day of September, 2008, by Robert My commission expires: Q9 / o)0. Witness my hand and .1,,,P, "'.:, ,1 �. rn.t ��, !' ' btbtarApptibi.ie PERRIN i 9 1 • .. .•gip' s- OF C04911"l My Commission Expres 09/0612010 S Order Number: I8455 No. 932A - Warranty Deed (For Photographsc Record) Page 2 of 2 Page - 8 1111 Waf'nikti,ti Yli 11111 Receptionkl: 889810 02105/2017 02 24 Si PM Jean AtberiCo 1 of t Roe Fea:$13,00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Page - 9 Garfield County STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY Pursuant to C.R.S. §38-30-172, the undersigned executes this Statement of Authority on behalf of Blizzard Landscape, Inc a Corporation 'corporation, limited liability company, general partnership, registered limited liability partnership, registered limited liability limited partnership, limited partnership association, government agency, trust or other), an entity other than an individual, capable of holding title to real property (the "Entity"), and states as follows: The name of the Entity is Buzzard Landscape, Inc and is formed under the laws of the state ar Colorado The mailing address for the Entity is 350 original Road, Basalt Colorado 8162/ The name and/or position of the person authorized to execute instruments conveying, encumbering, or otherwise affecting title to real property on behalf of the Entity is Steven Blizzard The limitations upon the authority of the person named above or holding the position described above to bind the Entity are as follows (if no limitations, insert "None"): None Other matters concerning the manner in which the Entity deals with any interest in real property are (if no other matter, leave this section blank): EXECUTED this.2' l day of /7-"C- ! , 20 / 7 . Signature: Name (printed): Steven Blizzard Title (if any): Postdam STATE OF (L�1o1 `�` i\A i IA )S5. COUNTY OF *, j The for going instrument was acknowledged before me this 2 1 day of b.l '' . 20 `,� by S" 1>L".lf� g� l t YC en behalf of $I 1'��'I r�� �,cIYY{` ci �[ , a C hi I' rii-t l c 1 VI Witness my hand and official s al. f My commission expires: 0 ley ?L 1�, j. Date] (Notary Public) [SEAL] MICHAEL L. MAD RIL NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20104029314 MY COMMISSION D[PIFIFS MAHCH 1S, 2019 Authorization Letter BLIZZARD LANDSCAPE, INC. January 23, 2017 Mr. Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Planning 108 8t St., Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr_ Hartmann: I the undersigned Steven Blizzard with this letter consent to and authorize the processing of an Administrative Land Use Change Permit Application For a small contractor's yard along with other permitted uses that do not require Land Use Change Permits before Garfield County Colorado by Davis Farrar of Western Slope Consulting LLC, Carbondale, Colorado. Mr. Farrar is to represent my interests in processing this application. Yours truly, Steven Blizzard C'c: Davis Farrar - Western Slope Consulting LLC Page - 10 350 ORIGINAL ROAD • BASALT, COLORADO* 81621 • PHONE: 970-379-9909 Garfield County 1 Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 www.eartield-county.com PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PARCEL NUMBER: 2393-202-00-108 DATE: Updated 2127118 & 3/19/18 PROJECT: Blizzard Small Contractor's Yard OWNERS: Steven Blizzard REPRESENTATIVE: Davis Farrar, Planner LOCATION: No address assigned. Situated approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the Town of Carbondale, on the east side of Highway 82. ZONING: Rural TYPE OF APPLICATION: Administrative Review for a Small Contractor's Yard I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant proposes the following uses on his 4.3 acre parcel. • Small Contractor's Yard • Nursery — Greenhouse • Single Family Residence Multiple uses on a single property are permitted pursuant to the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, however each use needs to be a permitted use or subject to obtaining the appropriate Land Use Change Permit. Compatibility between the uses would be considered as part of the development review process. The Small Contractor's Yard requires an Administrative Land Use Change Permit. That portion of the site to be used for the small contractor's yard will need to be clearly delineated on a site plan associated with the required submittals. The other proposed uses do not require Land Use Change Permits but should also be clearly delineated on the site plan. Elements required for each use including access, on-site waste water treatment Page - 11 systems (OWTS), well and water infrastructure, all need to be included on the site plan. All features need to reflect compliance with required setbacks and separation requirements. Additional topics covered with the Applicant included: CDOT access issues and use of the frontage road for access, existing stormwater detention feature on a portion of the site, stormwater, drainage, and grading issues and the potential for off-site impacts, soils and geotechnical concerns, and screening requirements. Contractor's Yards are categorized by the Land Use and Development Code as Industrial Uses and will need to meet Industrial Use Standards in Section 7-1001 or request waivers from the Standards. UPDATE: The Application needs to clearly address natural hazards associated with steep slopes and rockfall potential (Section 7-207). Setbacks off of the adjacent frontage road need to be reflected on the site plan in compliance with Article 3 Zoning District Dimensions Table 3-201 for the Rural Zone District. Compatibility and screening continues to be a significant concerns with small contractor's yards and should be thoroughly addressed in the Application submittals. II. REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPLICANT IS REQURED TO ADDRESS • Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 • Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended o Article III, Zoning & Use Tables — Small Contractors Yard o Article IV, Application and Review Procedures including Sections 4-103 Administrative Review, Section 4-118 Waiver of Standards, Section 4-202 Waiver of Submittal Requirements. o Submittal Requirements, Table 4-201 and Description of Submittal Requirements, Section 4-203 o Article VII, Standards — Divisions 1 and 2 and 3 as applicable — including but not limited to drainage/erosion control, roadway standards, parking and loading, water and sanitation as applicable o Article VII, Section 7-1001 Standards for Industrial Uses o Article XVI, Definitions, Small Contractors Yard III. WAIVER REQUESTS Should the Applicant chose to request waivers from submittal requirements or standards, the Application submittals will need to clearly address the review criteria contained in Sections 4-118 and 4-202 in justifying the requests. Where technical issues are concerned (i.e. roadway standards, traffic, drainage, erosion control) the Application needs to demonstrate that the issues are adequately addressed so that the waiver criteria is being met. Technical expertise and engineering reports may still be required to support the waiver request. Further pre -application meetings are recommended to discuss potential waiver requests with Staff prior to finalizing the Application submittals. Page - 12 IV. REVIEW PROCESS — Administrative Review 1. Pre -application Conference 2. Application Submittal 3. Determination of Completeness by Planning Staff and submittal of additional information as required 4. Referrals are sent out 5. Scheduling of the date for the Director's Decision 6. Mailing Public Notice 15 days prior to the Director's Decision to adjacent property owners within 200 ft. and mineral rights owners on the subject property. The notice is to be completed by the Applicant. 7. Evaluation by Director and preparation of a Staff Report 8. Director's Decision Letter is issued 9. Ten day call-up period during which reconsideration of the Director's Decision can be requested. V. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Table 4-201 provides a detailed listing of submittal requirements. The following summary is provided to clarify key elements and requirements and it is recommended that it be utilized as a pre -submittal checklist: Page - 13 Standard Application Form (including owners signatures) Evidence of Ownership Payment Agreement Form Listing of adjacent property owners within 200 ft. and any mineral rights owners on the subject property Authorization to represent letters as needed Statements of authority for LLC and Corporations Vicinity Map (showing area generally within 3 miles of the site) Site plan including delineation of the maximum area and extent of the contractor's yard, information on existing site features, proposed improvements and supporting infrastructure (wells, water lines, utility lines, OWTS, etc.) The site plan needs to include other proposed uses, including improvements and supporting infrastructure (wells, water lines, utility lines, OVVTS, etc.) for the nursery greenhouse and single family residence. Application Submittal 3 Hard Copies 1 Digital PDr Copy (on CD or USB stick) Both the paper and the digital copy should be split into individual sections. Please refer to the list included in your pre -application conference summary for the submittal requirements that are appropriate for your application: • General Application Materials • Vicinity Map • Site Plan • Grading and Drainage Plan • Landscape Plan • Impact Analysis • Traffic Study • Water Supply/Distribution Plan ▪ Wastewater Management Plan • Article 7 Standards ❑ The site plan needs to demonstrate legal, physical access, and adequate access including compliance with roadway standards contained in Section 7-107 (waivers from roadway standards may be requested) C! The site plan needs to include topography for the site ❑ Grading and drainage plans D Landscape plan is not required unless proposed for screening D Impact Analysis ❑ Traffic Report and/or waiver request rl Water supply and distribution plans Li Wastewater management/treatment plans H Geological and soils hazards or constraints need to be addressed. Application format needs to address each of the standards contained in Article 7, Divisions 1, 2, and 3 as applicable to the proposal. The proposal needs to demonstrate compliance with Section 1001 standards including setbacks (unless waivers are requested) and screening. The Application submittal needs to include 3 hard copies of the entire Application and 1 Digital PDF Copy of the entire Application (on a CD or USB Stick). Both the paper and digital copies should be split into individual sections. Please refer to this pre -application summary for submittal requirements that are appropriate for your Application. VI. APPLICATION REVIEW a. Review by. Staff for completeness recommendation and referral agencies for additional technical review b. Public Hearing: c. Referral Agencies: X Director's Decision (with notice but not a hearing) _ Planning Commission _ Board of County Commissioners Board of Adjustment May include but is not limited to: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, County Road and Bridge Department, County Environmental Health Manager, County Vegetation Manager, County Consulting Engineer, local Fire Protection District (Colorado River Fire and Rescue), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). VII. APPLICATION REVIEW FEES a. Planning Review Fees: b. Referral Agency Fees: c. Total Deposit: $ 250 $ TBD (consulting engineer/civil engineer fees) $ 250 (additional hours are billed at $40.50 /hour) Page - 14 VIII. GENERAL APPLICATION PROCESSING The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the County. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. This summary does not create a legal or vested right. The summary is valid for a six month period, after which an update should be requested, The Applicant is advised that the Application submittal once accepted by the County becomes public information and will be available (including electronically) for review by the public. Proprietary information can be redacted from documents prior to submittal. Pre -application Summary Prepared by: Glenn Hartmann Principal Planner Page - 15 Vo /ir Date Page - 16 Approximately 2 months if submi cal is complete re Garfield County Administrative Review Process (Section 4-103) Step 1: Pre -application Conference • May be waived by Director 'Applicant has 6 months to submit application Step 2: Application Submittal Step 3: Completeness Review •10 business days to review • If incomplete, 60 days to remedy deficiencies Step 4: Schedule Decision Date and Provide Notice • Mailed to adjacent property owners within 200 feet and mineral owners at least 15 days prior to decision date Step 5: Referral 421 day comment period Step 6: Evalution by Director Step 7: Director's Decision •Call-up Period - within 10 days of Director's Decision 'Applicant has 1 year to meet any conditions of approval Vicinity Map Blizzard Vicinity Map 107°16' 10]° 15' -107°14' 10713' W 107' 16' 41.561" W 107' 12' 46.031" N 39' 2]' 61-371 t d off;' ® •�1 1, 1- 0 ‘10?!. 'CC _-.- l (3.:•7:.:---- . _ -.:fi \ p e� 64,°- \ �. x6620 ` V c_________,,,_,.."„vii{ .aO,' ti-_`_ - _ s ��r - G ..eek' C-/" r 39 27 95-921' 3927 °� • *k f 1I a� 44yy ,. , 1 1 an, 1 V �. }� . ` n V�L-,-:-:".,I a:-... -- r. ./l- -l^r~ I X1.,..5 6_ _�� \, i Z \ - \-1 #04 ^64 [ -t•�` ^N((yI) 1 /� - - 680 ----1-, �f�� w% 7 • 27 Ir �� elm ��) )c' i� :111'\� q, �'et: °y ;�� �'� 1°'01 It,/�` f�] j 41, \ ��. �1,. \1\ ��1 e ,:-//- -' ;t r 20 �\ � ..:.7 �t 1.:-.-- 39°26' �� y `v1 �1. 6800--��'r l lI 1 /i -- l m� .� --ter • \• ) ,y �� .� t 11 °d is �L'a'� --..._ �c/v ` �� , ,,,- t`i�)�� \ 0/ \\i, \ Il Z f1 1 .• l)1V i\SII '' //�i 1 /i - `�` / �\ �l ,(,--.,,,--:<=------1,\ ';'' `\ �'Ir ��',. ���\� ✓1—,^a fid.-:� (��` N. �' r`'".: �� L,,.. ..7, -"j rc / u 1i�1 — O D 9 25 � lig \ li <<, i �lJ y �J ��\ \I`ll `' \, `C\' JI (` . -' T/ \ l� �ti V� \AI l 4. l tA� i �` t A N (4,,,,p : °a Z ' 29 q \ 7... L i . t t� %1 � `' soa �t¢ 7 �� \ tit L.. 6 ,. } , 1- iia , 3, 4 v '%I 439'24'12.714" 4 �� I`( 1 1; _ \ I l.'� ���1, �I �I \ \\ \-^ / 11J t LLL 1 �(\�\oA�� t \ _,.) �t�f� �,,r/�I��(/ /�..1 1 / f5\ \ 1 4'2 N111.1-'11-----;•1•' �� .� _-1 V/ / `� N �" _ � {`�)/y��'/> �{ + ' 64 `J IIII � i y LOunta n y6 J. �`" 2l ii - - �.� f 1 / V n l`� ). �11 �., • i f `\ 1 p ,•, y`A • "9C t1 _ •-: N39'24'17.255' W 107' 16' 34.765" W 107' 12' 39.430" 10]'16' 10715' 10714' 107°13' 1927 No 16 American Qa1um; 1,OOO melee 614 grid zone 13 Genela62 by BigTopo (wwwigagemm) 0 16 k 1 241ez Map mm piled from 10374 quads Cattle Geek; CO Carbondale; C3 �� 1 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 9000 10000 Feet 1-11 000 40 500 0 16 t 2 Ki01 tele Blizzard Vicinity Map Page - 17 Project Description The Blizzard administrative review application is a request for a small contractor yard located on Highway 82 Frontage Rd. approximately 1.44 miles south of the intersection of County Rd. 113 and Highway 82. The total site acreage is 4.3 acres. The proposed small contractor's yard use on the site will be accompanied by a nursery/greenhouse with office and a single-family residence. The uses will be served by an existing private well (Permit #81417-F) and an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) that will be constructed. Access to the property is directly off the Highway 82 Frontage Road which adjoins the site. There is a need in the Roaring Fork Valley for small contractor facilities and housing for employees. The additional uses on the property which will include a nursery/greenhouse facility will offer opportunities for employment of Valley residents. It is expected that the project will develop over the next two or three years based upon demand. Most immediately, development of the site will include the small contractor facilities and the nursery operations. Hours of operation are expected to be 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. It is likely there will be some weekend activity that may include maintenance of on-site equipment, limited nursery/greenhouse operations and other after -hour activities. It is anticipated that there will be 4-6 employees that will work on and off-site. These numbers may vary based upon workload and business activity. A 30' x 40' envelope is shown on the site plan for the proposed single-family residential structure. This building likely would include two stories and would not exceed the maximum height requirements allowed in the Rural Zone District. A proposed on-site shop is shown as a 40' x 60' envelope. The structure would be a single story building sufficient for storage and maintenance of equipment. The site plan shows a gently sloping flattened portion of the site approximately 370' x 130' that will be used for the small contractor yard and nursery/greenhouse area. A berm is proposed to be constructed on the westerly portion of the property to help screen the site from view on Highway 82 and properties to the west. Two on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) are to be constructed to serve the single-family residential unit and the shop building. These systems will be designed and constructed based upon the projected wastewater generation from each use. These systems will be permitted, inspected and approved by Garfield County. An existing on-site commercial well is constructed and in place to serve the uses on the property under Permit #81417-F as noted above. Impact Analysis Adjacent Land Use - The site is surrounded by undeveloped vacant land on the north, east and south sides. The Highway 82 Frontage Road directly borders the property on the west. Other existing uses within 1,500 feet of the west site boundary include single-family residences, golf course and vacant land. Closest single-family residence to the property is approximately 565 feet to the west across Highway 82. Site Features - The property slopes to the west and southwest with grades ranging between 6% and 8%. Site vegetation consists primarily of Big Sagebrush, Pinyon Pine, and Rocky Mountain Juniper. Various grasses cover portions of the site. A more detailed description of the vegetation on site is included in the "Vegetation and Critical Wildlife Report" prepared by E.M Ecological, LLC included with this submittal. There are no well-defined drainages across the site. Drainage consists primarily of sheet flow to the borrow ditch along the Highway 82 Frontage Road. There are no areas on the site that are subject to flooding or high groundwater. There is a small detention basin located in the northwest portion of the site that rarely if ever holds water. Page - 18 The area climate is generally determined by elevation and aspect. Like any mountain climate, occasional seasonal extremes occur, but they are moderated by a majority of consistently pleasant weather. Summer highs can hit 90 degrees, but temperatures are often in the 70s and 80s. Winters in the valley are subject to periodic cold spells but often are mild. Sunshine in the valley is frequent and delivers intense rays, summer and winter, through clean clear mountain air. During the day, the temperature can change quickly and the area is subject to sudden weather changes. The area is sunny 71 percent of the year. Average temperatures in January are in the low -to -mid 20s; while July temperatures are in the low -to -mid 70s. Annual average precipitation is about 18 inches. Soil Characteristics - A Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation completed by CTL Thompson is included with this submittal. The following soils information was obtained from NRCS and does not indicate constraints that would preclude development of the site. Page - 19 Map Acres Unit Map Unit Name in Symbol ADI 55 Gypsum land- 0.1 1.2% Gypsiorthids complex, 12 to 65 percent slopes 97 5outhace cobbly 4.4 98.8% sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Totals for Area of 4.4 100.0% Interest Percent of AOI Map Unit Description: Southace cobbly sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes---Aspen-Gypsum Blizzard Property Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties 97—Southace cobbly sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jq7x Elevation: 6,000 to 7,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 42 to 46 degrees F Frost -free period: 95 to 105 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Southace and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Southace Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, terraces, mountains Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 3 inches: cobbly sandy loam H2 - 3 to 14 inches: gravelly loam H3 - 14 to 26 inches: very gravelly loam H4 - 26 to 60 inches: very cobbly fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low 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 in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified rsDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/17/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Page - 20 Map Unit Description: Southace cobbly sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes---Aspen-Gypsum Blizzard Property Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Loamy Slopes (R048AY303C0) Other vegetative classification: LOAMY SLOPES (null_31) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Other soils Percent of map unit: 15 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Survey Area Data: Version 8, Oct 10, 2017 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/17/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Page - 21 Map Unit Description: Gypsum land-Gypsiorthids complex, 12 to 65 percent slopes ---Aspen- Blizzard Property Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties 55—Gypsum land-Gypsiorthids complex, 12 to 65 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol.. jq6f Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 15 Inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost -free period: 80 to 105 days Farmland classification. Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Gypsum land: 65 percent Gypsiorthids and similar soils. 20 percent Minor components. 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunif. Description of Gypsum Land Typical profile H.1 - 0 to 60 inches: gypsiferous material Properties and qualities Slope: 12 to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to paralithic bedrock Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat). Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr) Salinity, maximum in profile: Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 32.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydric soil rating: No Description of Gypsiorthids Setting Landform: Drainageways, hills, mountains Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder Landform positron (three-dimensional): Mountainflank, side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed colluvium and/or mixed residuum Typical profile H.1 - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam La Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/17/2018 Conservation Service Page - 22 National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Gypsum Land-Gypsiorthids complex, 12 to 65 percent slopes ---Aspen- Blizzard Property Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties H2 - 0 to 23 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 23 to 39 inches: fine sandy loam H4 - 39 to 43 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 12 to 50 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksatt: Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table. More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Gypsum, maximum in profile: 12 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Slightly saline to moderately saline (4.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Other soils Percent of map unit: 15 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Survey Area Data: Version 8, Oct 10, 2017 gpq Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/17/2018 Conservation Service Page - 23 National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Geology and Hazard See attached Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation completed by CTL Thompson Inc. dated September 27, 2010 Project No. GS05495-115. Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas The CTL Thompson Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation addresses surface water, runoff and flood potential. Three test holes were drilled on the property using a track mounted drill rig with a 4 - inch diameter continuous -flight auger. A summary of logs of the soils found in the borings are presented in the report in Figure 2. Environmental Impacts The vegetation and critical wildlife report prepared by E.M Ecological, LLC addresses the soils, vegetation resources, noxious weeds, we prevention, wildlife habitats and wildlife impacts on the property. Nuisance The property is located a substantial distance from the nearest residential or other uses. The site is physically separated by the four lanes of Highway 82 from the closest residential properties. In addition, the site is further separated from golf course and residential properties further west by the Roaring Fork River. Driveways and outdoor storage areas will be improved with base. Use of water or dust retardant could be applied to these areas in the event that dust becomes a problem. The other activity on the property by vehicles and equipment should generate no more noise than Highway 82. A berm constructed on the west property should further mitigate sounds from the site. Generation of vapor or glare is not anticipated from the property. No vibration or other emanations are expected to extend beyond the property boundaries. Hours of Operation Hours of operation are expected to be 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. It is likely there will be some weekend activity that may include maintenance of on-site equipment, limited nursery/greenhouse operations and other after -hour activities. Compliance with Zone District Use Rejulations. The subject property is zoned "Rural". The 4.3 -acre parcel exceeds the minimum two -acre zone district requirement. Lot coverage on both parcels will not exceed the 15% maximum Any new structure will be 25 feet or less in height in conformance with the zone district standards. All setbacks will conform to the specified front, rear and side yard setbacks. Page - 24 Compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Page - 25 Future Land Use Map Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 as Amended A, Geeeaey Pat MI WWI p1e•r61Awe A weer+ _ F10VlIY Ata+ SeacennaAc t.9C - AtaQL u .��,� caaa�vaam esseR+at _ coa...m'.r 0.1.tOrKwalod CO.Y airy _Reis li(fa 70 SAaW)' MAN dSewer SaranAAM - Rat,Aafrii0mAwr,)• ckAra d Alk»nrn C3101.771 Rat M f6 TO rTO AcrW Hes 111D•A /Or.J The Blizzard property is identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as inside the Carbondale "Area of Influence", but the property is outside the Carbondale Urban Growth Area. The site is just south of the Cattle Creek "Rural Employment Center". Rural Employment Centers Rural Employment Centers are geographically consolidated areas where there is a concentration of light industrial and business park uses. This includes uses such as construction yards, equipment repair, and storage areas often found along I-70 or SH 82. The property appears to be designated "Residential L" which permits residential uses at densities of one dwelling unit per 10+ acres. The subject property is an existing parcel that under Rural Zoning is allowed a single-family residential unit as a permitted use. LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION COMPATIBLE ZONING Rural Employment Center Small areas adjacent to major roadways that allow Tight industrial. manufacturing, equipment storage, and incidental retail sales. This designation also includes residential uses for employees of the business on the property, such as Live/work housing_ Commercial General (CG) Industrial (I) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Density of residential uses: Determined by review Example: HOUSING: The proposed single-family dwelling is compatible with the land use in the area and will provide housing on-site for employees of the business and offer better security for the business by allowing on-site occupants that report criminal activities or other issues such as fire or similar circumstances. The Plan Policies "Garfield County is committed to take appropriate, cost-effective measures to assure that new development contributes its fair share to providing housing affordable to those that live and work in the county" and the policy "Encourage provision of affordable housing closer to where jobs are located" are consistent with this use. TRANSPORTATION: The proposed uses are located on the Highway 82 Frontage Road approximately 1.4 miles from direct access to Highway 82. The closest public transit corridor to the property is Highway 82 and the closest bus stop is the RFTA transit station located at the CMC/CO Rd. 154 approximately 2.3 miles north. The additional traffic load will have a minor impact on County Road 113 and Highway 82. The attached Engineering Report prepared by Sopris Engineering addresses anticipated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) from the proposed uses on the property. A single driveway presently serves as access to the property. The driveway is the only access point in the general location minimizes roadway conflicts. Page - 26 GOALS: Section 4 - Economics, Employment and Tourism "Maintain a strong and diverse economic base (for both employment and income generation)." Policies: "Garfield County will encourage the development of a diversified industrial base recognizing physical location -to market capabilities of the community, and the social and environmental impacts of industrial uses. ,, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS: A Vegetation and Critical Wildlife Report prepared by E.M. Ecological, LLC is included with this submittal. The proposed uses will have minimal impacts of wildlife and vegetation on-site and in the area. A noxious weed inventory and control analysis was completed. Only a few noxious weeds were found on the property and can be managed with chemical, biological and/or mechanical control techniques. Disturbed areas will be revegetated and maintained in a predominantly weed free condition. Development on the property will only minimally impact existing vegetation. AGRICULTURE: The general character of the area surrounding the site is rural with sage covered meadows. There are no adjacent agricultural uses. The site is very compatible with surrounding properties and uses. Development of the site will not adversely affect any agricultural uses in the area. WATER AND SEWER SERVICES: Central water and wastewater services are not available adjacent to the property. Water to serve the new lot is to be supplied from an existing approved commercial well (Permit #81417-F). The well is permitted to pump up to 15 gallons per minute (gpm). At 15 gpm, the well can pump up to 900 gallons per hour and over 20,000gpd, which should be more than adequate for the approve uses of the well. The well is located in the center of the western property line several feet into the property. This well will provide water service for the nursery, greenhouse or contractor's yard as well as the single family residence. More information about the water supply is included in the attached Sopris Engineering report. The proposed lot will require two separate Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) one for the single family residence and one for the contractors shop. The single family residence has been preliminarily sized for a 4 bedroom residence using chambers in the absorption field with an assumed 1500 gallon tank. The shop OWTS has been sized to provide service for one bathroom within the shop with an assumed 1000 gallon septic. Both OWTS systems will need additional sizing and detail work as part of the building permit. Currently Sopris Engineering has conservatively assumed approximately 600 gallons per day in a 4 bedroom house (that is 2 people per bedroom at 75 gallons each times 4 bedrooms = 600gpd) as well as an additional 200 gallons from the shop. For a total gallons per day of 800 which is well below the 2000 gallons per day maximum for a county permitted OWTS. Additionally, Sopris Engineering understands that 2 OWTS systems on a single lot need to be set approximately 200' apart. The two systems are approximately 270' from closest point of each system. The proposed septic systems will meet all of the Garfield County OWTS requirements. These safe and adequate water and wastewater utility services will not adversely impact adjoining wells or water supplies. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: The proposed subdivision has been designed and the building site located in a manner that respects the natural contours, drainage patterns, vegetation and view sheds on the property. There are no floodplains or natural streams or river corridors on the property. During construction and prior to complete Page - 27 revegetation of the site, drainage and erosion control measures will be implemented to minimize adverse effects of storm water runoff on the site. Natural topographic features on the property will be preserved in all construction will be carefully managed to protect vegetation and natural features from adverse impacts. As noted in the wildlife assessment report, development of the property will have "no affect" or "not likely to adversely affect" wildlife on the property. There are no severe soils, rockfall, floodplain, wetlands, or geotechnical constraints on the property that would preclude or limit development of the site. Air quality impacts will be minimal and will be those associated with a small contractor yard, single family dwelling, nursery and associated uses. Compatibility. The subject property is located a substantial distance away from the nearest land uses. The site is surrounded by an undeveloped Sage Meadow that is not used for agricultural purposes. Directly west of the property is Highway 82 and across the Highway are some rural single-family uses on large lots. 3000 acres of BLM land is located east of the site and is physically separated by a steep hillside. The lot configuration, uses and site design will not result in adverse impacts to adjacent lands. Water Supply. Water to serve the new lot is to be supplied from approved commercial well (Permit #81417-F). The well is permitted to pump up to 15 gallons per minute (gpm). At 15 gpm, the well can pump up to 900 gallons per hour and over 20,000gpd, which should be more than adequate for the approve uses of the well. The well is located in the center of the western property line several feet into the property. This well will provide water service for the nursery, greenhouse or contractor's yard as well as the single family residence. More information about the water supply is included in the attached Sopris Engineering report. Page - 28 COLORADO Division of Water Resources Department Df Natural Resources. WELL PERMIT NUMBER 81417-F RECEIPT NUMBER 3678361 ORIGINAL PERMIT APPLICANT(S) STEVEN BLIZZARD PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING WELL APPROVED WELL LOCATION Water Division: 5 Designated Basin: Management District: County: Parcel Name: Water District. 38 NiA NiA GARF1 ELD NiA NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 20 Township 7.0 S Range 88.0 W Sixth P.M UTM COORDINATES (Meters. Zone:13, NAD83) Easting: 306190.0 Northing: 4368013.0 ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDIT)ONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not ensure that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shalt be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-Z, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CR5 37-90-137(2), for the use of an existing well permitted under 69027-F, on the condition that this well is operated as an alternate point of diversion to the Basalt Conduit (as applicable) and in accordance with one Of more of the augmentation plans approved by the Division 5 Water Court for the Basalt Water Conservancy District in Case Nos. 87CW0155, 93CW0319, 98CW0026 R 98CW0089 (consolidated), 01CW0305, and 02CW0077 (and Case No. 10CW0047 if in area A-3 as described in decree), or operating pursuant to an approved substitute water supply pian. If this well is not operated in accordance with the terms of said decree(s) or substitute water supply plan, it will be subject to administration including orders to cease diverting water. BWCD contract #688. The issuance of this permit hereby cancels permit no. 69027-F. Approved as a well on a tract of land of 4378 acres described as that portion of the NW 1/4 of the NW 114, Sec. 20, Twp. 7 South, Rng. 88 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County, more particularly described on Exhibit A in the permit file. 6) The use of ground water from this well is limited to ordinary household purposes inside one (1) single family dwelling, commercial office, the irrigation of not more than 3,000 square feet of home gardens and tawns, and not more than 14,000 square feet of commercial irrigated area. All use of this well will be curtailed unless the water allotment contract or a plan for augmentation is in effect. The pumping rate of this welt shall not exceed 15 GPM. The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 1.642 acre-feet. 4) 5) 7) 8) 9) The return flow from the use of this well must be through an individual waste water disposal system of the non -evaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream system in which the well Is located. 10) The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case number (s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. 11) This well shall be Located not more than 200 feet from the location specified an this permit and at least 600 feet from any existing well, completed in the same aquifer, that is not owned by the applicant. 12) A totalizing flow meter must be installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon request. NOTE: Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 23-2393-202-00-108 NOTE: Assessor Tax Schedule Number: R111303 (totaling 4.378 acres) Printed 10.1 T-2017 Far ouestinns ahni,t this n, rmit tall 1111 RAF, Two ...,-.... ....ry Page - 29 WELL PERMIT NUMBER 81417-F RECEIPT NUMBER 3678361 dbutt.—or-0.0:-...64.1••t"--- • J55uecl ,-a1ri.1"a`-- Issued By JUSTINA MICKELSON Date Issued: 10/11/2017 Expiration Date: 10/11/2018 Printed 10-11.2017 For nuestinni ahnta this nerrnit rail ini AAA 1KR7 nr n •n xwn. wn.� ..=.a . Page - 30 Engineering Report Attached to this submittal is a report completed by Sopris Engineering identified as Job Number 17165 that addresses the site plan, utilities, grading, drainage, access and traffic for the proposed uses on the Blizzard property. Adjacent Property. The following is the address list of real property owners of land within 200 feet of the subject property and their mailing addresses. Information Obtained from Garfield County Assessor's Records 5/13/18. Blizzard Property 2 393 1434.00/04 I23 n31534Cic54 1 239119100166 2393202100243 kik. .... 4 eilvik Or 23932020024E :�s32uiui uta.23!32 ! 02 002 Q 23113.202 611111 ►239314116396 XII ..14239320200243 # 231320200!61 414111 • Property Ownership Within 200 Feet of Blizzard Parcel First Last Address City St Zip Parcel # BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT 81652 239316300954 BURRY RANCH LLLP 9175 HIGHWAY 82 CARBONDALE CO 81623 239317300100 ASPEN GLEN HOMEOWNERS 0080 BALD EAGLE CARBONDALE CO 81623 239320101066 ASSOCIATION WAY Page - 31 e.m. ecologicalLLC natural resource and restoration consulluiy 9Z11 -4H-4151 f• Vegetation and Critical Wildlife Report Blizzard Property Garfield County, Colorado Prepared for: Stephen Blizzard Basalt, Colorado and Garfield County Building and Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado April 2011 411 Fox Run Drive iCarbondale, CO 81623 i Phone: 704-1520 E-mail: emecological©earthllnk.net Blizzard Property, Garfield County Vegetation and Wildlife Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.1 Figure 1: Map of Bli77ard Parcel Location 2 2 SOILS 3 2.1 Table 1: NRCS Mapped Soil Types Relevant to the Blizzard Property 3 2.2 Figure 2: NRCS Soil Survey 4 3 VEGETATION RESOURCES 5 3.1 Distinct Plant Communities 5 3.1.1 Pinon-Juniper/Big Sagebrush Woodland 5 3.1.2 Areas of Cleared/Disturbed Native Vegetation 6 3.1.3 Biological Soil Crusts 7 3.2 Table 2: List of Plants Located on the Blizzard Property 11 4 NOXIOUS WEEDS 10 4.1 The Extent of Cheatgrass on the Blizzard Property 11 4.2 Integrated Weed Management 12 5 STATE OF COLORADO NOXIOUS WEEDS 12 5.1 Cheatgrass or Downy Brome 12 5.2 Garfield County Past Cost -Share Program for Cheatgrass 15 6 WEED PREVENTION 15 6.1 Reseeding and Revegetation 15 6.2 IWM Treatment Methods and the Limitations of this Document 16 6.3 The Herbicide Label is the LAW 16 7 WILDLIFE HABITATS 17 8 WILDLIFE IMPACTS 17 8.1 Mule Deer 17 8.1.1 Figure 3. Mule Deer Winter Ranges 18 8.2 American Elk 19 8.2.1 Figure 4. Elk Winter Range 21 8.2.2 Figure 5. Elk Severe Winter Range 22 8.2.3 Figure 6. Elk Winter Concentration Areas and Highway Crossings 23 8.3 Wildlife Mitigations 24 8.3.1 Impact Mitigations and Impact Minimization 24 8.3.2 Area of Construction or Disturbance 24 8.3.3 Elk Fence 24 8.3.4 Lighting 25 8.3.5 Fencing 25 8.3.6 Domestic Dogs 25 e.m. ecological, LLC Blizzard Property, Gagield County Vegetation and Wildlife Assessment 8.3.7 Domestic Cats 26 9 LITERATURE REFERENCED 27 Appendix A - Colorado Noxious Weed List 29 Appendix B - NDIS Habitat Definitions 31 e.m. ecological, LLC ii Blitilard Pmperty, Garfield County Vegetation and I ildl fe Assessment 1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY Pertinent information regarding the existing vegetation and wildlife resources on the 4.4 acre Blizzard Property in Garfield County is provided in this report. The land owner is preparing an application for a development permit to be reviewed by Garfield County and this report is for that submittal process. The site is located across highway 82 and slightly north of Aspen Glen at the base of dramatic hillsides that drop down from the upper mesas of Missouri Heights and adjacent BLM lands (see Figure 1). The Blizzard parcel is part of an undeveloped 3-4 mile stretch flanking the east side of HWY 82 from the Carbondale HWY 133 turnoff traveling north/northwest until an area just south of where HWY 82 crosses Cattle Creek. The majority of the Blizzard parcel still supports a native plant community dominated by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentatevar. pauciflora) interspersed with pinion pint (Piniir edullr), Utah and Rocky Mountain juniper (Sabina osteosperma and S. scopulorum, synonym for genus Sabina is juniperus). Additionally, biological soil crusts are important dominants and soil stabilizers, especially noticeable on the adjoining steep hillsides to the east of the property, but found across much of the property. A 167 acre equestrian zoned Aspen Glen parcel starts at the eastern edge of the Blizzard Property and runs along HWY 82 to the south/southeast towards the steep areas of Red Hill. This parcel has a notably more impacted plant community then the Blizzard parcel most likely due to past grazing, seeding of non-native grasses, clearing of native shrubs, and other more impacting land use practices. On a very positive note, only one noxious weed species was found on the Blizzard property, cheatgrass or downy brome (Bmmus teetorztm). Unfortunately reporting fewer noxious weeds is at situation becoming more and more uncommon for many area landowners. Although itself a formidable weed, with perseverance, the cheatgrass on the property is still at levels that can be managed. Both the Blizzard parcel and Aspen Glen parcel are at least partially within Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW) mapped elk severe winter range and within Data Analysis Unit (DAU) E16 (Figure 5). Additionally both parcels are immediately adjacent and therefore potentially included in CDOW mapped mule deer winter concentration areas and mule deer severe winter range because mapped areas are not exact (Figure 3). From the Blizzard property looking southeast across the fence to the Aspen Glen parcel. e.m. ecological, LLC 1 B// and Properip, GineId coir ty 1 'egrtation and 117i 1d10, Aise.trmrnt 1.1 Figure 1: Map of Blizzard Parcel Location so *Wept. uc ON MM1111• �1Mq NMN. YKM1►m.MI 1111.WMOI 141ZZ-11(111 t L 11�l+I'1 Roanng Font River Basin Garfield County Coke/alit L E Legend - Di_ _ USFS City 60 000 e.m. ecological, LLC 2 B/hjard Pmperfy, Garlick! Co,mty. 1 'egetation and lig ild/je Assessment 2 SOILS Soils are the foundations for ecosystem establishment and a very brief review here completes a vegetation assessment. Subsequent soil development through years of geologic history influences current vegetation, water quality, and therefore wildlife. The majority of the soils on the Blizzard property are derived from shale intermixed with gypsiferous material and rcdbed sandstone (see Table 1). Gypsum based substrates contain calcium sulfates which when exposed to water are highly water soluble. Soil surfaces are cobbly and water holding capacities are low with a moderate to high threat of erosion. Runoff from adjacent hillsides is rapid and can be accompanied by rock debris flows, typically in already established rills or gullies where vegetation is lacking. Limiting disturbances to soils and native vegetation curtails erosion. Minimizing the potential erosive properties of this site can be accomplished by maintaining existing native vegetation and existing biological soil crusts to the greatest extent possible and impacting only the area used for construction, in effect "shoe horning" in development. Soil data is accessed through the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). At the level of investigating a small property like the Blizzard parcel, the soil maps are inherently somewhat inaccurate at the scales mapped, but still informative overall. The summarized descriptions of soil types here are per the Class 3 Soil Survey (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1992). Soils are typically mapped at scales of 1:24,00( feet. The map for this report is at a scale closer to 1:1,700 feet for easier viewing and therefore inaccuracies may be magnified (see Figure 2). 2.1 Table 1: NRCS Mapped Soil Types Relevant to the Blizzard Property. Soil name Gypsum land gypsiorthids complex (55) Residuum and colluvium from mixed material with a high content of gypsum Landscape ` Posi mountainsides, hills, dissected drainageways canyon side slopes, lour wpm, Dcscriptioniiiiagetatio Exposed parent material, high content of gypsum, no single profile is typical Utah juniper, microbiotic soil crusts, bunch grasses, forbs Southace cobbly sandy loam (97) Formed in alluvium derived from redbed sandstone and shale intermixed with gypsiferous material n"*" may. Upland terraces, alluvial fans, mountainsides Cobbly sandy loam to gravelly loam. Small areas of Morvel, Goslin, and Tridell soils Big sagebrush, Utah juniper, Indian ricegrass, western wheatgrass, Utah serviceberry, rabbitbrush, needle - and -thread grass Soils exposed near an old cut stump with a pencil for perspective. Soils exposed in a gully; trees, grasses, and crusts help stabilize. art e.m. ecological, LLC Blizzard Property, Gar/ie/d Corar/y "ege/altar am/ 117/1141e _--1r:rer.'r�rerz� 2.2 Figure 2: NRCS Soil Survey. ring, cork River H Tr_ r;i7J.nvdc4Dd ` Snrmss Legend Soil Map - Blizzard Property & Vicinity Approx. Blizzard Property Lines Soils on the Blizzard Property Gypsum land-Gypsiorthids complex Southace cobbly sandy loam HV'\' 1 2 1•;4 Soil Survey Datatn Natural Resource Conservation Service .l Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield and Pi / Counties; Version 5, Jun 9 2008: Web Soil Survey _. 1716ft y 3 & „pr dale 4 e.m. ecological, LLC B/i tiard Proper>y, Garjretd County egetafi in and It ttdt e , tsserrmerrt A on -juniper/ big sagebrush community covers the majority of the Blizzard parcel. 3 VEGETATION RESOURCES 3.1 Distinct Plant Communities I A very general assessment of the vegetation as well as the presence of nuisance and noxious weeds, was done in the summer of 2010 during several visits to the property. Pertinent information was gathered to better understand the current vegetation and intelligently inform future vegetation and weed management decisions. There are three distinct areas of vegetative cover. The predominant vegetation consists of a native woodland and shrub plant community. Another encompasses smaller areas dose to the highway that were cleared and now support mostly non-native and weedy vegetative cover. A third is made up of a community of highly specialized organisms referred to as biological soil crusts as well as a myriad of other names such as cryptobiotic or cryptogamic soil crusts (Belnap et al. 2001). These communities are a complex mosaic of lichens, mosses, green algae, cyanobacteria, microfungi, and other bacteria (Belnap et al. 2001). These sites dominate on the steeper hillsides to the east, but exist throughout the property, interspersed in the sagebrush, pit -ion and juniper woodland where soil disturbances have been minimal. 3.1.1 Piiion —Juniper/Big Sagebrush Woodland The majority of the Blizzard property still supports a native mountain big sagebrush community (Artemisia tndentata var. pautrf?ora) with a lower density pinon pine (Pinus edu/ir), l-tah juniper (Jirnipents osteo.fierma), and e.m. ecological, LLC Blivtard Property, Get field CounO. L egetatton andt/tlalye Assessment Rocky Mountain juniper (juniperus scopulorum) overstory (Figure 3). Cut stumps can be found on the property evidence that some harvesting of the pifions and junipers has occurred in the past. Some very old Utah juniper trees can be found on the north/northeast half of the property. The shrub understory is dominated by mountain big sagebrush, an ecologically important yet often greatly maligned and misunderstood species in the last one hundred and fifty years across the Western U.S. Big sagebrush is known to colonize areas where the majority of precipitation occurs in winter months with the least occurring or unavailable in summer months (Welch 2005) as occurs over much of the Roaring Fork Valley. Big sagebrush is a "nurse plant" to a host of organisms from the microscopic to large mammals (Welch 2005). The land management community has extensive misinformation concerning the value of big sagebrush stemming from the perceptions of the livestock community. Many range management practices applied to sagebrush sites are not science based (Welch 2005). Less than 50% of sagebrush dominated systems are left in the Western United States compared to pre - European settlement because of clearing for agriculture, grazing, oil and gas development, cities, towns, and other human developments (Welch 2005). Less than 1 of these remaining intact or "relictual" sagebrush steppe ecosystems are in relatively good condition. This is due mainly to overgrazing and colonization by noxious weeds (West 1999, Tasker 2002). on the Blizzard property. The understory of this piiion-juniper and sagebrush dominated site includes at least 5 native grasses distributed across the property (listed in Table 2). They are galleta grass, needle -and thread grass, Indian ricegrass, squirrcltail grass and sand dropseed. Crested wheatgrass, a non-native bunch grass is also present, but in mostly areas that appear to have been heavily impacted or denuded of vegetation. Cheatgrass, a noxious weed is also present, but more so in disturbed areas as discussed below and further described in the noxious weed section of this document. Several native forb species are also present on the Blizzard property, but grasses are more widespread (see Table 2). Another ecologically notable plant, winterfat, a silver gray semi -shrub is also found on the property. Winterfat is considered very good browse for wildlife and is used extensively by elk, mule deer, rabbits, bighorn sheep, and rodents. Considered a very good pioneer species, winterfat establishes fairly readily on drastically disturbed sites or poorly developed soils such as those found in this area. Winterfat plants can be seen colonizing some recently disturbed sections of the property. Two cactus species were found, the potato cactus (Opuntia fragilis) and only one individual of mountain ball cactus (Pediocactus sirupsonit), often collected, both evidence of the droughty summer conditions experienced on these south facing hillsides. 3.1.2 Areas of Cleared/Disturbed Native Vegetation On the southern portions of the property where soil disturbances have occurred, the introduced non-native crested wheatgrass (4gropyron crlstatum) occurs along with cheatgrass (Brontus tectorunt), a noxious weed investigated later in this document. There arc also small areas of bare soils along what appears to be a cleared roadway. Additionally, crested wheatgrass may have been seeded on the neighboring Aspen Glen property to e.m. ecological, LLC 6 B/itizard %perry, GaOeld County i egetatron and I'Vrldtife Assessment the east at one time as evidenced by its extensive distribution on that property. While some of the native grasses and shrubs are recolonizing some disturbed and cleared soils, the state listed noxious weed, cheatgrass or downy brome, is rapidly colonizing as well. Along the newly constructed deer and wildlife fence where soil disturbances have been extensive, cheatgrass is also invading. Any future clearing of vegetation and soil I Tan & maroon vegetation is the noxious weed cheatgrass. Bright green grass -crested wheatgrass. 1 Bare soils from the state wildlife fencing project and bother clearing activities -south side of property. Air disturbances will create conditions ripe for cheatgrass to colonize and control measures will need to be taken in conjunction with construction activities to stop the further spread of this aggressive species. 3.1.3 Biological Soil Crusts An often overlooked clement in the Roaring Fork Valley is the occurrence of biological soil crusts. While they are certainly not as extensive as, say, on the Colorado Plateau and the canyon lands of Utah and Western Colorado, they do occur here and perform vital functions. The lower valleys of the Roaring Fork Valley consist mainly of semi -arid ecosystems. These semi=arid plant communities often have open spaces between plants and these areas are not bare, but covered by highly specialized organisms as on the Blizzard property. These communities of organisms are referred to here as biological soil crusts (Belnap et al. 2001). These crusts are the dominate cover on the steeper hillsides to the east, but exist throughout the property, interspersed in the sagebrush, pinon and juniper woodland where soil disturbances have been minimal. Soil crusts have been observed to constitute up to 700/0 of the living cover in some areas (Belnap et al. 2001). - -- y r , • 7• / J Of • l•Lrr ` Xr ,, �.R. f erR fib' -.',r' 4. Hillside covered with biological soil crusts. Foreground and lighter colored, eroding area are wheoil crusts were disturbed. - e.m. ecological, LLC Bli. card Propel ', Garfield Coan/y 1 egeiatron and Ii?'rldb�feAssessment Biological soil crusts are made up of an array of highly specialirc:d and unrelated organisms that occur together on the soil surface. The cyanobacterial and microfungal filaments are what glue loose soil particles together by weaving through the top few millimeters of soil. Consequently a matrix is formed stabilizing and protecting soil surfaces from the erosive forces of wind and water. These crusts can also impede the germination of introduced weed seeds which often germinate best in full sun on soil surfaces, and hence these crusts deter the invasion of non-native plants. Att "Colifitlikr*A44 Biological soil crusts with galleta grass in the pinon-juniper / big sagebrush plant community. The per sizpective levels of hydration for optimal physiological functioning. Many of these drying out rapidly (Belnap et al. 2001). The most dominant components of biological soil crusts are photosynthetic, require sunlight, and also perform under a variety of light intensities (Belnap et aL 2001). These are commonly the cyanobacterial biomass, the bulk of which lies just beneath the surface when soils are dry some 0.2 to 0.5 millimeters. This area just below the soil surface is where UV exposure is reduced, yet sufficient light exists for a net carbon gain. Cyanobacteria are a filamentous or single celled bacteria capable of photosynthesizing, and under anaerobic conditions can fix atmospheric nitrogen (NI -14) which is then available to vascular plants. Some cyanobacteria have sperialiyed cells where nitrogen fixation takes place and others do not. One cyanobacterium that lacks these cells is the filamentous Micmcoleur t'agina/us, one of the most common worldwide. In order for it to fix nitrogen, the Microcoleus minutia needs to be in an anaerobic state created by the layering of filaments not more than ht1f a millimeter just below the soil surface. Microcn/eus vagina/to-lacks UV screening pigments and cannot be exposed for very long. When soils are moistened, Microc'o/eus vagina/us can migrate to the soil surface for short time periods where it is briefly exposed to UV and then, upon drying, will quickly return to subsurface zones reducing LIV exposures (Belnap et al. 2001). Soils with high amounts of cyanobacteria have a slightly to highly roughened surface due to the manner in which soil particles are bound together by these microorganisms and the additional effects of frost heaving and erosion (Belnap et al. 2001). These are present on the Blizzard property and hillsides to the east. The various organisms comprising the crusts all share some similar physiological traits. Unlike vascular plants, they are capable of drying out and temporarily suspending respiration without experiencing negative effects or death. Poikilohydric is how to refer to these types of organisms. Their water content is typically equilibrated with the atmospheric humidity or soil surface moisture levels. Poikilohvdric organisms in these soil crusts have the ability to become photosynthetically active very quickly, producing carbohydrates or sugars within minutes. However the moisture content threshold for biological activity is species specific and most species still require high organisms function best by then e.m. ecological, LLC Blis and Property, Gar/kki Conn?), T%egetation and a ,Idiie Assessment Mic,vcoleus vaginatus can be seen on a broken edge of soil with a 10X hand lens and these crusts appear as dark colored or even black on soil surfaces. When moist they arc visible as black filaments. Single celled species of cyanobacteria appear as small blackish cells mixed with surface soils (Belnap et al. 2001). Biological soil crusts are very diverse and individual species can be used as an indicator of ecological health and ecological trends and even soil types. These investigations are beyond the scope of this report. Most notably, these crusts exist on the property and can be viewed from functional, structural, and compositional perspectives. The multitude of organisms that make up the crusts are a very important ecological component and key to minimizing the erosion potential of the soils on the Blizzard property. 1 •J 04 A. 1y • a. 4..I4 ��t s yr "1 r.rr Y �' 10:11,41..4. .may- l' , < 1.: y'tiQ ,.. , Al...7%.;.'' 1",t‘ t I a ' s. At I 1P,;. .t.' ,i -p.,, ,1 s� - Alba These biological soil crusts are a natural state for these gypsum based soils. Also in this photo is a sparse cover of needle -and -thread grass, Indian ricegrass, gafleta grass, winterfat and fragrant white sand verbena along with a couple of struggling trees. • 41 • lb •y'h' - R�7F �r� r .r . ; • e.m. ecological, LLC 13/ittiard I'mrcrlp. Gar/ie/d (.oanlp I crawl :end I( ,-t. se.c nnent 3.2 Table 2: List of Plants Located on the Blizzard Property. Blizzard Property working plant s • ecies list 1 Native or Introduced Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass Poaceae Bromopsis inermis Smooth brome Poaceae I Bromus tectorum" Cheatgrass' Poaceae I" Elymus elymoides Squirreltail Poaceae N Hes•erosti.a Brass Poaceae N comata Needle and thread Hilaria jamesii Galleta grass Poaceae N Oryzopsis hymenoides Indian ricegrass Poaceae N Sporobolus cryptandrus Sand dropseed Poaceae N Abronia elliptica Fragrant white sand verbena Nyctaginaceae N Astragalus spp. Milkvetch Fabaceae N Bassia scoparia Kochia Chenopodiaceae I Chenopodium album Lambs quarters Chenopodiaceae I Erigeron flagellaris Trailing fleabane Asteraceae N Erigeron spp Fleabane species Asteraceae N Eriogonum spp. Buckwheat Polygonaceae N Lappula redowskii Western sticktight Boraginaceae N Lithospermum ruderale Western stoneseed Boraginaceae N Oxytropis lambertii Locoweed Fabaceae N Phacelia hastata Silverleaf phacelia Hydrophyllaceae N Sphaeralcea coccninea Scarlet globemallow Malvaceae N Shrubs and Sub -shrubs Artemisia tridentate var. pauciflora Mountain big sagebrush Asteraceae N Chrysothamnus nauseosus Rabbitbrush Asteraceae N Gutierrezia sarothrae Broom snakeweed Asteraceae N Krascheninnikovia Janata Winterfat Chenopodiaceae N Opuntia fragilis Potato cactus Cactaceae N Pediocactus simpsonii Mountain ball cactus Cactaceae N Pinus edulis Pinon pine Pinaceae N Sabina osteosperma Utah juniper Cupressaceae N Sabina scopulorum Rocky Mountain juniper Cupressaceae N " asterisk indicates a state listed noxious weed 4 NOXIOUS WEEDS Non-native, invasive weeds arc plants of concern because they utilize and take resources our native plants and/or agricultural crops would otherwise be accessing. These aggressive plants then crowd out our native e.m. ecological, LLC 10 Bli.`.zard PwperU, CGar/ield C ounfy 1. egeratran and WO assessment plant species (and desirable crops and landscaping), plants that are the foundations of our native ecosystems and support our native pollinators and animals and a whole web of life. A "noxious" weed is further differentiated from other non-native weedy species. A noxious weed is by legal definition a "specific plant species which has been designated for mandatory control by branches of local, state, or federal governments in Colorado, the species must be non-native to the state..." (State of Colorado website 2011). The Colorado state list of noxious weeds has gone through exhaustive review. In addition to the weed control goals of most property owners to preserve the natural and agricultural values of their property, the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Weed Management Plan further compels landowners by law to manage State and County listed noxious weeds. Because of the aggressiveness of these plants and their economic impacts, a great deal of time and energy has gone into understanding these invasive, non-native plants in the scientific and agricultural communities and a wealth of information is now readily available. Only one noxious weed, cheatgrass or downy brome, on the Blizzard parcel is on the State of Colorado Noxious Weed List (upon inspection in June 2010). The state of Colorado has over seventy species on the state noxious weed list, while counties typically have much smaller lists they focus upon with Garfield listing twenty one, Pitkin County listing thirty five, and Eagle with fifteen (2011). All species listed for a county must also be on the state list. This document strives to provide information and guidance regarding the noxious weeds on the Blizzard property. The information is meant to provide a general understanding of the noxious weed, and some potential strategies for management. Landowners are responsible for all state listed noxious weeds on their properties, whether or not they are on the county list or not. When weeds are on both county and state lists, this is an alert that these state listed weeds are of very particular local concern and expected goals for management may be more aggressive. Cheatgrass is unfortunately becoming so widespread, many weed managers have opted to focus on other weeds they can have more of an impact on controlling. The Blizzard property occurrences are small enough and important enough, especially from a fire danger perspective, to actively and aggressively attempt to manage. •Tan, lacy plant cover is Bromus tectorum or cheatgrass. This is on the 1southem sidigithe property close to HVI 4.1 The Extent of Cheatgrass on the Blizzard Property. The largest patches of cheatgrass occur on the lower portion of the property or the south side closest to HWY 82. Other patches reside intermittently on the property, but predominantly on the southern half where the more recent soil disturbances have occurred and in thc finer textured soils. Any movement of infested soils either on the property or off thc property will transport this weed issue to a new site. The presence of a e.m. ecological, LLC 11 BlicKard Pmperty, Garfield County L cgctatioon and 11'!Siff Assessment seed soil bank will ensure that future soil disturbances will most likely be followed by a flush of cheatgrass. To the greatest extent possible, care must be taken up in the pinion-juniper/big sagebrush community not to injure desirable plants and biological soil crusts (providing important competition to chcatgrass) when control measures are employed on these smaller occurrences. 4.2 Integrated Weed Management Successful long-term control of noxious weeds typically requires a range of different control methods and strategies to be implemented in combination or sequentially. This is known as an integrated Weed Management (INTIM) approach or more broadly referred to as an Integrated Pest Management approach (IPM). This philosophy is well accepted in the land management community. The goal is to prevent weed spread and establishment in addition to addressing current infestations. Practices include: • limiting weed seeds and their dispersal, • minimizing soil disturbances and timely reseeding after events that are unavoidable, • suppressing, containing, or eradicating existing infestations, • detecting any weed introductions early and eliminating them when they are small, • actively managing or maintaining desirable vegetation, • excluding disturbance that is not a natural part of native plant communities, • maintaining and/or improving native plant communities, • using appropriate biological controls when available/suitable, • understanding appropriate grazing practices if and where applicable. 5 STATE OF COLORADO NOXIOUS WEEDS: Species Account & Management 5.1 Cheatgrass or Downy Brome (Bromus tecrorum, Syn. Anisantha tectorum) Cheatgrass is a noxious annual weed plaguing many land managers across the more arid ecosystems of the western U.S., Canada and northern Mexico. Here in the Roaring Fork Valley, chcatgrass has made large inroads in the last ten years (pers. obs.). The habitats with the most infamous infestations, the shrub -steppe communities, have ecological similarities to those on the Blizzard parcel. Cheatgrass is something to keep careful watch over in the event of any future disturbances to soils (construction). Proper and timely seeding and/or revegetation of disturbed soils are some of the keys to preventing cheatgrass invasions. Cheatgrass is an annual or winter annual and a member of the Grass Family (Poaceae). The slender stems, hairy leave and very long -awned spikelets on twisted branches help to distinguish Bromus foot= from other similar annual (13. japonicus, B. secalinus) and perennial (.B. inerrnis) Brooms species. Also, cheatgrass matures 1 to 2 weeks earlier than other annual bromes and many other species in general (MSU Extension Weed Management 2001). In our area, e.m. ecological, LLC Ilk" 1 ii/- Downy brome or cheatgrass. ------w 12 13/ritard Pmperty, Garfield Coaniy 6 egetafron and Vila' lt fe Assessment the majority of cheatgrass seeds germinate in the early fall with the first good rains. Plants then resume growth the following spring and depending on conditions, can reach 2 inches to 1 '/i feet tall during their single -season life cycle. Plants are very green and soft in early spring, a condition quickly forgotten when plants become purple then brown, dry out and become a true nuisance when walking through. The flowers are grass -like in what is called a panicle arrangement with each spikelet consisting of 5 to 8 florets which later contain the seeds. These nodding panicles are very distinctive as are their moderately awned spikelets. The spikelets are the annoying feature of the plant when it is mature as they penetrate socks, pants, fur, even soft mouth tissue, and the seeds are therefore widely dispersed. Biology of Cheatgrass Cheatgrass or downy brome is a prolific seed producer. Fven in extremely dry conditions, cheatgrass will produce viable seeds even though it may only reach 1-2 inches in height. The plants are mostly self -pollinated and seeds can germinate very soon after they mature. Viable seeds exist even before the plant turns its characteristic purple color on the fruits. After the first fall rain in infested areas, cheatgrass seeds can germinate quickly and at very high rates, as high as 95%. The fall germinated seedlings grow little and over -winter in a semi -dormant state, completing their lifecycle the next spring. Roots reportedly can grow in almost freezing soil temperatures and continue to grow throughout the winter until soils drop to less than 37 degrees F. Plants head out in late April to early May and seeds mature in June (CNAP 2000), ready to start the cycle all over again in the fall. If conditions are dry, environmentally induced dormancy can occur in seeds, last several rears and break down at erratic intervals allowing seeds to remain in the soil bank for extensive periods. Cheatgrass in the native plant community. Soils may have been disturbed by deer and elk here. Seeds cling to fur. The native, silvery winterfat is also trying to colonize these soils. j One of the principal ways cheatgrass successfully competes with desirable, perennial grasses, especially seedlings, is through early, soil moisture depletion. Additionally, thick mulch in dense cheatgrass stands favors downy brome seedling establishment and inhibits germination of perennial bunchgrasses (CNAP 2000). Biological crusts which can include a cover of lichens and mosses on the surface are also inhibited by thick mulch in dense stands and results in less competition for resources for cheatgrass seedlings. The seeds of cheatgrass axe so ubiquitous that the potential for invasion is almost unlimited. Populations of cheatgrass are genetically very similar but highly plastic which allows them to thrive in an extensive array of e.m. ecological, LLC 13 Bli..zard Properly, Garfield Couuly t cgetatton and tI dale Assessment site conditions. It is found in salt desert shrub communities with 6 inches of average annual precipitation to high elevation conifer forests with greater than 25 inches precipitation per year. One of the most critical points of expansion is when populations of cheatgrass become so vast that they then influence the wildfire regime, such as rapidly accelerating the fire return intervals on large acreages. Even on the Blizzard property, if an extensive stand developed, an understory fire could become a possibility. Management of Cheatgrass ,Mechanical Control: Mowing or cutting plants is not really recommended. Cheatgrass cut before seeds ripen will produce new stems and seeds at the height of the cut. Repeated mowings may be more successful and one study showed mowing every three weeks provided some control (Ponzetti 1997). This was very labor intensive. If plants are cut after the seeds ripen, they will die but by this time seeds are already viable and any accidental spreading of seeds is a possibility. Hand pulling would eliminate the seed production and could be used in small infestations, but it would not eliminate the population. Seeds would still be left in the seedbank. The pulling program would have to continue diligently for several years or until the seed bank was exhausted. Care must be taken in being certain to get all of the roots so the plant cannot simply regrow and produce new seeds. Some of the literature states that cheatgrass has been considered a valuable forage in the spring (Emmerich et al. 1993, Weld County Fact Sheet 2009). However, grazing is not a recommended method of control for cheatgrass (Carpenter and Murray 1998). l f the plants are grazed in the spring, they will grow new stems and produce seeds. When grazed in the summer or fall the plants will not regenerate, but by then viable seeds have already been produced. Therefore seed production is not curtailed. Also, the long awns of the seeds on the mature plants may damage the mouths and intestinal tracts of the livestock and native ungulates. Chemical Control: In our area, the best success with herbicides has been from fall applications (Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Manager, pers. comm. 2010). Early spring applications are another method as many non -target species are still dormant, the best scenario for herbicide application. There are numerous types of herbicides described in the literature that can be used alone or combined to provide effective control of cheatgrass. For best results, contact the Garfield County Vegetation Manager for the latest results from current research and test plots. A backpack sprayer is good for small infestations like the ones on the Blizzard property as danger to non -target plants is minimized. `1. ) " 11 1 AA. I ..,t' il` ! 11: ',4+ UG&s27OO25 — -- . 1 MchrholT, 1' (ICT, Ilugwo,xl.org - heatgrass infestation. Of the myriad of herbicides available, three are mentioned here. Plateau® (imazapic) is recommended at a rate of 4 to 6 ounces per acre (CDA 2010). The addition of a methylated seed oil surfactant (MSO) at 0.32 oz/gal of water is necessary. Optimal results locally with Plateau® have occurred from fall applications after a light freeze, but prior to a hard frost (S. Anthony, pers. comm. 2009). If applying during very early spring growth, applications are best while other desirable plants are hopefully still dormant. Panoramic 2SL® (imazapic) at a rate of 6-12 oz/acre is to be applied as a pre- or post emergent in late summer or early fall. Again, the additional use of a MSO surfactant at 0.32 az/gal of water or 1 qt/ 100 gallons of water is e.m. ecological, LLC 14 Bli.ti:�ard Properly, Ga, ield Couto, T cgetateon an([ iD tkliife Assessment necessary. The 12 oz rate of either Plateau® or Panoramic 2SL® can cause injury to some cool season grasses, but both can safely be used under trees. Roundup Ultra® (glyphosate), a non-selective herbicide can be used for deliberate targeted spot spraying of cheatgrass. Good results have occurred with use of Roundup Ultra® as a post emergent just after the cheatgrass has sprouted from seed. In a backpack, the rate is 4-5 oz/gal of water and for larger applications, the rate is 4-5 qts/acre. Add a non-ionic surfactant at a rate of 0.32 oz/gal of water for a backpack or hand sprayer and use 1 qt/ 100 gallons of water for larger applications. Since Roundup Ultra® is a non-selective herbicide, caution must be exercised as it will kill most surrounding vegetation greatly needed as competition with the cheatgrass. USE HERBCIDES WISELY: Always read the entire herbicide label carefully, follow all mixing and application instructions and wear all recommended personal protective gear and clothing. Contact your county or state department of agriculture or herbicide professional for any herbicide use requirements, restrictions or recommendations. NO flCE: mention of herbicide products in this document does not constitute endorsement of any material. Biological Control: None known to date. 5.2 Garfield County Past Cost -Share Program for Cheatgrass A cost share program has been offered by Garfield County in recent years. The herbicide Plateau® has also been available in smaller amounts and at a reduced rate. Financial assistance may again be available for 2011. Contact Garfield County Vegetation Manager Steve Anthony for further details at (970)625-3969 and check on the county website for details. 6 WEED PREVENTION 6.1 Reseeding and Revegetation Briefly, existing and future bare soils should be reseeded or planted with native plant species that have been recorded as growing in the area (Table 2). This will limit the possibilities of accidentally introducing aggressive non-native plants, especially non-native grasses which are readily available and sold locally under various guises. They can be found being touted as drought tolerant, which they are, or as Rocky Mountain pasture mix and are to be avoided. Revegetating as soon as possible and with native species will provide a strategy that will also limit the spread of non-native plants into existing native plant communities where habitats will then be degraded. Degradation occurs e.m. ecological, LLC Native scarlet globemallow (Spaeralcea coccinea) volunteering on a disturbed site on the Blizzard property. 5 Bli. izard Properly. Garfield Corm!), 1 getatton anlrlir/e ALreriment because almost all native animals, insects, and pollinators are unable to fully utilize non -indigenous plants. There are several sources in Colorado where seeds of native grasses and forbs are readily available depending on supplies. Pawnee Buttes Seed Company and Western Native Sccd are easily found on the internet and both located in Colorado. Contact the Garfield County Vegetation Manager for further suggestions of recommended seed companies. Timing of seeding may need some alteration depending on some species germination requirements. Some native species recommended for seeding are as follows: Grasses: Squirrletail, E/ymus eymoides Sand dropseed, Sporoholus cryptandrus Galleta grass, Fli/atia_jamesii Indian ricegrass, Otyvpsis hynenoider Needle -and -thread grass, Hesperostipa comata Forbs: Scarlet globemallow, Sphaeralcea coainea Trailing fleabane, Etigeron /lagellaris Silverleaf phacelia, Phacelia hastata Shrubs and Subshrubs Winterfat, Krascheninnikovia Janata Rabbitbrush, Chrysoth. amnus nauseosus Mountain big sagebrush, _Artemisia tridentatavar. parte:lora In order to minimire thc spread of noxious weeds and their impact on winter range and increase the success of revegetation activities, weeds should be treated at least bi-annually. 6.2 IWM Treatment Methods and the Limitations of this Document It is the intent of this document to list the noxious weed problems on the Blizzard property and to report some of the facts and methods currently used and discussed in thc weed literature and given by professional weed managers. The information here is not meant to be complete, but to be used as an initial reference and starting point and treated as an evolving, growing document, one that is to change with the changes in available science as well as the changes in herbicide labeling. In regards to herbicides, herbicide use must be consistent with the herbicide label information. 6.3 The Herbicide Label is the LAW It is a legal, binding document and all uses of an herbicide must be done in a manner consistent with the most current label to avoid any unwanted or injurious circumstances. Before using any herbicide product, thoroughly read the entire label and follow all label directions. Complete labels and MSDS information for the products listed in this document can be viewed on the web at: http://www.greenbook.net Follow chemical recommendations with the understanding that no discrimination or endorsement is intended or implied for any particular product by E.M. Ecological, LLC and that information may have changed. Other herbicides are available in addition to the ones mentioned within this document and newer products are being developed all the time and may be better suited to your situation than products listed in this document. The changes in herbicide labels and registrations occur constantly. Read and follow the latest e.m. ecological, LLC 16 Blrti�an1 Properly, Garfield Counj, T egctatron and 17"rldP Assessment label directions carefully. Trade names arc given only to give the reader that much more information for potentially recognizing an herbicide. Before embarking on any application of herbicides contact the Garfield County Vegetation Manager at 970-625-3969 and/or a weed professional with excellent plant identification skills and an herbicide applicators license. Also taking time to refer to the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and the information given on individual listed noxious weeds, especially regarding herbicide recommendations, is another important step to take before embarking on weed control efforts. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Agriculture-Main/CDAG / 1174084048733 or just Google "Colorado State Weed List". 7 WILDLIFE HABITATS Piiion-juniper woodlands and sagebrush habitats are known to support a diverse array of bird and wildlife species (Floyd 2003, Welch 2005). The plant community on the Blizzard property is in relatively good shape, meaning it is still comprised of a suite of native plant species expected to be found in a pifion-juniper/ sagebrush plant community and it is rather devoid of noxious weeds to date. Additionally, very few non- native plant species have solidly colonized the majority of the property. The parcel is also connected to large acreages on adjacent BLM lands (Bureau of Land Management) to the east as well as private parcels to the north and south that are to date seeing little to no human activity. However wildlife access to the BLM sites is limited to canyons and drainages with gentler topography as many hillsides between the Blizzard parcel and the BLM lands are formidably steep (see Figure 1). Vegetation and foraging abilities are what limit wildlife use of these upland habitats. Pifions and junipers provide complex woody structure and a diverse understory, broken limbs, tree cavities, pifion nuts and juniper cones while the big sagebrush, grassy undcrstory, and even the winterfat component supports a whole other array of opportunities for wildlife species. Areas of thick scat mainly from Mule Deer, American elk and mountain cottontail can be seen all across the Blizzard site. The mammal order Rodentia is the most well represented group of mammals in pifion-juniper woodlands (Floyd 2003). An array of predators, mammalian and bird, are likely attracted by the deer and elk as well as the cottontail and rodent populations. However the proximity of HWY 82 may send many predators to less impacted sites, depending on the time of year or the time of day. 8 WILDLIFE IMPACTS 8.1 Mule Deer Mule deer ( Odocoileus hennonus) occur throughout most of the Roaring Fork Valley and are relatively common throughout Colorado. Colorado's subspecies is the largest subspecies (0. h. hemionus) (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). From the late 1990's through recent years, mule deer populations have experienced a downward trend across the entire state. This is thought to be mostly due to habitat loss and chronic wasting disease (Petterson 2008). The Blizzard property is just on the edge of areas mapped just to the north and east by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) indicating both mule deer severe winter ranges and winter concentration areas (just to the cast and southeast) (Figure 3). These mapped ranges arguably could include the Blizzard property (but don't on the maps) due to the levels of accuracy involved with drawing these sites. Clearly, the property has at least more recently experienced heavy use as evidenced by pellet numbers. Pifion-juniper woodlands and montane forest edges are often favored winter ranges for mule deer (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). The single greatest limiting factor to mule deer and American elk success in the Roaring Fork Valley is the e.m. ecological, LLC 17 Bli.aarrl Properly. Ga,:field Connp, [ egetationand IVildlifrf4ssersnrent 8.1.1 Figure 3. Mule Deer Winter Ranges Legend -+�— Rivers Blizzard Property Gia) Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Mule Deer Winter Range does aliriard Pmp rn "1 reccil f L; ti I..i.nuvn eonS1111e O.. b :iC ereerr.. cc IIF]r 9709481657 Etre rem; Am a 11+00-0c GMM Coo,* e.m. ecological, LLC 111 lT AkFl PRpPFRT V Mule Deer Study Roaring Fork River Basin Garfield County, Colorado M 2000 NAIP Aenlll UnIversal trenevene Merculo• 1192 83. Zone 13 9I278.2011 1:36.000 • 18 131kzarrll'roperly, County gelation and wildlif Assessment availability of winter range (J. Mao CDOW pers. comm.., '1'. '1'rant CDOW pers. comm.). Any loss of severe and non -severe winter range has negative impacts as more pressures are put on remaining habitats. An incremental degradation and shrinkage of these winter ranges (and other seasonal ranges) occurs with each newly impacted property, no matter how small the new disturbance appears(Mao, J CDOW pers. comm.). Therefore the focus of this report is where the Blizzard property lies in relation to winter range and severe winter range, 8.2 American Elk Although the recently installed HWY 82 wildlife fence may change some patterns of movement, elk migrating down from habitats east of the Blizzard Property on Missouri Heights have variously used the site throughout the winter, depending on snowfall and snow depths. Elk also utilize other winter ranges near the property such as Aspen Glen and Iron Bridge (Petterson 2008). The elk traveling to the Blizzard property are most likely from DAU E16 (Data Analysis Unit) as the property is mapped within this unit and DAU E16 runs basically on the north side of HWY 82 in the area. DA L's are for the most part geographically distinct sites that contain discrete game populations. They are described and named by the management agencies to oversee big game populations on an area by area and discrete population by population basis. DAU E16 is located roughly from Aspen to Vail to Glenwood Springs and encompasses approximately 1,377 acres. The e.m. ecological, LLC 19 Blititiard Prober!!), Garfield Cowl I gelation and tVriave Assessment loss of winter carrying capacity due to habitat losses and conversion has been significant in the last decade within DA Lt E1 6 as it has been across all west -central Colorado (Pctterson 2008). The Blizzard Property is mapped by the CDOW as being in elk winter range (Figure 4) and elk severe winter range (Figure 5), but not in elk winter concentration areas (Figure 6). Winter elk use of the Blizzard property is most likely a sizable event or number of events, especially if considering only the 4.4 acres of the landscape. Arrival of animals will probably start some time in late November which has historically occurred in the area, and will he instigated by snowfall events, snowmelt events or search for available food sources. It is unknown by the agencies how the new wildlife fence may affect current deer and elk movements. Any change in the patterns of movement by elk in this area due to the new fence placement would not be readily noticeable for at least a couple of years while herds learn new movement patterns (Moa, J. pers. comm..). Figure 6 also shows historical elk highway crossings in the vicinity of the Blizzard parcel. These have been greatly reduced or completely blocked by the recent instillation of wildlife fencing on both sides of HWY 82. As stated above, it is unknown bow these fences will affect elk activities and movements at this time as agencies are not actively monitoring populations to answer these questions specifically (Moa, J. pers. comm..). This fence follows and resides on the Blizzard property's entire south side abutting HWY 82 and the property owner gave permission for the fence to be constructed. The possibility of elk traveling down from the higher elevation areas to the east and down to the south -facing Blizzard parcel in a severe winter is highly probable. With other winter ranges diminishing, elk numbers could even be higher in future years as elk are forced out of other adjacent winter range areas. With the fence barrier, these animals likely may congregate or loaf for a time period most likely determined by the availability of forage and the depth of snows in adjoining areas to the north, on the Blizzard site and on its adjoining parcels. e.m. ecological, LLC 20 B/i. zard P, ertj, Geld County 1 'egetation and Irildli(e Assessment 8.2.1 Figure 4: Elk Winter Range. C artmndale qurvbC,.,nv..aunmg p v 9YC -y,rsg.* :- 111.17. 97n.We..e57 w. rams RL LZZAR1' PROM{ ti Elk Writer Range Roaring Fork River Basin Garfield County. Colorado Znl)B,IAIP Aanal Unve.ml t,erevene Alereln. 14AU a3. lone 13 MaRh 6.2011 • MM 1:90,000 e.m. ecological, LLC Blit and Pmpertyl, Garfield Coarrty 1 'egetation and Asse sarent 8.2.2 Figure 5: Elk Severe Winter Range. e.m. ecological, LLC Elk Severe Writer Range Roaring Fork River Basin Garfield County, Coloradn :908 /1MP Aenel IJrhersal iteneveeee Haemins 1140 83 Zone 13 Meech 8, 2011 22 Blitzard Property, Garfie/d Cormty I 'egetation and IF/ildlz Assessment 8.2.3 Figure 6: Elk Winter Concentration Areas and Highway Crossings. m. =weft a.o. by !390 7n.94e.4357 M..M Iwrr o.e.rCe.ny IRI=AR1 r PROPERPi. Elk Winter Concenlrabon Area Roaring Fork River Basin Garfield Cantly. Colorado PI w �e P' NAIP Mnel Unvereel transverse Mercator NAC 83 Zore t3 March 8. 2011 Wks 1:90,000 LEGEND Ee Highway Cresstngs Elk Winter Conoentrauon Area I—I City e.m. ecological, LLC 23 Bliti�a�rl Property, Garjield County 1 'e etatinn and II'ild/ifc Assessment 8.3 Wildlife Mitigations Mitigation measures are available through both the CDOW and BI.M, both offsite and onsite, if a landowner is compelled. For example, mule deer, while they reportedly seem able to survive without free water except in very arid environments, do need daily access to water during fawning season when fawns are nursing (B. Hopkins pers. comm.., Petterson 2007)). Observations of fawning in Colorado are from late May through late July. With the installation of the new wildlife fence along HWY 82 in the area, the ability of deer and elk to access the Roaring Fork River from this area is no longer available. One BLM specialist's suggestion was to create a water feature on the Blizzard Property accessible to area deer on a site on the property that will be less susceptible to disturbances from human activities. This would be a collaborative project between the CDOW, the BLM and the property owner. One difficulty with this project is that soils on the property are notoriously poor at holding water, so a liner or a constructed vessel of some kind would have to be installed adding additional expenses and certainly there would be ongoing maintenance issues. CDOW habitat improvement projects occur almost annually and monies can be donated to funds that support this work, either on a one time basis or through another arrangement Projects that are the closest to the sites impacted are the most desirable for mitigation measures (1'. I'rant pers. comm.). Some landowners have donated to local land conservancies. Others have pledged a small percentage of profits annually to CDOW from businesses impacting sites. Still others have donated to the educational activities of CDOW. 8.3.1 Impact Mitigations and Impact Minimization The following are fairly standard recommendations utilized in development situations where wildlife issues are a consideration. Some of these are considered "best management" practices that help allow for continued wildlife use of a developed property. 8.3.2 Area of Construction or Disturbance The best possible situation for wildlife concerning development on the Blizzard parcel would be planning for all development activities to occur only in areas as close to the southern boundary of the property as practical. This would leave disturbances at the southern perimeter, an area already impacted by the presence of HWY 82 and by the prior removal of native vegetation along a band more or less following the southern boundary. The benefit to wildlife would be preservation of the intact native plant community on the northerly section of the property and would not isolate or fragment this northerly arca from the intact habitats adjoining it. 8.3.3 Elk Fence Because elk show very high site fidelity and deer are going to continue to utilize the property, the owner of the Blizzard parcel has expressed interest in creating a fencing plan for his development site. E.M. Ecological would like to recommend that the owner collaboratively work with the CDOW to develop a fencing plan to be utilized only around the area of disturbance or area of construction, essentially an area equivalent or similar to a building envelope, while leaving the rest of the property accessible to these animals and their movements. The goal of this fence would be to minimise "attractive nuisance" situations where human/elk conflicts may arise. e.m, ecological, LLC 24 13/i;,tiard Property, Ga eld Counp, 1 egetution and Feld/tie Asse rrnent 8.3.4 Lighting In order to allow for big game use of the area, lighting should be kept to a minimum and only down -lighting should be utilized. Transient lighting and nighttime lighting negatively impact all types of wildlife not just deer and elk. Lighting of open spaces beyond the building envelope area is strongly discouraged. Motion - sensitive down lighting is probably the best choice for any outdoor lighting needs. 8.3.5 Fencing Existing fences are in disrepair and pose a hazard not only to people but to wildlife. Many a wildlife entanglement incident in barbed wire and other wire fences has been documented, The removal of existing, badly damaged barbed wire fences would be a positive move for wildlife, especially deer and elk. While no new fences are recommended because of the myriad of wildlife issues, any considered should be wildlife friendly and consultation with the DOW for best management practices is highly recommended. 8.3.6 Domestic Dogs Dogs are a detriment to wildlife and can have significant impacts. just their presence can negatively impact the ability for wildlife to effectively utilize habitats that are otherwise available to them. Deer and elk are especially vulnerable during winter and early spring when they are relying on low or depleted energy reserves and food resources are limited. Also in winter, most females are pregnant. Uncontrolled or loose dogs have a significant impact to area ungulates through creating increased stress, indirect mortality, and displacement out of preferred ranges. Even dogs kept outside and unable to chase act as a barrier to wildlife movement and thereby reduce available habitats. Dogs should never be allowed to run free. To minimize dog impacts to wildlife, the following recommendations should be considered: the number of dogs allowed should be kept to one; dogs should not be allowed outside a fenced yard unless under leash control; any fenced enclosures should not be used at night, instead the animal should be brought inside; loose dogs should be restricted. 8.3.7 Domestic Cats Cats are capable of having significant impacts on migrating bird populations, small mammals, amphibians and reptile populations and these are additive over many properties located in wildlife habitats. It is essential to keep cats indoors in order to protect the non -game species of wildlife on the Blizzard parcel and to help protect cats from area predators. e.m. ecological, LLC 25 Bli.�;urd Properly, Gar/ield County i'egetation and 117i/NO flssessment Thank you for the opportunity to report and comment on the Blizzard property. I am certainly available for any questions that arise and please feel free to call. Lisa Tasker E.M. Ecological, LLC e.m. ecological, LLC 26 Blititiari Pmperty. Garfield County Vegetation and II%ildlifcAisessntent 9 Literature Referenced Anthony, S. Personal communication Garfield County Vegetation Manager and weed specialist, Garfield County, P.O. Box 426, Rifle, Colorado. Phone: 970-625-8601. Austin, D. 2010. Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners. Utah State University Press, 1.ogan, UT. Bauer, E.A. 1995. Mule Deer: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. Voyageur Press, Stillwater, MN. Belnap, J., J.H. Daltenecker., R. Rosentreter, J, Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. BLM Technical Reference 1730-2. Bureau of Land Management, Publication Management Distribution Service, Denver, CO. Blanchard, B.L., editor. 2010. Winterfat: Kraschcni nikovia lanata (Pursh) A.D.J. Meeuse & Smit. Pgs 12-13. The Green Line Newsletter of the Colorado Riparian Association, Vol. 21, No.2, Boulder, CO. Carpenter, Alan T. and Thomas A. Murray. 1998. Element Stewardship Abstract for Brnmus ledorum, cheatgrass, downy brome. Land Stewardship Consulting, the Nature Conservancy. Boulder, CO. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/bromtect.html CDOW. 2011. Colorado Species Distribution Maps i\!etadata. Available online at http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/. Natural Diversity Information Source, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP). 2000. Creating an Integrated Weed Management Plan, Caring for the Land Series IV. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO. Colorado Weed Management Association (CWMA). 2009. Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Tenth Edition. Dewey, S.A., S.D. Miller, S.F. Enloe, R.E. Whitesides, F.D. Menalled, and L. Johnson. 2006. Weed Management Handbook, 2006-2007, Montana, Utah, Wyoming. Internet document. http://www.invasive.org/weedcd/pdfs/wmh.pdf Emmerich, F.L., F.H. Tipton, and J.A. Young. 1993. Cheatgrass: Changing perspectives and management strategies. Rangelands 15:37-39. Fay, P.K., T.D. Whitson, S.A. Dewey, and R. Shelcy, eds. 1995. 1995-1996 Montana -Utah -Wyoming Weed Management Handbook. Coop. Ext. Serv., Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 245 pp. Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History; University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO. Floyd, M.L., editor. 2003. Ancient Piiion Juniper Woodlands, A Natural History of Mesa Verde Country. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Co. Hopkins, B. Personal communication 19 October 2010. Wildlife Ecologist, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado River Valley Field Office, 2300 River Frontage Road, Silt, CO. Moa, J. Personal communication. Area 8 Terrestrial Ecologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 50633 Hwy 6 & 24, Glenwood Springs, CO. MSU Extension Weed Management, Land Resources and Environmental Sciences Department. 2001. Bozeman, MT. www.weeds.montana.edu NatureServe: Explorer. An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2011. Version 1.6. Arlington (VA): Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http://www.natureserve.orgi. e.m. ecological, LLC 27 BlkzatriPropeq,GaOdd County Vegetation and 117Idll fe Arsessmenl Pctterson, E.S. 2008. Wildlife and Vegetation Assessment Report for the Cattle Creek Colorado Project, Garfield County. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Glenwood Springs, CO. Ponzctti, J. M. 1997. Assessment of inedusahead and cheatgrass control techniques at Lawerence Memorial Grassland Preserve 1996 Annual Report. The Nature Conservancy of Oregon. Pokorny, Monica L. 2007. Cheatgrass (Bro✓nr✓.i• teclorum). Montana State University Extension Weed Management.http: //www.ipm.montana.edu/cropweeds/Extension/weed%20species%20not%20every %20file%20is%20here-/Downy°/a20bromc.htm Bozeman, MT Raven, P. H., R.F. Evert and S.E. Eichhom. 1992. Biology of Plants, fifth edition. Worth Publishers, New York, NY. Shaw, Robert B. 2008. Grasses of Colorado. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. Tasker, E. 2002. Seven Star Open Space: Plant Community Descriptions & Vegetation Management Report. Unpublished report for Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, Aspen, CO by E.M. Ecological, 1.1.C, Carbondale, CO. Thornton, J., H.D. Harrington, and R.L. Zimdabl. 1974. Weeds of Colorado Bulletin 514-S (1964) Revised. Experiment Station, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Toweill, D.E. and J.W. Thomas. 2002. North American Elk: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. Trant, T. Personal communication 27 October 2010. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Basalt District Wildlife Manager. Colorado Division of Wildlife, 50633 I-Iwy 6 & 24, Glenwood Springs, CO. USDA Soil Conservation Service 1992. Soil survey of Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, parts of Eagle, Garfield, andPitkin counties. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. USDA, NRCS. 2011. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. Weber, W.A. and R. Whitman. 2001. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope, 3rd Ed. University of Colorado, Boulder. Welch, B.L. 2005. Big Sagebrush: A Sea Fragmented into Lakes, Ponds, and Puddles. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-144. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 210 p. Weld County Fact Sheet. 2010. Cheatgrass Identification and Management, Rangeland Pasture Recommendations. http: //www.co.weld.co.us/departments/weed_pest/pdf/factSheets/cheatgrass_2.pdf West, Neil E. 1999. Synecology and Disturbance Regimes of Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems pgs. 15-26 in Proceedings: Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems. Entwistle, P.G. et al., compilers, 2000. Bureau of Land Management, Boise, ID. Whitson, T. 1998. Establishing a sustainable vegetation ecosystem to replace noxious weeds. Abstract from Science in Wild/and Weed Management Symposium. Denver, CO. Whitson, T.D., L.C. Burrill, S.A. Dewey, D.W. Cudney, B.E. Nelson, R.D. Lee, and R. Parker. 2000. Weeds of the West. Western Society of Weed Science, 626 pp. e.m. ecological, LLC 28 $/ir and Properly. Gar/ie/d County T e ,e/almu and Fild0 .-t .:ressmeul Appendix A. Colorado Noxious Weed List List A species in Colorado that are designated by the Commissioner for eradication: African rue (Peganum harmala) Camelthorn (Alhagi pseudalhagi) Common crupina (Crupina vulgaris) Cypress spurge (Euphorbia cyparissias) Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta) Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Meadow knapweed (Centaurea pratensis) Mediterranean sage (Salvia aethiopis) Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput -medusae) Myrtle spurge (Euphorbia myrsinites) Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) Squarrose knapweed (Centaurea virgata) Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) List B weed species are species for which the Commissioner. in consultation with the state noxious weed advisory committee, local governments, and other interested parties, develops and implements state noxious weed management plans designed to stop the continued spread of these species: Absinth wormwood (Artemisia absinthium) Black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) Bouncingbet (Saponaria officinalis) Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Chinese clematis (Clematis orientalis) Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) Common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) Com chamomile (Anthemis arvensis) Cutleaf teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus) Dalmatian toadflax. broad-leaved (Linaria dalmatica) Dalmatian toadflax. narrow -leaved (Linaria genistifolia) Dame's rocket (Hesperis matronalis) Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Hoary cress (Cardaria draba) Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) Jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) Mayweed chamomile (Anthemis cotula) Moth mullein (Verbascum blattaria) Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum Ieucanthemum) Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) Plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides) Ouackgrass (Elytrigia repens) Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) Russian -olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) Salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis. T.oarviflora. and T ramosissimal e.m. ecological, LLC 29 B/i and I'roperty. Canfield Comm Scentless chamomile (Matricaria perforata) Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Scotch thistle (Onopordum tauricum) Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) Spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum) Wild caraway (Carum carvi) Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) 1 'euetation wall-de/41e Assessment List C weed species are species for which the C'omniissioner, in consultation with the state noxious weed advisory committee, local governments, and other interested parties, will develop and implement state noxious weed management plans designed to support the efforts of local governing bodies to facilitate more effective integrated weed management on private and public lands. The goal of such plans will not be to stop the continued spread of these species but to provide additional education. research, and biological control resources to jurisdictions that choose to require management of List C' species. Chicory (Cichorium intybus) Common burdock (Arctium minus) Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus) Common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) Puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris) Redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) e.m. ecological, LLC 30 B/ir and Property, Gaditld Count 1''egetation and 10/4ft Assessment Appendix B. NDIS Habitat Definitions The following section defines the ungulate seasonal activity area definitions used by CDOW in their habitat mapping protocols. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where elk movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between elk and motorists. MIGRATION CORRIDORS: .1 specific mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of an elk population. PRODUCTION AREA: That part of the overall range of elk occupied by the females from May 15 to June 15 for calving. (Only known areas are Mapped and this does not include all production areas for the DAU). RESIDENT POPULATION: An area used year-round by a population of elk. Individuals could be found in any part of the area at any time of the year; the area cannot be subdivided into seasonal ranges. It is most likely included within the overall range of the larger population. SEVERE WINTER: That part of the range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures arc at a minimum in the two worst winters our of ten. The winter of 1983-84 is a good example of a severe winter. SUMMER CONCENTRATION: Those areas where elk concentrate from mid-June through mid-August. High quality forage, security, and lack of disturbance are characteristics of these areas to meet the high energy demands of lactation, calf rearing, antler growth, and general preparation for the rigors of fall and winter. SUMMER RANGE: That part of the range of a species where 900/0 of the individuals are located between spring green -up and the first heavy snowfall, or during a site specific period of summer as defined for each DAU. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. WINTER CONCENTRATION: That part of the winter range of a species where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average five winters out of ten. WINTER RANGE: That part of thc overall range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAU. MULE DEER CONCENTRATION AREA: Thar part of thc overall range where higher quality habitat supports significantly higher densities than surrounding areas. These areas are typically occupied year round and are not necessarily associated with a specific season. Includes rough break country, riparian areas, small drainages, and large areas of irrigated cropland. HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where mule deer movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between mule deer and motorists. MIGRATION CORRIDORS: A specific Mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of a mule deer population. e.m. ecological, LLC 31 J3littiard Properly, Garlleld County Vegetation and [Pk A.+sessment RESIDENT POPULA'T'ION: An area that provides year-round range for a population of mule deer. The resident mule deer use all of the area all year; it cannot be subdivided into seasonal ranges although it may be included within the overall range of the larger population. SEVERE WINTER: That part of rhe overall range where 900/0 of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. SUMMER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green -up and the first heavy snowfall. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. WINTER CONCENTRATION: That part of the winter range where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average five winters out of ten. WINTER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAL'. e.m. ecological, LLC 32 Blizzard Lot — Proposed development April 2018 SE Job 17165 1 Davis Farrar wsconsulting@sopris.net Re: Blizzard Small Contractors Yard — Garfield County Application SE Job #17165 Dear Davis, Sopris Engineering (SE) is pleased to supply this engineering memo for the Blizzard lot, parcel number 2393-202-00-108. We have prepared this engineering memo for the Blizzard lot to address; site plan, utilities, grading, drainage, access and traffic. We have also attached our plan set and some additional drainage calculations to this memo for your review. Existing Conditions: The property is located just off of Highway (HWY) 82 on the frontage road to the east side of HWY 82 across the road from the Aspen Glen subdivision. Mile marker 9.0 is about 0.4 miles north of the property making the property about mile marker 9.4. The site is accessed from HWY 82 via the Frontage Road. The lot currently has a primitive access from the frontage road which is being used to access the pracel. The property is approximately 4.3 acres. Along the western property line the property borders CDOT Right of Way to the north BLM and to the east Aspen Glen Homeowners Association. To the east there is a prominent rocky ridge that has several drainages coming down to and around the lot. CDOT has a Targe detention Pond which encroaches on the North West part of the property in order to help protect the HWY from storm runoff and mud flow. There is a culvert just to the south of the primitive access which goes under HWY 82, with another inlet in the median and then finally discharge on the west side of the HWY. Most of the site hasn't been disturbed and is covered in sage brush, pinon and cedar trees and shrubs. Propose Site Plan: The owner of the lot would like to develop the lot to include the potential for a nursery, greenhouse or small contractor's yard along the western property line as well as a single family home in the top North East corner of the lot. The nursery, greenhouse or contractor's yard would be screened by a Targe berm running parallel to the western property line which will help hide any staged materials or equipment. The yard would be approximately 1 acre and most likely have a work shop or barn which would have an office and a bathroom. The site as mentioned above does have a current access but it is very minimal and would need to be improved. We have proposed the access remain generally in the same location but be increased to 24' in width with 30' radius's as you enter the site. We are currently proposing the access drive and contractors yard to be a class 6 road base material with adequate compaction. As the access enters the site one can drive directly into the nursery, greenhouse or contractor's yard or veer to the right and head up hill to the proposed residence. The portion of the road which veers to the right would reduce to a 20' width with grades not exceeding 12.0%. Utilities: Water: The lot currently has a commercial well drilled on it (permit #81417-F). The well is permitted for Single family dwelling, irrigation up to 1 acre for home, gardens and lawns as well as irrigation of 1 acre for commercial tree nursery stock. We anticipate that the shop will use approximately 200 gallons per day (gpd) the house will use approximately 600 gpd. For irrigation we anticipate a small amount of turf grasses around the single family home, some trees with drip irrigation and the berm along the western property line and minimal irrigation within the nursery, greenhouse or contractor's yard. The berm will be irrigated for 5+- years as the grasses and trees get established then only the trees remain irrigated. We anticipate the 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants Blizzard Lot — Proposed development April 2018 SEJob 17165 2 total use of water for irrigation to be around 4000-5000 gallons per day for a total use of 5800 gpd including the single family home and shop. The well is permitted to pump up to 15 gallons per minute (gpm). At 15 gpm that is up to 900 gallons per hour and over 20,000 gpd, which should be more than adequate for the approve uses of the well. The well is located in the center of the western property line several feet into the property. This well will provide water service for both the nursery, greenhouse or contractor's yard as well as the single family residence. Sewer: The proposed lot will require two separate Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) one for the single family residence and one for the contractors shop. The single family residence has been preliminarily sized for a 4 bedroom residence using chambers in the absorption field with an assumed 1500 gallon tank. The shop OWTS has been sized to provide service for one bathroom within the shop with an assumed 1000 gallon septic. Both OWTS systems will need additional sizing and detail work as part of the building permit. Currently we have conservatively assume approximately 600 gallons per day in a 4 bedroom house (that is 2 people per bedroom at 75 gallons each times 4 bedrooms = 600gpd) as well as an additional 200 gallons from the shop. For a total gallons per day of 800 which is well below the 2000 gallons per day maximum for a county permitted OWTS. Additionally we understand that having 2 OWTS systems on a single lot need to be set approximately 200' apart and we are closer to 270' from closest point of each system. Electric: Holy Cross Energy (HCE) recently brought power to the site with an electric pole set just off the southern corner of the property. The intent will be to pull power from that existing pole via underground conduit routed up the proposed access first to the nursery, greenhouse or contractor's yard then up the access further to the proposed single family residence. If telephone, internet and cable are brought to the lot they will run up the same alignment to help mitigate site disturbance. Telephone, Internet, Coble & Gas: We understand the owner of the lot doesn't desire these utilities at this time. Lot Grading: The site generally slopes from the high point in the NE corner to the low point in the South west corner. Contours generally run relatively parallel with the western property line and are lowest along the wester property line. Currently the lot slopes at an average of about 15% from the north east to the west. In order to fit a contractors yard as well as a single family home on the property nearly the entire lot will be graded in order to create a bench area for the contractors yard, establish an access road up to the NE corner and ensure that the yard and the house are protected from any runoff that might come from the rocky ridge to the east. A large swale will be installed along the northern property line which will help cut off any mud or runoff that comes down from the cliffs above. The north swale will daylight directly into the existing CDOT detention/mud flow pond in the North West corner of the lot. We understand that CDOT has constructed this detention area to help protect the highway and reduce runoff as it comes down off the hillside. The eastern property line will have a similar swale which will help prevent any runoff from entering the site from the eastern property line. These two swales will help protect the future single family home and nursery, greenhouse or contractor's yard from damage during storm events. Another key element of the grading is a large berm along the western property line. We are proposing the berm be has tall as possible at a 2:1 slope with a 6' vertical wall on the back side of the berm to help maximize height as well as allowing for additional screening/stacking of materials. The berm will run along the entire western property line except for where the access comes into the site. Due east of the berm will be the nursery, greenhouse or contractor's yard graded to a cross slope of approximately 5.0%. Further east of the contractor yard we will steepen the grade of the existing hill side to a max 2:1 slope for approximately twenty vertical feet in order to create a second small bench for the single family residence. 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants Blizzard Lot - Proposed development April 2018 SE Job 17165 3 The two swales on the north and east will cut off any offsite storm water flows from entering the site and direct them to existing detention as well as a proposed detention in the south corner of the property. All flows from the site will drain generally from the north east corner towards the west. Along the eastern face of the proposed berm is a small swale that trends from north to south and daylights within another detention area. Drainage: The drainage for this lot is relatively straight forward. Everything from offsite comes down from the rocky face above down different cuts in the rock towards and around the site. There is a more prominent drainage to the north which cuts off a large portion of the runoff from ever entering the site. Further south there are several smaller drainages that run towards the lot. These drainages will all be mitigated by the proposed swales along the north and eastern property lines. The proposed swales will help mitigate any storm events from disturbing the lot yet still discharging existing flows in their historic paths. All flows are routed generally towards the south corner of the lot where they pass into the 24" culvert which goes under the HWY. Our proposed grading will keep the same drainage path but use additional detention to ensure we do not increase the runoff rate. The proposed grading will route stormwater towards the western berm, stormwater will be collected by a swale in front of the berm and routed to a proposed detention area on the north side of the access road as it comes into the site. The storm runoff will be able to stage up there until it is released into a pipe which then passes under the proposed access and daylights into a swale. This existing swale drains towards the existing storm culvert which daylights under HWY 82. Our detention area has been sized to detain the proposed developed runoff at the historic release rate so that there is no negative impact to the downstream user. The northern swale will be used to cut off all flows from the north and route them directly to the existing detention pond that has been built by CDOT. Similarly we have proposed another swale along the eastern property line which will cut off flows from entering the site from the east, the eastern swale will be routed directly to another small detention pond. Both the existing CDOT detention pond as well as our proposed southern pond if full will bleed out over the top of the pond and daylight into existing shallow swales. A third detention area is proposed to mitigate any increase in runoff from the pre to the post development within the site. This detention basin will be size to handle the 100 year increased runoff to ensure that the stormwater is released at the historic rate. This detention basin will pick up the stormwater from the swale that runs parallel to the berm and collect water from the single family residence, nursery, greenhouse or contractor's yard and the access drive. We have used the rational method to calculate the pre and post detention requirements. The tables below show the weighted C valves based upon the current ground cover on the site and the proposed ground cover. The storm intensity was taking from Carbondale IDF curve using a 25 and 100 year storm at a 10 minute intensity. Additional calculations for the swales on the property can be found in the attachments at the end of this memo. BASIN AREA (5F1 AREA (ACRES) IMPERV AREA (SF) IMPERV% C -value PERVIOUS AREA C -value WeightedC 125 1100 Q25110 min) Q100(10min) 051 148882.3 3.418 0 0.00% 0.95 148882.3 0.5 0.50 3.858 4.605 6.593 7.870 EX1 190703.93 4.373 0 0.07/, 0.95 190708.93 0.5 0.50 3.858 4.605 8.445 10.031 DE1 190703.93 4.378 65377.68 34.2811 0.95 125331.25 0.3 0.42 3.858 4.605 7.094 8.463 Vol = (,550(Tc+1.67Tc) = =cfs-min'60 Basin 051 EX1 025 6.593 8.445 Tc 10 10 VOLUME (ds -min) 88.02 112.74 Volume (el) 5281-05 6764,69 Basin DE1 475 7.094 To 10 VOLUME (cfs-min 94.71 Volume icf) 5632.34 Basin 0100 Tc VOLUME (cfs-min) Volume (d) Difference 051 7.870 10 105.06 6303.58 1022.54 631 50.031 10 134.57 Basin DE2 Q100 8.468 Tc 10 VOLUME(cf5-min] 113.04 8074.49 Total; Volume (d) 1309.80 2332.34 Difference 6782.57 1100.24 Total; 1100.24 Access and Traffic: 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, Co 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 SOPR1S ENGINEERING ° Hie civil consultants Blizzard Lot — Proposed development April 2018 SEJob 17165 4 It is our understanding that we will need to submit an access permit through CDOT in order to obtain access from the Frontage Road to our site. We have analyzed traffic in this area based on existing conditions as well as final development and build out of this lot. Currently the quickest way to get to the lot from HWY 82 up or down valley is a crossing approximately 0.2 miles North of the entrance to the lot. From here you can get off the HWY and turn onto the frontage road heading south for the 0.2 miles then take a left onto the proposed access and into the lot. Currently the Frontage road has very little or no traffic, for the purposes of this memo and study we will assume that there are zero cars on the frontage road. Therefore all trips will be an increase to the frontage road. For estimated traffic generations based on the proposed development we have used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition in order to analyze potential traffic impacts to the frontage road which the site will access. The 1TE provides different facilities and modeling for how many trips a specific facility night generate. Unfortunately the ITE doesn't have a specific designation for a small construction yard. The most similar category in our opinion seems to be ITE Code 817 nursery, (garden center). We believe the nursery category fits the site best out of the ITE codes and best simulates a nursery, greenhouse or small contractor's yard but it seems to be a good place to begin our analysis. We have also looked at Code 210 which is the single family detached housing for the potential single family home which will be built. We have looked at both the Peak hour trip generation as well as the average daily trips for the lot, knowing that HWY 82 peaks in the AM and PM we thought it was relevant to show both statistics. Based on this information, below is a summary of the anticipated vehicle trips based upon the average daily trip as well as the peak hour trips: Proposed Development Peak Hour Trips ITE Code 210 (Single -Family Detached Housing): AM, Peak Hour: 0.77 vehicle trips per unit => (0.77)(1)= PM, Peak Hour: 1.02 vehicle trips per unit => (1.02)(1)= ITE Code 817 (Nursery, Garden Center): AM, Peak Hour: 2.59 trips per acre PM, Peak Hour: 7.52 trips per acre => (2.59)(1)= => (7.52)(1)= 0.77 PHV 1.02 PHV 2.59 PHV 7.52 PHV Total proposed peak hour vehicles trips (AM) 3.35 PHV Total Proposed Peak Hour Vehicles Trips 8,54 PHV Average Daily Trips For the Average daily trips we studied the same code for Nursey, garden center. Based upon acres on a week day for average daily trips on an average trip generation of 96.21 per acre that would be approximately 100 trips per day. ITE CODE 210 (Single -Family Detached Housing): Average Vehicle Trips per Dwelling Unit=>9.57 (1)= 9.57 ITE Code 817 (Nursery, Garden Center): Average Vehicle Trips per acres => 96.21 (1)= 96.21 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 SOPHS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants Blizzard Lot—Proposed development April 2018 SE Job 17165 5 Total Proposed Average Daily Vehicle Trips 106 ADVT We believe we have overestimated the average daily trips for the site but feel it is within reason to expect around 100 trips generated if the construction yard is developed and used by a small contractor. As we move through the land application process through Garfield County we will begin coordination with CDOT to understand their requirements and any necessary improvements. Conclusion: We believe the Blizzard site can be serviced by all necessary utilities, that access, grading and drainage all meet the intent of the county code and that this lot will be easily developed without negative impacts to the surrounding properties, neighbors or community. We have reviewed all aspects of the project to ensure this proposed development fits as best it can into the surrounding landscape. Please feel free to contact our office should you have any questions or need additional information. Sincere Nichol, PE Principal Attachments: Sexton Survey— Existing Conditions Mapping Sopris Engineering — Propose site, grading, utility and detail drawings Sopris Engineering — Drainage Supporting Documents ITE Code 210 ITE Code 817 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 i1C FI lid t 5] n 11, ! [ r civil consultants CTLITHOMPSON GEOLOGIC AND PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BLIZZARD PARCEL GARFIE'_D COUNTY. COLORADO Prepared For: BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING 350 Original Road Basalt, CO 81621 Attention: Mr. Steve Blizzard Project No. GS05495-115 September 27. 2010 234 Center Drive I Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970-945-2809 Fax: 970-945-7411 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1 SITE DESCRIPTION 2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2 SITE GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 2 Collapse -Prone Soils 5 Seismicity 6 Radioactivity 6 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 7 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 8 Natural Sand and Silt 9 Sandstone Bedrock 9 DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 9 Over -Excavation 9 Site Grading 10 Importeu Fill 11 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes 11 Utility Construction 12 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 13 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES 15 Foundations 15 Slab -on -Grade and Basement Floor Construction 16 Below -Grade Construction 16 Surface Drainage 16 General Design Considerations 17 CONCRETE 18 FINAL DESIGN CONSULTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS 18 GEOTECHNICAL RISK 20 LIMITATIONS 20 FIGURE 1 — LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 — SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS TABLE I — SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX A — GUIDELINE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX B — PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 St1GS05495,000111512. Raporta\GS05495 116 R1.tloc SCOPE This report presents the results of our Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the planned development of the Blizzard Parcel in Garfield County, Colorado. The purpose of our investigation was to identify geologic hazards that may exist at the site and evaluate the subsurface conditions to assist in planning and budgeting for the proposed development. The report includes descriptions of site geology, our analysis of the impact of geologic conditions on site development, a description of the subsurface and ground water conditions found in our exploratory borings, and discussions of site development as influenced by geotechnical considerations. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Blizzard Landscaping based upon our understanding of the development plans. The recommendations are considered preliminary and can be used as guidelines for further planning of development and design of grading. We should review final development and grading plans to determine where additional investigations are merited, or if we need to revise our recommendations provided in this report. Additional investigations will be required to design building foundations. A summary of our findings and recommendations is presented below. More detailed discussions of the data, analysis and recommendations are presented in the report. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. No geologic or geotechnical conditions were identified which would preclude the planned development of this site. Collapse -prone soils and debris flows are the primary geologic concerns pertaining to the development of the site. 2. The subsurface conditions encountered in our borings drilled at the parcel consisted of about 0.5 feet of sandy clay "topsoil" and 13.5 to 29.5 feet of silty sand and sandy silt with scattered gravel lenses underlain by sandstone bedrock to the maximum explored depth of 30 feet. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:1GS05495.000111512. Rnports1GS05496 116 R1 (Inc 1 3. We did not encounter ground water in our exploratory borings at the time of exploratory drilling operations. 4. Our subsurface information and experience on similar sites indicates that the soils at this site may be subject to collapse when wetted. We anticipate footing or slab foundations will be appropriate for buildings constructed on the natural soils. Over -excavation will likely be required below shallow foundation systems to reduce potential movement. Additional discussion is in the report. 5. Asphalt or asphalt with aggregate base course are suitable for access roads and parking Tots. Details are presented in this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The Blizzard parcel is located east of Highway 82, about a mile south of the intersection with Cattle Creek Road and about 2 miles north of Carbondale. The Roaring Fork River is west, beyond the highway. The 2 -acre site is below a steep ridge to the northeast. The ground surface over most of the parcel slopes about 6-8 percent to the southwest. Vegetation on the site consists of some scrub oak, sage brush, and natural grasses. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT We understand the parcel is planned for development of a commercial building. Access roads and underground utilities are anticipated. Below -grade construction associated with these uses will likely be one -level, if chosen. We expect site grading will consist of construction of access roads, utilities and a building pad. SITE GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Site geology and geologic hazards on the Blizzard parcel were evaluated by David A. Glater, P.E., C.P.G., using field reconnaissance on August 20, 2010 and a BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05496.11S 5:IGS06495.000111512. Roports1GS05495115 R1,doc review of pertinent available literature. Literature references are cited at the end of this section. The area has a complex geologic history. In Paleozoic time, the area was covered by an extensive shallow sea that formed very thick deposits of evaporite (salt, gypsum and limestone). From Paleozoic until Tertiary time, the area was uplifted, tectonically deformed and eroded. As the Roaring Fork River cut its valley over the past few million years, the region started to subside as the underlying evaporite beds dissolved and differentially collapsed. The steep ridge east of the parcel exposes the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Structurally, the bedrock is nearly vertically bedded, with strike of north-northwest. Photo 1 shows a view from the south corner, along the east fence line, toward the north and the exposures of Eagle Valley Evaporite. Photo 1 - View to the north along the east fence line from the south property corner BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 5:1GS05495.000111512. Reports\GS05495 115 R1.doc 3 Evidence for solution subsidence is widespread in the area. Mapping by Colorado Geological Survey. 2002 shows historic subsidence features west of the highway, adjacent to an irrigation ditch. We found rio evidence of historic or on-going subsidence on the Blizzard parcel. Based on our observations and experience in the area. we believe potential for subsidence and sinkhole formation is a regional hazard. but is not thought to be high risk at this site, due to the dry and sloped nature of the parcel. It is difficult or impossible to predict the timing or location of future sinkholes, only that they are possible in areas with similar geology. The gentler slopes that are planned for development were formed due to geologically recent deposition of soil and rock particles from erosion of the neighboring ridge. The evaporite rock is highly erosion -prone. as well as partially soluble in water. This apron of more gently sloped ground is known as a debris fan, formed by stacking historic mudflows from the ridge. The debris fan soils were 14 to more than 30 feet thick, based on our borings. Soil was thickest in TH-1 near the south corner. Debris fans pose several hazards. One hazard is that the material can be poorly consolidated and prone to settlement when loaded and wetted. Most importantly. there is a high hazard that future precipitation events will cause erosion. flooding and deposition on this parcel. A day or two prior to our visit on the site, a heavy rainstorm caused extensive flooding and mudflows in the area, including fresh mud deposition on this parcel. A mudflow crossed Highway 82 about 1/2 mile south of the site. The Civil Engineer should determine the flood potential for this site and design drainage to avoid further erosion and direct flood water (and debris) away from planned improvements. Typically, design flows are carried to collection basins that can accommodate potential mudflow and can be cleaned out or maintained as necessary. We suggest a bulking factor over stream flow of at least 100 percent to account for the soil and rock that will be picked up by floodwater during peak precipitation events. It appears historic attempts to capture flood water are present on-site that include excavated basins. Photo 2 below shows a typical incised channel along the north site border. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S \GS05495.000%11512. RapnrtslGS05495 115 RLdoc 4 Photo 2 — Looking south from east -north border area in a typical seml-incised channel that drains the high ridge. Note evidence of recent flow and debris deposits that have topped channel banks. In our opinion, it is unlikely any economically recoverable minerals or energy fuels are present under the Blizzard parcel. Brief field reconnaissance found no evidence of avalanches, landslides, rockfalls or unstable slopes on the site. Ground water is likely deep. Slopes in planned development areas appeared stable. Site soils should be considered to be highly susceptible to erosion. Steep slopes will have higher erosion rates. Re -vegetation, drainage capture or erosion control methods can reduce potential for soil Toss. Regional issues of collapsible soils, seismicity and radioactivity are discussed below. Collapse -Prone Soils Our reconnaissance and mapping by others indicates that this site likely has deposits which have potential for compression or collapse upon wetting. Some increase in subsurface moisture must be assumed due to the effects of site development. Based on our experience in the area, laboratory testing and published BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:\GS05495.00011151.2. Reports1GS05495 115 R1.doc 5 data, we consider the soils at this site to have a low to high collapse potential. Engineered design of foundations, slabs -on -grade, pavements and surface drainage can mitigate the effects of collapse -prone soils. Methods for mitigation of collapse - prone soils are discussed in following sections of the report. Seismicity The soil and bedrock units are not expected to respond unusually to seismic activity. Liquefaction potential is considered nil because the soils are dry and seismic risk in this area is fairly low. Sites with thick deposits of colluvium will likely classify as Site Class D for seismic design purposes. Only minor damage to relatively new, properly designed and built structures would be expected with major seismic events thought possible in this area. Radioactivity Radon 222 gas is considered a health hazard and is one of several radioactive products in the chain of the natural decay of uranium into stable lead. Radioactive nuclides are common in the soils and sedimentary rocks underlying the subject site. Because these sources exist on most sites, there is potential for radon gas accumulation in poorly ventilated spaces. The amount of soil gas that can accumulate is a function of many factors, including the radio -nuclide activity of the soil and bedrock, construction methods and materials, pathways for soil gas and existence of poorly -ventilated accumulation areas. It is difficult to predict the concentration of radon gas in finished construction. During previous investigations in the vicinity of this site, we have not detected radiation levels above normal background levels for the area. We recommend testing to evaluate radon levels after construction is completed. If required, typical mitigation methods may consist of sealing soil gas entry areas and periodic ventilation of below - grade spaces and perimeter drain systems. It is relatively economical to provide for BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495.115 S:\GS05495.00011 1512. Roports1GS05495 115 R1.tloc 6 ventilation at the time of construction, compared to retrofitting a structure after construction, Radon rarely accumulates to significant levels in above -grade, heated and ventilated spaces. In summary, we find no geologic hazards that preclude development of this parcel for commercial development purposes. Geology Section References 1. "Geologic Map of the Carbondale Quadrangle." compiled by Robert M. Kirkham and Beth L. Widmann. Colorado Geological Survey Open File Map 97-3, 1997 2. "Collapsible Soils and Evaporite Karst Hazards Map of the Roaring Fork River Corridor." by Jonathan L. White. Colorado Geological Survey Map Series 34, 2002 3. "Guidelines and Criteria for Identification and Land -Use Controls of Geologic Hazard and Mineral Resource Areas" by W.P. Rogers, et. al, Special Publication 6. Colorado Geologic Survey, 1974 4. Aerial Photography dated July 13, 2002 by Google Earth FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling three exploratory borings at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. The borings were drilled using a track -mounted drill rig and with 4 -inch diameter, continuous -flight auger. Our project engineer observed drilling, logged the soils found in the borings and obtained samples. Summary logs of the soils found in the borings and field penetration resistance values are presented on Figure 2. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 SaGS05495.000t115t2. Roports\GS05495 115 81 doc 7 Samples of soil were obtained during drilling by driving a modified California - type sampler (2.5 inch O.D.) or split -spoon sampler (2.0 inch O.D.) into the subsoils using a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. Samples recovered from the exploratory borings were returned to our laboratory and visually classified by the geotechnical engineer. Laboratory testing included determination of moisture content and dry density, Atterberg limits, particle -size analysis, and water soluble sulfate content. Laboratory test results are summarized on Table 1. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions encountered in our borings consisted of about 0.5 feet of sandy clay "topsoil" and 13.5 to 29.5 feet of silty sand and sandy silt underlain by sandstone bedrock to the maximum explored depth of 30 feet. A more detailed description of the subsurface conditions is presented in our boring Togs and laboratory testing. Ground water was not encountered in our exploratory borings at the time of exploratory drilling operations. We reviewed the National Cooperative Soil Survey prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classifies the soils on the site as Southace cobbly sandy loam with slopes of 1 to 6 percent, Gypsum land Gypsiorthids complex with slopes of 12 to 65 percent. The SCS indicates that sites with these soils may be very limited (poor) to somewhat limited (fair) for development of dwellings with or without basements, lawns and landscaping, local roads and streets, slopes, and small commercial buildings due to problems related to shrink/swell or low soil strength. The SCS indicates that corrosion of concrete ranges from low to high and corrosion potential of steel may be high. Based on our site specific field and laboratory investigation, we believe BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS0549$-115 S;1GS05495.000111512. ReportslGSO5495 115 R 1.doc 8 mitigation may be required; however, the site is not considered "poor" for development. Adjacent developments have generally performed well. Natural Sand and Silt The soils encountered at this site included sand and sandy silt. The thickness of the sand and silt soil ranged from 14 to 30 feet. Field penetration resistance tests indicated the silty sand and sandy silt was medium dense to dense. The measured dry density of samples was 101 and 114 pcf with natural moisture contents of 2.9 to 6.1 percent. Liquid limits ranged from not liquid to 25 percent and the samples tested were not plastic. These soils contained 16 to 68 percent silt and clay size particles (passing the No. 200 sieve). Laboratory test results are summarized on Table I. Sandstone Bedrock Sandstone bedrock was encountered below the sand and silt in our borings. We judge the sandstone bedrock to be non -expansive. DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Over -Excavation Over -excavation consists of removal of soft, swelling or collapse prone soils and reworking these soils as fill compacted in a controlled manner. Processing and compaction can result in a stronger. more uniform subgrade that is much Tess sensitive to volume change under wetting. as is typical after development. Areas where uncontrolled fill or soft soils are present should be further delineated during design level investigations. Excavation observations and density testing during construction are recommended for sites such as this in addition to a design level geotechnical investigation. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:1GS05495.000\11512. Repons1GS05495 115 111.doc 9 Over -excavation slopes will need to be sloped at a minimum according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) criteria for the appropriate soil type where structures will be built adjacent to the slopes. Recommendations in the Utility Construction section should be followed. Over -excavation of the natural soils should be performed below pavements. We expect that over -excavation will be recommend for support of footing foundations and possible mat foundations for structures. Design -level geotechnical reports will provide criteria specific to each structure. Site Grading Grading plans were not developed at this writing. We anticipate that site grading will be limited to that required to construct roads and utilities across the site. We believe grading can be accomplished using conventional construction techniques and heavy-duty equipment. It is important that deep fills (if planned) be constructed as far in advance of surface construction as possible. It is our experience that fill compacted in accordance with the compaction recommendations in this report may settle about 1 percent of its height under its own weight. Most of this settlement usually occurs during and soon after construction. Some additional settlement is possible after development and landscape irrigation increases soil moisture content. We recommend delaying the construction of the building underlain by deep fills as long as possible to allow for this settlement to occur. Delaying construction of structures up to one year where located on deep fills is recommended. The existing on-site soils are suitable for re -use as fill material provided the soils are free of particles larger than 6 inches in diameter, debris or deleterious organic materials. Based on our laboratory test data, we expect that some of the natural silty sand and sandy silt soils will compact to a higher density than the current in-situ density. We recommend a shrinkage factor of 10 to 15 percent be applied to the clay and sand when calculating earthwork quantities. Prior to fill BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJEC1 NO. GS05495.115 S:1GS05495.00m 115';.2 Reports1GS05495 115 RI.doc 10 placement, all trash and debris should be removed from fill areas and properly disposed. The ground surface in areas to be filled should be stripped of vegetation, topsoil and other deleterious materials, scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches. moisture conditioned and compacted as recommended below. The depth of topsoil is not anticipated to be more than 4 to 8 inches in most areas. Site grading fill should be placed in thin. loose lifts. moisture conditioned and compacted. In areas of deep fill. we recommend higher compaction criteria to help reduce settlement of the fill. Compaction and moisture requirements are presented in Appendix A. The placement and compaction of fill should be observed and density tested during construction. Guideline site grading specifications are presented in Appendix A. Imported Fill If import material is required for fill, samples from each source should be provided for our review. Import structural fill should consist of a CDOT Class 6 aggregate base course or similar soil. The material should be placed and compacted as recommended in Appendix A. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes We recommend permanent cut and fill slopes be designed with a maximum inclination of 2.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Flatter slopes would result in less erosion, If steeper slopes are desired. we should evaluate slope stability. Slope armoring to prevent erosion and/or placement of revegetation mats will likely be needed. Mechanical stabilization, such as engineered retaining walls such as mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) for fill slopes and soil nails for cut slopes may be appropriate if steep slopes or near vertical faces are desired. Where fills will be placed on slopes exceeding 20 percent (5:1), the slope should be benched. Structures should be setback from the top or bottom of cut and fill slopes. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:1GS05495.000t115\2 Reports5GS05495 116 R1.doc 11 Utility Construction We believe excavations for utility installation in the soils at the parcel can be performed with conventional heavy-duty trenchers or Targe backhoes. Ground water is not anticipated in excavations. If ground water is encountered during construction in excavations, dewatering will likely be feasibly accomplished by sloping excavations to occasional sumps where water can be removed by pumping. Utility trenches should be sloped or shored to meet local, State and federal safety regulations. Based on our investigation, we believe the sandy silt and silty sand will classify as a Type B soil based on OSHA standards. Excavation slopes specified by OSHA are dependent upon soil types and ground water conditions encountered. Contractors should identify the soils encountered in the excavation and refer to OSHA standards to determine appropriate slopes. Excavations deeper than 20 feet should be designed by a professional engineer. The width of the top of an excavation may be limited in some areas. Bracing or "trench box" construction may be necessary. Bracing systems include sheet piling, braced sheeting and others. Lateral loads on bracing depend on the depth of excavation, slope of excavation above the bracing, surface loads, hydrostatic pressures, and allowable movement. For trench boxes and bracing allowed to move enough to mobilize the strength of the soils with associated cracking of the ground surface, the "active" earth pressure conditions are appropriate for design. If movement is not tolerable, the "at rest" earth pressures are appropriate. We suggest an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf for the "active" earth pressure condition and 50 pcf for the "at rest" earth pressure condition, assuming level backfill. These pressures do not include allowances for surcharge loading or for hydrostatic conditions. We are available to assist further with bracing design, if desired. Water and sewer lines are usually constructed beneath paved roads. Compaction of trench backfill can have a significant effect on the life and serviceability of pavements. Trench backfill should be placed in thin, loose lifts, and BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:iGS05495.000111512. Raporte1GS05495 115 R1.doc 12 moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum content. Trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). The placement and compaction of fill and backfill should be observed and tested by our firm during construction. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our borings. the near surface soils on this site after grading is completed will consist of natural silty sand or sandy silt or similar soils placed as fill. The sand and silt soils will range from low to moderately plastic and will provide relatively poor subgrade support below the pavements. The subgrade soils below the roads will be variable. The on-site sand and silt soii will likely classify as AASHTO Group A-4 for roads constructed at the parcel. We estimated an R -value of about 10. We recommend over -excavation of the natural soils to a depth of at least 2 feet below pavements and replacement with these soils as cotnpacted fill due to the low density and moisture content of the natura. soils. Subgrade soils below the over -excavation should be scarified. moisture conditioned and compacted. A geotextile separator fabric should be placed between the clay soils and aggregate base course (if used). The pavement design is based on the AASHTO design method. We used an Estimated Daily Load Application (EDLA) of 20 for access roads and an EDLA of 5 for the parking areas. We did not consider heavy industrial or commercial truck traffic in this design. If the anticipated traffic load is considerably different than that assumed, we should be informed so that we can review our recommendations. Based on our calculations, we recommend the following minimum pavement sections. A gravel (aggregate base course) road section is also an alternative. We recommend at least 9 inches of aggregate base course be provided for gravel roads. Gravel roads will require more maintenance than asphaltic concrete or Portland cement. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO GS05495-115 S:1GS05495.000411512. ReportslGS05495 115 R1.doc 13 Pavement ClassificationConcrete Full- Depth Asphaltic Concrete Asphaltic Concrete and Aggregate Base Course * Portland Cement Access Roads 6" 4" + 5" 6" Parking Lots 5" 3" + 6" 6" A geotextile separator fabric. such as Mirafi 600x or equivalent. should be placed between subgrade and base course. A proof roll should be performed prior to paving. We have included construction guidelines for flexible and rigid pavements in Appendix B. The design of a pavement system is as much a function of the quality of the paving materials and construction as the support characteristics of the subgrade. The quality of each construction material is reflected by the strength coefficient used in the flexible pavement design calculations. If the pavement system is constructed of inferior material. then the life and serviceability of the pavement will be substantially reduced. Design of asphaltic concrete assumes a strength coefficient of 0.40. Asphaltic concrete should be relatively impermeable to moisture and designed with crushed aggregates that have a minimum of 80 percent of the aggregate retained on the No. 4 sieve. Routine maintenance. such as sealing and repair of cracks and overlays at 5 to 7 -year intervals. are necessary to achieve Tong -term performance of an asphalt system. We recommend application of a rejuvenating sealant, such as fog seal, after the first year. Deferring maintenance usually results in accelerated deterioration, leading to higher future maintenance costs. Our rigid pavement design is based on a modulus of rupture of 650 psi for Portland cement concrete. We recommend concrete contain a minimum of 610 pounds of cement per cubic yard and between 5 and 7 percent entrained air. A mix design should be prepared for this project using the aggregate and cement that will be used during construction. Control joints should separate concrete pavements into BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:\GS05495.000111512. Repons1GS05495 116 R1 (-Inc 14 panels as recommended by ACI. No de-icing salts should be used on paving concrete for at least one year after placement. A primary cause of early pavement deterioration is water infiltration into the pavement system. The addition of moisture usually results in softening of the base course and subgrade and the eventual failure of the pavement. We recommend drainage be designed for rapid removal of surface runoff from pavement surfaces. Final grading should be carefully controlled so that the design cross -slope is maintained and low spots in the subgrade which could trap water are eliminated. Portland cement concrete drainage pans with subsurface drains should be considered in areas where water will be flowing across pavement surfaces. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES The property is currently planned for commercial construction. Our field and laboratory data indicate the soil conditions across the site generally consist of silty sand and silt. The following discussions are preliminary and are not intended for design or construction. After grading is completed, a detailed geotechnical investigation should be performed for each structure and lot. Foundations Our geologic and preliminary geotechnical investigation for this site indicates structures can likely be founded on shallow foundations where sand or silt soils occur at foundation elevations. We expect ground improvement will likely be necessary to mitigate the risk from collapsible soils. Shallow foundation alternatives will likely include footings, mat/rafts, or post -tensioned slabs -on -grade for light structural Toads. A design level geotechnical investigation may identify potential constraints for specific areas not indicated by our borings which may suggest the need for deep foundation systems. Over -excavation below shallow foundations BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. 0S05495-116 S 1GS05495.000N 16'2. Roports GS05495116 R1,doc 15 should be anticipated. We anticipate over -excavation of 3 to 10 feet of the sand and silt soils will be recommended below shallow foundations. Slab -on -Grade and Basement Floor Construction The use of slabs -on -grade for main -level and basement floors will likely be appropriate. We believe most of the site will be rated moderate to high risk for poor slab performance. Over -excavation should be anticipated to mitigate risks associated with the collapsible soils. Slab performance risk should be more thoroughly defined during the design -level geotechnical investigation. Buildings with mat -raft or post - tensioned slab -on -grade foundations will not require an independent slab -on -grade floor because the foundations will also be the slab. Below -Grade Construction Ground water was not encountered during this investigation. Surface water should not flow adjacent to foundation walls and below slabs. To reduce the risk of excess moisture and hydrostatic pressure developing on foundation walls, foundation drains will be necessary around all below -grade areas. A permanent dewateringlwaterproofing system will also likely be required for below -grade areas. Foundation drains should discharge to sumps where water can be removed by pumping or by gravity. Foundation walls and grade beams should be designed to withstand lateral earth pressures. The design pressure should be established during design -level geotechnical investigations. Surface Drainage Proper surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations and flatwork. The ground surface around the proposed building should be shaped to provide runoff of surface water away from the structure and off of pavements. We generally recommend slopes of at least '12 inches in the first 10 feet where practical in the landscaping areas surrounding buildings. There are practical limitations on BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO GS05495-115 S.1GS05495.00011 1512. Roports\GS05495 115 R1. doc 16 achieving these slopes. Irrigation should be minimized to control wetting. Roof downspouts should discharge beyond the limits of backfill. Water should not be allowed to pond on or adjacent to pavements. Proper control of surface runoff is also important to limit the erosion of surface soils. Sheet flow should not be directed over unprotected slopes. Water should not be allowed to pond at the crest of slopes. Permanent slopes should be re -vegetated to reduce erosion. Water can follow poorly compacted fill behind curb and gutter and in utility trenches. This water can soften fill and undermine the performance of the roadways. flatwork and foundations. We recommend compactive effort be used in placement of all fill. General Design Considerations Exterior sidewalks and pavements supported by the sand and silt soil are subject to post construction movement. Flat grades should be avoided to prevent possible ponding, particularly next to the building due to soil movement. Positive grades away from the building should be used for sidewalks and flatwork around the perimeter of the building in order to reduce the possibility of movement of this flatwork, resulting in ponding next to the structures. Where movement of the flatwork is objectionable, procedures recommended for on -grade interior floor slabs should be considered. Joints next to the building should be thoroughly sealed to prevent the infiltration of surface water. Where concrete pavement is used, joints should also be sealed to reduce the infiltration of water. Since some post construction movement of pavement and flatwork may occur, joints around the building should be periodically observed and resealed where necessary. Roof drains should be discharged well away from the structures, preferably by closed pipe systems. Where roof drains are allowed to discharge on concrete flatwork or pavement areas next to the structures, care should be taken to insure the BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:1G505495.900111512. Repan \GS05495 115 R1.doc. 17 area is as water tight as practical to eliminate the infiltration of this water next to the buildings. CONCRETE Concrete that comes into contact with soils can be subject to sulfate attack. We measured water-soluble sulfate concentrations in two samples from this site. High soluble sulfate concentrations of 1.4 and 1.3 percent were measured. For this high level of sulfate concentration, ACI 332-08 Code Requirements for Residential Concrete indicates concrete shall be made with ASTM C150 Type V cement, or an ASTM C595 or C1157 hydraulic cement meeting high sulfate -resistant hydraulic cement (HS) designation and shall have a specified minimum compressive strength of 3000 psi at 28 days. Alternative combination of cements and supplementary cementitious materials, such as Class F fly ash, shall be permitted with acceptable test records for sulfate durability. In our experience, superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete. To control this risk and to resist freeze -thaw deterioration, the water-to-cementitious materials ratio should not exceed 0.50 for concrete in contact with soils that are likely to stay moist due to surface drainage or high water tables. Concrete should have a total air content of 6 percent +/- 1.5 percent. We recommend all foundation walls and grade beams in contact with the subsoils (including the inside and outside faces of grade beams) be damp -proofed. FINAL DESIGN CONSULTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Blizzard Landscaping to provide geologic and geotechnical criteria for due diligence and preliminary planning of the project. The information and the conclusions and recommendations presented BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 5:40505495.000111512. RepoRA4GS05495 115 R1.doc 18 1 herein are based upon the considerations of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of development proposed, the configuration of the development, the geologic setting. and the subsurface conditions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are not valid for use by others. CTL l Thompson, Inc. should be retained to provide design -level geotechnical investigations for the project when plans are further developed. Our firm should also be retained to provide geotechnical engineering and material testing during construction of the site grading. utilities, and drainage features. The purpose is to observe the construction with respect to the geotechnical design concepts, specifications or recommendations, and to facilitate design changes in areas where the subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated before the start of construction. Based on the results of this investigation and the proposed development, we recommend the following investigations be performed: 1. Review of final site grading plans by our firm; 2. Slope stability evaluations of slopes steeper than 2.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical), if constructed; 3. Design -level geotechnical investigations to determine appropriate foundation and floor systems for structures after grading; and 4. Construction testing and observation for site development and building construction. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 5:5G505495.000111552 Reports\GS05495 115 R1.doc 19 GEOTECHNICAL RISK The concept of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be tempered by engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions or recommendations presented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free and, more importantly. are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed structure will perform as desired or intended. What the engineering recommendations presented in the preceding sections do constitute is our estimate, based on the information generated during this and previous evaluations and our experience in working with these conditions. of those measures that are necessary to help the development perform satisfactorily. The developer, builder. and future owners must understand this concept of risk, as it is they who must decide what is an acceptable level of risk for the proposed development of the site. LIMITATIONS Our exploratory borings were located to obtain preliminary subsurface data indicative of conditions on this site. Although our borings were spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of subsurface conditions. variations in the subsoils not indicated in our borings are always possible. We believe this investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of skill and care ordinarily used by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No warranty, express or implied, is made. This report was prepared from data developed during our field exploration, laboratory testing. engineering analysis and experience with similar conditions. The recommendations contained in this report were based upon our understanding of the BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:IGS05495.000111512 Rnpals1GSU5495 115 R1.doc 20 planned construction. If plans change or differ from the assumptions presented herein, we should be contacted to review our recommendations. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report or in the analysis of the building and pavement from the geotechnical point of view, please call. CTL 1 THOMPSON, INC. Craig A Bugger, P.E i 7r'' : Project Ma gpr. q • Reviewe . b . " '''/ONAl�� ti '-8ccti4d A. , David A. Glater, P.E., C.P.G. Principal Geologic Engineer CAB:JM:DAG:cd cc: Via email to blizzland((aol.com BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495.115 S:1GS05495.000111512, Repnr151GS05495 116 R1.doc 21 CS05495ci 09/27/10 ERN SCALE: 1"= 200' NOTE: Locations of exploratory borings are approximate. Blizzard Landscaping Bll�xrd Parcel Locations of Exploratory Borings Protect No. GS05495-115 Fig. 1 TABLE G SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 BORING DEPTH (FEET) MOISTURE CONTENT (°/o) DRY DENSITY (PCF) ATTERBERG LIMITS SOLUBLE SULFATES (%) PASSING NO 200 SIEVE (%) DESCRIP-T ION LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTICITY INDEX (%) TH-1 4 1.400 SAND, SILTY (SM) TH-1 14 6.1 101 24 NP 68 SILT, SANDY (ML) TH-1 29 5.0 1 14 25 NP 35 SAND, SILTY (SM) TH-2 9 4 0 NL NP 16 SAND. SILTY (SM) TH-3 4 1.300 SAND, SILTY (SM) TH-3 14 2.9 20 NP 44 SAND, SIL1 Y (SM) TH-3 29 3.4 21 NP 19 6, .'JD, Li" TY (SM) Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX A GUIDELINE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495.115 5:1GS05496.000111612, Reports1GS05495 115 R1.doc GUIDELINE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. DESCRIPTION This item shall consist of the excavation, transportation, placement and compaction of materials from locations indicated on the plans, or staked by the Engineer, as necessary to achieve preliminary street and overlot elevations. These specifications shall also apply to compaction of excess cut materials that may be placed outside of the development boundaries. 2. GENERAL The Soils Engineer shall be the Owner's representative. The Soils Engineer shall approve fill materials, method of placement, moisture contents and percent compaction, and shall give written approval of the completed fill. 3. CLEARING JOB SITE The Contractor shall remove all vegetation and debris before excavation or fill placement is begun. The Contractor shall dispose of the cleared material to provide the Owner with a clean and neat appearing job site. Cleared material shall not be placed in areas to receive fill or where the material will support structures of any kind. 4. SCARIFYING AREA TO BE FILLED All topsoil and vegetable matter shall be removed from the ground surface upon which fill is to be placed. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified until the surface is free from ruts, hummocks or other uneven features, which would prevent uniform compaction. 5. COMPACTING AREA TO BE FILLED After the foundation for the fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be disked or bladed until it is free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture content (within 2 percent of optimum moisture content) and compacted to not less than 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D698. 6. FILL MATERIALS Fill soils shall be free from organics, debris or other deleterious substances, and shall not contain rocks or lumps having a diameter greater than six (6) inches. Fill materials shall be obtained from cut areas shown on the plans or staked in the field by the Engineer. On-site materials classifying as CL, CL -ML, CH, SC, SM, SW, SP, GP, GC and GM are acceptable. Concrete, asphalt, organic matter and other deleterious materials or debris shall not be used as fill. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:YGS05495.000111512. RoportsYGS05495 115 R1.doc A-1 7. MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY Fill material shall be moisture conditioned and compacted to the criteria in the table below. Maximum density and optimum moisture content shall be determined from the appropriate Proctor compaction tests. Sufficient laboratory compaction tests shall be made to determine the optimum moisture content for the various soils encountered in borrow areas. FILL COMPACTION AND MOISTURE REQUIREMENTS Soil Type Depth from Final Grade (feet) Moisture Requirement (% from optimum) Density Requirement Clay Sand 0 to 15 feet -2 to +2 95 of ASTM D 698 -2 to +2 95 of ASTM D 698 Clay Greater than 15 Sand feet -2 to +2 -2 to +2 98% of ASTM D 698 100% of ASTM D 698 The Contractor may be required to add moisture to the excavation materials in the borrow area if, in the opinion of the Soils Engineer, it is not possible to obtain uniform moisture content by adding water on the fill surface. The Contractor may be required to rake or disc the fill soils to provide uniform moisture content through the soils. The application of water to embankment materials shall be made with any type of watering equipment approved by the Soils Engineer, which will give the desired results. Water jets from the spreader shall not be directed at the embankment with such force that fill materials are washed out. Should too much water be added to any part of the fill, such that the material is too wet to permit the desired compaction from being obtained, rolling and all work on that section of the fill shall be delayed until the material has been allowed to dry to the required moisture content. The Contractor will be permitted to rework wet material in an approved manner to hasten its drying. 8. COMPACTION OF FILL AREAS Selected fill material shall be placed and mixed in evenly spread layers. After each fill layer has been placed, it shall be uniformly compacted to not Tess than the specified percentage of maximum density. Fill shall be compacted to the criteria above. At the option of the Soils Engineer, soils classifying as SW, GP, GC, or GM may be compacted to 70 percent relative density for cohesionless sand soils. Fill materials shall be placed such that the thickness of loose materials does not exceed 12 inches and the compacted lift thickness does not exceed 6 inches. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:1GS05495.000111512. Roporta1GS05495 116 R1.doc A-2 Compaction as specified above shall be obtained by the use of sheepsfoot rollers, multiple -wheel pneumatic -tired rollers, or other equipment approved by the Engineer for soils classifying as CL, CL -ML, CH, or SC. Granular fill shall be compacted using vibratory equipment or other equipment approved by the Soils Engineer. Compaction shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Compaction of each layer shall be continuous over the entire area. Compaction equipment shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the required density is obtained. 9. COMPACTION OF SLOPES Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction operations shall be continued until slopes are stable, but not too dense for planting, and there is not appreciable amount of loose soils on the slopes. Compaction of slopes may be done progressively in increments of three to five feet (3' to 5') in height or after the fill is brought to its total height. Permanent fill slopes shall not exceed 2.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). 10. PLACEMENT OF FILL ON NATURAL SLOPES Where natural slopes are steeper than 20 percent in grade and the placement of fill is required, benches shall be cut at the rate of one bench for each 5 feet in height (minimum of two benches). Benches shall be at least 10 feet in width. Larger bench widths may be required by the Engineer. Fill shall be placed on completed benches as outlined within this specification. 11. DENSITY TESTS Field density tests shall be made by the Soils Engineer at locations and depths of their choosing. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density tests shall be taken in compacted material below the disturbed surface. When density tests indicate that the density or moisture content of any layer of fill or portion thereof is not within specification, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density or moisture content has been achieved. 12. SEASONAL LIMITS No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled while it is frozen, thawing, or during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy precipitation, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed materials are as specified. 13. NOTICE REGARDING START OF GRADING The Contractor shall submit notification to the Soils Engineer and Owner advising them of the start of grading operations at least three (3) days in advance of the starting date. Notification shall also be submitted at least 3 days BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO GS05498.115 5:IG505495.000111512. Repnrts1G505495 115 RI .tiny, A-3 in advance of any resumption dates when grading operations have been stopped for any reason other than adverse weather conditions. 14. REPORTING OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Density tests made by the Soils Engineer, as specified under "Density Tests" above, shall be submitted progressively to the Owner. Dry density, moisture content, and percentage compaction shall be reported for each test taken. 15. DECLARATION REGARDING COMPLETED FILL The Soils Engineer shall provide a written declaration stating that the site was filled with acceptable materials, and was placed in general accordance with the specifications. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495.115 S:1GS05495.000411512. Reports1GS05495 115 R1.doc A-4 APPENDIX B PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:5GS05495.000511512. Repatts1GS05495 115 R1.doc FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS Experience has shown that construction methods can have a significant effect on the life and serviceability of a pavement system. We recommend the proposed pavement be constructed in the following manner: 1. Natural soils should be stripped of organic matter, scarified, moisture treated, and compacted. We recommend the top one foot of the clay subgrade be moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. Soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99). Moisture treatment and compaction recommendations also apply where additional fill is necessary. 2. Utility trenches and all subsequently placed fill should be properly compacted and tested prior to paving. As a minimum, fill should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99). 3. If areas of soft or wet subgrade are encountered, the material should be sub -excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural backfill. Where extensively soft, yielding subgrade is encountered, we recommend the excavation be inspected by a representative of our office. 4. Asphaltic concrete should be hot plant -mixed material compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum Marshall density. The temperature at Iaydown time should be near 275 degrees F. The maximum compacted lift should be 3.0 inches and joints should be staggered. The subgrade preparation and the placement and compaction of all pavement material should be observed and tested. Compaction criteria should be met prior to the placement of the next paving lift. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:1G505495.000111512. Repotts1GS05495 115 R1.00c B-1 RIGID PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS Rigid pavement sections are not as sensitive to subgrade support character- istics as flexible pavement. Due to the strength of the concrete, wheel Toads from traffic are distributed over a Targe area and the resulting subgrade stresses are relatively low. The critical factors affecting the performance of a rigid pavement are the strength and quality of the concrete and the uniformity of the subgrade. We recommend subgrade preparation and construction of the rigid pavement section be completed in accordance with the following recommendations: 1. Natural soils should be stripped of organic matter, scarified, moisture treated, and compacted. We recommend the top one foot of the clay and clay -silt subgrade be moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. Soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99). Moisture treatment and compaction recommendations also apply where additional fill is necessary. 2. The resulting subgrade should be checked for uniformity and all soft or yielding materials should be replaced prior to paving. Concrete should not be placed on soft, spongy, frozen, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade. 3. The subgrade should be kept moist prior to paving. 4. Curing procedures should protect the concrete against moisture Toss, rapid temperature change, freezing, and mechanical injury for at least 3 days after placement. Traffic should not be allowed on the pavement for at least one week. 5. A white, liquid membrane curing compound, applied at the rate of at least 1 gallon per 150 square feet, should be used within 24 hours of placement. 6. Construction joints, including longitudinal joints and transverse joints, should be formed during construction or should be sawed shortly after the concrete has begun to set, but prior to uncontrolled cracking. All joints should be sealed. 7. Construction control and inspection should be carried out during the subgrade preparation and paving procedures. Concrete should be carefully monitored for quality control. The design section is based upon a 20 -year Period. To avoid problems associated with scaling and to continue the strength gain, we recommend deicing salts not be used for the first year after placement. BLIZZARD LANDSCAPING BLIZZARD PARCEL PROJECT NO. GS05495-115 S:YGS06495.000111512. Reports1GS05495 115 R1.doc B-2 18/12 15/12 50/11 50/12 50/12 TH-3 22/12 31/12 20/12 47/12 50/11 35/12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 499 j u1 laden LEGEND: ® Sandy clay "topsoil", organics, moist, brown. izi Sand, silty, silt, sandy, scattered gravel, medium dense tc dense, moist, tan. (SM—ML) III Sandstone bedrock, medium hard to hard moist, tan, brown. Drive sample. The symbol 15/12 indicates that 15 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 Inches were required 1 drive a 2.5 inch 0.D. California sampler 12 inches. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on August 10, 2010 with 4—inch diameter, solid—stern auger and a track—mounted drill rig. 2. Locations of exploratory borings are approximate. 3. No free ground water was found in our exploratory borings at the time of drilling. 4. These exploratory borings are subject to the explanations, limitations and conclusions as contained in thls report. Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum Addendum to Blizzard Administrative Land -Use Change Permit Application This application addendum is submitted in response to the May 30, 2018 letter from David Pesnichak on the administrative land -use change permit submitted by Steve Blizzard identified as Garfield County file number GAPA-05-18-8652. This addendum addresses each of the topics identified in the letter. Supporting materials are attached to or accompany this submittal in support of the requested revision/additional materials requested. Modification of Requested Uses. The requested use of a small contractor's yard is eliminated from this application because it conflicts with the property deed restriction between Robert Burry and Stephen Blizzard on the subject parcel. All of the uses described in the application remain as part of the request. Parcel Creation: Response - The subject parcel is created as a result of condemnation of the property for purposes of constructing State Highway 82. The highway right-of-way condemnation resulted in a residual parcel which is now owned by Stephen blizzard and identified as parcel #2393-202-00- 108. The condemnation action is documented in the July 10, 1970 Rule and Order recorded with Garfield County as Reception No. 246859 in Book 411 and Pages 429 - 436. A copy of the Rule and Order is included with this addendum. Well Response - As noted in the original application, there is an existing commercial well on the property approved by Permit #81417-F. The applicant is requesting that a four hour pump test on the well be postponed and required testing is included as a condition of approval. The applicant is also requesting that water quality testing of the well for contaminants be listed as a condition of approval by Garfield County. Mineral Ownership A search of the records in the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office was made on September 7, 2018. The mineral owner on the property is Robert Dean Burry whose legal address is 9175 Highway 82, Carbondale, Colorado 8162. The records searched to obtain this information include a deed from Richard C. Martin and Wilma S. Martin to Richard and Viola Burry identified as Reception #192977 dated February 2, 1956, a deed from Richard Burry to Robert Dean Burry identified as Reception #335090 dated December 10, 1982 and a deed from Robert Dean Burry to Stephen blizzard identified as reception number 756661 dated September 30, 2008. 1IPage Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum Industrial Use Standards The following information provides evidence of compliance with section 7-1001, industrial use standards including the required setbacks and concealing and screening. Division 10 Additional Standard for Industrial Uses 7-1001. Industrial Use. A. Residential Subdivisions. Response - The subject property is not a platted residential subdivision. B. Setbacks Response - All activity associated with the uses on the property will be a minimum of 100 feet from an adjacent residential property line. The adjacent property to the north and east is BLM. The property on the south is PUD Open Space. The property immediately west of the site is state highway right-of-way for Highway 82. C. Concealing and Screening Response - The landscaping plan submitted separately with this addendum shows that all storage, service and repair operations will be screened from view from adjacent properties by a 16 foot high berm that will be landscaped with grasses, evergreens and deciduous trees. D. Storing. Response - Any materials stored in the property will be stored in a manner that prevents any transfer of those materials off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural cause or force. All materials will be stored in compliance with all national, state, and local codes. Stored materials shall be kept 100 feet from an adjacent property line and petroleum and hazardous products shall be stored in an impervious spill containment area. E. Industrial Wastes Response - No industrial wastes are to be generated on the site or brought to the site. Any flammable, explosive solids, or gasses and other hazardous materials shall be stored according to the manufacturer's standards and shall comply with the national, State and local fire codes. Few if any of these products are anticipated to be stored on site. F. Noise. Response - Any noise generated on the site will not exceed State noise standards pursuant to C.R.S, Article 12, Title 25. 2IPage Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum G. Ground Vibration Response - Little ground vibration is anticipated on the site and any vibration generated will not be perceptible without instruments at any point beyond the property line of the site. H. Hours of Operation. Response - As noted on page 18 of our original submittal, the hours of operation are expected to be 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. It is likely that there will be some weekend activity that may include maintenance of on-site equipment, limited nursery/greenhouse operations and other after-hours activities. No activities are anticipated that will generate noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries and in any case, those activities will be conducted between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Saturday. I. Interference, Nuisance, or Hazard. Response - Every use on the property will be operated so that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation, or fumes that substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining properties or that constitute a public nuisance or hazard. Landscaping Plan The landscaping plan completed by Sopris Engineering and submitted separately with this addendum shows a 16 foot high earthen berm that extends most of the length of the west boundary of the subject property. The height of the berm varies depending on the point of measurement, but overall will provide concealing and screening in conformance with Section 7- 1001(C) of the Garfield County land use regulations. The berm will be landscaped with grasses, deciduous trees and evergreen trees to create an attractive appearance from Highway 82 and to provide additional concealing and screening of the property. EMMENUMININ ®®®®®®® IN ®®MMEM®®®® ®111MMsEMM®®® ®MM®®®®® ®M®®®IEM® WTr_•rr_rrrrrrrraIE® MEM atm iim).] 4 .,1.1 .4 L onElmomomm ®�®®®-1� ®ls=®EinG,—alvAlNI>® €EMMEMEI=MG32ZCIA1=ML 1 MM ®>®®®®®®Mk. _-is—•_M MMMER ; Minm®E !® ®EMMIs_sa IFerfirl ®®s em— char._ ®-amom® Nom ®® Imms•-maimmimmuzimi ssi s♦�ssss�� —----- •®ss -",-=•••=0 ®moi ssEmsmomssssmmo sm ®>®sem®®®® ®monm®®®®ss= NE mmum ® 'ReRUSE NIMMMWMEM f . WA EN M!WA- sM ssM!.`m- ssifasssMsss$i®®® NiMiMMM=1•!=QIIMMMEM ssIiMN=IKTUW®®® if s rim E mm EN wasonismm®®®®®® rm®®®®®®® f r•Ta1mss�®® ifs i&E.11'1*immmo®oimmai -e 1i mmmEm MY MEW —®®®®®® si.sM3I=MMMEiMsi ME ME M sYMM!ssM s]MliMsMsssMss ® l___ sssM s__ sssl _ sssM ss ■ss1 Mls _MM:MM.sMMMsssMsMEMsMMMss F®1®sMssMsMIsMss ZMNEMMEMEEMMEMMEMMEMMEM ® ®MW®®®®® ® ss1®ss:MM®sMEM>®®® ONCRET 3IPage Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum Access The applicant is requesting that acquisition of a CDOT access permit and notice to proceed is included as a condition of approval of the land -use change permit application. Attached to this addendum is a copy of a CDOT application for the access permit. Deed Restrictions Attached to this addendum is a letter from Robert Burry the "Grantor" indicating acknowledgment and approval of the requested development of the property in compliance with the deed restrictions recorded at Reception #756661 in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. 4IPage Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum Hook 411 Recorded at 9150 A.M. July 10 1970 Page 429 Reception No. 246859 Chaa.0.kaegan+Recorder. IN TIER DISTRICT COURT IN AND VOA Tie COMITY Or GARFIE D AND STATIC OF COLORADO CIVII. ACTION 110. 6193 HOARD 07 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIE L COMITY, and the D11?AR NINT 07 HIGHWAYS, STATS 07 COLORADO, Petitioners, vs, RICRAZD BURRY; VIOLA S. HURRY; and MINIM 1[cDONALD, as Treasurer and Public Trustee of Garfield County, Respondents. RUIN ADD OR= Tia HATER . Cam On .sfgularly for hearing this day upon a Canabrie t6 ikntry of Rule1Snd Order With respect to the acquisition of the property which is the subject matter of this action, said Consent being duly executed by the persons interested as owners and those otherwise interested of record; it appearing to the Court from said Consent and the other pleadings herein that said persons are the record chimers and those otherwise interested -and -that said persons have agreed with the petitioners, upon the compensation to be paid herein; THS COURT FINDSI That it has full and complete juris» diction of the subject matter of thio action and the parties thereto; that service has been made upon all interested parties, as required by law; that the parties have agreed that the sum of $20,000.00 represents the full compensation to be paid for the taking of acid property and all appurtenances thereto, and AFTER RECORDING 1,ltgE NA1l T9r The Doperlm•n1 of Hh,hnori et 11* SIRS al Colorado ~' HrAhcvay OIIIce RoIVdIng Val Eas11 ArRfneu Avows Dewar, Colal0ao 89222 ATTENSIOh. Right of Wry SaUon J Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum Book 411 Page 450 all interests therein, Including dam, if way, ate por sur salt all other *este et said. sties i %het purevent ' to sati' agreement the petitioe see here deposited !a► the legietry.Pand of this Overt the telt.1 sum of $24,000.00, as agreed spun; and, Parcel 2-1O3C, a Permanent xsseaent, located en Lot 2, Election 20, an the Southeast portion of the Respondents' ., remaining property WAS designated for the purpose of providing a drainage channel from State Highway 82 to the Roaring Fork River. This drainage channel was proposed in order to provide a means of carrying drat nage waters from the said highway to the river and to prevent the erosion of Respondents' resain- ing lands and adjacent lands thereto. Tha Respondents believe that this channel is not required m11;1011 *o ohs " payment of "sagas from • the Petit! oaaers ,lin Lieu cC th,1Petltioners .Qgairi g Paroel R.1.03C andsonstruot. ins the dialnage.channel. These damages are deemed. to be full and Complete.eoanpenn- sation for any damages tinct= have or may result by; reason of the Petitionera .mprcving State Highway 82 and inareseing the amount of drainage on the remaining property of the Respondents. The Respondents agree not to restrict the drainage area and to indemnify and hold the.Petitioners harmless from any drainage or flooding damage to their remaining properties and any such damages to other properties adjacent to the remainder herein, which result from the Respondents restricting the drainage area or impeding the flow of drainage on to their remaining property, and, therefore, it le ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Parcels Nos. 101 and 103, described in Amended Exhibit "A", attached hereto and 6IPage -2- AflER RECORDING PLEASE RAIL TD. Tho Dautlm.al of illghwayr W Iha SIM d Calor.do Highway Office Building, 4201 fora Arkansas MOUS Denver: Colaradb 80222 ATTENTION, Right of Way Section 4 Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum Book 411 Pa 431.. inoorperstsd herein by reformse, bad . been' °dsi1y Rad lirluli, token by the petitioners pursuant to iAe Statut+s sed -the Constitution of the State art Colorado; that thsrintdrests et the - tsipodents in said paresis ban been aagsired by the petitioners, and that the title to said property, together with all sppurt.nanlae1 thereunto belonging, is hereby vested in the petttionersj and that the petitioner. have been duly and lawfully granted a TOXASINT MAihMT in Parcels See. E-103, 11-103A and a-1038, described in Amended Zxhibit attached hereto and incorporated herein by references and IT - IS FVRTB R ORDZRRD that a certified copy of this Rule and Order be recorded and indexed in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield Oounty in like manner and in like efteet its if it were a defdd of conveyaidefrom the oeners and parties interested- lsr+ t pttitiesuers•l en►diTt• PATO this 11,'tif , A.D, , 197'0. APPROVED: MINCER, LARSON AND HARTERT Attorneys at Law C"CEr/l.f, 905 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 945-5448 Attorneys for Respondents, Richard Burry and Viola R. Burry BY THE oom s MIMED i DARROW DISTRICT; ['9pk. R' F GARFCELD COUNTY, GL, y$ COLORADO Certified be €U ' e'said correct cony of the origit(pEtiA'n 4d `o-5'1 Li NO D. nERTHOU [rusk Byamity -3- JUDGE AFTER RECORDING PLEASE alA1L TO: The Dopertm.nt of Highway, of the Seel. bf Coforsdd NiL'Inv.y Office Building 4201 Ede! Arkansis Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222 ATTENTION. Right of Nry Section 7IPage Book 411 Page 432 Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum ANENDEan EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Project No. 5 0130(10) Sec. 2 Carbondale - North PARCEL NO. 30k A tract or parcel of land No. 101, of the State Department of High- ways, Division of Highways, State of Colorado, Project No, 5 0130(10) Sec. 2, containing 4.925 acres, more or leas, in Lot 12 of Section 18. Township 7 South, Range 88 west, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Gar- field County, Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly de- scribed as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of Lot 12, Section 18, from which point the SE corner of Lot 13, Section 18, bears S. 30' 14' E. a distance of 1,526.1 feet; 1. Thence West along the north line of Lo[ 12 a distance of 332.3 feet; to the easterly right of way line of The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad; 2. Thence along the easterly right of way line of The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 2,915 feet a distance of 455.3 feet. (theT chord) of .tht- ..atc.•bears 5. 22° 074 30', .E.• a dia- tance of 454.9:feet)_,u Y 3. _ Thence continuing along said tight ,of Way lyse S. 17 •391' E. a distance of 329.6 feet;'- • it 4. Thence continuing along: Bil said -right 6f way e Nort(i'8'dia- rnnce'n 164.9•feet; .'.. ,X 5. Thence continuing along said right of way lice S. 17° 39$ E. a distance'of 175.5 feet:;'' . 6. Thence continuing along saidrightof way line along the - arc of a curve to the left having•a radius of 1,046.0 feet a distance of 273.5 feet (the chord of this arc bears S. 25' 08' 30" E. a distance of 272.8 feet), to the case line of Lot 12; 7. Thence N. 0° 03' W. along the east line of Lot 12 a distance •of 751.7.feet; 8. Thence N. 24' 46' W. a distance of 256.6 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. The above described parcel contains 4.925 acres, more or less, of which 1.235 acres are in the right of way of the present road. - Continued - Air"'n AkCOA01NC PLEASE MAIL TO: I ,o O,parlme,t or HA/Away; of the stet of C°IarWo Highway Dffinn Bolding 4201 hal Arkansas Arenas Denver, Colorado 50222 ATTENTION: Right 01 way S,rnon 8IPage 9IPage Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum AMENDED Exhibit "A" Legal Destrtption Project No. S 0130(10) Sec. 2 Carbondale - North Parcels 101, 103; E103, E103A, E1038 Page 2 ALSO PAKCEL NO. 103 Book 411 Page 433 A tract or parcel of land No. 103, of the State Department of Highways, Division of Highways, State of Colorado, Project No. S 0130(10) Sec. 2, con- taining 13,628 acres, more or less, in the 6# of the SEt of Section 18, Lot 10 of Section 17, and Lots 1 and 2 of Section 20, Township 7 South, Range 88 West. of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Garfield County, Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of the SE'tSEZ of Sec. 18. T. 7 S., R. 88 W., from which point the NE corner of the SE$ of the SEk of Section 18 bears East a distance of 144.0 feet; 1. Thence West along the north line of the SE}SE't of Seeetipn 18 a distance of 282.3 feet to the easterly right of way`lind of:.' The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad; 2. Thence S. 35° W. E. siting the, easterly right ofeway line of T*llenver and Ilio Grande Western Railroad a distance of 203.1 feet; 3. Thence continuing aleng;said right of way line West a distance of 61.2 feet; 4. Thence S. 35° 10' E. continuing along said right of way line e distance of 629.1 -feet, to the east line of Section 18; 5. Thence N. 0° 41' E. along the east line of Section 18 a distance of 456.6 feet; 6. Thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 11,260.0 feat a distance of 264.7 feet (the chord of this arc bears N. 320 17' W. a distance of 264.7 feet), more or leas, to the point. of 'beginning. The above described portion of Parcel No. 103 contains 3.201 acres, more of less,•of which 0.886 acres are in the right of way of the present road. ALSO Beginning at a point on the north line of Lot 10, Section 17, from which the NO corner oC Lot 9, Section 17, bears N. 24° 16' 30" W. a distance of 736.5 feet; 1. Thence N. 89° 07' W. along the north line of Lot 10, Section 17, a distance of 310.7 feet to the west. line of Section 17; 2. Thence S. 0° 41' W. along the r+egt of 13.8 feet to thn onsttrly right Rio Grande Western Railroad; 3. Thence along the easterly right of Grande Western Railroad S. 35° 10' the south line of -Section 17; line of Section 17 a distance of way line of The Denver and way line of The Denver and Rio E. a distance of 805.8 feet to 4. Thence S. 89° 07' E. along the south tence of 182.2 feet to the 5E corner - Continued - line of Section 17 a clis- of Lot 10, Section 17; AFTER RECORDING PLEASE MAIL TO, The Dope tmrhl al Highways of the S!e1% 01 Lnlore l High,ay Office Building 4201 East A,t anees Avwwe DoDoer. Colorado 50222 ATTENTION, Righl 01 Wey Sermon Iti 101 Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum AMENDfn Book 417. Exhibit "A" Pigs 454 Legal Description Project No. 5 0130(10) Sec. 2 Carbondale - North Parcels 101, 103; E103, 2103A, 21038 Page 3 5. Thence N. 0° 41' E. along the east line of Lot 10, Section, 17, a distance of 194.5 feet; 6. Thence N. 35° 21' 30" W. a distance of 583.6 feet, more or les&,to the point of beginning. The above described portion of Parcel No. 103 contains 4.605 acres, more or less, of which 1.257 acres are in the right of way of the present road. ALSO Beginning at a point on the north line of Section 20, from which the SE corner of Lot 9, Section 17, bears S. 89' 07' E. a distance of 518.8 feet; 1. Thence N. 89° 07' W. along the north line of Section 20 a dis- tance of 324.1 feet to the easterly right of way line of The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad; 2. Thence S. 35° 10' E. along the easterly right of way line of The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad a distance of 316.2 feet; •3 Thence,continuing along the easterly right of way 1ine:of The -Denverand Rio Grande Weshern.RRilroad North a distance of 86.8, feet; 4. Thence 5. 35' 10' E. continuing along the easterly.right of way line -of The Denver and Rio Grande Western Reilroed.a dis- tance of 1,146,8 feet to the east line of Lot 1; Section 20. 5. Thence North along the east line of Lot 1, Section 20, a dis- tance of 973,2 feet; 6. Thence N. 35° 21' 30" W. a distance of 896.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. The above described portion of Parcel No. 103 contains 5.822 acres, more or less, of which 1.032 acres are in the right of way of the present road. The above described parcels contsin a total of 13.628 acres, 'move or less, of which 3.177 acres are in the right of way of the present road. ALSO PERMANENT EASEMENT NO. E-101_ A tract or parcel of land No. E-103, of the State Department of High- ways, Division of iighwaya, State of .Colorado, Project No. 5 0130(10) Sec. 2, containing 0.405 acres,more or less, in lot 10 of Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 8B West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Gar- field County, Colorado, said tract or parcel, being more particularly de- scribed as follows: - Continued - AFTER RECORDING PLFASf MAIL T0, The Depertree01 of HIghenyi 01 the Slat, of Lalonde 11I2hvny UIhte Building A"_dl Pa;' 0111111309 14,01,11 Don.or. Colorado 50222 ATTENTION Right .1 Way Salim . 1 Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum AMENDED Exhibit "A" Legal Description Project No. S 0130(1) Sec. 2 Carbondale - North Parcels 101, 103; E103, E103A, E103B Page 4 Book 411 Page 435 Beginning et a point on the north line of Lot 10, Section 17, from which the NW corner of Lot 9, Section 17, bears N. 24° 16' 30" W. a distance of 736.5 feet; 1. Thence 5. 35' 21' 30" E. 2. a distance of 263.0 feet; Thence N. 9° 38' 30" E. a diatance of 141.4 feet; 3. Thence N..35' 21' mirth line of Lot 4. Thence N. 894'074 17,'a disteiree of of beginning: 30" W. a distance of 89.7 feet to the 10, Section 17; W. along the north line of Lot 10, Section 124.0 feet, more or less, to the point The above described parcel contains 0.405 acres, more or less.. ALSO PERMANENT EASEMENT NO, .E -103A A tract or parcel of land.No. E -103A, of the State Department of Highways, Division of Highways, State of Colorado, Project No. S 0130(10) Sec. 2, containing 0.070 acres, more or less, in Lot 10 of Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, of. the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Gar- field County, Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly de- scribed as follows: Beginning at a point in Lot 10, Section 17, from which point the SE corner of Lot 9, Section 17, bears S. 67° 24' E. a'distence of 788.6 feet; 1. Thence S. 35' 21' 30" E. a distance of 120.6 feet to the east line of Lot 10, Section 17; 2. Thence N. 0' 41' E. along the said east ]ine of Lot 10, Section 17, a distance of 86.3 feet; 3. Thence N. 80° 21' 30" W. a distance of 71.6 feet, more or lets, to the point of beginning. The above described parcel contains 0.070 acres, more or less. ALSO PERMANENT EASEMENT N0. E -103B A tract of percel.of land No. 8-1038, of the State Department of Highways, Division of Highways, State of Colorado, Project-No..S•0130(10) Sec, 2, co'1tai.ning 0.348 acres, more or loss, it: Lot 1 of Section 20, Town- ship 7 South, Range 88 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Garfield County, Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: - Continued - Ann RECORDING PLEASE kiAlL r0: Cpart' fen! of Highways of the State of Colorado 4i'a L.: r: .;,•s dcen°e er. '0 80222 4111Nr:JN: Right re WoY SCCTro, Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum AMENDk� Book 411 Page 436 Exhibit "A" Legal Description Project No. S 0130(10) Sec. 2 Carbondale - North Parcels 101, 103; E103, E103A, 81038 Page 5 Beginning at a point on the north line of Lot 1. Section 20, from which point the SE corner of Lot 9, Section 17, bears S. 89° 07' E. a distance of 518.8 feet; 2. 3. 12 1 Thence S. 35° 21' 30" E. a distance of 238.2 feet; Thence N. 9' 38' 30" E. a distance of 141.4 feet; Thence N. 35° 21' 30" W. a distance of 64.9 feet to north line of Lot 1, Section 20; Thence N. 89° 07' W. along the north line of said Lot 1, Section 20, a distance of 124.0 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. The above described parcel containss0.348 acres, more or less. AFTER REC0RDSNC PLEASE MAIL TO: the Department 01 Highways o1 the Sato of Cobnlb Highway Office Building 4201 East Artlansas Avenue Denve<, Colorado BO222 ATTENTION: Right DI Way Section Fs Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum Acknowledgment Letter from Robert Burry Robert Burry 9175 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (970) 963-4534 September 19, 2018 Mr. Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Blizzard Administrative Land Use Change Permit Application Dear Mr. Hartmann: I am the Grantor of a Warranty Deed to Steven Blizzard dated September 30, 2008 for a real estate parcel in Garfield County. It is my understanding that this property is the subject of the above referenced Administrative Land Use Change Permit Application. !acknowledge receipt from Davis Farrar the following items: • Application for Administrative Land Use Change Permit dated May 15, 2018 • Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum, undated • Landscape Plan for Blizzard Property by Sopris Engineering dated August 8, 2018 I have reviewed these materials and am satisfied that the requested land use change is in compliance with the Restrictive Covenants and Deed Restrictions that were recorded together with the above Warranty Deed as Reception 475666l in the office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. Based on the information in these application materials, [ approval of the requested development of the property. 13 1 14I Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum CDOT Access Permit Application September 25, 2018 Dan Roussin Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Permit Unit Manager 222 South 6`h Street, Rm 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Re: Steve Blizzard Access Permit — Original Access permit # 308155 SE Job 817165 Dear Mr. Roussin, Sopris Engineering has prepared an anticipated traffic generation for the parcel of property that is described as Section 20 Township 7 Range 88 A parcel of land in lot 1 AKA: Parcel 6 cont. The parcel is approximately 4.4 acres and currently has a primitive access off the frontage road. An existing Access Permit (8308155 see Attachment #2) for a single family home is in place from 2008. Our client is proposing to develop a nursery/greenhouse, small shop as well as possibly in the future a single family residence on the lot. See Attachment #3 site plan for more detailed information. The nursery / greenhouse and shop area will be limited to one acre in size. Currently there is a frontage road running parallel to the western property line which provides access to the site. The Frontage road connects down to Cattle Creek Road; Attachment #4 has a blow up showing where mile marking 9 is in location to our site and site access. For estimated traffic generations based on the proposed development we have used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition in order to analyze potential traffic generation for the project to the frontage road which the site will access. The ITE provides different facilities and modeling for how many trips a specific facility might generate. The most similar category in our opinion seems to be ITE Code 817 nursery, (garden center). We believe the nursery category fits the site best out of the ITE codes and best simulates a nursery, or greenhouse and provides a good place to begin our analysis. We have also looked at Code 210 which is the single family detached housing for the potential single family home which will be built. We have looked at both the Peak hour trip generation as well as the average daily trips for the lot. Based on this information, below is a summary of the anticipated vehicle trips based upon the average daily trip as well as the peak hour trips: Proposed Development Peak Hour Trips (PHV) ITE Code 210 (Single -Family Detached Housing): AM, Peak Hour: 0.77 vehicle trips per unit => (0.77)(1*)= PM, Peak Hour: 1.02 vehicle trips per unit => (1.02)(1*)= ITE Code 817 (Nursery, Garden Center): AM, Peak Hour: 2.59 trips per acre => (2.59)(1*)= PM, Peak Hour: 7.52 trips per acre => (7.52)(11= 0.77 PHV 1.02 PHV 2.59 PHV 7.52 PHV Total proposed peak hour vehicles trips (AM) 3.35 PHV Total Proposed Peak Hour Vehicles Trips 8.54 PHV Average Daily Trips (ADT) 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 7JF AS Fri Tor r min 0 ro, civil consultants 15� Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum For the Average daily trips we used the same code for Nursey, garden center and single family detached housing. Based upon acres on a week day for average daily trips on an average trip generation of 96.21 per acre that would be approximately 100 trips per day. ITE CODE 210 (Single -Family Detached Housing): Average Vehicle Trips per Dwelling Unit=>9.57 (1*)= 9.57 ITE Code 817 (Nursery, Garden Center): Average Vehicle Trips per acres => 96.21 (1*)= 96.21 Total Proposed Average Daily Vehicle Trips 106 ADT *ITE CODE 210 81=1 single family unit ITE CODE 817 81=1 acre of nursery/garden center We believe we have overestimated the average daily trips for the site but feel it is within reason to expect around 100 trips generated at build out of project. Please feel free to contact our office should you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Colby Christoff, PE Project Engineer Attachments: 1. CDOTAccess permit Application 2. Original CDDTAccess Permit 3. Design plans—Site, Grading, Utilities, Landscape 4. Access Exhibit Map 5. Proof of ownership 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 1 civil consultants 161 Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT APPLICATION Issuing authority application acceptance date: Instructions: - Contact the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) • Contact the issuing authority to determine what plans and - Complete this form (some questions may not apply to Please print - Submit an application for each access affected. or type - If you have any questions contact the issuing authority. - For additional information see CDOT's Access Management or your local government to determine your issuing authority. other documents are required to be submitted with your application. you) and attach all necessary documents and Submit It to the issuing authority. website at htto://www.dot.state.co.us/AceessPermIts/Index.htm 1) Property owner (Permittee) Steve Blizzard 2) Applicant or Agent for permittee (if different from property owner) Sopris Engineering Street address 350 Original Road Mailing address 502 Main Street Suite A3 City, state & zip Basalt CO 81621 Phone # 970-379-9909 City, slate & zip Carbondale CO 81623 Phone# (required) 970-704-0311 E-mail address blizzland@aol.com E-mail address if available ynichol@sopriseng.com 3) Address of property to be served by permit (required) Frontage Road East Side HWY 82, 0.35 miles south of MM 9 4) Legal description of property: if within jurisdictional ti mils of Municipality, city and/or County, which one? county,subdivision block b[ section township targe Garfield I 1 1 120 11 7 188 5) What State Highway are you requesting access from? HWY 82 -- Frontage Road 6) What side of the highway? • N • 6 0 E ■ W 7) How many feet is the proposed access from the nearest mile post? 1860 feet CIN jS ❑ E ❑W) from: 9 How many feet is the proposed access from the nearest cross street? 2160 feet 1N ❑S ❑E ❑w) from: Diamond A Ranch Rd 8) What is the approximate date you Intend to begin construction? 4/1/2019 9) Check here if you are requesting a: D new access []temporary access (duration anticipated: ) • Improvement to existing access fl change In access use ii removal of access relocation of an existing access (provide detail) 10) Provide existing property use Currently vacant lot for storage 11) Do you have knowledge of any State Highway access permits serving this properly, or adjacent properties in which you have a property interest? I. no CIyes, b yes - what are the permit numbers) and provide copies: 308155 and/or, permit date:10/ 16 / 2008 original permit for single family home 12) Does theproperty owner own or have any interests In any adjacent property? d no • yes, if yes - please describe: 13) Are there other existing or dedicated public streets, roads, highways or access easements bordering or within the property? EI no j)y yes, if yes - list them on your plans and indicate the proposed and existing access points. 14) If you are requesting agricultural field access - how many acres will the access serve? n/a 15) If you are requesting commerclat or industrial access please Indicate the types and number of businesses and provide the floor area square footage of each. business/land use square footage business square footage nursery/greenhouse (final TBD) 143,560 I I 16) If you are requesting residential developement access, what is the type (single family, apartment, townhouse) and number of units? type number of units type number of units Single Family 11 I 17) Provide the following vehicle count estimates for vehicles that will use the access. Leaving the property then returning is two counts. Indicate if your counts are ©peak hour volumes or )d average daily volumes. d of passenger cars and fight trucks at peak hour volumes 106 1 of multi unit trucks al peak hour volumes A of single unit vehfdee kt excess of 30 ft. 5 of farm vehicles (field ectulprnenq Total count of all vehicles 106 Prevlous editions are obsolete and may not be used Page 1 of 2 CDOT Forni #137 01110 Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum 18) Check with the issuing authority to determine which of the following documents are required to complete the review of your application. a) Property map indicating other access, bordering roads and streets. e) Subdivision, zoning, or development plan. b) Highway and driveway plan profile. 1) Proposed access design. a) Drainage plan showing impact to the highway right-of-way. g) Parcel and ownership maps including easements. d) Map and letters detailing utility locations before and after h) Traffic studies. development In and along the right-of-way. i) Proof of ownership. 1- It is the applicant's responsibility to contact appropriate to their activities. Such clearances may include Corps of permits, or ecological, archeological, historical or cultural Information Summary presents contact information for agencies prohibited discharges, and may be obtained from Regional CDOT Planning/Construction-Environmental-Guidance webpage 2- All workers within the State Highway right of way shall procedures, and all applicable U.S. Occupational Safety limited to the applicable sections of 29 CFR Part 1910 - Occupational - Safety and Health Regulations for Construction. Personal protective equipment (e.g. head protection, footwear, respirators, gloves, etc.) shalt be worn as appropriate for minimum, all workers in the State Highway right of way, except protective equipment: High visibility apparel as specified accompanying the Notice to Proceed related to this permit that complies with the ANSI Z89.1-1997 standard; and at feet, workers shall comply with OSHA's PPE requirements 1926.96. If required, such footwear shall meet the requirements Where any of the above -referenced ANSI standards have apply. 3- The Permittee is responsible for complying with the Revised under the American Disabilities Act (ADA). These guidelines use of a defined pattern of truncated domes as detectable can be found on the Design and Construction Project Support attb://www.dot.state.co.usiDesignSuPPorti>, then click agencies and obtain all environmental clearances that apply Engineers 404 Permits or Colorado Discharge Permit System resource clearances. The CDOT Environmental Clearances administering certain clearances, information about CDOT Utility/Special Use Permit offices or accessed via the http://www.dot.state.co.us/environmental/Forms.asp. comply with their employer's safety and health policies/ and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations - including, but not Safety and Health Standards and 29 CFR Part 1926 high visibility apparel, safety glasses, hearing protection, the work being performed, and as specified in regulation. At a when in their vehicles, shall wear the following personal in the Traffic Control provisions of the documentation (at a minimum, ANSI/ISEA 107-1999, class 2); head protection ail construction sites or whenever there is danger of injury to for foot protection per 29 CFR 1910.136, 1926.95, and of ANSI Z41-1999. been revised, the most recent version of the standard shall Guidelines that have been adopted by the Access Board define traversable slope requirements and prescribe the warnings at street crossings. The new Standards Plans and web page at: on Design Bulletins. If an access permit is issued to you, it will state the terms and conditions for its use. Any changes in the use of the permitted access not consistent with the terms and conditions listed on the permit may be considered a violation of the permit. The applicant declares under penalty of perjury in the second degree, and any other applicable state or federal laws, that all information provided on this form and submitted attachments are to the best of their knowledge true and complete. 1 understand receipt of an access permit does not constitute permission to start access construction work. Applicant or ent for Per Nee nature Print name Yancy Nichol Date ?/� / 4O /R if e ap icant is not the owner of the property, we require this application also to be signed by the property owner or t eir legally authorized representative (or other acceptable written evidence). This signature shall constitute agreement with this application by all owners -of -interest unless stated in writing. If a permit is issued, the property owner, in most cases, will be listed as the permittee. Property owner signat� 42,--_:Pnnt \----7 name Steve Blizzard Date p �} 7 2--7, yK 17I Previous editions are obsolete and may not be used Page 2 of 2 COOT Form #137 01!10 Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT CDOTPepmitNo. 308155 State HighwayNolMp/Side 082A / 9.345 / L Permit fee $50.00 Date of transmittal 10/7/2008 Region/Section/Patrol 3 / 02 /12-2 Randy Greeson Local Jurisdiction Garfield County. — The Permittee(s); Applicant: Ref No.. Robert Burry 9175 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-4534 is hereby granted permission to have an access to the state highway at the location noted below. The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with this permit, including the State Highway Access Code and any attachments, terms, conditions and exhibits. This permit may be revoked by the issuing authority if at any time the permitted access and its use violate any parts of this permit- The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held harmless against any action for personal injury or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the permit. Location: Located on the east side of Hwy 82 Frontage, a distance of 1817 feet south of MP 9. Access to Provide Service to: (Land Use Code:) (Size or Count) (Units) 210 - Single -Family Detached Housing (I unit) 10 ADT Additional Information: No culvert is required at this location, however the access road shall be crowned sufficently as to shed water into the existing drainage cut-outs. MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority. Signature Print Name Title Date ir Upon the signing of this permit the perm.ttee agrees to the terms and conditions and referenced attachments contained herein. All construction shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shah be finished within 45 days from Initiation. The permitted access shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to being used. The permittee shall notify Mayne Gaymon with the Colorado Department of Transportation in Grand Junction, Colorado at (970) 683-3355, at least 48 hours prior to commenting construction within the State Hig. - right -of -w. . The person signi he permittee , ust :e the owner or legal representative of the property served by the permitted access and have full authority to accept the perm d its to d o..dions. Permittee Sig =tur> Print Name a6f.27� eh e F y Date la////408. This permit is not valid until signed by a duly authorized representative of the Department. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Sigge r Print Name Tale /1fm 4 I ,✓ Date (of issue) /0--fib-or Copy Distribution: Required. Make copies as necessary for Previous e itians are obsolete and may not be used 1.Region 3.Staff Access Section Local Authority Inspector Page 1 of 3 COOT Form #101 5107 2Applicent 4.Central Files MTCE Patrol Traffic Engineer 181Page Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum P R 0,05E0 LECENV CPRIS ENGINER. ,' ....".......". • " , _ .............. - — IROPLag0 IZMIEF WM '''''71/:6'1712% ..y unr...Tzprir,.2. k • . ' • --: : = Z44.,*«•ETI;•=r"4::4 748141'mm, 4 mu.. si , . _. — 'WOAD MP .TILE.COOLP PK 4 • .4- - ........"' FOOPOWOOKPOOPOONOtleOtOO V l'iriArP7S ' .... • . _ „,,,..,,,,, ,,,,,,..,,,L.,„„, . A t. • .. proroao room oroot ,- - .... ..; till...**/ .•-' .-. ? RotOOto boor a, bra PROP040 SEM VIEWER DEMO...* 01, DOZOIE :,./ • >' .. ....Rm.__ ' -...3' .. .--: - ., - , •., ".„4,.. .,. PROPOSEDSILIFEME tOtttOPP5PPOOtPOOF .OZIP 10, 1•1165 TZOTITa % N. POPINLEO.Y. 1.1..Ar,r4 \ mos PIO — — — 1.1,04,111:11.1.11,90FILE, FINISHED MOE OttOFILOI ' , ....S....I...E... '''''.• • • prto............... ID PRIPOSED ?Ler Hee Nun', BLIZZARD PROPERTY GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO SUBMITTAL TYPE - AprIWIEVX:::J= .P.4"41.1$ • no I .. nu MITRED O.* KU. • . AIE M.P. I* IPPOtt., ,. it..4. PROPOSED NM. O.O.tO . . ID II APIPP ,.. * ItOIOPOEOPOttt "... -t- .E....... F OM RI IR \V, 1 1 ......,.. ...: , poopooto oso pi.. \ Im M PR I,M 1.1 ................... ............inks. . ......... rnstiNG LEGLND 444 ' to itOP \ \ •........ ,... ..........11..... —.... — to — .51.4611,VATEll WM _.• _,, _ . _ ,s.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, — .-. —.' — ...........,,,.. . [POMO FIFEMPOPE ........num we .......... Ilk 111=1M. .151.061.1.16...1 ..,,... — — ........, ............ _ _ ,,.„,,,,,,„,„„u,„, — . — ,. — ....r. —N 2 EXSIMOTWE MAE .^,,,,,,,,,,,-,, ..........L ........1 ) ..... 0 51.10E4FAIRICIANiiI. • OpOPpp * ooto,popt typo., 01 ----- un ....11... .............. mum 14 ,. ............ i:::: t, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 0ia rior' .............. . in e......cme. • \ IP !POMP r!UPPOOPPOMPIP. 'Er6==o7=tr V ottomott000t, . '.......I.I.r.'LE toona -t- EttOOPIO MP A E....v.0...r \ .......,......... 811 OPPOPICSCALE 1 T 7 W \ . nu SITE PLAN , Call bik4.701 ea. it t in="11 '....P7.Eitt,..7.L.Otettk G-1 c 19 1Page Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum PROPOSED LEGEND SOP. 'NGINEITHNG 11, • KC... LWOW. -•'-'.'t .K - ;EKEELEEDEOHLOLTEILE.14 _ _ _ ,,p,ppp=.,.•.,,,,,,4 I -as& spasm -mars I ------- --- V.‘,.‘' ,.,.., es. ma. ,B. H .- - , -,•.,....._. ,--- ---:--------,..----..,.... -=,.------_..._..._,...2„..T------....-- ____ _........ — ___ fr-----------_.,:i----------;--- --=----------------....--f--...---.--_-: ----,-,--i _____ KICIKKEE.EPI.E.SEETFIC ..... 1.[LVIMZOCAlll ...W. . ,F OloroN--- \s•N' FROFINFDAIME.LINTA M.,[156PVIICOMIIINN ORWANBY CFIC .15.1.2. \ 222.H2.22A22222.2 SWALENCINN PROP LE \ , FELEKKEEKIL. 222.222222nnarromr22,22 sseenass...2. ass lorwaes. Laws:ma.. IMICIPEOAME,,,6110 ...--...... .... hl''' , , , ---- — FZEr rELLTILIGEnain ...., ...- p-m,row•cf 415.0 „ • ..,. , ---- . _,E,_ .. lao OPCICH.o.r... r2B2a2E2Faanas2:12 ,..:,D SEEFILE Hower ,<.:.D sEz.......vE .... .,..,,. \ SW.E.EAST PROFILE N. . • , . Ilikil ' 7,1,,,, PECKS. .91K-EPLAILK P,POSEDELECIE,W P [P01.1.-P.L.INFWIVR r,raa22.5.8.22.2ams, KilLOSU.SELIER GAY., Lp,,,,,LLK LKK KKK,. D PROPERTY .UNTY, COLORA !MITTAL TYPE ...ELYRIA...PE .' ' \leak\ tillit NO a SECT.C. AT STA 3. 0 . \ \ --,i,, . • ' No• I K.O6FECIELE.A. • • N' \ 41 V.,' co LT., ‘ .. Et ' -7-F' ...M'±. .2 "71=r7L I:: •AV4A444,0 EXISTING LEGEND C—D I L- r''''''...''''' Si asms,atar.s. . -..- — — '-.2'., `•.- , —' VIP 44.4.. -- .. ,. tio..4.1, \ ‘NIN4.4. Nf .......-- Epappr 13.1.. rOirFDEVER UM V,P401,6.6.0 ElE7r, " —....- i -L— L • noun .2,a M . ,s.'•. -a-41 . . •=4*:"..-r.1))11J1*Y , , .......„ . STAGING APSA..1 PIX.." . N 1101 ELI.EKLIKTEGEOPPTIAL . '' , *\'• itl ELLEIVEIEWEERAL.I.E. .141.1.11ELEILIKLEML.N.E .TE lit-LIE.1 p p.p... 4 '''.• trAri MAI.> NEM ALE.E. 171EIL:711 i F.%7(9:::+.7.54: lillin= L , *at PFX EF all% LAVAILL 'F'''' '' W.11'17'. 7E' R ; p BEEP Iiiii , ...EKEL.EKEE . ......,„m LK Sow ' ' \ \ LI.P......-LELL e..2Aceutna, r.Asraaao i 1 a s ' • 44, ' . r FELLELY.ELECIPELLEI. WM rte. LIM LE 2 2 4 g II E,SLEGIE..EFIKLEFLEDELEK- ...K.NLE.61.M. . i— L _ , P . L,..,.., I 1.1.20 1 61E. I I 77= r, 811 GRADING PLAN .. 7 , K Calledonyou ACCESS, PP ME dig. I 47--ar43,4.11% "., 20!Page Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum PROPOSED LEGEND • ....'............'A mml ENr-r== _, ., —, „ — ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, —17EiE POOFIIVASEFSM71 I cr. can. T.1 s 'r. ...- L. . pcpsEsor aw.Tr.ny BeonEa pm 3.313.743317.131.33 ,...._ NV N Irv& Kk-CrED BY monfO.D \ J.001.10 I :5' ' \ , N \''''',:t \ ' All°01 . V. ''.0.- \i' 10,ENTIEGLuIEFITms. 1301Ea.: K131.13iFinFLEI 1.12.1-1.3LATOCEIPROFLEI BLIZZARD PROPERTY GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO SUBMITTAL TYPE . ... ..- • , IIIIIIIk. ,S. T.,. .''. L \ 1 ,41 4.114 \IIVI 11 \ V CI 13:3 -.- J.:. . _ WHELE .71,3£.17.13:33,3:EY.A.ALE FficiamovrIsr, iox..E . T,TaT.T.7.47..,.... , PRCV•26EDI.VillIALE ifeCPSEEL.FIREVIONWIT ,,,,,,,,T3ElrelliCill.41.11Ell =1E'''ILEPICAli.“7•711-1, AKI.C.EDCA14.0.1M ...a.... I . • /11111,0 I 711,38317,37::•,1.3133:41 I K171.3..1,31:3.1nE7311.-... I T,TaTa.Er,,,E.1 , \ MAFFAWANNTLIIATI.KIEWBRI cum-TER.,. Tmegn . ' . 7R.,......F....g... EXL611NG LEGEND , ii.0•11..1 . \ \\ ,O..,.% : • 142VIVETACT101*4 ..4 N,..!„....N‘Ag. \ '7"7:3:u'F 3:-3 .."' '., N nnp na61.6.,../FUR IINIZNY. ,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,, ....... T.e ....E ........ E.1611,,NE3MENDELIECIWC 1.811.0Rilia•313.717E \ \ 0#*141;14k 140 , \ \ • .7'..n ..n lAre'll,7111 '2•T'LES714 7 ;'"'-'"',...t..j)kill1\i. E.2611.2CO.E.IMFLIENCE .6111•Ine...1 INST.. E.T.T% pm...A 3 \ v 111 ..T.se.nwimi.E 6:1311113:10.3:;,E11...Xf WE no., Ees,x3oTITAIT .11.91. \ v 70 ,I..01, 4411111( 023.1.1.3KHER,OLF . : 40kilbrfilliri) ELF:ligr.J) . \ .. I 916-1117.V,B,MLYF 6:163.434:31,:, Dia:r. p.o.3 :Fru: ........",r...r.R.R :. 411.........,;: {' L. ........TR...-TER 3 E.1.117,A1V9317383.4. \ 7 E.7.3:37;;33. /7' ; . mum,. s.ToTeumEr . an 4- , "'... GRAPH.CSCALE DRAWING SUM ITRE • :.... .1:11171317$ NAM 7...3.3. ''';772frarThi:FE Callb.r...T. mg. Ohl HU I I. ir:71,..10 73 Le.15.1,SF:PS C-3.0 21 1Page Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum PROPOSE] LEGEND 5 oms ENGIIMERING.11.t. •• . • —•• •••" -•—••• •. -.— ••••....-•••TER.•••• . ''. \ \ r....=.13 , i —. . — • . — .,,,........................ LANDSCAPING NOTES . , '700m ,„, , 5 _._. _ _, •••,,,,m•ELEG•nal 1 =4:74rals Fi iri4 r1;74IFLP:''4.2=4 r° '1'5' '14' . —.• —' — '....E..''...... 400 5 c4-' ,_ __........,,,......_,....,:,,....„..___,,,, . , ------,.......-----w----:_- ----- --- MT= ""(--- --------- '-- -,------='-- - ----- =----.-..-..---i;z-,------------A ' _L.L___ -- L. . =:=0.„ -- —.— p1,4159,p • . • 4401 5.— Recco. L. alp. pig... 000100000550 ........ ...' '..... <S!, .,..,..,.,.. 554.40 54 5. 00-15 4044505.0504.50, °MEC>. Elv 550105 \ ' \ =FENCE \ \ NATIVE SEED MIX ......,'''' ,........c,nu. .103 NO 010 \ 1 — — — — 15 4E005 0.0500 000 444 5000.1 .045 7 Mi...,‘ 1, III lal•.P.I.U1E4FfILRIE, 50444004-004000 511.410. 40105 404. 04111101 WEI \ Az& „ \ C 00004401010001.0 5154410 4000405 151m050010 05. i0100054 ,.. \ .. , ' 0 F...............,........, 400001 0011004 4050050 (5000040404 0.0. 0I° 0.004 15 _ ' % CI• 1•••.•••4,.,••••.•••.....4F 0510.401,00005 04 44.10 115 , ,, 5 ki . ............. 0100110 000450 14005 0000. 01, 1.0000.1 \ 0 itt401ebutiu•••••vme3Le earn squIrral 01400 00000 15 ,, .° ' 0 ' '.......°"'..... 0 Eli. 115 1 :44ik.1 ' - 1 1K •••.•'........••••,• , ' 14.2k=44114.70.44 \ 5 ilk , -- ° °I .54°° ° ''... Itl A fliC.0.12.•111,...,4 0000 001540000014 000504.50. 004 450.00111000 .0, PROPMEOCAINPEDIEMAL BLIZZARD PROPERTY GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORAI SUBMITTAL TYPE CP 50.1150 .00000. on. 0.5.10 .4 ‘ .1. 00004 Tr. 5 4 ' z, e 040.4054 . 50110 5, \ ' illikk4' I 050400,010 F.¢...LsEpommErapoly pAnof I I ',•••,,,,D1•10.•••••• 0°° .4,00°5500. .... .0500 505 11 Blue 50.54 DS 5 , NIIIIA 1111 MI , bid 1 —•—•—•— •••••••• ••••.••.• ••.•••,•... A 41014.5400 EXL3-11NG LEGEND , . \ .'‘ • ';!:•47..„„,....4444:1C4 \ -, ''' ':',...kiP .,, ',..S4.,•:•:, _-_-_ _ ....- _• - _ EX,1111,11.,,011. —. —. — — E•lanuouNDERGIRcomaELECHRE —.. — . . e............tda, E........' —•-- — . — — 041611116•1.•01110 — — . ............ ,WrI0.1111ELIFELHSIMILIII,LE • •,. \ GENERAL NOTES \ E•1[111051WLEPI ill•G•1 _.,0.111.0 /WU. ROPE C..(' \ '`,. ,-.........• ts, , 5 \vi —• • MIMIC NIPE 1•MWE 0 0500,00, 544.00 0 040140.40000050, k-• -S'... 44;°°. c-5 11'4Z0' ' \ ,., o .91111.1-ELE.Wa M. 0 000914 1 NEN Z , ,,,,T.,„..F...,.,..„... , 141.414 05004 ..... . 411,Mi 04 440440 1 y, E•1911110141E1,1•411- 44/ ,., ......•'....'' . 55 o.m45 00 540 #. 4 411 0- • / kiii i" . : 4.1. \ 3 intiHnlia HEVER [LW., Ire 00555. fril L.,, .161111131l011.1111.1 ..,, E.,41.14.1....1••••• ( ../ •,/' . ssoLpioc V P 1. . .......•••••......• 811 . uALE , IV T IT, LANDSCAPE PUG C-2.0 221Page Blizzard Land Use Change Permit Application Addendum 17154 Blizzard Lot Existing Access Permit #308155 Legend 1 Aspen Glen Club (� Feature 1 Grand River Construction Co MM 9 Offroad Design Google earth 2618 Google 231 Page 10/10/2018 Garfield County Land Explorer Garfield County Land Explorer Parcel Physical Address Owner Account Num Mailing Address 239316300954 239317300100 239320101066 239320200108 Not available CARBONDALE Not available CARBONDALE Not available CARBONDALE Not available CARBONDALE ROW Not available null BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT R043957 BURRY RANCH LLLP R111299 ASPEN GLEN HOMEOWNERS R830188 ASSOCIATION BLIZZARD, STEVEN R111303 2300 RIVER FRONTAGE ROAD SILT, CO 81652 9175 HIGHWAY 82 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 0080 BALD EAGLE WAY CARBONDALE, CO 81623 350 ORIGINAL ROAD BASALT, CO 81621 1/1 PROPOSED LEGEND S OPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC. CIVIL CONSULTANTS PROPOSED CONTOUR 502 MAIN STREET 7900 PROPOSED CONTOUR INTERVAL � •J� �. CO 81623 PROPOSED OWTS FIELD 8" WL 8" WL PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN e ;•CARBONDALE, �*' { ,, GLENWO! r `''* t s r. 704 (970) 704-0311 FAX: (970)-704-0313 (4) 70' TRENCHES PROPOSED SWALE 5' 12" WL 12" WL .5 MILES • Z _1_d'' = -• -. PROPOSED 12" WATER MAIN �-' ' DEEP WITH 2:1 SIDE , ti !.. , -8" SA 8" SA — PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN ; ' * w r ti BP: 0+00.00RTY SLOPES ' I i 5 - — 12" SA 12" SA — PROPOSED 12" SANITARY SEWER MAIN x ' y. ,. VI.• y s fM PROPOSED ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GAS LINE .° . ETCG ETCG + ' = PROJECT CONTROL RC 19598 ti.-• • 5 f ETC ETC PROPOSED ELEC, TELE, CABLE ___<_<_<_<._<_<_r<—<— 25.00' <—<—<—<—<—< r t _� GAS GAS PROPOSED GAS < 6117.94O i < < < < <�<_<_<...',..,111:r {. � o 1, TEL TEL PROPOSED TELEPHONE y ° _ i uEL UEL PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC \ F �' ,... o ` uT 11, ,•, IP OEL OEL PROPOSED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC '' ' EP: 7+70.00 o EP: 0+50.00 30.01' v L11 .f Ik•w UTV UTV PROPOSED CABLE ,' ".14' ° ,;t.: + M 1 [t 1 P i ,,I4 FO FO PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC • , 'k ' '*y 1 r RR I RR PROPOSED IRRIGATION PIPE :4 v : - > > > > PROPOSED O HOUSE - _ PROPOSED SWALE OR DITCH i + ti'_ DESIGNED BY CHC 04-26-18 40.1 �' v . , PROPOSED STORM SEWER - �* ' * xsp PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN DRAWN BY CHC 04-26-18 _ "y ! z s r- ,, , PROPOSED RETAINING WALL CHECKED BY XXX 00/00/00 v O * X ` s ` P' ! ED PROPOSED FENCE If 24.00' vire � \ � w ' SCL PROPOSED SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG f DATE: 04-26-18 50.00' 11' SETBACK/102 . : ,- i SF PROPOSED SILT FENCE PROPOSEDSAWCUTLINE JOB NO. 7165 30.00' v• k10 F+..I.- il'' YEAR HGL LINE (PROFILE) ''. BLIZZARD PROPERTY GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO SUBMITTAL TYPE v s 20 10 YEAR EGL LINE (PROFILE) " \ R15.00' `` A • ..5.. `per ��O �\ � 00 100 YEAR HGL LINE (PROFILE) �:_ 100 YEAR EGL LINE (PROFILE) EXISTING SURFACE �� �� � 1'1- L` �F (PROFILE) ST \ a / �0 s xsp ', CONTRACTOR TO �x J � EXISTING DRAINAGE REDUCE BLOCK �Q Op Oc WALL ONE LEVEL AT \.1 / / cox 6 V V PROPOSED SEPTIC TANK X /G .4 1 A 9� ' 91�A 9p �� 1 FINISHED GRADE (PROFILE) BLM II IP PROPOSED INLET PROTECTION SP PROPOSED STABILIZED PARKING AREA , F •,, 1, ® PROPOSED ELECTRIC MANHOLE • ATIME UNTIL \ 9 GRADES TIE BACK J INTO EXISTING \ I PROPOSED \ k9 CONSTRUCTION J YARD PC: 5+77.21 \ • �� R100.00 o o oo 0 o I v I vLn x oo o o 4`j. -y � •'1 j�, i /fry‘• \Nolt f♦1 r '. •; 0 ,`; A ` PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY -WELL • ',''+' - © PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE ''`r i PROPOSED TELEPHONE MANHOLE PROPOSED UTILITY MANHOLE PROPOSED GUY WIRE 0 ` //////// INSTALL CONCRETE BLOCK \ I m I V z Lu / 1 5 f PROPOSED POWER POLE Y PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT AROUND EXISTING WELL HEAD J �. ///////1>41 „x 0 0 10 v m 7'0 < .0 1 - x. ' .. on' VN PROPOSED WATER VALVE ! PROPOSED CURB STOP 11 + 1 9* _ - i GV EXISTING WELL op PERMIT #81417-F \J \ v ++ - M W PROPOSED GAS METER/VALVE \ V i I21 PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER STACKED 2'X2' CONCRETE v ASPEN GLE BLOCK WALL (3 ROWS 6' A- \ I 25.00' i ' ! .. • 2 PROPOSED ELECTRIC METER TALL) OR BOULDER AS Oo ' J APPROVED BY ENGINEER P�'..14\1(41§:4"..4 SETBACK . 1 CARBONDALE •- 11 PROPOSED TELEPHONE PEDESTAL 2.3 MILES PROPOSED CATV PEDESTAL � o k, ._��� I11��;. � y.- PROPOSEDLIGHTPOLEANOUT v :ENPROPOSED SIGN 40.00' \\ + V PROPOSED SWALE 1' DEEP WITH 2:1 SIDE SLOPES PROPOSED STORM INLET ow PROPOSED FLOW ARROW J \\ PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT NURSERY AREA ALIGNMENT ,o \ 60.00' o KEY MAP PROPOSED CONCRETE/SIDEWALK �O J \ Ln\ �I 1"=2001 200' I 11 I I I I I PROPOSED PAVERS SF�\J�x PROPOSED V •��jj��jj�jj��j.• PROPOSED BIO -RETENTION GARDEN SHOP F, \ I I/////////////////� PROPOSED DEMO AREA 1-7 J� V F x \� l ro - — POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE BASIN — — POST DEVELOPMENT SUBBASIN \� V OFFSITE DRAINAGE BASIN I `� oo > > > > TRAVEL PATH FOR Tc COMPUTATIONS PT: +85.03 \\ C1 I DPAt DESIGN POINT \ v PROPOSED SEPTIC TANK EXISTING LEGEND R40.o1' \Jo5 I , V EXISTING CONTOUR tS� \ 24. 10'— PC: 3+46.9' 1 —7900 — — EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL EXISTING WATER MAIN oxso PT: 3+44.55 v XWL XWL 8” R35.00' XSA ISA EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN v XETCG XETCG EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GAS PROPOSED OWTS R30.00' XETC XETC EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE FIELD (2) 35' TRENCHS + v — XGAS XGAS XGAS EXISTING GAS o BP: 0+00.00 —xur XUT xur EXISTING TELEPHONE — XEL EXISTING ELECTRIC i 0 v XEL XEL UNDERGROUND PC: 2+89.58 OEL OEL EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC — xTv EXISTING CABLE Ffs v xry xry XFO XFO XFO EXISTING FIBER OPTIC 2 ` C'�.330 V x XIRR %IRR EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPE , xs 02 >—>—> > EXISTING SWALE OR DITCH EXISTING STORM SEWER CONTRACTOR TO REDUCE p'L �Ik• BLOCK WALL ONE LEVEL x v X5D BD — — EXISTING EASEMENT ACCESS DRIVE -1 90 ATA TIME UNTIL GRADES Q•('� 11\ v - - EXISTING PROPERTY LINE ALIGNMENTT SEE GRADING PLAN FOR TIE BACK INTO EXISTING 20 STBK EXISTING SETBACK (XX') ADDITIONAL DETAILS N ` DETENTION AREA zoi zoi EXISTING ZONE OF INFLUENCE AND PROFILE (C2.0) o o i TOS TOS EXISTING TOP OF SLOPE x x EXISTING WIRE FENCE 1 0' EXISTING FENCE � v v EXISTING ROCK WALL EXISTING FENCE 0E EXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLE OD EXISTING DRAINAGE DRY -WELL / ° •OJECT BENCH MARK o 1n CONTROL SPIKE x v QS EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE QT EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE DATE REVISION 5104.11' C v 0 EXISTING UTILITY MANHOLE EXISTING GUY WIRE 00/00/00 XXX C.?‹ xcp> U •s, PROPOSED TRANSFORMER, CABLE c-0_, EXISTING POWER POLE PEDESTAL AND TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT wv EXISTING WATER VALVE to EXISTING CURB STOP A. R30.00' 6'0 GV X EXISTING GAS METER III EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER 24d\ Ox �x OD 17 EXISTING ELECTRIC METER 11 EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL D EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL X \ •� / DETENTION AREA O EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT * EXISTING LIGHT POLE o 0-0- R30.00' EXISTING SIGN O� EXISTING STORM INLET EXISTING FLOW ARROW x — — — — — EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN 1 - cc O Z GRAPHIC SCALE 811, 1p r 40 0 20 40 80 160 TITLE SITE PLAN Know what's below. Call DRAWING NO. before you dig. Opp ( IN FEET) CALL 2 -BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE 1 inch = 40 ft. BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND �— 1 ' O MEMBER UTILITIES / \ \ \ PROPOSED LEGEND S OPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC. \ \ // \\\ \ /) CIVIL CONSULTANTS _`\ \ F \\\\ PROPOSED CONTOUR \ \ I I\ \\ \ 7900 \\\/ T MAI STREEE, _ / PROPOSED CONTOUR INTERVAL \J� �J� / I I I 1 \ \ F \\ / \ ` \ a w a w PROPOSED WATER MAIN CA502 CO 6150 _� 11 A \\ 8" \ \ \ \ \ / I I I \ \ , °yam A920 o��F� \\\ \ \ / I I �)/ ) (970)704-0311 FAX: (970)-704-0313 - PROPOSED -6150 \ \ \\ II\ \ ) / I �) \\ \ I 1 Cs y \ �\ \ /I I II I I \` / \\ \ it w� iz w PROPOSED 12" WATER MAIN-ISURFACE I I MATCH EXISTING GRADEL21.00' - \\1 I �j�090 O / \� \\\\ 1 II ///IIIIII\ \\ I\\\/// \ \ \a" sA a sA PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN �r,�IrGy�p'Li 1 aj \ `o I \ IQIIoI\\\\I\\\\//(l \\ - -\6120\ � \ o / \\ \\ \12" sA 12" sA PROPOSED 12" SANITARY SEWER MAIN A \ \ \\\\ o vq92 0 I \�o \ \ l I I I I A I I I \ \ \ \ \ �1 /�� \ �� \ \ \\ `° Eo / \ \ 0 ---------_-- __-___ ------_ - ?0• - - ---------- \ < 2 1 I I ° u I o \ \ % 6s \ \ \ \ ETCG ETCG PROPOSED ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GAS`.---- _ \ \ \ \\\ \\ \ Fjo 7oy2 \ I ` : I I \ I1I o I I 1 \ \ \ \ III ' \ \ \ \ \`\\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\Erc �(/ ---- �1 5.00' -- ,. / \ \ \\\\ `\ \ \ 2Q \ \ I I \ NORTH SWALE 1.,p IBP 04100.00\ \ \ \ \ \ PR PSS D\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ Q erc PROPOSED ELEC, TELE, CABLE 6140 6140 l \ \ \ \ \ \ 6 \ I8p GAs GAs PROPOSED GAS `- -� I \ v AI G S�1/E \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \PROPOSED ` \ ���� 1.00' V �� �� `�\ \ \ \ \ A TELEPHONE TEL TEL--{ - \\\\c\ \\ \ \ \ UES UEL PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRICO/\\\\ oor\�i\A, _ _�\\����\�\`\-`�\��\��'\�\'�\�\\��� \ •���:j�'i r ��jr♦/��_� EXISTING SURFACE 1\\ �� ���� �' �i-� - / \ \ 11� • ������ ��- \ t��it��� .� ��IC 0EL oEE PROPOSED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC- -//\\\\\\\\ - - -� , \ \ 1� \1 �C" oitrir�� ff`Z�C ���_�_ Ury Ury PROPOSED CABLE dPROPOSED GRADE \ A \VA\ \ V A ����� A �.�� �� AA\ V A \\\VA v,��\\ w Fo PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC 6130 6130 \VAVA \ \ \L, ,�. �� , ♦ .� PROPOSED IRRIGATION PIPE IRR IRRmN SCALE: N \ \\ \ \ \1 \ �I . ''' 1 > > > > ni HORIZONTAL: 1"=10' o ci o \\\\\� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ ��\ v 1 \\\\\\ \\\ \\\ \ \ ) \V\ \ \ •' PROPOSED SWALE OR DITCH\\ DESIGNED BY CHC 04-26-18 Lip VERTICAL: 1"=10' L Lo 1D \ \ \ x \\\ \\ \\\ \ \ \ I \ r C \ PROPOSED - \ \ \ \\�\� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ , \RY HOUSEPROPOSED \ \ PROPOSED STORM SEWER UNDERDRAIN DRAWN BY CHC 04-26-18 \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\�, �O�L�VF` 0+00 0+50 \ \�( I ) \ \ J \ l \ \ PROPOSED RETAINING WALL \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ r • �6` \ \ �E-6155 \ \ \ \ \\\\ BY XXX 00/00/00 \ \ ♦ 6 t SWALE-NORTH PROFILE \ 11\ \\ \ X PROPOSED FENCECHECKED \ \\� \ \\\ \ \ \\ \\\ \ ''%# \ \ \ „' \ - N J\\\\ \\ \\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' �` \ \ \ \ SCL PROPOSED SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGDATE: 04-26-18 \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \I,, �`.SF \ \ )�PROPOSED \ PROPOSED SILT FENCE SAWCUT LINE JOB NO. 17165 \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ � . 1 0 YEAR HGL LINE (PROFILE) - - \\\ \\ \ \ \ ` �yf\ 1\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 8 \ \ ` MATCH ts - \ \\ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ �, � \EXISTING \\\ \\ \\\\\\\ \ \100 10 YEAR EGL LINE PROFILE- 9.00--- \ \ \\ \ \ \1 \ \ \\\ \\\\\\ YEAR HGL LINE (PROFILE) 6160 EXISTING GRADE 4 0�__--- GRADE 6160 � \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ,\ \ \- - \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ,� 6b�� - 100 YEAR EGL LINE (PROFILE) - \\\ \ EXISTING SURFACE (PROFILE) - ____--- - 1.00' - ---- 1.00' - \\\\\\\\\\\\•,�\ �\ \\FINISHED ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '• `0 \ \ \ I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ kx 7 GRADE (PROFILE) IP PROPOSED INLET PROTECTION SP PROPOSED STABILIZED PARKING AREA 6150 - PROPOSED GRADE - - - EXISTING GRADE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1"=10' _ VERTICAL: 1" 10' PROPOSED GRADE / ��' 6150 - \ \\ ` ` \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ • ` ! At ` • :�\ \ \ \ \ > lrr \ - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i`• ` \ \ \ �1 - \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ y \ • \ \ - \\ \\ \� \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ �\ •� ' \ \ \ ' r \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` ` \\\ \ \ \ \ \ ��•_ t ' /V ® PROPOSED ELECTRIC MANHOLE D PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY -WELL QS PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE ® PROPOSED TELEPHONE MANHOLE PROPOSED UTILITY MANHOLE 6140 Nf1 y co ^ 0 , / m ^ 6140 \ \ �\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ • ♦ • \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ 6� \ \ . \ \ \\,,,\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ is \ \� � ��� t L } PROPOSED GUY WIRE o �i PROPOSED POWER POLE 0 + PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT O \ \ \ \ � +� / `•• V w VN PROPOSED WATER VALVE 0+00 0+50 \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ 11 \ \ \ \ ���� SWALE-EAST PROFILE \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ �,��I 6 \ \ \ \\ \ \ .' _, \ \\ \s \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • �:! + 0+50 M PROPOSED CURB STOP GV PROPOSED GAS METER/VALVE 1 O \ \ \ \ \ EAST SWALE I2 PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER BLIZZARD PROPER1 GARFIELD COUNTY, COLS SUBMITTAL TYPE \\S \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � ` \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .� ` PROPOSED ELECTRIC METER \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \ \ \ \`\ �� �4 III PROPOSED TELEPHONE PEDESTAL © PROPOSED CATV PEDESTAL \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\:\ 6\ \ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \� \ \ . )\ JJ : \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ . ! \\\ \ \ \ \ \\� - : 1 , ,? \ PROPOSED PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT DRAINAGE SWALE 7 PROPOSED LIGHT POLE \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ sz \ -� PROPOSED SIGN \ \ \ cd\ \11) \ \ ♦ • \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\S\ ` PROPOSED STORM INLET ., \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ , \\ ` \ \ PROPOSED FLOW ARROW \ �� PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT \ \ \ \ \\ \0l ' \ PROPOSED CONCRETE/SIDEWALK p \ \ - . ,' \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ I II I I I ii I II PROPOSED PAVERS \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� , •�����������������. PROPOSED BIO -RETENTION GARDEN \\ •• r////////////////// PROPOSED D EMO AREA \ �I \ \ \ �� \ �\ \\ \\ \\\\�, SECTION AT STA. 3+00.0 PROPOSED HOUSE, l �\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ `, ),.. POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE BASIN DRI EW Y BENCH \ \ \\ \ \ POST DEVELOPMENT SUBBASIN �- 6168 \ \ \ OFFSITE DRAINAGE BASIN a _=. \\ \\\ \ \ \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ ` �� > > > > �*,... . -- -- 6160 \\ \ \ \ \ TRAVEL PATH FOR Tc COMPUTATIONS _ \ \ \ a ■ ■-■r BL CK WALL EXISTING SURFF4CE - 3.0% 6152 \` \ \ \ \ \ _ \ \ \ \\\\#A4 6148 \ OP DESIGN POINT i:tw' ___ .wrr: :I:u:u , \\ \ \ \ \ /��� \ ` F - \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ # �-- -- 6140 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \��� \ �r� -- - 1 6136 PROPOSED SCREENING \ \ `� \ \ \ \ \ \ � �� �� - _ -- s 6132 LANDSCAPE BERM \ \ \ \ \ \ =' \ \ \ \ \ �''� �� _ , EXISTING LEGEND ° CONSTRUCT! N PR POcEDSJRFACE 6128 \ \ \� \ \ -5.0% \ 6124 \ \\\ \ \ \ \ Nov- a _ S I ACi�_ygKU t tf=NCH 6120 \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ `� _ - S^�L�: 6116 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ EXISTING CONTOUR -- _- \ \ \ \ -- - PROPOS HORIZONTAL 1"- 0' 6112 \ \ \ \ \ \ O 1 --7900 - EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL ^. __ 6108 \ \ \ a : ° VEf}TICAL: 1"=40' 6104 \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ 4, xWL XWL EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN 6100 \ \ \ I I I I I I •0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I \\\ \\ \ \ \ \ 1 0 140 1 0 1 0 110 1:0 50 70 0 0 z0 0 0 '0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 80 90 100 1.0 1 0 1:0 1z0 150 160 170 180 190 200 2110 220 230 2L0 \ \ \\ \ e ' \ \ V \ \ \ \ I A \ \ �� • � N •' • xaA xsA EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN \ VA V V A \ V A \ \ �\ \ I \ • �• xETCG xETCG EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GAS \\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ xETC xETC EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \,\ \ \ , \ - XGAS %GAS xGAs EXISTING GAS \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ - xuT xur xuT EXISTING TELEPHONE - xEL EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ xEU xEL \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o B c :• :, GRADE BREAK STA = 4+25.00 \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ oEL oEL EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC - xry EXISTING CABLE \ V A V A ELEV = 6129.16 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - xry xry \ \ ,` . GRADE BREAK STA = 0+00.00 SCALE: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Sek xFo xFo xFo EXISTING FIBER OPTIC HORIZONTAL: 1"=40' \ \ \ \\ ELEV = 6121.51 \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ VERTICAL: 1"=40' XIRR %IRR EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPE •� PROPOSED SURFACE \ \ \ \ \ . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ >->-> > EXISTING SWALE OR DITCH _ _ ��� V A \ \ A \ \ c) k \ XSD XSD EXISTING STORM SEWER 6130 X80% - - - 6130 \ \ V \ � \ \ - EXISTING EASEMENT _ -\\_ _ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ --- \ \ - - EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 6120 - - 6120 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - \ �P 6115 6121.51 6122.0 6121.96 6122.7 6122.41 6123.2 6122.86 6123.7 6123.76 6124.2 6124.21 6124.3 6124.66 6124.7 6125.56 rr 6125.6 v 1NV bliADL- 6126.46 6124.8 4•"-- 6127.36 55 v O 6128.0 6127.81 D m 6128.9 6128.26 6128.9 6128.71 6129.2 6115 V \ \ \ \ \ \ A A A A \ V20 -STBK EXISTING SETBACK (XX') �� ON ,-i `-' o O- V V \ tij��� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ �% zoi zoi EXISTING ZONE OF INFLUENCE G� �°CZ N N �° N N N torsi`-' N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ TOS TOS EXISTING TOP OF SLOPE x x EXISTING WIRE FENCE V SL \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ �� \ \ \ \ ' EXISTING ROCK WALL 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+25 \ \\ \\ \ \ STAGING AREA -1 PROFILE \\ \\\\ v\ \ \\ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \_ o ,\ �E EXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLE QD EXISTING DRAINAGE DRY -WELL �` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -1 \ \ \ P OPDSED \ \ \ Qiil 1 QS EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE QT EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE DATE REVISION \ \I\ \DETTTI I ARS \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ .p 1 U EXISTING UTILITY MANHOLE 00/00/00 XXX PVI STA: 7+00.00 0 PVI STA: 5+75.00 n PVI ELEV: 6157.44 PVI ELEV: 6153.38 0 o \�\ \ \ \ \ 4.) PROPOSED' TQRF \INLE W GRATE qA /�Q, RIM CQNTR CTdR TO A \ �, \ I 4 )- EXISTING GUY WIRE EXISTING POWER POLE PVI STA: 2+25.00 PVI STA: 4+75.00 K: 28.54 + PVI ELEV: 6118.13 PVI ELEV: 6142.88 K: 6.89 r` LVC: 50.00 PVI STA: 1+50.00 LVC: 50.00 rt SUBMIT \ �` CONVEX RIM TY APP OVED Y \ O \ / x \ \ ENGINEER\ '1'�i o EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT wv PVI ELEV: 6111.76 K: 14.29 PVI STA: 3+00.00 K. 33.33 K: 33.33 LVC: 50.00 PVI ELEV: 6121.88 LVC: 50.00 < Y m N Y N / \� 6109."'\XI , co / \ �� INWItlr�6106.0'\ x I EXISTING WATER VALVE 00 EXISTING CURB STOP LVC: 50.00 K: 7.14 ci \ INVOUT�(i1Q5' \ \ PVI STA: 0+50.00LA LVC: 0 o o ry o M o o tri LA rn "' oc CCI m 1O N m 1O \ 1� \ \ \\ \ �% '` �`►�� EXISTING GAS METER © EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PVI ELEV: 6101.76 0 ,-I 0 CO O CO O 0 4-1 0 0 In 0 4 n Lh + Ul N + .1 u > Q U \ \ \\ \ `� J ! EXISTING ELECTRIC METER CO o� 0 O 00 0 Ol O � to `^ 1O VD tID t%1 w (%I !o w U' J w C7 J w � `" N + LVC: 50 00 o LOW PT. STA: 0+33.33 ui LOW PT ELEV: 6102.18 + N o ai r o + o m + N `" �° + N "' "' o o w m o LO 0 oN 00 +Lr) 00 + N N -' o N w N - LO -' m "' m w m m w w °, x �\ C, x l't* 0 .I \ p EXISTING TELEPHONE PED PEDESTAL 0 EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL w -1 u U U U N u u u U EXISTING SURFACE �•` 0 - \ r��i*% co O EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT ° '^ w v' w 00 CO w w N `° CO i° m CO w w .11'0 .I I'a- O , ��' O /`'� \ 6160 o N o N ° 2 6160 EXISTING LIGHT POLE m m w w iJ u u v - �` PROP ED 1: • - \ x ` i ��1 6150 Y _ ¢ '? + o + w w --- _ �_0% -- ADS N-12 LOP 6150 \ 1 \ (f = -� EXISTING SIGN m N o 0 o _----- PROPOSED S RFACE • // \\ AT MIN i.q% = 0 / \ \ \ ` ) / \ ° EXISTING STORM INLET 6140 - Lu co II m u LU w u w 12.00% _ 6140 \ _ \ I C./ /�/ / \ \ \ \ �- EXISTING FLOW ARROW ¢ CO \ 6130 = C7 - -I w 5.00% --- _ _ - \ - 6130 \\\\ 1 // 1( PR/ POSE 18" \ - � \\\\\� stowCUI)VERTII \ \ EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN cc TITLE 6120 ee°•_ -- SCALE: 6120 II\ \\ \\ P\\ INV Z9\=61Q2. \ %f1 \ \ \ O z GRADING PLAN 6110 _ _ , _ 6110 - �""�I� ------- EXISTING GRADE -N 1 /- PROPOSED GRADE VERTICAL: 1"=40' \\\\ \ \ \ 6100 M N 6102.8 6102.26 6103.7 6102.51 6105.7 6104.26 6108.5 6106.76 6110.5 6109.26 6112.2 6111.67 6113.9 6113.88 6115.6 6116.01 6118.2 6117.92 6119.2 6119.38 6115 6120.63 6121.4 6122.32 6124.5 6124.88 6128.0 6127.88 6131.4 6130.88 6134.4 6133.88 6137.3 6136.88 6140.5 6139.88 6142.79 - 6146.5 6145.51 6149.1 6148.13 6151.3 6150.76 6153.4 6152.93 6155.0 6154.20 6155.0 6155.01 6156.8 6155.82 6157.3 6156.63 6157.4 6157.55 6159.2 6158.69 6160.1 O1 u, °,n' 6100 \✓%/ \\ \ \ �� \ m . \\ \ \ l�( C \ \ 40 \ GRAPHIC SCALE ��� 0 20 40 80 160 10 t PROPOSED \\ \\\ \ to CONNECTION TO \\\\ \ )\ FRONTAGE ROAD \\\\\\ \/ A ��� E Know what's below. Call DRAWING NO. 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 ACCESS 4+00 -1 PROFILE\� 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 7+70 before you dig. \\ \\ �\ (I N FEET) CALL 2 -BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCEC-2.0 1 inch = 40 ft. BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE \ FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES •)'\1 \ < < PROPOSED LEGEND S OPRIS E NGINEERING, LLC. `-- \ \ \ \ ---..\\\\ CIVIL CONSULTANTS \\ PROPOSED CONTOUR — \\ \ \ \\ 7900 MAIN i PROPOSED CONTOUR INTERVAL / \\\ ABSORPTION/TREATMENT FIELD INSTALL 4" RISER PIPE \502 V WL a WL PROPOSED WATER MAIN CARBONDALE, CO 81623 \ \ 8" INSPECTION PORT AT EACH I I ) \ \ INSTALL 2 -COMPARTMENT 1500 -GALLON (FINAL \\ ( CHAMBERS W/ END CAPS 4 TRENCHES W/ / \ \ STREET (970) 704-0311 FAX: (970)-704-0313 1\\ 12" wL 12" wL PROPOSED 12" WATER MAIN �I\ \ \ END OF CHAMBERS (TYP) \ \ \ \ — — \ \ \\\, _ , 4' S E TRENCHAWA L (TYP). � I I \ ` \ \ \ , SIZING TBD) CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK W/ I TARATION \ \ \ 9 ) \ a^ sA a° sA — PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN \ \ FINA�SIZ N T DETERMINED \ 1 \ \ \ \/ / \ \ CONCRETE RISERS AND LIDS INSTALLED AT THE \\\_____\/ I \ \ \\ \ / I \ I \ \ / \ \ \\ \ FINISHED GRADE SURFACE. INSTALL INLET - 12" SA 12" SA — PROPOSED 12" SANITARY SEWER MAIN \\II 11\ // \ \ I I / / k \ \ I \\ \ 1 I I ( / \ I I I I \ / \ \ SANITARY TEE AND OUTLET EFFLUENT FILTER �j� ��•J/ 6 \ \ \ ETCG ETCG PROPOSED ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GAS '120 \ \\\pr's ` 1 � \ s`ol \ \ \ I a / ( \ N I I • \ \ \ \ \ • \ \ � a ( ` \ \ \ \ \ \ SANITARY TEE. \ \ I I I \ \ \ �/ \) \ o \� \ �\ \ I ( \ \gym \ \ \\ ‘o \ \ \ ;� ETC ETC PROPOSED ELEC, TELE, CABLE \ 1 I I \ I I ( I I c \ \ \ s I 1 I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ ` \\\\\\ \ \\ l \\ I GAS GAS PROPOSED GAS I \ I I I \ \\ \ \ ` \ \ \ \ \\\ \ I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \` \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ I \ \\\ \ \ \\\ \\ Q�� ` \ I I ( I \ \ \ \ \ \ 61 �`\ TEL TEL PROPOSED TELEPHONE \ \ I 80 \ Q \ \ \ \ \ OQ ` \ \ I \ ` \\ �\ \ `\�`\ �\"�t� \ 1- UEL UEL PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CD . ----‘ 1 1 1 IL n--1 oEL oEL PROPOSED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC - " . I . Ill • � 4: CD . . i 1 . ����. �j� ----":‘ UTV UTV PROPOSED CABLE \ fr —4 ie ' ' "il 1 1..'''''.1 I '-ill �= re ' IA* l''....' ' 1 r- iiii7 1 \ A ` -.1.....- .. . —; 1 ' niji i i ♦�� Ili le • w a r '" I X111‘ PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC \ ���� � 1 IRR IRR PROPOSED IRRIGATION PIPE \ , 7 A > > > > V \ v v \ I 1 \ ��skt.,,,N VT' \ I PROPOSED SWALE OR DITCH PROPOSED ELECTRIC DESIGNED BY CHC 04-26-18 \ V V A \ V ., A \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ V A V ��. \ \ \ / \ j \ •� 4 ,�I �� PROPOSED STORM SEWER TELEPHONE AND CABLE SERVICE TO PROPOSED PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN DRAWN BY CHC 04-26-18 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ HOUSE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL X CHECKED BY XXX 00/00/00 \ I PROPOSED FENCE \ \ \ \ \ \ 1T \ \ \ o DISTRIBUTION BOX WITH \ \ \ \ \ \ ,�1. 6r \ \ i \ \ .-61 \ I \ \ \ ► ► SCL PROPOSED SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG BAFFLE INSTALL LEVEL ON DATE. 04-26-18 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\ \\\\ e�Q��� \ \ \ ,,301 \ \ \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \'"���•` \ \ ,\ \ \ 0.• COMPACTED BASE. INSTALL SF PROPOSED SILT FENCE RISERS AND LID TO SURFACE PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE JOB NO. 17165 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � �� ` �� ` 10 YEAR HGL LINE (PROFILE) BLIZZARD PROPERTY GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO SUBMITTAL TYPE �;' 10 YEAR EGL LINE PROFILE \ \ \ \ \ ' 8 � \ \\\\\\\\\ 100 YEAR HGL LINE PROFILE \\\\:\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ ►'f ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ �\ \ \ \ 100 YEAR EGL LINE (PROFILE) \\\:\\\:\\\:\\\: \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ " EXISTING SURFACE (PROFILE) \ \ \ 6 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / "9 \ \ \ \ ��� ♦ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 ` \ \ \ \ RO• AIP V s I \ I I \ I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / �, \ Jho il \\ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \� ' �. ` \ •; • ;/� `\s ` 1p0 \ , \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ L,• \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ rI� \ 15 \ \ \ \ L� [I w 1 , FINISHED GRADE (PROFILE) IP PROPOSED INLET PROTECTION SP PROPOSED STABILIZED PARKING AREA ® PROPOSED ELECTRIC MANHOLE 4" PVC DISTRIBUTION PIPES DO PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY -WELL pS PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE ® PROPOSED TELEPHONE MANHOLE PROPOSED UTILITY MANHOLE \\\\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\\ \ \ \� ` '� 4 \4PA \ \ \\\� \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ •411P4 , } PROPOSED GUY WIRE �i PROPOSED POWER POLE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT \ \\\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 6H.-#47.� ,,. _► ` \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ �, \ \ •\ ���� �. O \ PROPOSED WATER VALVE PROPOSED CURB STOP \ \ \ \ \ d1 \ \ \ \ \ ��,,�`� r \\ \ \ o \ \ \ \ \ \ �,1� 'I •, 11 \ i PROPOSED GAS METER/VALVE \ �� \ \ \\ \ \ w \ 13 PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ p i . 10\ \ \ \ \ ,1 N \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ is PROPOSED ELECTRIC METER \\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` 11 PROPOSED TELEPHONE PEDESTAL © PROPOSED CATV PEDESTAL \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ,�`� ' I \ N\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ .�` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ `` ` \ \ \ gli411.* .`� 4* PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT * PROPOSED LIGHT POLE \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ .� \ \ —� PROPOSED SIGN \ \ /' \ \ \ � � \ \ \ \ \ \ '\\\ \\ \ \ \ Slitfr\ • � � � � PROPOSED STORM INLET \ \ \ 'ID. D PROPOSED FLOW ARROW \VA\\VA\\A \ V A \ I PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT 11\ •, \ \ \ \ \ \ ' 3 °' \ `• PROPOSED CONCRETE/SIDEWALK \ \ \ • ;',.:..:.(:).::,.: \ \\\ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\\ \\ \ \ \ � ` \\ I I I I I I I I I I I i I i I i I I I I I I PROPOSED PAVERS \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ Ov• \ \ \ •�����j�������j�����j�������j��*A+. PROPOSED BIO -RETENTION GARDEN \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1/////////////////4 PROPOSED D EMO AREA \ \ \V VA\ \ \ \ \ \ A \ V \ ?�� ♦ �� Tn �- �\ 1 \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE BASIN \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ POST DEVELOPMENT SUBBASIN \ ` \ \ \\\\\ �4 OFFSITE DRAINAGE BASIN \\ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ > > > > TRAVEL PATH FOR Tc COMPUTATIONS \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . 61 DESIGN POINT # \ \ � \ \ obSE�\ELE'CTR \„ V4k tir � \ \\ TELEPHONE EXISTING LEGEND \ \ AND CABLE \ \ \ \ SERbICE\TO RROPpSE SCP \ \ \N \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ EXISTING CONTOUR \\ \ \ ,r, \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ ,� �\` \ \\\\\\ \t,, — —7900 — EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN \ ,g \ \ \ \ \ \ \ INSTALL\4" Rl ERR'PI • . �,� ' \ xwL xwL \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ I PEg10%1 PORT AT EAkH \ ��� \ \ ` \ 41 xsA xsA EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN \\ \ \ `���` \ \\ S �� \ \ \ ETD OF CHAMBERS\('TYP) A A \ \ ����, V A xETCG %ETCG EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GAS V \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` ` \ \ ` \ I \\\, \ \ XETC XETC EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE \ \ \ \ \ ` �` \\\\\\ \ \ A \N \ V AV X125\I - XGAS XGAS XGAS EXISTING GAS \ \ \\V ` \ \ \ A A \ A A \‘\t ` � — XUT xur xur EXISTING TELEPHONE — XEL EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC \\ V \ \\ \ V A V MPAR p00 -TANK ALC (FINAL\ A`\0EL XEL XEL SIZING ZC SEPTIC \ . \ \ ��) �� VA oEL EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC XTV EXISTING CABLE RI R AN L INS ALL D A THE INI ED \ V— \G� A � ` XTV XTV V \\ \ . RADE SU OA L INSTALL ELU �INT TERI ANTTAR AEED �'' Uj E7 Y\T ` XFo XFO XFo EXISTING FIBER OPTIC "` \ \ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ ` ` R XIRR XIR EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPE \ \ \ A'ES0kPTION/TRYsATIECIT1EsJ,D \ \ \ >>> > EXISTING SWALE OR DITCH \ CHANBE�RS W/ EN CABS 21 TRENCHES W/\ \ A. \\ \ 4' SIDE\TRE,NCI WALL SEPARA- ON TYPE. A \ .�V \ DETERMINED\ \ \ L\� �. XSD XSD EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING EASEMENT RNA(_ SIZ�NG TQ BE \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '� �` — — EXISTING PROPERTY LINE +Q� �\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - ,���1� zo -STBK EXISTING SETBACK (XX') O \ \ ,�DIS BUTION BOX WITH,BAPF�LE Y \ I�V TALI\LEVE� ON MPACTED ASF, ��\ zoi zoI EXISTING ZONE OF INFLUENCE \ `��1\ ,N6 INkTALL RISER ANDN,ID TO,SURR QCE kaman7. TOS TOS EXISTING TOP OF SLOPE x x EXISTING WIRE FENCE �� QL \\ \\\ \ V A V AV A V A _ \ \ \ \ \ \STLLAP ON ALL D \ \\ \ \�� \ v v CHA\MBERS(T�1P\ \ \\ ,\ EXISTING ROCK WALL OE EXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLE QD EXISTING DRAINAGE DRY WELL 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \\\\` ' QS EXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDATE QT EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE\\PROPOSED REVISION EL�CtRICTELERHON�\ IN`C0N UITT\0 VAND CABLE SERVICE 1'Q E TRENCH V \N) 1�U EXISTING UTILITY MANHOLE EXISTING GUY WIRE 00/00/00 XXX TOGETHER \ \\)— \ ••OPOSEDSHOPAN UPT \ �`�> \ PROPOSED 126 NCE \\ \ \ EXISTING POWER POLE \ \ V4' \ \ \ Ii PROPOSED EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TELEPHONE AND W� / l \ U ROPOST TRANSFO1R CABLE PEDESTALS to EXISTING \ �,.♦ GV EXISTING GA\\/ ::f;::FoRMER �l \ \ \ mall �i/ MI EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL \ V*44 \ p EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL `� \ \\ i7/ co O EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT * EXISTING LIGHT POLE w \ 1 —o— EXISTING SIGN \ — 1 ( \\ \ \ \ EXISTING STORM INLET , EXISTING FLOW ARROW /� \ I�'✓�/E \ \ \\��\ \ \\ \\ \\\�\\ \\\\\\\\\ \\ \ \ \ ,� \ IWC Int / \ v v,1 \ I / I \ �I �\//1 \ \ \�)JJ \ \ \ \ �/\ \ 40\ EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN 0 GRAPHIC SCALE AIVO,® 0 20 40 80 160 TITLE DRAWING SHEET TITLE \ �\(( �\ \ \\\\\\ \ Know what's below. DRAWING NO. \ \ Call CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH \\\ \\ �\ \ UTILITY PROVIDERS TO PULL POWER \\ \ \ \ \\ \ / \ FROM EXISTING ELECTRIC POLE \\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\\ before you dig. I N FEET CALL 2 -BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE 1 inch = 40 ft. BEFOREOR EXCAVATE FOR THE OMARKINGROF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES �-+ C_3.O