Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationChris & Astrid Janusz 3642 Highway 82 & 3644 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Page 1: Application Page 2: Legal Description of Land 1. List of Neighbors i. page 2: map ii. page 4: letters of support. 2. Narrative, explaining purpose. 3. Land Title Guarantee i. pages 1-9 4. Section 5-406, compliance with zoning and use. 5. Division of water resources and permit. 6. Sewage disposal permits for 3642, 3644 & 3650. 7. C -DOT proof of access for 3642, 3 644 & 3650. 8. No increase to public safety: GEO TECH report. 9. Garfield County compliance letter. 10. Taxes paid in full. • • • GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470 www.garfield-county.com MINOR [2 LOT] EXEMPTION ❑ MAJOR [4 LOT] EXEMPTION ❑ FINAL EXEMPTION PLAT AMENDMENT RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING rimoR XDS DSCA GENERAL INFORMATION (Please print legibly) > Name of Property Owner:Ch,‘-:1 S i StR2ta n 1SZ.- > Mailing Address:3 4.a' ighMa,,,_. S;;Z. Telephone: 070) 3$'/.2593 City:( kv JJOOc1 }o,2t.rtJc J State: ('OZip Code:`glis01 Cell: (q70) ' 15.901 i > E-mail address: CianuSZ %a t 0 TrIaiA , Ccwm FAX: ( ) 201 > Name of Owner's Representative, if any, (Attorney, Planner, Consultant, etc): > Mailing Address: Telephone: () > City: State: Zip Code: Cell: ( ) > E-mail address: FAX: ( ) > Street Address / General Location of Property: > Assessor's Parcel Number: ± g S- 7 1 - 0 0- 0 2 7 > Size of Property (in acres) as of January 1, 1973: 9s. Ac RLj 7'o D - R G w > Current Size of Property to be Subdivided (in acres): / _ 3 7 ➢ Number of Tracts / Lots Created Including remainder of Parent Property: '1.. ➢ Proposed size of Tracts / Lots to be Created Including remainder of Parent Property: o Lot #: / containing Q 6 S 1 acres o Lot #: '2 containing ,73+ acres o Lot #: containing acres o Lot #: containing acres o Lot #: containing acres > Property's Zone District: %&,I Si G k 111 7 (AL tf/' �4'1'' Last Revised 12/12/08 ��4iL A.0)46, Our Order No. GW232; nu_i EXHIBIT "A" LEU ui save: i a C "_ SOUTH, z'ii-I r .....�� A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE E1/2NE1/4, SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 6 SOU � R v`IGE 89 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AND MOREIFULLY DESCRIBED AS OLL.0 . BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 27, WHENCE THE NORTHEAS CORNER OF SAID SECTION 27 BEARS N. 02 DEGREES 54' WEST 1057.83 FEET; THENCE WEST 289.25 FEET TO THE EASTERN LINE OF THE`D & R.G.W. RAILROAD ; THENCE SOUTHERLY 302.5 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE D & R.G.W. ; THENCE WEST 85.1 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE D & R.G.W. RAILROAD TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE D. & R.G.W. RAILROAD ; THENCE SOUTH 31 DEGREES 26' EAST 90.25 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE D. & R.G.W. RAILROAD TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO_ 82; THENCE SOUTH 55 DEGREES 00' EAST 247.8 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST'L1NE OF SAID SECTION 27; THENCE NORTH 02 DEGREES 54 W. 481.84 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 27 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE ABOVE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SEU4NEI /4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT THE NE CORNER OF SAID SE1/4NEI/4; THENCE SOUTH 02 DEGREES 54' EAST 176.12 FEET ALONG':THE EAST LINE OF SAID SE1/4NE114 TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82; T ,• = -' NORTH 55 DEGREES O0' WEST 140 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY NO. 82 TO A POINT ; T}P NCE NORTH 30 f• - 1 TO A PONT AN$ t _....-._.C_-.. 3 -- ' .Z' - 17S - `i+t� .:+ PfiN- r T.!NN N DEPARTMENT "aL{.f .. TMEN HIGHWAYS . Y c. B 1 .`:}�� "'"'Zs`l R.L7CE# ION NO. 221105. - • • • Page 1 of 4 1. Brian Hopkins BLM direction North East 50629 Highway 6 & 24 P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Phone: 970-947-2840 2. Tom Willison East 344 Coryell Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-5357 3. Richard Backe North West 3650 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-379-4198 4. To the south is Highway 82, Bike Trail, Old Grand Ave, and the Beau Jo's at Buffalo Valley restaurant and the Mountain View Church, outside the 300 ft. boundary. IN REPLY REFER TO: 1780 (CO -14000) United States Department 1 BUREAU OF LAND MANA 1 EMENT Glenwood Springs Field 0 j ce 50629 Highway 6 and 2 P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 1602 f the Interior January 30, 2006 Christopher M. Janusz 3642 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Janusz: TAKE PRIDE` 'NAM ERICA The simple administrative split of your property i to two separate parcels will not affect the management of, or the resources on, the adjoining public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. If you have additional questions please contact me 2829). Sincerely, • at (970) 947-2840 (FAX: 947- Brian R. Hopkins Community P anner • IP Saturday, January 20, 2007 • • To: Garfield County Commissioners Any concerned citizens The commercial property, bordering the Janusz property on the east, is owned by me, Tom Williston. I agree that these two homes should be on their own lot. I fully support the County Commissioners in correcting the property lines. Sincerely, Tom Williston 31- ti cv,¢.y E u - C lAiS, Co 31601 CY17 - aids - c-3--7 2 Saturday, January 20, 2007 To: Garfield County Commissioners Any concerned citizens This is to verify that we support our neighbors Chris and Astrid Janusz in their effort to split their land into two sections, instead of one property with two homes. Our property directly borders the Janusz' to the west and access to our home is through an easement on their land. We are familiar with the land next to us and have a copy of the letter dated January 2, 2000, from the county. It allows the Janusz' to replace the trailer, which belongs to Don and Louise Price, with a new home at their convenience. We also know of the verbal commitment to allow the Price's to stay in their home as long as Chris and Astrid Janusz own the property. By allowing the property to be split, it decreases the possibility of Don and Louise Price having to move, due to unforeseen circumstances. Sincerely, k'4;l� �L�? Richard Backe, Jr. P 2 6 w S co S/GO/ 970 • • Buffalo Valley Inn 3637 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 January 30, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: I have reviewed Chris Janus plans to correct the property line and support this effort. Yours truly, Kurt J Wigger Owner c7'70 -`Pt -62-`,'7 p,9s • • • • • Christopher Al. Janusz 3642 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-948-2011 Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Kathy Eastley, AICP To Whom It May Concern: We would like to do a lot split, since we have two residences on the existing property. Sincerely, cC der 1,A Christopher M. Janusz Astrid B. Janusz From Land Title (M84) Wed 21 Jan 2009 10:59:06 AM MST Page 2 of 9 • LandTrtieQiaranteeDa ray asiCiu wsmaIn Date: 01-15-2009 Our Order Number: GW63003706 Property Address: 3642 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS CO 81601 GAMBA ENGINEERING Attic STEVE GAMBA 11ilaii: sgamba®gambaengineering.com CMS JANUSZ Attn: CHRIS EMail: Janasz@tof.net If you have any inquiries or require further assistance, please contact Title Deptarhnent Phone: 970-945-2610 Fax: 970-945-4784 lona DELIVERY. LP From Land Title (MB4) Wed 21 Jan 2009 10:59:06 AM MST Page 3 of 9 Fnrm PFIVORT LTG Policy No. LTAQ63003706 PITY IrAAl1CN at iE Our Order No. GW63003706 Liability: $50,000.00 Fee: $500.00 Subject to the exclusions from coverage, the limits of liability and other provisions of the Conditions and Stipulations hereto annexed and made a part of this Binder, OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a Corporation, herein called the Company, GUARANTEES CHRISTOPHER M. JANUSZ AND ASTRID B. JANUSZ herein called the Assured, against loss, not exceeding the liability amount stated above, which the assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurance which the Company hereby gives that, according to the public records as of December 31, 2008 at 5:00 P.M_ 1. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: CHRISTOPHER M. JANUSZ AND ASTRID B. JANUSZ 2. The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Binder is: A Fee Simple Land Title Guarantee Company Representing Old Republic National Title Insurance Company From Land Title (M84) Wed 21 Jan 2009 10:59:06 AM MST Form PIB/ORT Page 4 of 9 LTG Policy No. LTAQUJUUJ/Uo Our Order No. GW63003706 3. The land referred to in this Binder is situated in the State of Colorado, County of GARFIELD described as follows: SEE ATTACHED PAGE(S) FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4. The following documents affect the land: 1. DEED OF TRUST DATED JULY 31, 2003, FROM CHRISTOPHER M. JANUSZ AND ASTRID B. JANUSZ TO THE PUBLIC TRUSI1th OF GARFIELD COUNTY FOR THE USE OF WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC TO SECURE THE SUM OF $175,343.00 RECORDED AUGUST 18, 2003, IN BOOK 1507 AT PAGE 356. 2. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE H1S ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED APRIL 30, 1894, IN BOOK 12 AT PAGE 318. 3. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNIThD STATES PATENT RECORDED APRIL 30, 1894, IN BOOK L2 AT PAGE 318. 4. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED TO THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 13, 1931 IN BOOK 168 AT PAGE 160. Land Title Guarantee Company Representing Old Republic National Title Insurance Company .From Land Title (MB4) Wed 21 Jan 2009 10:59:06 AM MST Page 5 of 9 Form PIBIORT 4. The following documents affect the land: (continued) LTG Policy No. LTAQ63003706 Our Order No. GW63003706 5. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 17, 1963 IN BOOK 348 AT PAGE 365. 6. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 22, 1993 IN BOOK 876 AT PAGE 242. 7. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 12, 1977 IN BOOK 500 AT PAGE 614. 8. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT DEED RECORDED MARCH 09, 2000 IN BOOK 1176 AT PAGE 374. 9. PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS OF EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PREPARED BY JEROME GAMBA & ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED MARCH 13, 2000 AS PROJECT NO. 00125. 10. EXISTING OVERHEAD POWERLINES AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PREPARED BY JEROME GAMBA & ASSOCIATES, INC. DAIT_D MARCH 13, 000 AS PROJECT NO. 00125. 11. ENCROACHMENT OF SINGLE STORY FRAME HOUSE WITH ATTACHED DECK AND SHED ONTO 50 FOOT SETBACK AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PREPARED BY JEROME GAMBA & ASSOCIATES, INC DA 1'Na) MARCH 13, 2000 AS PROJECT NO. 00125. NOTE: THIS BINDER DOES NOT REFLECT THE STATUS OF TITLE TO WATER RIGHTS OR REPRESENTATION OF SAID RIGHTS, RECORDED OR NOT. NOTE: THIS BINDER IS NOT A REPORT OR REPRESENTATION AS TO MINERAL INTERESTS, AND SHOULD NOT BE USED, OR RELIED UPON, IN CONNECTION WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN CRS 24-65.5-103. -d Title (M84) Wed 21 Jan 2009 10:59:06 AM MST Page 6 of 9 Jrder No. GW63003706 LTG Policy No. LTAQ63003706 BQ-1HT"A' MAL PTfGN A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED EN THE E1/2NE1/4, SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AND MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 27, WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 27 BEARS N. 02 DEGREES 54' WEST 1057.83 FEE1; THENCE WEST 289.25 FEET TO THE EASTERN RN LINE OF THE D & KG. W. RAILROAD ; THENCE SOU'T'HERLY 302..5 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE D & R.G.W. ; THENCE WEST 85.1 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE 01? THE D & RG. W. RAILROAD TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE D. & R.G. W. RAILROAD ; THENCE SOUTH 31 DEGREES 26' EAST 90.25 HEM ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE D. & R.G.W. RAILROAD TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82; THENCE SOUTH 55 DEGREES 00' EAST 247.8 I 1 H:1 ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 27; THENCE NORTH 02 DEGREES 54 W. 481.84 FEE' ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 27 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE ABOVE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SEU4NE1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO -WTI': BEGINNING AT THE NE CORNER 01? SAID SE1/4NEIJ4; THENCE SOUTH 02 DEGREES 54' EAST 176.12 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SEIJ4NE1J4 TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82; THENCE NORTH 55 DEGREES 00' WEST 140 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY NO. 82 TO A POINT ; THENCE NORTH 30 FEET TO A POINT AND THENCE NORTH 58 DEGREES 12' EAST 124.45 1E1,1TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS BY ERNES'T L MACTAVISH IN DOCUMENT RECORDED APRIL 17, 1963 IN BOOK 348 AT PAGE 366 AS RECEPTION NO. 221105. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO • • 'From Land Title (M84) 1. Definition of Terms Wed 21 Jan 2009 10:59:06 AM MST Page 7 of 9 Property Information Binder CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS The following terms when used in this Binder mean: (a) "Land": The land described, specifically or by reference, in this Binder and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real irmperty; (b) ''Public Reconls'; those records which impart constructive notice of matins relating to said land; (c) "Date": the effective date; (d) "the Assured": the party or parties named as the Assured in this Binder, or in a supplemental writing executed by the Company; (e) "the Company" mars Old R.epoblic National Title Irsurmce Company, a Mimesota stock company. 2. Exclusions from Coverage of this Binder The company assumes no liability including cast of defense by reason of the following: (a) Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real pmpetty or by the Public Records; cues and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office. (b) Unpatented mining darts; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. (c) Title to any property beyond the lines of the Land, or title to streets, maxis, avenues, lances, ways or waterways on which such laid abuts, or the right to maintain therein vaults, tunnels, rade, or any other structure or improvement; or any rights or easements therein unless such property, rights or easements are expessly and specifically set forth in said description (d) Mechanic's lien(s), judgment(s) or other lien(s). (e) Defects, tiers, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered or agreed to by the Assured; (b) not known b the Company, not recorded in the Public Records as of the Date, but known to the Assured as of the Date; or (c) attaching or crating subsequent to the Date. 3. Prosecution of Actions (a) The Company shall have the right at its own costs to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or do any other act which in its opinion nay be necessary or desirable to establish or corium the matters herein assured; and the Company may take any appropriate action under the tarns of this Binder, whether or not it shall be liable thereunder and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision hereof. (b) in all cases where the Company does not institute snd prosecute any action or proceeding, the Assured shall permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of the Assured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the Assured shall give the Company all reasonable aid in prosecuting such action or proceeding, and the Company shall reimburse the Assured for any expense so incurred. 4. Notice of Loss - Limitation of Action A statement in writing of any loss or damage for which it is claimed the Company Ls Iiabile under this Binder shall be tarnished to the Company within sixty days after such loss or damage shalt have been determined, and no fight of action shall accrue to the Assured under this Binder until thirty days after such statement shall have been furnished, and no recovery shall be had by the Assured under this Birder unless action shall be conanencod thereon with two years after expiration of the thirty day period. Pant= b furnish the statementof loss or damage or to commence the action within the time herinbefore specified, shall be conclusive bar against maintenance by the Assmed of any action under this Binder. 5. Option to Pay, Settle or Compromise Claims The Company shall have the option to pay, settle or compronise for or in the name of the Assured any claim which could result in loss to the Assured within the coverage of this Binder, or b pay the full amount of this Binder. Such payment or tender of payment of the full amount of the Binder shall geminate ail liability of the Company heteuttde: HURT (brrPxyl d2 • • From Land Title (MB4) Wed 21 Jan 2009 10:59:06 AM MST Page 8 of 9 6. Limitation of Liability - Payment of Loss (a) The liability of the Company under this Birder shall be tinned b the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurantts herein set forth, but in no event shall the liahiity exceed the amount of the Debility stated on the face page hereof. (b) The Company will trey all costs imposed upon the Assured in litigation carried on by the Company for the Assured, and all casts and attorney's fees in litigation carried on by the Assured with the written anffarization of the Company. (c) No claim for has or danages shall arise or be maintainable under this Binder (1) if the Company after having received notice of any alleged defect, lien or encumbrance not shown as an Exception or excluded herein removes sack defect, lien or encumbrance within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice, or (2) for liability voluntarily assumed by the Assured in sealing any claim or suit without written consent of the Company. (d) All payments under this Binder, except for attorney's fees as provided for in paragraph 6(b) thereof, shall reduce the amount of the liability hereunder pen taro, and no peyneert shall be made without ptododng this Birder or an acceptable copy thereof for endorsenrettt of the payment unless the Binder be lost or destroyed, in which case proof of the loss or destitution shall be furnished b the satisfaction of the Company. (e) When liability las been definitely fixed in accordance with the conditions of this Birder, the loss or damage shall be payable within thirty days thereafter. 7. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement Whenever the Company shall have settled a cldm under this Birder, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the Assured, and it shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the Assured would have had against any person or property in aspect to the daim bad this Binder not been issued. If the payment does not cover the kiss of the Assured, the Company shall be subeogated b the rights and remedies in the proportion which the payment bears to the amount of said lass. The Assured, if requested by the Company, shall transfer b the Company all rights and remedies against any person or lawny secesary in order to perfect the right of subrogation, and shall permit the Company to use the name of the Assured in any transaction or litigation involving the rights or remedies. 8. Binder Entire Contract Any action or actions or rights of action that the Assured may have ormay bring against the Company arising out of the subject matter hereof mat be based on the provisiors of this Birder. No provision or condition of this Binder can be waived or changed except by a wilting endorsed or attached hereto signed by the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary or other validating officer of the Company. 9. Notices. Where Sent All notices required to be given the Company and any stammers in wridng required is be famished the Company shall be addressed to it at 400 Second Avenue Sonet, Mimapolis, Minnesota 55401, (612) 371-1111. 10. Arbitration Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the insured may demand arbitration pursuant to the Tide Lawrance Arfiittstion Rules of the Atterican Atbitradon Association. Intadltaatgtihe Cowin LOiliMMECINROliEECOAVINY i3UGiN CIME1t200 CIENROMEERNA 0081601 9700452610 FbBCifCoer trgr2d2 -(),)04 From Land Title (M84) Wed 21 Jan 2009 10:59:06 AM MST Page 9 of 9 Pr" Land Title (iIIARAN I f 1. (IIMPANT LAMT1TLECUARANTEECCMPANY INVCIC Customer Reference No. Record Owner CHRISTOPHER M. JANUSZ AND AS'IRID B. JANUSZ Property Address: 3642 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS CO 81601 When referring to this order, please reference our Order No. GW63003706 - CHARGES - Property Information Binder --Total-- $500.00 $500.00 Payment is due within 30 days from the date on which the Guarantee is issued. If payment is not received within 30 days of that date, the Guarantee and all coverages thereunder shall be cancelled. Please make checks payable to: LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY 1317 GRAND AVE #200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 • • From Land Title (MB4) Wed 21 Jan 2009 10:59:06 AM MSI Facsimile TO: Recipient: Company: Voice: Fax: 1-970-384-2605 FROM: Sender: Christie Obrigewitch Company: Land Title Guarantee Company Location: Glenwood Springs Voice: 970-945-2610 Fax: 970-945-4784 rage 1 or J Land Title GUARANTEE COMPANY DATE: Wed Jan 21 2009, 11:01 MST RE: Land Title Delivery (3642 HIGHWAY 82)(buyer/owner JANUSZ)(ou r 610017 116) Comments: CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this facsimile message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the address shown via the United State Postal Service. Thank you. ARTICLE V DIVISIONS OF LAND 5-405 REVIEW PROCESS AND CRITERIA FOR AN APPROVED PUD PLAN REQUIRING SUBDIVISION Section 5-406 General County Exemption Criteria. The following general exemption criteria shall apply to all proposed exemptions requiring platting. Additional criteria also apply to Rural Land Development Exemptions, detailed in Section 7-601, and Approved PUD Plan Requiring Subdivision, as detailed in Section 5-406 B. A. Compliance With Zoning and Use Regulations. The development and use of Exemption Lots comply with the zoning regulations and use restrictions of this Land Use Code and the PUD zone designations, if applicable. . 1. The resulting Exemption Lots are not illegal or nonconforming Tots under these Regulations. Any Exemption Lot that is nonconforming shall not increase its degree of nonconformance. 2. The resulting Exemption Lots contain safe, adequate building sites capable of complying with applicable use restrictions, criteria and standards set forth in these Regulations. B. Not within the Purposes of Subdivision Statutes or This Land Use Code. The division of land by the exemption processes, detailed herein, is not within the purposes of the state subdivision statutes, Part 1 of the County Planning and Building Code Act, C.R.S. §30-28-101, et seq., or the subdivision regulations of this Land Use Code. C. Adequate Water Supply. The resulting Exemption Lots have a sufficient legal and physical source of water, in compliance with the requirements of this Land Use Code set forth in Section 7-104 of Article VII, Standards. D. Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Disposal System. The resulting Exemption Lots have an adequate water distribution system and wastewater disposal system in compliance the requirements of this Land Use Code set forth in Section 7-105 of Article VII, Standards. E. Adequate Access. The resulting Exemption Lots have legal and adequate access in compliance with the requirements of this Land Use Code set forth in Section 7-107 of Article VII, Standards. F. Hazards. The resulting Exemption Lots do not create hazards identified in Section 7-209 and Section 7-210 of Article VII, or exacerbate existing hazards. G. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements. The proposed exemption is consistent with applicable provisions of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and any intergovernmental GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION SEPTEMBER , 2008 5-27 ARTICLE V DIVISIONS OF LAND 5-406 GENERAL COUNTY EXEMPTION CRITERIA agreements between the County and a municipality that apply to the area where the division of land will occur. H. Exemption Map Requirements. See the specific requirements for Exemption Plats at Section 5-502 B6 and B7. ` The following general criteria also apply: Suitability of Plat for Recordation. The exemption map or plat is drawn in accordance with the requirements of these Regulations and is suitable for recordation. 2. Adequacy of -Supporting Materials. The exemption plat meets all planning, engineering, and surveying requirements of these Regulations for maps, data, surveys, analyses, studies, reports, plans, designs, documents, and other supporting materials. 3. Liens and Encumbrances. The exemption plat does not include a lien, conveyance, or encumbrance to the property dividing a lot or encumbering the public use of public dedications for roadways public utility easements or other purposes. Taxes. All taxes applicable to the land have been paid. DIVISION 5 SUBDIVISION AND EXEMPTION (REQURING PLATTING) APPLICATION MATERIALS Section 5-501 Application Materials for Divisions of Land. Following are the application materials required for permits and approvals required by the Land Use Code for divisions of land, including exemptions requiring platting. A detailed description of each submittalrequirementis set forth in Section 5-502, Description of Submittal Requirements. A. Minor, Major and Road -Split Exemptions. These types of exemptions are defined in Section 5-202 A, B and C. The review processes for these requests for exemption from subdivision review are set forth in Sections 5-401 through 5-403 and require the following materials. 1. Application Form and Fees 2. Vicinity Map (4-602 C. 2.) 3. Appropriate Exemption Plat. 4. Written Narrativeexplaining reason for request for exemption from subdivision review GARFIELD COUNTY UNIFIED LAND USE RESOLUTION SEPTEMBER, 2008 5-28 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES December 31, 2008 Christopher Janusz 3642 Hwy 82 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Janusz: Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Dick Wolfe, P.E. Director We are in receipt of your request for the uses termed as "domestic" on permit no. 13563 to be clarified to reflect what the actual historic uses of the well were. After reviewing the information provided to this office concerning the historic use, we acknowledge that the well use prior to May 8, 1972, included ordinary household purposes inside two single family dwellings, domestic animals, and the irrigation of 1,000 square feet of home lawn and garden (the amount of lawn and garden being through a discussion you had with Craig Lis of this office). This letter will be attached to your permit file, defining your permitted uses. Please feel free to contact me at (303) 866-3581, if you have any further questions regarding the permitted uses of your well. Sincerely, Joht Gabert Water Resource Specialist cc: file JG/jg Office of the State Engineer 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 • Denver, CO 80203 • Phone: 303-866-3581 • Fax: 303-866-3589 www.water.state.co.us FORM NO. awa-11 07193 STATE OF COLORADO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Oto C•ntonNeI Bldg., 1313 Shemin at, DMwr. Cylmedo 10203 (303) 006.13+1 ;5 : S- PRIOR TO COMPLETING FORM, SEE INSTRUCTIONS 014 SIDE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP/ADDRESS / LOCATION WEIL PERMIT. LIVESTOCK TANK OR EROSION CONTROL DAM 1. NEW OWPj 9 NAMER Christopher M. 'Janusz & Astrid B. Januszw ....... Mailing Address.._....3642...Bwy...82................_..W CitY, St. PP..W nomC _ )....................................... ._...... ................_... 2 THIS CHANCE IS FOR ONE OP THE FOLLOWING: -WEU_. PERMIT t3M8ER. _. ' __._ ».:» _ . _»: » - ❑ LNESTOCK WATER TANK WARM 0 EROSION CONTROL DAM For oflwe UL. only RECEIVED MAR 2 9 2000 WATER 111.SOURCr-S STATE NCAREER COLA. 3. WELL LOCATION; COUNTY »._.. C��I,RFIELD » » » » » »»» OWNER'S WELL DESIGNATION 3642 Hwy 822_ Glenwood Springs,2,„CO 81601 (Address) (CAM W tar 114 on Ih... N ..._ 114, Sea.... DN. or [0 S» Ftanp._.?9 .....•❑ ^ E. or L,XI W. 6th • pistances ces from Section Lines . .............. Ft from ❑ N «❑ S. Line,. Ft Brom ❑ E. w 0 W. Une. ..... ._ . ...» .................... Etkcis .. _.........Fang (Unit) .. ,. 4. UVESTOCK TANK OR EROSION CONTROL DAM 1,0041211 O.OUNT1. _ _...» ___...._._....._.... 114, Sac. _.» 11wp ». »...» "4U N. or � S , :R�fgl� , .: ».» ❑ E w ❑ W. __ .._.. P.M. RIP) P.M. 5. "The above listed omega) =a,(s) thathlo (they) awn the aiu>cf&xla o d dbed heren. :The misting reoord is being amended for the bpanArtp: ,iii,..., .'4, r �. .• ❑ (Tanga In name of owner. Et Change in msmn efidre*s. 6. I (we) have read the stelements made herein, know the oontonhs thaweaf, end state that they are We 10 mY (our) knvwtadge. (Pursuant to Section 24-4-104 (13)(e) C.R.S., the maidng of tales steternititii herein coflstkutes perjury in the second degree and la pu nlsheble ea a cissa 1 !tsf ar,.,, . 0 Correction of location. Nasna/Tkle (Ptaaei type or pdnW Christopher M. Janusz Astrid 8. Janusz 'lige irate Engineer Court Casa No. Dtv. Go., hCCEPTED As A CHANOE IN OWNERSHIP AND/OR MARINO Af)DRESS- �fL owe MD Use s • rm E (Rev.) 9-57 -whet mob n istered ,oy Cards Typ*d Drilled ''`Owner 12p -S ,CCASA1, (?&L STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEC 141962 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER ,id WATER Siai GROUND WATER SECTION eoLORADO STATE MOO LOG AND HISTORY,/ ISTORY S WELL PERMIT NO.3 / Lic. No.- ,1/� /WELL LOCA I N Ce—n ►P, 7 'Address Tenant /VC' "Used for .47)0 rife --C/ C on or by (descriptio4Qof/5e or Date Started 'Date Completed //0/4,6'r% Date Tested 10/3 6 `Yield gpm _ Pump type Je& Outlet Driven by HP @ RPM Depth to Water Ft. Draw down Depth to Inlet Ft.; Bowl Ft. Size and Kind of Casing: 1 From to 73 Ty/waffle' e' .¢�``. cfs Size 1 County of Twp. • S e t v C of Sect. c2 , Rge. 4 b PM LOCATE WELL ACCURATELY IN THE SMALL SQUARES REP - PRESENTING 40 ACRES w From to Type Wt. From to Type Wt. Perforations: Size and Type From O to Z TypeciAhollY From to Type Size From to Type Size Well description: Total Depth / Ft. (from Pto Z3 , 7 in. Hole ( (from to in. Diam. ( (from to in. l 13 1 ' I lI----I— ----- t1L I I I I l ' If the above fill in: s is not applicable E Town or Subdivision Street Address or Lot & Block Ground elevation How led:,/ --. (if known) REMARKS Cementing, Packing, Type of Shut-off, Depth to Shut-off, etc. PUT LOG OF WELL ON RE- VERSE SIDE TO BE MADE OUT IN QUADRUPLICATE: Original Bine and Duplicate Green to State Engineer's Office, White copy to Owner, and Yellow copy to Driller JoNOTE -- SATISFACTORY 7% .":".7brm C(Rev. ) 3-62/5M (Use Indelible F Applicant P.O. Address STATE OF COLORADO APPLICATION FOR USE OF GROUND Pencil or Typewriter) �S f et.4246 cola 1 Quantity applied Th - JQ gpm or AF Storage Used for 1)ttrSt,L Purposes on/at (legal description of land site) Total acreage irrigated and other rts. ESTIMATED DATA OF WELL Bole size: 7 in. to jirA ft. in. to ft. Casing Plain 7 in. in - Open or Perf_in. in. PUMP DATA: Type Use initiation date / 'Z- — j 196 (Use Supplemental pages for additional data) from 0 to SQ. ft. from to ft. from. to 20 ft. from to ft. Outlet .HP Size THIS APPLICATION APPROVED PERMIT NO. ISSUED: DATE NOV 191962 19 14063 COMPLETION WATER rg_ 9antag NOV 191962 L ATION O G , ; WATER sa . owDo County SSE ;MIMEO N* of _} of Sect'7 Rge. �jy P.M. OR Stireet Address or Lot & Block No. Town or Subdivision N Locate well in 40 acre (small) square as near as possible. Large square is one section. s $25.00 fee required for uses than Domesti < r Livesto i- .►�YL.y.c t other Applicant Agent Dr i11e Address REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF APPLICATION '& 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 Locate well in 40 acre (small) square as near as possible. Large square is one section. s $25.00 fee required for uses than Domesti < r Livesto i- .►�YL.y.c t other Applicant Agent Dr i11e Address REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF APPLICATION • LOG OF WELL :(ADD CES 9 NEEDED) From 0 ft. to % a ft. CDU '�'/�'- S ft. to -• ft. ft. to ft.. ft. to ft. ft. to ft. • • E.,- This does not constitute a building or use permit. GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARtMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 2014 Wake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 REPAIR - PERC ONLY Phone 1303) 945-7255 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT NTy Owner E. L. MacTavlsh System Location Licensed Contractor 913 ,.3592 Highway 82 - Glenwood Springs ,g,,, ,41a./ /f. Conditional Construction approval is hereby granted fort Septic Tank or _ Aerated treatment unit. gallon Absorption area (or dispersal area) computed as follows: Pere rate of one inch in / 0 minutes requires a minlfnum of /67 S" sq. ft. of absorption area per bedroom. Therefore the no. of bedrooms — x `-[/0�.sq ft. minimum requirement = a total of sq. ft. of absorption area. May we suggest I� I 2 'x !CT e PD �%'Y y �'r' / / Date //Jsys© Inspector: ;:'i t ,4/1 FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM: / No system shall be deemed to be in compliance with the Sewage Disposal Laws until the assembled system is approved prior to cover- ing any part. tD 1< Septic Tank access for inspection and cleaning within 12" of ground surface or aerated access ports above ground surface. Q Proper materials and assembly. 0 �� Trade nariti o septic tan or aerated trea ent unit. GS Adequate absorption (or dispersal) area. D Y1 Adequate compliance with permit requirements. /"c Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements. Other Date //AO' O Inspector RETAIN WITH 'RECEIPT RECORDS CONSTRUCTION SITE *CONDITIONS: 1. Alt installation must comply with all requirements of the County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations, adopted pursuant to au- thority granted in 66-44-4, CRS 1963, amended 66-3-14, CRS 1963. 2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Connection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a viola- tion of a requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. 3. Section III, 3.24 requires any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which in- volves a knowing and material variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense (5500.00 fine — 6 months in jail or both). Building Official — Permit White Copy Applicant — Green Copy Dept. — Pink Copy Page Two vrr1cc-v5-e -- Fees Paid $.C� INDIVIDUAL HOME SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS APPLICATION Date JD - 21 4110 id( a Owner: e �A - c _% (�� ° J ...__ Mail Address: . e. D 1 G City:1.e;c:�f' Zip: ��6�� Phone:%//_ INFORMATION REGARDING PROJECT S MITTED FOR REVIEW • Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable buildings, location of potable water wells, soil percola- tion test holes, soil profiles in test holes (see Page 3). Near What 1 1. Location of Facility: County GARFIELD City or Town /__ zd______ Location Address &/or Legal Description 3e,.,2Lot Size No . of bedrooms 2.44:7 nK. Capacity 2• 3 Septic Ta' Aeration Unit Capacity N/A 3. Source of Domestic Water: Public (name): e14/ Private: Well Depth Other/2_ Depth to 1st ground water table 4. Is facility within boundaries of a city/town 6r sanitation district? 5. Distance to nearest sewer system; Have you attempted to arrange a connection with the system? If rejected, what was the reason? 6. If R.P.E. tested, state rate of absorption in test holes shown on the location map, in minutes per inch of drop in water level after holes have been soaked for 24 hours: 7. Name, address, and telephone of R.P.E. who made soil absorption tests: 8. Name, address, and telephone of R.P.E. responsible for design of the system: 9. Express permission is hereby granted for the inspection of the above property by any member of the Garfield County Building & Sanitation Department and/or such persons as they may designate. Any withdrawal of this permission shall be in writing and receipt acknowledged by the County Building & Sanitation Department. 10. I have been given an opportunity to read the Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Regula- tions of Garfield County and I hereby agree to comply with all terms, conditions and requirements included therein. ignature o 'Applicant (TO BE RETURNED TO BLDG. .& SANT. DEPT.) • • GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING ND SAN ITA ON DEPARTMENT 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Spring*, Colorado 81 01 Phone (303) 945-8241 )(17:--7=7,5A-7 .�/*VYy INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT -.le 1385 Owner System Location Licensed installer l'AZf-}A/ Conditional Construction approval is hereby granted for a .t CJD— Septic Tank or _Aerated treatment uni Absorption area for dispersal area) computed as follows: • ,,tF,r�-,c. �9'. Die_! 1 This does not constitute a building or use permit. Ion .t ' s ' of -X.7 sew Pere rate of one inch in /+S- minutes requires s minimum of G, 7 sq ft. of absorption area per bedroom. Therefore the no. of bedrooms x 4=13 77 sq ft. m imum requir May we suggest , �k' /p y 'X S'- 7-- er'S/ /ia rt• : c-- - s- • c -za+ FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM: u'0-77 e- No system shall be deemed to be in compliance with the Sewi Ing any part. CL Septic Tank access for inspection and clean 'i surface. / roper materials and assembly. ""!"7 Trade name of septic tank or aerated treatrrent unit. Date ent a total of.? ' q. ft. of absorption area. , 010—C };o'—,---- 4"4/b If Inspector -5 c •s ,-10t3Se--)-'"-.r•' r7 ' J /t�It is le Disposal La until the assembled system is approved prior to cover- - /ec.1 ea) .C1%./u/J ng within 12" f ground surface or aerated access ports above ground (9I _ Adequate absorption (or dispersal) area. Adequate compliance with permit require n Adequate compliance with County and Stae regulations/Tr Other Date Inspector quirements. RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT C 'CONDITIONS: 1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the my Indivi thority granted in 66.44-4. CRS 1963. amended 66-3-14, RS 1963. 2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures wh ch have fully Connection to or use with any dwelling or structures not pproved by t tion of a requirement of the permit and cause for both 'eget action and 3. Section 111, 3.24 requires any person who constructs, alters, or installs volves a knowing and material variation from the terms ur specification Petty Offense (5500.00 fine — 6 months in jail or both). Applicant: Grain Copy Deportment: auaara1\aaw,1611•a111.'rarw.SaaSfl4.1.11.1.•••••••••••••141.0•1•411. .+a_ `•141.0•1a NSTRUCTION SITE al Sewage Disposal Regulations. adopted pursuant to au - moiled .with u• mptied.with County zoning and building requirements. Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a viola tion of the permit. individual sewage disposal system in a manner which in contained in the application of permit commits a Class!, k* COPY • QWNER DRESS / ,, �� . �.. 1- .t PHONE 5 ` SP/ II/IIw CONTRACTOR dZikytdir4 ADDRESS PHONE Ag -J4.3; PERMIT REQUEST FOR: ( ) New Installation Ott -Alteration (,K) Repair Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation test holes, soil profiles in test holes. (See page 4.) LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY: County 4F7401/04,e741110 Near what City of Town '625 . Lot Size Legal Description if 2G 2 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPIAATION /J Mpplit..01.13.111 Approval by drtounty Official: OD✓ WASTES TYPE: 241) Dwelling ( ) Commercial or Institutional ( ) Transient Use ) Non-domestic Wastes ( ) Other - Describe rim �r IE BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: Number of bedrooms ( ) Garbage grinder (>0. Automatic washer SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: ()k.!) well Give depth of all wells within 180 feet of syst If supplied by community water, give name or ROUND CONDITIONS: Depth"to bedrock: Number of persons ) Dishwasher ) spring ( ) stream or creek .0- 7 sulplier: Depth to first Ground Water Table: Percent ground slope: DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: c C Was an effort made to connect to community system? )7 TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL ( X Septic Tank ( ) Vault Privy ( ) Pit Privy ( ) Chemical Toilet FINAL DISPOSAL BY: N, Absorption Trench, Bed ( ) Underground Dispersal ( ) Above Ground Dispersal ( ) Other - Describe: SYSTEM PROPO ( ( ED: ) Aerati n Plant ) Composing Toilet ) Incineration Toilet ) Other .- Describe: or Pit_ ( ) Vault ( ) Recycling, potable use ( ) Recycling, other use ) ENapotranspiration ) Sand Filter ) Wastewater Pond WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATER OF THE STATE? Page 2 )0) • a'. 4 SOIL PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer .. Minutes per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes per inch in hole No. 3 Minutes per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes per inch in hole No. Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil absorption tests: Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applicant or by the local health department for purposes of the evaluation of the application, and the issuance of the perrit ass :subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations adopted under Article 10, Title 25, C.R.S. 1973, as amended. The undersigned hereby certifies that all statements made, information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local department of health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further under- stand that any falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based upon said application and in legal action for per- jury as provided by law. Date PLEASE DRAW -AND ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY Signed 4:44-Y1.,4-42/%! [�, rte. 1-1--1/1-e Page 3 • • 01/09/2009 17:20 9706836290 CDOT R3 TRAFFIC PAGE 02 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Traffic & Safety Section 222 South 6"" Street, Room 100 Grand Junction, Colorado 91501 (970)683.8284 Fax: (970) 683-6290 December 31, 2008 Chris Janusz 3642 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Proof of Access for 3642, 3644, 3650 State Highway 082A at reference point 3.553 Left Mr. Janusz: The purpose of this letter is to provide proof for 3642 and 3644 Hwy 82 that it has access to the State Highway system. The access is off State Highway 82, were CDOT recently added a new traffic signal. The access appears to service three single family home (3642, 3644, 3650 Highway 82). After reviewing our files, CDOT does not have any access permit for this property. However, based upon our conversation, the property appears to have a "grandfathered access". Based upon the State Highway Code (2 CCR 601-1), it states «grandfathered means a condition that existed prior to June 21, 1979 when section 43-2-147, C.R.S., was first signed into law, or a condition that was legal and conforming to an earlier Code edition or statute, where such conditions and use have not changed since the effective date of the change in law that made the condition non -conforming with current taw." Therefore, the property has legal access since there is no traffic volume change at the property. It is my understanding that you wish to subdivide your property into 2 different lots. CDOT doesn't have any issues with the possible new subdivision of the property since it will not increase traffic volume by 20%. Therefore, no new permit will be required per the Code. If you have any additional questions, pleasecontact me. Sincerely,�t ow, Dan Roussin Region 3 Unit Permit Manager Daniel.Roussin@dot.state.co.us Cc: File Page 1 of 1 Christopher M Janusz 3642 Highwav 82 Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Phone: 970-948-2011 Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Item 'IT: Hazards There is not increase in risk or safety. The property has been occupied for ninety years. The following HP GEOTECH site assessment describes the property to be in a moderate rock fall area. The irrigation ditch has always acted as a form of mitigation. •24, et - Christopher M. Janusz • Gtech HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL February 9, 2009 Chris Janusz 3642 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 email: hpgeo@hpgeotech.com Job No. 109 016A Subject: Preliminary Geologic Site Assessment, Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision, 3642 and 3644 Highway 82, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Janusz: This report presents the results of a preliminary geologic site assessment for the proposed 2 lot subdivision located at 3642 and 3644 Highway 82, Garfield County, Colorado. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the geologic conditions and their potential impacts on the project. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for professional services to Chris Janusz, dated January 26, 2009. A field reconnaissance of the project site was made on February 2, 2009 to observe the geology and potential hazards at the site. In addition, we have reviewed previous studies in the area, published regional geologic studies and looked at aerial photographs. Based on this information, an assessment of the potential influence of the geology on the proposed development was made. This report summarizes our findings and presents our conclusions and recommendations. Proposed Development: The proposed development consists of splitting the 1.37 acre, triangle shaped lot into two roughly equal size lots and replacing the existing trailer on the south lot (3644 Highway 82) with a single family residence. At this time, no new development is planned for the home on the north lot, and plans for the single family residence on the south lot have not been developed. When building and grading plans have been developed for the site, we should be notified for additional geologic conditions assessment and a geotechnical evaluation. Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthorne 970-468-1989 • • • Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 2 Site Conditions: The project site is located in the northern part of the Roaring Fork River valley about 2 miles south of Glenwood Springs along the uphill, eastern side of Highway 82. The overall property is roughly triangular in shape with side dimensions of about 279 feet and 306 feet and 415 feet along Highway 82. The property abuts a single family residence to the north and a commercial development to the southeast. The steep hillside to the northeast is cut by relatively small, ephemeral drainages which slope down towards the project site and terminate at the Glenwood Ditch. The ditch is located between about 40 to 60 feet uphill of the existing structures. An 8 -inch diameter PVC pipe has recently been buried in the bottom of the ditch for service to the adjacent properties. Currently, the ditch is about 12 feet wide and 4 feet deep. The property is located in the middle part of coalescing debris fans which originate about 300 feet upslope of the property. The property grade has been terraced to accommodate a trailer, modular residence and storage sheds which are accessed by a driveway from Highway 82 to the southwest. The overall slope across the development area is about 25 percent down to the southwest towards the Roaring Fork River, located about 1,700 feet southwest of the property. Above the ditch, the ground surface increases in steepness to about 50 percent. Vegetation on the property consists of grass and weeds, scattered small brush and several 10 to 20 foot tall pinon pines. Sandstone cobbles and boulders up to about 4 feet in size were observed on and surrounding the site. Most of the downhill properties on the alluvial fan have been developed with single family and commercial structures. Regional Geologic Setting: The project site is located in the Carbondale collapse center of the Southern Rocky Mountains Region west of the Rio Grande rift and east of the Colorado Plateau. The Carbondale collapse center is the western of two regional evaporite collapse centers in western Colorado. It is an irregular-shaped, northwest trending region covering 460 square miles between the White River uplift and Piceance basin. As much as 4,000 feet of regional subsidence is believed to have occurred during the past 10 million years in the vicinity of Carbondale as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporate from beneath the regions (Kirkham and Others, 2002). The Eagle Valley Formation is located stratigraphically below the Maroon Formation and crops out on the valley side west of the project site. Much of the evaporite related subsidence in the Carbondale collapse center appears to have occurred within the past 3 million years Job No. 109 016A c,gEtech • • • Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 3 which also corresponds to high incision rates along the Roaring Fork, Colorado and Eagle Rivers. This indicates that long-term subsidence rates have been very slow, between about 0.5 and 1.6 inches per 100 years. It is uncertain if regional evaporite subsidence is still occurring or if it is currently inactive. If still active, these regional deformations because of their very slow rates should not have a significant impact on the proposed development at the site. Geologically young faults related to evaporite tectonics are present in the Carbondale collapse center but considering the nature of evaporite tectonics, these faults are not considered capable of generating large earthquakes. The closest geologically young faults that are less than about 15,000 years old and considered capable of generating large earthquakes are located in the Rio Grande rift to the east of the project site. The northern section of the Williams Fork Mountains fault zone Q50 is located about 50 miles to the northeast and the southern section of the Sawatch fault zone Q56b is located about 80 miles to the southeast. At these distances large earthquakes on these two geologically young fault zones should not produce strong ground shaking at the project site that is greater than the ground shaking shown on the U. S. Geological Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazards Maps (Frankel and Others, 2002). Project Site Geology: The geology in the project area was observed on February 2, 2009. Our geologic interpretations also use regional geology maps by Soule and Stover (1985) and Kirkham and others (1995). The local bedrock is Maroon Formation consisting of moderate to shallow dipping, blocky red sandstone. These rocks were deposited in the central Colorado trough during the Ancestral Rocky Mountain orogeny about 300 million years ago. The regional bedding generally strikes to the north and dips to the east. Bedrock outcroppings directly northeast of the project site dip between 11 and 26 degrees down to the east, into the hillside. The Maroon is overlain by dense, black resistant alkali basalt in lava -flow layers several feet thick deposited between 8 and 23 million years ago. The closest basalt flows are located about 3,000 feet to the north of the project site. Job No. 109 016A GeStech • • Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 4 Surficial Soil Deposits: The soil deposits in the project area are largely the result of erosion of red sandstone layers from bedrock outcroppings deposited as alluvial fans through a series of small drainages northeast of the project site. Several sandstone cobbles and boulders are visible on the surface. These fans appear active and could still be sites of infrequent rockfall and debris flows or floods associated with intense thunderstorms. A 6 to 8 foot incised drainage channel is located north of the property but appears to empty northwest of the site. The existing irrigation ditch would also appear to divert water and debris to the northwest around the project site and act as a catchment basin for rockfall. Geologic Site Assessment: There are several conditions of a geologic nature that should be considered as project planning and design proceeds. The most significant are potential rockfall and debris flows and floods. Other geologic conditions are sinkhole potential, earthquake ground shaking and moisture sensitive foundation soils. Percolation testing performed in 1980 and 1984 for septic design reported percolation rates of 10 and 15 minutes per inch, respectively. A log of a domestic well drilled in 1962 reported rocky soils to a depth of 73 feet and groundwater level at 50 feet. The alluvial fan soils above the water level are considered to be collapsible when wetted. Shallow foundations are typically used in this area for lightly loaded structures, but recommendations for bearing on the moisture sensitive soils should be addressed with a site specific geotechnical study when the building plans have been developed. The potential risks and possible mitigations to reduce the risks associated with debris flows, rockfalls, sinkholes and earthquakes are discussed below. Debris Flow and Flood Potential: The property is located in the middle part of coalescing alluvial fans that could be subject to sheetwash flows and floods during periods of snowmelt or heavy rainfall. There is a relatively high likelihood that future floods and flows will occur along hillside drainages but flows of the main drainage currently follow an incised drainage channel which passes northwest of the property. Smaller drainage channels are intercepted by the irrigation ditch which appears to carry water around the property to the northwest. In our opinion, there is a risk that debris flow material could breach the irrigation ditch during a large event and expose the project site Job No. 109 016A G legtech • • • Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 5 to significant building and property damage and possible harm to the building occupants. If this risk is not acceptable then mitigation to reduce the risk should be considered. Rockfall Potential: The steep hillside cliffs located to the northeast of the project site are resistant beds of the Maroon Formation that are source areas for repeated falls of rocks of varying sizes. Although rockfall occurrences have been documented in the Glenwood Springs area, we are not aware of rockfall documentation on the project site. Several cobble and boulder size rock fragments on the property do indicate a potential rockfall hazard. In our opinion, the risk is moderate that a rockfall event could reach the project site and cause significant building and property damage and possible harm to the building occupants. If this risk is not acceptable then mitigation to reduce the risk should be considered. The existing irrigation ditch has a 4 foot wall and a 12 foot wide catchment area which will prevent some rocks from reaching the project site. Sinkholes: Geologically young sinkholes are present in the western Colorado evaporite region mostly in areas where the Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite are shallow. The Eagle Valley Formation underlies the Maroon Formation in the project area. Evidence of sinkholes was not observed at the project site during our field reconnaissance or on aerial photographs reviewed. Although geologically active in the region, the likelihood that a sinkhole will develop during a reasonable exposure time at the site is considered to be low. The property owner should be advised of the sinkhole potential, since early detection of building distress or settlement of graded areas may help with timely remedial action which is important in reducing the cost of repairs should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole. Earthquake Potential: Historic earthquakes at the project site have typically been moderately strong with magnitudes of M 5.5 and less and maximum Modified Mercalli Intensities of VI and less (Kirkham and Rogers, 1985). Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable exposure time for the site, but the probability of stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. Job No. 109 016A Gtech • • • Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 6 Future buildings on the site should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. For firm rock sites with shear wave velocities of 2,500 fps in the upper 100 feet the U. S. Geological Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazard Map indicates that a peak ground acceleration of 0.06g has a 10% exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time and a peak ground acceleration of 0.23g has a 2% exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time at the project site (Frankel and Others, 2002). This corresponds to a statistical recurrence time of about 500 years and 2,500 years, respectively. The soil profile at the building site is estimated as Class D, stiff soil site, as described in the 2006 International Building Code. Radiation Potential: Regional studies by the Colorado Geological Survey indicate that the closest radioactive mineral occurrences to the project site are located along the Grand Hogback near New Castle about 14 miles to the northwest (Nelson -Moore and Others, 1978). Regional studies by the U. S. Geological Survey (Dubiel, 1993) for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate that the project site is in a moderate radon gas potential zone. The 1993 EPA regional radon study considered data from: (1) indoor radon surveys, (2) aerial radioactivity surveys, (3) the general geology, (4) soil permeability estimates, and (5) regional architectural practices. It is not possible to accurately assess future radon concentrations in buildings before they are constructed. Accurate tests of radon concentrations can only be made when the buildings have been completed. Because of this, new buildings in moderate to high radon areas are often designed with provisions for ventilation of the lower enclosed areas should post construction testing show unacceptable radon concentrations. Surface Drainage/Grading: The grading plan for development of building sites should consider runoff through the project and not allow ponding. New grading should not impact existing drainages or reduce mitigation provided by the irrigation ditch and should consider potential flooding impacts. We should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. Job No. 109 016A tech • • • Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 7 Limitations: This study has been conducted according to generally accepted engineering geology principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the field reconnaissance, review of published geologic reports, aerial photograph interpretation, and our experience in the area. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use for our client and is an evaluation of the potential influence of the geology on the proposed development. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. Additional study will be needed if additional debris flow and flood, and rockfall mitigation is proposed. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. If you have questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Respectfully Submitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Scott W. Richards, E.I. Engineering Geologist Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P. SWR/vam Job No. 109 016A Gtech • • 1 Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 8 References: Dubiel, R. F., 1993, Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Colorado in Geologic Radon Potential EPA Region 8, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming: U S. Geological Survey Open File Report 93- 292-11 Frankel, A. D. and Others, 2002, Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 02-420. Kirkham, R. M. and Rogers, W. P., 1985, Colorado Earthquake Data and Interpretations 1867 to 1985: Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 46. Kirkham, R. M. and Scott, R. B., 2002, Introduction to Late Cenozoic Evaporite Tectonism and Volcanism in West -Central, Colorado, in Kirkham R. M., Scott, R. Kirkham, R. M., Streufert, R. K., and Cappa, J. A., 1995, Geologic Map of the Glenwood Springs Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 95-3. Nelson -Moore, J.L., Collins, D.B., and Hornbaker, A.L., 1978, Radioactive mineral Occurrences of Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 40 (reprinted as a CD-ROM, 2005). Soule, J.M. and Stover, B.K., 1985, Surficial Geology, Geomorphology, and General Engineering Geology of Parts of the Colorado River Valley, Roaring Fork River Valley, and Adjacent Areas, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open -File Report 85-1. Job No. 109 016A Gtech January 2, 2000 Mr. Chris Janusz 3642 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Dear Mr. Janus, Garfield County Building & Planning Department I have on this date reviewed with you and Mr. Steve Rippy, Garfield County Assessor, the following facts. That there is a single wide mobile on your property at the above address in addition to a primary dwelling. The primary dwelling is a modular home. The single wide mobile was placed on the property prior to the enactment of Garfield County Zoning Regulations and is there fore qualified to be removed and replaced with another single wide mobile home or other type of single family dwelling, per county zoning regulations, Section 7.05. Compliance Official 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • 12/11/2008 14:02 9703845010 Report Date: 12!1112008 01:06PM GARCO TREAS / PT PAGE 02/02 GARFIELD COUNTY TREASURER Page: 1 STATEMENT OF TAXES DUE SCHEDULE NO: R060015 ASSESSED TO: JANUSZ. CHRISTOPHER M & ASTRID B 3642 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECT,TWN,RNG:27-6-89. DESC: TR OF LAND IN E1/2NE LYING E OF ST HWY 82 & W OF E DESC: SEC LINE OF SEC 27 BK.1002 PG:0540 BK:0280 PG:0607 BK:1177 PG:914-915 RECPT:560938 BK:1176 PG:374 RECPT:560305 BK:1175 PG:464 RECPT:560007 BK:0999 PG:0204 BK:0966 PG:0475 BK:0921 PG:0021 BK:0921 PG:0020 BK:0921 PG:0023 BK:0793 PG:0024 BK:0793 PG:0026 BK:0782 PG:0763 BK:0782 PG:0760 BK:0782 PG:0759 BK:0734 PG:0680 BK:0734 PG:0679 PARCEL: 2185-271-00-027 . SITUS ADD: 003642 HIGHWAY 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS TAX YEAR CHARGE TAX AMOUNT INTEREST FEES PAID TOTAL DUE 2007 TAX 1,530.72 0.00 0.00 1,530.72 0.00 TOTAL TAXES 0.00 GRAND TOTAL DUE AS OF 12/11/2008 0.00 ORIGINAL TAX BILLING FOR 2007 TAX DISTRICT 006 - 1G -MF Authority MW Levy Amount Values Actual Assessed GARFIELD COUNTY 6.825 172.47 RESIDENTIAL 317,340 25270 GLENWOOD RURAL FIRE 6.056* 153.03 BASALT WATER CONSER 0.055 1.39 TOTAL 317,340 25,270 COLO RIVER WATER CONS 0.191* 4.83 SCHOOL DISTRICT RE -1 25.713 649.77 COLORADO MTN COLLEGE 3.997 101.01 GLENWOOD FIRE - BOND 1.374 34.72 GARFIELD ROAD & BRIDGE 2.300 58.12 GARFIELD HUMAN SERVICES 0.280 7.08 GARFIELD CAP EXPEND 4.250 107.40 SCHOOL DISTRICT RE -1 BOND 8.533 215.63 GARFIELD COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 1.000 25.27 . TAXES FOR 2007 60.574' 1,530.72 • Credit Levy ALL TAX LIEN SALE AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO ENDORSEMENT OF CURRENT TAXES BY THE LIENHOLOER OR TO ADVERTISING AND DISTRAINT WARRANT FEES. CHANGES MAY OCCUR AND THE TREASURER'S OFFICE WILL NEED TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO REMITTANCE AFTER THE FOLLOWING DATES; PERSONAL PROPERTY AND MOBILE HOMES - SEPTEMBER 1.2008. REAL PROPERTY - OCTOBER 1.2008 TAX LIEN SALE REDEMPTION AMOUNTS MUST BE PAID BY CASH OR CASHIERS CHECK. P. O. Box 1069 Glenwood Springs, CO 81802-1069 (970) 945=6382 Page 1 of 1 Kathy A. Eastley From: Steve Anthony Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:32 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Cc: Chris Janusz Attachments: 5.13.09 weeds.TIF Hi Kathy I visited Mr. Janusz and we went over his property, he did provide me with this letter and his commitment to manage the weeds located on-site. Everything is acceptable. My apologies for not getting this to you sooner. Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Management Director POB 426 Rifle CO 81650 Office: 970-625-8601 Fax: 970-625-8627 Email: santhony@garfield-county.com 6/3/2009 Christopher M. Janusz 3642 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-948-2011 Wednesday, May 13, 2009 Garfield County Road and Bridge Department P.O. Box 426 0298 CR 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Attn: Steve Anthony Vegetation Manager Re: Janusz lot split Weed Inventory and Plans Located on the water ditch at the back, or uphill side of the two new lots are the noxious weeds: • Canada Thistle • Hounds Tongue • Common Tansy — one state listed noxious weed These plants are scattered along the ditch and will be treated with the herbicide Round -Up in the spring. Sincerely, Christonher M. Janusz Page 1 of 3 Kathy A. Eastley From: White, Jonathan [Jonathan.White@state.co.us] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:49 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: RE: Question on GA -09-0009 Hi Kathy, After our phone call this morning I just wanted to send this e-mail to be clear that our concern was having a requirement for a geotechnical investigation for any new habitable construction for either lots. Provided the new garage has an engineered foundation and meets all county permit requirements, we don't believe it needs a full-blown geotechnical/hazard analysis investigation. Regards, Jon **PLEASE NOTE MY NEW PHONE NUMBER** Jonathan L. White Colorado Geological Survey 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 ph. (303) 866-2611, ext. 8332 fax (303) 866-2461 http://www.colorado.gov/geosurvey From: Kathy A. Eastley [ma ilto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 11:30 AM To: White, Jonathan Subject: RE: Question on GA -09-0009 There are a couple of issues of concern — 1. review of grading is included in a building permit application and 2. sometimes grading is done with no connection to building permit (relocating or improving the driveway, etc.). It appears that Mr. Janusz wants to build a garage and he doesn't want to have to do any additional geotechnical studies related to issuance of a permit (that's why the question came up regarding habitable). My concern is the underlying surface will be impacted by any construction regardless of habitable or not, and that disturbance could worsen the hazards on the site. If you feel that additional geotechnical review should only be required for habitable structures then that is how we will proceed. Thank you. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 5/18/2009 Page 2 of 3 Phone: 970-945-8212 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastley@garfield-county.com Pl,,,,itit• Celt i(kr the 1Cfnre printing this i' -mail. From: White, Jonathan [mailto:Jonathan.White@state.co.us] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1.0:37 AM To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: RE: Question on GA -09-0009 Kathy, Sorry about the delay in my response, Kathy. I started field mapping this week and am staying at a cabin in Meeker, so don't presently have reliable internet. We're working with the rancher to get a wireless set up. About this review, my original intent was for any new habitable construction, such as a new residence. I didn't mention grading per se. This is an odd little sub since the ground is already disturbed and two existing non -family residences already occupy that land, which the applicant wants to separate Our primary concern is that a geotechnical engineering investigation/design by a professional engineer be required for a building permit for any new construction, which specifically addresses the hazards in both my review and the geologic report of the applicant's consultant. The proposed foundation and/or mitigation designs may result in grading changes. Ultimately the final grading plan must adhere to the final engineering design that is a requirement for a building permit, right? There is definitely linkage and the county would also want to have some regulatory control over the visual appearance of the valley. I'm assuming the applicant would still need to get a grading permit, even without a geotech report? I don't know what the county regs are concerning geotech report requirements for the various permits. Instead of a full blown report, couldn't the applicant just include in his grading permit a letter from the geotech consultant that the grading plan does not worsen existing conditions? It's really a county decision. Regards, Jon Original Message From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:keastley@garfield-county.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:41 AM To: White, Jonathan Subject: Question on GA -09-0009 Jonathan. The above referenced CGS review was for the Janusz Exemption Parcel located on Highway 82 just south of Glenwood Springs. I've incorporated your comments in the conditions of approval for this subdivision — including a note that requires additional geotechnical investigations for any building or grading permits requested on the site. The applicant is concerned with this condition and asks that the additional investigation be required only for permits related to construction of habitable structures. My understanding of the site is that any construction activity (grading or building) could impact the sensitive geotechnical issues including drainage, subsidence, and rock falls thus resulting in a potentially hazardous situation for the residents on the site as well as potential impact to Highway 82. Therefore the geotechnical issues need to be reviewed prior to any disturbance of the site — whether for habitable or 5/18/2009 Page 3 of 3 non -habitable structures. Is this correct? I appreciate your time in this matter and look forward to your response. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-82:12 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470 keastleyGgarfield-county.com APlease consider the environment before printing this c -mail. 5/18/2009 MEMO TO: Janusz Exemption File FROM: Kathy Eastley DATE: May 18, 2009 REFERENCE: Phone conservation with Jonathan White, CGS Pursuant to a request by Mr. Chris Janusz I spoke with CGS regarding the necessity of a geotechnical investigation for construction at the above referenced site. The staff report recommended a plat note which that required additional geotechnical investigation for all new construction on the site. Mr. Janusz wanted the plat note to require additional studies ONLY for construction of inhabited space. My conversation with Jonathan White resulted in a concurrence that the additional geotechnical studies occur with habitable construction. However, Mr. White stated that an engineer -design foundation and soils studies should be required for any disturbance on the site. STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY— serving the people of Colorado COLORADO Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 May 5, 2009 RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY CGS LUR No. GA-09464VING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF Legal: ENE, Sec. 27, T6S, R89W NATURAL RESOURCES „Poi Ms. Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8t Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Janusz Exemption Geologic Hazards Review Dear Ms. Eastley, Bill Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist Thank you for the land use application referral. At your request, and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972), this office has reviewed the land -use application submitted by your office and considered the geologic hazards and geologic conditions that may affect the land use development. Included in the development application was a preliminary geologic site assessment by HP Geotech dated February 9, 2009 (Job No. 109 016A). CGS conducted a site inspection on April 30, 2009. Please consider the following observations in your land use decisions. The roughly triangular property is on the east valley side of the Roaring Fork River across the river from the Glenwood Airport. A narrow gravel roadway is the access for three residences. Two occupied residences, a modular home and trailer home, are currently occupying one lot. The intent is to subdivide that lot into two separate lots so that each residence is located on its own lot. Topographically, the site is at the base of the east valley wall where grades begin to steepen toward 650 -foot high, cliffy outcrops of red, heavily jointed, interbedded sandstone of the Maroon Formation. The west boundary of the property site has a steep cut slope below from older excavations that were needed to widen Highway 82 many years ago. The northeast boundary is a point above the Glenwood Ditch. This ditch easement, running southeast to northwest, crosses the northeast corner of the property. The residences are below the irrigation ditch. We have review the geologic report by HP Geotech and concur with its content. We also consider rockfall and debris flows to be significant risks and the primary geologic hazards for this 2 -lot subdivision. There is a history of rockfall in this area where, a short distance (2000 feet) northwest of this property, the CGS was called upon by CDOT to investigate rockfall that crossed both Highway 82 and Grand Avenue below. Our only observational addition to the HP Geotech report is that, during our inspection of April 30th, we noticed a large 4 -foot diameter boulder either in, or very near the northeast property boundary above the homes. This rock had recently fallen since the rock surfaces were fresh and the path of the rolling rock was revealed by broken and crushed vegetation. The large rock had stopped on the rough rocky slope above the irrigation ditch. The boulder and rockfall path was brought to the attention of the applicant. The irrigation ditch will provide some level of mitigation to stop rolling rocks but risk remains that rockfall or debris flows will breach or pass the ditch to the residential areas below. The recommendations in the HP Geotech report should be complied with, and there be full disclosure of the rockfall and debris flow hazards and implied risk for any property resale. A site-specific geotechnical investigation should be required for any new construction. If you have any questions about the content of this geologic hazard review letter, please contact this office at (303) 866-2611 x8331 or e-mail: jonathan.white@state.co.us Sincerely, Jonathan L. White Senior Engineering Geologist Cy— L ENGINEERING An Employs -Owned Company LAND SURVEYING MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: H LAZY F PROJECT No: 2071762.00 SOURCE: GARFIELD COUNTY — BUILDING & PLANNING TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS DATED: DECEMBER 22, 2008 Response to Comment 16: Traffic generate on the property is only from residential traffic and none of the internal streets are through streets. To generate an estimated trip count a study conducted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation was used (see attached photo copy of analysis). The ITE research was conducted by linear interpolation of data collect from trip counts of Mobile Home Parks and should be an accurate model to use for the existing 11 Lazy F residential development. The average trip generation rate from the study conducted by ITE was 4.81 trips / dwelling -unit per day. 11 Lazy F consists of 96 mobile home lots and multiplying by the average trip rate per unit from the ITE analysis results in 461.76 trips / day. From aerial maps and site visits 4 residential homes and one business occupying a modified residential home use the private roads to access their property. Estimating 8 trips / day per building this would generate an additional 40 trips / day. The adjacent homes bring the total number of estimated trips generated at the 11 Lazy F neighborhood entrance to 502 vehicle trips / day. The estimated vehicle trip quantity is based on existing development and will remain the same as the proposed improvements will not generate any additional traffic. 5(77.;)0 S i� 7 S 110Tr 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81 601 970-945-8676 • PHONE 970-945-2555 • FAX WWW.HcENG.COM Gtech HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL February 9, 2009 Chris Janusz 3642 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 email: hpgeu4hpgeutech.com Job No. 109 016A Subject: Preliminary Geologic Site Assessment, Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision, 3642 and 3644 Highway 82, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Janusz: This report presents the results of a preliminary geologic site assessment for the proposed 2 lot subdivision located at 3642 and 3644 Highway 82, Garfield County, Colorado. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the geologic conditions and their potential impacts on the project. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for professional services to Chris Janusz, dated January 26, 2009. A field reconnaissance of the project site was made on February 2, 2009 to observe the geology and potential hazards at the site. In addition, we have reviewed previous studies in the area, published regional geologic studies and looked at aerial photographs. Based on this information, an assessment of the potential influence of the geology on the proposed development was made. This report summarizes our findings and presents our conclusions and recommendations. Proposed Development: The proposed development consists of splitting the 1.37 acre, triangle shaped lot into two roughly equal size lots and replacing the existing trailer on the south lot (3644 Highway 82) with a single family residence. At this time, no new development is planned for the home on the north lot, and plans for the single family residence on the south lot have not been developed. When building and grading plans have been developed for the site, we should be notified for additional geologic conditions assessment and a geotechnical evaluation. Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 2 Site Conditions: The project site is located in the northern part of the Roaring Fork River valley about 2 miles south of Glenwood Springs along the uphill, eastern side of Highway 82. The overall property is roughly triangular in shape with side dimensions of about 279 feet and 306 feet and 415 feet along Highway 82. The property abuts a single family residence to the north and a commercial development to the southeast. The steep hillside to the northeast is cut by relatively small, ephemeral drainages which slope down towards the project site and terminate at the Glenwood Ditch. The ditch is located between about 40 to 60 feet uphill of the existing structures. An 8 -inch diameter PVC pipe has recently been buried in the bottom of the ditch for service to the adjacent properties. Currently, the ditch is about 12 feet wide and 4 feet deep. The property is located in the middle part of coalescing debris fans which originate about 300 feet upslope of the property. The property grade has been terraced to accommodate a trailer, modular residence and storage sheds which are accessed by a driveway from Highway 82 to the southwest. The overall slope across the development area is about 25 percent down to the southwest towards the Roaring Fork River, located about 1,700 feet southwest of the property. Above the ditch, the ground surface increases in steepness to about 50 percent. Vegetation on the property consists of grass and weeds, scattered small brush and several 10 to 20 foot tall pinon pines. Sandstone cobbles and boulders up to about 4 feet in size were observed on and surrounding the site. Most of the downhill properties on the alluvial fan have been developed with single family and commercial structures. Regional Geologic Setting: The project site is located in the Carbondale collapse center of the Southern Rocky Mountains Region west of the Rio Grande rift and east of the Colorado Plateau. The Carbondale collapse center is the western of two regional evaporite collapse centers in western Colorado. It is an irregular-shaped, northwest trending region covering 460 square miles between the White River uplift and Piceance basin. As much as 4,000 feet of regional subsidence is believed to have occurred during the past 10 million years in the vicinity of Carbondale as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the regions (Kirkham and Others, 2002). The Eagle Valley Formation is located stratigraphically below the Maroon Formation and crops out on the valley side west of the project site. Much of the evaporite related subsidence in the Carbondale collapse center appears to have occurred within the past 3 million years Job No. 109 016A GecPtech Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 3 which also corresponds to high incision rates along the Roaring Fork, Colorado and Eagle Rivers. This indicates that long-term subsidence rates have been very slow, between about 0.5 and 1.6 inches per 100 years. It is uncertain if regional evaporite subsidence is still occurring or if it is currently inactive. If still active, these regional deformations because of their very slow rates should not have a significant impact on the proposed development at the site. Geologically young faults related to evaporite tectonics are present in the Carbondale collapse center but considering the nature of evaporite tectonics, these faults are not considered capable of generating large earthquakes. The closest geologically young faults that are less than about 15,000 years old and considered capable of generating large earthquakes are located in the Rio Grande rift to the east of the project site. The northern section of the Williams Fork Mountains fault zone Q50 is located about 50 miles to the northeast and the southern section of the Sawatch fault zone Q56b is located about 80 miles to the southeast. At these distances large earthquakes on these two geologically young fault zones should not produce strong ground shaking at the project site that is greater than the ground shaking shown on the U. S. Geological Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazards Maps (Frankel and Others, 2002). Project Site Geology: The geology in the project area was observed on February 2, 2009. Our geologic interpretations also use regional geology maps by Soule and Stover (1985) and Kirkham and others (1995). The local bedrock is Maroon Formation consisting of moderate to shallow dipping, blocky red sandstone. These rocks were deposited in the central Colorado trough during the Ancestral Rocky Mountain orogeny about 300 million years ago. The regional bedding generally strikes to the north and dips to the east. Bedrock outcroppings directly northeast of the project site dip between 11 and 26 degrees down to the east, into the hillside. The Maroon is overlain by dense, black resistant alkali basalt in lava -flow layers several feet thick deposited between 8 and 23 million years ago. The closest basalt flows are located about 3,000 feet to the north of the project site. Job No. 109 016A C litech Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 4 Surficial Soil Deposits: The soil deposits in the project area are largely the result of erosion of red sandstone layers from bedrock outcroppings deposited as alluvial fans through a series of small drainages northeast of the project site. Several sandstone cobbles and boulders are visible on the surface. These fans appear active and could still be sites of infrequent rockfall and debris flows or floods associated with intense thunderstorms. A 6 to 8 foot incised drainage channel is located north of the property but appears to empty northwest of the site. The existing irrigation ditch would also appear to divert water and debris to the northwest around the project site and act as a catchment basin for rockfall. Geologic Site Assessment: There are several conditions of a geologic nature that should be considered as project planning and design proceeds. The most significant are potential rockfall and debris flows and floods. Other geologic conditions are sinkhole potential, earthquake ground shaking and moisture sensitive foundation soils. Percolation testing performed in 1980 and 1984 for septic design reported percolation rates of 10 and 15 minutes per inch, respectively. A log of a domestic well drilled in 1962 reported rocky soils to a depth of 73 feet and groundwater level at 50 feet. The alluvial fan soils above the water level are considered to be collapsible when wetted. Shallow foundations are typically used in this area for lightly loaded structures, but recommendations for bearing on the moisture sensitive soils should be addressed with a site specific geotechnical study when the building plans have been developed. The potential risks and possible mitigations to reduce the risks associated with debris flows, rockfalls, sinkholes and earthquakes are discussed below. Debris Flow and Flood Potential: The property is located in the middle part of coalescing alluvial fans that could be subject to sheetwash flows and floods during periods of snowmelt or heavy rainfall. There is a relatively high likelihood that future floods and flows will occur along hillside drainages but flows of the main drainage currently follow an incised drainage channel which passes northwest of the property. Smaller drainage channels are intercepted by the irrigation ditch which appears to carry water around the property to the northwest. In our opinion, there is a risk that debris flow material could breach the irrigation ditch during a large event and expose the project site Job No. 109 016A Ge Ptech Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 5 to significant building and property damage and possible harm to the building occupants. If this risk is not acceptable then mitigation to reduce the risk should be considered. Rockfall Potential: The steep hillside cliffs located to the northeast of the project site are resistant beds of the Maroon Formation that are source areas for repeated falls of rocks of varying sizes. Although rockfall occurrences have been documented in the Glenwood Springs area, we are not aware of rockfall documentation on the project site. Several cobble and boulder size rock fragments on the property do indicate a potential rockfall hazard. In our opinion, the risk is moderate that a rockfall event could reach the project site and cause significant building and property damage and possible harm to the building occupants. If this risk is not acceptable then mitigation to reduce the risk should be considered. The existing irrigation ditch has a 4 foot wall and a 12 foot wide catchment area which will prevent some rocks from reaching the project site. Sinkholes: Geologically young sinkholes are present in the western Colorado evaporite region mostly in areas where the Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite are shallow. The Eagle Valley Formation underlies the Maroon Formation in the project area. Evidence of sinkholes was not observed at the project site during our field reconnaissance or on aerial photographs reviewed. Although geologically active in the region, the likelihood that a sinkhole will develop during a reasonable exposure time at the site is considered to be low. The property owner should be advised of the sinkhole potential, since early detection of building distress or settlement of graded areas may help with timely remedial action which is important in reducing the cost of repairs should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole. Earthquake Potential: Historic earthquakes at the project site have typically been moderately strong with magnitudes of M 5.5 and less and maximum Modified Mercalli Intensities of VI and less (Kirkham and Rogers, 1985). Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable exposure time for the site, but the probability of stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. Job No. 109 016A Gtech Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 6 Future buildings on the site should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. For firm rock sites with shear wave velocities of 2,500 fps in the upper 100 feet the U. S. Geological Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazard Map indicates that a peak ground acceleration of 0.06g has a 10% exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time and a peak ground acceleration of 0.23g has a 2% exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time at the project site (Frankel and Others, 2002). This corresponds to a statistical recurrence time of about 500 years and 2,500 years, respectively. The soil profile at the building site is estimated as Class D, stiff soil site, as described in the 2006 International Building Code. Radiation Potential: Regional studies by the Colorado Geological Survey indicate that the closest radioactive mineral occurrences to the project site are located along the Grand Hogback near New Castle about 14 miles to the northwest (Nelson -Moore and Others, 1978). Regional studies by the U. S. Geological Survey (Dubiel, 1993) for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate that the project site is in a moderate radon gas potential zone. The 1993 EPA regional radon study considered data from: (1) indoor radon surveys, (2) aerial radioactivity surveys, (3) the general geology, (4) soil permeability estimates, and (5) regional architectural practices. It is not possible to accurately assess future radon concentrations in buildings before they are constructed. Accurate tests of radon concentrations can only be made when the buildings have been completed. Because of this, new buildings in moderate to high radon areas are often designed with provisions for ventilation of the lower enclosed areas should post construction testing show unacceptable radon concentrations. Surface Drainage/Grading: The grading plan for development of building sites should consider runoff through the project and not allow ponding. New grading should not impact existing drainages or reduce mitigation provided by the irrigation ditch and should consider potential flooding impacts. We should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. Job No. 109 016A GG'CPt@ch Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 7 Limitations: This study has been conducted according to generally accepted engineering geology principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the field reconnaissance, review of published geologic reports, aerial photograph interpretation, and our experience in the area. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use for our client and is an evaluation of the potential influence of the geology on the proposed development. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. Additional study will be needed if additional debris flow and flood, and rockfall mitigation is proposed. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. If you have questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Respectfully Submitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Scott W. Richards, E.I. Engineering Geologist Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, SWR/vann Job No. 109 016A Ge'Stech Chris Janusz February 5, 2009 Page 8 References: Dubiel, R. F., 1993, Preliminary Geologic Radon Potential Assessment of Colorado in Geologic Radon Potential EPA Region 8, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming: U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 93- 292-H. Frankel, A. D. and Others, 2002, Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 02-420. Kirkham, R. M. and Rogers, W. P., 1985, Colorado Earthquake Data and Interpretations 1867 to 1985: Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 46. Kirkham, R. M. and Scott, R. B., 2002, Introduction to Late Cenozoic Evaporite Tectonism and Volcanism in West -Central, Colorado, in Kirkham R. M., Scott, R. Kirkham, R. M., Streufert, R. K., and Cappa, J. A., 1995, Geologic Map of the Glenwood Springs Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 95-3. Nelson -Moore, J.L., Collins, D.B., and Hornbaker, A.L., 1978, Radioactive mineral Occurrences of Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 40 (reprinted as a CD-ROM, 2005). Soule, J.M. and Stover, B.K., 1985, Surficial Geology, Geomorphology, and General Engineering Geology of Parts of the Colorado River Valley, Roaring Fork River Valley, and Adjacent Areas, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open -File Report 85-1. Job No. 109 016A Ge&ech house ronided iia STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife.state.co.us April 23, 2009 Attention: Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8t'' Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 Reference: Chris and Astrid Janusz Lot Split RECEIVED APR 2 7 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING For Wildlife - For People As a referral agency the Division of Wildlife (DOW) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed lot splitting of the Janusz property. The DOW does not anticipate that this project will have any adverse impacts to the surrounding wildlife community. If any further information is needed, please contact District Wildlife Manager Dan Cacho at (970)947-2934. Thank You, Area Wildlife Manager — Glenwood Springs Colorado Division of Wildlife DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hams D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Brad Coors, Chair • Tim Glenn, Vice Chair • Dennis Buechler, Secretary Members,Jeffrey Crawford • Dorothea Farris • Roy McAnally • John Singletary • Mark Smith • Robert Streeter Ex Officio Members, Hams Sherman and John Stulp PLAT NOTE REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES This subdivision is located in a geologically sensitive area and therefore may be prone to hazards including rock fall, debris flows, sinkholes and flooding. Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit, the owner of each lot shall prepare and submit a soils and foundation report, a grading and drainage plan, and a geologically acceptable building site prepared and certified by a professional geotechnical engineer. AM improvements shall be constructed in accordance with such recommendations which shall be considered conditions of approval. The irrigation ditch located at the eastern portion of this site provides minimal mitigation for potential of rock falls that may cause significant building and property damage and possible harm to the building occupants. A geotechnical investigation should be performed prior to any disturbance of the irrigation ditch. Owners are hereby advised of sinkhole potential as early detection of building distress or settlement of graded areas may be mitigated with timely remedial action. The site is subject to Article VII Section 7-210 of the Unified Land Use Code of 2008 including the standards for Development in Blue Zone Hazard Areas which require special engineering. STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY— serving the people of Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-2611 Fax: (303) 866-2461 May 5, 2009 COLORADO 1711 CGS LUR No. GA -09-0009 DEPARTMENT OF Legal: ENE, Sec. 27, T6S, R89W NATURAL Ms. Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8t Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Janusz Exemption Geologic Hazards Review Dear Ms. Eastley, RESOURCES Bit Ritter, Jr. Governor Harris D. Sherman Executive Director Vincent Matthews Division Director and State Geologist Thank you for the land use application referral. At your request, and in accordance to Senate Bill 35 (1972), this office has reviewed the land -use application submitted by your office and considered the geologic hazards and geologic conditions that may affect the land use development. Included in the development application was a preliminary geologic site assessment by HP Geotech dated February 9, 2009 (Job No. 109 016A). CGS conducted a site inspection on April 30, 2009. Please consider the following observations in your land use decisions. The roughly triangular property is on the east valley side of the Roaring Fork River across the river from the Glenwood Airport. A narrow gravel roadway is the access for three residences. Two occupied residences, a modular home and trailer home, are currently occupying one lot. The intent is to subdivide that lot into two separate lots so that each residence is located on its own lot. Topographically, the site is at the base of the east valley wall where grades begin to steepen toward 650 -foot high, cliffy outcrops of red, heavily jointed, interbedded sandstone of the Maroon Formation. The west boundary of the property site has a steep cut slope below from older excavations that were needed to widen Highway 82 many years ago. The northeast boundary is a point above the Glenwood Ditch. This ditch easement, running southeast to northwest, crosses the northeast corner of the property. The residences are below the irrigation ditch. We have review the geologic report by HP Geotech and concur with its content. We also consider rockfall and debris flows to be significant risks and the primary geologic hazards for this 2 -lot subdivision. There is a history of rockfall in this area where, a short distance (2000 feet) northwest of this property, the CGS was called upon by CDOT to investigate rockfall that crossed both Highway 82 and Grand Avenue below. Our only observational addition to the HP Geotech report is that, during our inspection of April 30th, we noticed a large 4 -foot diameter boulder either in, or very near the northeast property boundary above the homes. This rock had recently fallen since the rock surfaces were fresh and the path of the rolling rock was revealed by broken and crushed vegetation. The large rock had stopped on the rough rocky slope above the irrigation ditch. The boulder and rockfall path was brought to the attention of the applicant. The irrigation ditch will provide some level of mitigation to stop rolling rocks but risk remains that rockfall or debris flows will breach or pass the ditch to the residential areas below. The recommendations in the HP Geotech report should be complied with, and there be full disclosure of the rockfall and debris flow hazards and implied risk for any property resale. A site-specific geotechnical investigation should be required for any new construction. If you have any questions about the content of this geologic hazard review letter, please contact this office at (303) 866-2611 x8331 or e-mail: jonathan.white(a state.co.us Sincerely, Jonathan L. White Senior Engineering Geologist