The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.0 Request & Staff Memoi • Memorandum TO: Mark Bean, Director of Regulatory Services FROM: Dave Michaelson DATE: August 3, 1992 RE: Christeleit Subdivision Plat Amendment As we discussed, the Christeleits have requested an amendment to the approved fmal plat for their subdivision to allow for a single-family dwelling unit to be constructed in an area in Parcel A, previously noted as "unbuildable" due to slope constraints. At the request of the Christeleits, I walked the proposed site with Linda Christeleit, Nicholas Lampiris (consulting geologist), and a potential purchaser of Parcel A. As indicated by Mr. Lampiris' letter dated July 22, 1992 (attached), there is an area (approximately 200' by 60') that is quite level within the area identified as not suitable for residential development on the Final Plat. I suggested that the Christeleits amend the plat to reflect the suitability of this specific location within Parcel A. A the same time, we reviewed the unbuildable area within Parcel B, and all agreed that the unbuildable area for this parcel will not require any additional amendments to the Plat. The discrepancy appeared to occur due to the large scale and general mapping used by Mr. Lampiris during the initial fieldwork. This situation is not uncommon when specific areas are defined as unbuildable. It is suggested that any areas defined as unbuildable be verified in the field prior to Final Plat by staff and consultants. Secondly, it is recommended that techniques such as the defmition of broad buildable envelopes by used in these situations, as opposed to restrictive envelopes. This may avoid situations similar to this one in the future. • Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.[). CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 876-5400 (24 HOURS) July 22, 199 - Peter and Linda Christeleit 4954 County Road 214 New Castle CO 81647 RE: Christeleit Subdivision; Lot A Dear Mr. and Mrs. Christeleit: noit__,_ ._../En ,, - • -.., t( rJUL 9 3 1992 GA'FiEL[JGOL:/^|Y It has come to my attention that you wish to have a home site within the area of this lot not indicated as part of the building envelope. This is fine as long as slopes steeper than 30% are not involved. To verify the site is suitable, we were on site yesterday with Dave Michaelson from the County Planning office and the perspective buyer. The desired site is quite flat in an area roughly 60 meters by 20 meters. I noted on High Country Engineering's topo maps the approximate area where this site is located on the ridge. A resurvey can be avoided if this part of the envelope is restricted by slopes greater than 30% If there are other questions please call me. Sincerely, 46. Nicholas Lampiris Consulting Geologist • Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 876-5400 (24 HOURS) July 3, 1992 Peter and Linda Christeleit 4954 County Road 214 New Castle CO 81647 RE: Christeleit Subdivision; Lot A Dear Mr. and Mrs, Christeleit: It has come to my attention that you wish to have a home site within the area of this lot not indicated as part of the building envelope. This fine as long as slopes steeper than 30% are not involved. I noted on High Country Engineering's topo maps that there is an area where you are planning this site which is flatter than the rest of the ridge. Calculations indicate a 15 to 20% slope there which would be fine. I do recall from my field work that there was a gently sloping area near there but did not include it as buildable for some reason Perhaps because there was adequate space elsewhere. ^ Sorry for any inconvenience. If there are other questions please call me. Sincerely, Nicholas Lampiris Consulting Geologist .OR. 30 1 OE 6"W r 3'E K. COUNTY R040 //9 2 to /3' 58570'JO'E 272.4W \�s6. 0/ S63° 'S3OFc26. \ T--� ��„ zl- i–Lva.00l ACRE c?osmk \ \\N 83 /l2 .0511 \� 300.47' CLA \;.001 `ES\ �c b ,ate \ \°-: 1/4 \ 1/4 COR. FENCE ON SOUTH R.O.W. CO. RO. ///9 557%%50'E 35.84' 555°07'08-E 272.50' LOT C �lo.00l7cREs / S89_Ij83O'E 1//1/.94 — / / �'-1 // 10.0015 ACRES / 0 C\ 52G•2/32'E / 7 �At,/ 1� 5 az, / h 1 SCALE r = 200' 200 /00 0 /00 200 130 50 CONTOUR INTERVAL = 5' MINIM 400 S89 3 E x4.54 — — 7025-- \\ \ \\ - �_ \11�� h T \\ \ LOT E � / / N � �_ —� 1 ' \ \ \O /0.00%! ACRES I I ( /\ \\ . \�� / /—\ '_ \\ 1 I \ � 5 3.8 30 E\\4.29' \ \ \ QG \\'\\ •0.37)9'E S' \ 6� \ \ \\ 95//_• A E/ 7 \\ moo\ 7075/Th)> S36'J4'z6F )\\\ACCESS\EASEMENT )I ) ` 9207' �/ / / \``✓ems_ --v -r vr r 5891449•E 546.96' 500'4573'E 3000' N89°38'30"W 2288.24' icholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0793 VALLEY ROAD CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (303) 963-3600 (24 HOURS) |�ovember 21, 1990 Peter and Linda Christeleit 4954 County Road 214 New Castle CO 81647 RE: Christeleit Subdivision Dear Mr. and Mrs. Christeleit: • I have completed my geologic investigation of the approximately ninety acres you wish to divide into six lots. This is just over three miles southeast of the Town of Glenwood Springs as shown on thea�companyinq map. This is mostly in the NW 1/4` Section 30, T 6 S R 88 W. of the 6th PM, Garfield County, Colorado, within the Glenwood ringv 15 minute quadrangle. County Road 119 runs nortF,east of the subject property. The lots are basically open, dry ncstcreland 4ith �n ave-a�e slope to the northwest. Ti -,aro is a poor)y defined draina�s which crosses thc c�'.ter of the propertv {-oo sout�eas. tc northvest, and another bette/- t-ainage tren�inq the ssoe the so-`±hwest co-nz' nf ths 'cract. These �rai�agss shoud beconside-ed |n thc ovcrail �'ainaq� plao, r. ridge crosses the r.ort�'�rn por�ior� u! t�e �rupsrty al�o 'zen|ing to the `�or+'/west. T�e hiph�s( �ro�c,| is a b-oad 'onm)] in th� the prcper�y. G�nlogicallv, (he are.::: is .thurlain by Quatero�ry- Tzrtiary ane �asaIt {lcws. ��''ly �long th� r�dp�� • the r -op rarcel. lhe�e sandstons of L�� hlaroo: Formaij.n� cn '�`� , �r � derived consist o'/s�� ''� �/�� b c.w� ci��z /d c]a� , m�. in th� s\ .'�``ner �'' ^.�� /»ci. �eve'al �au/ts trend pr''��rty /rom ��e wes but sre prubabl;y not active; ro e��denc� o' cuuld be fou/.i. i�evcr`'naiuss` ho:es be consiructed to conf.`rm to Je�an�c I o`` the • • The most important consideration for :s s�'icia drainage. [here should be a positive qi.a�earouni home of about 5% in a�l dire�tio:s for at ]east:. 10 from the foundation wall. This is so that water will not easily permeate to the base of the foundation. In basalt derived soils the probability of troublesome, swelling soils is high and alternate wetYing and drying can be detrimental to the �nunrat�on� therefore soils investigations at the site specific level are very important for proper foundation design. I have del�neated areas to be avoided for construction cf homes including steep areas and the two drainage areas. On each lot construction should be on positive areas which will not be adversely affected by drainage. Elopes greater than 30% should not be built upon. Ev^bdivision roads and perhaps some driveways should be designed by a cHvil engineer because of the drainageways present. Access•is available to• the project from the County Road with no cuts necessary until well into the projeCt areE. /4ater Hill need to be obtained through the drifloing of a well in each case (un]ess they are shared) with a d�pth of about 180 tu 300 feet although it could be lcss' i�aste djsposal through the cf s..a:dard sppti� systpms and leach fields in which may hzve a s�ow but suitable percolat|on ratc. The 3arfield County Environmental Health Officer should be cons/,ltej for Lis specific recommendations Al.:. of these lots should be suitable for the cohstruction of a sinlle *amily home if the precedng ,ecocmendarions are followe�. In additior, the homes should be so to oreclu::'e t1. ion ofradon gas. 7hi:omicz st�ndar1 p'acrE." I's ti-i,`r. �uestiplease dn not hesjtaI Ie tme. Sincerel,, Nicholas Lsmpdr:� Consulting Geologist ROY R. ROMER GOVERNOR April 12, 1991 111156crogit aNIu;(J APR 18 1991 Li'(:i/-lief iLLu COUNTY -1w. Rom COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611 Andrew McGregor Garfield County Planner 109 8th Street, #303 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 RE: CHRISTELEIT SUBDIVISION Dear Sir: GA -91-0008 DIRECTOR We have reviewed the preliminary plan, geologic report and drainage plan for this proposal. Geologic conditions affecting the site include: swelling soils, low runoff drainage areas, steep slopes, and the potential for radon gas hazards. Site geology consists of clayey -silty soils of a relatively shallow depth overlying Tertiary basaltic lava flows. This formation outcrops in the northern portion of the property. The red Maroon Formation underlies the basalt at an undetermined depth. The surficial soils of Morval loams located on the property have a moderately high swelling soil potential. As outlined by the consultant geologist Nicholas Lampiris, we recommend site-specific soils investigations for each building excavation to determine the shrink -swell potential. Building locations should also avoid the low-lying drainage areas. These drainage areas do not pose a flood hazard in terms of water volume. The permeability of the surface soils is very slow and ponding of water in these areas is possible. A sight reconnaissance in April 1991 established water in these low spots. The geologic report also outlines critical areas of steep slope. Due to the nature of the basaltic soils these locations may be very hazardous to building instability. Slope stability problems for minor subdivisions are usually mitigated by avoidance. GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTURE Andrew McGregor April 12, 1991 Page 2 A radiation survey from the Colorado Department of Health was not provided with this package. We realize that the potential for such occurrences may be low for this site. However, a radon and uranium mill tailings survey should be conducted. All anomalous readings should be mitigated either with removal of contaminants or, in the case of radon, have radon -reduction building techniques implemented. If all the above suggestions are met, as well as those of the consultant geologist, then we have no objection to the approval of this preliminary plan. Sincerely, Christopher J. Carroll Engineering Geologist