HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 10.01.015vq- 6l€ffi4 a,s.^I,^ drq+o PoES ,aQr>+
BOCC 10/01/01
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
An exemption from the rules of subdivision.
Kelly and Michael Lyon Family,LLC
0621 Davis Point Road, about % rlle east of
Silt, Colorado, in Peach Valley. A tract of
land situated in Section 1, Township 6 South,
Range 92 West of the 6n P.M.
80 +/- Acres
Individual wells
ISDS
Davis Point Road (County Road 235)
EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING:
REOUESTT
APPLICAITIT:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
A/R/RD
I. RELATIONSHIP TO TIIE COMPREHENSIVE PLAIY
According to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, this site lies in the "Outlying
Residential" area. The suggested density is no more than two (2) dwelling units per acre.
II. DESCRIPTION OF'THE PROPOSAL
A.Site Description and Development Proposal: The property is roughly eighty (80) acres
in size, is bordered by Peach Valley Road to the north (County Road 214), and
bisected by llavis Point Road ('the road"). The proposal is to create four (4) lots
west of the road with a sixty-five (65) acre remainder parcel to the east ofthe road,
for a total of five (5) lots. The site has a variety of topography and vegetation. The
area to the west ofthe road ranges from somewhat flat to very steep. The vegetation
is mostly pinyon/juniper. The area to the east ofthe road is vegetated with hay across
flatter portions and wetlands to the soutlq in the area ofthe Cactus Valley ditch. An
existing house and various outbuildings occupy proposed Lot 2. An existing barn
occupies the remainder lot. A non-conforming lot, the "excepted p arcet' , was created
prior to suMivision and zoning regulations, and exists to the west ofthe road and is
1
contained within proposed Lot 4. A house occupies the roughly 3/n acre excepted
parcel. An above-ground fire protection storage tank is proposed on the highpoint of
lot 3, with a water line easement proposed within a drainage area on lot 3. Lot 2 and
the remainder parcel are currently served by existing driveways from the road.
B.Applicability: Section 8:10 allows the Board of County Commissioners the
discretionary power to exempt a division of land from the definition of subdivision
and, thereby, fromthe procedure in Sections 3:00,4:00 and 5:00, provided theBoard
determines that such exemption will not impair or defeat the stated pu{pose of the
SuMivision Regulations nor be detrimental to the general public welfare.
III. REFERRALS
The application was referred to the following review agencies for comments:
A.
B.
C.
Burning Mountain Fire Protection District: No response was received.
Garfield Countv Road and Bridge Department: Ikaig Kuberrry replied by phone on
9124101. The fences along the county road must be set back. Entrances to the County
Road must not have more than a2o/o slope.
Garfield County Enginpering Consultant: See Resource Engineering letter, page l3+' {.
Believes the application has not demonstrated an ability to provide appropriate building
envelopes in accordance with section 5.04.02 ofthe ZonngResolution. Notes a number
of other issues regarding geologic hazards, the fire protection systen; constraints on Lot
5, the legal description for the excepted parcel, and the water supply pump test, as
discussed throughout this report.
IV. MAJOR ISSUES AI\D CONCERNS
A.SuMivision Regulations. Section 8.52 of the Garfield County SuMivision
Regulations states that "No more than a total of four (4) lots, parcels, interests or
dttelling units will be createdfrom any parcel, as that parcel was described in the
records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office on January l, 1973, and
is not a part of a recorded subdivision; however, any parcel to be divided by
exemption that is split by a public right-of-way (State or Federal highway, County
road or railroad) or naturalfeature, preventingjoint use ofthe proposed tracts, and
the division occurs along the public right-of-way or natural feature, such parcels
thereby created may, in the discretion of the Board, not be considered to have been
created by exemptionwith regard to thefour (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit
limitation otherwise applicable; For the purposes of definition, all tracts of land
thirty-/ive (35) acres or greater tn size, created after January I, 1973, will count as
parcels of land created by exemption since January l, 1973."
.|
B.
C.
The applicant has provided proof of ownership in the form of a recorded warranty
deed (book 1242,page 912). The parcel has maintained the same legal description
and acreage since prior to January 1,1973. The application is supported by a deed
recorded on December 20, 1972 conveyrng the property from the Zangs to the
Nelsons. The application also contains a deed quitclaiming the property from the
Nelsons to the Lyon Family,LLC. Since the property is split by a public right ofway,
the applicant is &titled to a nmdmum of five (5) exemption lots under the current
regulations. If the request is approved, no more exemption lots would be permitted
under Garfield County regulations.
Comprehensive Plan: The proposal does not appear to be inconsistent with the conp
plan's recommended density of no more than one unit per 2 acres.
Legal and Physical Access: Section 8:52 C (Sub. Regs.) states that the Board of
County Commissioners shallnot grant anexemptionunless: All lots createdwillltave
legal access to a public right-of-way and any necessory access easements hove been
obtained, or are in the process of being obtained;
The Road and Bridge Department replied by phone on9l24l0l. The fences along tlre
county road must be set back. Entrances to the County Road must not have more
than a 2Yo slope. The applicant should be aware that access permits must be obtained
for all new or changed accesses onto a County Road. All lots appear to have the
necessary legal access since they are adjacent to Davis Point Road. Physical access to
the Cotmty right of way appears possible.
The plat shows a 60' wide right ofway for most of Davis Point Road. However, the
right-of-way rurrows to only 45' adjacent to Lots I and2. A 60' wide right-of-way
must be provided for the entire length of Davis Point Road. It should be noted that
the existing road does not necessarily have to occupy the center of the right of way.
The existing barn may become very close to the right of way as a result. The plat
must contain a dedication statement for the 60' wide right ofways for County Roads
214 (Peachvalley) and235 (Davis Point). The barn will become a'hon-conforming"
use and be allowed to continue to exist.
Section 5.04.02 (3) (Zoning Regs.) states development limitations based on slope:
For all lots: Drivewoys, access ways and access easements wtthin the development
and on the property of developer shall hqve a mmimum grade of fourteen percent
(14%o). (A.94-046)
Based on the information submitted in the applicatiorl on Lot 3 it does not appear
possible to access a building envelope, of at least one contiguous acre of less than
40% slopes, without exceeding a maximum grade of l4Yo. Moving the lot line
f,q{ s^fi*d fffi"Xfiflfg iil"f,ffi""ffif'gssiutvresorve this problern
"Alarlt+uettr,y a,,t Y"/o tW,
?fu 4-/^+a*C
/.?1 +Lr- ^ffi{.a,*}3 /:tapoYtr* . v
D. Water: Section 8:52 D of the SuMivision Regulations states the following:
The Board shall not grant an exemption unless the division proposedfor exemption
has satisfied the following criteria: Provision has been made for an adequate source
of water in terms of both the legal and physical quality, quantity and dependability,
and a suitable type of sewage disposal to serve each proposed lot;
The application states that all lots will receive domestic water supply from individual
wells, one of which is already existing and serving the house on Lot 2 (permit
#82900). Lots 1, 3, and 4 will be served by well permits numbered 54896, 54897,
and 54898. These well permits allow for the use of ground water inside one single
family home, the irrigation of not more than 6,000 sqtrare feet of lawns or gardens,
and the watering of domestic animals. These wells may be operated as long as a West
Divide Water Conservancy District substitute water supply plan is in effect, and a
contract or augmentation plan is maintained with the district. The application
contains a copy of an approved water contract with West Divide (#010628-KML).
The application contains a letter from Samuelson Pump Company concerning a four
(4) hour pump test that was conducted on the existing well on proposed lot 2. The
well is 210' feet deep, and drew down almost to the bottonu to 206' feet, during the
pump test. The production was 7 gallons per minute. The application does not
contain a water quality test.
Resource Engineering has noted that the well on Lot 2 cannot sustain a flow of7 gpm
however, it is a well that has supplied water to an existing house for more thn25
vears. Each well must meet the criteria in section 8:42D (l-D prior to sienine ofthe
Lxemption plat. &l i^rn* a-{ s4 u,44 ,n\,cLti ry- d*rf;iae &4ry ,
*^4d^a^4s L 6'+L b (--] , L*il bet",a""*r- u&' Hfily
Sewer: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems GSdS) ctrrently serve the existing firire( UE,
residence. The same is proposed for the other four lots. The Colorado Department ob,&*/*.
Health setback standards apply. Section VIII (C)(b)(4) ofthe 1994ISDS regulations, I
on page 32, states that no soil absorption system may be permitted where the ground
slope is excess ofthirty (30%) per cent slope. In staffs opiniorl the application lacks
sufficient detail to determine whether an adequately sized soil absorption field canbe
accomplished on Lot 3. - i l^lr- opCica*U" Vla*rfu q b ;apopa*<t-
{o {.(^; ry,cta-+io";
Geotechnical and Zoning IssueB: The exemption regulations state that the Board shall
consider the following in evaluation of an exemption proposal:
Section 8:60 (E): Suitability of soil, water, vegetation, geologic and topographic
characteristics of the landfor the type of divisionproposed;
E
F
-4-
Given the presence of steep slopes and history of rock fall known on the property,
staffencouraged the applicant to retain a qualified geotechnical engineer to evaluate
the site and provide evidence to the Board that the proposed lots are safe and large
enough to be properly developed. The applicant retained a licensed civil engineer,
Nick Adeh who submitted a two page report (see page cl + , o ). The proposal
was to provide building envelopes ranging in size from7,425 feet to 18,000 square
feet. Staff informed the applicant that zoning regulations required each lot have a
minimum building envelope of at least one acre in an area with less than forty (40%)
per cent slope, or the criteria below would have to be met:
Section 5.04.02:
(2) Such lots shall have a minimum building envelope of I acre in sn area that has
iess thqn forty percent (40%) slopes; howeier, a smaller building envelope may be
approved bylhb Board after revibw of the following which shall 6e submitted by the
applicant:
(A) A soil lond foundation investigation prepared by a registered, professional
engineer.
(B) A topographic survey with contour intervals of not more than nuo (2) feet.
(C) A site grading and drainage planpreparedby oregister, professional engineer.
(D) A detailed plan of retainingwalls or cuts, andfills in excess offive (5) feet.
(E) A detailed revegetation plan.
All of the above shall show the minimum building envelope size for each lot and
shal[ provide evidence that all structures and faZilities 6an be built within such
building envelope area so as not to disturb anyforry percent (40%o) slope area. The
following shall be conditions of any approval:
(A) Foundations shall be designedby andbear the seal of aregistered, professioral
engineer.
(B) All /inal plans required to be submitted by a professional engineer shall be'approved in trteirfinalform and shall bear the iealbf iuctt registered, professional
engineer.
(3) For all lots: Driveways, access ways and occess easements within the
development and on the property of developer shall have a maximum grade of
fourteen percent (1 4%o). (A. 94-046)
€t\4rW,
The applicant chose not to meet and retained a second civil
engineer, Peter Belau. The second t-tL :proposes building
envelopes larger than one acre which contain areas of40% or steeper slopcrr It states
that excluding the steep areas would result in oddly shape envelopes.The report
building tostates that the high ridge between lots 2 & 3 would be restricted
minimize visual impacts, however, the plan shows that
-5-
tank willbe
Llo"v{,,uat, +l^L
d\5 tTfl"rA
t6?,.6@
(x C,ua,urn/h-641
'fO% qrvYt$1LGaOa.,h,
#,L
to
placed on the high spot between lots 3 & 4. The report further states that the lots
have been configured to allow sufEcient room for rockfall to be mitigated or avoided
but that individual lot owners must retain a professional engineer for site specific
geologic recommendations.
Resource Engineering notes that rockfall may affect the building envelopes of lots 2,
3, and 4, and that the application has not demonstrated an ability to conform with
seetion 5.04.02 of the Zoning Resolution. While the application indicates there is
suitable area within each building envelope on slopes less than 40Yo,no mapping of
the geologic hazards in support of this statement has been provided. Staff is
concerned that Lot 3 as configured is very tightly constrained due to slope and a
water line easement occupying the drainage, with very little practical building area,
especially given that no access may exceed 14% slope. For these reasons, staff
believes that either lot 3 should be eliminated, or expanded to the north. The building
envelopes of lots 2 and4 must be reconfigured to prevent disturbance ofany areas of
40Yo or more slope, and to only include areas that can be reached by an access with
l4o/o or less slope.(without disturbance of areas of 40+o/o slope).
G.Wetlands: The remainder lot, Lot 5, is approximately 65 acres in size and appears to
include plenty of suitable building area. However, there are some constraints to the
development ofthis lot that should be identified according to Resource Engineering.
These would includp wetlands and drainages in the southerly portion of the lot. Staff
concurs. fne pU#traicate appropriate "no disturbance or building" zones on
Lot 5.
BFaf? Per.ot r'c^tc.lo t< etEle-tr '. A45\aa^^7<"ilq^Z''
Fire Protectionl#The application proposefrlacing a 10,000 gallon water storagBtarft - '
l,ob zt4 r s,kilr-
>w- h"it&3
H.
the high point between lots 3 and within an easement (dimensions not stated)
a water line which would extend down the hill to)Point Road with about 35 psi where a fire hydrant would be placed. The
WlP application includes a copy of a letter fromthe Burning Mtn. Fire District@&IFPD)-
which recognizes that the property lies within it's
use of the tank and hydrant should be for fire protection only and
should be accessible from Davis Point Road.
Agarn, rution 5.04.W(Zoning Regslmfrres that all structures be confined withina
building envelope of at least one acre in an area of less than 40% slope. The proposed
fire protection tank is proposed in an area of 40Yo+ slopes, and thus not consistent
withthe zoning regulations. Furthermore, soction 8:@ E (SubdivbionRegs)requircs
dhat the geology and topography be suitable. The application does not provide
the proposed water tank is feasible inthe location
shown' *kao @)t,* t@rl ,.@,
,t
-6-
Any water tank for fire protection must be owned and operated by a legal entity, such
as a Homeowners Association (HOA). No HOA is proposed in the application. The
30' eaeement for the water line must contain an access road so that the tank can be
maintained by the HOA A road meeting zoning regulations (14% or less slope) does
not appear feasible in the proposed easement. Furthermore, the proposed water line
easement is located in a natural drainage area.
Resource Engineering has noted that all required inrprovements must be installed and
operational prior to the final signing of the exemption pld. It should be the
developer's responsibility to initially fill the tank and fire protection system. Thus,
plat note #1, will need to be corrected.
I. Exception Parcel: As identffied in the surveyor's note #5, the recorded location of
the exception parcel does not coincide with the actual fenced and occupied area.
This"srust be corrected prior to signing the final exernption plat (the legal
description of Lot 4 remains unknown until this conflict is resolved).
J Utilities and Easements: The extents ofall easements, existing proposed,be
shown. The plat shows a right ofway easement (Bk. 896, Pg.232) connecting lots 2
and 5. Staffsuggests this easement be vacated since a connection no longer will exist
between the tracts, and since the barn will be conveyed separately from Lot 2. The
plat shows an existing cistern across from the excepted parcel. Ifthis cistern services
the existing house on the excepted parcel, an easement must be provided.
K.School Site Acquisition Fees: Prior to the approval ofthe final plat, the applicant will
be required to pay the applicable school site acquisition fee, as adoptedbythe County,
for each newly created lot (approximately $800.00, subject to change).
V. STAX'F RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before
the Board of County Commissioners.
That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption has been
determined NOT to be in the best interest ofthe health, safety, morals, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare ofthe citizens of Garfield County.
That the application has NOT met the requirements of the Garfield County
SuMivision Resolution of 1984 a.a. Section 8:00, Exemptioq NOR has it met the
I
2.
J
4
-7 -
K"h,^ts,-(^)k^&
nnA)lLdA
crl oosti *o? |
(nio*t-^[ru)
[J€fo/( \,oa, tz.4*
Ya ,t:"-b:-t qnbL,,%
\^)
(,4,. +LY -]"^4 a\ vt) ,rs4-0-c; /l.
@-" (b m/-Q]on pr,plLbhr'r^
"(-><A Ei-rrdt WlAt"n@ wot^,'lr, "tkl b)CS
\\E
&p
>p
$)
$F
@urnn yrr&pfu
En
\
\1.$,N
o
lh; b(.,.-,
rLrt,}
&Ir-
GN-
)p
a
requirements of the Zonng Resolution.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
Sduffrecommends CONTINUATION of the public meeting on this application so that the
issu€s raised'inthis staffreport can be resolved prior to approval. The issues which need to
be addressed prior to approval include demonstrating that all proposed lots and building
envelopes canmeet zontngand exemptionrequirements (8:60 E,5.04.02), that alldesignated
building envelopes can be reached via an access with less than l4%o slope (without
disturbance to any area of 40+oZ slope), that all lots can accommodate an adequate ISDS in
an area of less than3D% slope, that fire protection requirements can be adequately met based
on geologic and other constraints, and that documentation for formation of an HOA is
submiued (ie, draft articles of incorporation), along with a copy ofproposed covenants.
n-asd- {D
a*h^* rrriru-k
U"e
n}r}r- Lu-1
="1 .{D l"r,rJJ .
@ UJa,lAlk"
h
<\
?)
&l"a^* o.la"-rfiL gwfu,ko^ {zcaa.k- #n.,^4^?
(,r-\.o"!- (^ nihmjrl3oF. fur; ,^,ell4 t'aA 61
C'r,,o,a
,A-lNb ten*t2p^ urtlo!-,pp"4p,^. yd, Uta4D rille_ tau,,-\*4 M
)+,{^^.f
AaA!)
hrfr+1t
By 970 544 3725;Jul-1 1 -01 9:1 6PM;Page 112
TING SER
I I Eotl Walu Plece, AsPen, Lblorado t I 6 I I 8 rld r p70) 51.-J725
July I l, 2001
Mr. Kelly Lyon
P.O. Box I I0
Silt, Colorado 81652
Retbrencc: Kelly ancl Michael Lyon Fanrily, LI,C Exeurption
Dear Kelly:
I have reviewed the exemption plat and I have visited the site fbr the ubove ref'erenced
subdivision. I offer thc following corlments:
Lol number one
rt ir trt ir t""rt a along the northem borurdaries of the Exemption Plat and has gentlcr slopcs. A
proposed bui.lding "rrJop of 18,000 square l'eet can be titted with reasonable setbacks from the
proprrty lines. The layouiof the proposed building envelope is shovm in the attachcd
preliminary sketch plan.
Lol number two
Offe$ adequate room in flauer portiors of the parcel altrng thc wcstcnr property boutrdaries, and
again, an tgOOO square fcct building envelope as shown in the anachcd plau, can be fitted on this
lot.
Summant of lindinss
ffisoffuemptionlot.snumberonethroughnumberfozrincludesteepto
nroderately sloped surfaces with vcgctative covor in most arcas. Thc cxistence of natural
vegetative ground cover suggests that the slopes are qengrally in stable condition' Lots number l,
2, and 3 have unique topography and offer good size building envelops.
Lot number lhree
Thl;1"-t h* r*y*g c6ntours and irregulur topography. Buildins envelope must bc kept out of
the flattor low poiis and away from the path of surface runoff. A fairly good-sized building
envelope oiup to 12000 squarc feet can be fitted as proposed in the attached sketch plan'
Lot number four
@fulystcepslopesalongthewestpropertylineandincludeseflatterplaform,
suited for a reasonalty slreU building eivelope. 'i'hCpr,rpuserl ettvelopo has a total area of '1,425
il;. fect, and adeqgate sctbacks liom the north and esst propErty_lincs. Rgck outcroppings at
the northwest quactrant of this parcel pose a hazardous condition. This situation can be
."^o*Ufy mitigated by ,"mouing a total of .six lurge bouldcrs at the top of slope in this portiorr
of the lot.
-1-
970 544 3725;JuI- 1 1 -01 9:1 6PM;
Mr. Kelly l.yon
Page two
In my opinion, these lots can be developed under close conformancc with a gcotcchnioal firur's
soil investjgations and recornmendations, including their foundation design guidclines, erosion
control and drainage mitigation.
I hopc this rcport letter will provide adequate clarilication for the Garfield County Plaruring
Department. Please do not hesiate to contaot me if you have any questions.
Nick Adeh, P.E
Page 212Serpt By:- ;
Sincerely
PROJIC-I.or 4){l -/D -
I
Consuttins Ensineersand Hydrotogists
RECE lV [ 3
AUG t 4 20ot
Ms. Kit Lyon
144 Vz East Third, Suite 208
Rifle, CO 81650 -\\
RE: Lyon Subdivision Exemption
Dear Ms. Lyon
Enclosed is a sketch showing the proposed building envelopes for the Lyon Subdivision
Exemption. The enclosed sketch also shows slopes that are steeper than 40 percent. The legend
indicates the area in each building envelope that has a slope of less than 40 percent. Note that
each building envelope has more than 1 acre in area that has less than 40 percent slopes. We do
not want to exclude all of the steep slopes from the building envelopes due to the awkward shapes
that would result. We also intentionally excluded the top of the ridge located between Lots 2 and
3 from the Lot 3 building envelope so we can preserve this ridge line to avoid the visual impacts
associated with construction on top of this ridge.
Regarding potential rockfall hazards, the proposed lots have been configured to allow sufficient
room to allow rockfall to be mitigated or avoided. A geotechnical engineer should be consulted
by the individual lot owners during building design and permitting for site-specific geologic
recorrmendations based upon the proposed location and design of their residence. In summary,
each of the four lots is buildable in terms of having more than 1 acre in area that has less than 40
percent slopes and in terms of providing sufficient room to allow rockfall to be mitigated or
avoided.
Please give me a call to discuss the enclosed inforriration
Sincerely,
ENARTECH, INC.
Peter Belau, P.E.
PB/jlw
Enclosure
cc: Kelly and Michael Lyon
E-mail: peterb@enartech.com
COMMON\PJB200I\4?7-01-LIrKLyon080801 --ll'
302 Eighth Slreet, Suite 325 P.O. Drawer 160 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 (970) 945-2236 Fax (970) 945-2977 www.enartech.com
ENARTECH INC.
August 9,2001
SCALE
t@
BI'trDING
EN\MIOPE
AREA OF'
srnPB <40%
Ipt I
Lol 2
Lt3
Ipl 4
2.18 Acres
2.93 Acres
1.20 Acres
1.13 Acres
TEGEIVD
-
-----
II}l UNE
BUII.I)IIIC EGIYEI.OPE
ffi SIPPES SIEEFER
TEAN 4OI
-/
utl 6/6.nr
l'- 2drrl
EE
P. E.f'
tn,II
47{nrfffcnl
CONSULNNC ENGINEERS A}ID }IYDROIOGISIIi
3O2 6th ST., GlrllwOOD SPEXGi, CO Et6Otp.o. 80x tco. GtlNwo(,D sPRtNGs. oo 6t002
(e7o) g/t5-zl!O F x (e70) e4s-2977
SLOPE ANALYSIS v EN AR TECH IN C.
Lyon Subdivision Exemption
--tJ
5
17f41
tobo
aql oc,rl
/
l
-
rl
IfIIIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIITIIII ENGINEEFIINGi INC
RECEIVED
sEP 2 I 200
Ms. Kit Lyon
Garfield County Planning Department
144 Y2 East Third, Suite 2O8
Rifle CO 81650
Sqltember 19, 2OO1
RE: Kelly and Michael Lyon Family, LLC - Exemption Subdivision Review
Dear Kit:
At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, lnc. (RESOURCE) has
reviewed the Kelly and Michael Lyon Family, LLC - Exemption application. Our
comments are presented below.
Geologic hazards including potentially unstable slopes, debris flow, and
rock fall may affect the building envelopes for Lots 2, 3 and 4. The
application indicates that there is suitable area on slopes less than 407o
within the proposed building envelopes for each lot. However, there is
no mapping of the geologic hazards to support the conclusion of
buildable area on slopes less than 4Oo/o. The considerations in Section
8:60(e) of the subdivision regulations do not appear to be adequately
addressed.
The building envelopes for Lots 2, 3, and 4 include areas with slopes
greater than 4O%. The Lot 3 building envelope also includes a water line
easement and a natural drainage.
Based on items 1 and 2 above, we believe that the application has not
demonstrated the ability to provide appropriate building envelopes in
accordance with Section 5.04.O2 of the Garfield County Zoning
Regulations.
The proposed 10,OOO gallon f ire protection storage tank will not be a
"dry" fire connection. A fire hydrant at County Road 235 would have
a static pressure of approximately 35 psi. All improvements must be
installed and operational prior to the signing of the exemption plat. lt
should be the responsibility of the developer to provide an initial fill of
the water storage tank and fire protection system.
The plat does not give dimensions for the water tank easement. lt is not
clear who is the grantee of the Water Tank Easement and the Water Line
Easement.
There is no building envelope presented for Lot 5. However, this lot is
approximately 65 acres in size and includes relatively flat irrigated land
that should be suitable for a building site. There are several constraints
to development of this lot that should be identified. These would include
wetlands and drainages in the southerly portion of the lot.
-l 7'-Consulting Engineens and Hydnologists
9O9 Colonado Avenue I Glenwood Spnings, CO El1601 a (970)945-6777 I Fax [97O] 945-1137
FIES OuHCEo
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ms. Kit Lyon
Page 2
September 19, 2OO1
As identified in Surveyor's Note 5, the record location of the Excepted
Parcel does not coincide with the actual fenced and occupied area. This
should be corrected prior to platting of Lot 4.
Results of the May 23, 2OO1 pumping test indicate that the Lot 2 well
cannot sustain a flow of 7 gallons per minute (the water level in the well
dropped to the bottom in 4 hours). However, it is a well that has
provided a potable water supply to an existing house for more than 25
yea!'s. Each well will need to meet the criteria of Section 8:42{.d!.,1 -7
prior to signing the exemption plat.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENG NG, INC.
Michael E
Water UTGES Engineer
MJE/mmm
885-5.0 kl lyon family exemption.SSs.wpd
-lq -
7
I
:!i:iFIESOUFlCElrltrIIIIIE N G I N E E F I N G I N C