HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication-PermitI
Garfield County
Building & Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite #401 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Office:970-945·8212 Fax: 970-384-3470
Inspection Line: 970-384-5003
Building Permit No. 1 0813
Parcel No: 2393-071-05-002
Locality: Pinyon Mesa PUD, flg1, Lot 2
Job Address: TBD Pinyon Mesa Dr, GWS
Owner: Trent
Contractor: Legacy Homes of Aspen Inc
Fees: Plan Check: $ 1,017.22 Septic:
Bldg Permit: $ 1,564.95 rd in pact fee (area 1 O) $
Total Fees: $ 3,515.24
Clerck: :JtJilio~ Date:
933.07
1/15/2008 I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Class of Work:
II Garage:
12 Driveway Permit: ,
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
108 8'h Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, Co 81601
Phone: 970-945-8212 I Fax: 970-384-3470 I Inspection Line: 970-384-5003
www.garfield-county.com
New o Addition
$
AltPh:
Authority. This application for a Building Permit must be signed by the Owner of the property, described above, or an authorized agent. If the signature below is not that of the Owner, a separate
letter of authority, signed by the Owner, must be provided with this Application.
Legal Access. A Building Permit cannot be issued without proof of legal and adequate access to the property for purposes of inspections by tl1e Building Depanment
Other Permits. Multiple separate permits may be required: (I) State Electrical Permit, (2) County ISDS Permit, (3) another permit required for use on the property identified above, e.g. State or
County Highway/ Road Access or a State Wastewater Discharge Permit
Void Permit. A Building Permit becomes null and void if the work authorized is not commenced within 180 days of the date of issuance and if work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180
days after commencement.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that I have read this Application and that the information contained above is true and correct. ]understand that the Buildi11g Depanment accepts the Application, along with the plans
and specifications and other da!a submitted by me or on my behalf (submittals), based upon my certification as to accuracy.
Assuming completeness of the submittals and approval of this Application, a Building ~ermit will be issued gran ling permissiofl to me. as Owner, to construct the structurc(s) and facilities detailed on
the submittals reviewed by the Building Department.
In consideration of the issuance of the Building Permit. I agree that land my agents will comply with provisions of any federal, state or local law regulating the work and the Garfield County Building
Code, ISDS regulations and applicable land use regulations (County Regulation(s)). I acknowledge that the Building Permit may be suspended or revoked. upon notice from the County, if the location,
construction or use of the structure(s) and facility(ies), described above, are not in compliance with County Regulation(s) or any other applicable law.
I hereby grant permission to the Building Department to enter the property, described above, to inspect the work. I further acknowledge that the issuance of the Building Permit does not prevent the
Building Official from: ( 1) reqtllring the correction of errors in the submittals, if any, discovered after issuance; or (2) stopping construction or use of the structure(s) or facility(ies) if such is in violation
of County Regulation(s) or any other applicable law.
Review of this Application, including submittals, and inspections of the work by the Building Department do not constitute an acceptance of responsibility or liability by the County of errors, omissions
or discrepancies. As the Owner, I acknowledge that responsibility for compliance with federal, state and local laws and County Regulations rest with me and my authorized agents, including without
limitation my architect designer, engineer and/ or builder.
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAV READ AND UNDERSTAND THE NOTICE & CERTIFICATION ABOVE:
0
STAFF USE ONLY
ISDS Fee: Total Fees: Fees Paid: Balance Due: ISDS No & Issued Date:
6\:10.{;;5 qiLI 5 'f
Setbacks: Cons! Type: Zoning:
BLDG DEPT: PLNGDEPT:
\-~-<)"-.
DATE DATE
VALUATION FEE DETERMINATION
Applicant
Address
Date
-:J,oh~n::so":n7--;::,---------Snbdlvision
~P~in::llfllM~;e~s::.a::D::.:r. ________ Lot!Biock
1/9/2008 Contractor
Finished (Livable Area):
Main
Upper
Lower
Other
Total
Basement:
Unfinished
Square Feet
Valuation
Conversion of Unfinished to Finished
Total Valuation
Garage:
Valuation
Crawl Space
Valuation
Decks/ Patios
Valuation
Covered
Open
Type of Construction:
Occupancy:
Valuation
Total Valnation
1194 sf
1025 sf
sf
sf X $74.68
2219 sf
522 sf X $41.00
sf X $33.68
638 sf X $18.00
sf X $9.00
106 sf X $24.00
sf X $12.00
Commercial
sf X
sf X
sf X
sf X
sf X
sf X
Legacy Homes
165,714.92
21,402.00
11,484.00
0.00
2,544.00
0.00
201,144.92
VALUATION FEE DETERMINATION
Applicant Johnson
Address Pin~fVt1esa Dr.
Date 1/9/2008
Finished (Livable Area):
Main
Upper
Lower
Other
Total Square Feet
Valuation
Basement:
Unfinished
Conversion of Unfinished to Finished
Total Valuation
Garage:
Valuation
Crawl Space
Valuation
Decks/ Patios
Valuation
Covered
Open
Type of Construction:
Occupancy:
Valuation
Total Valuation
Subdivision
Lot/Block
Contractor
1194 sf
1025 sf
sf
sf X $74.68
2219 sf
522 sf X $41.00
sf X $33.68
638 sf X $18.00
~in~afV\ esC\.
Legacy Homes
165,714.92
21,402.00
11,484.00
sf X $9.00 $ 22.+9
106 sf X $24.00
sf X $12.00
Commercial
sf X
sf X
sf X
sf X
sf X
sf X
0.00
2,544.00
0.00
201,144.92
Z1i'8z .17
2-f 25' ·df
f1-m'f:!taJ1.1.'1: WL
lc.r/5", 714. ~<.
J 84' 440.92
/'57.0~ -"5Q.DO :::::. {07.0f6 )
1!.~ Pv.fi.
Qwt+f£.2_
The following items are required by Garfield County for a final Inspection:
1) A final Electrical Inspection from the Colorado State Electrical Inspector.
2) Permanent address assigned by Garfield County Building Department and posted at the
structure and where readily visible from access road.
3) A finished roof; a lockable building; completed exterior siding; exterior doors and windows
installed; a complete kitchen with cabinets, sink with hot & cold running water, non-absorbent
kitchen floor covering, counter tops and finished walls, ready for stove and refrigerator; all
necessary plumbing.
4) All bathrooms must be complete, with washbowl, tub or shower, toilet, hot and cold running
water, non-absorbent floors, walls finished, and privacy door.
5) Steps over three (3) risers, outside or inside must be must have handrails. Balconies and decks
over 30" high must be constructed to all IBC and IRC requirements including guardrails.
6) Outside grading completed so that water slopes away from the building;
7) Exceptions to tbe outside steps, decks, grading may be made upon the demonstration of
extenuating circumstances., i.e. weather. Under such circumstances A Certificate of
Occupancy may be issued conditionally.
8) A final inspection sign off by the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department for driveway
installation, where applicable; as well as any final sign off by the Fire District, and/or State
Agencies where applicable.
A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (C.O.) WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL THE
ABOVE ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.
A C.O. MAY TAKE UP TO 5 BUSINESS DAYS TO BE PROCESSED AND ISSUED.
OWNER CANNOT OCCUPY OR USE DWELLING UNTIL A C.O. IS ISSUED.
OCCUPANCY OR USE OF DWELLING WITHOUT A C.O. WILL BE CONSIDERED AN
ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR VACATING PREMISES
UNTIL ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE MET.
I understand and agree to abide by the above conditions for occupancy, use and the issuance of a
C.O. for the building identified in the Building Permit.
. DA
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING
970-945-8212
MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
For
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION
Including
NEW CONSTRUCTION
ADDITIONS
ALTERATIONS
And
MOVED BUILDINGS
In order to understand the scope of the work intended under a permit application and expedite the
issuance of a permit it is important that complete information be provided. When reviewing a plan and
it's discovered that required information has not been provided by the applicant, this will result in the
delay of the permit issuance and in proceeding with building construction. The owner or contractor shall
be required to provide this information before the plan review can proceed. Other plans that are in line
for review may be given attention before the new information may be reviewed after it has been
provided to the Building Department.
Please review this document to determine if you have enough information to design yonr project
and provide adequate information to facilitate a plan review. Also, please consider using a design
· professional for assistance in your design and a construction professional for construction of your
project. Any project with more than ten (10) occupants requires the plans to be sealed by a
Colorado Registered Design Professional.
To provide for a more understandable plan in order to determine compliance with the building, plumbing
and mechanical codes, applicants are requested to review the following checklist prior to and during
design. Applicants are required to indicate appropriately and to submit the completed checklist at
time of application for a permit.
Plans to be included for a Building Permit, must be on drafting paper at least 18"x24" and drawn
to scale.
Plans must include a floor plan, a concrete footing and foundation plan, elevations all sides with decks,
balcony, steps, hand rails and guard rails, windows and doors, including the finish grade line and
original grade. A section showing in detail, from the bottom of the footing to the top of the roof,
including re-bar, anchor bolts, pressure treated plates, floor joists, wall studs and spacing, insulation,
sheeting, house-rap, (which is required), siding or any approved building material. Engineered
foundations may be required.
A window schedule. A door schedule. A floor framing plan, a roof framing plan, roof must be
designed to withstand a 40 pound per square foot up to 7,000 feet in elevation, a 90 M.P.H. wind speed,
wind exposure B or C, and a 36 inch frost depth.
All sheets to be identified by number and indexed. All of the above requirements must be met or your
plans will be returned.
All plans submitted must be incompliance with the 2003 IRC.
1. Is a site plan included that identifies the location of the proposed structure or addition and distances to
the property lines from each comer of the proposed structure( s) prepared by a licensed surveyor
and has the surveyors signature and professional stamp on the drawing? Properties with slopes of
30% or greater must be shown on the site plan. (NOTE Section: 106.2) Any site plan for the
placement of any portion of a structure within 50 ft. of a property line and not within a previously
surveyed building envelope on a subdivision final plat shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor
and have the surveyor's signature and professional stamp on the drawing. Any structure to be
built within a building envelope of a lot shown on a recorded subdivision plat shall include a
copy of the building envelope as it is shown on the final plat with the proposed structure located
within the envelope.
Yes Y
2. Does the site plan also include any other buildings on the property, setback easements and utility
easements? Please refer to Section 5.05.03 in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution if the
property you are applying for a building permit on is located on a comer lot. Special setbacks do
apply.
Yes ·:o/
3. Does the site plan include when applicable the location of the I.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage Disposal
System) and the distances to the property lines, wells (on subject property and adjacent
properties), streams or water courses?
Yes 11/d
4. Does the site plan indicate the location and direction of the County or private road accessing the
property?
Yes X
5. Are you aware that prior to submittal of a building permit application you are required to show proof
of a legal and adequate access to the site? This may include (but is not limited to) proof of your
right to use a private easement/right of way; A County Road and Bridge pem1it; a Colorado Dept.
of Highway Permit, including a Notice to Proceed; a permit from the federal government or any
combination. You can contact the Road & Bridge Department at 625-8601. See phone book for
other agencies
Yes-'-''-------
6. Do the plans include a foundation plan indicating the size, location and spacing of all reinforcing steel
in accordance with the IRC or per stamped engineered design?
Yes :X
7. Do the plans indicate the location and size of ventilation openings for under floor crawl spaces and the
clearances r~_quired between wood and earth?
Yes ~ No X
8. Do the plans indicate the size and location of ventilation openings for the attic, roof joist spaces and
soffits? ,
Y \-es. ___ ,_ __ _
9. Do the plans include design loads as required by Garfield County for roof snow loads, (a minimum of
· 40 pounds per square foot up to & including 7,000 feet above sea level), floor loads and wind
loads?\/
Yes __ =L--\,-----
10. Does the plan include a building section drawing indicating foundation, wall, floor, and roof
construction?
Yes _ _..,,_ ___ _
1 L Does the building section drawing include size and spacing of floor joists, wall studs, ceiling joists,
roof rafters or joists or trusses?
Yes )(
12. Does the building section drawing or other detail include the method of positive connection of all
columns and beams?
Yes_....::.'------
13. Does the elevation plan indicate the height of the building or proposed addition from the
undisturbed grade to the midpoint between the ridge and eave of a gable or shed roof or the top
of a flat roof? (Building height measurement usually not to exceed 25 feet)
Yes D(
14. Does the plan include any stove or zero clearance fireplace planned for installation including make
and model and Colorado Phase II certifications or phase II EPA certification?
Yes No __ ~~----
15. Does the plan include a masonry fireplace including a fireplace section indicating design to comply
with the IRC?
Yes _____ No _ _,·xc_:_ ___ _
16. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that egress/rescue windows from
sleeping rooms and/or basements comply witb the requirements of the IRC?
Yes._-::;A----
17. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that windows provide natural light and
ventilation for all habitable rooms?
Yes _ __,"-'-----
18. Do the plans indicate the location of glazing subject to human impact such as glass doors, glazing
immediately adjacent to such doors; glazing adjacent to any surface normally used as a walking
surface; sliding glass doors; fixed glass panels; shower doors and tub enclosures and specify safety
glazing for tbese areas?
Yes ~· No ______ _
19. Is tbe location of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnaces, boilers and water heaters indicated on
the plan?
Yes No.!:-JoJ";) fJ~ (Vl.Cci, CY':J'h.e.u•/->J
20. Do you understand that if you are building on a parcel of land created by the exemption process or the
subdivision process, are building plans in compliance with all plat notes and/or covenants?
Yes .Y
21. Do you understand that if you belong to a Homeowners Association (HOA), it is your responsibility to
obtain written permission from the association, if required by that association, prior to submitting
an application for a building permit? The building permit application will be accepted without
it, but you run the risk of the HOA bringing action to enforce the covenants, which can result in
revocation of permit issued. Additionally, your Plan Review fee is not refundable if the plans
have been reviewed by the Building Department prior to any action by tbe HOA that requires either
revocation or substantial modification of the plans.
Yes )(
22. Will tbis be the only residential structure on the parcel?
Yes ¥ No Ifno-Explain: ______ _
23. Have two (2) complete sets of construction drawings been submitted with the application?
Yes. _ _:)('-'----
24. Do you understand that the minimum dimension a home can be on a lot is 20ft. wide and 20ft. long?
Yes .X
25. Have you designed or had this plan designed while considering building and other construction code
requirements?
Yes._~---
26. Do your plans comply with all zoning rules and regulations in the County related to your properties
zone district?
Yes _ __,~----
27. Does the plan accurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will receive a final inspection
by the Qarfield County Building Department?
. Yes_-"'-Y __ _
28. Do you understand that approval for design and/or construction changes are required prior to the
application of these changes?
Yes_~---
29. Do you understand that the Building Department will collect a "Plan Review" fee from you at the
time of application submittal and that you will be required to pay the "Permit Fee" as well as any
"Road Impact" or "Septic System" fees required, at the time you pick up your building permit?
Yes Y
30. Are you aware that you must call in for an inspection by 3:30 the business day before the
requested inspection in order to receive it the following business day? Inspections will be
made from 7:30a.m. to 3:30p.m. Monday through Friday. Inspections are to be called in
to 384-5003.
Yes. _ _.,'----
31. Are you aware that requesting inspections on work that is not ready or not accessible will result in a
$50.00 re-inspection fee?
Yes_-=~---
32. Are you aware that you are required to call for all inspections required under the IRC including
approval on a final inspection prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy and occupancy of the
building?
Yes --4----
33. Are you aware that the Permit Application must be signed by the Owner or a written authority being
given for an Agent and that the party responsible for the project must comply with the IRC?
Yes_-=->----
34. Do you understand that you will be required to hire a State of Colorado Licensed Electrician and
Plumber to perform installations and hookups, unless you as the homeowner are performing the
work? The license number of the person performing the work will be required at time of
applicable inspection.
Yes __ ~~-------------
35. Are you aware, that on the front of the Building Permit Application you will need to fill in the
Parcel/Schedule Number for the lot you are applying for this permit on prior to submittal of a
building permit application? Your attention in this is appreciated.
Yes----4------------
36. Do you know that the local fire district may require you to submit plans for their review of fire safety
issues?
Yes !>( (please check with the building department about this requirement)
3 7. Do you understand that if you are planning on doing any excavating or grading to the property prior
to issuance of a building permit that you will be required to obtain a grading permit?
Yes Y
38. Are you aware that if you will be connecting to a public water and/or sewer system, that the tap fees
have to be paid and the connections inspected by the service provider prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy?
Yes 1\--
I hereby acknowledge that I have read, understand and answered these questions to the best of
my ability.
Si~~
Phone: 97o·drJi :)Otif
Project Name: JobrJ<(-o}"''
(days);
hSJder~ce
Project Address:_--'-/_-~6"-'/J'-')'--_.Le:::·""'olct__' #_,.::z/ _ _,6'---"-J'-h'-fv'-'-·au_rl_,__.,t../2-=Le"'-0-"'G"''-.!-/)"'-'-,.-.,--'-"'I/_,=e __
I
Notes:
If any required information is missing delays in issuing the permit are to be expected. Work may not
proceed without the issuance of a permit. If it is determined by the Building Official that additional
information is necessary to review the application and plans to determine minimum compliance with the
adopted codes, the application may be placed behind more recent applications for building permits in the
review process and not reviewed until required information has been provided and the application rotates
again to first position for review, delay in issuance of the perinit or delay in proceeding with
construction. ·
BpminreqDec2007
PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST
Building
/Engineered Foundation
--LL._Driveway Permit 6x~
~Surveyed Site Plan GJ.I ~
~Septic Permit and Setbacks
. (..,..A ~Grade/Topography 30% .
~tta~h Residential Plan Review List
_Jrinirnum Application Questionnaire
/Subdivision Plat Notes
+ire Department Review
/valuation Determination/Fees
__ Red Line Plans/Stamps/Sticker
~Attach Conditions
/"Application Signed
---'.L_Plan Reviewer To Sign Application
--t.L_Parcel/Schedule No.
4 40# Snowload Letter-Manf. Hms.
GENERAL NOTES:
Date _ _,/'----''7'--.c=O'-'~......._---'
Planning/Zoning
~operty Line Setbacks
~ft Stream Setbacks
~oodPlain
~ilding Height
. ,Zoning Sign-off
C7
~Road Impact Fees 7
~OAIDRC Approval
~ade/Topography 40%
-~Planning Issues
_u(_ Subdivision Plat Notes
HEPWORTH· PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
He h,Pawlak Geo[echnical, ln.(.;.
502' _.mnty Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone' 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
eLnail: hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
PRELUMINARYGEOTE~CALSTUDY
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
ELK SPRINGS RANCH LOWER BENCH AREA
COUNTY ROAD 114
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 105 652
NOVEMBER 11, 2005
PREPARED FOR:
JOHN A. ELMORE
P.O.BOX381
WRIGHTSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28480
Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719•633-5562 • Silverthorne 970-468-1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ........................................................................................................ -l-
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................... - l
SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................... -2-
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ......................................................................................................... -3-
PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... -4-
SURFICIAL SOIL DEPOSITS ............................................................................................................... 4 ..
FORMATION ROCK ............................................................................................................................ -5-
FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................................ -6 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................. -6.
GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ -7-
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... -7.
CONSTRUCTION RELA 1ED SLOPE INSTABILITY ....................................................................... -7 -
STORM WATER RUNOFF AND FLOODING ................................................................................... -8 ..
SINKHOLES ...................................................................... , ................................................................... -8 -
REGIONAL EVAPORITE DEFORMATION ...................................................................................... -9-
EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................. -9-
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... -10-
PREUMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. -II -
FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. -11 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..................................................................................... -12-
FLOOR SLABS ................................................................................................................................... -13-
VNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... -14-
SITE GRADING .................................................................................................................................. -14 ..
SURF ACE DRAINAGE ...................................................................................................................... -15 -
PAVEMENT SECTION ...................................................................................................................... -16-
LIMITATIONS ................................................................. , ....................................................................... -16-
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... -18-
FIGURE 1 -WESTERN COLORADO EVAPORITE REGION
FIGURE 2 -GEOLOGY MAP AND EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 3 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 4 -LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 5 THROUGH 8-SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed
residential development at Elk Springs Ranch Lower Bench Area, County Road 114,
Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figures l and 2. The pUipose of
the study was to evaluate the geologic conditions and develop recommendations for
preliminary foundation and grading designs. The study was conducted in accordance
with our proposal for professional engineering services to John Elmore dated July 7,
2005.
A field exploration program consisting of a geologic reconnaissance and exploratory
borings was conducted to obtain information on the site and general subsurface
conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in
the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or expansion potential and
other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory
testing were analyzed for possible impacts from the geologic conditions and to develop
recommendations for preliminary foundation design for the proposed buildings and the
subdivision grading. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and
presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering
considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions
encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
At the time of this study, project planning was in the preliminary stages. The preliminary
schematic plan available at that time is an 80 lot, single family residential subdivision
with a network of streets and utilities. It is expected the schematic plan will be modified
as project planning and design proceeds. We understand that the streets and lots are
generally proposed to follow the terrain but considering the variable relief and closely
spaced lots, relatively extensive grading could be required.
Job No. )05 652
-2-
If building types, locations or development plans change significantly from those
described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in
this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The 60 acre property is located on a valley side bench on the east side of the Roaring Fork
River valley about 7 miles southeast of the Glenwood Springs town center, see Figure 1.
The upland bench lies about 270 feet above the river channel which is located about one-
half mile to the west of the property. The bench is located about one-third of the way
between the valley bottom and Los Amigos Mesa at the top of the valley side. The
general topography in the project area is shown by the contour lines on Figure 2. County
Road 114 borders the property on the north and east. Ground slopes on the bench are
typically moderate and do not exceed about 10 percent in most areas. A steep, I 00 foot
high, river terrace escarpment with slopes of about 60 percent is located near the western
property boundary. The moderate sloping bench transitions to hilly terrain to the north,
south and east of the property. Slopes in these areas are typically between about 25 and
60 percent. Two prominent topographic knobs stand about 50 feet above the bench in the
central part of the property. All drainages tributary to the property are ephemeral and
only have surface flow following periods of heavy rainfall and snow melt. Most are small
and have basins that cover less than 40 acres. A relatively large ephemeral drainage with
an upstream basin that covers about 214 acres enters the property from the north and a
second relatively large ephemeral drainage with an upstream basin that covers about 75
acres enters· the property from the east. The two drainages join in the western part of the
property and have eroded relatively deep gullies below the upland bench. Relief between
the gully bottoms and the adjacent bench surface is between about 15 and 7Yfeet. At the
time of this study the property was undeveloped. Vegetation on the bench is mostly grass
and sagebrush. Juniper trees, sage brush and grass grow on the adjacent hills. An
abandoned gravel pit has been excavated into the terrace escarpment near the western
property line. Fills associated with the gravel mining and fills along County Road 114
have been placed across the ephemeral drainages tributary to the property and a large fill
is present across the incised gully were it exits the western part of the property. The fill
Job No. 105 652
in the western part of the property associated with gravel mining is about 50 feet high and
in places fills along County Road 114 are about 25 feet high.
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
The project site is located in an area of complex geology in the south central part of the
Carbondale Evaporite collapse center to the east of the Grand Hogback monocline, see
Figure 1. The Grand Hogback is a first order geologic structure that marks the transition
between the Whlte River uplift to the northeast and the Piceance basin to the southwest.
Both were formed during the Laramide orogeny about 40 to 80 million years ago. The
Grand Hogback marks the western limit of the western Colorado evaporite region. The
Carbondale evaporite collapse center is a northwest trending regional geologic structure
that covers about 460 square miles and extends from Basalt to north of Rifle (Kirkham
and Others 2002). As much as 4,000 feet of regional subsidence is believed to have
occurred in the southern part of the collapse center near Carbondale during the past 10
million years as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the center.
Much of fue collapse appears to have occurred within the past 3 million years which also
corresponds to high incision rates along the Colorado River and its main tributaries such
as the Roaring Fork River (Kirkham and Others, 2002). If this is the case, the long-term
average subsidence rate was between 0.5 and 1.6 inches per 100 years. Some
geologically young fault and evaporite related anticlines are present in the project area but
because of fue nature of evaporite tectonics the faults are not considered capable of
generating large earfuquakes. The closest geologically young faults, faults less than about
15,000 years, considered capable of generation large earthquakes are faults in the
Williams Fork Mountains fault zone that is about 60 miles to the northeast of the project
site and faults in the southern section of the Sa watch fault zone about 66 miles to the
southeast ofthe project site (Widmann and Others, 1998).
lob No. 105 652
-4-
PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY
The main geologic features at the project site and vicinity are shown on Figure 2. The
upland bench at the project site appears to be associated with a former, higherlevel
Roaring Fork River valley floor that existed at the time of a middle Pleistocene-age Bull
Lake glaciation. Surficial soil deposits in the area include Roaring Fork River glacial
outwash, alluvium of varying ages on the upland bench and colluvium on the adjacent
hillsides. Near surface formation rock is the Eagle Valley Evaporite, basalt flows and
associated volcanic sediments.
SURFICIAL SOIL DEPOSITS
Roaring Fork River glacial outwash gravels (Qt5) form a high level terrace in the western
part of the project area and have been mined for aggregate near the western property line.
The terrace surface stands about 255 feet above the modern river channel and the outwash
is probably associated with a middle Pleistocene-age Bull Lake glaciation about 132 to
198 thousand years ago. Three ages of tributary drainage alluvium are present below the
upland bench. QaSa and QaSb are the oldest, Qa2 is of intermediate age and Qal is the
youngest alluvium. The oldest tributary drainage alluvium directly overlies the Bull Lake
outwash along the terrace escarpment, is of a similar age and probably extends below the
intermediate age and youngest alluvium on the upland bench to the east of terrace. The
Qal and Qa2 alluviums are geologically young and were deposited in post-glacial time,
during about the past 15,000 years. Relatively thin colluvium (Qcl) is present below the
incised gully sides in the western part of the property and relatively thin colluvium (Qc2)
usually covers the formation rock on the bills to the north, east and south of the property.
Relatively extensive man-placed fills ( af) associated with gravel mining and County Road
114 are present in the project area.
At the boring sites the tributary drainage alluvial deposits were from 14 to greater than
59.5 feet thick, see Figure 3. The soil profiles at the borings typically consisted of an
upper fine sandy silt and clay from 14 to 25 feet thick that overlies stratified sand and silt
with scattered gravel and sand and gravel with scattered cobbles. Interbedded siltstone,
Job No. 105 652
-5-
sandstone and gypsum was encountered in Boring 3 at a depth of 14 feet and in Boring 4
at a depth of3 3 feet.
FORMATION ROCK
The middle Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite (Pee) underlies the surficial soil on
the upland bench and locally crops out on the knobs and hillsides that stand above the
bench. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is a sequence of evaporitic rocks (mainly gypsum,
anhydrite and halite) that are interbedded with light colored mudstone, fine-grained
sandstone, thin carbonate beds and black shale. Outcrops along the county road near the
project site indicate that the bedding in this area strikes to the northeast and dips between
45 and 67 degrees to the southeast, see Figure 2. The local bedding is not consistent with
the northwest regional structural trend and indicates that the evaporite in the project area
has been deformed by evaporite flow. The middle Pleistocene-age glacial outwash
terrace in the area does not appear to have been substantially deformed by evaporite
tectonics since formed about 132 to 198 thousand years ago. The evaporite is relatively
soluble and subsurface voids and related sinkholes are locally present through the western
Colorado evaporite region in areas where the evaporite is near the surface, see Figure 1.
Sinkholes were not observed during our field visit but subsurface voids that could lead to
surfil.ce sinkholes may be present locally on the property.
Miocene-age basalt flow and associated volcanic sediments (Tb) overlie the Eagle Valley
Evaporite on the valley side to the north of the property and the basalt is the Los Amigos
Mesa rim rock. The basalt in the area has been radiometric dated to be between about 7.5
and l 0 million years old (Kirkham and Others 2002). The basalt flows are broken and
deformed as a result of regional subsidence since they were erupted. The associated
interflow sediments consist of rounded basalt, sandstone and quartzite gravel, cobbles and
boulders in a soil matrix.
Job No. 105 652
-6-
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted between October 6 and 14, 2005.
Five exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fignre 2 to evaluate the
subsmface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight
auger powered by truck-mounted CME-45B and track-mounted CME-45 drill rigs. The
borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1% inch and 2 inch LD. spoon samplers. The
samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound
hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described
by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the
relative density or consistency of the subsoils and hardness of the bedrock. Depths at
-----------
which the samples wer~ taken and tli.e penetration -resistance values are shown on the
Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 3. The samples were returned to our laboratory for
review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 3.
The subsoils, below a thin topsoil root zone, consist of a variable depth of inter-layered
silt, sand and clay alluvial deposits overlying very hard siltstone/sandstone bedrock. The
alluvial soils were encountered to a depth of 4 8 feet in the we stem part and to a depth of
59Yz feet in the east part of the property. In Borings 3 and 4, located in the central part of
the property, siltstone/sandstone and gypsum bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite was
encountered below the alluvial soils at depths of 14 and 32Yz feet, respectively. The
bedrock was consistently very hard and did not appear to contain voids. Drilling with
depth in the alluvial soils and bedrock with auger equipment was difficult due to the
hardness and possible cemented zones, and practical drilling refusal was typically
encountered in the deposits.
Job No. 105 652 ~tech
-7-
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural
moisture content and density, liquid and plastic limits and finer than sand size gradation
analyses. Results of swell-consolidation testing, presented on Figures 5 through 8,
indicate the alluvial soils within about the upper 10 feet are typically hydrocompressive
and moderately to highly compressible under load after wetting. Some of the clay soils
with depth typically showed a minor to moderate expansion potential when wetted under
relatively light loading. The laboratory test results are summarized in Table 1.
Free water was not encountered in the borings and the subsoils and bedrock were
relatively dry.
GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT
There are several conditions of a geologic nature that could affect the proposed
development and which should be considered in project planning and design. These
conditions, their relative risks and possible mitigation to reduce the risks are discussed
below.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
Much of the tributary drainage alluvium (Qal, Qa2, Qa5a and Qa5b) is a low density silty
soil that has a collapse potential when wetted and presents a settlement risk to building
foundations, roadways and utilities. Ways of mitigating this potential risk are discussed
in the Preliminary Design Recommendations-Foundations section of this report.
CONS1RUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY
We do not anticipate unusual risks associated with construction related slope instebility if
the project grading is properly engineered and constructed. Geotechnical grading
recommendations are presented in the Preliminary Design Recommendations -Site
Grading section of this report.
Job No. J 05 652
-8-
STORM WATER RUNOFF AND FLOODING
Several drainages are tributary to the project site and will contribute water and sediments
to the site related to direct runoff from unusually intense rainfall and heavy snow melt. In
most places the drainages have been modified by fill associated with past gravel mining
and construction of County Road 114. The influence of these fills should be considered
in the drainage study and grading plan for the proposed development. Sediments
deposited by runoff from the tributary drainages are fine-grained and not related to
sediments typical of debris flow and floods. The two larger drainage basins tributary to
the property have roughness coefficients (Milton numbers) less than 0.4 which is
indicative of basins that should not produce debris flows.
SINKHOLES
Sinkholes were not observed on the property but geologically young sinkholes are locally
present in the evaporite region between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale and we are
aware of three sinkhole collapses in this region during the past two years. Based on our
current understanding of the evaporite sinkhole process, all areas in western Colorado,
including the project site, where evaporite is shallow have the potential for sinkhole
development that could be a safety risk to building occupants if open solution voids are
present in the subsurface, see Figure 1. However, considering the large extent of the
sinkhole prone area in comparison to the small number of geologically young sinkholes
and historic sinkholes, in our opinion, it is reasonable to infer that the probability of a
sinkhole collapse at a specific location on the property is low. The sinkhole risk at the
project site does not appear to be greater than elsewhere in the Glenwood
Springs/Carbondale evaporite region.
Because of the complex nature of the evaporite related sinkholes, it will not be possible to
avoid all sinkhole risk at the project site but the risk can be reduced by site specific
studies. The potential for shallow subsurface voids at building sites and other important
facilities can be evaluated by subsurface exploration. If conditions indicative of sinkhole
Job No. 105 652
-9-
related problems are encountered, an alternative location should be considered or the
feasibility of mitigation evaluated. Mitigation measures could include (1) stabilization by
grouting, (2) stabilization by excavation and backfilling, (3) a deep foundation system, (4)
structural bridging, or (5) a mat foundation system. Home owners should be advised of
the sinkhole risk, since early detection of building distress and timely remedial actions are
important in reducing the cost of remediation and for life safety concerns should an
undetected sinkhole start to develop after construction.
REGJONALEVAPORJTEDEFORMATION
The project site is in the Carbondale evaporite collapse center where regional grotmd
deformations have been associated with evaporite solution and flow in the geologic: past.
Evaporite deformation in the project area started about 10 million years ago and mucb of
the deformation may have occurred within the past 3 million years, but it is tmcertain if
the deformation is still active or if deformation has stopped. If evaporite deformation is
still active, it appears to be taking place at very slow rates and over broad areas with little
risk of abrupt differential ground displacement except along evaporite related faults
which are not present at the project site. We are not aware of evaporite related
deformation problems in the region. In our opinion, the currently available information
on regional evaporite deformation indicates a low risk to the proposed project facilities.
EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS
The project area could experience earthquake related grotmd shaking. Historic
earthquake ground shaking in the region has been moderately strong but bas not exceeded
Modified Mercalli Intensity VI (Kirkham and Rogers, 1985). Modified Mercalli Intensity
VI grotmd shaking should be expected during a reasonable exposme time for the
proposed development, 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. The buildings should be
designed to withstand moderately strong grotmd shaking with little or no damage and not
lob No. 105 652
-10-
to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The U. S. Geological Survey National
Seismic Hazard Map indicates that a peak ground acceleration of 0.06g has a 10%
exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time at the project site (Frankel and Others,
2002). This corresponds to a statistical recurrence time of 4 75 years. The region is in the
1997 Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on our current understanding
of the earthquake potential in this part of Colorado we see no reason to increase the
previously accepted seismic risk zone for the region.
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Development of the project as proposed should be feasible based on geotechnical
conditions. The upper alluvial soils encountered in the borings tend to collapse (settle
under constant load) when wetted. The depth of collapsible soils is expected to be,
variable across the project site. The amount of settlement will depend on the depth ofthe
compressible soils and the wetted depth below the foundation. The deeper soils that show
some expansion potential when wetted are eJ-.-pected to not be typically encountered in
excavations and not significantly impact the foundation design. The settlement potential
and risk of excessive building distress can be reduced by compaction of the soils to a
certain depth below the foundation bearing level and by heavily reinforcing the
foundation to resist differential settlements. The compaction could also extend to below
driveway and utility areas. Structural fill sections are expected to be relatively minor but
relatively deep structural fills will have some potential for long term settlement. Proper
grading and compaction as presented below in Site Grading will help reduce the
settlement risks. A heavily reinforced mat foundation designed for large differential
settlements could also be used to reduce the settlement risk.
Recommendations for preliminary design of the proposed development are presented
below. When the building plans have been developed, we should review the information
for compliance with our recommendations.
Job No. 105 652
-ll -
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, the
variable terrain and the residential proposed construction, we recommend the buildings be
founded with spread footings bearing on at least 3 feet of compacted on-site soils. The
feasibility of footings placed on the natural soils should be evaluated by additional
subsurface exploration prior to construction. If mat foundations are considered for
building support, we should be contacted for additional recommendations.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread
footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on at least 3 feet of compacted fill or on natural sqih ~
depending on the. results of additional exploration, should be designe(', for
an allowable bearing pressure of 1 ,500 psf. Based on experience, we
expect initial settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed
in this section will be about 1 inch or less. Additional differential
settlement between about 1 to 2 inches could occur if the soils are. wetted.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 20 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection.
Placement of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is
typically used in this area.
4) The foundation should be constructed in a "box-like" configuration rather
than with isolated footings. The foundation walls should be heavily
reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by a~surning an
unsupported length of at least 14 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining
structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as
discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report.
Job No. 105 652
-12-
5) The topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed. The soils
should be subexcavated as needed to provide at least 3 feet of structural fill
below the footing bearing level compacted to at least 98% of the maximum
standard Proctor density within 2 percentage points of optimum moisture
content. Where footings are placed on the natural soils, the exposed soils
in footing area should be moistened and compacted.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate the
compaction of the fill materials and observe all footing excavations prior
to concrete placement for bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be
'
expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a la¥cral
earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf
for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are
separate from the buildings and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full
active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed
on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of
the on-site soils.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and
equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the
walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward
sloping backfill surface will increase~the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or
retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure
buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted tc at least 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor
Job No. 105 652
-13-
density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment
near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some
settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected. even if the material is
placed com;ctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a comb:ination of the
sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure
against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be
calculated based on a coefficient of friction of0.35. Passive pressure of compacted
backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit
weight of 300 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommeqded
above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the
design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in t~e case
of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral ~"~' '
should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a ··
moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, and compacted structural fill can bt;f:used to
support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. The upper natural soils arq;
compressible when wetted and there could be some post-construction settlement; To
reduce the effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow
unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce
damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab
reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and,.the intended
slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath
basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist ofn¥nus 2 inch
aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% pass:ing the No.
200 sieve.
Job No. l 05 652
-14-
All fill materials for support of floor slabs above footing bearing level should be
compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content
near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil
and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy
precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched
condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls and ,,
basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup. by an·.
undetdrain system. An underdrain should not be provided around shallow crawlspace
f
areas and floor slabs constructed near finish ground surface.
If installed, the drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the w!)}l had:ful
surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain sh..mld
be placed at each level of excavation and at least I foot below lowest adjacent finish
grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining grJ;jilnlar
;:;1aterial used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the J)lio, 200
sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 i.r;lches. The
drain gravel backfill should be at least l Y, feet deep. An impervious membr~e, such as a
20 mil PVC liner, should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough shape and
attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting of the bearing soils.
SITE GRADING
A moderate amount of grading could be needed as part of the proposed development plan
due to the variable terrain. In addition, removal and replacement of the alluvial soils
compacted is recommended to reduce the risk of excessive differential settlements and
building distress. The structural fill should extend to at least 6 feet below design surface
grade surrounding the buildings and could be extended to below the access roads. The
lob No. 105 652
-15-
water and sewer pipe joints in the roadways should be mechanically restrained to reduce
the risk of joint separation in the event of excessive sL'ttlement. Excavation and
compaction below footing bearing level may not be needed depending on the results of
additional site-specific exploration and analysis. The structural fill materials below
footing bearing level should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum standard
Proctor density within 2 percentage points of optimum moisture content. Prior to fill
placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing the vegetation and
topsoil and compacting to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at near
optimum moisture content. The fill should be benched into slopes that exceed 20% grade.
Based on our experience, shrinkage of the upper alluvial soils due to compaction is
expected to. be about 20%.. · i ·
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to .1 verti;cal.or
I
flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. This ofi"ice jHilul;i
review site grading plans for the project prior to consUuction. ,. ·
SURFACE DRAINAGE ..
Precautions to prevent wetting of tl1e bearing soils such as proper backfill constr-1ction, ·
positive backfill slopes, restricting landscape irrigation and use ofroof.guttersnoed tc be
taken .to help limit settlement and; building distress.· The following drainage weoantions .
should be· observed -during .construction and :niilintained at all times after each residence .· .. ·
bas been completed: '
1) Inuvdation ofthe foundation excavations and tmderslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum &'tandard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in la•·1dscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the fotmdation in all directions. The slope
should be at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and at least
Job No. I 05 652
.~ .
-16-
3 inches in the first I 0 feet in paved areas. Drain gravel of retaining walls
should be capped with at least 2 feet of the on-site soils to reduce surface
water infiltration.
4) Roof gutters should be provided with downspouts that discharge beyond
the limits of the foundation wall backfill.
5). Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation, such as sod, .should
be located at least 5 feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be
given to use ofxeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below·
the building caused by irrigation .
. PAVEMENT SECTION
The upper soils encounJ;ered at the site consist oflow plasticity sand, silt and .clay that.are
considered a poor support of pavement sections. A Hveem stabilometer 'R' valu{fllf.J:5
was assumed for the native soils. The traffic loadings for the development have not been
provided but are assumed to be relatively light for the service traffic loading condition,
after the construction phase. Based on these conditions, a preliminary pavement section
con5istiug of 3 inches of a.~phalt on 9 inches of CDOT Class 6 ba~e course is
recommended. We should review the pavement section design when the roadway
subgrade has been·rough graded and the traffic loadings have been determined.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generitlly accepted ge.otec!mical
engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warrant)' either
express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are
· based up0n the data obtained from the exploratory borings dlilled at the locations
indicated on Figure 2, the proposed type of construction and our experience.in tbe area.
Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility ofmold or
other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is·
concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice should be
consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
Job No. 105 652
-17-
conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsuxface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions
encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we
should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning and
preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by
others of onr information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued
consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the
implementation of onr recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have
been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional· f
analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-
site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill
on a regular .basis by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. } " ·
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH c PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
Reviewed by:
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP/ksw
Job No. 105 652
-18-
REFERENCES
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 Others, 1996, Geology Map of the Cattle Creek Quadrangle,
Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File 96-1.
Kirkham R. M: and Others, 2002, Evaporite Tectonism in the Lower Roaring Fork River
Valley, West-Central Colorado, in Kirkham R. M., Scott, R. B. and Judkins,.'<T. W.
eds., Late Cenozoic Evapori~e Tectonism and Volcanism in West-Central '
· Colorado: Geological Society· of America Special Paper,366, Boulder, Col<!flldo ..
Kirkham, R. M. and Scott, R. B., 2002, Introduction to Late Cenozoic Evaporite "··
tectonism and Volcani~m in West-Central, Colorado, in Kirkham R. M., sCqtt; R.
B. and Judkins, T. W. eds., Late Cenozoic Evaporite Tectonism and Volcanism in
West-Central Colorado: Geological Society of America Special Paper 366, ·
Boulder, Colorado.
Tweto, 0 .. and Others, 1978, Geology Map of the Leadville I ox 2 "Quadrangle,
Northwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map I-999.
Widmann B. L. and Others, 1998, Preliminary Quaternwy Fault and Fold };lap and Data
Base of Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 98-8.
Job No. 105 652
Explanation:
*Project
Site
D
Piceance
10MI!es
References:
Shallow Evaporite In Eagle
Valley FormaUon and Eagle
Valley Evaporite.
Silt
Basin
Carbondale
Collapse
Center
(480 sq. mi.)
Tweto and Others (1978)
Klrl<ham and Scott (2002)
River
Uplift Uplift
Eagle
CoDapse
Center
Vail •
\ ... ac2itb .
'•
1"'""~--..... \
/ j \
I /
! ! !
' I : /
~5b
'
Qc2
Qa1
Q2
aasa
"/
\,_
\\ I \
I
I
\
I \ \ \ ' \ \ ' \
\ \
) i I
I l !
I \
I '·
\
' \ .... ,
'
) \
/ Qc2fTb \
' '
' I
\
\ \
015 Bull Lake Outwash
Tb Basalt Flows and Sediments
!Pee Eagle Valley Evaporite
Contact
Approximate boundary of
mapunns.
! /
I /
u -o······
81 •
.. -.
... lj,>:s
Regional Faults:
'c:.
'·11
0
·:·.;
Approximate location, dOlled where concealed,
U-upthrown side, 0-downthrown side.
Strike and Dip:
Stlike and dip of bedding In <legreae.
Exploratory Borings:
Approximate location.
\
Qc211Pee
Qc211Pee
0 400ft.
Scale: 1 ln. = 400ft.
Contour Interval: 5 ft.
November 2005
0
5
10
15
8l u.. 20
£
D.
Q)
0
25
30
35
40
105 652
BORING 1 BORING2
18/12
WC=5.1
DD=95
32/12
25/6
WC=5.6
00=110
50/6
WC=7.3
00=112
-200=91
50/4
50/1
BOTIOM OF BORING
AT 48FEET
40/12
40/12
WC=7.8
00=115
50/6
50/6
5013
WC=7.7
00=118
-200=66
50/2
50/4
.·
BORING3 BORING4
23/12 12/12
WC=6.0 WC=7.0
00=107 00=100
27/12 30/12
WC=S.O WC=8.9
00=123 00=102
·200=70 -200=94
LL=24 LL=33
P1=6 Pl=15
50/6 25/12
50/3 38/12
50/1
50/3 45/12
WC=8.6
00=121
BORING 5
7/12 5
16/12 10
WC=5.8
00=113
19/12 15
25
35
BOITOM OF BORING
AT59.5FEET
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 4.
05
"' u..
£
D.
"' 0
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 3
LEGEND:
18/12
T
NOTES:
TOPSOIL; sandy siH, root zone, brown.
SILT (ML); slightly sandy to sandy, clayey zones, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, light brown, slightly calcareous.
CLAY (CL): slightly sandy to sandy, silty, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, light brown to brown, low plasticity, slightly
calcareous.
SILT AND SAND (ML-SM); scattered gravel to gravelly, very stiff to hard, slightly moist, light brown, subangular
basalt rook, slightly calcareous.
SAND AND GRAVEL {SM-GM); silty, sandy, scattered cobbles, sandy silt layers, medium dense, slightly moist,
brown, subangular basalt rock.
SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE BEDROCK; some gypsum, very hard, dry, grey. Eagle Valley Evaporite.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch J.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch 1.0. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 18 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
Practical drilling refusal. Where shown above bottom of log indicates multiple attempts were made to advance
the boring.
1. Exploratory borings were drilled between October 6 and 14, 2005 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan
provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were not measured and the logs of exploratory borings are drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory boring locations should be considered accurate only Ill the degree implied by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between
material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (%)
DD = Dry Density (pel)
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
LL = Liquid Limit (%)
PI = Plasticity Index (%)
105 652 LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 4
-
Moisture Content = 5.1 percent
Dry Density = 95 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silt
From: Boring 1 at 4 Feet
0 --
1 --<fl. ~ Compression
c: a upon
·;;; ~ wetting
"' 2 !!! "\ a. g 1\ (.) 3 [\
4
.
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
Moisture Content = 5.6 perc ent
Dry Density = 110 pet
Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay
From: Boring 1 at 14 Feet
<fl.
c:
~ 0
fii ~::----. .n ~ ' 1 -~
c: Expansion ..... . Q
"' upon "' ~ 2 wetting
E
8
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
105652 G~Me::h
HKPWOR11i-PAWLAK GEO'TECHNICAL
SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 5
Moisture Content = 7.8 percent
Dry Density = 115 pel
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Boring 2 at 10 Feet
2
?f.
--.. "-., c
0 1 ·a;
~ ~ § "\ ~ 0
' Expansion c
0 upon ·a;
~ 1 wetting
a.
E
0
0 2
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
Moisture Content = 6.0 percent
Dry Density = 107 pel
Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay
From: Boring 3 at 5 Feet
1/1.
c:: 0 1 ·c;;
§ a.
ill 0 • c: \'-0 ·a; ' (j)
~ 1
E Expansion
"" 0 upon 0 1\. 2 wetting
3
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
105652 ~ech
HEPWORTJ+PAWJ.AK GEOTECHNICAL
SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 6
-
Moisture Content = 7.0 percent
Dry Density = 100 pet
Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay
1ft From: Boring 4 at 5 Feet
c: 0 1 ·a;
c;
~
ill 0 ' ~ c:
0
·m 1 " n. Expansion E \ 0 upon ()
2 wetting
\
3
0.1 1.0
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
10 100
Moisture Content = 8.6 perce nt
Dry Density = 121 pcf
4 Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay -"" From: Boring 4 at 30 Feet
3 r....
'\ 1\
2
1ft ~ c -~ 1
c ~ "' n.
ill 0 ' c Expansion 0 I ·a; upon
(J) wetting @ 1 I n.
E
0
()
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
105 652 c~&tech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 7
HEPWORTH-PA'WLAKG~HNJCAL
Moisture Content = 5.8 perce nt
Dry Density = 113 pel
Semple of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Boring 5 at 10 Feet
<f!.
c:
0 'iii 1 c:
"' ~ a.
J:j
I'. ' 0 c: ~ ...... ·~ ~ !'--"' ~ ~ 1 1\ a.
E Expansion
8 upon
2 wetting
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPUED PREOSSURE-ksf
105 652 c"£tech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 8
HEPWOJlfHoPAwt.AK GIW'lECHNIC!A.L.
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 1 Job No. 105 652
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SAMPlE lOCATION NATURAl NATURAl GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG UMITS UNCONFINED
MOISTURE DRY GRAVEl SAND PASSING UQUID PlASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR BORlNGS DEPTH CONTENT ·DENSITY NO. 200 UMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (%) {%) SIEVE
lftl (Ofol (ocfl {Ofol (o/ol IPSF)
1 4 5.1 95 Sandy Silt
14 5.6 110 Sandy silt and clay
19 7.3 112 91 Slightly sandy silt and C•-J
2 10 7.8 115 Sandy silty clay
30 7.7 118 66 Sanely silt
3 5 6.0 107 Sandy silt and clay
10 6.0 123 70 24 6 Sandy silt and clay
4 5 7.0 . 100 Sandy silt and clay
10 8.9 102 94 33 15 Slightly sandy clay .. _
30 8.6 121 Sandy silty clay
I
5 10 5.8 113 Sandy silty clay
20 8.5 120 90 Sandy silty clay
Vendor Number Purchase Order#
If <1\AR.-~ Special Instructions For Warrant
~-~~
Invoice
Invoice Vendor Invoice Project # (if Line Item Brief Description Dollar
Date Number Fund Dept Sub Dept Account llJ!I'!icabl~ l_{§4 Characters or Les~l _{64 Characters or Less}. Amount
l{l~{o8 R~c4~~5 -tegs '1 160 r7 0'10 II~~~-~ a.-...J.vO .• IL
3Cfoo f~ -J,.:J..,_~ /o ?.o)l
ti.e-g.for ke-ktf\CQ !>j.;~-s; lr)J.... -nilfo f ,..-tr...LJ ~ "'o8 lv~&ih.·• aY\ tJP..t= /0 'if/$
IA ..... AA. . JJ' r ,:·r.-: II
• ~1..
v
(f. -J/~7/D¥; $ jo1.Q "i/ Prepared By: .:a Total ~I
Department Head Approval: ..-:] /s>n ~
Financial Management Guide Limits:
2
DATE: ______ _
(Needs to be signed by County Administer if Over $10,000)
Posted By:
Invoice Aecuracy Verified By: ------
2008 AP Voucher. xis
No. __________ ~10=8~1~3 __ __ Assessor's Parcel No. 2393-071-05-002
Date 1/15/2008
53 ~ . BUILDING PERMIT CARD
Job Address Pinyon mesa dr, GWS (pinyon mesa PUP flg1. Lot 2)
Owner _________ J.:_oc.:.;h~ns::...o:..:.n:.z._, ::...Tr:..:.e.:.:..nt:..__ ______ Address 263 Michell Creeck rd, GWS Phone # 208-3088
Contractor ______ Le__,gL.a_c£-.y-"-H~o-'-m-'e-"-s-'o~f'-A'-'-s!.:-pe"-'n~ln;.::.c_ Address 5889 cr 109, Carbondale Phone# 704-1950
Setbacks: . Front:::;;,.,L Rear -v'i1FI,..----RH, ________ LH ________ Zoning _______ _
snaweihng on u~se w/cov pataos& art
garage C-fCI\>l( ~o:.t:.e INSPECTIONS
Soils Test -f
Footing 3-.£0-0 g ( J'fOi Q,f{ A) ..
Foundation __________ _
Grout ____________ _
Underground Plumbing ----rr-=--r--
Roug_h Plumbing_, ;.7-z??-~~
Frammg Z::-:a··-o 3~
Insulation 2-our..o>s~
Roofing ___________ _
Drywall 7~,22:~ .
Gas Piping 3---~ ltM/ u 3! J--CJ I 0 <{ : Q ~ ~~fv4. rLD.--.A
~· ~ fo a'--"'-"""-"'
Weatherproofing ___________ _
Mechanicai _____ -..,.,=---:::-------
Eiectrical Rough (State) ,7--/ff-oi>
~A.!=Iectrical Final (State) /C ·a-c ~ . ,
-tJJr Final/9'-3=08 /Checklis~Com_.R.Ie.ted?. //
Certificate Occupa._ncy # __ Q'-1' ~ -~
Date I s~u.o !1-S ~
Septic System # ___________ _
Date ------------Final ___________ _
Other---------------
NOTES
(continue on back)
COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CORRECTION NOTICE
108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Phone (970) 945-8212
Job located at;£()~ j/;~J-2,_,
Permit No. ------------------------------------
I have this day inspected this structure and these
premises and found the following corrections needed:
~I for Re-lnspection
When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970-384-5003.
Date ;C/~J>I'--C?£ 20 ~---
Building Inspector ~~~r,;c?
Phone (970) 945-8212
COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CORRECTION NOTICE
108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Phone (970) 945-8212
Job located at ~~=---;s--,. :__----=:.~-'--%L./V).Y-f-p-=~c:J.yt/c::_ ____ _
Permit No. /03/3
I have this day inspected this structure and these
premises and found the following corrections needed:
0 Call for Re-lnspection
0 $50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid prior to Re-lnspection
You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected
before covering.
When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970-384-5003.
Date 7-c__; 20~
Building Inspector ~::1 ?J~..-.r-
Phone (970) 945-8212
COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CORRECTION NOTICE
108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Phone (970) 945-8212
Job located at _p"""~"-L'-lj""'---"'-~=-=<:;~'fC-~L.~--=.={.L'------
Permit No. --'-/._,_0"-'8.<.!_'/-==3"---------------
I have this day inspected this structure and these
premises and found the following corrections needed:
,)(can for Re-lnspection
0 $50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid prior to Re-lnspection
You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected
-before covering.
Wh~n correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970-384-5003.
fate Jj-:,). -of? 20 r-;;;;;;:::;;;==--
Building Inspector ~~
Phone (970) 945-8212
INSPECTION WILL NOT BE MADE UNLESS
THIS CARD IS POSTED ON THE JOB
24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS
BUILDING PERMIT
-J:FIELD COUNTY, COLORAD~()'B\)
Date Issued.\ •.••.•••.•.••..•.•..•.••• Zoned Area •...•••.••.•.•..•••••.....•..•. Permit No .•.....•.••..••....•.•.......•.•...
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the issuance of this permit, the applicant hereby agrees to comply with all
laws and regulations related to the zoning, location; construction and erection of the proposed
structure for which this permit is granted, and further agrees that if the above said regulations
are not fully complied with in the zoning, location, erection and construction of the above
described structure, the permit may then be revoked by notice from the County Building
Inspector and IMMEDIATELY BECOME NULL AND VOID.
u,.,~~I!J.~WUV.~~~u· '4JM~'Y~I'Il~~~U~'L-9G~fee__
Setbacks Front Side Side Rear
Tbis Card Must Be Posted So It is Plainly Visible From The Street Until Final Inspection.
ALL LISTED ITEMS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE COVERING-
WHETHER INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR, UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND.
THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE
For Inspections Call384-5003 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado
APPROVED DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD
DateH~ Byrr-/~
IF PLA~-COVER WITH CLEAR PLASTIC
Parcel Detail Page 1 of 3
Garfield County Assessor/Treasurer
Parcel Detail Information
AS$Q$~9I!Irca$1!IcrJ'mpert)'Sei!n::h I Asses_sor Subset Que!:)' I Assessor Sales Sean:_h
<;;1erk &:Jsecsm:!erRecenlion.Se!'!n;h
Parcel Detail I Value Detail Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial ImQrovement Detail
Land Detail I PhotograQhs
I Tax Area II Account Number II Parcel Number II Mill Levy I
I 011 II R044387 II 239307105oo2 II 60.843 I
Owner Name and Mailing Address
JlOHNSON, TRENT T I
J3104 HAGER LANE I
JGLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 I
Legal Description
/SECT,1WN,RNG:7-7-88 SUB:PINYON MESA I
JPUD, FLG 1 LOT:2 PRE:R111957 I
/PRE:R041066 BK:995 PG:534 BK:995 I
jPG:529 BK:982 PG: 103 BK:873 PG:93 I
IBK:873 PG:379 BK:842 PG:458 BK:775 I
jPG:165 BK:691 PG:709 BK:650 PG:574 I
IBK:646 PG:579 BK:633 PG:851 BK:575 I
PG: 173 BK:545 PG:99 BK:545 PG: 110
BK:512 PG:767 BK:510 PG:815 BK:510
IPG:805 BK:454 PG:503 BK:450 PG:257 I
JBK:438 PG:569 BK:418 PG:1 BK:417 I
IPG:600 BK:409 PG:220 BK: 1498 PG:270 I
IBK: 1354 PG:600 BK: 1230 PG:697 I
IBK: 1230 PG:691 RECPT:737377 I
IRECPT:734762 RECPT:734760 I
IRECPT:734759 BK:1932 PG:195 I
http://www. garcoact.cornl assessor/parcel.asp ?ParcelN umber=239 307105002 12/31/2007
Parcel Detail Page 2 of3
IRECPT:724453 BK:1932 PG:194 I
IRECPT:724452 BK: 1893 PG:363 I
IRECPT:716948 BK:1825 PG:99 I
IRECPT:703003 BK:1825 PG:109 I
IRECPT:703007 BK:1825 PG:107
IRECPT:703006 BK: 1825 PG: 104
IRECPT:703005 BK:1825 PG:101
IRECPT:703004 BK:1561 PG:412
IRECPT:646682 BK:1498 PG:271
IRECPT:63207 BK:1498 PG:270 I
IRECPT:632806 I
Location
Physical Address: IICARBONDALE I
Subdivision: IIPINYON MESA PUD, FLG 1 I
Land Acres: llo
Land Sq Ft: 1111,376 I
Section II Township II Range I
7 II 7 II 88 I
Property Tax Valuation Information
II Actual Value II Assessed Value I
I Land: II 27,58011 8,oool
I Improvements: II oil ol
I Total: II 27,58011 8,oool
Sale Date: 1111113/2007
Sale Price: 112oo,ooo
Basic Building Characteristics
Number of Residential
lo I Buildings:
Number of Commllnd
lo I Buildings:
No Building Records Found
http://www. garcoact.corn/ assessor/parcel.asp ?Parce!N umber=2393071 05002 12/31/2007