HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication - PermitI
I
I
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. _\lQL(J'-"-~----
Parcel No: 2395-013-29-268
Locality: Iron bridge PUD Ph . 2, Lot 268
Job Address: 0134 River Vista GWS
Use of Building: s/f on foundation w/ attached garage & covered patio
------------------------~~------~----------
Owner: Blanke , Justin & Arnold, Devon
Contractor: Hansen Canst.
Fees : Plan Check : $ 940 .78 Septic:
Bldg Permit: $ 1,447 .35 RFTA : $ 750.00
Total Fees: $ 3,138 .13
Clerk: ~ Date: ~/l9{5 I
GARF IELD COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
I 08 81h Street, Su ite 40 I, Glenwood Springs, Co 8160 I
Phon e: 970-945 -82 12 I Fa x: 970 -384-347 0 I Inspe cti on Lin e : 970 -38 4-50 03
W\\'W .!Wr fi~ ld-coun t v .com
Parcel No: (th is in formati on is avail abl e at the assessors office 970-945-9 134)
Describe Work:·
Class of Work :
o Alt eration o Addit ion
Gara ge: Septic:
o Detach ed o i SDS
Driveway Pennit: Own ers va luation of Work : $
NOTICE
A It Ph:
Alt Ph :
,...,.,""'-"'-'"-'-'~·· This appl ica tio n fo r a Building Penn it must be sign ed by the 0"11er of the property . describe d a b ove. o r an authori zed agent. If the signature below is n ot that of the O wner. a separate
letter of authority, signed by th e 0\\1ler. mu st be prov id ed \lith thi s Appl ica tion .
Legal Access. A Bui lding Penn it cannot be issued w ithout p roof of legal and adequate access t o th e property for purposes of inspect ion s by the Buildin g De partm ent.
Other Permits. Multiple separate permits may be required : {I) State Elec trical Penn it. (2 ) County ISDS Pennit . {3 ) another penn it req uired for use on th e propeny id en tified above. e.g. S tate or
County Highway/ Road Access or a State Wastewater Disch arg e Penn it.
Void Permit. A Bui ld ing Permit becomes null and vo id if th e work a uth orized is not commenced within 180 days of th e date of iss uan ce and if work is suspend ed or aband oned for a peri od of 180
days a ft er com111encement
CERTIFI CATION
I hereby ce rtify that I ha ve read thi s App li cation and that th e infonnati on co ntain ed ab ove is true and co rrect. J und erstand that th e Building Departm ent accepts the Appli cation . a long wit h the plans
and specificatio ns and othe r data submitted by me or on my beha lf {submittal s). ba se d upon my certifi c ation as to acc ura cy.
Assuming com p let eness of th e ::~u bmittal s and a ppro\'al of this A ppli cation . a Buildint; Pe nn it wi ll be issu ed ~rnntiu g permissio n to me. as 0 \vncr, t o con struct th e structurc(s} nnd fa cil ities detniled o n
the submittal s reviewed by th e Building Department.
In co nsid erati on of t he iss uance of the Bui ldin g Pennit. I agree that I and Ill)' agents wi ll compl y with provisions of an y federal. state or local la w reg ul ating th e work and the Garfield Cou nty Building
Code. JSDS reg ulati ons and app li cabl e land use regulati ons (Co unt y Reg ulati on(s)}. I a cknowl edge that th e Bui ldin g Penni I may be suspend ed or revo ked, upon noti ce from th e Cou nty. if the loc ation.
constructio n or use of th e structure{s) and fa cility(i es). described a bove. are not in compliance wit h C ount y Regul at ion(s) or an y other appll cab le la w.
I hereby grant penni ss ion to th e Building Departm ent to ent er the prop erty. desc ri bed above. to in spec t the work. I furth er acknow ledg e that th e issuance of the Build in g Permi t do es not pre vent th e
Building Offi cial from: {I) requ iring th e correct ion of errors in th e s ubm inals. if any. di scovered after iss uance : or (2) stopping construc ti on or use of th e stmcture(s) or fa cili ty(ies) if such is in viola ti on
f County Reg ulation(s) or any other applica bl e law.
cvi ew of thi s Ap plic ation. including subm ittals. and inspec ti ons of th e work by th e Building De pa rt ment do not const itut e an acceptance of responsibility or liability by the County of err ors, omi ss ion s
or disc repancies. As the Own er. I ackn owl edge t responsib ility for complia nce with federal. state and local laws and Co unty Regula ti ons res t wi th me and my authorized agents. includin g wi thout
limitation my ar chitect desig ner , engin eer and/ r b ilde r.
I HEREBY ACKNOWLE GE TH AT AV R AD AN D UN DERSTAND TH E NOTICE & CERTlFICATION ABO V
STAFF USE ONLY
s~c .. ~·,; '[!;;c~~ ~to
1
,4J-Wt'hc/mt>/!l /Zerv//e/ ~Y-/7;4// C! CJ.
Adjust ed Valu ation: Plan Check Fee: Permit Fee : Ma nu h ome Fee : Mise Fees:
/8~ 930 . §!!. 9t.!o. ~ /{/~7, 2:2--750.5&. l fZ-FTA
ISDS Fee: Total Fees : Fees Paid: Balance Due: rioG~·e: ISDS No & Issued Date:
----3,138 . 12-9!/. ~ zzze:,,lf!_
I
Setbacks: OCC Group :
1
£G Cons t Type: Zoning:
_... / / I I PU'D /.5 ~ 1.5 0 "-Y /.5 5(f.
~DEPT: PLN GDEPT:
~?7 ~6 ?P0r ~~
APPROVAL D TE APPROVAL 'nATE
'·
I tf:-h. d1ttt ~
061 ~)CD:) yJCd:Jf b\ 1 ~~
??-:}dq po
d)O) . \~0\
rcci(Qtf-C8 4tt0 ~o I Y\ \ t-?~A~~~
The following items are required by Garfield County for a final Inspection:
I) A final Electrical Inspection from the Colorado State Electrical Inspector.
2) Permanent address assigned by Garfie ld County Building Department and posted at the
structure and where readily visible from access road.
3) A finished roof; a lockable building; comp leted exter ior 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 wa ll s, ready for stove and refrigerator; all
necessary plumbing.
4) All bathrooms must be complete , with washbowl , tub or shower, toilet, hot and co ld running
water, non-absorbent floors , walls finished , and privacy door.
5) Steps over three (3) risers, outs id e 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 s lopes away from the building;
7) Exceptions to the outside steps , decks, grading may be made upon the demonstration of
extenuating circumstances., i.e. weather. Unde r such circumstances A Certificate of
Occupancy may be issued conditiona lly .
8) A final in spection sign off by the Garfie ld County Road & Bridge Department for driveway
installation , where applicable; as we ll 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 cond iti ons for occupancy , use and the issuance of a
C.O . for the building identified in the Bui lding Permit.
VALUATION FEE DETERMINATION
Applicant
Address
Date
.;B::;I:o:an7k:.::e_:_R:::e"'si::;d:::en:::c:::,e=c=-------Subdivision
0134 river Vista, GWS Lot/Block
-;8:-;/1;:4;.;/20:0:'::0::.08--'-'===------Contractor
Finished (Livable Area):
Main
Upper
Lower
Other
Total
Basement:
Unfinished
Square Feet
Valuation
Conversion of Unfinished to Finished
Total Valuation
Garage:
Carport:
Total Valuation
Crawl Space
Total Valuation
Decks/ Patios
Total
Covered
Open
Valuation
Type of Construction:
Occupancy:
Valuation
Total Valuation
1457 sq.h
706 sq.h
sq.h
sq.ft X $74.68
2163 sq.ft
sq.ft X $41.00
sq.ft X $33.68
622 sq.ft X $18.00
sq.ft X $12.00
sq.ft X $9.00
342 sq.h X $24.00
sq.ft X $12.00
Commercial
sf X
sf X
sf X
sf X
sf X
sf X
lronbridge PUD 2
Lot 268
Hansen Construction
161,532.84
0.00
11,196.00
0.00
8,208.00
0.00
180,936.84
PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST
Applicant B/ ,j11~G--Date ~0
Building
_L_Engineered Foundation
J-J(Pr Driveway Permit
L Surveyed Site Plan
rJ /A Septic Permit and Setbacks
_j[__Grade/Topography 30%
~Attach Residential Plan Review List
_lL_Minimum Application Questionnaire
V Subdivision Plat Notes
tJ /ft Fire Department Review
_i__ Valuation Determination/Fees
~Red Line Plans/Stamps/Sticker
V Attach Conditions
~Application Signed
~Plan Reviewer To Sign Application
J Parcel/Schedule No.
~ 40# Snowload Letter-Manf. Hms .
./ Soils Report
GENERAL NOTES :
Planning/Zoning
_..L_Property Line Setbacks
$-30ft Stream Setbacks
2-_Flood Plain
~Building Height
_____lL_zoning Sign-off
/Road Impact Fees
_L_HOA/DRC Approval
L Grade/Topography 40%
___!L_Planning Issues
vi' Subdivision Plat Notes
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.
TWO (2) SETS OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS & TWO (2) SITE PLANS MUST BE
SUBMITTED FOR ALL APPLICATIONS.
Please review this document to determine if you have enough information to design your 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.
I. Is a site plan included that identifies the location of the proposed structure or addition and distances to
the property lines from each corner 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
withi ').e envelope.
Yes
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 corner lot. Special setbacks do
apply.
Yes X.
3. Does the site plan include when applicable the location of the J.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage Disposal
System) and the distances to the property lines, wells (on subject property and adjacent
proper ie ), streams or water courses?
Yes -t<---
4. Does the site plan indicate the location and direction of the County or private road accessing the
properw
Yes ~ ----,/,_.::::....---
2
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 permit ; 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 625-860 I. 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 'f
7. Do the plans indicate the location and size of ventilation openings for under floor crawl spaces and the
clearances required between wood and earth?
Yes ~ No ________ __
8. Do the plans indicate the size and location of ventilation openings for the attic, roof joist spaces and
soffits? 'f
Y~ No ----------
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 ,
I 0. Does the plan include a building section drawing indicating foundation, wall, floor , and roof
construction?
Yes "i..
II . Does the building section drawing include size and spacing of floor joists, wall studs, ceiling joists,
roof rafters r joists or trusses?
Yes ------f>--'-------
12. Does the building section drawing or other detail include the method of positive connection of all
columns :tn 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 ~of? (Building height measurement usually not to exceed 25 feet)
Yes ---f-.:.L_ ____ _
14. Does the plan include any stove or zero clearance fireplace planned for installation including make
and model and Colorado Ph¥$ II certifications or phase II EPA certification?
Yes No )V ---,.7.£-----------
3
15. Does the plan include a masonry fireplace including a fireplace section indicating design to comply
\Vith the IRC?
Yes __________ No ____ ~)K:~-------
16. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that egress /rescue windows from
s leepin j;ms and /or basements comply with the requirements of the IRC?
Yes ---+-----
17. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that windows provide natural light and
ventilation for all habitable rooms?
Yes r
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 these areas?
Yes Y.., No ________ _
19. Is the location of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnaces, boilers and water heaters indicated on
the plan?
Yes y,:
/
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 X
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 the HOA that requires either
revocation or substantial modification ofthe plans.
Yes f
22. Will this be the only residential structure on the parcel?
Yes )C No Ifno-Explain: / ---------
23. Have two (2) complete sets of construction drawings been submitted with the application?
Yes -x::
/
24. Do you understand that the minimum dimension a home can be on a lot is 20ft.wide and 20ft. long ?
Yes ){
7
4
25. Have you designed or had this plan designed while considering building and other construction code
require1;zn ?
Yes ----j'-----+--
26. Do your plans comply with all zoning rules and regulations in the County related to your prope11ies
zone district?
Yes X
7
27. Does the plan accurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will receive a final inspection
by the Garfield County Building Department?
Yes )c'
f
28. Do you understand that approval for design and/or construction changes are required prior to the
application ofthese changes?
Yes )C
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 /(
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
to38~5 3.
Yes No ------
31. Are you aware that requesting inspections on work that is not ready or not accessible will result in a
$50.00 szre-i spection fee?
Yes --P----
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 )(
I
33. Are you aware that the Permit Application must be signed by the Owner or a written authority being
given. fo; an Agent and that the party responsible for the project must comply with the IRC?
Yes X . -7,4_,._,_ ___ _
5
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
applicabl~ ~·nspection.
Yes _ -A;-,----
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
buildin permit application? Your attention in this is appreciated.
Yes ---p------------
36 . Do you know that the local fire district may require you to submit plans for their review of fire safety
issues?
Yes j (please check with the building department about this requirement)
37. 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 }
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 ~
I hereby acknowledge that I have read, understand and answered these questions to the best of
my ability.
Phone: 3~Lf.--3'1qb (days); ----------___..,.-(evenings)
ProjectName: xc~:b c ;kJ.~UJ?n .a L~+ 203
roject Address:_b\* K\):!_.eJ ~ l:QT~ bWS
6
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 permit or delay in proceeding with
construction.
BpminreqDec2007
7
/
~tech
HEPWORTH-PAWL AK GEOTECHNICAL ,
H epworch-Paw lak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 Count\' Road 154 ·
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
ema il : hpgeo@h pgeotech.com
A~ ~\lci.lDJ
0 6\\ Ke_pDr+s
PRELThfiNARYGEOTEC~CALSTUDY
PROPOSED IRONBRIDGE VILLAS
ffi.ONBRIDGE DRIVE
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 105 115-6
SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
PREPARED FOR:
L.B. ROSE RANCH,-LLC
ATTN: AARON BEVINGTON
410 IRO:NBRIDGE DRIVE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthorne 970A68-1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............................................................................ -1-
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... -1-
SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... -2-
FIELD EXPLORATION ...................................................................... ~ .......................... -2-
SUBSURFACE CO:t>.TDITIONS ................................................................................ , ..... -3-
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... -4-
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. -5 -
FOUNDATIONS ........................... : ............................................................................. -5-
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ............................................................ - 6 -
FLOOR SLABS .......................................................................................................... - 8 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM .......................................................................................... -8-
SITE GRADING ......................................................................................................... - 9 -
SURFACEDRAINAGE ................................................................. : ................ , ........ -10-
PAVEMENT SECTION ........................................................•.................................. -11-
LlMITATIONS ................................................................................................•............ -11 -
FIGURES 1 AND 2-LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORJNGS
FIGURES 3 THROUGH 8-LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 9 -LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 10 THROUGH 16-SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURES 17 Al\TD 18-GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1-SUlv.!MARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed
Ironbridge Villas to be located along Jronbridge Drive, Garfield County, Colorado. The
project site is shown on Fignres 1 and 2. The purpose of the study was to develop
recommendations for the foundation and grading designs. The study was conducted in
accordance with our agreement for professional engineering services to LB. Rose Ranch,
LLC dated June 30, 2005. We previously conducted geotechnical studies for pl.anni.ng and
. preliminary design of the Rose Ranch Development (now known as Ironbridge) and
presented our findings in reports dated October 29, 1997 and September 10, 1998, Job
No.l97 327.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain
information on the subsurface conditions within the depth of expected foundation loading.
The potential for future ground subsidence due to deeper geologic conditions was to be
evaluated by others. Samples of the subsoils obi:ai.Ued dllrlng the field exploration were
tested in the laboratory to detennine their classification and other engineering
characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed
to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the
proposed building foundation and for the subdivision grading. This report summarizes
the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design reco=endations
and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and
the subsurface conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed Villas development is located in the central part of Ironbridge near the main
. club and other common facilities and w.ill consist of tightly spaced, single family
residences in two development areas as shown on Fignres 1 and 2. The access roads and
drives will connect to the existing and proposed Ironbridge Drive. The residences will be
2 story, wood frame structures constructed typically 8 to 10 feet apart Ground floors will
Job No. !05 !15-6
-2-
be structural above crawlspace in the residences and slab-on-grade in the garages. The
entire development area will be elevated typically up to about 15 feet. The fill sections
will grade into the existing Ironbridge Drive, the golf course 18th Hole and the Robertson
Ditch. The ft!l material will be obtained on the project site, likely from <:be Phase 2
development. The Robertson Ditch will remain open but be improved by lining to reduce
leakage. After the subdivision grading, the excavation for the individual residences will
be relatively minor. We asswne the residences wiii be relatively lightly loaded, typical of
the proposed type of construction.
If building loadings, location or development plans change significantly from those
described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the reco=endations contained in
this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The Villas development is located downhill to the east and south of the existing pro shop
and other co=ons area, see Figures 1 and 2. The north Villas site was mainly vacant and
covered with field grass and weeds. The south Villas site is partly disturbed and covered
with grass and weeds with miscellaneous £11 piles. The ground surface slope is about 5 to
7% with 20 feet of elevation difference across the north Villas site, and about 6 to 8%
with 30 feet of elevation difference across the south Villas site. The entire project site is
covered with debris fan deposits that generally increase in depth with increase in ground
surface elevation to the west. Bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite outcrops to the west
of County Road 109 in the golf course fairway and the steep valley side.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted between July 6 and 8, 2005. Twenty~
five exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figures 1 and 2 to
evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter
continuous flight auger powered by a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig. The borings were
logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
lob No. 105 115-6
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1% inch and 2 inch I.D. 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 were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the
Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figures 3 through 8. 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 Figures 3
through 8. The subsoils, below a thin topsoil root zone, consist of a variable depth of
stratified silt, sand and gravel debris fan deposits overlying dense, river gravel alluvium.
About 3 to 4 feet of exis1ing fill was encountered above the m1tural soils in Borings 5, 6, 7
and 15, located just east of the Robertson Ditch. The debris fan soils were typically
encountered between depths of7 to 19 feet in the north parcel and between depths of 16
to 32 feet in the south parcel. In Borings 6 through 9 and 15 at the north parcel, the debris
fan soils were deeper than the adjacent area to the north, with depths of22 to 38 feet
before the gravel alluvium was encountered. Siltstone and gypsum bedrock of the Eagle
Valley Evaporite was encountered below the gravel alluvium at a depth of 42 feet in
Boring 6. The bedrock quality appeared poor to fair and included gypsum, but did not
appear to be a void or cavity. Drilling in the dense gravel alluvium with auger equipment
was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and practical drilling refusal was typically
encountered in the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural
moisture content and density, liquid and plastic limits and gradation analyses. Results of
swell-consolidation testing, presented on Figures 10 through 16, indicate the debris fan
soils are typically hydrocompressive and moderately to highly compressible unaer load
after wetting. Some of the clay soils showed a low expansion potential when wetted but
Job No. 105 115·6 .
-4-
the resulting heave potential is not expected to be significant compared to the collapse
potential. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples
(minus 1 Y, inch fraction) of the debris fan soils are shown on Figures 17 and 18. The
laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
Free water was typically not enc01mtered in the borings and the subsoils were relatively
dry. In Borings 6 through 9 and 15, the subsoils became moist with depth and free water
was encountered at depths between 26 and 36 feet in Borings 6 and 15.
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Development of the Villas project as proposed should be feasible based on geotechnical
conditions. The upper 7 to 38 feet of soils encountered in the borings consist of debris fan
deposits that tend to collapse (settle under constant load) when wetted. The amount of
settlement will depend on the depth of the compressible soils and the wetted depth below
the foundation. 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 should also eJ,.iend to below driveway and utility areas. The soil compaction
can consist of the structural fill proposed to elevate the project site but relatively deep
structural fills will also have some potential for long term settlement. Proper grading and
compaction as presented below in Site Grading will help reduce the settlement risks. In
areas underlain by less than 1 0 to 15 feet of debris fan soils, mainly the northern part of
the north parcel, additional compaction below the building foundation should not.be
needed. A heavily reinforced mat foundation designed for large differential settlements or
a deep foundation that extends down to the underlying, dense river gravel alluvium could
also be used to reduce the settlement risk.
Eagle Valley Evaporite that underlies the project area is known to be associated with ·
sinkholes and localized ground subsidence in the Roaring Fork River valley. A sinkhole
opened in the parking lot of the Pro Shop to the northwest of the project site in January
2005 and other irregular bedrock conditions have been identified in the affordable
Job No. 105115-6
-5-
housing site to the west of the Villas north parcel. Indications of ground subsidence were
not observed in the Villas development area that could indicate a risk of future ground
subsidence but the variable depth of debris fan soils in Borings 6 through 9 and 15 in the
north parcel could be the result of past subsidence. In our opinion, the risk of future
ground subsidence in the Villas project area is low and similar to other areas of the
Roaring Fork River valley where there have not been indications of ground subsidence.
We understand that the potential for future ground subsidence in the project area is being
evaluated by others. The southern part of the northern parcel should be further evaluated
for potential sinkhole development considering the variable subsurface profile
encountered in that area.
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.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the
nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the buildings. be founded with spread
footings bearing on at least 5 feet of compacted on-site debris fan soils or compacted
structural fill. The feasibility of footings placed on the natural soils in the north parcel
where the debris fan soils are Jess than about 10 to 15 feet deep should be evaluated prior
to construction. If a mat foundation or deep foundation system is 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 5 feet of compacted fill in deeper debris fan
areas or on natural soils where there is less than 10 to 15 feet of the natural
debris fan soils should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of
Job No. 105 1!5-6
-6-
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 in deeper fill areas or if the undisturbed debris fan 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 c.over above their bearing elevation for frost protection.
Placement offoundations 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 assuming 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
5) The topsoil, existing undocumented fill and any loose or disturbed soils
should be removed. The soils should be subexcavated as needed to provide
at least 5 feet of structural fill below the footing bearing level compacted
to at least 9 8% 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 RETA1NlliG WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be
expected to lUldergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral
lob No. 105 115·6
-7 -
earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf
for backfill consisting of the on-site [me-grained 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 pcffor
bacldi!l consisting of the on-site fine-grained 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 backfi.ll 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. Site walls with a maximum backslope of2 horizontal to I vertical
should be designed for an active earth pressure of at least 60 pcf equivalent fludd unit
wejght.
Backfill should be placed in uudform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backiill in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor
density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equdpment
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 correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on tbe backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination 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 of 0.35. Passive pressure of compacted
backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equdvalent fluid unit
weight of 300 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended
above assmne ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the
lob No. 1051!5-6
-8-
design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case
of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads
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 be used to
support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. The natural soils are 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 mi.nllnum 4
inch layer of free-draining &ravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to
facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least
50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve.
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.
UNDERDRAJN SYSTEM
Although free water was typically 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
Job No. 105 115-6
"9"
underdrain system. An underdrain should not be provided around crawlspace and slab-on-
grade areas.
If installed, the drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free-draiiring grannlar material. The drain shonld
be placed at each level of excavation and at least I foot below lowest adjacent finish
grade and sloped at a minimum I% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draini.'lg granular
material used in the underdrain system shonld contain less than 2% passing the No. 200
sieve, less than 50% passing the No.4 sieve and have a maximum size of2 inches. The
drain gravel backfill should be at least I Y, feet deep. An impervious membrane, 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
EXtensive grading of the Villas area is proposed as part of the development plan. In
addition, removal and replacement of the debris fan soils compacted is reco=ended in
shallow :fill areas to reduce the risk of excessive differential settlements and building
distress. The structural :fill should extend to at least 8 feet below design surface grade and
to at least 2 feet below the water and sewer pipe invert levels. In addition, the water and
sewer pipe joints should be mechanically restrained to reduce the.risk of joint separation
in the event of excessive settlement. Excavation and compaction below footing bearing
level may not be needed where the debris fan soils are less than 10 to 15 feet thick. 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 existing :fill, all 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 with the Phase 1
development, shrinkage of the debris fan soils due to compaction is expected to be about
15%to 20%.
Job No. 105115-6
-10-
Permanent tmretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or
flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. This office should
review site grading plans for the project prior to construction.
SURF ACE DRAINAGE
Precautions to prevent wetting of the bearing soils such as proper backfill construction,
positive backfill slopes, restricting landscape irrigation and use of roof gutters need to be
taken to help limit settlement and building distress. The following drainage precautions
should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after each residences
have been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab 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 standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. The slope
should be at least 6 inches in the fust 5 feet in unpaved areas and at least 3
inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Drain gravel of retaining walls
should be capped with at least 2 feet oftbe 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 of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below
the building caused by irrigation.
Job No. lOS 115-6
-11 -
PAVEMENT SECTION
The upper soils encountered at the site consist of low plasticity sand, silt and clay that are
considered a poor support of pavement sections. A Hveem stabilometer 'R' value of 15
was assumed for the native soils and required imported soils. The traffic loadings for the
Villas 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 consisting of 3 inches of asphalt on 8 inches of CDOT
Class 6 base course for the main drives and 3 inches of asphalt on 6 inches of CDOT
Class 6 base course for automobile only parking is recommended. We can review the
pavement section design when the roadway subgrade has been graded and the traffic
loadings have been det=ined.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either
express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are
based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations
indicated on Figures 1 and 2, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the
area Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of
mold or other biological contaminants (MOB C) 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
conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface
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 design purposes. We
are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the
project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
lob No. 105 115-6
(
-12-
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our reco=endations, and to
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
changes may require additional 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-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
Reviewed by:
Daniel E. Hardin, P .E. .
SLP/ksw
cc: High Country Engineering -Attn: Scott Gregory
S.K. Peightal Engineers-Attn: Jack Albright
Job No. 105 1 15·6
105115-6
'\
\ \
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
VILLAS NORTH PARCEL Figure 1
105115-6 ~
HEPWoRTI+f>AWL.AK GEOTECHNICAL
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
VILLAS SOUTH PARCEL Figure 2
0
5
10
1i5 Q) ,u..
I'
.'.C
0.
Q)
0 15
20
25
105115-6
BORING 1
ELEV. ~ 5952'
20/12
WC~4.5
DD~106
20/6,30/4
BORING2
ELEV.; 5950'
20/12
WC=6.2
DD~93
·200=85
25/4,10/0
··"' .. ..
BORING3
ELEV.; 5944'
24/12
wc~s.1
DD=94
~; .
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9.
BORING4
ELEV.~ 5946'
25/12
wc~7.1
DD~104
-200=83
LL=28
P1=11
20/6,40/6
T
~Q LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
He worth-Pawlak Geotttehnlcal
5
1i5
Q)
LL
£ c.
15
Q)
0
Figure 3
0
5
16/12
WC=9.3
10 00=100
-200=54
17/12
15
• 0
20
1i)
,:e
25
30
35
40
105115-6
BORING6
ELEV. = 5953'
15/12
12/12
WC=10.3
-200=50
10/12
-WC=18.2
00=106
-200=73
50/2
7
ELEV.= 5954'
7/12
14/12
WC=16.3
00=108
-200=62
32/12
7/12
WC=17.7
00=107
-200=74
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9.
5
25
30
35
40
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 4
0
5
10
1ii
IE
)~ '~
0.
" 0 15
20
25
105115-6
BORING9
ELEV. = 5942'
24/12
18/12
28/12
10/12
WC=11.4
DD=104
BORING 10
ELEV. = 5938'
18/12
WC=4.0
00=96
10/12
60/12
BORING 11
ELEV.= 5943'
9/12
11/12
WC=15.5
00=109
-200=76
7/12
3/6,15/6
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9.
BORING 12
ELEV.= 5938'
33/12
WC=6.1
00=117
43/12
14/12
~ch LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
He worth-Powlok Geotechnical
0
5
10
Q)
" LJ..
' .r:.
0.
15 " 0
20
25
Figure 5
0
5
10
15
1i)
11: 20
25
30
35
40
105115-6
BORING 13
ELEV. ~ 5944'
22/12
T
BORING 14
ELEV. ~ 5937'
28/12
wc~s.s
DD~109
-200~91
LL~31
Pl=13
20/6,30/3
BORING 15
ELEV.~ 5950'
15/12
WC=14.3
DD=112
9/12
wc~14.5
-200~71
10/12
wc~14.4
DD=112
+4=17
-200=58
24/12
32/12
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9.
BORING 16
ELEV.~ 5968'
15/6,35/5
47/12
33/12
WC=3.2
+4=34
-200=42
18/12
c~Etech LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
HEPWOR11+PAWL.AKG~HNICAL
5
a;
Q)
1.1..
.c c.
Q)
0
25
Figure 6
0
5
10
15
1i)
" LL
£ ·.D.
.~ 20
25
30
35
105115-6
BORING 17
ELEV. = 5963'
52/12
34/12
WC=5.9
00=115
23/12
50/3
BORING 18
ELEV. = 5968'
38/12
40/12
WC=3.6
DD=104
-200=58
42/12
WC=3.6
DD=109
45/12
BORING 19
ELEV.= 5962'
13/12
30/12
WC=1.7
00=120
+4=38
-200=26
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9.
BORING20
ELEV. = 5967'
18/6,25/3
WC=1.9
DD=103
-200=36
55/12
~ LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
He worth-Pawlak Geoteehnlcol
15
1i)
" LL
£
Q_
Q)
20 0
Figure 7
il
lL
£
',0. .' t3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
BORING 21
ELEV. = 5976'
52/12
15/12
43/12
WC=3.3
00=108
15/12
BORING22
ELEV. = 5957'
21/12
WC=3.3
+4=38
-200=23
30/6,25/3
28/12
40/12
WC=3.4
OD=109
BORING23
ELEV. = 5985'
52/12
WC=1.3
-200=27
57/12
BORING24
ELEV.= 5985'
39/12
20/12
WC=2.6
-200=46
BORING25
ELEV.= 5990'
20/6,30/3
27/12
WC=4.6
DD=105
-200=62
30/12
WC=4.1
DD=112
-200=64
50/6,10/0
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9.
105115-6 ~~
HEPWOR'Il+P .A.Wl.AJ( GEOTECHNICAL
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
0
5
10
15 ..,
,f
20
25
30
Figure 8
LEGEND:
39/12
0,2
T
NOTES:
FILL; silty sandy gravel, loose to medium dense, slightly moist, brown.
TOPSOIL; root zone, sandy silt, slightly moist, brown.
SILT AND CLAY (ML-CL); slightly sandy to sandy, scattered gravel, some sandy clay, stiff to very stiff, slightly
moist, very moist with depth at Borings 6, 7 and 15, mixed brown, slightly calcareous and porous, low plasticity.
SAND AND SILT {SM-ML); scattered gravel to gravelly, loose to medium dense, slightly moist, light brown.
SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); silty, some sandy silt layers, medium dense, brown, subangular to rounded rock.
GRAVEL, COBBLES AND BOULDERS (GM-GP); slightly silty, dense, typically moist, wet at Borings 4 and 15,
brown, rounded rock.
SILTSTONE AND GYPSUM: medium hard to hard, moist, gray and white. Eagle Valley Evaporite.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch J.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch J.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 39 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
Free water level in boring and number of days following drilling measurement was taken.
Depth at which boring had caved when checked on July 8 , 2005.
Practical drilling refusal. Where shown above bottom of log, indicates that multiple attempts were
made to advance the boring.
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on July 6, 7 and 8, 2005 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing frorn features shown on the site plan
provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
method used.
5. The Jines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between
material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated. Fluctuations in
water level may occur with time. Groundwater was only encountered in Borings 6 and 15.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (%)
DD = Dry Density (pcQ
+4 = Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve
105115-6 ~£tech
HepWorth-Powlok Geotechnical
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
LL = Liquid Limit (%)
PI = Plasticity Index (%)
LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 9
' Moisture Content = 4.5 per cent
Dry Density = 106 pel
Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay
From: Boring 1 at 4 Feet
0
If !-' '-
c: 1
0 -.. ~
Compression
·o;
"' upon
i'! ~ wetting
Q. 2 E "r 0
0
3
i
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPUED PRESSURE-ksf
105115-6 ~ SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 10
HePWorth-Powlok Geotechnical
Moisture Content ~ 5.1 perc ent
Dry Density ~ 94 pcf
0 Sample of: Sandy Silt -1--r-.. From: Boring 3 at 4 Feet
1
2
3 ~ Compression
upon
wetting
4
5
6 *' 1\ c
·~ 7 "' " 5.
E
; 0 8 u
9
10
\ 11 \
12
13 \
14 1\
15
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE· ksf
105 115-6 ~ SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 11
HepWorth-Pawlok Geotechnical
( '
Moisture Content = 4.0 perc ent
Dry Density = 107 pcf
0 Sample of: Very Silty Sand -r--1-I-f-..
From: Boring 8 at 4 Feet
1
2 Compression
'If uoon
c 3 " wetting
.Q
""'
"' "' " a 4 E
0 \ u
5 \.
i\
6
7
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE· ksf
' Moisture Content = 11.4 perc ent
Dry Density = 104 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silt
From: Boring 9 at 19 Feet
0 --f-.. f-..,
* 1 -Compression
c: ~ upon ·~
"' 2
wetting
~ !~ D.
E "' 0 u 3 "
4
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE • ksf
105115·6 ~tech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 12
HeoWorth-Pawlak. Geotechnical
0
-r--1--t-t-. Moisture Content 4.0 perc ent
Dry Density = 96 pet
1 Sample of: Sandy Silt
From: Boring 10 at 4 Feet
.
2
.
t-. t-
* 3 Compression
§ "'
upon
·a; wetting
"' 4 I!! '\ c.
E
0
() 5 \
6 \
7 1\
8
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf
!
Moisture Content = 6.1 perc ent
Dry Density = 117 pet
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
* From: Boring 12 at 4 Feet
c:
.Q 1 "' c:
! --......,
' 0
c: ~ r-... jl.. 0 ·a;
"' 1 !'! c. Ex pans on
E
0 upon
() wetting 2
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf
105115-6 ~&tech HePWorth Powlok Geotechnical
SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 13
Moisture Content = B-5 perc ent
' Dry Density = 109 pel
Sample of: Slightly Sandy Silty Clay
From: Boring 14 at 4 Feet
2
* c
,Q 1 ~ "' c
"' ~ ~ ' ' ' 0
c I~ "I' 0 ·u;
"' 1 " ~
E i cxpans1 r
0 upon
0 wetting 2
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
Moisture Content= 5.9 perc ent
Dry Density = 115 pet
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
From: Boring 17 at 9 Feet
0
* c
-~ 1
ffi ~ Q.
.Jj ~ 0 "'--' ';;;:: c Expansion ~ 0 upon u;
"' 1 wetting
!'!
"-E
0
0
2
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
105115-6 ~ch SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 14
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL.
\ Moisture Content = 3.6 percent
Dry Density = 109 pel
Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay
From: Boring 18 at 14 Feet
0
* ~ <:'-1
c
""'
No movement
0 ·c;; ""
upon
(/) wetting ~ 2
E I~
0
()
3
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf
')
Moisture Content= 3.3 percent
Dry Density = 108 pel
Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay
From: Boring 21 at 14 Feet
0 Compression
* :---1-----v upon
1
wetting
c "" 0 ·u;
"' !!! 2 0. "'-., E
""'
0
() ' 3
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
105115-6 ~ SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS. Figure 15
HePWorth-Pawlak Geotechnical
Moisture Content = 3.4 perc ent
Dry Density = 109 pel
Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay
From: Boring 22 at 19 Feet
* 0
--..... -r--.
c ~ ~'r-.
0 ·c;; 1 '" ~ I'-No movement
Cl.
E upon
0 2
wetting
(_)
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE· ksf
! Moisture Content = 4.6 perc ent
Dry Density = 105 pel
Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay
From: Boring 25 at 9 Feet
* 0
c ~ -~ 1--..... '" 1 " a. ~ ~
8 !',
2
No'movement
upon
wetting
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
105115-6 ~,
H-epwORTH-PAWLAK GIZOTECHMC.AL.
SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 16
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS J SIEVE ANAL YSJS I
NHt 7HR
TIME READINGS I U.S. STANDARD S:::RIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS !.
45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60M!N19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #'YJ #16 #8 #4 3/8' 3/4' 1 1/2" 3' 5'6' 8'
0 ''"
10 "'
0 20 " w (!)
z 30 " z
~ 1ii
<f)
0: 40 00 ct
iz ,__
50 "' z
w w
0 ()
0: 60 .. 0:
w w
(l_ (l_
70 "
80 "'
90 "
100 ' ., ·"" = ... .019 ..,, .0?4 ·'"' .300 ·"" 1.18 "' ~.75 9.5 12.5 19.0 37.5 76.~ "' "" "' DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAYTOSII.T I '"" I""""' I GAAva I coa&s '"' I MEOW ""' I CO§Si
GRAVEL 17% SAND 25 % SILT AND CLAY 58 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Gravelly Silt FROM: Boring 15 at 14 Feet
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS I
! h~ 7 HR TIME READINGS I U.S. STANDARD SEAlES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS ~· a~ MfN. 15 MIN.60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8' 3/4' 11/2' 3' 5'6'
0 100
10 90
0 20 80
w (!)
z w 70 z
~ 1ii
40 60 ~ 0: ,__ ,__
z 50 so m w
() 0
0: 60 40 ffi w
(l_ (l_
70 30
80 20
90 10
100 0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.0,2.519.0 37.5 76.2 12}52 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAYlOSlT I "'' 1'"""' I G~~l I "" I MEO,t,i.~ "" I COAAS< coooces
GRAVEL 34 % SAND 24 % SILT AND CLAY 42 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % .·
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Borina 16 at 14 Feet
105 115-6 ~ GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 17
HEPWORTI+PAWLAJC GE~HICAl.
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS I
24~. 7HR
TIME READINGS I U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS _I_
45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4' 1 112: ~ s· 6' 8'
\ 0 ""
10 "
0 20 80
w (!)
z 30 70 z
~ 1ii
(f)
a: 40 "' it
>->-z 50 " z w w
a? ()
50 "' a: w w
(l_ (l_
70 "
80 20
90 "
100 0
·"'' "" ... ""' ,019 "" .D74 ·'"' ... ... 1.1S 2.36 4.?5 9.S 12 _5 19.0 37.5 ,., "' "' '" DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAYiOSlLT I ""' I COARSE I GAA"' I "'""' "" I MEDIUM '"" I """" GRAVEL 38% SAND 36 % SILT AND CLAY 26 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 19 at 9 Feet
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS
7HR TIME READINGS I U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CUEAR SQUARE OPENINGS i· ~ R. 1 1/'l' IN. 15 MIN. 60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #Sil #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8' 3/4' 3" 5"6'
0 100
10 90
0 20 80
w (!)
z 30 70 z
~ 1ii
40 80 ~ a:
1-1-z 50 50 aJ w
() ()
a: 50 40 ffi w
(l_ (l_
70 30
80 20
90 10
100 0
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9 . .,2.519.0 37.5 76.2 ,.),52 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CLAYiOSlj I !e<l
!COAASE I """" I """"" ... I "'""" "" I """""
GRAVEL 38 % SAND 39 % SILT AND CLAY 23 %
LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX %
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Borino 22 at 4 Feet
105115-6 ~
HI!:PWORTl+PAWJ..AK GEOTECHNICAL
GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 18
·-._J
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 1 Job No. 105 115-6
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
age 0 p 1 f 3
SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED
MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR BORJNGS DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY NO. 200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (%) (%) SIEVE
1ft) 1%1 locfl (%} (%} (PSF}
1 4 4.5 106 Sandy silty and clay
2 4 6.2 93 85 Sandy clayey silt
3 4 5.1 94 Sandy silt
4 4 7.1 104 83 28 11 Sandy silty clay --
5 8'h 9.3 100 54 Silt and sand with gravel
6 14 10.3 50 Very silty sand and gravel
24 18.2 106 73 Sandy silt
7 9 16.3 108 62 Sandy silt
24 17.7 107 74 Sandy silt
8 4 4.0 107 Very silty sand
14 6.6 117 44 Very silty sand
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 1 Job No. 105 115-6
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
age 0 p z f 3
SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAl NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATIERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED
MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PASSING UQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR BORINGS DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY NO. 200 UMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (%) (%) SIEVE
-(fl:) (%) (pel) (%) (%) (PSF)
9 19 11.4 104 Sandy silt
10 4 4.0 96 Sandy silt
11 9 15.5 109 76 Sandy clayey silt
12 4 6.1 117 Sandy silty clay
14 4 8.5 109 91 31 13 Slightly sandy silty clay
.
15 4 14.3 112 Sandy silty clay
10 .14.5 71 Sandy silty clay
14 14.4 112 17 25 58 Sandy gravelly silt
16 14 3.2 34 24 42 Silty sand and gravel
17 9 5.9 115 Sandy silty clay
,_.---..
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 1 Job No. 105 115-6
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
p f age 3 o 3
SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG UMITS UNCONANED
MOISTURE DRY ·GRAVEL SAND PASSING UQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR BORINGS DEPTH CONTENT DENSIT'f NO. 200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (%) (%) SIEVE
(It) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (PSF)
18 9 3.6 104 58 Sandy silt with gravel
14 3.6 109 Sandy silty and clay
19 9 1.7 120 38 36 . 26 Silty sand and gravel
20 4 1.9 103 36 Silty sand and gravel
21 14 3.3 108 Sandy silt and clay
22 4 3.3 38 39 23 . Silty sand and gravel
19 3.4 109 Sandy silt and clay
Silty sand and gravel
23 4 1.3 27 Silty sand and gravel
24 9 2.6 46 Very silty sand with gravel
25 9 4.6 105 62 Sandy silt and clay
14 4.1 112 64 Sandy silty and clay
Inspection Report
COLORADO STATE ELECTRICAL BOARD
INSPECTION REPORT I CORRECTION NOTICE
Page 1 ot I
li Date Received: 11-MAY-09 Permit Number: 663427 ]
Contractor/HomeOwner:
Address:
Type of Inspection:
Action:
Comments or Corrections:
No building permit card available
Inspectors Name: Robert Fuller
Phone Number: 970-947-8902
MD ELECTRICAL SERVICES INC
134 River Vista
Final
Accepted
Date: 11-MAY -09
COLORADO STATE ELECTRICAL BOARD
DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY AGENCIES
1580 Logan St. Suite 550
Denver, Colorado 80203·1941
Phone: (303) 894-2985
COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CORRECTION NOTICE
108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Phone (970) 945-8212
Job located at c!J/3{ l?!vit:K:. 0"s;A c/
Permit No. // C (P 7
I have this day inspected this structure and these
premises and found the following corrections needed:
c2J Ai.(_ /c;75s mqsz-Z?IZ..
/&/.Sti?AUO ,t?£;0'/11'~,
f?J.l3A771 /'lvrl ?//?Sl?f/,(S ~/0cA!Te""o 6~
r:P!3A771 FAA! P~wAfsUf;g.s /IA.:s
lt/4 rz,e /<!c//1/d///VG-7tfif'o6/G/I /T:
~//~~~£ ~o2b!C~7S .
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 --~~~~--~~~
Building Inspector __:~~~~~£:!.~~~==,__,~--
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 0 l:s 9-If; 11£ ;< 0 ,Sa
Permit No. 1/0 6 7
I have this day inspected this structure and these
premises and found the following corrections needed:
~ Re-lnspection .LP:::/1)<. S'
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 _s-:::-3 20 ~
Building Inspector _ _<-,?""7"~Z:z" -=---~· ;.,~~=--~ ~~· -'::~~::.:.::;~"'~* ===-
Phone (970) 945-8212 7
COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CORRECTION NOTICE
108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Phone (970) 945-8212
Job located at CJ/3{. tf?lv;t::K. Vt-Y/A c/
Permit No. _ _L_I_L_/_.,C"'----'(P~/::..___ _________ _
I have this day inspected this structure and these
premises and found the following corrections needed:
(f) At.L 7ti 75 s mqsz-22 ~
/A/Stt?ATE-tz ,?S':£10'/1/;(
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 Z-
Building Inspector -'?~~':::3,=::_£t_;..,.;:;~~=="--"----
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 CJ/3 '( ~ ~
Permit No. --"'li'--'a~6-'-7~~~~~~~~------
I have this day inspected this structure and these
~~:E~fr~
~i£±t;,=: .. 2!4%~:(i. ~
Si~~~~~~~a&~~~~~---
6JI)f::~ ~ r~
)(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 :1-4-f-c:J"! 20=----
Building Inspector ~~
Phone (970) 945-8212
N 11067 0. ----------~~~---Assessor's Parcel No. 2395-013-29-26B
Date 8/19/2008
BUILDING PERMIT CARD
Job Address ----~0~13~4~R~i~v~e~rV~i~st~a~G~W~S~/~Ir~o~nb~r~id~g~e~P~U~D~P~h~.22,~L~o~t~26~8~------------------------
0wner ________ _;B=Iac:.:n.:.:.ke:::.i:.:A:..:rn.:.:o::.:ld:.._ _________ Address 231 Robinson St. #219 81621 Phone # ________ _
Contractor Hansen Canst. Address 410 lronbridge Dr. GWSPhone # 970-384-3990
Setbacks: Front _________ Rear _________ RH _________ LH _________ Zoning ________ _
s/f on found w/ att. gar. & cov. patio
Soils Test---------------------
Footing ------------------------
Foundation ____________________ _
Grout ___________ ~~---=--~~
Underground Plumbing 9<Jc-o'd f71[2-=
Rough Plumbing /-Q ?-c2? jj!?;y:z
Framing Z -L_c> -~~
Insulation -~ -1]--o ~
Roofing S~/Z.-o7 q?f..)
Drywall ciU9..o'J~
Gas Piping /-.:; ?-CJ i'?fZP"
INSPECTIONS
Weatherproofing ~,-;::/;:: -c;:; 7'
Mechanical $ -; L-o?
Electrical Rough (State) (~e.!? -o?
Electrical Final (State) .:r--11 o ?
Finat<B'Z -t7?tChecklis)-CompletediyW
Certificate Occupancy # _,u...,_R,"'@ruCI.II-P-<Tt----------
Date ------------------------Septic System# ______________________ _
Date -----------------------Final ______________________ _
Other ____________________________ _
NOTES
l.DCAllDN b"N LDT,A-MENt>tvtBJT 12£~ ·o "Fc:>R "Fit-JA-L c.o.-o.tc::. A~\
;-., .lil.. . 11 (continue on back) ~~I~r '1-q A-,p A~ /if'Fi.o{)<.. ~~ P~.-t ?.lt:l-fZ.o~~..~ fi..,,R_tt,..S
BUILDING PER~IT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
INSPECTION WILL NOT BE MADE UNLESS , I A I J ~ g
THIS CARD IS POSTED ON THE JOB u~
Date Issued H . I~ . re Permit No. ~~~~0\o.,_,il.________
At:;REEMENT
In consideration of the issuance of the permit, the applicant hereby agrees to comply with all laws and re-_ ~ulations
related to the zoning, location; construction and erection of the proposed structured for which this pE:.·mit 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 department and IMMEDIATELY BECOME NULL AND VOID.
use Sf£ oo -fOundation wfaHathed~qe ~(1)'/. \}l\io
AddressorLegaiDescriptjonQJ34 &iVfr VJS.-b\ 6WS
Owner~l ~.Am>~~~ Contractorltt»tren Cam.
BuildingPermitType '}2es,1Clerrlial __ _
This Card Must Be Posted So It Is Plainly Visible From The Street Until Final Inspection
INSPECTION RECORD
Footing I Driveway
foundation I Grouting Insulation
;l-/:s -or ?T.n:" --Underground Plumbing Drywall
''V3 o -o 8 -pm2_.._ ..l-1<?-09
Rough Plumbing Electric Final (by State Inspector)
c:;=.;j-CJ '/
/-.). 7-o'l~rz {Prior to Final)
Rough Mechanical -z..~/-v -o? "0w. Septic Final
Gas Piping FINAL ~;-u-o9-74/
/ -? 7 ·L) i J'_"'/!'L
Electric Rough (by State Inspector) (You Must Call For Final Inspection) r(z.s(or w o(---Notes
{Prior to Framing)
Framing -z-/t:?-o 9 .p!c-V-
{to include Roof in place &Windows & Doors installed & Firestopping in place)
THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE
For Inspection Call 970-384-5003 Office 970-945-8212
108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD
~:::OVED e•l, •CS By 'F'JtiYmon ~~l\A(bn
PROTECT PERMIT FROM WEATHER DAMAGE
(DO NOT LAMINATE)
--
Parcel Detail Page I of 4
Garfield County Assessor/Treasurer
Parcel Detail Information
Assessor/Treasurer Property Search I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor
~;;ties Search
Cl§Ik_&_Recordet R_~g-~ption Search
Basic Building Characteristics I Tax Information
Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial
Improvement Detail
Land Detail I flb_otographs I Mill Levy RevsclJJL~S Detail
a;] Account Parcel 2007 Mill
Number Number Levy a
I 090 II R043484 1123950132926811 64.976
Owner N arne and Mailing Address
!BLANKE, JUSTIN & ARNOLD, DEVON
1231 ROBINSON ST, UNIT 219
!BASALT, CO 81621
Assessor's Parcel Description
(Not to be used as a legal description)
ISECT,TWN,RNG:l-7-89 SUB:IRONBRIDGE
IPUD, PHASE II, FILING I, 2 & 3
ILOT:268 PRE:R041508 BK:l596 PG:871
IBK:l565 PG:600 BK:l560 PG:438
IBK:l560 PG:431 BK:l057 PG:0745
IBK:l028 PG:768 BK:l028 PG:597
http://www. garcoactcom/assessor/parcel.asp ?Parce!N umber=23 9 50 13 29268
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7/18/2008
Parcel Detail Page 2 of 4
IBK:1006 PG:743 RECPT:747642
IRECPT:747641 BK:1822 PG:287
IRECPT:702424 BK: 1822 PG:283
IRECPT:702422 BK: 1822 PG:250
IRECPT:702421 BK: 1782 PG:269
IRECPT:694479 BK:1782 PG:264
IRECPT:694478 BK:1747 PG:1 I
IRECPT:686745 BK:1218 PG:738
IRECPT:572583 BK:1218 PG:715
IRECPT:572582 BK:1217 PG:266
IRECPT:572131 BK:1206 PG:852
IRECPT:569200 BK:1206 PG:780
IRECPT:569199 BK:1206 PG:768
IRECPT:569197 BK:1206 PG:734
IRECPT:569195 BK:1206 PG:662
IRECPT:569194 BK:1206 PG:637
IRECPT:569192 BK:1206 PG:629
IRECPT:569191 BK:1206 PG:574
IRECPT:569190 BK:1063 PG:0578
IBK:1063 PG:0571
Location
Physical 1134 RIVER VISTA GLENWOOD SPRINGS' Address:
Subdivision: IRONBRIDGE PUD, PHASE II, FILING 1,
2&
!Land Acres: I 0
I Land Sq Ft: 114,870 I
I Section II Township II Range I
I 1 II 7 II 89 I
http://www. garcoact. com/assessor/parcel.asp ?ParcelNum ber=23 9 50 13 2 9268 7/18/2008
Parcel Detail Page 3 of 4
2008 Property Tax Valuation Information
Actual Value II Assessed Value I
I Land: 82,51011 23,9301
!Improvements: oil ol
I Total: 82,51 oil 23,9301
Additional Value Detail
Most Recent Sale
Sale Date: 114/24/2008
Sale Price: 11255,200
Additional Sales Detail
Basic Building Characteristics
Number of Residential lo I Buildings:
Number of Comm/Ind lo I Buildings:
No Building Records Found
Tax Information
Tax Year Transaction Type Amount I
2007 Tax Payment: Second Half ($640.66)1
2007 Tax Payment: First Half ($640.66)1
2007 Tax Amount $1,281.321
2006 Tax Payment: Second Half I ($66.22)1
2006 Tax Payment: First Half ($66.22)1
2006 Tax Amount $132.441
http://www. garcoact.com/ assessor/parcel.asp ?ParcelN urn ber=23 9 50 13 2 9268 7/18/2008