The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubsoil Design for Foundation Design 06.18.07Hepu,orrh,Parvlak Geotechnical, lrrc 5020 Count'¡' Road 154 Glenwoo.i Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-9,15-7988 HEPWORTH. PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL Fax, 970-945-8454 email : hpgeo@hpgeotech.com RECEIVED ocT r 6 20ts GARFIELD COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUßSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT RG.11, ASPEN GLEN RTVER GLEN ROAI) GARtr"IELD COTJNTY, COLOR.ADO JOB NO. 107 0206 JU¡rE 18,2007 PREPARED FOR: KYLE AND NICOLE ALLEN 539 BEAULLIEU DRTVE LAX',AYETTE, LOUISTANA 70508 H Parker 301-c341.7119 r Cerlorado Sprirrgs 719-633-5562 r Silverthr)n'ìe 970-468-1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OI? STUDY. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION...... SITE CONDITIONS SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL ... FIELD EXPLORATION.... SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .--.. FOLTNDAT]ON BEARING CONDITIONS DESIGN RECOMMENDATI ONS FOUNDATIONS FOTINDATION AND RËTAINING WALI,S....,.. FLOOR SI-ABS LINDERDRAIN SYSTEM.......,........ SURFACE DRAINAGE ..,................ LIMITATIONS FIGURE I - LOCAI]ON OF EXPLORATORY BOR]NGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORA'TORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LECEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION T'EST RESULI-S TABLE I - SUMMARY Oþ- LABORATORY TEST RËSULTS -l - -2- -2- -3- ....- 4 - 3 -4. -4- 5 6 7 I 8- PURPOSE A¡iD SCOPE OF STIJDY Thi.r report presents lhe results of a subsoiì study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot RG-l l, Aspen Glen, River Glen Road, Garfield County, Colorad<¡. The projecl site is shown on Figure l. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the f'oundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Kyle Allen dated April 2,2007, Proposal No. 041- 47. A fìeld exploratiolr program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the subrsurface condjtions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their ciassifìcation, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the fieid exploration and laboratory testing r¡,ere analyzed to develop recommendations for fcrundation types? depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building fbundation. 'I"his report summarizes the data obtained during this stucly and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on lhe proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 'We assume the proposed residence will be a one or lwo story structure over a crawlspace or basement level with an attached garage located roughly in the area of the exploratory borings shown on Figure l. Basement and garage floors are expected to be slab-on-grade Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 to l0 feet, lüy'e assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. lf building loadings, Iocation or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notifled to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. job No. lA7 0206 cåStecrt - SITE CONDITIÛNS The lot was vacant at the time of our fìeld explomtion. River Glen Road borders the lot to the west. Previous site grading consists ol.shallow cuts and fìll performed during subdivision development. A small drainage ditch is located along the south property line. T'he ground surface is relatively flat with a gentle slope down to the east. J'he Roaring Fork River is located about 150 east and about I0 to I 5 fèet below the elevation of the lot. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds- A few cobbles were visible on the ground surface. SUBSIDENCA POTENTIAL Bedlock crf the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valle;v Evapririte underlies the Aspen Glen development. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained sandstone and siltstone with some massive beds of gypsum and limestone. There is a possibility thal massive gypsum deposits associated.,vith the Eagle Valle,v- Evaporite underlie portions of the lot. Dissolution of the gypsum under certain conditions can cause sinkholes to derrelop and can produce areas of localizcd subsidence. During prc-vious work in the area, several sinkholes were observed scattered throughout the subdivision. Jhcse sinkholes appear sirnilar to others associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite in areas of tlie Roaring Fork River Valley. Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. No evidence of cavities was encountered in the subsurface rnaterials; hr:wever, the explorâtory borings were relatively shallow, for founciation clesign only. Based on our presenl knowledge of the subsurface conditions a1 the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes r¡,ill not develop. The risk of future ground subsidence on Lot RG-l I throughout the service life of the proposed residence, in our opinion, is low; however, the owner should be rnade aware of the potential for sinkhole development. If further investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired, we should be contacted. job No" 107 0206 cåFtecrt -3- FIELI} NXPLOIIATION The ficld cxploration for the project was co¡rduclcd on April 16,20A7. Tr,vo exploratory borings were drilled at the locations sholvn on Figure I to evaluate thc subsurface conditions. 'fhc borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers por,vcrcd by a truck-¡nounted CME*45[Ì drill rig. The borings were logged and monjtorecl for groundwatcr level by a representaiive of Flepworth-Pawlak Ceotechnical, Inc. Sarnpies of the subsoiis were laken with a 2 ínch l.D. spoon sampler. The sarnpler u'as drivcn into thc subsoils at various deprhs with blows fiom a l4Û pound hammer falling 30 inches. 'l'his test is similar to the stanclard penctralion test described by ASTM Method D-1586- The pcnctration resistance values are ân indication of'the relativc clensity or ccrnsistency of the subsoils. Depths at rvhich the szunpics \vere taken and lhe penetratiott resistance values are shown on thc l-ogs of Exploratory Borings" Figure 2. 'Ihe sarnpies were relumed to our laboratory for revicw by the project engincer and testing. SUBSURT'ACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of tlre subsurlãce conditions encoltntcrcd at the sjle are shown on Figure 2. l'he subsoils"belowaboutt/zto2 fcctofgranularfìll,consistof l5 to lSfeetof sandand silt with scattered gravel overlying relativeiy clense, gravel alluvium down the maxilnum explored depth of 23 feet at Bodng 1 . Drilling in the cìcnse gravel alluvium with auger ecluipment was cliffìcult due to cclbbles and bclulders, and drillirrg rei'usal was encountered in thc dcposit. TÌre fìll clepth and conclition coulcl vary across the propcrty. Laboratory testing pcrformed on sampies oblained tiom the borings incluclcd natural moisture contenl, ciensity and pcrccnt finsr than No. 200 sievc (silt anrl clay fiaction) gradation analyses. Resr-rlts of swell-consolidation tcsting perfotmed on relatively un¡listurbed drive samplcs of the upper s¿¡nd and silt soils, presented on l;igurc 4, g.*¡erally inclicate low To moclerale comprcssibility uncler conrlilions o{'}oading and wetring. 'l'he sample from Boring 7. at 5 feet showed a low collapse potcntial (settlement under a const¿n1r loarl) afier wening. 'l'hc laboratory testing is summariz-ed in Tablc l. lob No. 107 0206 c$tecrr -4 Free water wås encountered in Boring I at a depth of I9 feet below the ground surface at rhe time of drilling. The borings were dry down to the cave depths of l5 and l8 feet when checked on May 9,2A07. The subsoiis above the groundwater level were sÌightly rnoist to moist. FOI,]NDATION BEARING COFTDITIONS The upper sand and silt soils encountered at the lot possess relatively low bearing capacity with a moderate settlemenl potential. l.ightly loaded spread footings or mal fountiations bearing on these soils appear suitable for support of the proposed residence provided that the risk of settlement is acceptable to the owner. A heavily reinforced mat foundation u¡ould help limit differential settìement äcross the building. As an alternative, deep firundations rvhich extend dor^¡n lo the underlying dense gravel, encountered in the borings at the depth of l5t/z and 20 feet below the existing ground surlàce, can provide moderate load capacity with a relatively low risk of settJement. Deep foundation systems at the site can consist of driven piles or screlv piles. lf a deep foundation is propcsed, we should be contacted to provide aclditional analysis and recomrnendations as needed. DESIGN RECOMMEFIDATIONS FOUNDAT]ONS Considering the subsurface conditions encounlcrcd in the exploratory borings and the natrtre of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings or mat foundations bearing on the natural soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed f'or a spread footing or mat foundation syslem. 1) Footings or a mat placcd on the undisturbed natural soils should be desígned for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf, Based on experience, we expect initial settlement of footings or the mal designed and constructed as discussed in this seclion will be up to aboul I inch. Additional differential settlement, on the order of 1 to 2 inches, could Job No. 107 0206 cåFteor -5- occur mainJy if the -nearing soils are wetted. 'fhe actual anrount of settlement will depend on the depth and extent of wetting. 2) Footings should have a minimum width of 2û inches for continuous waiis and2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings, edges of the mat 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. As an altemative, rigid foam insulation could be used for frost protection fbr shallow mat f'oundations. 4) Continuous foundation walìs shoulcl be reini-orced top and bottom to span Iocal anomalies such as by assuming an unslrpponed length of at least i2 fèet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resisl late¡al earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be remo.;ed and the bearing level extended down to undisturbed natural soils. The exposed soils in footing areas should then be moisture adjusted to near optimum and compacted. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all f'ooting cxcavations prior to concrete placenrent to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDA.I.ION AND RETAII.JTNG V/AI,LS Fcundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supporled and can be expected to undergn only a slight amount of deflection shoukl be designed for a lateral earth pressure computcd on the basis of an equivalent f'luid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for backlìll consisting of the on-site fine-grained soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence 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 lor backfìll consisting of the on-sitc fìne-grained soils. Ilackfill should not contain vegetation, topsoil or oversized rock" Job No- ì07 020ó GåF€ch -6- All foundation and retaining structures should be desìgned for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. Tlie pressures reuornmended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. 'fhe buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundatíon wall or retaining structure. A¡ underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill shouid be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proclor density at near optimum moisture content. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted fo at least 95Yo af the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken noi tû ovcicompaci the backfìll ûr iise large equiplrierit near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall, Some settlement of deep foundation rvall backfill should be expected, even if the ¡naterial is placed correctly, and could result in distress to läcilities constructed on rhe baclcfìll. The lateral resislance of foundation or retaining wall lbotings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the fiooting on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the fooling. Resistance to sliding at the botloms of the footings can be calculated based on a coeffìcient of friction of 0.40. Passive pressurc of compactcd backfìll against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf. The coefficient of fì'iction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur al 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 l'he natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lighrly loaded slab- on-gracie L-onstruction. 'l-he upper fine-grained soils are compressible and there is a risk Job No. 107 020C.cåFtecrt -7 - of sìab settlement and distress, especially if the subgrade soils are wetted. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing waiis and coiumns 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 establi.shed by the designer based on experience '¿nd the intended slab use. A minimurn 4 inch layer of free- draining gravel should be placed beneath basernent level slabs to facilitare draínage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregale with at least 50% retained on rhe No. 4 sieve and less than 27o passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for supporl of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95Yo of maximum standard Proclor density â1 near optimurn rnoisture contenl-. Required fill can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation. topsoil and oversized rock. LN\'IDERDRAIN SYSTEM Free water was encountered below the anticipated excavation depth for a typical basement ievel at the site and it has been our experience in the a¡ea that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or.seasonal runofL Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. l'he drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the botlom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The d¡ain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least I foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1%o to â suitable gravity outlet or sump-and-pump. Free- draining granular rnaterial u.sed in the underdrain system should contain less than 2olo irassing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50olo passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size ot2 inches. l-he drain gravel backfill should be at least 1t/zfeet deep. An impervious plastic membrane, such as 20 mil PVC, should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough shape and atlached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent Job No. 107 020ó cåEte.r-t -8- wetting of the bearing soils. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and mainlained at all times after the residence has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construclion. 2) Exterior backfill shor-rld be adjusted to near optirnum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum stanriard Proctor density in pavement and siab arcas and 10 at least 90% of the maximum slandard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surlacc sunounding the exterior of the building sìiould be sìoped to drain arvay lronr the foundation in all directions. We recommend a nlinimum slope of 6 inches in the first l0 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the lìrst 10 feet in paved arcâs. Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on- site fìne-grained soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Sprinkler heads and lanilscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation, such as sod, should be locatetl at least 5 fcct f¡om founciation walls. LIlVtrTATIONS 'l'his study has been conclucted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or irnplied. The conclusions and reçommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure l, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the presence, preventjon or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a prcfessional in this special lìeld ef practice should be Job No. l0? 02(ló cåFtecn -9- 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 encounterecl 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 construction to review and monitor the implementâtion of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately inteqpreled. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifìcations to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectfulìy Submitted, I{EPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL. ]NC. Trevor L. KneìI, P.E Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. 'I'LWcay cc: Royal Quality Homes * Attn: Royal Smith Kurtz & Associates - Attn: Brian Kurtz Job No. lA7 0206 cåFtecrr 1 LOT RG-1 O (( ñ "/L Ê BORING 2 a LOT RG_11 .Sø èøY "*"2"y : 100.0', AT PBOPEBTY ASSUMED. ! ! I I .i : BORING 1 I \ \ %r-tt- fro vo 1 \ CLUB COTTAGES NOÏE: FROM V FIGURT PREPARED FIELD SKETCH. 1"=a0' FIGURE 1LOCATION OF EXPLORATOFY BORINGS107 0206 s.-.** *.r.*g5* BORING 1 ELEV.=100.6' BORING 2 ELEV.:98.0' 105 100 105 100 90 80 75 g595 6t9 9112 WC=3.9 DD=109 -2AA:32 4/12 WC=8.5 DD-92 6t1o WC:1a.9 DD=104 -200:63 6112 WC=11.9 DD=116 -200=38 4112 15/6,1012 1512,10/O Note: Explonotion of symbols is shown on Figure 3. F.lrl TUlÀ IzoÊ [rJ lu t- lrJ TU tJ- tzoÞ UJJtrj 90 BO 75 8585 1 07 0206 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 ¡ Ët , i{ ; I P LEGEND: w ffi ñ H ffi FILL; sandy silty gravelwith cobbles, firm, slightly moist to moist, red-brown. TOPSOIL; sandy silt, root zone, firm, moist, brown. SAND AND SILT (SM-ML); occasionally clayey, with scattered gravel, loose to medium dense/medium stiff to stiff, slightly moist to moist, reddish brown. GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GP-GM); sitty, sandy, with possible small boulders, dense, wet, brown. L I I Relatively undisturbecJ drive sample; 2-inch l.D. California liner sample. t- s/12 3ï,i:ñi3"1rir'_i üihJr1'*tes that e brows of 140 pound hammer fallíng 30 inches were required to drive the I Practical drilling refusal. I *---) Depth at which boring had caved when checked on May 9,20A7. - Free water level in boring at the time of drillíng. NOTES: '1. Exploratory borings were drilled on April 16,2007 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 measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark shown on Figure 1 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided and checked by instrument level. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. Ïhe lines þetween materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between materialtypes 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. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC : Water Contenl(%) DD = Dry Densíty ( pcf ) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 107'0246 LEGEND AND NOTES (I)()oo"()o.{¡)Q+ı$o(5-*-c-.=(l):'f:Aü Ø=Ë ÈIErr,fr;ı È+.5å E ËÊS å.8 Êcg)oc9go1Ebo9z)l7-ooc)()C)(>()dc)ø:UJccU)ü,llJd0-c]IJJJo-ù(ttl<t¡JE:)U>ØtuELoulJo-Ào(\¡e)oNí)\t("¿ ) ruotssãudt¡toolo(¡)ooa.C'o-'¡ì a¡co oJı=rPll cr) s)Ë Èrt lt (ú*'À"u)cDı .à.¡r "5gHËSÉıPHg åE sII.o8=Pq) oÈas6E-3oC)U)r:)atl¡cÊþCNtuF-zotrâoØ-zoO'IJJIU=(nsfu.tfrfotr(oo$to¡t(fcg$ËiSE0il()( s¿ ) tto¡ssSudt¡toc HEPWOR,TH-PAWi-AK GEOTECHNICAL, iNC.TABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATOFIY TEST RESL'LTSJob No. 107 0206Silty sand with gravelPERCENTPASSINGNO. 200SIÊVE_L¡!![!_PLÁ5TICINDEXDEPTHi o/oATÏERSAMPLESOILTYPE".r UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSryESTRENGTHSAND(qo)GRAVEL(%)NATURALDRYDENSITYNATURALMOISTURECONTENTLIQUIDLTMTTBORINGNO,I53.910932 11014.9I 10463Sandy silt with gravel258.592Sandy siltl011.9 I 1638Very silty sand. _. ,__-. .--- .-,_ ,.!.. Åii¡:s REGEIVED iltli Ì ii iiiii! .".îi5,iFiB'i'?"'i# Homeowners Association at Aspen Glenr Inc. August 29,2019 via email Timothy McNearney & Lisa McPherson 78 River Glen Carbondale,CO 81623 Re: Final Review Approval, Lot RG-ll at 78 River Glen Dear Tim and Lisa: The Design Review Committee (DRC) completed their final review of your submitted plan set at their regular meeting, August 21st,2019. Thank you for your dìligence in complying with County regulations and your adherence to the Design Guidelines. Receipt of the $332 Security Access Fee (SAF) and $300 for the Construction Road Access Fee (CRAF) is hereby acknowledged. As per our agreement at the August 21st DRC meeting, the $3,000 Builder's Completion deposit will be due at time of County Building Permit receipt. The DRC fee of $2,882 was paid at the preliminary meeting. That fee is intended to cover 3.5 hours of DRC time from the beginning of review to the final inspection and closure of the project file. If the 3.5 hours is exceeded, a fee of $600/hour will be charged. Currently, this project has logged 3 hours of DRC & Administrative time. There arc at least two more DRC inspections required from here to final completion: dry-in inspection, final inspection, plus attendant administrative time. I bring this to your attention now, so you are aware that changes to the approved plans, or issues related to construction will add more hours to DRC time spent on your project. The DRC approved the final set of plans and the DRC Administrator stamped, signed and dated the plans on8l2ll19. An on-site pre-construction meeting was held with Bruce Upton on August 14,2019 to discuss the construction rules and regulation and construction management plan for the project. Two site inspections are required during construction of the residence. Please contact the DRC Administrator at (970) 366-2861, upon completion of the dry-in phase of construction and for a frnal site inspection by the DRC. Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (970) 963-3362 Em a il : dprinc e@asp e ngle nhoa. c o m I0080 Bald Eagle Way Details of these procedures are contained in the Design Review application packet. Failure to call for any of these inspections will result in $1000 per violation fine, which will be deducted from the builder's completion deposit. The DRC may elect to withhold a portion of the Builder's Completion Deposit to ensure that final landscaping is completed, and growth is assured. Finally, the HOA has adopted a schedule of Violations & Fines. A copy of which is attached to this letter and was provided to your contractor at the pre-construction meeting. Please familiarize yourself and your sub-contractors and employees with this schedule to avoid unnecessary costs. Sign and return this document to my attention in advance of construction. A copy of your approved plans is kept on file for periodic review by the Design Review Committee to assure compliance with your approved plans. Any anticipated changes from your approved plans must be submitted to, reviewed by, and receive approval from the Design Review Committee prior to making any changes. Thank you for working with the DRC on this project and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Deborah Prince Aspen Glen DRC Administrator Cc: Bruce Upton 0080 Bald Eagle lhy Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (970) 963-3362 Email : dpr ince@as penglenhoa. c om 2