HomeMy WebLinkAboutEx 07b HP Kumar Subsoil Study 06.22.2018EXHIBIT 7
TO
LIMITED IMPACT REVIEW
FOR STORAGE AND FABRICATION FACILITY
(Including Request for Subdivision Plat Amendment)
Parcel ID No. 2393-274-01-004
Page 120
ot. hni Engin 'ng
Materials Testing I Environ ntal
ering _ • log
5020 County Roao 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970) 945-7988
Fax: (970) 945-8454
Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa,com
Office Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, Summit County, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED STORAGE BUILDING
12744 HIGHWAY 82
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO. 18-7-367
JUNE 22, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
GO SELF STORAGE
ATTN: WES GRAMMER
P.O. BOX 22876
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64113
g amm sky .toy
Page 121
TAB E OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 1 -
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL - 2 -
FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 3 -
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATIONS - 3 -
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 4 -
FLOOR SLABS - 5 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 6 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE - 6 -
LIMITATIONS - 7 -
FIIURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FII IURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 AND 5 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 6 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Nam: 18-7-7
Page 122
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed storage building to be located at
12744 Highway 82, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure 1. The
purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was
conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to GO Self
Storage, dated May 11, 2018.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain
information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field
exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or
swell 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. This report summarizes the data obtained during
this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical
engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions
encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed storage building will be a large, 3-story structure with a slab -on -grade ground
floor. The ground floor will likely be close to the current ground surface. Grading for the
structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 6 feet. We
assume relatively light to moderate foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of
construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above,
we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed building area is the site of the former "Planted Earth" tree nursery/storage area.
The site is relatively flat and was created by shallow fill placed on the south side and a large cut
H-PkiK MAR
Project No. 18-7-367
Page 123
-2-
on tfe north side. The southern fill area is south of the proposed building footprint and is
retained by an MSE wall with masonry facing. The northern cut is retained with large,
interlocking concrete blocks. Alluvial sand and gravel was exposed in a cut slope to the
northeast of Boring 4.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the site. 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 that massive gypsum deposits associated with the
Eagle Valley Evaporite underlie portions of the lot. Dissolution of the gypsum under certain
conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of localized subsidence.
During previous work in the area, several sinkholes were observed scattered throughout the
Roaring Fork Valley. These sinkholes appear similar to others associated with the Eagle Valley
Evaporite in areas of the Roaring Fork Valley.
Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject site. No evidence of cavities
was encountered in the subsurface materials; however, the exploratory borings were relatively
shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our present knowledge of the subsurface
conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not develop. The risk of
future ground subsidence on this site throughout the service life of the proposed storage building,
in our opinion, is low; however, the owner should be made 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.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on June 1, 2018. Four exploratory borings
were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The
borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck -
mounted CME-45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of H-P/Kumar.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers
were driven into the subsoils at variou depths with blows from a 140 pound haw - Auer falling 30
Page 124
-3-
itches. 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. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are
shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our
laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2.
Below up to 5 feet of organic clayey sand and gravel fill, the subsoils consist of about 17 to 22
ftmt of medium den se clayey silty; sand overlying rel tivelt dervm silty sand and gravel at depths
of 22 to 261/2 feet down to the maximum depth drilled of 31 feet. Dense alluvial sand and gravel
with cobbles and small boulders was encountered in Boring 4 below about 1 foot of fill. Drilling
in the dense alluvial gravel soils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and
boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture
content, density, Atterberg limits and gradation analyses. Results of swell -consolidation testing
performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clayey sand soils, presented on Figures
4 and 5, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting.
Results of gradation analyses performed on a small diameter drive sample (minus 11/2 inch
fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils from Boring 4 are shown on Figure 6. Atterberg limits
testing indicates the clayey sand soils have low plasticity. The laboratory testing is summarized
in Table 1.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were
slightly moist to moist.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
1OUNDA IONS
Considering the subsurfaceconditionmlnditiont encountered in the exploratory boring* and r e nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the storage building be founded with spread footings
rP KU
ProjcINA18-7-37
Page 125
-4-
bearing on to natural clayey sand soils. Sub -excavation to below design bearing level may be
needed along the downhill, south side of the building to completely remove unsuitable fill soils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for
an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect
settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will
be about 1 inch or less with additional settlement potential if the bearing soils are
wetted.
The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and
2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with
adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement
of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this
area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local
anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 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) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and
the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively firm natural clayey sand
soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to
undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure
computed on the basis of an equivalent fltnid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for back ill consisting
of the on -site clayey sand soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the
storage building and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to moize tie full active earth
Prcj No. 8-7-37
Page 126
-5-
pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of
equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site clayey sand
soils.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The
pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal
backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will
increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain
should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Care should be taken not to
overcompact t backfill or use large equip-errt near the wall, since this could cause excessive
lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be
e pected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities
constructed on the backfill. Backfill should not contain organics, debris or rock larger than about
6 inches.
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 equivalent fluid unit weight of 325 pcf. The
coefficient of friction 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 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 -rite soil., exluri of topoil, arr suitablrto support lightly landed slab -on -grade
construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained
H-P KUMAR
roj 18-I-314
Page 127
-6-
vertical movement. floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage
cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the
designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free -
draining gravel should be placed beneath slabs for support. 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.
Existing fill should be completely removed from beneath the building area. Fill materials for
support of floor slabs should be placed and compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard
Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on -site soils
devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in
this area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or
seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also 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 underdrain system. The proposed slab -on -
grade floor level should not need an underdrain.
If installed, the drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain should be
placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and
sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular material used in the
underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing
the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum site of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should bt at
least 11/2 feet deep. An impervious membrane such as 20 mil PVC 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.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all
times after the storage building has been completed:
Project No. 18-7-7
Page 128
-7-
1) Inundation of tl foundation; excaa ions 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. We recommend a minimum
slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 21/
inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free -draining wall backfill (if any)
should be capped with about 2 feet of the on -site soils to re _-t e SUrfax water
infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 10
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.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been coducted 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 sub itted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure 1, 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 (MOBC) developing
in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of
practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface
conditionn may ot 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.
roject No. 18 7-3`
Page 129
-8-
This report Vas been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not
responsible fol 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 implementation of our recommendations, 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 by a representative of
the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
H- K MA!
Daniel E. Hardin, P.
Reviewed by:
ONAL
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
DEH/kac
cc: The Land Studio — Doug Pratte ( stud @cor :a
et)
P
Project N. 18-7-367
Page 130
2.
`.3NI1123Vd 1V'LO1 OS
MN MI MN
APPROXIMATE SCALE —FEET
JIBORING 3
y
BORING 4
•
18-7-367 H-P%KUIVIAIR CATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Fig. 1
Page 131
BORING I BORING 2
(4)
15
20
9/12
wo=1O.0
DD=1uo
6/12
WC=11.7
OD=11J
-2On=44
11/ 2
wC=1V.0
DD=1oO
9/12
wo=1s.1
oD=1oO
-2oo=40
21/12
WC=17.4
DD=1O7
30 50/5.5
35
` 0/12
9/12
WC=1D,J
DD=11J
7/12
50/1
BORING 3 BORING 4
a/12
~ 50/
^ G/12
WC=1O.2
-20O=4b
LL=22
F1=4
O/12
11/12
76/12
Wn=1.O
+4=sS
-2OO=7
U
5
10
15
20
2s
30
35
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
18-7-387
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 2
25
LEGEND
(4) " BASECOURSE, THICKNESS IN INC ES SHOWN IN PARENTHESES TO LEFT OF THE LOG. BORING
1 ONLY.
:o
FILL: SAND AND GRAVEL, CLAYEY WITH ORGANICS, ROOTS, LOOSE, MOIST, BROWN.
SAND (SC); CLAYEY, SILTY, MEDIUM STIFF TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, BROWN.
SAND AND GRAVEL (SM—GM); SILTY, WITH COBBLES, VERY DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN.
GRAVEL (GM —GP); SANDY, SLIGHTLY SILTY WITH COBBLES AND SMALL BOULDERS, DENSE,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, LIGHT BROWN. BORING 4 ONLY.
RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
9/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 9 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA OR SPT SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
t PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON JUNE 1, 2018 WITH A 4—INCH DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
• THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY TAPING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE NOT MEASURED AND THE LOGS OF THE
EXPLORATORY BORINGS ARE PLOTTED TO DEPTH.
4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE
DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS REPRESENT THE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING OR WHEN
CHECKED # DAYS LATER.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 422);
—200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140);
LL = LIQUID LIMIT (ASTM D 4318);
PI = PLASTICITY INDEX (ASTM D 4318).
18-7-367
H-PkKUMAR
LEGEND AND NOTES
Fig. 3
Page 133
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
—2
These teat results apply only to the
samples tested. The testing report
shall not he reproduced. except In
full. without the written oppr000l of
Kumar and Associates, Inc. Swell
Consolidation testate performed In
accordance with AS 0-4546.
SAMPLE OF: Clayey Sand
FROM: Boring 1 ® 5'
WC = 16.0 %, DD = 108 pcf
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE- KSF
10
SAMPLE OF: Clayey Sand
FROM: Boring 1 CAA 15'
WC = 10.0 %, DD = 108 pcf
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
H-PvKUMAR
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
10
00
100
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
Page 134
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
CONSOLIDATION - SWELL
These test results opply only to the
ample, tested. The testing report
shall not be reproduced, except In
full, without the written approval of
Kumar and Assoelates, Inc. Swell
Consolidation testing performed in
OceordaDee with ASTI/ 0-4940.
SAMPLE OF: Clayey Sand
I FROM: Boring 2 ® 10'
WC = 10.3 %, DD = 113 pcf
ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION
UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE
DUE TO WETTING
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF 10 100
SAMPLE OF: Clayey Sand
FROM: Boring 3 @ 15'
WC = 10.2 %
—200 = 46 %, LL = 22, PI =
1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE KSF 10
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE UPON WETTING
100
H-PtiKUMAR
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 5
Page 135
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES
24 HRS
100 4'IRS 7 5 1 M
70
60
a.
40 t......
30 ,-
20
0
.001 .002
NIN 19MIN
.005 .009
SIEVE ANALYSIS
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
4MIN 1NIN _,.A200 A100 400 40yk30 At 1'610
9
.075 .150 .300 1 .600 1.18 2.38 4.75
.425 2.0
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
9.5
9
•6.. 8.
10
20
40
70
90
6 1
76.2 127 - 200 00
152
CLAY TO SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
FINE
MEDIUM
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
COBBLES
GRAVEL 59 %
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel
SAND
34 X
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CLAY 7 %
FROM: Boring 4 0 2.5'
These test results apply only to the
samplet which were teed. The
testing report shall not be reproduced,
except In full, without the written
approval of Kumar & Associates, Inc.
Sieve analysts testing Is performed In
accordance with ASTM 0422, ASTM C136
and/or ASTM D1140.
Fig. 6
Page 136
Project No. 18-7-367
0)
cn
>-
0)
W
H
W
F—
ce
0
H
Q
w d'
m 03
m
I— J
U.
0
>-
2
0)
w
a
J_
O
co
Clayey Sand
Clayey Sand
Clayey Sand
Clayey Sand
Clayey Sand
Clayey Silty Sand
Clayey Sand
Clayey Silty Sand
Clayey Sand
Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel I
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(psf)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
PLASTIC
INDEX
(%)
d•
LIQUID
LIMIT
(%)
22
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 200
SIEVE
40
N
O
Q
0
Q
CC
(0
0
N
M
J
W
Q e
ON
In
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
(pcf)
co
O
£II
108
oo
0
107
.M-I
,N-i
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
O
VD
N
,---
O
Q
,-",
17.4
•--I
.--1
10.3
N
O
Cl
.-+
,.O
,--i
LOCATION
DEPTH
(ft)
toAr
N
N
11N
0I
15
BORING
---4
N
M
d'
Page137
GO Self Storage Limited Impact Review July 13, 2018
Conceptual Site and Drainage Plan, Sopris Engineering
Page 138
S
coO
M3IA32J 10VdM 03111,111
000:10103'A1.Nf103013L IVO
NOSIAI48f1S NOXI4 01332lVd
3EN O.LS d13S OJ
,-- 'f '1• // / f'_, , ell',
r J \/ / \ / !- ,// l a ,�I Itl
1
\ 1
I \
,/,//)/
If/ i /' //
r—n
59
Page 139
GO Self Storage Limited Impact Review July 13, 2018
Conceptual Utility Plan, Sopris Engineering
Page 140
M31A3a IOVdh 031V111
OaVN0100',uNl00GUANO
NOSIAI08f1S NOXIQ 013023Vd
39VdaLS d13S OJ
off
i J ,,
i;1.1 i��rE■,111;I';;,
■
--�'
11
Page 141