HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Applicationa)
+ '
p Q Q N
a)
4- V)
4-) O
C
as 1n
U VI ro
r—v
S-
CI.
a 0 a1
a V a
a
it
ti
C
0
+)
a
S. -
(.0
V
O
0
0)
a)
-J
•
II
O
Road access
sewage and water.
VC i O E
re .7 r C 4-4 a)
C C 4- a) +) 4-) 4-4 0: ro L
o 0 0 i U its C U +)
N i .c
4-) •-) V V 'n O 4-) i 4-
ro r10E i C) _0 4- 25a o
U O r 7 C a)
o S- 04- co a)r L rC co
- O a)•- 0 O
4- i +' a) C C .0 -
C i L O U U 1-
r 4- C) +) CL •r- • 7
� 0 U 4- VI a) -0
S.- 0) 4-V ro C
C) CVIT O Cr O i ro
a i .0 c 7 4--' 0 - co
O C a) C V i
S.- C O) O a) S- i te0
a ro.' o • c E o o
4 . +' ar ) a C
-I-4 C i a+' i 0) 0
U O r it a S- VI
C) • U a) i a) al ro C +?
14 -,CO
l N-' a) re L Vr 4' a) >, U r U
O 0 0 0 0 a) C 0 • 4-) •r-
V)
rV) r +' +' V V a) V Cr) a) O r
4-' C C) C 0 • a) a
N +) 0 V i ^ rC ^• C CO O-
.
• VI L C Z a) 0 4-' 4- In VI r o re
CI a) .1-4 a) r25 +
• r C C) o • r •r .0
VI •r V • r i RS V, ._.+' ) +' S-
7
7 C • 0) co • ro a 0 7 i i .c re a)
rd >, C'n VI E r a) C a) to O 3 a
V ai• V 4-4 V) r aa) >
al E ro +) ro o v >, a ro ccs v V^ r W In
VI 0 V) O r 0 C 0.•r a+' ro 0 a U o
O O N• C V ro 0 U) 4- CJ 0 C V
CU a a0Lr v 3•
0 >, V a) O r r' a) a a) 4- 4- O In • r C
S- 4-' C) "0 V) 7 CC/ In L V) C (NJ a) r tC
a•- c a) VI _C •---55 4' Y +' VD -.0 a
W i VI "0 a) VI V) 4-) E C
i •.- V r 7 4- C) 4- N L r6 0 in O O
O 4-) a) ro 4-) O Ln > O in 44 a) U i .0 U r
4- 7E1-40 0 r r0 +)
CU V) 7 V L 4-c a) C 7
N E a) i i a E a _ 0 4 -)Lr 3•
r
C 0 V 0 + 0C +
' 0 ) rd i re +' •c)0
O 4-- C N N 0) (NC C a N >, a) V C) VI tn
a)
+) O C V i rC a) C) a) > +' C a) +' r CC
QS 3 C i t L.0 C i >+' 4-)
O ro +' 25 254- it +' +' O'. 7 0 • •r O
L 4- E E C
4- o f "i0 V +
) 0 a' 0)4- C) V e L S.
S- i 0) V) i rC C O .OO r r N C) C
U a 0 a C i a) •r
C) a4- 0 01 V 4-' • -0 C r L CO C NJ T
a ro C E V C C C r M o r +' L a) a) a) 4-)
7 • r • r • re VI 3 L rn >, i
N4- r >,r 0 a) V rC U+' L4- +' =+) a)
V i +
O ) = V ro E- C a in O +' r c a
C a)• L n r 4- a)'C4-r r 7 0
Lu in .0 C o .O V4-) S O) C (Ts o rte id 0 S-
S-
i +' r 4- rC a v V C O O , L O a
V) C) 0 U 0 V) i •r V V)• +' r ar a) VI V
C •1-)a) 0 V) a) • C) S- ) a) -0
rC +' -0 r a) E In +' O 4)V ro i 0.4-i V ar ir
N C V) ro a) O a) O a) O a H C In a) (C
CL rCQ 7ZV r L- 0L 0..2 0
V) 4- +'
• r i VI
L ro
M 4S[') F- CC J
h
owners within 200 feet of subject property lines.
`al
2
I
4-'
C
C)
C 0)
C
4-) •r-
S-
ri C
C, 4 -
Cl. 0
✓ V
r re
as
V
V
C
C rC
ccs
'▪ O 5 -
OC)
1/1 a
a O
O a
5-
0-5-
_o 0
re
C
+' O
C
a) Vf •
VI +' >,
a) C S-
S-
a E
• N C
>
In O O
+) i .0
C
E S-
EE
r
> 0
0 •-
5- 4-
E 3 0
r 0 +)
»-
C
�f O
ot nn2
pi� N
5
oa
3q o
"7%
ro W
r JO v
a 4'
a � -s
ho'
correct to the
V)
L a) r
r V)
b
• 0
O) cc) 0
C C)N
• ro
O
L V L
U C +'
ro
0 3
E CL) 4)
.0 C S-
O
V ro a)
C ' 0-
4-)
+' (.0 0
4-) •r L-
C
Q V a
The above information
C
0
a-'
ro
V
L
0-
V
a) V
+' Q)
C •r
ro C
i a/
CDo
CUVI VI
a )
ro
U U
a) W
a 0-
V)
N V)
Reason for Denial
N
CL
0 ▪ 0
01.4
U o
n
N
ro
O U
U
Z Z
0 0
00
00 O
O J
LU
o..
rY J
CY
O
O Q
mcg
February 5, 1981
Garfield County Commissioners
Garfield County Court House
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
RE: Revised Glenwood Business Center Submittal
Dear County Commissioners:
Enclosed is a revision of our original Glenwood Business Center
submittal dated November 24, 1980.
The revisions are on pages 6B, 9, 12 and 13, and are as follows:
PAGE 6B. The revision adds this page describing uses excluded
from the project.
PAGE 9. The orifi nal submittal shows a site plan illustrating
657 office and 35% non -office space. The revision uses the
same site plan to illustrate 50% office and 507 non -office space.
The site plan is illustrative only with the final ratio of office
to non -office space depending upon future market demand (see
page 7) .
PAGE 12. The original assumed a parking formula of 1 space
per 300 sq.ft. of office space in a pure office building. The
revision assumes 1 parking space per 200 sq.ft. of office area
and 1 space per 1000 sq.ft. of warehouse type area.
PAGE 13. Northern Property Line Setback: The original was not
clear as to setbacks. The revision states that setback require-
ments will be met.
Southern Property Line Setback: The original assumed
this property line as a rear yard requiring a 7.5 ft. set back.
The revision determines the southern property line as a side
yard requiring 10 ft. setback. All buildings will meet this
requirement.
Building Heights: The original indicated that the
County maximum building height of 25 ft. would be exceeded by
3 feet. The revisions states that the 25 ft. requirement would
be met. The 25 ft. stipulated in the code excludes parapet
walls and noninhabitable building appurtenances ( see Garfield
County Zoing Code, page 63). Our building height estimates in
some conditions included parapet walls and mechanical spaces
on the roof.
Thank you r your consideration.
14(1�
Floyd iemoz
Glenwood Partnership
F7 k. cod y
mountain engineering & land surveying co.
p.o. box 14 gypsum, colorado 81637 524.9414 945.8356
406 S. Hyland Square, Suite A-1
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
945-2045
TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT
GLENWOOD BUSINESS CENTER
Prepared By•
David W. Grounds
Professional Engineer
ii
TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT GLENWOOD BUSINESS CENTER
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to determine (1) an acceptable
design standard for the new County Road to be constructed
immediately west and bordering the project site and (2) what
offsite impacts occur on 130 Road and the 1-70 frontage road.
Summary
The Glenwood Business Center (Center) at eventual buildout
which is anticipated to occur in approximately ten years will
employ approximately 603 employees. Approximately 2,236 trips
will be made to and away from the Center each day.
The new County Road (see Attachment A) connecting 130 Road
and the I-70 frontage road will primarily serve the Center.
The new road will, however, provide an easier access to the
frontage road for those families living north and west of 130
Road and the new County Road intersection.
The proposed standard of twelve -foot lanes and four -foot
shoulders is more than an adequate design standard for this
new road.
There are not enough turning movements to and from the
Center to 130 Road to warrant turning lanes. Acceleration and
deceleration lanes are not required at the intersection of the
new County Road and the 1-70 frontage road intersection. This
is assuming that the I-70 frontage road will be four-laned at
the time the shopping center is constructed.
QQsso
Glenwood Business Center Development Plans
The development plans for the Center state that the Center
"will be a quality complex serving a large variety of area
businesses needing office, studio, assembly, showroom, whole-
sale, distribution, service, and retail space."1 The current
plans are to provide approximately 148,200 square feet of
office space and approximately 82,900 square feet of warehouse
space.
A new County Road will be constructed immediately west
of the project limits. This new road will parallel Mel Ray
Road and provide access to and from the Center as well as an
alternate access for vicinity residents.
Vicinity Traffic Patterns
In the vicinity of the Center, there is currently only one
road of significance connecting 130 Road and the 1-70 frontage
road. This connection is provided by Mel Ray Road which serves
the large majority of the people living in Western Hills to the
west along 130 Road. The large majority of these homeowners
use Mel Ray Road regardless of whether they plan to travel east
toward Glenwood or west toward Rifle.
As mentioned previously, after the new County Road is
constructed, some local traffic will use the new road instead
of Mel Ray Road. For this study, it has been assumed traffic
now using 130 Road west of the intersection of 130 Road and
Chapparal Circle will use this new County Road after it is
constructed.
1Glenwood Business Center Sketch Plan Report, page 6
2
On January 5, 1981, a traffic counter was placed immediately
west of the above mentioned intersection. The Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) at this location for this date wa805 vehicles.
It is assumed that this number of vehicles generated by local
residents will use the new road after it is constructed. Based
on a two-hour directional count at the intersection of 130 Road
and Mel Ray Road, the ADT at the counter could be reduced by
20%. The total count will be used as a conservative figure.
Traffic Generated By The Glenwood Business Center
The Institute of Transportation Engineers has published a
reference document entitled "Trip Generation." This document
is the accepted reference for estimating numbers of employees,
trip ends, etc., for a wide variety of business types.
This reference states that the typical business park
containing manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities
generates 7.26 average weekday vehicle trip ends per 1,000
square feet or gross building area. (Trip ends are the total
of all trips entering plus all trips leaving a site over a
given period of time.) The Glenwood Business Center is a
business park and it could be anticipated that it would
generate traffic at approximately this rate.
A more detailed analysis can be made of traffic volumes
for the Center, however, as the square footage of office space
and warehouse space has been estimated. According to the above
mentioned reference source, general office buildings generate
12.30 trip ends per 1,000 square feet. Warehousing typically
generates 5.01 trip ends per 1,000 square feet. Using these
rates and weighing the total gross area by the percentage of
3
office space and warehouse space, the trip ends for the Center
complex is 9.682 per 1,000 square feet.
Floyd Diemoz conducted a survey of the Slattery Building
in south Glenwood which is an office and warehouse complex
similar to the proposed Glenwood Business Center. Mr. Diemoz
found that the Slattery Building generated 7.89 trip ends per
1,000 square feet. This is only slightly higher than the
7.26 given above for a typical business park.
AG However, to insure that a conservative value is used,
9.68 trip ends per 1,000 square feet will be used in all traffic
computations. This is approximately 33% higher than the typical
business park.
Using 9.68 trip ends per 1,000 square feet and the gross
building area (231,100) of the Glenwood Business Center, it
can be expected that the Center will generate 2,236 trips per
day. Therefore, the ADT attributed to the Center is 2,236
vehicles per day.
Not all of these daily trips will be made via the new con-
necting road. A secondary entry to the Center will be provided
for between the new County Road and Mel Ray Road.
It is felt only those employees of the Glenwood Business
Center living from approximately the center of the Glenwood
Business Center to the east along 130 Road will choose this
entry. There are approximately 220 homes in this area. Other
employees, service vehicles, etc., would choose I-70 or the
1-70 frontage road as both are safer and allow higher speeds.
2(12.30)(148,200) + (5.01)(82,900)
231,100 - 9.68
4
ScuSS
To determine the ADT for this secondary entry, it is
necessary to determine total work force and what portion of
that work force lives east of 130 Road/Glenwood Business
Center intersection. Again using information provided in
"Trip Generation," it is stated there are 3.4 employees per
1,000 square feet of office space. For warehousing, there
are 1.2 employees per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, for the
Glenwood Business Center, there will be approximately 603
employees.3 The average trips per employee is then 2,236 *-4;
divided by 603 or 3.7.
It is assumed that the work force will be drawn from an
area population of approximately 20,000. Assuming that there
are 3.5 persons living per dwelling unit in the area that
will use the secondary entry to the Center, there are (3.5)
(220) divided by 20,000 or approximate) 3.850%of the work
force that will use the -130 Road entry to the //Glenwood Business
Center. This represents (23 employee and 85 trips per day.
This small number of turning movements does not warrant left
turn or acceleration lanes on 130 Road.
The
on the new County Road attributed to the Glenwood
Business Center will then be 2,236 less -or 2,151 trip ends
per day. The total ADT on the new County Road is the traffic
generated by the business center plus neighbor traffic or
2,956 (2,151+805).
Design Standard For The New County Road
The proposed design standard for the new County Road is
twelve -foot lanes with four -foot shoulders. According to the
3(3.4) (148,200) + (1.2) (82,900)
1,000 - 603
5
capacity standard, A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural
Highways, the ADT volume for this roadway template is 4,780
vehicles per day.
It can be seen that the 4,780 vehicles per day design
capacity exceeds the expected 2,956 vehicles per day. Theesiy1 Cap,
selected standard of twelve -foot lanes with four -foot shoulders
is, therefore, adequate.
New County Road and I-70 Frontage Road Intersection Design
If the I-70 frontage road is four-laned from the east to
this intersection, neither a left turn acceleration or a
right turn deceleration lane will be required.4 If the 1-70 N
frontage road remains a two-lane roadway, then probably neither
acceleration or deceleration lanes would be required as very
little traffic continues to or comes from the west.
4Colorado Division of Highways' Design Manual, pages 4-15, 4-16
6
:sCuss
1
0
0
m
0
Q.
2956 A DT
ATTACHMENT A
New Count Rio
N
OD —
O 01
U1 `
AD
0
OOO/4N37J
r c�
o 6
0 3
A �
0
o
ea a
0.
r c
z
rD
1
N
CD
41)
Mei
Z7
0
0
0-
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
February 18, 1981
Mr. Davis Farrar
Assistant Planner
Garfield County
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Glenwood Business Center
Dear Davis:
The following comments address themselves to the
matters discussed at the Planning and Zoning meeting on
February 9, 1981 and as those matters have subsequently
been discussed between ourselves and Mr. John Fernandez,
Planner for the City of Glenwood Springs. I beleive we
are in agreement on almost all items and, hopefully, you
can make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission
at their meeting on February 23, 1981 which will set the stage
for their recommendation of approval of the project with a
minimum of conditions being attached.
My comments and suggestions are as follows:
1. Sidewalks.
(a) We will agree to install a five foot side-
walk extending the entire length of the project on
the westerly boundary.
(b) Because there seems to be no unanimity
of opinion, or, for that matter, even a very well
conceived idea, of the location of a sidewalk on
the northerly side of the project, I would like to
suggest that the P and Z recommend to the County
Commissioners that they give this matter their
consideration and impose as a condition of approval,
at the County Commissioners stage, some resolution
of the matter. It seems clear that others will be
contributing to the necessity of installing a
pedestrian way; however, whether it should be located
on the south or north side of County Road 130 is not
now apparent, nor is its configuration and there are
other matters which are still up in the air. We
would be willing to agree to some type of formula
Mr. Davis Farrar
February 18, 1981
Page 2
whereby we would be participating in the construction
of a pedestrian way at such time down the road as
the Commissioners feel would be appropriate.
2. Water. We will agree on the following items
as a condition of approval of the project:
(a) We must prove to the County, at the time
that each building permit application is filed, that
water is available for servicing the building.
(b) If a public water system is used the
construction of the system will comply with all
rules and regulations of the West Glenwood Springs
Water District. (Because of the Water Service
Agreement with the Water District and the City,
this in effect means that we are agreeing to all
of the ordinances of the City of Glenwood Springs
inasmuch as that agreement requires that the entire
system in West Glenwood Springs so comply).
(c) All water used for landscaping will be
metered by separate sub -meters.
(d) All water mains and fire hydrants will be
installed and operative at the time that construction
proceeds above floor or grade level of each building
so that fire protection will be available when
construction proceeds above ground.
(e) If a public water system is used the water
main distribution system of the project shall be
designed to connect with the West Glenwood Springs
Water System and be compatible with said system so
as to make water available to each building in the
project.
(f) Fire hydrants shall be located to insure
protection to each lot based on utilization of
existing fire fighting equipment and shall be approved
by the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection District's
fire chief.
Mr. Davis Farrar
February 18, 1981
Page 3
3. Building Sprinklers. We will agree, as a condition
of approval, that we will abide by all applicable building, fire
or other codes as the same may be in effect on the date that
building permit applications are filed.
4. Internal Traffic Flow. The suggestion has been
made by the fire chief that the project is too constricted
internally to allow the City's largest fire truck to negotiate
the driveways. The following comments are applicable to this
question:
(a) Hypothesizing the use of large semi -trailer
trucks within the project which require a diameter of
102 feet within which to turn, nearly every building
is accessible by the use of such a vehicle.
(b) The average size fire truck utilized by the
City and the largest fire truck utilized by the Glenwood
Springs Rural Fire Protection District requires only
a twenty-eight foot diameter area within which to turn.
(c) The largest truck now owned by the City of
Glenwood Springs requires a fifty-eight foot diameter
area within which to turn.
If you have any questions concerning the above, please
contact me at your first possible convenience so that we will
have hopefully resolved all matters between ourselves concerning
conditions of approval for the project prior to the next P and
Z meeting.
Very truly yours,
GLENWO D PART HIP
-7By
9
oy
Diemoz
GLENWOOD PARTNERSHIP
214 Pine Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
945-6712
January 6, 1981
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
Garfield County Planning Commission
Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Re: Glenwood Business Center
Dear Commission Members:
The following are a list of names and addresses of all of the
Partners and Owners of Glenwood Partnership.
Adolph Diemoz
Edith C. Diemoz
Floyd Diemoz
Frances Diemoz
214 Pine St.
214 Pine St.
400 Pinyon
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
4030 North West Thurman
Portland, Oregon
97210
Floyd 'iemoz
General Partner
Glenwood Partnership
E GGLENWOOD BUSINESS CENTER
Box 326 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-6712
John A. Thulson
Delaney and Balcomb
Drawer 790
Glenwood Springs, Colo 81601
Dear Alan:
February 2, 1981
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
It appears the only area where we will not be complying with the
Counties zoning resolution for Commerical/Limited is 3.07.05,
Maximum lot coverage: 75%.
Lot coverage is defined as "the portion of a lot which is covered
or occupied by buildings, structures, parking, and drives." There-
fore I assume sidewalks, patio's, landscaping and unattended areas
make up the balance of the lot.
Art Abplanalp mentioned that a proceedure of simultaneous
hearings for a special use permit and a text amendment have been
used in the County.
Can we prepare to do that for a meeting on Monday, Feb. 9?
A logical case can be made for a coverage increase to 85% for
commercial establishments. The most recently constructed buildings
in West Glenwood do not comply and for a good reason. The 75% figure
however should remain for a residential project in the C/L zoning.
The County may wish to do something similar to Glenwood Springs.
They may not wish to require landscaping on every site, but may wish
to review the plans for landscaping, screening and visual impact
on a case by case basis.
Glenwood's new planning and code revisions call for 10% of the
total parking area to be devoted to landscaping (see attatchment).
By this formula we would be required to provide'less than 33,800 ft
of landscaping while our site plan indicates 97,800 ft2.
338,100 minus roads (use zero ft2 for our roads) times lo%
TIMING
1. The Commissioners turned our project over to the Planning
Commision. The first time the Commission received our informa-
tion was during their January 12, 1980 meeting. Therefore I'm
assuming the 60 day clock started then.
2. A special use permit requires a notice at least
to the County Commissioner's public hearing.
3. A text change requires a notice 30 days priorto
15 days prior
hearings.
4. If the text amendment is put into the hopper on Feb. 9, a 30
day notice could be no sooner than March 12. Our special use
clock may run out on March 13.
Can thss be worked out?
DIE OZ
DIEMOZ CONSTRUCTION
P. 0. Box 326
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
(303) 945-6712
JOB
SHEET NO d/y
CALCULATED BY DATE I V 2 M 2/
�CHECKED BY DATE ,/
SCALE
OF
C/t. Dismtcr 8v/Gohvas kfzenai ci,n5frocied
7-1 l 3 70RE - lf/hcr tide .hid fho 7-// s410 ir> 0 575
We5 onevood _Z yecat/ the COnce777
Sovthzanid a rp _-- had 7r fiie 50Z mawsnum
eovcrcgc It Covn had at 71 -hat lis to ( Z
M7. _... _. 7y chaInQod coverage to 75% .�
T dada z ram!/ that thin had 9or,1hro ,a vo r/aacc
r -r aiwa y .s 74-4o69h-t flay mode op fk 5-0 ,76
Coverage on the Land kchlra tizz. ,Sof"a""`y $Y
ho , Aviny tile rear arm. .
Cagrni ,Pero rdo-thou) Wiz Cot , -
F3t1.
LUA�K s_
preying
ancc 2,1/7 FT y
2G1�/ /G,//7= .le% net c54olrrage"
/6, //7FT
2,c/to
5cb
/o,360
?ey 4a1re a rte, deliver anon htf 4u14
their /8 % Fr3urc re,asso44mq Nte)rearare
be other Man pwing orarriries:'
arm een i e9.thilit have a �> . �4 k
r1Qnce,
FORM 204-1 Available from s/ Inc, Groloa Mass. 01450
DIEMOZ CONSTRUCTION
P. O. Box 326
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
(303) 945-6712
JOB
SHEET NO
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY
SCALE
OF
DATE
DATE Mb 2,
LOT
OFFICE
(,oQ c►'5l?CYJS e
6 SDG• f Flay r
PhUl en..
PA -Vi 1 ear
collo oye,
W.4tS-bra nt
j1)4( Pear
41-
57,613 Cr
57,6135 F7
4,272
33/2
7Ag
30,00'
l.1,44o
!,
554
1,232
62, ICC
SfCarre,
-17 co % not ca►eraq.e
57,935
5,785
FORM 204"1 Available from ((MC_ Croton. Mate. 01450
Take Notice that
PUBLIC NOTICE
(has)(have) applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County,
•State of Colorado, to request a text change to the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution in connection with the following zone district(s); to wit:
Text Change:
Said text change is to permit
in the above described zone district.
All persons affected by the proposed text amendment are invited to appear and
state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally
at such meeting you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if
you have objections to such text amendment, as the County Commissioners will
give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others
affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for text amendment.
This text change application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning
Director located at 2014 Blake Ave., Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
That public hearing on the application for the above text change amendment has
been set for the day of , 19 , at the hour of
at the office of the County Commissioners, Garfield County
Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Ray Baldwin
Garfield County Planning Director
Lincoln DeVore
1000 West Fillmore St.
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907
(303) 632-3593
Home Office
Diemoz Family Partnership
Box 326
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: Floyd Diemoz
Re:
Gentlemen:
SI�MtA'E1) TO
CouMtif
pige.-• 10 ,1,450
October 16, 1979 •
GI.ENWOOD pftitTNESSN 14
SUBSURFACE SOILS INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
Transmitted herewith is the report giving the results of a
subsurface soils investigation for the proposed commercial
development in Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Respectfully submitted,
LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
By: ArgareLig4044Sliadd
Robert L. Bass
Civil .�gineer
e•rge r, M5rris, P. E.
RLB/vfb
LDTL Job. No. GS -1195
2700 Highway 50 West
Pueblo, Cob 81003
(303) 546-1150
P.O. Box 1427
Glenwood Springs, Colo 81601
(303) 945-6020
109 Rosemont Plaza
Montrose, Colo 81401
(303) 249-7838
P.O. Box 1882 P.O. Box 1643
Grand Junction, Cob 81501 Rock Springs, Wyo 82901
(303) 242-8968 (307) 382-2649
ABSTRACT
The contents of this report are a
subsurface soils investigation for foundation recommendations
for a proposed commercial development to be constructed west
of the city of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Lincoln-DeVore has
not at the present time seen a set of construction drawings for
any of the structures to be constructed in this development.
For structures for which the found-
ation loads are relatively light, shallow foundation systems
consisting of continuous foundations beneath bearing walls and
isolated spread footings beneath columns and other points of
concentrated load may be used to carry the weight of the pro-
posed structures. The shallow foundation bearing capacity for
the lean clay soils encountered in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 por-
tion of the proposed development, may be taken as about 1600 psf,
with no minimum pressure required. The bottoms of foundations
should be located a minimum of 3 feet below finished grade or
greater if dictated by local building codes for frost protection.
For relatively heavy structural con-
figurations, a alternative to the conventional shallow found-
ation system may be warranted. One suitable alternative would
be the use of a raft or mat type of foundation. This essentially
would consist of a thick, rigid concrete mat extending below the
area of the structure and possibly extending 1 to 2 feet beyond
the limits of the structure. The raft could be designed as either
a solid or a ribbed slab, but in either case should be heavily rein-
forced to resist differential bending. If the raft were extended
a sufficient distance beneath the ground surface that the weight
of the sail displaced was equal to the weight of the structure
and. foundation, the soil would experience no net change in
stress and settlement would be minimal.
Another foundation alternative for
heavier structures would be the use of deep foundation systems
consisting of either driven piles or drilled piers. In either
case, the deep foundation system should extend through any low
density, overlying soils and into the underlying dense, coarse
gravel and cobble deposits.
More complete recommendations can be
found within the body of this report. All recommendations are
subject to the limitations set forth herein.
-2-
GENERAL
The purpose of this investigation
was to determine the general suitability of this site for con-
struction of a series of commercial buildings. Lincoln-DeVore
has not at the present time seen a set of construction drawings
for any of the proposed buildings. However, it is our under-
standing that the buildings will probably be of single -story
slab on grade construction, and foundation loads will be light
to moderate in magnitude.
Tilt -up concrete walls may be used
for some or all of the proposed buildings.
The proposed construction site is
located approximately 2 miles west of the city of Glenwood Springs,
Colorado. The site is located north of Interstate 70, and a short
distance to the northwest of the former drive-in theater location.
The present course of the Colorado River is located a short dis-
tance to the south of the site. The site location is indicated
on the enclosed General Site Location Diagram.
It is our understanding that the pro-
posed project is to be developed in a series of stages or phases,
and development will take place over a period of several years.
On diagrams supplied to Lincoln-DeVore, the site has been divided
into 8 phases, which are delineated on the enclosed Test Boring
Location Diagram. While we understand that the phasing program
may be subject to change or alteration in the future, the phases
have been delineated in order to simplify the discussion as to
which portionsof the property are being covered in this report.
This report deals primarily with Phases 1 and 2, located in the
southwestern portion of the property. Additionally, 1 test boring
was placed in Phase 8, located in the northwest portion of the
Surface drainage on this site is fair to
property in order to provide preliminary soils information for
this 'area.
The topography of this site is that
of a gently sloping hillside, dropping generally to the south.
The area in the vicinity of the site has an overall gradient to
the south towards the river. The exact direction of surface run-
off on this site will be controlled to an extent by the proposed.
construction and, therefore, will be variable. In general, how-
ever, surface runoff will travel to the south, quickly entering
the Colorado River.
good. Subsurface drainage is fair to poor.
Geologically, the site lies on an old
alluvial terrace of the Colorado River. The terrace materials
have been overlain by a considBrable thickness of slope wash mat-
erials, which have originated from the higher ground to the north
of the site. The slope wash materials, as encountered on this
site, consist of soft, wet, lean clays. Slope stability for this
site appears very good, and no hazards resulting from landslides,
rockfalls, debris flows, or areas of soil creep are known to exist.
It is our understanding that a floodplain study completed by
Gingery Associates in 1978, places the site outside and above
the
100 Year Floodplain
No known radiation hazards exist on
or near this site. The Storm King Thrust Fault is believed to
exist a short distance to the south of the site according to pro-
jections of the fault on available geologic maps. The fault is
concealed by the overlying alluvial and colluvial soils, however,
and no evidence of faulting can be seen at the ground surface.
To the best of our knowledge, no known seismic activity has ever
been recorded in relation to this fault. We, therefore, do not
feel that the presence of the fault represents a significant
hazard to the site.
The only mineral resource on this
site would be the alluvial sands and gravels, which underlie
the surficial colluvial, lean clays. However, extraction of
the gravels would be of doubtful economic feasibility, due to
the relative thickness of the overlying colluvium. Additionally,
large quantities of alluvial gravel resources are available
throughout the Roaring Fork and Colorado River valleys, so that
removal of the resource on this property from the available re-
sources would not significantly depreciate them.
Bedrock beneath this site is believed
to consist of the Eagle Valley Evaporite of Pennsylvanian Age.
The evaporite consists principally of gypsum and anhydrite, but
also contains appreciable quantities of halite and traces of
potash salts. Where the evaporite intersects the ground surface
stability is generally poor, and the evaporite may be subject to
undercutting and slumping. No evaporite materials outcrop on
this site, however, and the evaporite is believed to exist at
sufficient depth that it will not effect construction or per-
formance of the proposed foundation systems.
BORINGS, LABORATORY TESTS AND RESULTS
Five test borings were placed on this
site at locations indicated on the enclosed Test Boring Location
Diagram. Four of the borings were located in the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 areas of the proposed development. One test boring was
placed in the Phase 8 portion of the development, in order to.
provide preliminary soils information for this area. The test
borings were placed in such a manner as to obtain a reasonably
good profile of the subsurface soils. While some variation was
noted from point to point, sufficient information was obtained
that no further test borings were deemed necessary for the pur-
poses of this report. All test borings were advanced with a
power -driven continuous auger drill. Samples were taken with
a standard split -spoon sampler, with thin-walled Shelby tubes,
and by bulk methods.
The soil profile encountered on this
site can broadly be characterized as a two layer system. The
upper layer of this system consisted of colluvial materia's de-
posited by slope wash from the higher ground to the north of
the site. The colluvium consisted principally of soft, wet
lean clays. A layer of topsoil ranging in thickness from 1 to
3 feet was encountered at the ground surface, overlying these
clays. On the Phase 1 and Phase 2 portions of the site, the
clay layer was noted to range in thickness from 8-1/2 to .17
feet. In Test Boring No. 1, located to the north and the Phase
8 portion of the site, approximately 23 feet of the lean clay
material was encountered. Generally, the clay material increased
in thickness from south to north.
The second layer of the soil profile
consisted of alluvial material,deposited by the action of the
Colorado River in the past. This alluvial material consisted
primarily of a coarse, silty sand matrix, surrounding gravel
and cobble -sized particles. However, in the upper portion of
the alluvial layer in Test Borings 3 and 4, a zone of coarse,
sandy silt was encountered. The upper portion of the alluvial
layer was noted to be comparatively loose in many locations, but
increased significantly in density with depth.
The samples obtained during our field
exploration program have been grouped into three soil types. Soil
Type No. 1 is representative of the colluvial lean clays encount-
ered in the upper prtion of the soil profile. Soil
Type No. 2
is representative of the coarse, silty sand matrix, surrounding
gravel and cobble --sized particles in the underlying alluvial layer of
the soil profile. Soil Type No. 3 is representative of the coarse,
sandy,silt encountered in Test Borings 3 and 4. More precise
engineering characteristics of these three soil types are given
on the enclosed summary sheets. The following discussion will
be general in nature.
Soil Type No.1 classified as lean clay
(CL) of fine grain size. Generally, this material is plastic,
of low permeability, and was encountered in a low density, high
moisture condition. When in a comparatively dense, dry condition,
this material will have a tendency to expand upon the addition
of moisture with expansion pressures on the order of 797 psf
being measured. In the condition in which this material was LOEr
encountered on this site, however, significant amounts of ex-
pansion are somewhat unlikely. Soil Type No. 1 will have a
consolidation characteristics
Df 1600 psf, with
distinct tendency to long-term consolidation upon loading. Be-
cause of the
is considered important that
of this material, it
maximum allowable bearing capacity
values not be exceeded, and that balancing. and reinforcing re-
commendations be carefully followed, where shallow foundations
will rest in this material. In the Phase 1 and Phase 2 portions
of this site, the maximum allowable bearing capacity at shallow
foundation depth was found to be on the order
no minimum dead load pressure required.
In Test Boring No. l,•
which was located in the Phase 8 portion of the site, the soils
were somewhat softer; and the maximum allowable bearing capacity
in this area will be on the order of 1000 psf. Soil Type No. 1
contains sulfates in detrimental quantities.
Soil Type No. 2 classified as silty
sand (SM) of coarse grain size. This material contained numerous
cobble -sized particles, which obviously cannot be accurately
represented on the enclosed grain size curve. Generally, Soil
Type No. 2 is non -plastic, permeable, and was encountered in
varying density states. However, this material was noted to be-
come of high density with increasing depth. Soil Type No. 2 will
have no tendency to expand upon the addition of moisture, nor
any tendency to long-term consolidation upon loading. Granular
materials such as this do, however, often experience settle-
ment upon application of heavy loads or vibration. Due to the
settlement characteristics of this material, it is recommended
that deep foundations,'where used, penetrate any low density mat-
erials encountered at the top of the alluvial layer and extend
into the dense, underlying materials. If this is accomplished,
settlement of Soil Type No. 2 should not create any significant
3000 psf, with
problems for the proposed commercial structures. It is not
anticipated that Soil Type No. 2 will be encountered at shallow
foundation depth •on this site. Should drilled pier deep founda-
tion systems extend into the dense, underlying material of this
Soil Type, they may be proportioned on the basis of a maximum
end bearing capacity of 10,000 psf, with no minimum end dead load
pressure required. The maximum allowable 'side friction for Soil
Type No. 2 may be taken as about 1000 psf. Soil Type No. 2 was
found to be relatively free of sulfates.
Soil Type No. 3 classified as silt
(ML), with a considerable portion of sand -sized particles.
Generally, this material is non -plastic, pf low to moderate
permeability, and was encountered in a moderate density condition.
It will have no tendency to expand upon the addition of mois-
ture, nor any tendency to long-term consolidation upon loading.
It may, however, experience some settlement if it is heavily
loaded or subject to vibration. It is unlikely that Soil Type
No. 3 will be encountered at shallow foundation depth on this
site. However, should this material be encountered, the maximum
allowable bearing capacity may be taken as about
no minimum pressure required. Soil Type No. 3 contains a slight
amount of sulfates.
Free water was encountered on this
site in all test borings, at depths ranging from 10 to 24 feet
below the ground surface at the time of drilling. The free
water elevation at any given test boring can be seen on the en-
closed drilling logs. This free water level may complicate the
installation of drilled pier deep foundations, and casing and
dewatering techniques may be required. It is unlikely, however,
that free water will be encountered during excavations for
shallow foundations. The free water encountered is believed to
be principally the result of agricultural irrigation on the site
and in the immediate vicinity.
-10-
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the magnitude and nature of the
proposed foundation loads are not precisely known to Lincoln-
DeVore at this time, the recommendations contained herein must
be somewhat general in nature. Any special loads or unusual
design conditions should be reported to Lincoln-DeVore so that
changes in recommendations can bemade if necessary. However,
based upon our analysis of the soil conditions and project charac-
teristics previously outlined, the following recommendations
are made.
For structures with relatively light
foundation loads, a shallow foundation system consisting of con-
tinuous foundations beneath bearing walls and isolated spread
footings beneath columns and other points of concentrated load
may be used to carry the weight of the proposed structure. In
the Phase 1 and 2 area of the proposed project, the bearing cap-
acity for the lean clays at shallow foundation depth will be on
the order of 1600 psf, with no minimum dead load pressure required.
The bottoms of foundations should be located a minimum of 3 feet
below finished grade or greater if dictated by local building
codes,for frost protection.
ations be well balanced.
It is recommended that shallow found -
Contact stresses
beneath exterior found-
ation walls should be balanced to within + 300 psf at all points.
Isolated interior footings should be designed for unit loads of
about 200 psf greater than the average of those selected for the
exterior walls. The criteria for balancing will depend somewhat
upon the nature of the structure. Single -story slab on grade
structures may be balanced on the basis of dead load only. Multi-
story structures should be balanced on the basis of dead load plus
approximately one-third the live load,
It is recommended that stem walls
for continuous foundations be designed as grade beams capable
of carrying their loads over a clear span of at least 12 feet.
Horizontal reinforcement should be placed continuously around the
structures, with no gaps or breaks in the reinforcing steel, un-
less specially designed. Foundation walls should be reinforced
at both top and bottom, with the reinforcement being approximately
balanced between these two locations. Where foundation walls
will retain soils in excess of 4 feet in height, vertical rein-
forcing should be designed, based on an equivalent fluid pressure
of 45 pcf for the soil in the active state.
In cases where foundation loads are
relatively heavy, an alternate to the typical shallow foundation
system will be in order. Suitable alternate foundation systems
for this site will include a strctural mat or raft foundation,
or deep foundation systems consisting of driven piles or drilled
piers. These various foundation alternatives will be discussed
in turn,
The raft or mat foundation would con-
sist essentially of a thick, heavily, reinforced concrete slab,
occupying the entire area beneath the structures, and possibly
extending 1 to 2 feet beyond the limits of the structure. This
concrete mat mustbe heavily reinforced to make it stiff enough
to essentially behave as a unit. Once the dead loads and live
loads associated with the proposed structure have been accurately
evaluated, the required depth of embedment to compensate for
the weight of the structure by displacement of soil in place
may be calculated. This compensation may either be partial or
complete. If the compensation is partial, the additional weight
not accounted for by the displacement of soil will create.a
pressure on the soil, which must under no circumstances exceed
500 psf. Any increase in the pressure of the soils will cause
some consolidation. However, if compensation is complete, and
the total weight of the structure is completely accounted for
by the weight of displaced soil, settlement of the mat foundation
should be negligible. The raft foundation should also be located
a minimum of 3 feet below finished grade for frost protection.
However, frost protection could be achieved by using a rimwall
around the exterior rather than extending the entire foundation
to the 3. foot depth. The rimwall will also serve to provide
some confinement of the soils beneath the structure.
Two general alternatives would be
available if one wished to use the deep foundation on this site.
The first alternative which will be discussed here is the use
of drilled pier deep foundations. Drilled piers may be desirable
from the standpoint that the equipment used for installing
drilled piers is often more readily available than that used for
driving piles. It must be noted, however, that some difficulty
with soft, caving soils and high ground water conditions may
complicate the installation of drilled piers on this site, and
casing and dewatering techniques may be necessary during con-
struction. Piers extending into the dense, underlying sand and
gravel materials of Soil Type No. 2 may be proportioned on the
basis of a maximum allowable end bearing capacity of 10,000 psf.
The maximum allowable side friction for the dense gravel materials
may be taken as about 1000 psf. The average maximum allowable
side friction for the softer, overlying materials may be taken
as about 200 psf. In all cases, no minimum pressures are required.
-13-
The bottoms of all piers should be
thoroughly cleaned prior to the placement of concrete. Piers
should be reinforced continuously throughout their entire. length.
The amount of reinforcing required in each pier willeepend upon
the magnitude and nature of the loads involved. However, as a
rule of thumb, a minimum of one #5 rebar for every 16 inches of
pier circumference should be used, with an absolute minimum re-
quirement of two #5 rebars per pier.
To insure that all voids in the side
walls of piers are filled, concrete with a slump of 5 to 6 inches
should be used. Piers having an extremely small diameter,on the
order of 12 inches or less, may use concrete with a slump in excess
of 6 inches. Piers must be dewatered prior to the placement of
concrete. If dewatering is not possible, concrete should be
tremmied below the standing .tater. A free fall of concrete in
excess of 5 feet should be prohibited, unless the pier diameter
is large enough to insure that concrete will not contact the
side walls during the fall. Any casing used during drilling
should be pulled as concrete is being placed to allow the complete
filling of all voids in the side walls with concrete.
As an alternative to drilled piers,
a driven pile deep foundation system may be used. There are a
number of different types of piles which would be available for
use on this site. Typically, piles would consist of either timber,
steel or precast concrete. Each type of pile is associated with
a number of advantages and disadvantages,w.ith respect to this site.
Timber piles typically are suitable for design loads on the order
of 10 to 50 tons, which should be acceptable for this project.
However, they are often difficult to splice during driving, and
-14-
may be vulnerable to decaying should the ground water level be
subject to frequent fluctuation. Timber piles are comparatively
low in cost, however, and the problem with decomposition may be
largely overcome by treatment of the pile.
Steel piles are very easy to splice,
making them suitable to a site where the bearing surface may
fluctuate widely in depth. They are somewhat vulnerable to
corrosion, however, particularly in areas where the ground water
may be rich in sulfates. The finer grained soils on this site.. would
be expected to contain a significant amount of sulfates. Steel
piles are typically suitable for design loads on the order of
40 to 120 tons, which would be more than sufficient for this site.
Precast concrete piles are suitable
for a very wide range of design loads. They may also achieve
a very high corrosion resistance by the use of sulfate resistant
cement in the concrete. However, they are typically associated
with a fairly high initial cosh, and are somewhat difficult to
splice.
Piles should be driven to bear in the
dense sand, gravel, and cobble material underlying this site.
Specific recommendations pertaining to pile type and pile capacity
cannot be easily made in a report of this nature, as such a choice
depends upon the expected loads, the driving equipment to be used,
and other factors. Therefore, this choice will be left to the
structural engineer. By way of example, however, a 12 inch dia-
meter pile section driven to a resistance of 10 blows per inch,
using a pile driving hammer in good repair having a rated energy
of 15,000 foot pounds, should be capable of developing a capacity
on the order of 20 to 40 tons. These estimated pile capacities
-15-
floor slabs are used
ever, it must be provided with a free drainage outlet to the
are based on static considerations of bearing capacity and fric-
tion. Estimates of this type often will not precisely represent
the true capacity obtained in the field. Therefore, when driving
operations commence, pile capacities should be verified either
by means of a pile load test or by use of an appropriate pile
driving equation.
Piles must be used in groups to pro-
vide for eccentricity in loading. The group capacity will be
less than the summation of the individual pile capacities, de --
pending upon the relative spacing of the piles. A coni ervative
estimate of the group capacity, however, would be on the order of
two-thirds of the summation of the individual pile capacities.
Eccentricity of reaction on a pile group with respect to the
load resultant should not exceed a dimension that would produce
overloads of more than 10% in any one pile.
Horizontal loads are not anticipated
on this site. However, if horizontal loads exist and exceed
1000 pounds per pile, batter piles will be required. Hammer
and cushioning should be matched to the chosen pile type to
insure the attainment of the design load capacity during driving.
Minimum spacing of piles should be twice the average pile dia-
meter, or 1.75 times the diagonal dimension of the pile cross
section, but no less than 24 inches. The tops of piles should
extend a minimum of 4 inches into the pile cap. No pile should
be shorter than 10 feet in length. Vertical piles should not
vary more than 2% from'the plumb position.
Where
, they may
be constructed directly on grade or over a gravel blanket of 4
to 6 inches in thickness,
I
f the gravel blanket is chosen, how-
-16-
ground surface, so as not to act as a water trap beneath the
floor slab. A vapor barrier is recommended beneath all floor
slabs which will lie below the finished exterior ground surface.
Floor slabs should be constructed in such a manner that they
act independently of columns and bearing walls. These slabs
should be placed in sections no greater than 25 feet on a side.
Deep construction or contraction joints could be placed at these
lines to facilitate even breakage. This will keep to a minimum
any unsightly cracking which would be caused by differential
movement.
Adequate drainage must be provided
in the foundation area both during and after construction to
prevent the ponding of water. The ground surface around the
structure must be graded such that surface water will be carried
quickly away. Minimum gradient within 10 feet of the structure
will depend upon surface landscaping. Bare or paved areas should
have a minimum gradient of 2/0, while landscaped areas should have
a minimum gradient of 5%. Roof drains, if used, should be carried
across all backfilled areas and discharged well away from the
structure. The overall drainage pattern should be such that
water directed away from one structure is not directed against
an adjacent structure.
Backfill
around the proposed structures
and in utility trenches leading to the structures should be com-
pacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor dry den-
sity, ASTM D-698. The native soils on this site may be used for
backfilling purposes. Backfill shot.ild be placed in lifts not to
to exceed 6 inches compacted thickness, and at a moisture content
approximately equal to the Proctor optimum moisture content + 2%.
-17-
Backfill must be compacted to.the required density by mechanical
means, and no water flooding techniques of any type should be
used in the placement of fill on this site.
It is our understanding that a small
amount of cut and fill may be performed on this site, in order
to level the site slightly. While the exact grading configuration
for cut and fill is not known to Lincoln-DeVore at this time,
it is assumed that the amount of fill will be relatively minor.
In any case, if foundations, floor slabs, or pavement rests
directly in fill, the fill should be compacted to at least 95%
of its maximum standard Proctor dry density, ASTM D-698. Any
topsoil should be stripped from the fill area prior to fill
placement. Topsoil should not be placed beneath structures
or pavement, but should be used in non-critical landscape areas.
Again, the fill should be placed by mechanical means in lifts
not exceeding 6 inches compacted thickness, and at the Proctor
optimum moisture content of the soil + 2%.
Any topsoil or debris should be re-
moved from the construction area prior to beginning of construction
of foundations. Additionally, should any pockets of debris, or-
ganic material, or otherwise unsuitable material be encountered
during excavation for footings, this material should be removed
and replaced with suitable backfill compacted to 95% of the
maximum standard Proctor dry density, using the procedures pre-
viously outlined.
The open foundation excavations should
be inspected prior to the construction of forms or placement of
concrete to establish that proper design bearing material has been
reached and that no debris, soft spots, or other unsuitable mat-
erials are located in the foundation region.
-18-
•
The finer grained portion of the
.soils on this site contains sulfates in detrimental quantities.
For this reason, a sulfate resistant cement such as Type II Ce-
ment is recommended for use in all concrete which will be in
contact with the foundation soils. Under no circumstances
should calcium chloride ever be added to a Type II Cement.
In the event that Type II Cement is difficult to obtain, a
Type I Cement may be used providing the concrete is separated
from the soils by water resistant membranes.
As has been discussed previously in
this report, one test boring was located in the Phase 8 portion
of the site to the north. This test boring was placed in order
to provide preliminary soils information for this area, and to
provide the soil profile thr purposes of designing cut and fill.
In this test boring, approximately 3 feet of topsoil was en-
countered overlying about 23 feet of colluvial, lean clay, which
was underlain by the alluvial sand, gravel, and cobble deposit.
This test boring is indicated on the enclosed Test Boring Location
Diagram and on the enclosed drilling logs as Test Boring No. 1.
The lean clays encountered in this test boring were generally of
slightly lower density than the materials encountered in the test
borings placed on the Phase 1 and Phase 2 portions of the project.
The shallow foundation bearing capacity for the lean clays en-
countered in Test Boring No. 1, will be on the order of 1000 psf.
Shallow foundations are recommended in this area only for very
lightlyloaded structures. It is recommended that one of the alter-
nate foundation systems, such as the raft foundation, or the deep
foundation, as discussed previously in this report, be used for
structures of moderate to heavy load, which are placed in this area.
It is believed that all pertinent
points concerning the subsurface soils on this site have been
covered in this report. If soil types and conditions other
than those outlined herein are noted during construction on
this site, these should be reported to Lincoln-DeVore so that
changes in recommendations can be made if necessary. Should
questions arise or further information be needed, please feel
free to contact our office.
-20-
' ( 7 --------1 \--
\ , , , I ck -7-- ..'• ____,t.
, }
7
.../ ; »/) L.__,___.---,....„ -,.. ,t , -4, vr---
...._,.._.,..., ..- ,,
„ . , , .,,
c.:,_..rcs...
..... ‘,‘,.•-•-•-•_‘-,..„4"--,- -„,7-- — -1-: — - —, — -1- i I '''' -a \3 ,
/
•_ a.), -7-1\1 "\—,, — —1 N ‘...- r.,
' ''' "'' --" 2 ' (-Di : - - \ ; . i ‘-' . •
,,...„, ' ' \ , .1 • ,
/ )
ii , (.
I
... .. .. • '1'
• :
- • • • . v.: '-— :-• •
/I ....,,, ,
,:••Ir. • er • - - • • • vs -
•
/
I • c
• '
• • -.1
I
„,
, xy i ,..-
,... , , -i ,--.___.,
•- --.--,- ..,-
, „,, c.---- - - -__ 3 - ---/— - - - - z \ - - - - c
) , i
/
1 /: '
1,
7-7,
- ' \-
y•”
I
6 enere/ Silt A enceVearn .04299,w,
I Oje/-sfor Favn-n7). Aleniener_chnreo /"/-0,oerney
./ers,...socc/ 4ors.:-n9 s:, Coknrerdes
% \. .
5....___\
0
(---
N I '\
/
—.)
Seale -- rrn.?0,90 /
;
LINCOLN
DeVORE
ENGINEERS•
GEOLOGISTS
COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS,
PUEBLO, GLENWOOD SPRINGS,
GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE
WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS
•
Phase 7
Ofies. 8
Z7J
4 f5 •S
Phase
i
/h.Sa 4
f"h se 3
7741-3S--07•1
T•.5 Bo., -/;•,g 1.4,c9/ia7 g -a '
Oirmoz F9,77././y ��rfi�rsiii�o F'%osrfy
G/�i�waod $1 rh'79s, Ga/arado
zea•
LINCOLN
DeVORE
ENGINEERS.
GEOLOGISTS
/90
COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS,
PUEBLO, GLENW00D SPRINGS,
GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE ,
WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS
SOILS DESCRIPTIONS:
SYMBOL USCS DESCRIPTION
ROCK DESCRIPTIONS:
SYMBOL DESCR/PTION
SYMBOLS a NOTES:
SYMBOL, DESCR/PTION
Free
_WOter
151 Wx
9/12 Standard penetration drive
Numbers indicate 9 blows to drive
the spoon 12" into ground.
IST 2-I/2"Shelby thin wall sample
W0 Natural Moisture Content
WxWeathered Material
Free water table
Y°Natural dry density
TB.—Disturbed Bulk Sample
0 Soil type related to samples
in report
Top of formation
'o, vod
SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
ov
Topsoil
o::o;
' p:
CONGLOMERATE
104
m
SANDSTONE
\
Man-made Fill
\
0.0.0:0.
a'°o:a
o
o.o:¢o
GW Well-graded Gravel
=—_'
—•—•-
SILTSTONE
=—==
----
SHALE
0000
00000000
0000
GP Poorly-graded Gravel
x x x
xxx
CLAYSTONE
COAL
"
°
0
0
°
0
C
L GM Silty Gravel
0
/Oo
00/
GC Clayey Gravel
SW Well-graded Sand
III
1
LIMESTONE
'iiii
/' /
Iiill..
SP Poorly-graded Sand
/
/
/
DOLOMITE
'
II
II
ri1
SM Silty Sand
MARLSTONE
/
SC Clayey Sand
„
GYPSUM
-
Other Sedimentary Rocks
J
/
ML Low-plasticity Silt
CL Low-plasticity Clay
,i,/
IGNEOUS ROCKS
i...
/ 1 n xo_(,
GRANITIC ROCKS
Form.
1---2is-1
Standard
by driving
sampler
laolb.weight
des.D-1586.
Samples
spoon
thin
samples.
The boring
the
not warranted
of subsurface
and times.
eTest Boring Location
m Test Pit Location
Seismic or Resistivity Station.
Lineation indicates approx.
length a orientation of spread
(5= Seismic , R= Resistivity )
Penetration Drives are made
a standard 1.4" split spoon
into the ground by dropping a
30". ASTM test
may be bulk, standard split
(both disturbed) or2-1/2"I.D.
wall ("undisturbed")Shelby tube
See log for type.
logs show subsurface conditions
dates and locations shown ,and it is
that they are representative
conditions at other locations
+++
DIORITIC ROCKS
OL Low-plasticity Organic
Silt and Clay
>ii o j/
GABBRO
MH High plasticity Silt
RHYOLITE
/1/
CH High-plasticity Clay
7/—
—�—
OH High- plasticityANDESITE
Organic Clay
...�-
/1
BASALT
,_rru.
Pt Peat
,
10`0^:
vo
•;o
TUFF & ASH FLOWS
a
5
o
GW/GM Well- graded Gravel,
Silty
9a..
°
•o!'..'.
BRECCIA & Other Volcanics
2/0
0
°
0
o
0.
GW/GC Well-graded Gravel,
Clayey
rF A
Other Igneous Rocks
000
oo��o
°
GP/GM Poorly- graded Gravel,
Silty
fj�/
METAMORPHIC ROCK
o
o°o
D
0
GP/GC Poorly- graded Gravel,
Clayey
YY
%''
/��
GNEISS
�%�
SCHIST
D a
r�
Clayey
ye,
'4*
`
PHYLLITE
GC/GM Clayey Gravel,
Silty
1%
44
%9 /
SLATE
SW/SM Well - graded Sand,
Silty
?.,•:
o o o
METAQUARTZITE
SW/SC Well-graded Sand,
Clayey
III
1I
II
I �
SP/SM Poorly-graded Sand,
Silty
000
MARBLE
o0 o
V
i7g/
HORNFELS
%
i/
SP/SC Poorly- graded Sand,
Clayey
yam/
sl 19
SERPENTINE
IA
i
SM/SC Silty Sand, Clayey
,
Other Metamorphic Rocks
SC/SM Clayey Sand, Silty
L7 LINCOLN
DOM
EDT
LABORATORY
COLORADO. Colorado Springs, Pueblo,
Glenwood Springs, Montrose, Gunnison,
Grand Junction.- WYO.-Rock Springs
EXPLANATION OF BOREHOLE LOGS
AND LOCATION DIAGRAMS
CL/ML Silty Clay
TEST HOLE No. /
TOP ELEVATION 5739
5725
3
713
4
57.8
8730
same
/diy%r
/10/1 /NrG
.57.0.4Ptar,
7741P...7 Go/co,-
-5 Ai
o/or
7/,L
41,'/4.6
/re
0
%Of+do% /
1
.5/iz
d✓z.r.3
0
Sdw e
—1 Ya =/R9-
/ 7/z
-oW o o
-►s
Q Free
!✓d/C�
4//i
x•/9.9
eL
Less 4'49..o
eh" v, 0 Sa r��
6�i'u s „ So {{e%
F/iny Tdn
Moil 7//2 V
_ 44.46'. 3 — s -re e
6u//d'/tS Oj Al.,/e.,-
6,-10Y/e//y.,
/efdr
II
'--5700
No /e - E/Cuo7 f4oi7s
Ra{./sa/
Feae
c✓s1a,
I
.S/z
/4•/4.4. --Very .y
O.5-..,.,d/
1
2Ii
1 1I6
on Co66/es0 Q
{ Rocilder5 -
roma:/
5734•
—{
/6#8
0
.s//z
46-0.7
0
3/�z
0
.Sd/n e,,
Cv �/Cr
li/effar
V
77 Lied
7C7.4.5/7 / 7 / Gor/cur maP o,oviY5d % L/ilio%
DRILLING LOGS
LINCOLN
DoVORE
ENGINEERS•
GEOLOGISTS
to
°
Z,/S.6- 1.4/
Qe{iyd/
osNss/e
Cobb/15
Ror/.�erS
OcUor�
COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS,"
PUEBLO , GLENWOOD SPRINGS ,
GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE ,
WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS
SUMMARY SHEET
Soil Sample L«n Cagy /c4.) Test No. Gs -i/95"
Location O,eeeez Fiaw9 M.rn er-a,„o 'roper& Dc`F /0/2/79
1 Boring No. s Depth s'
Test by So
Sample No.
/
Natural Water Content (w) /9.9
%
In lacc Density (To) pcf
Specific Gravity (Gs)
SIEVE ANALYSIS:
Sieve No. % Passing
1 1/2"
Plastic Limit P.L. /SS %
Liquid Limit L L zs.e %
Plasticity Index P.I. /0.9 %
1"
Shrinkage Limit
3/4"
Flow Index
1/2"
"Shrinkage Ratio
4
Volumetric Change %
10
Lineal Shrinkage %
20 /00
MOISTURE DENSITY: ASTM METHOD
Optimum Moisture Content - wa J°o
40 99.9
100 93
200 9/.4
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS:
Grain size (mm) %
Maximum Dry Density -Td pcf
California Bearing Ratio (av)
Swell • / Days S t
Swell against 797 Wo //r• 7 %
psf gain
BEARING:
House! Penetrometer (av) /GOo
• at C9.9
.00s ,fo,o
_
psf
Unconfined Compression (qu) /491 psf
Plate Bearing• psf
Inches Settlement
Consolidation % under psf
PERMEABILITY:
K (at 20°C)
Void Ratio
Sulfates /000{ ppm.
SOIL ANALYSIS
LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
Soil Sample s,//y .5-.../74/(&A!)67/s*
Pro j ect o s.e 6s..i%y P..--Asersl,!), Piapei v
Sample Location yW-S, eo'z7 /y
10
9
0
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Test No. 6s -//9S
Date 9/zG/79
Test by ,Cryo
" 14"h"U" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #k200 - Sieve No,
1
Sample No.
2
Specific Gravity
Moisture Content
Effective Size
Cu
Cc
Fineness Modulus
L.L. $ P.I. ,v,o %
psf
BEARING
Sieve Size
% Passing
1 1/2"
1"
3/4"
,o
go.7
77.4
1/2"
3/B
7/.
4.G
4
10
20
40
100
200
67 7
49,0
406
se.7
z4.0
.0200
005
eo.0
9.z
s.G
Sulfates
Po"
PPm
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT TO CLAY
Coarse
1 Fine
Co.
Medium
Fine
Nonplastic to Plastic
\\NN
)
I
I
I
1
1000
vl
1�
I
Mame
1
Uc
" 14"h"U" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #k200 - Sieve No,
1
Sample No.
2
Specific Gravity
Moisture Content
Effective Size
Cu
Cc
Fineness Modulus
L.L. $ P.I. ,v,o %
psf
BEARING
Sieve Size
% Passing
1 1/2"
1"
3/4"
,o
go.7
77.4
1/2"
3/B
7/.
4.G
4
10
20
40
100
200
67 7
49,0
406
se.7
z4.0
.0200
005
eo.0
9.z
s.G
Sulfates
Po"
PPm
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
Soil Sample Si// rNLJ, sarrdy
SUMMARY SHf ET
Test No. !>s-//9T
Location tatenroe F;.+si/y ,4srrtnc
hO P%Deny Dc r• 9/x6/79
Boring No. 3 Depth
/s'
Test by kMP
Sample No.
3
Natural Water Content (w) 23.2
%
In 'lace Density (To) pd
Specific Gravity (Gs)
SIEVE ANALYSIS:
Sieve No. % Passing
1 1/2"
Plastic Limit P L -- %
Liquid Limit L. L -
Plasticity Index P.I. NwnP/Bs/ie %
1"
Shrinkage Limit
3/4"
Flow Index
1/2" /00
Shrinkage Ratio
4 99.9
Volumetric Change
10 90•th
Lineal Shrinkage %
20 95;3
MOISTURE DENSITY: ASTM METHOD
Optimum Moisture Content - wo J°o
40 9/• OP
100 73.4
200 ..5-9.s
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS:
Grain size (mm) %
Maximum Dry Density -Td_ pcf
California Bearing Ratio (av) ok
Swell. Days
Swell against psf Wo gain%
BEARING:
Housel Penetrometer (av) 3oco
,02 /3C4.
psf
Unconfined Compression (qu)
psf
Plate Bearing• psf
Inches Settlement
Consolidation % under psf
PERMEABILITY:
K (at 20°C)
Void Ratio
Sulfates .z sof ppm.
SOIL ANALYSIS
LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
S
• /�
N 0
m r
✓ Z
i
O 0
co
W
D c
�0—
= N z
oom
m
0
9cm
aN°Z
rnmm
N 2 33
Storm King Road
GLENWOOD BUSINESS CENTER
W
z
o m
mco (�
(o
o m
13, CZ
N DO
•
:I'111 1111:1I 1
1111111
III III
r
L1761
Storm King Road
--a
010
fi
1111 ■
V
■
■ ■11111I1111M1IV
1 ►1.1; : 1,
!;111'1
i
'I
o
rY
r
11
thz
GJ
ii;li 1 ll1111111 til
1Jcam mu(
Fi
461....,,Amomargr.„0,
v.1+1111 iI
k i�}
111
II
0
I
�_aI1tf111111.iO
I f.,1i l l fll\?
LW Si ■ - U A llwww 11• /111.111M IN 11111111MININIINEMINOM•U-1111
A11 ••1.•11��.w
I
I
C)
r
m
z
TTN1T:
C,
m
z
m
DIEMOZ CONSTRUCTION CO.
214 Centr Drive
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, eCOLORADO 81601
(303) 945.6712 945.7460
.106
SHEET NO. OF
CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE_I-I S-A(r
SCALE
P1t arkc� .('5,s n ��eP(a.....? a� '79
p7'p'r on c%n& 24,g
(9 l
.. -thh i;s .Inducted OEAssvmc.) oto
. 2A.f3 dG Dia40/04)i, Ler/ feel s4
Dccd�i
l,;cnwooct
'f}- D Dm
c71oY14 (� 2ottllJ ' mr
b`w/p
;chtdect
)et to
1. D.V......... r �.'
. 2SO�9G Ip..j1
iI......
1 i ' 1 I
I
I i
November 24, 1980
Garfield County Commissioners
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
81601
Dear County Commissioners:
RE: FRAMEWORK PLAN
Glenwood Parnership is pleased to present a unique develop-
ment proposal for 16.4 acres of West Glenwood commercial
land.
Our intent is to build one of the finest business complexes
in the area. The development will be retained under one
ownership, and will be designed and managed to serve local
business needing quality office, showroom, light assembly,
warehouse, service facilities and general business space.
We would like to complete construction of Phase 1 (2.6 acres)
of the Glenwood Business Center in the summer of 1981. Full
development of all 16.4 acres will depend upon future market
demand and could take 5 to 10 years to realize.
When fully developed, the Center will contain approximately
230,000 square feet of business space and 2 or 3 dwelling
units for maintenance and security personel.
Thank you for considering our project. We look forward
to working with you.
Very truly yours,
Floyd Diemoz
Glenwood Partnership
318 20th Street
P.O. Box 326
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
(303) 945-6712
November 24, 1980 (Revised 2/9/81)
Garfield County Commissioners
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
81601
Dear County Commissioners:
RE: FRAMEWORK PLAN
Glenwood Parnership is pleased to present a unique develop-
ment proposal for 16.4 acres of West Glenwood commercial
land.
Our intent is to build one of the finest business complexes
in the area. The development will be retained under one
ownership, and will be designed and managed to serve local
business needing quality office, showroom, light assembly,
warehouse, service facilities and general business space.
We would like to complete construction of Phase 1 (2.6 acres)
of the Glenwood Business Center in the summer of 1981. Full
development of all 16.4 acres will depend upon future market
demand and could take 5 to 10 years to realize.
When fully developed, the Center will contain approximately
230,000 square feet of business space and 2 or 3 dwelling
units for maintenance and security personel.
Thank you for considering our project. We lock forward
to working with you.
Very truly yours,
Floyd Diemoz
Glenwood Partnership
318 20th Street
P.O. Box 326
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
(303) 945-6712
Contents
Location 1
Site boundaries 2
Slope, soils and hazards 3
Existing zoning 4
Surrounding land use 5
Development objectives and restrictive controls 6
Market demand 7
The framework plan g
The site plan 9
Phasing 10
Phase 1 schematic plan 11
Lot coverage 12
Setbacks and heights 13
Roads 14
Example of similar center 15
Utilities 16
Surrounding property owners 19
Legal description 22
Location
Downtown Glenwood Springs
West Glenwood Springs
Site Boundaries
Slope, Soils
and Hazards
The site has a gentle 3% slope, falling in
elevation from 5,745 feet on the north to
5,720 feet on the south. Surface drainage is
fair to good.
An engineering report documenting the results
of a subsurface soils investigation was pre-
pared by Lincoln-DeVore. Subsurface Soils
Investigation, October 16, 1979. The report
concluded:
• There are no hazards on this site which
could result from slope instability, land-
slides, rockfalls, debris flows, soil
creep, or flooding.
• A Storm King Thrust Fault is believed to
exist south of the site. The Fault is
concealed, no evidence of faulting can
be seen at ground surface, and no known
seismic activity has ever been recorded
in relation to it. The fault therefore
does not represent a significant hazard
to the site.
• No special load bearing, shrink -swell,
or corrosivity problems were found.
*Location of test boring used to obtain a good
profile of subsurface soils. While some vari-
ation was noted from point to point, suffici-
ent information was obtained so that no
further test borings were deemed necessary.
3
Existing Zoning
SOUTH OF ROAD 130. The site and adjacent
areas to the east, west and south are zoned
"Limited Commercial". Allowed uses include
residential, commercial, wholesale and retail
establishments, personal and general services,
offices, and community buildings.
Commercial establishments must meet the
following code requirements:
(1) All business operations must be conducted
within a building.
(2) All storage materials must be within a
building or obscured by a fence.
(3) All vehicle loading must be on private
property.
(4) No dust, noise, glare or vibration can
be projected beyond the lot.
NORTH OF ROAD 130. Land north of County Road
130 is zoned Residential/Limited/Urban Density.
This zone allows single family dwellings at a
density of 7,500 square feet per lot.
BUSINESS CENTER USES. All uses proposed for
Glenwood Business Center are allowed uses
within the present zoning.
4
';:
�
14
+�w .ot b• .p �y
c :x(•y�y,•f
1LY
t f•
•a
0.-
.,
A
r x ' Single Family Residentiala' 4.-114C" q'4�- ,. Doctor's Office
+r c y -.p \ Scott
�F • , ,4'1 Axa• � 1 s , d ,1 1 '.% j, frjr h1 /�;� �.. Warehouse Commercial
'��; $L'i' , y''` +� ' '� & L 'Colorado West Petroleum Maintenance
.--, _!-da_.--- Residential Zoned Commercial
l! ' Undeveloped Zoned Commercial
11s
J ••
s 'T.
tgi
II
te
gait! i rJ< i. `, �. r' a y ;;. �.v• .-
6t [, ,
GLENWOOD
BUSINESS
CENTER
"Par--
Mobile Home Sales
Bread Warehouse
Service Stations
Restaurants
Convenience Store
Auto Repair
West Glen Body Shop '"
Tire Warehouse
MAM Restaurant
Service Station
•
Mo
7-11 Store
Liquor Store
Auto Dealers
Service Stations
Fast Food Restaurants
Floral
Mobile Homes
tels ----
Development Objectives
and Restrictive Controls
BUSINESSES SERVED. The Glenwood Business
Center will be a quality complex serving a
large variety of area businesses needing
office, studio, assembly, showroom, wholesale,
distribution, service and retail space.
PROJECT DESIGN. All elements of the Business
Center --site planning, buildings, parking,
roads, landscaping, signing, and lighting --
will be architecturally designed and managed
as a single complex. Buildings will be care-
fully designed and placed in an intensively
landscaped campus -like setting.
Special controls will be established and
strictly enforced so that high standards of
appearance and operation are maintained.
PROJECT OWNERSHIP. The Glenwood Partnership
intends to retain ownership of the entire
Business Center complex.
MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE. Management and
maintenance of all buildings and grounds will
be provided by the Business Center owner. To
achieve proper on-site management, two to
three dwelling units will be integrated into
the complex to provide housing for the project
manager and maintenance personel.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Businesses producing
noise, fumes, or other characteristics which
could disturb the quiet enjoyment of adjoin-
ing properties or tenants will not be allowed.
OUTSIDE STORAGE. Businesses will not be
allowed to cause, maintain or permit any vis -
able outside storage on or about the Center.
SIGNING. A central signing system will be
designed, and the Business Center manager
will be responsible for all signing through-
out the complex. Individual businesses will
not be allowed to hang insignias, or other
descriptive material on the buildings, build-
ing windows, or grounds.
6
BUSINESSES EXCLUDED. The Glenwood Business
Center will exclude the following uses listed
in the limited commercial code:
Animal clinics and shelters; boarding and
rooming houses; hotel, motel, lodge;
Church, community building; day nursery and
school; auditorium; public building for
administration; fraternal lodge; art gallery;
museum; library;
Hospital; clinic; nursing or convalescent
home;
Wholesale and retail establishment selling
mobile homes, feed and feed lots;
Bank; barber shop; beauty shop; laundromat;
drycleaning; mortuary; reading room; private
club; theater and indoor recreation;
Repair and service of automobiles; vehicular
rental;
Mobile home; parking lot or garage as principal
use of the lot;
Automotive service station or washing facility;
camper park; mobile home park;
Drive-in establishment where the customer
receives goods or services while occupying
a vehicle; water impoundments.
6B
Market Demand
BUILD OUT TIME. Since Glenwood Partnership.
plans to own the entire project and will be
selective about the types of tenants it serves,
the total potential market will be reduced
(see restrictive controls). The project
build out time, therefore, could be 5 to 10
years.
With a lengthy build out time, the exact
composition of the market is not known. We
estimate that somewhere between 30% and 80%
of all leasable space will be office space,
with the remainder being non -office usages.
THE FRAMEWORK PLAN. The framework plan on
the following page has been designed to allow
phased development and to accomodate either a
high or low office ratio in the future.
THE SITE PLAN. The Site Plan on page 9
illustrates the Center with roughly 65% office
space. The appearance, character, and func-
tion of the Center would remain essentially
the same regardless of the future office
ratios.
PHASE 1. Phase 1 development will coincide
with the construction of the adjacent Shopping
Center which is scheduled to begin in the
spring of 1981. The Phase 1 Schematic Plan
on page 11 presents a building with 45% office
use and 55% non -office use. While the use,
size, and configuration is our best guess of
Glenwood Business needs, we will have a better
picture once we contact potential users. For
this reason, we plan to advertize the center
immediately so that better market information
can be incorporated into the first building
design.
7
Market Demand
BUILD OUT TIME. Since Glenwood Partnership.
plans to own the entire project and will be
selective about the types of tenants it serves
the total potential market will be reduced
(see restrictive controls). The project
build out time, therefore, could be 5 to 10
years.
With a lengthy build out time, the exact
composition of the market is not known. We
estimate that somewhere between 30% and 80%
of all leasable space will be office space,
with the remainder being non -office usages.
THE FRAMEWORK PLAN. The framework plan on
the following page has been designed to allow
phased development and to accomodate either a
high or low office ratio in the future.
THE SITE PLAN. The Site Plan on page 9
illustrates the Center with roughly 50% office
space. The appearance, character, and func-
tion of the Center would remain essentially
the same regardless of the future office
ratios.
PHASE 1. Phase 1 development will coincide
with the construction of the adjacent Shopping
Center which is scheduled to begin in the
spring of 1981. The Phase 1 Schematic Plan
on page 11 presents a building with 45% office
use and 55% non -office use. While the use,
size, and configuration is our best guess of
Glenwood Business needs, we will have a better
picture once we contact potential users. For
this reason, we plan to advertize the center
immediately so that better market information
can be incorporated into the first building
design.
7
No On-Stroot Parking
The Framework Plan
County Road 130 -No On -Street Parking
Minn 1uIu1lihu111111 uluuMI11111�nhIIlihIIlIlin $nmnu.
El El C MI MI
MI
in a W o 0
-
=Cm 0 NI
e
Buildings, Internal Circulation, and Off -Street Parking - a •
0 0 o a
0 • 0 a
a aMI
•• o
VIII 1uuIIIuuu1 lull../,���
''4 32 Foot Wide Central Access Road \�_ -
� MI
111111111111111.1���
�t,���1 ar%V -
laa
-
a
Mi
a
aa
I.
✓
1I.o
in
nnil ifl n....u.,1
Major
Entry
gni nall1111111111
Buildings, Internal Circulation, and Off -Street Parking
III11111IIIIIII
Service
Entry
1111111111
IuuuII1111111
Service Road
AVa
Internal Access to
Shopping Center Parking Lot
8
County Road 130
Site Plan
tri+ar.�.ui■G. •
r
Major Entry
rService Road
••
I
I
I
•
I
0 50 100 150
GLENWOOD BUSINESS CENTER SITE PLAN SHOWING 65% OFFICE
9
Service Road
%Y.®19..1..®..®.■-.■_..-.■-.■-..-UU- • •
fir®J••
0 50 100 150
GLENWOOD BUSINESS CENTER SITE PLA SHOWING 50% OFFICE
9
rat" ITIHrIMHILIIHUIMMINFI
Cm
Phase '
4.
Phase
c:j
111111111111111
Phase
Phase;
Phasing
1111 1111111MMAIUM
_01
Phase t4
• ji) 14t
-740 • •
.-4:t4, • 4!
tt444
.4.
Phase
PO 5
.3 LrS, t4i
#411111Unalififfalliffiffitta
10
Phase 1 Schematic Plan
11
Site Coverage
SITE PLAN PHASE 1
USE COMMENTS SHOWING 65% OFFICE PRELIMINARY PLAN
Total Land Area
16.4 Acres Minus 0.6 Acres for County
Road ROW -- 15.8 Acres to be developed.
15.8 Acres 2.6 Acres
688,800 sq.ft. 116,200 sq.ft.
Building Area
231,100 sq.ft. 30,800 sq.ft.
(34% coverage) (27% coverage)
Paved Roads, Parking &
Service Courtyards
(No. of Parking Spaces)
The Parking Formula is:
1 space per 200 sq.ft. of office and 1
space per 1,000 sq.ft. of assembly space
in an office/warehouse type building.
1 space per 300 sq.ft. of office space
in a pure office building.
338,100 sq.ft.
(49% coverage)
( 711 spaces)
64,600 sq.ft.
(56% coverage)
(90 spaces)
Sidewalks All sidewalks are 5.5 feet wide. 21,800 sq.ft. 2,800 sq.ft.
(3% coverage) (2% coverage)
Landscaping Within the
Final Property Line
The Complex will be handsomely land-
scaped and maintained. Phase 1 however
will have a higher coverage ratio.
97,800 sq.ft. 18,000 sq.ft.
(14% coverage) (15% coverage)
Landscaping Between the
Property Line and the
County Roads.
These areas will be landscaped and
maintained.
30,000 sq.ft. 3,400 sq.ft.
(+4% coverage) (+3% coverage)
Other Residential Uses are allowed by right 2 to 3 dwelling units no dwelling units
in the Commercial Code for the manager, in Phase 1
caretaker & security
NOTE: County requirements are presently 1 parking space per
200 sq.ft. of office floor area. Other areas have
found this could produce excessive parking areas and
are re-evaluating this ratio. Our intent in using
the 300 sq.ft. formula is to anticipate a reduced
single passanger auto use in the future.
12
USE
COMMENTS
Site Coverage
SITE PLAN
SHOWING 50% OFFICE
Total Land Area
16.4 Acres Minus 0.6 Acres for County
Road ROW -- 15.8 Acres to be developed.
15.8 Acres
688,800 sq.ft.
PHASE 1
PRELIMINARY PLAN
2.6 Acres
116,200 sq.ft.
Building Area
231,100 sq.ft.
(34% coverage)
30,800 sq.ft.
(27% coverage)
Paved Roads, Parking &
Service Courtyards
(No. of Parking Spaces)
County Code requires 1 parking space per
200 sq.ft. of office space, excluding
warehouse areas. The parking formula
used for the illustrative site plan is
1 space per 200 sq.ft. of office and 1
space per 1000 sq.ft. of warehouse type
space. See parking note below.
338,100 sq.ft.
(49% coverage)
( 711 spaces)
64,600 sq.ft.
(56% coverage)
(90 spaces)
Sidewalks
All sidewalks are 5.5 feet wide.
21,800 sq.ft.
(3% coverage)
2,800 sq.ft.
(2% coverage)
Landscaping Within the
Final Property Line
The Complex will be handsomely land-
scaped and maintained. Phase 1 however
will have a higher coverage ratio.
97,800 sq.ft.
(14% coverage)
18,000 sq.ft.
(15% coverage)
Landscaping Between the These areas will be landscaped and 30,000 sq.ft.
Property Line and the maintained. (+4% coverage)
County Roads.
3,400 sq.ft.
(+3% coverage)
Other Residential Uses are allowed by right
in the Commercial Code
2 to 3 dwelling units
for the manager,
caretaker & security
no dwelling units
in Phase 1
PARKING NOTE: The parking formula we have adopted is being successfully used for office/
warehouse type buildings throughout California, Oregon and Colorado. For pure office
buildings, many communities are finding that the ratio of 1 space per 200 sq.ft. of
office floor area can result in excessive parking. In the future, this imbalance may
become more pronounced as increased car pooling and gasoline prices reduce single passenger
auto use. While the illustrative site plan shown in this report more than meets existing
code requirements, our intent will be to monitor parking trends so that future phases do
not result in excessive parking areas.
12
ITEM
COMMERCIAL CODE
Setbacks and Heights
FRAMEWORK PLAN
PHASE 1 SCHEMATIC PLAN
Northern Property Line
Setback (County Road 130)
Front yard:set back--25ft.
from lot line or 50 ft. from
road centerline, whichever
is greater.
Buildings will not front onto
County Road 130 and will be
at least 50 ft. from the
existing centerline.
Not applicable
Western Property Line
Setback (New County Road)
Front yard: set back--25ft.
from lot line or 50 ft. from
road centerline, whichever
is greater.
Buildings will be set back
roughly 70 ft. from the
property line.
Building is 93 ft. from the
property line.
Eastern Property Line
Setback
Rear Yard: set back --7.5 ft.
Buildings would be set back
at least 7.5 ft.
Not applicable
Southern Property Line
Setback
Rear Yard: set back--7.5ft.
Buildings would be set back
at least 7.5 ft.
Building to be 25 ft. to 30
ft. from line.
Building Heights 25 feet
One story: approx. 17 feet One story: approx. 17 feet
Two story: approx. 28 feet
13
Setbacks and Heights
ITEM COMMERCIAL CODE FRAMEWORK PLAN PHASE 1 SCHEMATIC PLAN
Northern Property Line
Setback (County Road 130) Front yard:set back--25ft. Buildings will not front onto Not applicable
from lot line or 50 ft. from County Road 130 and will meet
road centerline, whichever setback requirements.
is greater.
Western Property Line
Setback (New County Road) Front yard: set back--25ft. Buildings will be set back
from lot line or 50 ft. from roughly 70 ft. from the
road centerline, whichever property line.
is greater.
Building is 93 ft. from the
property line.
Eastern Property Line
Setback
Rear Yard: set back --7.5 ft. Buildings would be set back Not applicable
at least 7.5 ft.
Southern Property Line
Setback
Side Yard: set back--10.0ft. Buildings would be set back Building to be 25 ft. to 30
at least 10.Oft. ft. from line.
Building Heights
25 feet to the top of a flat One story: approx. 17 feet One story: approx. 17 feet
roof, excluding parapet walls Two story: approx. 25 feet
and noninhabitable building
appurtenances.
13
Roads
TRIP GENERATION. The amount of traffic
generated by the Business Center will be low
compared to most commercial uses. This is
because retail sales will be held to a mini-
mum. The following table illustrates this:
TRIP GENERATION RATES
USE
NO. OF WEEKDAY
VEHICLE TRIP ENDS
PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
BUSINESS CENTER USES:
manufacturing
warehousing
general light industrial
typical business mix
general office building
OTHER COMMERCIAL USES:
shopping center
supermarket
bank
convenience market
fast food restaurant
4.0
5.0
5.4
7.3
12.3
49.9
125.5
169-192.0
323-577.5
553.0
Source: Trip Generation, 2nd. Ed., 1979.
Institute of Transportation Engineers,
Washington, D.C. The rate reflects all trips
entering plus all trips leaving the site over
a 24 hour period.
ROADS. The majority of trips to and from the
Business Center will be handled by Interstate -
70. A 60 foot right of way along the western
edge of the site will be dedicated to the
County for a new road. This road, along with
U.S. 6 and 24 (west of the I-70 interchange)
will be most heavily used by Business Center
traffic.
Business Center traffic will function similar
to the proposed shopping center where, in a
1979 report, traffic engineers estimated that
less than 1% of traffic traveling to or from
the shopping center would be using County
Road 130 and Mel -Ray Road.
BUSINESS CENTER ROADS. All Business Center
roads will be privately owned and maintained.
14
Example of Similar
Business Center
Photo showing office -warehouse building with off-street parking and strict sign controls.
15
n�u�umiuu nuuwu
Utilities
Letters of approval from utility
entities are reproduced on the
following pages:
•West Glenwood Springs Water
District
• City of Glenwood Springs
Electric Department
• Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co.
• Mountain Bell
• West Glenwood Springs
Sanitation District
16
WEST GLENW00D SPRINGS WATER DISTRICT
c/o Ronald W. Johnson, Esq.
P. 0. Box 983
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
November 20, 1980
:1r. Floyd Diemoz
Glenwood Partnership
P. O. Dox 326
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Supply of Water For Building Facilities
Dear Mr. Diemoz:
In response to your letter of November 17, 1980, in
regard to supply of water for the building facilities which
you contemplate constructing, this is to advise you that the
M-st Glenwood Springs Water District will attempt to provide
water to your facilities within the limitations of availability
of water and within the limitations created as a result of
the excess water contract which the District has with the
City of Glenwood Springs.
As you know, a storage tank is being constructed which
hopefully will be completed by next spring and should improve
the District's capabilities with reference to the supply of
water.
utile the District agrees to provide water to your fac-
ilities to the extent of its ability, you will still be
obligated to rake formal application to the district so that
we can determine the amount of fees to be paid. 20% of the
fees will be required upon approval of your application.
Hopefully this latter will meet the requirements of the
County Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of your
subdivision application. If you need further assurances or
letters, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
WESTGGLENW00D �(S`�PRINGS WATER DISTRICT
Dy: Rk. i / `:..n
ROBERT BEIIIYYYGcrl,,SIDENT
RB:vp
GlenGlanh Springs flecfrit $gaunt
SD,dnceD Syringe, CaleraDe 81601
November 12, 1980
Floyd Diemom
Glenwood Business Center
P o Box 326
Glenwood Springs Co 81601
RE: GLENWOOD BUSINESS CENTER
At the request of Floyd Diemoz, the land owner, we feel that
sufficient electric power is available at the site.
It will be necessary to send a letter of Request for Power,
showing total project load plus an approximate phasing schedule.
All necessary construction end transformer costa will be borne by
the owner -developer.
/ours trul
j611-0 laaL4/
Jim Gambrel
GLENW00D SPRINGS ELECTRIC SYSTEM
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL OAS COMPANY INC.
November 13, 1980
Floyd Diemoz
Glenwood Partnership
P.O. Box 326
Glenwood Springs, Colo 81601
Project Name: Glenwood Business Center
Location Directly north of West Glenwood Mall
Dear Mr. Diemoz:
Zr. regard to gas rvice a lability for your new -usicess at:. locate)
in West Glenwood between Higiway 6 6 24 and Donegan --
to inform you that this particular eras has twolines. _ On _
inch (2") main located an the North sing f Highway 6an
is a three inch (3") main leaved on the rd)side _ _
either ofwhich would be adaqurte for your development o- ..
future deveu: lopment, We respectfully request, how.vor, that a-ran -
be made to allow us to tap the three inch(3") lion in Dy .cgani d fez -
your
r
your development as we would like to retain the two inch (_") lin. is
Highway 6 6 24 for other developments where we may not have the option
of a second gas main.
Very truly yours,
y 127= --�
Leland F. Hines
District Manager
Ct
17
Glc:v c n' Business Center
Clen-ood fnrinCs, Colors do 31601
Berr
Mountain Bell
'•2 Crr-n'. :v
Glenwood , Co 31601
Mov. 13 ,1980
rc=-,on-:n to your rc;uest regnrdin: the provision of
silys.�.,�r `cc for Ct ....nod Business Censer in 'Test
..
Clc-asr', Isu5:::it the folio•-in0 intonation.
1 icic;.:one service, while not rvr i1, i>lr_ to r11
i.ril iC.t-•t ,nits sill he provided by 1lour.Crin
c •.'. '' ..mTrriff,
ccccrdr,u .r Coy jiff
Cnlor'-do Public Utilities Co.s si'ssionNo. 5.
2. .. .. .cin B:11 2 rw.oplier for the telcohor.e
service ill Tits r -c '"oust::i': Bell is 'privi:te
cfl n: ny, '
. d mini, iregul:l'.ec, by
�.'r Fu'+l is U` 11l i.tirc� Coa.�.:: irsi.on rnd for r.erstate
rtes in regel.r! ed b'- the Pcderol Cotrrtunicctions
Cass.. cion
'cico';onr frcili°ies L.rve not Leen ertondeci to
ndividur . units.
A. in cc-- rto or schedule for instrllrtion for
f. -Cil. i-.l.es tilill: rrcn. r: Otto! he given rt. this lime
ur 11 ccoceificd infon•Ltion ern be supplied ns to
:-cicn`•nne rrcilities required. Upon r -_c cipt by
icur`•r in Bell of the requirements, it mu be
dot :r. i.ned th.nt certrin costs will be borne by
n•.ner of -;id units.
Ilse,- he rdviscd thri :s of this yri.ting. a commitment for
nrovic.ing rcrvicc crin:ot be stet until studies rre corpleted.
^ e studies mill of necessity be node upon receipt by
Bell of the services ;.nd ioc.ctions of service
.. r.,;.reci by :'.e developer or owners.
Yours truly,
.` w•••-• Cc , e—
for Business Office
'.:urger
West Glenwood Springs Sanitation District
P.O. Box 866
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
945-6069
Glenwood Partnership
c/o Floyd Diemos
P.O. Box 326
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
Dear Sir;
November 19, 1980
We have received your request for sewer service availability from the
West Glenwood Springs Sanitation District.
At this time the West Glenwood Springs Sanitation District is able to
provide sewer service for properties within the district boundaries.
Our current tap fee is $1,000.00 per unit.
Since ply,
e Enew.ld
West Glenwood Springs Sanitation District
Board President
LE/dg
18
Surrounding
Property Owners
1. Schultz, Kurt Edward 101 Ponderosa Dr.
&Leslie Briggs Glenwood Springs,
Co. 81601
2. Shuster, Patrick Lee
3. Moser, Kenneth L.
& Marguerite R.
4. Berges, Lillian Opal
5. Gray, John E. &
Barabara J.
6. Bradley, Paul L.Jr.
7. Milner, Lois F.
&Walter C.
8. Smith, Roy F.
& Elizabeth
9. Wareham, Wally B.
& Carol Ann
10. Dorman, Walter D.
& Marilyn
11. Reed, Randall L.
& Wanda J.
12. Reedy, Paul W.
& Edith M.
301 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
319 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
335 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
349 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
P.O. Box 1545
G.S., Co. 81601
381 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
415 Co. Road 130
G.S.,Co. 81601
433 Donegan Rd.
G.S.,CO. 81601
449 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
461 Co. Road 130
G.S.,Co. 81601
P.O. Box 221
G.S., CO. 81601
19
0
air ;ID%i�,�•✓
0
0
'132
•1-1s1s1-1si
1uiUI 1
c
c
0
171
5725
�.
4 z q>`r
V
e
ezi
Surrounding
Property Owners
1. Schultz, Kurt Edward 101 Ponderosa Dr.
&Leslie Briggs Glenwood Springs,
Co. 81601
2. Shuster, Patrick Lee
3. Moser, Kenneth L.
& Marguerite R.
4. Berges, Lillian Opal
5. Gray, John E. &
Barabara J.
6. Bradley, Paul L.Jr.
7. Milner, Lois F.
&Walter C.
8. Smith, Roy F.
& Elizabeth
9. Wareham, Wally B.
& Carol Ann
10. Dorman, Walter D.
& Marilyn
11. Reed, Randall L.
& Wanda J.
12. Reedy, Paul W.
& Edith M.
301 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
319 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
335 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
349 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
P.O. Box 1545
G.S., Co. 81601
381 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
415 Co. Road 130
G.S.,Co. 81601
433 Donegan Rd.
G.S.,CO. 81601
449 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
461 Co. Road 130
G.S.,Co. 81601
P.O. Box 221
G.S., CO. 81601
19
13. Karsten, August H.
& Minerva H.
14. Snoddy, Joseph P.
& Phyllis J.
15. Motichka, Geo.,
& Mary G.
16. Roberts, Paul E.
& Hope A.
17. Augustine, Victor R.
& Laura F.
18. Eicher, Dennis M.
19. Bissing, Franklin E.
& Betty J.
20. Sarno, Carlo
& David A.
21. Mattivi, Arthur M.
& Jewel D.
22. Clayton, Grant J.
& Audrey G.
23. Page, Flossie
529 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
547 Donegan Road
G.S., Co. 81601
559 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
571 Co. Road 130
G.S., Co. 81601
291 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
259 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
259 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
227 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
201 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
191 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
151 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
24. Interstate Brands
Corp.
25. Brock, Vernon F.
& Nola M.
26. Gilstrap,
P.O. Box 1627
Kansas City, Mo.
64141
15493 W. 107 th
Longmont, Co.
80501
Richard D. P.O. Box 158
G.S., Co. 81601
27. Burke, Wesley A.
& Judith A., etat
Griffin, James E.
& Ann E.
28. Masias, Rbt. L.
& Sheila
29. Fattor, Eugene L.
& Mary D.
30. Texaco, Inc.
31. Bramalea Limited-
Ainbinder Co.
32. Wheeler, T.W.
Gregory, J.F.
Parkison, Willis
Dodo, Ralph
Wheeler, Helen
055 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
51117 Hwy 6&24
G.S., Co. 81601
P.O. Box 848
G.S., Co. 81601
Room 1010
3350 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, Cal.
90010
1867 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada M45 1R2
c/0 W. E. Parkison
P.O. Box 698
G.S., CO. 81601
20
ADDITIONAL PROPERTY
OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET
Frank J. Shaffer
028 Ponderosa Circle
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Jack F. & Lorraine Kagay
056 Ponderosa Circle
G.S., Co. 81601
Roy E. &Bernita C. Elwell
068 Ponderosa Circle
G.S., Co. 81601
David W.&Laura Ketterman
098 Ponderosa Circle
G.S., Co. 81601
Stephen E.&Dana L. Damm
080 Ponderosa Circle
G.S., Co. 81601
Harlan L. &
Gwendolyn Porter
060 Ponderosa Circle
G.S., Co. 81601
Marion L.&Shirley M. Baker
021 Ponderosa Circle
G.S., Co. 81601
M. W. & C. L. Sweeney
435 Juniper
G.S., Co. 81601
Daniel G.&Della Cornwall
Rt. 2 Box 280
G.S., Co. 81601
James L.&Velda B. Mangan
447 Chapparal Circle
G.S., Co. 81601
Terrence J. &
Jean L. Bridgman
P.O. Box 745
G.S., Co. 81601
Dennis Lee &
Michelle Zwickl
P.O. Box 1201
G.S., Co. 81601
Melvin J.&Betty Zwickl
P.O. Box 877
G.S., Co. 81601
James D.&Edith Thompson
P.O. Box 393
G.S., Co. 81601
Warren A. &
Margaret A. Nordhausen
088 Chapparal Circle
G.S., Co. 81601
Chas. M. Stoddard
P.O. Box 697
G.S., Co. 81601
Albert A.&Karen A. Brunner
031 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
Clyde W., Jr. &
Cheryl L. Daugherty
290 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
Wm. Dodd -Scott, Jr.
862 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
Richard A. &
Shirley C. Yates
2824 So. Knoxville
Denver, Co. 80227
Katherine Wagner
228 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
John Lee &
Dora Jane Poyner
206 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
Archie C. &
Elsie V. McGinley
194 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
Gene E. Forster &
Primo Martino
170 Mel -Ray Road
G.S., Co. 81601
Florence Rapp
1771 Penn St.
Denver, Co., 80203
Flo Rapp
1771 Penn St.
Denver, Co., 80203
Manual & Rita M. Cruz
P.O. Box 713
G.S., Co. 81601
John B.& Rose B. Pilati
1103 Bennett Ave.
G.S., Co. 81601
Dennis D. Patterick &
James L. Harris
1121 Blake Ave.
G.S., Co., 81601
Chas.,& Amelia Dominguez
P.O. Box 333
G.S., Co. 81601
American Oil Co.
Atten:
J.D. Stewart
1102 Security Life Bldg.
Denver, Co., 80202
21
Legal Description
A tract of land situate in Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 89.
West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of
Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Coiunencing at the South Quarter Corner of Section 34, Township 5
South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; thence S 87°
11' 46" E 670.12 feet to the point of intersection of the west
line of the Mel Ray Subdivision and the south right-of-way line
of County Road No. 130, the true point of beginning; thence S 01°
52' 00" W 575.96 feet along said west line of the Mel Ray Subdivision;
thence N 87° 18' 00" W 615.36 feet; thence S 47° 42' 00" W 125.06
feet; thence N 87° 18' 00" W 521.98 feet; thence N 02° 44' 00" E
603.39 feet to a point on said south right-of-way line of County
Road No. 130; thence along said south right-of-way line of County Road
No. 130 N 89° 50' 00" E. 1218.57 feet to the true point of beginning,
containing 16.446 acres more or less.
22