HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication-PermitGarfield County No. liCb3G I
Building & Sanitation Department
108 8th Street, Suite #401 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Office 945-8212 Inspection Line 384-5003
Job Address: 2369 Crytal Springs Rd, Carbondale
Locality: _________ _..::2.:..;39:...:3.....:-2::..4..::.2.....:-0...:.0:...:-3...:.3.:..;8 ---=-:--:--:------:--
1l1~{07 ~pi~ 'b.
install water tank oiU, ~~ ~\..o.<. ·""~ Use of Building:
Owner: Callicotte Ranch LLC, Co limited liability co.
Contractor: Warner Construction ----------------------------
AmountofPermit: $1,935.37
--1' ~-/?1. '/o t:$1(o1
Date: Q-\\-cH-
Clerk: _ _...........x·~;,...,..\D.._,.~f-4-'\ (f'"-----
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
108 8"" Street, Suite 401, GleJ:!.wood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: 970-945-8212 I Fax: 970-384-3470 I Inspection Line: 9~
Z3CJ3· ZAZ-0()338
A SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED AND MUST BE
ISSUED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO.
~
0 Site Plan
Adjusted Valuations: S
CJ
CJ
TillS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOJD IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORlZED IS NOT COMMENCED VIJTHLN 180 DAYS,. OR, IF
CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A
PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
Dated Permit Issued:
l HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS
APPLICATION AND KNOWTIJE SAME TO BE 1RUE AND CORRECT. ALL
PROVISIONS OF LAWS GOVERNING THIS 'TYPE OF WORK WILL BE
COMPLETED WITHIN wHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE
GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORI1Y
TO~~'~Vl~O;L~A~TE~~O~R~ji~r,c; PROVlSIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR O CONSTRUCflON OR THE PERFORMANCE
Zoning:
ISDS No. &
AGREEMENr
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO 11-IE APPLlCANT AS OWNER. CONTRACTOR AND/OR THE AGENT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR OWNER '!D CONSTRUCT
TI-IE STRUCTURE AS DETAILEp ON PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITIED TO AND REVIEWEf? BY TI-IE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE !SSSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT, THE SIGNER HEREBY AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND LAND
USE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY GARFIELD COUN1Y PURSUANT TO AUTHORI'fY GIVEN LN 30.28.201 CRS AS AMENDED. TiiE SIGNER FURTI·IERAGREES
TIIAT IF THE ABOVE SAID ORDINANCES ARE NOT FULLY COMPILED WITH IN THE LCOATION. ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION. AND USE OFTIIE
ABOVE DESCRIBED STRUCTURE, 11-IE PEEMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY AND THAT THEN AND THERE IT SHALL BECOME
NULL AND VOID. THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMT BASED UPON PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER. DATA SHALL NOT PREVENT THE BillLDING OFFICIAL
FROM THEREAFTER REQUIRING THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN SAID PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA OR FROM PREVEJ\'TING
BUILDING OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON THEREUNDER WHEN IN VIOLATION OF THS CODE OR ANY OTHER ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF
TIIIS JURISDICTION. THE REVIEW OF SUBMITTED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED THEREAITER-DOES NOT CONSmUTE
AN ACCEPTANCE OF ANY RESPONSIBILITIES OR LJABLITIES BY GARFIELD COUNTY FOR ERRORS. OMISSIONS OR DISCREPENCIES. THE RESPONSJ
BILITY FOR THESE ITEMS AND IMPLEMENTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION RESTS SPECIFICIALLY WITH THE ARTICTECT, DESIGNER, BUILDER,
AND OWNER. COMMENTS ARE INTENDED TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND IN SUPPORT OF 11-IE OWNERS LNTEREST.
,,-UIEREB:Y,AO&r\JOWLEDGE :THAT-l·,f.IAYE::READ-;AND>t:J:NDERSTANIDYfHE'AGFffiEMENt ABO~:i ' , ' '~i>?Cff\::cpr ,,,,,,, , . . , , .
.(4> '7 15 B. 7 8 O(rl 26~ c~ i6G-o r/$ 8oo -.._____....::.---
,. CL2664 F/"31-b·'S=f
The following items are required by Garfield County for a final inspection:
1. A final Electrical Inspection from the Colorado State Electrical Inspector;
2. Permanent address assigned by Garfield County Building Department posted where readily
visible from access road;
3. A finished roof, a lockable house, complete exterior siding, exterior doors and windows
installed, a complete kitchen with cabinets, a sink with hot & cold running water, non-absorbent
kitchen floor coverings, counter tops and finished walls, ready for stove and refrigerator, all
necessary plumbing;
4. All bafhrooms must be complete, with washbowl, tub or shower, toilet stool, hot and cold
running water, noncabsorbent floors and walls finished and a privacy door;
5. All steps outside or inside over three (3) steps must have handrails, guard rails on balconies or
decks over 30" high constructed to all IBC and IRC requirements;
6. Outside grading done to where water will detour away from the building;
7. Exceptions to the outside steps, decks and grading may be made upon the demonstration of
extenuating circumstances, i.e. weather, but a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until
all the required items are completed and a final inspection made;
8. A final inspection sign off by the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department for driveway
installation, where applicable; as well as any final sign off by the Fire District, and/or State
Agencies where applicable.
9. If you will be connecting to a public water and/or sewer system, proof of the tap fees have been
paid and the connections inspected by the service provider prior to issuance of a C.O.
A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL THE
ABOVE ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.
****A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY TAKE UP TO 5 BUSINESS DAYS TO BE
PROCESSED AND ISSUED.
****CANNOT OCCUPY OR USE DWELLING UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY (C.O.) IS ISSUED. OCCUPANCY OR USE OF DWELLING WITHOUT A
C.O. WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY AND MAY BE GROUNDS
FOR VACATING PREMISES UNTIL ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE MET.
I understand and agree to abide by the above conditions for occupan~~d the issuance of a Cmifio~ G::' roc fuo dwollillg m<dec b"ilili"' pormil# ~' Jf-ti
7 Si1 Date
Bpapplicationoctober2006
· .. VALUATION/FEE DETERMINATION .
CA,ftrcotk. l<.a.JAd. LL-e..1 fr (6( •. {;p;;fe~ {J~ 4-:;
. A;pplicant t;:>s&S\, \)4-<le.', "f ,,.,,,A Subdivision ~\~ ; e;oq e. f2~ ~
Addr.ess '23 1.1 (i'?it;>U SfMe>,to; ~c\ Lot/Block .
Date .f:--JL.-<>1 .. · .·· . ~(oj)Contractor w!TNeJ<-co,..,-s{
Finished (Livable Area):
>Main·
l]ppet ·
··Lower
·other
W fr-T GfL TIJI-l tL
Cc:>~la..tt-c... \d"L' S Ut\\v...-+'hc.JV\.
Total Square Feet
Valuation
·<Basement:
·.Unfinished
Conversion of Unfinished to Finished
''Plari Check Fee for Ccinvei·sion
. Valuation
o··Garage:
.. Valuation
. Crawl Space:
Valuation
. Decks/Patios:
Covered
Valuation
··Open
·.Valuation
Total y aluation
CA ((; co tk /Za.tAvL [L0_.( pf-(6(•. L;,.;n:,J LicdJ?y ac,.
Applicant ()ex-), Q.,~a.\ "'r ,,=J Subdivision c::Jr\\. ; c.,0 \-~ <-f2~M-G~
Address '2 3 b '! C r1-'&'~ U. s f?!H .->J--; ~c.\ . Lot/Block
Date k--I !.. ·<>1 fvzt~'3)Contractor w 1\'N e-12.. c 0 ,._ .;-:(
Finished (Livable Area):
W fiT c;;rL T ;'J7-' \C. Main
Upper
Lower
Other
Co ~'-' T rl...f\--c... I cTL ' S \JJ\1 '-'-'A-h uv '-
Basement:
Total Square Feet
·Valuation
Unfinished
. Conversion of Unfinished to Finished
Plan Check Fee for Conversion
Valuation
Garage:
Valuation
Crawl Space:
Valuation
Decks/Patios:
Covered
Valuation
Open
Valuation
Total Valuation "\idi:p.
fTI:i: _3 c:.P A;-t:j) 1q35 37
N.w ms 4 I cJ.e. 'n
/?J~ ~'-Hl. 2/7/.40
l5 \ ioV...J cJ~
lor!l c cc<:J '?c-..p IJs
7?; Dt>CJ p J),JJI L-J.Q Kl
0CJ () ()(::} ~i-L?RIP
~{p, Ce4/
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING
970-945-8212
MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF
COMMERCIAL OR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
Including
NEW CONSTRUCTION
ADDITIONS
ALTERATIONS
And
MOVED BUILDINGS
In order to understand the scope of the work intended under a permit application and expedite
the issuance of a permit it is important that complete information be provided. When reviewing
a plan and it's discovered that required information has not been provided by the applicant, this
will result in the delay of the permit issuance and in proceeding with building construction. The
owner or contractor shall be required to provide this information before the plan review can
proceed. Other plans that are in line for review may be given attention before the new
information may be reviewed after it has been provided to the Building Department.
Please review this document to determine if you have enough information to design your
project and provide adequate information to facilitate a plan review. Also, please consider
using a design professional for assistance in your design and a construction professional for
construction of your project. Any project with more than ten (10) occupants requires the
plans to be sealed by a Colorado Registered Design Professional.
To provide for a more understandable plan and in order to determine compliance with the
building, plumbing and mechanical codes, applicants are requested to review the following
checklist prior to and during design.
Plans to be included for a Building Permit must be on draft paper at least 18"x 24"" and
drawn to scale.
I
Plans must include a floor plan, a concrete footing and foundation plan, elevations all sides with
decks, balcony steps, hand rails and guard rails, windows and doors, including the finish grade
and original grade line. A section showing in detail, from the bottom of the footing to the top of
the roof, including re-bar, anchor bolts, pressure treated plates, floor joists, wall studs and
spacing, insulation, sheeting, house-rap, (which is required), siding or any approved building
material. Engineered foundations may be required. Check with the Building Department.
A window schedule. A door schedule. A floor framing plan, a roofing framing plan, roof must
be designed to withstand a 40 pound per square foot up to 7,000 feet in elevation, a 90 M.P.H.
windspeed, wind exposure B or C, and a 36 inch frost depth.
All sheets need to be identified by number and indexed. All of the above requirements must be
met or your plans will be returned.
All plans submitted must be incompliance with the 2003 lBC, !PC, IMC and IFGC.
Applicants are required to indicate appropriately and to submit completed checklist at
time of application for a permit:
1.
2.
3.
Is a site plan included that identifies the location of the proposed structure, additions or
other buildings, setback easements, and utility easements showing distances to the
property lines from each corner of the proposed structure prepared by a licensed surveyor
and has the surveyors signature and professional stamp on the drawing? Slopes of 30%
or more on properties must be show on site plan. (NOTE: Section 106.2) Any site plan
for the placement of any portion of a structure within 50 ft. of a property line and not
within a previously surveyed building envelope on a subdivision final plat shall be
prepared by a licensed surveyor and have the surveyors signature and professional stamp
on the drawing. Any structure to be built within a building envelope of a lot shown on a
recorded subdivision plat, shall include a copy of the building envelope as it is shown on
the fin~t with the proposed structure located within the envelope.
Yes __ _
Does the site plan when applicable include the location of the I.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage
Disposal System) and distances to the property lines, wells (on subject property and
adjacent properties), streams or water courses? This information must be certified by a
licensed surveyor witli their signature and professional stamp on.)ll:e design.
Yes No . Not necessary for this project__;_/ __
Does~he s · e plan indicate the location and direction of the State, County or private road
accessi the property? ·
Yes __
2
4.
5.
6.
7.
8 ..
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Is the I.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage Disposal System) designed, stamped and signed by a
Colorado Registered ~eer?
Yes No__ Not necessary for this project __ _
Are the plans submitted for application review construction drawings and not drawings
that are stamped or marked identifying them as "Not for construction, for permit issuance
only", .)Wproval drawings only", "For permit issuance only" or similar language?
Yes No__ Not necessary for this project. __ _
Do the plans include a foundation plan indicating the size, location and spacing of all
reinforcing steel in accordance with the uniform building code or per stamped engineered
desig7
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project __
If the building is a pre-engineered structure, is there a stamped, signed engineered
found~plan for this building?
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project_. __
Do the plans indicate the location and size of ventilation -~~~gs for under floor crawl
spaces and the clearances required between wood and e~
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for project __
Do the plans indicate the size and location of the ventilation openings for the attic, roof
joist spaces and soffits? . /
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this prqject_/_
Do the plans include design loads as required under the IBC or IRC for roof
snow load.¥( a minimum of 40 pounds per square foot in Garfield County)?
Yes_/_ No__ Not necessary for this project __
Do the ~nclude design loads as required for floor loads under the IBC or IRC?
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project __
Does the plan include a building section drawing indicating foundation, wall, floor, and
roof conSt9J.Ction?
Yes_v_ No__ Not necessary for this project __
Is the winjl--Speed and exposure design included in the plan?
Yes_/_ No__ Not necessary for this project __
Does the bui ing section drawing include size and spacing of floor joists, wall studs,
ceiling · · ts, roof rafters or joists or trusses?
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project __
3
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Does the building section drawing or other detail include the method of positive
connectigr{of all columns and beams?
Yes_V_ No__ Not necessary for this project __
Does the elevation plan indicate the height of the building or proposed addition from the
undist~rbe rade to the rnidpointbetween the ridge and eave of a gable or shed roof or
the top of flat roof? (Check applicable zone district for building height maximum)
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project __
Does the plan include any stove or zero clearance fireplace planned for installation
including make and model and Colorado Phase l1 certifications or Phase l1 EPA
certification? ~
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project~
Doe. s the plan include a masonry fireplace including a fireplace se~ndicating design
to comply with the IBC or IRC? . /
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project__ ·
Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that egress/rescue windows
from sleeping rooms and/or basements comply with the requi~ofthe IBC or IRC?
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project __
Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that windows provide
natural light and ventilation for all habitable rooms? .--
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project_,......--__
Do the plans indicate the location of glazing subject to human impact such as glass doors,
glazing immediately adjacent to such doors; glazing adjacent to any surface normally
used as a walking surface; sliding glass doors; fixed glass panels; shower doors and tub
enclosures and specify safety glazing for these areas? ~
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project __
Do the plans include a complete design for all mechanical systems planned for
installatio:!).in this building?
Y es_v"'_ No Not necessary for this project __ _
Have all areas in the building been accurately identified for the intended use?
(Occupancy;fsidentified in the IBC Chapter 3) ·
Y es_V_ • No__ Not necessary for this project __ _
Does the plan indicate the quantity, form, use and storage of any hazardous materials that
may be in:..n(e in this building?
Yes_/_.... No__ Not necessary for this project __
4
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Is the location of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnaces, boilers and water heaters
indicated on the plan?
Yes__ No __ Not necessary for this project ~·
Do the plans indicate the location and dimension of restroom faciliti s and if more than
four employees and both sexes are employed, facilities for both es?
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project __
Do the plans indicate that restrooms and access to the building are handicapped
accessible? ~
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this prqject __
Have two (2) complete sets of construction drawings been submitted with the
applicatio~
Yes__L' No __
Have you designed or had this plan designed while considering building and other
construction code requirements? · ~
Yes__ No__ Not necessary for this project __
Does the plan accurately indicate what you intend to constrnct and what will receive a
final i~on by the Garfield County Building Department?
Yes__ No __
Do your plans comply with all zoning rules and regulations in the County related to your
zone district? For corner lots see supplemental section 5.05.03 in the Garfield County
Zoning R~lution for setbacks.
Yes V No __ _
Do you understand that approval for design and/or construction changes are required
prim: to t]:wimplementation of these changes?
Yes_V__ No __
Do you understand that the Building Department will collect a "Plan Review" fee from
you at the time of application and that you will be required to pay the "Permit" fee as well
as any "Septic System" or "Road Impact" fees required, at the time you pick up your
buildi~it?
Yes__ No __
Are you aware that you are required to call for all inspections required under the IBC
including appr val on a final inspection prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy
and occu cy of the building?
Yes__ No __
5
35. Are you aware t at the Permit Application must be signed by the Owner or a written
authority be ven for an Agent and that the party responsible for the project must comply
with the niform Codes?
Yes__ No __
36. Are you aware that you must call iu for an inspection by 3:30 the business day
before the requested inspection in order to receive it the following business day?
Inspections will be made between 7:30a.m. and 3:30p.m. Monday through Friday.
Inspections are to be called in to 384-5003.
37. Are you aware that requesting inspections on work that is not ready or not accessible
will re~a $50.00 re-inspection fee?
Yes__ No ___ _
38. Are you aware that prior to issuance of a building permit you are required to show proof
of a driveway access permit or obtain a statement from the Garfield County Road &
Bridge Department stating one is not necessary? You can contact the Road & Bridge
Departme~t ~5-860 1.
Yes TN"~----
39. Do you understand that you will be required to hire a State of Colorado Licensed
Electrician and Plumber to perform installations and hookups? The license number will
be required.)lhime of inspection.
Yes ~ No. _____ _
40. Are you aware, that on the front of the building permit application you will need to fill in
the Parcell Schedule Number for the lot you are applying for this permit on prior to
submittal of..mebuilding permit application? Your attention in this is appreciated.
Yes 7'N; _____ _
41. Do you know that the local fir~y require you to submit plans for their review
of fire safety issues? Yes No (Please check with the
building department about this requirement)
42. Do you understand that if you are planning on doing any excavating or grading to the
property prior to issuance of a building permit that you will be required to obtain a
grading permlf?
Yes_-"-V __ _
43. Did an Architect seal the plans for your commercial project? State Law requires any
commercial pr · ct with occupancy of more than 10 persons as per Section 1004 of the
IBC to pr re the plans and specifications for the project.
Yes No Not Necessary for this project ______ _
6
I hereby acknowledge that I have read, understand, and answered these questions to
______ th,e best of~bility. ~ {J),.,,.,AA /' ~~ J..
~ VOW/~ 7-sl•t;>7
Phone: 7to) 't7Z·osf S~ (ra~) 68hx>91 (evenings)
Project Name: U f{; tof/e tCfU\c h · &J(( kt 4,., fc;
Crcysbtl 5o.r,',.s !(d. /OJ ProjectAddress: Z?b9 r J
Note:
Date
If you answered "No" on any of these questions you may be required to provide this information
at the request of the Building Official prior to beginning the plan review process. Delays in
issuing the permit are to be expected. Work may not proceed without the issuance of the permit.
*If you have answered "Not necessary for this project" on any of the questions and it is
determined by the Building Official that the information is necessary to review the application
and plans to determine minimum compliance with the adopted codes, please expect the
following:
A. The application may be placed behind more recent applications for building permits in the
review process and not reviewed until required information has been provided and the
application rotates again to first position for review.
B. Delay in issuance of the permit.
C. Delay in proceeding with construction.
*If you answered "No" to this question the circumstances described in the question could result
in a "Stop Work Order" being issued or a "Certificate of Occupancy" not being issued.
Bpcomm
April 2006
7
PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST
Applicant B '-\..co h. Oe.1...\o p ~ Date G-"' I 1.. ·o '1
Building
~ngineered Foundation
V Driveway Pennit
~Surveyed Site Plan
~Septic Pennit and Setbacks
~Grade!ropography 30%
~If-! Attach Residential Plan Review List
_£Minimum Application Questionnaire
¢subdivision Plat Notes
~Fire ])epartment Review
/valuation Detennination/Fees
URed Line Plans/Stamps/Sticker
~Attach Conditions
~Application Signed
VPlan Reviewer To Sign Application
V Parcel/Schedule No .
.;4tt:,_ 40# Snow load Letter-Manf. Hms.
~Soils Report
GENERAL NOTES:
~ning/Zoning
-~-PPrrmoperty Line Setbacks
~~earn Setbacks
~o~n .
-~~gHeight
-Zng sign-off
__ Road Impact Fees
~RC Approval
---=-zrropograp_hy 40%
~P~gissues
-~_Snuhbrldiivviision Plat Notes
23 July 2007
To: Garfield County Staff
108 81h st.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: Troy G. Smith
56 Steele Street
Denver, Colorado 80206
Telephone 303.780.9396
Fax 303.780.9397
Re: Callicotte Ranch & Waner Construction
Dear Sir or Ma'am:
Please let it by known by my signature below, that Mr. Jerry Downs of Waner
Construction has our expressed written approval to acton our behalf (Callicotte
Ranch, LLC) with regard to any construction-related issue requiring a 'signature
from the owner' including, but not limited to, the permitting process and general
form 'sign-off authority.
Thank you; should you require additional verbal verification of this letter, I may be
reached at the following numbers:
Office:
Mobile:
Respectfully,
303-780-9396 X12
303-995-8910
~ J!j )J.::::0:J Tro~Smith
Vice President, Development
My Commission Expires 0612212010
~()A~~~
o-=tf z-3 lo-=r--
010/1001l'l
RetumTcx
Call-Rend), LL¢
c/o Busll DfMIIclr:mlnl
5G-sw.l
Den ....... 0080200
BARGAIN AND SALE DEED
KNOW Al.l. MEN BY THilSt l'R£S£NTS, that ROCKY MOUNTAIN MANSIONS Ill, Ll.C, a
Colorado Limited Liability Company, for the consideration ofTon Doll= and other good and valuable
considcrntion, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to CALLICO'llE RANCH, LLC, a Colorado
Limitod Liability Compillly, whose legal address is SGS~leS11'tet.Denver, Colomdo llOZ06, the following
water rights situate in the County of Garfield and State of Colorado, to. wit: 'J) F lb
Any and all water and water rights, ditch and dilj)h rigblll appurtenant to or IISed in
connection with the real property des011"bed on Exhibit B attached hcrc:lo and made a part ·
hereof, including, but not limited 1(1 those eertain water rights de<tribed on Exhibit A
attached hereto and made a pattbot<of.
Together With all and singular the appurtenances, privileges and pernonalty belonging
or associated therewith, including, but not limited to, all pipes, headgates, pumps and well
houoings.
SIGNED AND DELIVERED this :;;-day of~ 2007.
FLOru"DA
STATE OF COLOII:!'d)O
COUNTY OF Btt;>wA£./)
)
) ss.
)
The foregoing ins!nlment was acknowlcdgad before me this£ day of fw1 A '-1 , 2007, by
Jack Mancini ns Manager ofRoCky Mot.mtain Mansi= m, I.LC, A Coloredo Limited Liability Company.
SEP. 1 0 ZOO?
. •.
RMM Well No. lA 50
RMMWollNo.IB 50r;.p.m.
RMM Well No. ;!A 50g.p.m.
lll\lM Well No.
R.MM Well No. 3B SOg.p.m.
RMM Pond No. I 20a.f.
RMMPondNo.Z ZOa.f.
C&M DitchRMM l.Od.s.
Enlarge"""t
!lfa
EXBlBIT A
WATER RIGHTS
Conditional 11102/2000
Conditional 11/0112000
Conditional ll/0112000
Co~ditiollnl 1110112000
Condiliontll lll0212000
Conditional I 1102/2000
Conditioml 1110212000
Cond.itioDDI 11/02/2000
Conditional 11/0212000
ula
1?/311:!001 01CW182
l:U311200l OICW\82
. 11131/2001 OICW182
121311:2001 OICW\82
l:U3112001 OICW182
1213112001 01CWI8Z
l:U3l/2001 OICW368
1213112001 OICW3G8
1213112001 OICW36S
2. All of G~ntor's interest h'l. and to the following water rigblB nssocittted with 12 shares of The P.nrk Diteh and
Park Ditch 9.0 c.f.s. Absolute 9/1~1!904 t,i/26/1913 CA1627
ParkDil!:h 4.1 c.f.s. Absolute 7/0111912 G/09/1916 CA ISZI
PatkDilch t.s c.r ... Aboalute 911211904 411611913 CAI627
Park Ditch 2,0c.f.s.. Abso1utc 7/0111912 G/09119\6 CA 1821
Landi• Cllnal l30c.f.s. Absolute 7/29/1957 6120/1958. CA4u\3.
Consolidated R<:s<!rvoir 595.0AF Absolute 9/0811898 2/lS/1921 CA2144
Conso\idalild Resorvoit :ID.6AF Absolute 9/0111948 612011958 CA46!3
Consolidated Roservoir 40I.OAP Absolute 910111948 lllll51197! CA
3. All water right$ and privileges associated with U!e following well petmi1s:
WellPCII!IitNo. 6224a-FforRMM Well No. lA
Well Permit No. 61826·F for RMM WoK No. IB
WeUI'CIIIIitNo. 61827-FforRMM Well No. 2B
Wcll Pcnnit No. 240228-MH for RMM Well No. 3
' ·'
010/£001l'l
EXBJ.BITB
DESCRIPTION OF REAL!'ROPERTY
[To Be Inserted]
XV~ S~•G1 NON LOOo/01/60
09/10/2007 MON 15! 48 FAX
EXHJBITB
PROPERTY DESCRn'TION
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN LOT 17 OF SECTION 13 AND THE NWl/4
AND THE NW1/4SW114 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST
OF THE SIXTH J?RINCIP AL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF
COLORADO; SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS;
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 24, THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE S89°46'24"E ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID
SECTION 24 A DISTANCE OF 888.24 FEET TO A POINT IN AN EXISTING
FENCE; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE SSSOJ6'37''E ALONG SAID
EXISTING FENCE A DISTANCE OF 52.47 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG
SAID EXISTING FENCE S68°06'22"E A DlSTANCE OF 36.36 FEET; THENCE
CONTJNUING ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCE S88"31'55"E A DISTANCE OF
347.45 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCE
N00019'54"W A DISTANCE OF 726.53 FEET; THENCE LEA V!NG SAID EXISTING
FENCE N86°55'51 "E A DISTANCE OF 1.89 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 17 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG SAID
WESTERLY LINE N01"20'50"W A DISTANCE OF 162.38 FEET TO A POINT IN AN
EXISTING FENCE; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE NOO"Zl '1 O"E
ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCE A DISTANCE OF 80.32 FEET; THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCE N02°00'59"W A DISTANCE OF
32.12 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCE
NOZ 0 00'58''W A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG
SAID EXISTING FENCE NOOOI6'02"W A DISTANCE OF 146.26 FEET; THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCE N82"50'31 "E A DISTANCE OF
74.39 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCE S69"44'58"E
A DISTANCE OF 3.20 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING
FENCE N84°40'!2"E A DISTANCE OF 289.30 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING
ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCE N83°52'!6"E A DISTANCE OF 255.65 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCE N81 °25'57"E A
DISTANCE OF 21.63 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING
FENCE N84°27'Z7"E A DISTANCE OF 352.14 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING
ALONG SAID EXISTING FENCE N83"37'38"E A DlSTANCE OF 293.93 FEET TO A
POINT ON lEE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 103;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EXISTING FENCE THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4)
COURSES ALONG SAID WESTERLYRIGHT-OF-WAY:
l. S010Z2'04"W 53.68 FEET
2. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVTNG A RADIUS OF 482.98
FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20"44'32", A DISTANCE OF 174.85 FEET
(CHORD BEARS S09°00'12"E 173.89 FEET)
3. SJ9022'2S"E 123.44 FEET
~004/010
4. ALONG THE 1\B..C OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 530.49
FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°27'40", A DISTANCE OF 69.08 FEET
(CHORD BEARS S15"38'38"E 69.0~ FEET) TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE
OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT -OF-WAY S00"40'46"W
ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 231.32 FEET; TO A POINT ON Tl1E WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUNTY ROAD NO. I 03; THENCE LEAVING SAID
EASTERLY I.JNE THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES ALONG SAID
WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY:
l. ALONG THE AAC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 530.49
FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02"15'53", A DISTANCE OF 20.97 FEET
(CHORD BEAAS S14"24'17"W20.97 FEET)
2. SW32'13"W 79.94 FEET
3. ALONG THE 1\B..C OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 644.40
FEETANDA
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°01'01", A DISTANCE OF 191.39 FEET (CHORD BE/\RS
S07"01 '43"W 190.69 FEET)
4. Sot•28'48"E 1195.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE
OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAYS 00°47'16"W
ALONG SAID NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 329.09 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUNTY ROAD NO. 1 03;
THENCB LEAVING SAID NORTH-SOUTH
CENTERLINE THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES ALONG SAID WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF· WAY:
1. ALONG THE AAC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 619.91
FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°13'01", A DISTANCE OF 88.90 FEET
(CHORD BEARS SW23'36''W 88.83 FEET)
2. S18°30'06"W 542.67 FEET
3. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFI' HAVING A RADIUS OF 1559.31
FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°46'20'', A DISTANCE OF 265.95 FEET
(CHORD BEARS Sl3°36'56"W 265.63 FEET)
4. S08°43'47"W 93.76 FEET
5, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 5\9.83
FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31 "59'48", A DISTANCE OF 290.30 FEET
(CHORD BEARS 824°43'41 "W 286.54 FEET) TO T.a:E NORTHEAST CORNER OF
THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN :SOOK 3&5 AT PAGE 585 OF THE GARFIELD
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT·
OF-W A YN62°l3'16"W ALONG THE NORTRERL Y LINE OF SAID PROPERTY A
DISTANCE OF 548.17 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
PROPERTY;
THENCE S03"37'16"E ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PROPERTY A
DISTANCE OF 231.44 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
PROPERTY; THENCE SS4°58'16"E ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
PROPERTY 363.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
SAID COUNTY ROAD NO. 103; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGB:r-OF-
WAY ALONG THE AAC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF
1952.25 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03"43'28", A DISTANCE OF 126.90
~005/010
.......... ~. ... . .. ··--· ,,,._,.. ___ .,,, ______________ ...... , ........ ~ ..... ,_, -----
FEET (CHORD BEARS S40°42'12"W 126.88 FEET) TO A POINT ON THE EAST-
WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SEC!ION 24; THENCE LEAVING SAID RlGHT-
OF-WAY N89"35'58"W ALONG SAID EAST-WEST CENTERLINE A DlSTANCE
OF 770.23 FEET TO THE WEST -CENTER SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 24; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE S68"28'56"W A DISTANCE
. OF 194.14 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF200.00f.EBT A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53"16'53",A
DISTANCE OF 185.99 FEET (CHORD BEARS S05"07'23"W A DISTANCE OF
179.36 FEET); THENCE S31°45'49"W A DISTANCE OF 162.78 FEET; THENCE
ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 255.00
FEET A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 59°32'33", A DISTANCE OF 265.00 FEET (CHORD
BEARS 861 "32'06"W A DISTANCE OF 253.23 FEET); THENCE S38°57'43"W A
DISTANCE OF 82.03 FEET; THENCE S 01°00'16"W A DISTANCE OF 316.81 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUNTY ROAD
NO. 103; THENCE THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES ALONG SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY:
I. N76"10'24"W 77.23 FEET
2. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 320.46
FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26°32'26", A DISTANCE OF 148.44 FEET
(CHORD BEARS N89°26'37"W 147.12 FEET)
3. S77°17'10"W 78.41 FEET
4. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 633.84
FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°33'05",ADISTANCE OF 83.54FEET
{CHORD BEARS S73"30'38"W 83.48 FEET)
5. S69°44'05"W 156.81 FEET
6. ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 453.08
FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19"43'01 ",A DISTANCE OF 155.92 FEET
(CHORD BEARS S59"52'35"W !55. t S FEET)
7, S50"01'04"W !55.68 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID
SECTION 24; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTBERLY RIGHT-OF· WAY N
02"43'05"W A DISTANCE OF 1153.82 FEET TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER
OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE
N03"26'31 "E 267.78 FEET TO THE SOUTiiWEST CORNER OF THE KELLY
PROPERTY; THENCELEAVINGSAID WESTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING ·
EIGHT (8) COURSES ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PROPERTY:
I. N78"38'52"E 785.21 FEET
2, N06"39'16"E 353.76 FEET
3. N20"43'25"E 520.43 fEET
4. N23"32'29"E 413.00 FEET
5. N33"21'07"W259.6! FEET
G. N40"26'54"W 187.53 FEET
7. N44"41'22"W 786.34 FEET
8. N79°57'50"W 204.91 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID
SECTION 24; THENCE N03"26'31 "E ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE 35.13 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 173.52Z ACRES,
MORE OR LESS,
lj!JO 0 6/010
09/10/2007 !<ON 15: 50 FAX
\ . . \,
·, .),
ljl]007/010
ozt;,.,ll: 723163
1 /2N7 0h~26 pt; 8:1!!2S P~ j..., Albercbmrv """"--lL f 4 Rtp Fn: 1.6 Doo f"tt:4 .¢0 GARFIB.D to ... ll!!PillY •
SPECIAL WARRANTY Dl!'.llD
TillS DIED. ~ a1 tlWt &y Gt: M.~ "":!-, ::Z.e>~>""'l" ........
ROCKY MOUNl'AIN MMS{I)te Jll, LLC
~ ]J!QI{l. ll5fti!::M :1.1111 1?U!J& U.S QWBt.VD. S\!rr! I!DG, PORl"JAUDERJ>Atlt FJ..;ml)l
~CI')~ ...
CALLlCili"IE RANCH W:, A OOI.OI!ADO lJMIISf) UAIIILIIY COMPANY
llb;loo kri4 ~0. f,$t !i8~&;SIRIIE1 1 ;QENVER!@g •' 2l·C:: 411-~.,1)
ot;tbc~ll4't .. ... '
wrmti1$, ~ tt.Cmltot', f<!t'Otf$h o: rr'··orti"' ot~....,.<:lf t ....... 1100.111 I
...,. &I Mt&M P'M! Hlaf:n!4 '!llnnl4 IIIII OQilCIO ""'' llOLI.IIIIS
tblo ~ m1 ~c:: \tiJ.I;\b ia ~ .:inw'.q:p:! 1Mli ~ ~ Wd:md ~. 11101!11',/ ~
ptt!:III!Gt:fltm!pr4:. ~ Rll, Cll'l'l'l(y-.ICI;)'Ifbm~'UM~(I). tld.t~ .. ~~. ftll.~
:ttM ~. ~'filth ~w=. ft q, ~. ~-l:MW!u m ~ ~ Qf f..AR1!'ffiJ D: Ull SJ:oibJ of~~ ~ N ~' •
SEE BXHIJIIT•A• ATJ'ACJlliD llBRE1U AND MADRA PARr IIERJlm'
11:1.91:) bc:NI il8 liiti:'Mt. rutba::' WYONWOOllS, OOUNIYIIOAn l.,, ~OIIIJAL!t CO Bl"'
TOGEtBEit lei.Vlli!J.l. cd ~CIIII;lblm:di~ ard~t.tn ..... ~~ 1',11:" ;lA~ ~
il'4 1310: nYIZS5.cnlll4 ~-~-~. :1:1111.11;.11. :lWI,IIJI ~pD)flt.QI ~ ~41. ~ ~. ~ titlo;UJ.terat, ~ ... ~ I!Cm~~ tbll~(a), eitflet inhw~~, ot. 1rl ;md 1:J) Ull! lb;lJO: b&l:iaitted
~· lolith t3a ..... • IDii "''iP"twm:w:
roliA.V.Bt\NDTOJIOIJ) th'.!Wd~lill¥1Yt~IZII5~\IWI~,Wto-~t~.
~~. ~IR'Id~ ~-'Dill<iltlllltCII:', fal:'it:l!elf, ~tl ~..,~. ~ ~.
~ ll8lW ~ J.t. .thlll ~ lldll.IW!H'Mil' .~m JICIIItiiiR J:lllll'lU) HI!!! ab:rlll!l t v·~ :£n t11t .p.t. ri
~ ~ €It ~ ~W. t!IMr llie':lm. ~~~t~m .am.~. t. an i!lld fMII:l1' p!il.tDCD ar ;m'IIIHI'
-""""""""'Ail'il'AW.si~~"'""""""-'· BX.Ca"fTC.HNB81f.l."mXa JlOlt YEAR ZOO'/ AND~YEABS AND I!XCI!I'llONS ASI.IS'1'ED
ONtiXJliBIT'"BN A1TACH£0ANDM.Arlk.A fAJtr8BR.EOF AS llfPUILY!mT HERlUN
INWIINBSSWBI!RII(JJ tM ~til) liM::~ \24a ~en ttw1 ~ .:t fr;xrt:b llhmt.
~ .A/ A '•'-""
-~. -1(/L-/ J .
/I '
"""'"" Fl..fJF!IOA ' t/ ,/ """"' .. BIUJf.i.Jki!Jr·
----~-.. "'"""l'llf"" Mll-'-1 1 ;J.JX)1.
"" J!!!l!!MAt'9!!JASMANAC!lll!J!!II!l MOUN!l\lNMANSWlNS ,
,.. """"'""' -~~ lll.t:l:lt!l!l lllf h8it4 -(Jffidal. !l!!ll. •*"a\ ....,AII1~ "J,·~o~yc....--'---.... -
~ JQOO'OUH lll:l!n ~ 1.\lt;Um ~ ~ IWI:H ru:. A a:te:IWO lollttt£0
"""" """'"""' =-
""' l!b. tntf.Stl) $ ~ SDI!!IZf. tmMa,. al !102M .
C' 6 "BG!U\ "'T
0,/10/2_0,2_7 MON 15:50 FAX
. · l illill'll:l P~U.Ifii.Hfi~ rirWii~:IW!.fi\\4 IIIII
•j L\'f.:,fd':r eU't>~!j, B:l921> P:OS07 Jon Al•••loo
2 of 4 Rec rll!!le~$'2.1.00 000-Fw:4$G.I!I0 <mRFU!W COIJNTY CO
A PARCEL Qi?' urnD SlTIJJ.~ IN Wl' 17 ,lUll) 'rm:: SN1/4SW 1/4 OF SECriON :J,;a AND THE
:mU/4. 1\.ND '.l'lJE NW1/4.SWJ.I"! OF S~ 4!4, 'l'ONNWIIP 7 SOU'l1:1, MNCflil B B WEBT OF Tfffi
SIXl'B PRmCIP}UJ MSRXDI AN, ~ OW GM.i'liLU, S'rA'l'B OF COLORADO; S)UD ~ARCS(.
HI:Im Ji:!ORE PAltt'lCULAP.L Y Dl3SCRIBBD AS FOLWW9!.
!Xlto!MlmCi:ro AT TBt!: Na.!a'HWEST mRNim OP' SIJC'1.'X~ 24. 'tHE POINT ctt! aBG;t:NNING; 'J:HI3m:l3
$: 89 DEGlmE:S: 46' 341f £ .M..ONG '!'HE N¢R'l'HSRLY' L:tm?: Olt .G'AXI) BBCl'lON 24, A DIS'l'~CJ!l
OF $189.24 Rift' 'lOA ?OlN:t" tN liN BK:tS'rlm: P':ltl§eG1 'tRSNtlB LXA.VltG S1\.%J) NORI'HBRLY
LlNE s S5 DI:XmimS 31'P l7• B ~ ~XP mttSTmG FENQB 1\ DJ:S.'l'ltoWCB OF 52:.47
FBSl'r ts~CE CQN':('lm.J!SG M.OmJ $.1\lO l!lXXS'HNG JiSlii'C:S 5 68 DBGXI!:BS D 6 1 2.2~ E: ll
.tiXS'l'J\NCB OF 36.3~ WR'r: 'J:'J'Im~ WNTI.NIJlN{;i AI.Qlil'G SAlt! EXIsnNG Plm'CE S IHl
DWWSS ll' 5-5 11 E A 'DlS'l'ltNCB C1P 341.-'lS PSRT: 'l!liB:«C!.e COM'UN'UlOO AWOO BAlD
mtlB'l'ING 1'BNCE N 00 J;)8~BEI 19* S4 11 W A 0:1:~ OF 72$.$3 l'tiB'r; 'l'HBNCE
t.!UWXNG RMD BX1STJNG FENCB N 86 DimR:ImS S!P Sl 11 E A Dl~ OF :J.,SS PU;T 'Z'O
A li'O:tNi' ON THE NES'l'&RLY X.Dm OJ! 1m 1.7 O't SAm S'liiC'l'ION l3; 'l'HBNC-'1 Al.ONQ SAl:'D
~ Xf'J;J:m N Ol fS:UtBM 2il' son W A DIS'lWIICB OF 162.30 l?tB'l' '1'0 A m)!NT !N'
liN' SXlS'rtNG PJ3NCB; 'l'lm:Nc:B Lm\Vllm J;A. lO WESl'ERLY ltUm N 00 Dl3J.imEE S 21. t 10" S
N.ONG Sll.:rtlmt:ts:t':tNS t'BNC:S A blSTANCE OF 80.32 'E'BE.'r; ~ Q)N'l'XNU'mC3 At.Olm
SAl;)) lri\ZSr:tNCJ FBNCS N 02 nEGRSE!S CH)' sgn W A D:tS'l'ANc:B OF 12.~2 FEE~; ~
CON'Tl~l!IG AI.ON:i SAI:D EX:tM:tNG mtC:S N 02 ~ 00 1 58• W A :D:tST.MCE OF 50.00
FBS'rl THmc:6 OlNI'INUINC At.0NG SAID BXIS'riNt,; PD'CS N 00 DSG:RE:8S 16 ' 02• W
DISTANCE 07ll4,.M PSBT; ~ CON'l'lNUING ALONG SAX.b EX;t;S'l.'ING FENCB N o;a
D:OO~ SO' 31 1 EA. DlST.IWCE OF 7~.3 & PSE'l'; 1'ffimC'B CON':I:'IWINO ALONB SA!D
BX:tS'l'lY: i"S:Nt;:s $ 6!1 ilS(;RK!i:$ 44.' 58• :SA tloXSTt!NCe OF .J,:ZO IrnB'l'; 'lHRttteR
COittnmiW ~ &UD ~lS'll)IO :FSBCB N 94 llBGRinrs 4. tl 1 121 S A D.tSTJ\NCB OF
28j.30 FE!n't 'l'KBNCE t'ONTXNU:rtm AI..ONG SA!D SXIST;nu,; WNCB N 83 Dli(>RBRS 52 1 1511 e
A DISTAN~ OF a55,65 JliE'l': 'lHB'NC8 CONTINUING ~G SA:tl) rutlBl'ING PBl'(CB N 81
csatmBS 25' 57• E J\. Q;t S'l'IWCB OF 21.6:; FEETJ 'l"HBNCE t'ON'l'!m.Jt.NIJ MlHiG SAID
BXIS'HNQ-P8NCE N 84 tr.RGRBP.S 21 1 2'1' E A DI~ OF 352.14 WET~ THimtZ
CONUNtn:Im AWNG BAIO l3KlS'l'INe FENCE N e3 t>smmBS 37' ~9" B 1\. DlSTMCE OF
2J}3.$3 F!B'l' 1'0 A I?Otm' ON THE WEBTBRr.Y RIIllR't' Cit' Wl.:l O.P t::o'I.1:Nn' ROJL!) NO. ).03;
~ LJlAVlOO SAID !XISTtHQ FmiK:'Il 'r~ ~lNO VOUR. (4) COURSES .A1.(IOO SAt:D
WESTERJ,.Y RWH!r OP WAY:
~) s 01 t>muas 2'2 1 Oo~." w .s3:.¢Q resT,
2) ALONe '!mB ARC OF A ctm;VE 'ro ';l."a'!;ll!Bitl' m.v:n~'Q A &l!DIT.JS OF 4&:\.96 FEET )U.'D A
C~ AmLB Ot 20 DE GREsS oll41' 32~. A l):J:STANC:B OP 114.85 WB'r (OiO!n B~ S
09 DSGRBBS DO• 1.2" E 1 '1J.G9 Pl!!r::t')
3) S 19 DBTnillES 22.' :<'6" £ 123,44 FBB'L'
4) ALOtm 'l'HE ARC Ob" A cu:RV:a '1'0 'm'B RXCJC Htt,vn«;: A lii:AO!l)$ 01' 530.49 P¢1 AND l\
c:BNTRAt 14mLE OP' 0') fJ:e:GREES 27 1 40'1 , A DISTANCE OF 69.09 F.BB'l' (CHORD B8ARS S 1S
bi'GRWS 318' 3&• E 6$1.03 P'KI!T} 'X'O A PO:tm' QN TH8 EAill'l'SRL'f LUI'B 01' SAID Ult: 171
"t'mlNCit .LEAVING SAID IITQRT 011' WA.¥ $ 00 DBG!mns 1Q' ll(i• W At.Q}W !!lAin EASTERLY
LINE 23l.J2 FEBT '00 A POINT ON 'l1t1t H'8S'I'tRLY Rlmrl' 0 F WAY OF BIUD QJQNT:t ROAl.'l
00.~ 1D3r ~ UBA.VltllC SAm BlS':t'SRLY Ltlm 'l'HE lKif.WQNXNt: li'OUa (4) o:::m:RSES
~ sAID Wi6'fBRLY RI GR'1' OF HAY:
l) N:.0Na 'mB Mr: ·oo A CUR.W '1'0 'lHB JUCFI".r HAVING A nDlUS: 011' 530. 4g ~ ~ l\
CISN't'M.t. ANBLf:: OF 0~ DBGRBES l.5' S3:•. A tiiSfl!.Nt'B OF ~0.97 nB:r fCHORD ~ S
14. DWRB.IS 24 1 1711 W 2:0. 97 P:S;:T)
2) S 15 DB~S 32' l;J 11 N 79.94 FB'Ii'I'
J) 1UiOW '1lW ARC IJP A ctm.vn TO 'l.'Uli1 Iie?l' HAVING A &1\DIV$ OP 544.4 0 Pml't .iUID 1t.
CEm'RllL AWLR OF 17 D!CIUmS 0J.1 Dl.~' • A DI~ OF l51';1.J~ f.SBl' (aiORD IBARS S
07 DE(>RBE$ 01' 4311 » l 90.69 PBS'.t')
4) S Ol. JJ.OORBES 2e• 4$" E ;!.19!5.00 li'Dr 'l'O A POINT ON THE': NORta•!Joum ~l~.t>1:Nii:
OF SAID SEC't'%QN 24; THENQR L£AVXNG SAID IU:GHT OF WAY S 00 DEGR.SBS '-7' 1511 W
ALONG MID NOJlTH-SOll.J;'J! QSlll'.rBRL:w.E: A 'DISTANCE OP l~9 ,09 FSB':I: :tO A PI)IN'X' ON Tm!l
WSS"l'BRLY lUCHT OP WAY OP ~ t'CaL'nY :ROAI.l NQo. l.(l3> '.1.'IIBNm t:!m.VWG SAID
NOimt•SOUTH CKNTERLINE Tl!e I?OLl.QN;tNG PlVE (5} COURS~B ALONG SA!O WES'I'l!RLl:'
ltlGHl" OF WJ.Y 1
1) AttniG 'Xtm AAC OF A ct.m'.\rs '1.'0 'l'HS RI(JK'l' llQ.VlW A R.ADIUS Oil 61&.9'1 ll'&&ll' ~A
~ l\NGI.iS OF 08 DBGRBBS 3.3' 01•, A PI~ OP 98.90 FS!T (Cflmm B~ S U
DEG!I1!il'tQ 23 1 3G 11 W 68.8~ P'!Er.i.l)
2) S 18 r>RGMli$ 30' 06 n ·w 542.67 P'BE't
GJ6JCOMTJ
1;!1005/010
:u .M.ONG ~ ARC OJ! A CURVB '10 1'BE Uilr.f !QlVm& A JtAnl;US: Oil 3.55~, 3l. rmtl' 1lllD A
CIMl'MXt UGW OF 09 JJ'Ij:GR':BBS 4~1 20• A DIS'J'ANCE Qll' 2 E5oS5 WB'r {CHORD ~ .S l3
D~S 3CP 55• W Z&S.. 63 PBETl
4) S 08 VEGRJ3SS 4i3' 47' W ~3.7fi: ?2&1';
S) JW)»'l 'lHI! Me OX' .1\. ctmVS 'l'O 'l'HB IUGHl' Jm.VtN'G A PJI:DlUS OF 5U, 83 1'BGT JUa'D
eBNrRAL ~ OJJ' 31 m:GIWlis 59 1 49" :A. DI~ o:r 2 90~30 JtU:EI'A' (atOM) Bm\P.S: s 24
tiBGREBS 43' 4.!1.11 W :::!$~.54 PBB"l') TO 'l'IJE NQ'l't'rfDlAS'l' ~N,IiR. Of 'rRA'l' PR.OI?BP.'r.l
P89~'l:DED :ttJ SOOI<: ~BS AT P,AG!: 585 0 f 'lHS OAIU'lZtD COUN'rl' c:t4tRK AND UCOnDBR.1 S
OFPlCEJ' 'l~ ~V):~ SAID 1\IGHt' ~ to\~ N I;~ t;EGIIEJIS: 13' 3.6 11 N AU')NG tHS
NO~RLY lllNS QF s.&.:m PROPER'J,Y A PI S'f~C!I!: 011' $41J;.l, '1 FBB'l' 'lO 'tHS ~
am:tiER OF SAID J;IRQPBll'l'Y, 'la:ENC!t fi! 03 D'EG~m:!!:S 37 1 .liS 11 £ Al.O.RI3 'l'HI m'JSTBRLY ltlNS
OF SA!D PROPSIO:Y A DIS TANCR OF 231.11. 4 FB8l' 'IV ~ S ~S'I' QQIOOll R. OP SAID
tROl'atnT i T1:Di:NCB s 54 %llDilBM 5(1. I 115 • E Awlfl;; 'tHS s OtmmRLT MWB OF SM'D
P.IOPSR'l.'"l 363.50 PBBT TO A POIR'l' ON THE HBBTERLY RIGHT OV lUI.Y OF SAlO COum'Y
ROAD NO. 103; "11iBNC:S ALON(] SAID WSS'l"Eta..Y ltlGHT OF NAY .AlCNG 'l'lm ARC OP' A CURVE:
';t'O niB ;tOJU7T Br\.V:UlG A RllriiUS 011 19~2. as PEST MID-A c E'N'l"l'fAL A'NGI.B 0 F O! bBC'.RBBS
U' 2fl" ~ DlS't?!NCI OF 126.90 .PaM' {moM> DBMS$ 4.0 I»?.GRJ3.BS 42' 12" W i2G.ee
I:'BE'r) oro A oomr oo 'I'HX EAft•tiB!f.C CBtmW.tnm OF SAID sscrrw 24.; ~ r,~vn:c
M.tD RlOIJT 0' IM-1 N B9 ~E$ 35' S 8 11 W ALON$ SA:l:l:l tl\ST•WBST C'BNTERLINS A
DIS'l'ANCB OP 770.23 PBS'l '1'0 'rHE WES'l'• CENTER :!:IXX'.mi!N'l'H C'O'RNlm OP' SAID Sl'{t"nW 21).;
m:eNCI %.SAV%tfa. SAl;~;~ CiU1TERI.olllS S !;iS. OOGRUG 28' SG 11 1t A DIS"rl~Nt;lE Q'fl l94~14;
l'U:r: TH:BNta: ~ TBB ARc OF .1. t'IJR.V'B ~ taB RJ:QHT JV\Vnn:J i\ lU\010 S Or 2.00, 00
ID'l', A c:mmtAl. 1\N'Ct..S Olr' ::;;~ PEGRUS 10 1 sa~, A OlS'fANC:S oF 1B!i.9!} Plm"X' {t:RORl'
9"1511M 8OS OEGREES 07' 2:)• W A DX:il'l'l\.VCS OF 17S.3G I'E£1'); '.tHENCE$ a'1 DOORB.E:S
45• 49• N A J)IBl:.RM:B OF l6:Z.18 PBBT; '1'll1mCi1 ALONG 'l'Jm ARC QF 1't. ctTR.W W 'JHB
Rlcttl' bA"V:tH; A~ QF iS:S.OO ~, A CBN1'W.. MlGX.S OF 59 DF,;1'3.RB.BQ. 32 1 33.11 , J<.
DISTANCE OP 265.00 1'1mT (QIO~ J:mM.S: S 61 ll!CRBJI19 3 2• Of$" W A-J.ll~'l'A.NCB OF
253.a3 FijST)t ':I."BKNCE.S 38 DEGREES 5"1 1 43 11 WA DIS'l'AN¢E OF .!J::i!,Q:J. Ii'BE:T; 'lH!Nt'l!l S
Dl :!JSGQSES 00' 1$11 W 0\. lllSTANCB. OV 315.81. ~ 'ID ~ J!Ql,)lf ON "rBB N01t'!'HBR:LY
fll:Gltt OF WAY 0P SAl1> C<MII'l'r ROAD foX), l03t 'tlJSNC:S l'U:S l?OI.J.QHlNG GRWN (?)
COURSES AU')NCl Slklll lUG IJ1' OF VU~,':t'!
1) N 76 DB'G1lBBS l.O t 2-5 II H 7"1.23 l"l!:E't'
%) Atl)NG lltB' ARC OX" A ODR:VS TQ 'l'HE X.Bfl' HAVING A PADtUS OF .32t:J.46 FilET 1\ND A
C&N'1'RA:t. ANGliS OF ,2:6 DBGDBS 32' 26•, A D'Ifl:MNCS OP 14S.44 Fl!:B'l' tC110RD BBAT!S N
89 DBORBBS 2~1 37" W 147.12 mT)
$) s '17 :CKGR.S&S 17' 10. w 7a.4t flmT
4) M0N1J 'fRS 1\ltC OJ? J\ am~ '1'0 mB LEP'l" IA\FtltC A 1l..IU)li"JS OP' 633.84 PSE': Am) A
C81ttPJ!,l. ANGl.B' Q,P 01 :DRGID!B:S :.!3' o5n, l\ DXG'l'.I'.:NC'B 0~ 63.64 FEE"l' (COORO SEARS S
13 ImCP.El:s:S 30' 38" 'N 83.48 F'mtiit)
5) B 69 D.il:mmES 4.{' 0 Str H" i.S$.$1 FE~
G) JU,ONG TDD N!J:: 0P A c:tJRVB '1'0 'l.BE LEFt' HA.'Vl!IQ A ll.AilitiS OF 453.&8 PEE'r Nm A
e£~Mli ANOtm or 1'9 tmt;REBS 4~ 1 ol•, 11. Dltli'ANCE w l.&s • .9:2 rmrr (cJoiDRD BEARS s
59 DSGM'BS S21 3:5'" W 1.55.3.5 FEET}
7) S SO ImeltlmS Q;~• 04 • W l.65. tiS FEET TO A POINT ON TU! WS':r:BRLY ;t,WB OF WU:D
sacrxoN 24; ~ taV!l!G Wn OOEn"m:IUlt a1mrr or HAY n n2 lJBO'RSES 431 os11 w .a
DlS'l:I!.NCBi QJ.I' l.l.53.B2 Jnl.R!l;' 'l;O THB !min' QUAA'l'Sit CORNER. OP SAID S2C'l'ION 24; 't1-ltNetil
CON:r:tlM:OO m:.oNtt 8AXD WSSTERLY L!NB N 0~ DMRBES .26 I ~:t.n E .:zn, 7B l'Wl' '1'0 THE
SO'I:I'l:BHEST CORNER OP TH:E Km:.L'l PROPER!'r1 'l'HISMC:Z LBAV M SAID "Sst".IU~LY Ll~ "l'11X
POLUIHili!G E:IGH'l' (8) COI1R$E:S AToONe 'l'HB BO~ OF S1'.ID PIWPBln'Y:
l.J N 7$. D~S' ;,er 52 11 E 7S5,:al ll'i:BX
2) N 06" D~ 39' 1&:11 S 3!13. 76 FEET;
:i) 'N 21) DBGRBBS 4l' 2S' :S: 520,.t3 FEET
4) N 23 n~ ~2:· ::19 • z n3.oo I!'D'l'
S) N 33 tlli.'Qtuli£S 21' 07 ~" W ::itfi9.6l. FEE'!'
6) N 40 DIIDrum;l 26 1 $4 11 W la? .!l! F.EE't'
'7) N .S4. DBGlm~ 47' 2211 U 'll!S.3G EBBT
II} lf 79 IllmRBES .51 1 5Q;' N l0,..91 F.B£1' TO A l'OINl' Qll1' tlltll WifB!BRLY Ll.'NE OP SAX!)
G:IIC'l'ION 24; TIISNCJl: N 0:! O~M!S: 36 1 3l.~ E ALONG SA!!) KES'l'lf;lU,.Y LIN~ lS.I!-FBS'l'
l'O THE I'O:tN1' OF BB(UH!IlNO.
CO\JR'IT OF OlUlF:l;B'W
STA!B or counurno
~009/010
01(10(2007 MON 15:51 FAX
, .. I • • ~~I
• ~f ;\~ .
EXHllliT B Our Order No. 63000573·6
RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THBREJ!ROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE
PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STA TllS PATENT RECORDED MAY 03, 1921,
IN BOOK 73ATPAGE !26.
RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS R~SERVED IN UNITEO STATES PATENT RECORDED MAY 03.
1921, IN BOOK 73 AT PAGill26.
EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS ELilCTRIC
' ASSOCIATION, INC. IN INS'tRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 17. I9791N BOOK 535
ATPACE592.
EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR ROADWAYS, UTILITY LINES AND DITCHES AS
SHOWN ON ALTA SURVEY DATED MAY 3, 2007 PREPARED BY HIGH COUNTRY
ENGINEERING.
TERMS. CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECOilDED MAY 21, 20031N
BOOK 1473 AT PAGE 251.
EAS!lMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS GRANTED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 9.
20031N BOOK 1491 A'l: PAGE 79
POSSESSORY RIGHTS OuTsiDE OF FENCELINE ALONG THE NORTHERLY AND
EASTERLY BOUNDARY AS SHOWN ON ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY BY HIGH
COUNTRY ENGINBERING,lNC. DATED MAY 3, 2007 PROJECT NO. 2011115.60.
ENCROACHMENT OF FENCELJNEALONG niB NOR'lliERLY AND WESTERLY BOUNDARY AS
SHOWN ON AL'!'AIACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY BY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING,
INC. DATED MAY 3. 2007, PROJECT NO. 20llll5.60.
TERMS, CONDmONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 2004-67 RECORDED
AUGUST 20, 2004 IN BOOK 1615 A'!' PACE 510.
·----·---. ' .... ---··----.. --....... -·--·
IillO 10 f 010
May30, 2008
Waner Construction
Attn: Barry Graves
6950 Barrons Blvd. Unit 103
Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
FIRE · EMS · RESCUE
RE: Callicotte Ranch Entryways
Dear Barry,
This afternoon, I inspected the two entryways into the Callicotte Ranch Subdivision off County
Road 1 03. Both entryways meet or exceed the minimum height and width requirements of the
International Fire Code adopted by Garfield County.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569
Report Date:
Project:
Project No:
Location:
Contractor:
po
June 6, 2008
07035 Callicotte Ranch
207105
County Road 103
Carbondale, Colorado
Waner Construction Company
JUN 0 'I
Report No. One
Date & Time: June 3, 2008; 10:30 am
Weather/Temp. Sunny, 70 degrees
People met with at site: Chris Shell303-901-8151
Status of Project:
The construction was complete with the exception of the hangers for the
purlins to the valley members on the Pavillion Structure.
Structural Observations I Comments I Action Items
Report By:
To Whom it May Concern.
I observed the two Entry Structures, the Mailbox Kiosks, the Pavillion
Structure and the Pump House building. The purpose of the observations
was to confirm that the structures were constructed in substantial
conformance to the approved plans and specifications.
.,
Based on my observations and the inspections done by third party
inspectors I can confirm the the structures were constructed in
substantial conformance to the approved plans and specifications.
Report Sent To: Mr. Brad Haswell
Studio DH
Mr. Barry Graves
Waner Construction Company
8950 Barrons Blvd., Suite 103
Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80126
700 12th Street
Golden, CO 80401
NEUJAHR
AND
GORMAN, INC.
CONSULTING
STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERS
88 STEELE ST.
SUITE 200
DENVER, CO
80206-5719
(303) 377-2732
(303) 377-4573
~'~' 8950 8ARRONS BOULEVARD, UNIT 103
HIGHLANDS RANCH, COLORADO 80126
WANER PHONE: 303-683-0099 FAX: 303-683-3789
CONSTRUCTION CO .. INC.
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
To: Garfield County Building Oept Attn: Matt Provost Fax: (970) 384-3470
From: Barry Graves Date: 2-Jul-08
Re: Camcotte Ranch Subdivision Pages: 02, Including this cover sheet
cc:
OUrgomt DForReview 1J Please Conment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
Comments:
Attached is the acceptance letter from the Division of Wildlife for the perimeter fence.
Please call if have further questions.
Z00/100ilJ XVd €€'81 OOM SOOo/oO/LO
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
,DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI'I"Y EMPLOYER
!ThOmas E. e.ell)ington •. Director· -1 ~''"'.1'-:,;
~~~~~{'t;)~g~J~ !802~6' : !;' '.;r. ,,, .. :r: ·:r . .;·~-~
Telephone: (303) 297·1192
wiliflife.state.co.us : · ·
June 20, 2008
Barry Grave
Waner Construction
8950 Barrons Blvd Unit 103
Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
RE: Callicotte Ranch Fencing
Dear Barry,
<''
Our staff has reviewed the fencing that was placed along the Callicotte Ranch and County Road 103, in Garfield
County. While the original land use comments proposed "wildlife friendly" fencing guidelines in areas where
fencing was necessary, this wru; not accomplished during the original construction. lt could be debated whether
this fencing is "neceassry", the breaks in the fence do allow some wildlife access across the.road. Other than total
removal of all fencing, these corridors would be accepted by the Division of Wildlife.
If in the future, this fence is deemed to restrict movement and becomes a barrier to big game travel patterns, DOW
may request the top board be removed in mol'e locations.
If you have any questions, feel free to caU Kelly Wood at 970-963·6523.
Sincerely,
~ c:;,f:z,.P..,,.....--
Cc: R. Valarde, K. Wood, M. Konishi
ZOO/ZOO~
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Robert Bray, Chair• Brad Coors, Vice Chair • Tim Glenn. Secretary
Members, Dennis Buechler • Jeffrey Crawford • Dorolhea Ferns • Roy McAnally • Richan:l Ray • Robert Streeter
Ex Officio Members, Hanis Shennan ano John SbJip
X~d ~E•81 a•M SOOZ/ZO/LO
Assessor's Parcel No. l3Q3-.f,l..f}._-Q:r 3"3 g-
-Date (}.11=0'1=-
BUILDING PERMIT CARD
Job Address »i36q 0\jii.<J.L 5pYLIVlQ5 8ft c'ciule.
Owner Q,\\l('S)\-'e fUYlcVl lAC . Co \\!Mite ~~dr~~· ?b sfee\e · te'huPI
Contractor \UOtvlPC (])V)~ Address'89::0 pow:>V'! b\vct
Setbacks: Front £Rear All LH ____ Zoning ---,-.-~YIOOl\ tmL'er'lS. V\(. J (iitJ.At.IQN 1 'JL4"~~~etT~
Soils Test----------
Footing-----------
Foundation _______ _,_ __
Grout -------::--+F-,;,J.;:__ __
Underground Plumbing----,~!:----
Rough Plumbing ---1-""-rr----
Framing ___ __,-t-nrV---I'F----
Insulation ----++--..---..1-"-----
Roofing ----+-+~'-'-----
Drywall -----------
Gas Piping----::-:--.-----~~ijl'lj07
~. bu.t_ ((I :J._f']/. C/0 f!!J r 9(tCf(D 7
Weatherproofing __________ _
Mechanical ,
Electrical Rough (State) --'c/--7'/"-------
Eiectrical Final (State) __ _;.V ____ ----;'7----
.n-n'J--Final 2-2~ /Checklist Completed? ;;&
---'/'if Certificate Occupancy#--------
Date....--:-~;;<.-----------
Septic System # _,_TV.=...u.IA"_.__ _______ _
Date -
Final __________ _
Other--------------
NOTES ~ ~ ~-/C/·tl-~7~
..;~
(continue on back)
INSPECTION WIU. NOT BE MADE UNLESS
THIS CARD IS POSTED ON THE JOB
24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS
BUILDING PERMIT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO 3 Date Issued.~.U~~ ..... Zoned Area .•....•.•••.•..•..••.•.•••..... Permit No ..• .l~ ....... f. .... .
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the issuance of this permit, the applicant hereby agrees to comply with all
laws and regulations related to the zoning, location; construction and erection of the proposed
structure for which this permit is granted, and further agrees that if the above said regulations
are not fully complied with in the zoning, location, erection and construction of the above
described structure, the permit may then be revoked by notice from the County Building
Inspector and IMMEDIATELY BECOME NULL AND VOID.
Use )l!\~lul\ Ul!'l1f(JtLIIIY.
Address or Legal Description )36; ('~;f.:: ~tl ~ • ~\10. te
Owner Ca\hooHe Kti~h tC f::J\iti@..· \JJ{;f'll('{" (hw;.+.
Setbacks Front Side Side Rear
This Card Must Be Posted So It is Plainly Visible From The Street Until Final Inspection •
. ~M-' &-£ '!"-,£?'£. / "' -
INSPECTION RECORD
Footing Driveway
Foundation
Underground Plumbing Insulation
Rough Plumbing Drywall
Chimney & Vent Electric Final (by State I tiff '7'5:
Gas Piping Final 2~ 7 -o 3 ~:P7J.J!:&,.<,(T
Electric Rough (By State Inspector) Septic Final
Framing .1/..""' }f ~ Notes:
(To include Roof in pi~ ani! Windows r
and Doors installed). · _S-a 3
ALL LISTED ITEMS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE COVER1NG-
WHETHER INTER10R OR EXTERIOR, UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND.
THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE
For Inspections Call 384-5003 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado
APPROVED DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD
Date 9-fl-o\ By 1:3"/~
IF PLA~-COVER WITH CLEAR PLASTIC
/
7
{9LUMBIAN
Tee Tank
_.....,.."mO!@I!iifllijRIWiijj!WIIIU~
5400 Kansas Avenue
P.O. Box 2907
Kansas City, KS 66110-2907
Phone: 913-621-3700
FAX: 913-621-2145
COVER SHEET
FOR
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER
CERTIFICATION
Sales Order: 07-5275
_! 1\'.'/'. 7/'.:'
Customer: B.H. TANK WQRKS
Ship To: CARBONDALE,! CO ; , ~ 1\'T:: ·-•. ·,,., ·'
This document submittal consists of 4 sheets including this cover.
{9LUMBIAN
Tee Tank
-........ 111~
5400 Kansas Avenue
P.O. Box 2907
Kansas City, KS 66110-2907
Phone: 913-621-3700
FAX: 913-621-2145
COVER SHEET
FOR
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER
CERTIFICATION
Sales Order: 07-5275
Customer: B. H. TANK WORKS
Ship To: CARBONDALE, •.C .. O. " ., ''
This document submittal consists of 14 sheets including this cover.
·columbian TecTank
P.O. Box 996
Parsons, KS 67357
(620) 421-0200
Prepared By: RM
Reviewed By: BR
Revisions:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
* Design Calculations *
* *
* For a Bolted *
* *
* Liquid Storage Tank *
* *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Customer ..................... B.H. TANK WORKS
Sales Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 -527·5
Date ......................... 5/22/2007
Liquid Stored ................ WATER
Specific Gravity ............. 1.00
Tank Diameter ................ 38.622 Ft
Tank Height .................. 24.180 Ft
Design Spec .................. AWWA D103-97
Wind Velocity ................ 100 Mph
Wind Design .................. AWWA
Seismic Zone ................. 1
Use Factor I ................. 1.25
Deck Live Load ............... 60 Psf
Date 5/22/2007
Date 05/22/2007
Date
oF 13
80NFIDENTIAUTRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipientagrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
~olumbian Tee Tank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian TecTank.
Vertical Seam Bolt Loadings
Liquid Pressure (Psf) =Liquid Depth (Ft.) x Specific Gravity x 62.428 (Pcf)
Hoop Force (#/Ft.) =Liquid Pressure x Tank Radius (Ft.)
Bolt Load (lbs) = Hoop Force I 6 Bolts per Ft.
================================================================================
Ring
1
2
3
Liquid Depth
23.68
15.62
7.56
Bolt Load
4758
3138
1519
CONFIDENTIAUTRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian TecTank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian Tee Tank.
FAILURE MODE
1
2
3
4
NOMENCLATURE:
ALLOWABLE BOLT LOADS ANSI/AWWA D103-97
1/2 INCH DIA. BOLTS SPACED ON 2 INCH CENTERS
DESCRIPTION
HOLE TEAR OUT
NET SECTION
BEARING
BOLT SHEAR
P=L X .6 Fy X t
P=ft X t X An
P=1.35 Fy X d X t
P= .25 Fu x Ats
P= Allowable Bolt Load (lbs.) L= Edge Distance= .875 in.
t= Steel Thickness (in.) Fy= Steel Yield Strength (ksi)
Fu= Steel Ultimate Tensile Strength (ksi)
Ft= .4 Fu or .6 Fy (1-.9r+3rd/s) <= .6Fy s= 2 in. d= .5 in.
r= 1 (1 Row) r=1/2 (2 Row) r= 1/3 (3 Row) An= Net Distance 1.469 in.
Ats =Tensile Area= .142 sq. in.
----------------------------------------------------------
LOADS FOR GRADE 5 BOLTS WITH Fu = 120,000 psi
ASTM Gage t 1 Row Mode 2 Row Mode 3 Row Mode
A570 12 .1046 2197 1-3380 -2-
Fy= 40 10 .1345 2825 -1-4346 -2-
FU= 55 9 .1495 3140 -1-4831 -2-
8 .1644 3452 -1-5312 -2-
3/16 .1875 3938 -1-6059 -2-6059 -2-
7/32 .2188 4260 -4-7068 -2-7068 -2-
1/4 .25 4260 -4-8078 -2-8078 -2-
5/16 .3125 4260 -4-8520 -4-10098 -2-
CONFIDENTIAUTRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian Tee Tank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian Tee Tank.
Allowable Vertical Shell Loads AWWA
fs= ALLOWABLE COMPRESSIVE STRESS (psi)
fs= 15000 (2/3) (100t/R) (2-(2/3) (lOOt/R)) <=15000 psi
t= SHELL THICKNESS (in.)
R= SHELL RADIUS (in.)
A= AREA = 2 (PI) (R) (t) (sq. in.)
ALLOWABLE LOAD= fs x A (lbs.)
38.622 Ft. Diameter Tank
t fs A
(in.) (psi) (sq. in.)
5/16 (0.3125) 2576 455
1/4 (0.2500) 2080 364
7/32 (0.2188) 1829 319
3/16 (0.1875) 1575 273
8 Ga (0.1644) 1385 239
9 Ga (0 .1495) 1263 218
10 Ga (0.1345) 1138 196
12 Ga (0 .1046) 889 152
Allowable Load
(lbs.)
1172020
757154
582399
429871
331604
274821
222930
135422
J-j
CONFIDENTIALJTRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian Tee Tank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian Tee Tank.
WIND LOADS
M =OVERTURNING MOMENT (ft. lbs.) EVL =EQUIVALENT VERTICAL LOAD (lbs.)
Fb= BENDING STRESS S= SECTION MODULUS OF SHELL
t= SHELL THICKNESS r= TANK RADIUS
A= SHELL CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA
EVL = Fb x A Fb= M I PI(rA2) (t) A= 2 PI(r) (t)
EVL = M I PI(rA2) (t) x 2 PI(r) (t) =2M I r 4M I D
THEREFORE: EVL = 4M I D
**********************************************************************
P= WIND PRESSURE= 18 psf FOR 100 MPH
FOR HIGHER VELOCITIES : P= 18 x (VELOCITYI100)A2 (psf)
TANK PROJECTED AREA= TANK DIAMETER x TANK HEIGHT (sq. ft.)
F= WIND FORCE (lbs.)= P x TANK PROJECTED AREA (sq. ft.)
h= 112 OF TANK HEIGHT (ft.) M= F x h (ft. lbs.)
**********************************************************************
Wind Velocity = 100 Mph p = 18 Psf
Ring Height Moment EvlW
1 24.18 203231 21048
2 16.12 90325 9355
3 8.06 22581 2339
5
CONFIDENTIAUTRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document. recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian Tee Tank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used In any manner without written permission from Columbian Tee Tank.
SEISMIC DESIGN LOADS
M= (18*Z*I/Rw) * (.14*(Ws*Xs + Wr*Ht + W1*X1) + C1*S*W2*X2)
Vact = (18*Z*I/Rw) * (.14*(Ws + Wr + W1) + S * C1 * W2)
Z=ZONE COEFFICIENT
I=USE FACTOR
Rw=FORCE REDUCTION COEFFICIENT
Ws=SHELL WEIGHT Xs=MOMENT ARM FOR Ws
D=TANK DIAMETER H=LIQUID DEPTH
Ht=SHELL HEIGHT Wt=TOTAL WT. OF CONTENTS
W1=W1/Wt*Wt (REFERENCE AWWA D103) .
W1= WEIGHT OF EFFECTIVE MASS OF CONTENTS THAT MOVES IN
UNISON WITH THE TANK SHELL.
W2=W2/Wt*Wt (REFERENCE AWWA D103)
W2= WEIGHT OF EFFECTIVE MASS OF THE FIRST MODE SLOSHING
CONTENTS OF THE TANK.
X1=MOMENT ARM FOR W1 X1/H*H (REFERENCE AWWA D103)
X2=MOMENT ARM FOR W2 = X2/H*H (REFERENCE AWWA D103)
Wr=ROOF WEIGHT S=SOIL PROFILE COEFFICIENT
C1= 1/(6*Tw) IF Tw < 4.5 SECONDS
C1= .75/Tw'z IF Tw >= 4.5 SECONDS
TW= SLOSHING MODE Kp*SQR D
UF= UPLIFT FACTOR M/(D'2*(Wt+w1))
IF FACTOR IS LARGER THAN .785, THERE IS UPLIFT, IF FACTOR
IS LARGER THAN 1.54, ANCHOR BOLTS ARE REQUIRED.
wt=
w1=
Tb=
Ws/(PI*D) =TANK
7.9*Tb*SQR(Fy*H)
BOTTOM THICKNESS
WEIGHT PER FOOT CIRCUMFERENCE
< 1.28 H*D = UTILIZED WT. OF CONTENTS
Fy= BOTTOM YIELD STRESS
SHELL COMPRESSION , SIGMA C / FS <= 1.33
Ts= SHELL THICKNESS Fs= ALLOWABLE COMPRESSIVE STRESS
SIGMA C= (Wt+(1.273*M/D'2))*1/(12*Ts) IF NO UPLIFT OR ANCHORED TANK.
SIGMA C= ((wt+wl) /(.6070-.18667*UF'2.3))-w1*(1/(12*Ts)) IF UPLIFT
CONFIDENTIAUTRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian TecTank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian TecTank.
Zone 1
Rw 3.50
Wr 10606
W1 1088850
W2 635411
Ts 0.1644
Fs 1385
wt 222
X1/H = 0.375
tw = 3.63
Evl = Sigma
Height Moment
(Ft. Lbs)
24.18 1005939
Zone 1
Rw 3.50
Wr 10606
W1 518984
W2 586185
Ts 0.1345
Fs 1138
wt = 160
X1/H = 0.375
tw = 3.78
Evl = Sigma
Height Moment
(Ft. Lbs)
16.12 391344
AWWA D103-97 Seismic Loads
Seismic Zone 1
38.622 Foot Diameter Tank
z 0.075
Ws 19903
Ht 24.18
X1 = 8.88
X2 15.16
Tb 0.1345
Fy = 40000
W1 1034
X2/H = 0. 640
Uplift Factor 0.54
C*Pi*D*Ts*12-Ws
Unanchored Tank Loads
Evl Sigma C/Fs Shear
(Lbs) (Lbs)
111234 0. 395 96643
38.622 Foot Diameter Tank
z = 0.075
Ws 12353
Ht 16.12
X1 = 5.86
X2 8.99
Tb 0.1345
Fy = 40000
w1 772
X2/H 0.575
Uplift Factor 0.28
C*Pi*D*Ts*12-Ws
Unanchored Tank Loads
Evl Sigma C/Fs Shear
(Lbs) (Lbs)
47594 0. 269 55265
I
Xs
C1 =
1.250
12.09
0.046
s = 1. 50
H = 23.680
D/H = 1. 631
W1/Wt = 0.629
Wt = 1731890
W2/Wt 0.367
Sigma c = 548
Tension
(Lbs)
80725
I 1. 250
Xs 8.06
C1 0.044
s = 1. 50
H = 15.620
D/H = 2.473
W1/Wt = 0.454
Wt = 1142404
W2/Wt 0. 513
Sigma c = 306
Tension
(Lbs)
24635
l
CONFIDENTIALrfRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian Tee Tank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian TecTank.
AWWA D103-97 Seismic Loads
Seismic Zone 1
38.622 Foot Diameter Tank
Zone 1 z 0.075 I 1.250
Rw 3.50 Ws 6177 Xs 4.03
Wr 10606 Ht 8.06 C1 0.036
W1 124941 X1 2.83 s = l. 50
W2 400142 X2 3.93 H = 7.560
Ts = 0.1345 Tb 0.1345 D/H = 5.109
Fs 1138 Fy = 40000 W1/Wt = 0.226
wt 109 W1 374 Wt = 552917
X1/H = 0.375 X2/H 0.520 W2/Wt 0. 724
tw = 4.58 Uplift Factor 0.10 Sigma c = 106
Evl = Sigma C*Pi*D*Ts*12-Ws
Unanchored Tank Loads
Height Moment Evl Sigma C/Fs Shear Tension
(Ft. Lbs) (Lbs) (Lbs) (Lbs)
8.06 72122 14539 0.093 19926 0
CONFIOENTIAUTRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian Tee Tank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian Tee Tank.
Stave Ring 1
Thickness = 8 Ga
Vertical Loads
Rows of
(1) Tank
Bolts = 2 Grade
Weight
( 2) Deck Live Load on
Shell @ 60
( 3) Evl Wind or
Total Static Load (1 + 2)
Total Dynamic Load (1 + 3) /1.33 =
Allowable Vertical
Actual Bolt Load
Allowable Bolt
Stave Ring 2
Thickness = 10 Ga
Load
Load 331604
4758
5312
Rows of Bolts
Tank Weight
PSF
Seismic
=
103 915
Lbs.
Lbs.
Lbs.
2 Grade
Vertical Loads (1)
( 2) Deck Live Load on
Shell @ 60 PSF
( 3) Evl Wind or Seismic
5 Bolts
26973 Lbs.
46862 Lbs.
111234 Lbs.
73835 Lbs.
Lbs.
5 Bolts
19423 Lbs.
46862 Lbs.
47594 Lbs.
Total Static Load (1 + 2)
Total Dynamic Load (1 + 3) /1.33 =
66285 Lbs.
50389 Lbs.
Allowable Vertical Load
Actual Bolt Load
Allowable Bolt Load
222930 Lbs.
3138 Lbs.
4346 Lbs.
Stave Ring 3
Thickness = 10 Ga
Vertical Loads (1)
(2)
Rows of Bolts 1
Tank Weight
Deck Live Load on
Shell @ 60 PSF
Grade
( 3) Evl Wind or Seismic
Total Static Load (1 + 2) =
Total Dynamic Load (1 + 3) /1.33 = 20892
Allowable Vertical Load 222930 Lbs.
Actual Bolt Load = 1519 Lbs.
Allowable Bolt Load 2825 Lbs.
5 Bolts
13247 Lbs.
46862 Lbs.
14539 Lbs.
60108 Lbs.
Lbs.
CONFIDENTIAUTRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian Tee Tank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian Tee Tank.
Unanchored Tank Overturning Moment From Wind
Ref. AWWA D100
M <= 2/3(WD/2)
M
w
D
203231
37938
38.622
Overturning moment from wind pressure in ft-lbs
Shell weight + weight of roof in lbs
Tank diameter in feet
Wind OTM 203231 <= Dead Load Resisting Moment 488418
10
CONFIDENTIALffRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian TecTank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian TecTank.
RING
1
2
3
TENSION LOADS ON CHIMES (AWWA D103-97)
TANK DIA = 38.622 FT
TENSION ON CHIME= ((EVL-DL)/CIRCUMFERENCE)
ALLOWABLE TENSION IN CHIME = (YIELD/36) X (9600 X t'2)
IF ALLOW TEN. > TEN. ON CHIME THEN A TENSION STRAP IS NOT REQUIRED
LOAD ON TENSION STRAP = 2 X TENSION ON CHIME
WIND/SEIS TENSION TENSION LOAD ON
t YIELD EVL TANK DL ON CHIME ALLOW TEN STRAP TENSION
(IN) (KSI) (LBS) (LBS) (LBS/IN) (LBS/IN) (LBS/2IN) (STRAP)
--------------------------------
0.1644 40 111234 30509 55 288 N/R
0.1345 40 47594 22959 17 193 34 N/R
0.1345 40 14539 16783 0 193 0 N/R
I )
CONFIDENTIAL!TRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian Tee Tank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian TecTank.
Intermediate Girder Check
AWWA D103-97 Sect. 3.7
D Tank I.D. (ft.): 38.622
V Wind Velocity (mph) : 100
P 18 (v/100) '2
h (10.625 * (10'6) * t)/ P * (D/t)'l.5
P Wind Pressure (psf) : 18
h
Stv Avg Stv Total
Stave Row Thickness Ht. Stv. Ht.
Gage Vert (in) (in) (ft)
---------
10 Ga 1 0.146 96.50 8.04
10 Ga 2 0.150 96.50 16.08
8 Ga 2 0.183 97.00 24.17
Avg Req
Thick Thick
(in) (in)
0.146 0.101
0.148 0.134
0.160 0.157
CONFIDENTIAL!TRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian Tee Tank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian TecTank.
************* Tank Loadings on Foundation *************
Customer
Sales Order
Date
Engineer
Tank Diameter
Tank Height
Working Tank Vol.
Product
Seismic Zone
(A) Tank Dead Load
(B) Deck Live Load
B.H. TANK
07-5275
5/22/2007
RM
38.622
24.18
207539
WATER
1
WORKS
Ft.
Ft.
Gal
Wind Velocity
Deck Live Load
Mat. Of Construction
Specific Gravity
................ 0.222 Kips/Ft.
................ 0.386 Kips/Ft.
Base Shear (Wind) .................. 16.810 Kips
overturning Moment (Wind) .......... 203.231 Kip-Ft
Tank Uplift (Wind) ................. 0.000 Kips/Ft.
Base Shear (Seismic) ............... 96. 643 Kips
Overturning Moment (Seismic) ....... 1005.939 Kip-Ft.
Tank Uplift (Seismic) .............. 0.000 Kips/Ft.
Bottom Pressure from contents ...... 1478 Psf
100 Mph
60 Lb/Sq Ft.
Carbon Steel
1. 00
(Arc)
(Arc)
(Arc)
(Arc)
J)
CONFIDENTIAUTRADE SECRETS. By accepting possession of this document, recipient agrees that its contents are confidential, proprietary trade secrets of
Columbian Tee Tank. No portion of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or used in any manner without written permission from Columbian TecTank.
06/06/2007 08:43 IFAX cstifax@columbiantectank.com
JUN-6-2007 08:40A FROM:DEEP CREEK ENGINEER! 16203658005
2.3b'l C-y 5 {-zd S: pr; nj_s
C cd~teo+fe R.~u!-,
~ cstifax
T0:19136212145
DEEP CREEK ENGINEERING, LLC
1120 East Buchanan St.
lola, Kansas 66749
Phone: (620)365-8004
email: joel@deepcreekeng.com
Job No. 7116
CENTERPOLE SLAB FOUNDATION DESIGN
FOR
38.622' x 24.18' TANK
FOR
BH TANK WORKS
TANK MANUFACTURED BY
COLUMBIAN TECTANK
Index:
Cover Sheet
Foundation Detail
Foundation Notes
Calculations
·'•·j
CIT Sales Order 07·5275
I
! "'"~--·-···"'' l
oz:zoo-ot J
·~---"-""'' .•. ···-~··· •·>···· "' ~-·-·· , . ·'' ----". ··-·· '"" ),
~~l j
Date:
Page#
1
2
3
4
6/6/07
Page 1
~ (:g ~ ....... = Z=;: > = ::::tZ "' 8~ ~ <$'>
~ -Oe<i u --'
...J wt9
;l ~ u::?; ....., rx: a -<=! CJffi
06/06/2007 08:43 !FAX cstifax@columbiantectank.com
JUN-6-2007 08:40A FROM:DEEP CREEK ENGINEER! 16203658005
-) cstifax
TO: 19136212145
¢38.6e2' X 24.18' TANK
/ I ,
I \
~ CONCRETE /I
I I CENTERPOLE I -A SLAB I
\, I
~ /
' ---/ ~---'-·-~.--":--
\
..
,_ •: \ .. _--.. __ . ·.··: ' '
·,"',
'i, '. STEEL CONTAINMENT RING OR EQUAL
CDESIGNED AND PROVIDED BY OTHERS)
CENTERPOLE BASE 3• THICK LAYER OF
STONE BETVEEN TANK
CONCRETE PAD
... ,.
·d.· .. ·: .. • '~-... :. tf
' . ,; ... ' ·' .: ~:-: .i'· .... ·.=· ... ···· ~ .. ~· · . ., .
........ '. . . ' "' .
((,) #5 BARS ON EO. SP. GRID
'-----COMPACTED GRAVEL FILL
5·-o·
SQUARE
COMPACTED, \/ELL -GRADED
STONE DR GRAVEL riLL
INSIDE CONTAINMENT RING
SECTION A-A' CENTERPDLE SLAB DETAIL
38.622' X 24. 18' TANK
BHTANKWORKS
CTT07-5275
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
DEEP CREEK ENG. JOB NO. 7 t 16
DETAIL SHEET20F4
06/06/2007 08:43 !FAX cstifax@columbiantectank.com
JUN-6-2007 08:41A FROM:DEEP CREEK ENGINEER! 16203658005
-} cstifax
TO: 19136212145
FOUNDATION DESIGN NOTES
1> PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE CHECKED AGAINST INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY THE TANK MANUFACTURER AND FIELD VERIFIED. ANY DISCREPANCIES
SHALL BE MADE KNOVJN TO THE 0\JNER.
2> DESIGNED IN COMPLIANCE VJITH AVJVJA D103-97 AND ACI 318.
3> ALL APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF AVJVJA D103-97 AND ACI-318 SHALL BE FOLLOVJED
DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THIS FOUNDATION.
4> CENTERPOLE SUPPORT SLAB DESIGNED FOR TANK LOADS PROVIDED BY
COLUMBIAN TECTANK ON COLUMBIAN TECTANK SALES ORDER 07-5275,
5) ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE 4000 PSI MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH.
6) ALL CONCRETE COVER TO BE 3' UNLESS OTHERVJISE NOTED.
7> COMPACTED, \JELL-GRADED STONE DR GRAVEL FILL VJITHIN CONTAINMENT RING,
TO BE LEVEL VJITHIN +/-1/8' IN ANY 10 FT CIRCUMFERENCE UNDER THE TANK SHELL.
THE GRAVEL PAD LEVELNESS SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN +/-1/2' FROM AN
ESTABLISHED PLANE.
8> ROCK OR GRAVEL FILL TO BE 3/4' MINUS.
9> ALL CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL TO BE 60000 PSI MINIMUM YIELD
STRENGTH. <REF. ASTM A615)
10) MINIMUM ALLOVJABLE SOIL BEARING PRESSURE IS 2500 PSF <MINUS VJATER VJEIGHT>.
lD FOUNDATION DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE VJITH SOILS REPORTS BY HP GEOTECH,
JOB NO. 101 821, APRIL 19, 2002,
JOB NO. 101 821, JANUARY 19, 2004,
12) REF SOILS REPORTS FOR SITE REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING
SINKHOLE COMMENTARY.
13) SITE SOILS TO BE .INSPECTED BY A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO
FOUNDATION INSTALLATION .. IF THE ALLOVJA'l3LE SOIL BEARING CAPACITY .
~~ ~~~~ ~~e~D~~~g~R~~D 0T~NTK~E T~~~E T~~IL~ot~~A1~I~~E~~~i~NFP~ 0~iri,ORT
~~~~"~~;~~ CENTERPOLE SLAB DESIGN
Ph: 620-365-8004 Email: I ,
38.622' X 24.18' TANK
BH TANK WORKS
CTT07-5275
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
DEEP CREEK ENG. JOB
NOTES SHEET 30F 4
06/06/2007 08:43 !FAX cstifax@columbiantectank.com
JUN-6-2007 08:41A FROM:DEEP CREEK ENGINEER! 16203658005
. ·.·;f;l''.
Center Pole Support Pad Design
Dead Load to Center Column =
Live Load to Center Column =
Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure =
Height of Water in Tank=
Center Slab Width, W =
Center' Slab Length, L =
Center Slab Thickness, h =
dl= h-3 =
Concrete Yield Strehgth, fc =
Thickness of Fill =
Weight of Fill =
4686 lbs
23431 lbs ..
2500 psf
23.68 ft
6ft
6ft
12 in'
9 in
4000 psi
0.25 ft
125 pcf
;;
SqiLBearing Pressure Under Slab, q = 2433.91 psf
' Soil' Bear.ing,Applied to Slab (Uplift), q," 1288.70 psf
. (1.4 DL + 1.7 LL) I (W x L)
Punching Shear Check
· , . · C!!ryt~r pole O~tside Diameter =
· .. · · , .· Center Pole .Base Dia. "
· . Shear Critical Diameter, Cd =
· · Shear.CriUcal Perimeter, b0 =· ·
Shear on Critical Perimeter, Vu 1 =
Nominal Concrete Shear Strength, Vc =
<r>vc = o.85Vc"
Beam Shear Check
Bending Design
One Way Shear,Vu2 =
One Way Shear Allow., Vc =
ct>Vc = 0.85 Vc =
6.625 in
. :19 in
12:81'?5 iti
40'25 in
45239 lbs
91647 lbs
77900 lbs
19069 lbs
81966 lbs
69671 lbs
Mu = qu x Moment Arm x L x12 = 282157 in-lbs
Assume a= 2 in., d = h-3 in.
Steel Req., As= Mu I (0.9 x Fy(d-al2) = 0.65 sq. in.
Minimum Steel Check
As, min= .0018Wh = 1.5552 sq. in.
Steel Design
-" cstifax
T0:19136212145
Page4 of4
Concrete & Water Wt.
Do not contribute to bending
or shear in slab.
OK
Use 6 number 5 Bars on 13.200 in. C. C. (Grid)
A, steel= 1.841 sq. in.
Mr. Doug Young
Bush Development
56 Steel Street
Denver, Colorado 80206
Dear: Mr. Young,
July 20, 2007
Subject: Water Storage Tank and Pump
House, Callicotte Ranch, Carbondale,
Colorado
Job Number 07-6526
As requested by Waner Construction, a representative of Ground Engineering
Consultants, Inc. (GROUND) was on site on July 3, 2007 to observe the excavation of
two test pits for a subsurface exploration program for the Callicotte Ranch Subdivision
water storage tank and pump house.
HP Geotech has previously performed two reports for the project titled Preliminary
Geotechnical Study, Proposed Cal/icotte Ranch, County Roads 112 and 113, Garfield
County, Colorado, dated April 19, 2002 and Subsoil Study for Foundation Design,
Proposed Water Storage Tank, Proposed Callictotte Ranch, County Roads 112 and 113,
Garfield County, Colorado, dated January 19, 2004, Job No. 101 821, prepared for
Magna Casa, Inc, which are attached in Appendix A. These reports indicate that the
water storage tank may be designed for spread footings bearing on the natural subsoils
or structural fill and be designed for 2,500 psf allowable soil bearing pressure for spread
footings associated with the water tank. However, the report does not indicate the depth
to which structural fill should be placed below the tank as a request, we have been
requested to provide these recommendations. GROUND has also been requested to
provide foundation recommendations for the proposed pump house located south of the
water storage tank.
Proposed Construction
We understand that the proposed tank will be a 200,000-gallon capacity steel tank,
approximately 24 feet in height and 39 feet in diameter. An approximate 200 square foot
pump house is also proposed, approximately 25 feet south of the tank. Provided
information suggest that there will be approximately 4 to 6 feet of material cut and fill in
order to achieve fin site grades. Only be limited cuts and fills (less than 1 foot), appear to
be necessary beneath the tank.
_ ___.G ....... RDUN ..... D...__ _________ _
ENGINEERING C 0 N S U L T R NT S, IN C.
101AAirpark Dr., Unit 9, PO Box 464, Gypsum, CO 81637 Phone (970) 524-0720 Fax (970) 524-0721 www.groundeng.com
Office Locations: Englewood Commerce City • Loveland Granby Gypsum
Subsurface Exploration
Callicotte Ranch
Water Tank and Pump House
Carbondale, Colorado
The subsurface exploration for the project was conducted in July, 2007. A total of 2 test
pits were excavated with a trackhoe to evaluate subsurface conditions as well as to
retrieve samples for laboratory testing and analysis. The test pits were excavated along
the west and east edge of the anticipated tank boundaries to depths of approximately 6
to 10 feet below existing grades. Subsurface materials were sampled with a 2-inch I.D.
"California" -type liner sampler driven by hand.
Laboratory Testing
Samples retrieved from our test pits were examined and visually classified in the
laboratory by the project engineer. Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the
subject site included standard property tests, such as natural moisture contents, dry unit
weights, grain size analyses, and Atterberg limits. Swell-consolidation and water-soluble
were performed on selected samples as well.
Data from the laboratory testing program are summarized on Table 1.
Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits consisted of a thin layer of
topsoil, approximately 6 inches thick, underlain by sandy clay to the total depths
explored of 6 and 10 feet. The clays were generally moist, low density, fine to medium
grain with occasional gravels, cobbles, and boulders, low to medium plastic, and tan to
brown in color.
Swell-Consolidation Testing suggested a low potential for swell in the native soils. A
consolidation of 1.3 percent and swells ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 were measured upon
wetting under a 1,000 psf surcharge load. No potential swell/heave was indicated at the
water storage tank location in the previously mentioned reports.
Water Storage Tank
The requirements outlined below should be followed for placement of structural fill
placed beneath the water storage tank.
1) The tank should bear on 2 or more feet of properly compacted granular soil
meeting the requirements of a CDOT Class 6 aggregate road base.
The existing soils should be removed to a sufficient depth beneath footing
bearing elevations to accommodate placement of the recommended depth of fill,
or to a depth greater to provide a uniform depth of fill beneath the footing, in
addition to scarification and re-compaction of the underlying subgrade to a
minimum depth of 12 inches.
June 13, 2007 . Ground Engineering Consultants Job No. 07-6526
Callicotte Ranch
Water Tank and Pump House
Carbondale, Colorado
The structural fill section should extend at full depth at least 2 feet laterally
beyond the perimeter of the tank.
2) Soils that classify as GP, GW, GM, GC, SP, SW, SM, or SC in accordance with
the uses classification system (granular materials) should be compacted to 95
or more percent of the maximum modified Proctor dry density at moisture
contents within 2 percent of optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM
01557, the "modified Proctor." Soils that classify as ML, MH, CL or CH should
be compacted to 100 percent of the maximum standard Proctor density at
moisture contents from 1 percent to 3 percent above the optimum moisture
content as determined by ASTM 0698, the "standard Proctor."
3) After scarification and re-compaction, the grade of the native soils beneath the
tank should be crowned at the center of the tank and have a slight downword
gradient to the edge of the tank prior to placement of the road base material.
4) As a minimum, the tank foundation soils should be protected with an underdrain
on the upslope side of the tank. The underdrain should consist of perforated
PVC collection pipe at least 4 inches in diameter, non-perforated PVC discharge
pipe at least 4 inches in diameter, free-draining gravel, and filter fabric. The free-
draining gravel should contain less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 Sieve and
more than 50 percent retained on the No. 4 Sieve, and have a maximum particle
size of 2 inches. Each collection pipe should be surrounded on the sides and top
only with 6 or more inches of free-draining gravel. The gravel surrounding the
collection pipe should be wrapped with filter fabric to reduce the migration of
fines into the drain system. 'Clean out' access points should be provided at
intervals along the system to facilitate maintenance. A typical, cross-section
detail of an underdrain as described above can be provided upon request. The
actual layout, outlets, etc., should be designed by the Civil Engineer.
The high point(s) for the pipe flow line(s) should be at least 6 inches below the
bottoms of the tank footings. The pipe should be graded to drain effectively to to
daylight down slope. Design drainage gradients should allow for several inches
of potential differential movement along a 1 00-foot reach.
The underdrain system should be tested by the Contractor after installation and
after placement and compaction of the overlying backfill to verify that the system
functions properly.
5) The waterlines entering and exiting the tank should be designed to accomdate
several inches of vertical movement.
Pump House Foundation
June 13, 2007 Ground Engineering Consultants Job No. 07-6526
Callicotte Ranch
Water Tank and Pump House
Carbondale, Colorado
The clays encountered at shallow depths were moist and exhibited low density, and
exhibited only a low potential for heave or consolidation. Therefore, GROUND
recommends that the building be supported on shallow foundation systems bearing on
properly moisture-conditioned and compacted fill soils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread
footing foundation system. The construction details should be considered when
preparing project documents. The precautions and recommendations provided below
will not prevent movement of the footings if the underlying expansive materials are
subjected to alternate wetting and drying cycles. However, the recommended measures
will tend to make the movement more uniform, and reduce resultant damage if such
movement occurs.
1) As a minimum, footings should bear on at least 2 feet of properly moisture-
conditioned and compacted on-stie fill soils. The existing soils should be
excavated from beneath the building footprint to a depth of 2 feet or more below
the lowest foundation element, thoroughly mixed, moisture conditioned and
replaced as properly compacted fill. Excavation and replacement to the full,
recommended depth should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building perimeter.
Recommendations for fill placement and compaction are provided in the Water
Storage Tank section of this letter. The Contractor should take care to construct
a fill layer of uniform composition depth to reduce differential post-construction
building, slab and flatwork movements.
Recommendations for compaction of fill soils are provided in the Water Stoarge
Tank section of this letter. Site soils free of debris are suitable, in general, for
use as compacted fill.
The Contractor should provide surveyed elevations of the bottoms of the
excavations beneath the building verifying that the remedial excavation was
advanced to a sufficient depth.
2) Footing excavation bottoms may expose debris, loose or wet materials, organic
or otherwise deleterious materials. Firm materials may be disturbed by the
excavation process. All such unsuitable materials should be excavated and
replaced with properly compacted structural fill.
3) Footings bearing on the undisturbed native sands and gravels or properly
compacted on-site materials may be designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure (Q) of 1,500 psf under drained conditions. This value may be increased
by 1/3 for transient loads such as wind or seismic loading.
Based on this allowable bearing capacity,. we anticipate post-construction
settlements on the order of 1 inch.
June 13, 2007 Ground Engineering Consultants Job No. 07-6526
Callicotte Ranch
Water Tank and Pump House
Carbondale, Colorado
The allowable bearing capacity provided above is based on the assumption of
well-drained conditions. If foundation soils become wet, the effective bearing
capacity could be reduced and the potential for heave or settlement will be
increased.
4) In order to reduce differential settlements between footings or along continuous
footings, footing loads should be as uniform as possible. Differentially loaded
footings will settle differentially.
5) Spread footings should have a minimum lateral dimension of 16 or more inches
for linear strip footings, and a minimum lateral dimension of 24 or more inches for
isolated pad footings. Actual footing dimensions, however, should be determined
by the Structural Engineer, based on the design loads.
6) Footings should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing
elevation for frost protection. Footings should be placed at a bearing elevation
3% or more feet below the lowest adjacent exterior finish grades. In heated,
interior areas, footings should bear at least 1% feet below lowest adjacent finish
grades. ·Where interior footings bear at depths less than 3% feet, the underlying
fill section should be correspondingly thickened.
7) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span an
unsupported length of at least 1 0 feet.
8) The lateral resistance of spread footings will be developed as sliding resistance
. of the footing bottoms on the foundation materials. Sliding friction at the bottom
of footings bearing on common fill may be taken as 0.30 times the vertical dead
load.
9) Compacted fill placed against the sides of the footings should be compacted to at
least 95 percent relative compaction in accordance with the recommendations in
the Water Storage Tank section of this report.
1 0) Care should be taken when excavating the foundation to avoid disturbing the
supporting materials. Hand excavation or careful backhoe soil removal may be
required in excavating the last few inches.
11) Foundation soils may be disturbed or deform excessively under the wheel loads
of. heavy construction vehicles as the excavations approach footing levels.
Construction equipment should be as light as possible to limit development of
this condition. The use of track-mounted vehicles is suggested because they
exert lower contact pressures. The movement of vehicles over proposed
foundation areas should be restricted.
June 13, 2007 Ground Engineering Consultants Job No. 07-6526
Callicotte Ranch
Water Tank and Pump House
Carbondale, Colorado
12) All footing areas should be compacted with a vibratory plate compactor prior to
placement of concrete.
A Geotechnical Engineer should be retained to observe and test all footing excavations
prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
Water Soluble Sulfates
The concentrations of water-soluble sulfates measured in selected samples retrieved
from the test holes ranged up to 0.24 percent by weight. (See Table 1 .) Such
concentrations of soluble sulfates represent a moderate environment for sulfate attack
on concrete exposed to these materials. Degrees of attack are based on the scale of
'negligible,' 'moderate,' 'severe' and 'very severe' as described in the "Design and
Control of Concrete Mixtures," published by the Portland Cement Association (PCA).
Based on these data, GROUND recommends use of Type II, Type IP(MS), Type IS(MS),
Type P(MS), Type I(PM)(MS), or Type I(SM)(MS) sulfate-resistant cement in all concrete
exposed to site soils. (CementType II is specified by ASTM C150. The other types and
blends are specified by ASTM C595.)
All concrete used should have a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50 by weight. All
concrete used should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Concrete
mixes should be relatively rich and should be air entrained.
The Contractor .should be aware that certain concrete mix components affecting sulfate
resistance including, but not limited to, the cement, entrained air, and fly ash, can affect
workability, set time, and other characteristics during placement, finishing and curing.
The Contractor should develop mix(es) for use in project concrete which are suitable
with regard to these construction factors, as well as sulfate resistance. A reduced, but
still significant, sulfate resistance may be acceptable to the Owner, in exchange for
desired construction characteristics.
A Geotechnical Engineer should be retained to observe and test all footing excavations
prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
Closure
Geotechnical Review The poor performance of many foundations and subsurface
structures has been directly attributed to inadequate geotechnical review and earthwork
quality control. Therefore, project plans and specifications should be reviilwed by the
Geotechnical Engineer to evaluate . whether they comply with the intent of the
recommendations in this report. This review should be reported in writing.
Project earthwork construction operations should be observed by the Geotechnical
Engineer. All excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to
June 13, 2007 Ground Engineering Consultants Job No. 07-6526
Callicotte Ranch
Water Tank and Pump House
Carbondale, Colorado
placement of fill or backfill soils, installation of shoring, or foundation construction.
Placement of fill/backfill soils should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and the
soils tested.
Limitations This letter only pertains to the placement of structural fill beneath the water
storage lank and recommendations for the pump house foundation and the previously
mentioned· reports prepared by HP Geotech shall be referenced for all other
geotechnical recommendations for the water storage tank and Callicotte Ranch Project.
It may not contain sufficient information forother parties or other purposes.
Actual conditions exposed during construction may be anticipated to differ, somewhat,
from those encountered during site exploration. If during construction, surface, soil,
bedrock, or groundwater conditions appear to be at variance with those described
herein, the Geotechnical Engineer should be advised at once, so that re-evaluation of
the recommendations may be made in a timely manner.
'The Owner should be aware that ther·e is a risk in construction on these types of soils .
.Performance of the proposed structures will depend on implementation of the
recommendations in this report and on proper maintenance after· construction is
completed. Because water is the. principal cause of volume change in expansive soils
and rock, it is necessary that the 'changes in moisture content be kept tci a minimum.
Any indications of distress to project installations should be brought to the attention of a
Geotechnical Engineer in .a timely manner.
We hope this provides information needed at this time, if we
information, pleast:; do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely', ·
GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc.
.Reviewed by Michael K. Wariner, P.E.
June 13, 2007 Ground Engineering Consultants Job No. 07-6526
GROUND
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
'
.· ,-___ _._-
Sample Location Natural Natural Gradation Percent Atterberg Limits J Percent Water AASHTO
Test Moisture Dry Passing Liquid Plast_icity I Swell Soluble PI-I Classifi-
Hole Depth Content Density Gravel Sand No. 200 Limit Index J (1000 psf Sulfates Reading cation Soil or
No. (feet) (%) (pet) (%) (%) Sieve (%) (%) , __ Surcharge) (%) (G/) Bedrock Type .. -~" .. ------· '•'" . ,,, • •'«• .. ---~,--. --.. --··· . --------' . --,,. -· ..--·
I TP-1 I 3 I r TP-1 ·r 5 1
22.0 I 82.1 I
29.6 I 89.2 I o fo.I55.149T
10
10
1 0.13 ! I -1.87 .. ,
0.24 A-5 (5) I 8.10 Sandy CLAY
l I A-5 (5) r
215ur 92.1 r o I o l 74 l47 T 22 0.11 I 8.50 A-7-6 (16) r Sandy Clay I
Job# 07-6526
APPENDIX A
HP Geotech's Soil Reports
G~tech
HEPWORTH-PAWUd< GEOTECHNICAL
SUBSOIL STUDY
Hepwor£h-P::m:bk Ge<.'lrt:ch:nical. lnc..
5020 Cotm<\' Rv•d J 54
Glenwoo~i Sprin)?s, Ct>lorndr) $] 601
Plwnt:: 970~945-7938
En:: 970-9~5~8'1.54
email; hpgt:('l@lhpgt:!ut:ech.com
FOR FOUNDATION DESJGN
PROPOSED WATER STORAGE TANK
PROPOSED CALLJCOTTE RANCH
COUNTY ROADS 11.2 AND 103
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 101 821
JANUARY 19, 2004
PREPARED FOR:
MAGNA CASA, INC.
ATTN: JACK MANCJNJ
1700 E. LAS OLAS BOULEVARD, S0TE 206
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301
Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthorn': 9/0-468-1989
UC/CECilJ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ................ _ ....... _ . . . . . 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SITE CONDITIONS ........................ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FIELD EXPLORATION ................................... _ . . . 3
SUBSURFACE CONDlTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ENGINEERING ANAL 'iSIS ........................... __ . . . . . . . 4
·,> DESIGN RECOM11END/\TIONS ........ ~ .............. " ....... , 5
'" FOUNDATIONS AND SUBGRADE ............. _ ..... _ ....... 5
SITE GRADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
SURFACE DRAINAGE ...................... _ . . . . . . . . . . . 6
LLWTATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FIGURE 1 -LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FIGURE 2 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FIGURES 3 and 4 -SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST :RESULTS
FJGU:RE 5-GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1 -SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST :RESULTS
Job #101 821
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoiJ study for a proposed water storage tank to
be located at the proposed Callicotte Ranch development, County Roads 112 and 103,
Glilfield County, Colorado. The project sile is shown on Figure I. The purpose of the
study was to develop recommendations for the tank foun(lation and grading designs.
'l11e stUdy was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering
services to Magna Casa, Inc. dated December 1, 2003. We previously perfonned a
preliminary geotechmca.l srudy for the proposed deve]opment and presented our
fmdings in a report dated April 19, 2002, Job No. 101 821.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory pits was conducted to obtain
infonnation on subsurface conditions at the revised tank location. Samples of the
subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laborat01y to determine
their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The
results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop
recomi:nendations for foundation types, deptl1s and allowable pressures for the proposed
tank foundation and grading design. This report summarizes the data obtained during
thiS Study and presents Oill" conclUStOUS, design recommendations and Other gcotechxUCal
engineering considerations based on the proposed constmction and the subsoll
conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The original water tank was proposed in the northwest comer of the development_ The
revised tank location is about 1,200 feet to tl1e east-southeast of the previous site. The
-tank will be above ground and constmcted -of steel with a capacity of a'bout ·200 ;000
gallons. The tank will have a design hortorn elevation of 6794 feet, a h<=ight of about
24 feet and diameter of about 3 8 feet. Grading for the structure appears to be a
balanced cut and fill with cut depths up to abom 8 feet along the uphi.ll side and tlll
Job #101 821 ~ech
XVo Otl91 DH~ LOOZ/61/LO
. 2 .
depths up to 4 feet at the downhill side. Final grad~d slopes of 2 horizontal to 1
vertical are proposed arouncl the proposed tank and roadway. A 12 foot wide access
road will be consLrocted up to· and around the proposed tank and may encroach the
reclaimed landfill area in the north.
If the tank location or grading plans change significantly from that described, we should
be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
"-' The site .is vacant and located just south of a reclaimed landfill area in the northeast
''' corner of the development. Scattered trash and debris were visible on the ground
1 surface northwest of the site. The site was covered with about 2 inches of snow at the
time of our field exploration. Tbe terrain is relatively flat and slightly irregular with
moderately steep slopes down to a small tributary valley to the west. There is about 8
feet.of elevation difference across the tank footprint. Vegetation consists of scrub oak
and pinion trees, mainly on the south ;ide of the site.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Peunsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the proposed
Canicotte Ranch development. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-
grained sandstone and siltstone with some rnass.ive beds of gypsllm and limestone.
There is a possibility that massiVe gyPsum deposits associated with the Eagle Valley
Evaporite underlie portions of ilie development. Dissolution of the gypsum under
certain conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of localized
subsidence. A sinkhole was observed about 1,300 feet to the west oflhe northwestern
property comer during our previous study. The sinkhole appears similar to others
associated with 1he Eagle Valley Evaporite in areas of the Roaring Fork Valley.
Job #101 821
-3-
Sinkholes were not observed on the property or in the m;ea of the proposed water tank.
No evidence· of cavities was encountered in the subsurface materials; however, the
exploratory pits were relatively shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our
present knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site, it cannot be said for. certain
tl1at si.nkboles will not develop. The risk of future ground subsidence at the site
tl:l.r011ghout the service life of the water tank; in our opinion, is low; however, the
owner should be made aware ofthc potential for sinkhole development. If further
investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired, we should be
contacted.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on January 7, 2004. Three
. exploratory pits were excavated at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the
·subsurface .conditions. The pits were dug with a rubber-tire, Caterpillar 420D backhoe
arid logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples or t.he subsoils were taken with relatively 1mdisturbed and disturbed sampling
methods. Depths at which the samples were taken are shown on the Logs of
Exploratory Pits, Figure 2.., The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by
the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Figure 2. Below up to 1 foot of topsoil, the subsoils consist of relatively stiff, slightly
sandy (() sandy silty clay soils and medium dense basalt fragments up to boulder size
down to the maximum explored depth of 12 feet at Pit 1.
Job #1.01 821
' '
-4-
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural
moisture content, density an¢! gradation analyses. Swell-consolidation testing was
performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the f"me-grained pmtion of tbe
subsoils. The swell-consolidation test results, presented on Figures 3 and 4, indicate
low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of
gradation analyses performed on a bulk sample (minus 5 inch fraction) of the coarse
granular portion oftlle subsoils are shown on Figure 5. The laboratory testing is
summarized in Table 1.
~· No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating and the subsoils
were typically moist.
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
The tank site is located outside of the rec:!aimed landfill are to the north. Based on the
proposed tank base elevation, it appears that up to 4 feet of fill will be needed at the
downhill side of the tank in order to establish the design elevation of 6794 feet. There
will be some potential for differential settlement between portions of the tank founded
on the natural subsoils and the portions bearing on the fill even if the material is
properly placed and compacted. We expect the differential settlements to be tolerable,
on the order of 1 to llh inches, but the tank could be moved to the east (into fue
hiJ!side) or the. base elevation could be lowered to place the entire tank on undisturbed
natural subsoils.
Job #101 821
-5-
DESIGN RECO:MMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS AND SUBGRADE
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory pits and tbe
nature of the proposed construction, the tan.k can be founded on a comp~cted granular
base or spread footings bearing on the natural subsoils or compacted structural fill.
Topsoil and disturbed soils should be completely removed below the tank footprint.
Structural fill can be placed below the tank as needed. Settlement could be differential
between portions of the tank bearing on the natural subsoils and portions bearing on
siructnral filL Foundations can be designed for au allowable bearing pressu:te of 2,500
·.\·, psf, excluding the weight of the water. Based on experience, we expect settlements to
be up to about 1 to 1 1h incbes, depending on structural fl.ll construction. St:mctnral fill
can consist of Jean concrete (flow fill) or granular soils (such as imported road base
gravels) compacted to at least 100% of standard Proctor density at a moisture content
near optimum.. The structnral fill should extend down and out from the edge of the
tank at an effective grade of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical, and at least 4 feet beyond the
confining ring of the base :materials. The tank base materials should be placed and
compacted to the project specifications. A representative of the geotcclutical engineer
should observe the tank sub grade for bearing conditions and evaluate structural fill
construction for placement and compaction.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided that
the tank is located as planned and cut and fill depth am limited. Cut depth for the tank
is expected to be up to about 8 feet at the uphill side. Fills phicecl in roa(hvay areas
should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard PTOClOr density near
optimum moisrurecontcnt. Prior to any new embankment fill placement, the sub grade
should be carefully pr~;pared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to
Job //)01 821
x~a 1V'91 na~ L00</61/LO
-6-
95% standard Proctor density. Fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside
exceeding 20% grade.
Permanent unreLained cut and filJ slopes should be graded at 2 horizontaJ to 1 vertical
or flatter and pro•ected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of
slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts (including temporary
excavations) and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in
permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will
· adversely affect the cut stability.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
T.be following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and
maintained at all times after the water tank has been completed:
1) Inundation of the tank excavation should be avoided during construction.
2) Nonstructural backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95% offhe maximum standard Proctor density.
3) The ground surface around the tank should be sloped to prevent ponding.
4) · The hillside drainage througb. the tank site should be diverted by a swaJe
witll adequate cross-section around the tank.
LlMJTATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty
either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations su1Jm itted in this
report are based upon tlle data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated iJt the
locations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of constructicm and our experience in ·
the area. Our findings include iilterpolation and extrapolation cif the subsurface
conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations iu the· subsmface conditions
Job #101 821
XV~ ot'91 OH~ LOOo/61/LO
.,-,
-7 -
ma.y not become evidenluntil excavation .is performed. If conditiom encountered
during construction appear different from those described in ilJis report, we should be
notified so that re-evaluation of the reconm1cndations may be made.
This report has been prepared for llie exclusive use by our client for design purposes.
We are not responsible for technical intBrpretations by others of our :information. As
the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
constructioi.J to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
' verify (hat the reco=endations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant
i?' design changes may require additional analysis or modificat).o:os to the
'' recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of Bxcavations
i;o. anCI. fourJdation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the
geotedm.ical engineer.
· Respectfully Submiued,
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Trevor L. Knell
Reviewed by:
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
TLK/ksw.
cc; Land Design Partnership -Attn: Ron Liswn
. High Country Engineering-Attn: Roger Neal
Job Ill OJ 821
APPROXJMATE
SCALE
1" = 40'
OPEN SPACE
LOT
BOUNDARY
' \
\
\
APPROXIMA iE
RECLAIMED
LANDFILL AREA
PROPOSED
PUMP HOUSE
AND
CHLORINATION
BUILDING
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
f
I
I
c£
<S
;"''
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
///'/
I
I
I
I
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
101 821
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
U0/6€0121
Figure 1
'
I
DATE;
ATI'N:
.July 19, 2007
RE: Culli.oottc Ranch Subdivision
TO; Zacb
FAX: 970·S24-<l72!
FROM. , Kevin StClair, Pt~joot f:nW:noor
SIJl3WTfi\L lh N/ A
Enclosed are the roUmriow
OShop Drnwins
0CoJ>Y ofL<:tto<
0P.ymwtfu>q-
Cople:i n ...
1 7/l9/Z007
TRAN,;MIITED:
ON• ;F.;;ccp!i ... bkon
DA-ve<!., No!O<I
o-...iR=bmil
0For Awrov•l
REMARKS:
C.C. FILE
nonoollJ
QCoolrac~•)
0f1•~·
[KjSp.,W,.ti""'
HI' GEOTECIISOILS REPORT
'~'~ WANER
CONSTRUGnONC.O.
8950 llntron• Blvd.
Unit 103
!lighlaods Ranob, CO. 80126
!'hone-303-683-()()99
Fox-303-683-3789
FAX TRANSMITTAL
VIA:
o~~"'
OM,...I;,¢""'"' l),,f.a
o= .. oro.,. Rcqu""
ltr,."m Th::miptioo
Ocouricr
QFitst Class Msil
4;30PM
OwcCI Deliv=d
OPiokup@ WCC!
___ 2007
___ 2007
J\et.ioo
!IS · U&llill
SIGN/I.TURE ____ ==;-;;>:;.:------
IWinSCC!.ir
..
~
"' "' u...
.t:.
~
0.
"' Cl
0
5
10
15
LEGEND;
PIT 1
ELEV. ~6791'
WC=-2.4.8·
DD~85
-200 ..... 55
wc~22..0
DD,..,.92
-200~76
PIT 2
ELEV.=6798'
-· : +4=00
I -200~39
TOPSOIL: sondy cloy, frozen. brown, organics.
PIT 3
ELt:V.=6789'
0 3 wc~2s.a
DP~61
-200~92
5
10
15
CLAY AND BASALT FRAGMENTS (CL·-GC); sandy, sDty, with rock fragments up to boulder size,
stiff to ve,·y stiff/medium dense, moist, light brown to white, calcareous.
~ 2" Diameter hond qriven liner sample:
t ~ J Disturbed bulk sample.
NOTES;
L Exploratory pits were excavated on January 7, 2004-with o CAT 4-200 backhoe.
2. Locations of explorotory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the
site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory pits were obtained by interpolation between contour lines on the site plan
provided by High Country Engineering ond checked by holld level.
4. The exploratory pi\ locations end elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied
by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate boundaries
between material types and transitions may be groduol.
6. No free woter wos encountered in the pits at the time of excovoting. Fluctuation in water level
may .?ccur "!itf:l. ti!!'.e.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % )
DD = Dry Density ( pcf )
+4 = Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve
-200 ~ Percent passing No. 200 sieve
101 821 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Figure 2
~
" " W..·
£ c.
"' 0
no;ovolll XVd 8~'91 OH~ L00~/~1/LO
Moisture Content ~ 24.8 percent
Dry Density ~ 85 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Cloy with Basalt
Fragments
From: Pit 1 ot 1 1/2 Feet
0
"" r--1--1"'-r-'
.
~ 1 ~ No movement
r: ~upon
0 wetting -iii ~
(8 2 \
~
Q_ . 1\ E
0
Q 3
I
4
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
Moisture Content = 22.0 percent
Dry Density = 92 pcf
.Sample of: Sc:mdy Clay
From: Pit 1 at 5 1/2 Feet
0
. --. r:. I'--I .
-........... " ~ 1 "l No movement
c ~ !"'-upon
0 "' wetting 'iii
"' 2 .,
~
0.
E
0
0 3
4
..
-·
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 3
101 821 GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
XV~ 6V ;91 OH~ LOOo/61/LO
I Moisture Content = 29.0 percent
Dry Density = 81 pcf
Sample of: Slightly Sandy Cloy
From: Pi! 3 ot i 1/2 Foot
0 I
I--1--t--~ r-
~ 1 ~-No movement
c;
2 I
r'--upon
0 wetting
" "' "' . l "'\ ~ a.
""' E
0
0 3 r--~
I I
4 1---I -----
I -·c
i
0.1 1.0 10 iOO
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
101 821 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 4
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. .
·--H'\'OROIJ£n'.R .<I:NAL\'SIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS I
24)HR.
11M£ RE.W1NtS I U.S. STANDARD SI;Rlf-."> I CU::AR SQVARE OP".ENIN{;S
7HR
0' 45 !.UK.. 1~ MIN. \)()MIN, 191JlN; ~ WIN. 1 /II!I'L poo I"'" '"' 1<'0 "'' ,. f" Z/5" 3/~~ 1 1/2" ,. s·6· a" 100
10 90
,.
70
30
.
0 so c.:> w "" -z z Iii <i' (}) ,__. -< w 0. '""" ,__ "" 50 ..... z z w w 0
'-' 0:: cc -LU w 0.. 0.. so "'
?o
eo 20
so 10
100 0
75.2 1s2 zo;, m ,{loti .009 .Of9 ,037 .07+ .150 .ooz ,001
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS >~~~~~COBB~LES
101 8::11
ctAYTO ~LT
GRAVEL 50 % SAND 11
LIQUID LIMIT %
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Clayey Basalt Gravel
ond Cobbles
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SILT AND CLAY 39 %
PLASllCITY INDEX %
FROM: Pit 2 at 4 through 6 Feet
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
XVd 6V•91 nax L00o(61(L0
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHN!CAL, INC. :
TABLE 1 JOB NO. 10·1 821
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESl!LT·S
. · .
SAMPLELOCAT!Ot,' i f\'/>,TIJRAL · NATURAt GRADATION PERCENT r . ATTfRBERG t~M!fSnc--i Ut,'CON~lNED J rAOISi\JRE · PASSING i-----""1--
PIT DEPTH . DR.Y GRAVEL SAND UQU\0 PLASTIC COMP~>E.SSIVE so:L
I~Enl) CONTt::Nr "OEt;SITY [~'•! 1%1 NO. 2.\:10 UM!T
J
!~.'D!:X .Sl"RENGTH . iYFE
{"lt.l (pcfj SIEVE W•l ~~~~ jPSFJ •
--= I 1 1 y2 24.8 85 66 I l sandy clay with bi>sl'lt
\
iragments
5% 22.0 92 76 sandy clay
'
I I
r . sandy dayev basalt 2 4w6 50 11 39 gravel and cobbles
I . I
3 . lY2 29.0 81 92 . slightly sandy clay ' \ .
I
I
--
-
.
' 1
I
--r
' I t-;
~ <
l
-.
no;;;ooi:I'J
~ech Hepworth·P•wlak Gcoteolmlcal, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood SpringS, Colo!'i!do 8>601
Phone; 970-945-'!983'
F•x; 971)-.945-8454
npgeo@bpgeotech.com .
PREL~ARYGEOTEC~CALSTUDY
PROPOSED CALLICOTTE RANCH
COUNl'Y ROADS 112 AND 103
GARmrnLDCOUNTY,COLORADO
JOB NO. 101 821
APRIL 19,2002
PREPARED FOR:
MAGNA CASA, INC.
ATTN: JACK MAl'!ClNI
1700 E. LAS OLAS BOULEVARD, SVJTE 206
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLOIUDA 33301
HEPWORTH· PA VVLAK GEOTECHNICAL, JNC.
April19, 2002
Magna Casa, Inc.
Attn: Jack Mancini
1700 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 206
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Job No. 101 821
Subject: Report Transmittal, Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed Callicotte
Ranch, County Roads 112.-and 103, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Mancini:
As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical study for the proposed development at
the subject site .
.. The property is suitable for the proposed development based on geologic and
... geotechnical conditions. There are several conditions of a geologic nature the should be
considered in project plauning aud design. These conditions should not require major
modifications to the proposed development plan, but mitigation should be t::onsideroo for
some.
'"· • Subsoils encountered in the exploratory throughout tb.e property excavated generally
} consist of relatively stiff, sandy silty clay soils and dense basalt fragments up to boulder
size in a sandy silt and clay matrix. DeiJSe gravel alluvium was encountered below the
:fine-grained soils at Pit 10. GroUJJdwater was not encountered in the pits aod the soils
are slightly moist to moist.
Spread footings placed on the natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing
pressure of 1,500 psf to 3,000 psf appear suitable at the building sites. The water tank
foundation should be designed for an allowable pressure of 1,500 psf, excluding the
weight of the water. There could be post coiJStruction settlement/heave if the fine-
grained bearing soils become wetted .. Percolation testing indicates the subsoils are
generally suitable for infiltration septic disposal systems.
The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and
presents our recommendations suitable for planning and ,preliminary design. It is
· imponant that we provide consultation during design, and field services dUring
construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical
recommendations. ·
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Trevor L. Knell
Rev. by: DEH
TLK/l<sw
nO/<OOI!'I
'-.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SITE CONDITIONS ................ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
GEOLOGIC SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FORMATION ROCK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
EVAPORITE DEFOR1\1AT10N AND SOLUTION FEATURES . . . . . . . . 4
SURFICIAL SOlL :DEPOSITS ........................... _ . . . 4
HELD EXPLORATION .. --................................... 5
.• SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... 5
, GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABlLITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
POTENTIALLY EXPANSIVE FOUl'<'DATION CONDI110NS . . . . . . . . . 7
REGIONAL EVAPORITE DEFORMATION AND SINiffiOLES . . . . . . . . 7
__ EXCAVATION DIFFICULTIES ...•........................ _. 8
EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS ...................•.... , . 8
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDA'ITONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
-FOUNDATIONS .. c •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••• , 9
WATER TANK . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
FLOOR SLABS . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 9
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ........... , ...................... 10
SITE GRADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 10
PAVEMENTSUBGRADE .............................. _ .. 10
SURFACE DRAINAGE .......................•............ 11
PERCOLATION TESTING .............. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
LIMITATIONS .............................................. 12
_REFERENCES .............................................. 13
FIGURES 1 & 2-GEOLOGIC MAP AND LOCA'ITON OF EXPLORATORY
PITS
FIGURE 3 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FIGURE 4 -LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 5 & 6-SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I -SUM.c'Y!ARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE TI-PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
nO/VOO~
PURPOSE M'D SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results. of a preliminary geotechnical stUdy for the
proposed CallicotteRanch to be located at County Roads 112 and 103, Garfield County,
'.Colorado. The project site is shown on Figs. 1 & 2. The purpose of the study was to
evaluate the geologic and subsurface conditions and their impact on the projt:ct. The
study was conducted :in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering
services to Limd Design Pai:tllership, dated November 28, 2001.
A field exploration program consisting of a reconnaissance, exploratory pits and
percolatio;u testing was conducted to obtain in.formation on the site and subsurface
conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in
the laboratory to detennine their classification, compressibility or swell and other
engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory and
percolation testing were ana:lyzed to develop reco=endations for project planning and
preliminary design. This report su.u:u:narizes the data obtained during this study and
presents our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed development and
subsurfilce conditions encountered.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The 180 acre Callicotte Ranch will be subdivided into twenty-nine, large
residential lots with an average lot size of about 4 acres, see Figs. 1 and 2. A network
of interior streets :will provide primary access to the lots. The development will have a
central water distribution system. Each lot wiU have an individual waste disposal
system; The streets will be constructed by the developer, Building site preparation and
driveways will be the responsibility of the individual lot owners. It is expected that the
residences will be relatively large structures with outbuildill.gs. At the time of this
study, grading plans for the streets and individual lots was not available.
If development plans cha11ge significantly from those described, we should be
notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this repon_
H-P GEOTECH
nO/EOOil'J
'.
-2-
SITE CONDITIONS
The project sice is located on a rolling basalt plateau to the north and east of the
Roaring Fork River. The prdperty covers parts of Sections 13 and 24, T. 7 S., R. 88
W. and is located about 3 miles northeast of Carbondale. Crystal Springs Road borders
the property on the east. The topography at the project site is shown by the contour
lines on Figs. 1 and 2. The narrow Crystal Springs Creek vaJley borders the property
on fue south and a small tributary vaJley crosses through the property. Slopes along
fuese two valley sides are steep, typically in fue range of30% to 50%. Slopes on the
adjacent uplands are typically in the range of lO% to 20%. Crystal Springs Creek is a
'.small perennial stream and a small perennial stream is also present in the southern part
.of the tributary valley, but the upper reaches of this stream are ephemeral and only have
surface flow following hea'iy precipitation. The perennial streams are spring fed and
several contact springs and seeps are also present on the norfueru Crystal Springs valley
side near the contact of the Eagle Valley Evaporite and overlying basalt flows, see Fig.
2. The property was undeveloped ranch land at the time of this study. Much of fue
property is irrigated hay fields. What appears to be a reclaimed borrow area is located
in the proposed open space near the northeast corner of the property. Vegetation
outside fue irrigated fields is juniper trees with sage and other brush.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The basalt plateau in the project area is a structural be:ach between the White
River uplift to the north and the Roaring Fork syncline to the south. These regional
geologic structures were formed during the Laramide orogeny about 40 to 70 million
years ago. Regional mapping indicates that basalt :flows fuat overlie the Eagle Valley
Evaporite are the near surface formation rock in fue project area (Kirkham and
Widmann, 1997). Surficial soil deposlts are mostly colluvium with some valley floor
alluvium. The principle geologic features in the project area are shown on Figs. 1 and
2. The basalr plateau in the project area lies near the center of the Carbondale
evaporite collapse center. The collapse center is a roughly a circular region with u
H-P GEOTECH
n0/900~
-3-
diameter of about l6 .miles and an area of about 200 square miles (Kirkham and
Widmano, 1997). · As much as 4,000 feet of regional subsidence has occurred :in the
collapse center as the result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite beneath the area.
Much of this subsidence may hav~ occurred within the past 10 million years (Kirkham
and Widmarm, 1997). If this is the case, tbe long-term average subsidence rate was
about 0.5 inch per 100 years. There is some local evidence of evaporite deformations
as recently as the late Pleistocene in the Carbondale collapse center, but no definitive
evidence of deformations during the post-glacial times, within about the past 15,000
years (Widmann and Otbers, 1998).
FORMATION ROCK
The Pennsylvanian-age Eagle Valley Evaporite {Pee) crops out locally on the
lower valley sides in the southwestern part of the property but basalt flows (Tb and
Tdb) 1mderliemost of the project site.
Eagle VaUev Evaporite: The Eagle Valley Evaporite .is a thick sequence of
sedimentary rocks that are largely evaporite deposited :in the central Colorado trough
about 300 million years ago. The evaporite consists of gray and tan gypsum, anhydrite
and locally occurring halite interbedded wirb. siltstone, claystone and dolomite. The
rock varies from cemented and hard to non-cemented but firm. The bedding is usuallY
complexly foldedbecause of flow :in the plastic gypsum and anhydrite. The evaporite is
relatively soluble io fresh water and subsurfuce voids and associated sinkholes are
sometimes present in areas where the evaporite is :uear the surface in the region.
Basalt Flows: The Eagle Valley Evaporite :in the project area is overlain by late
Miocene-age basalt flows. Radiometric age dates of the flows in the project area are
between8.7 and 9.7 million years (Kirkham arid Widmarm, 1997). Relatively intact
basalt (Tb) is present in the io the southern part of the project area but the flows are
deformed and bwken.(Tdb) in the. north part. The transitjon from intactto deformed
basalt is gradational. The iomct basalt consist of multiple flows from 5 ~o 25 feet thick
of very dense and very hard basal1: with secondary fracturing. The deformed basalt is
H-P GEOIECH
vH/LOOil'J
i ,_,
-4-
very fractured and broken. It typically consists of large boulder sized, angular basalt
blocks with a sandy clay matrix. At the eJCploratory pits, intact and deformed basalt
was from less than one foot to greater than ten feet deep. The total thickness of the
basalt at tl1e project site is uncertain in most areas but at least 100 feet of basalt is
present in the northwestern part of the property.
EVAPORITE DEFORMATION AND SOLUTlON FEATURES
Regional geologic mapping shows the project site is located along the eastern
limb of a structural sag that starts in Heuschkel Park about two miles to the west and
curves just to the west of the project site and terminates to the northwest (Kirkham and
Widmann, 1997). The a~js of the sag in the project area is shown on Figs 1 and 2.
Outcrops in the project area indicate that the basalt flows are tilted and have dips
between 22° and 28°, see Fig. 2. In the Heuschkel Park area, small displacement
normal :fuults parallel the sag axis, but faults have not been mapped in the project area
(Kirkham and Widmann, 1997).
A sinkhole in the deformed basalt is evident about 1,300 feet to the west of the
northwestern property comer on aerial photographs of the area we reviewed, see Fig. 2.
This sinkhole is also shown of the regional geology map (Kirkham and Widmann,
1997). Evidence of sinkholes was not observed on the property during our site
reconnaissance nor were sinkholes apparent on the aerial photographs reviewed.
SURFICIAL SOil. DEPOSITS
Valley floor alluvium {Qal) is present along the narrow valley floors of Crystal
Springs Creek and its tributary in the project area. Thin colluvium (Qc) is usua:i.Iy
present below.the uplands elsewhere on the property. At the eJCploratory pits, from
Jess than one foot to greater than ten feet of colluvium was present above the intact and
deformed basalt. The colluvium is a low plasticity, sandy clay with scattered basalt
fragments from .gravd to boulder size. Our laboratory tests show that the colluvium bas
a moderate swell potential when wetted.
H-P GEOTECH
no;sooll'J
-5-
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 27, 2001.
Eleven exploratory pits were excavated at the locations shown on Figs. 1 and 2 to
evaluate the subsurface conditions. The pits were dug with a Cat 420D backhoe and
logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with relatively undisturbed and distm·bed
sampling metl::tods. Depths at which the samples were taken are shown on the Logs of
Exploratory Pits, Fig. 3. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by
the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 3. The subsoils generally consist of up to about 2 feet of organic topsoil overlying
relatively stiff, sandy silty clay soils and dense basalt fragments up to boulder size in a
sandy silt and clay matrix. Dense gravel alluvium was encountered below the clay in
Pit 10. Between 2\lz and 5¥.1 feet of clay overlies the basalt colluvium in Pits 1, 3, 4, 6,
8, 9 and 11. Digging in the dense basalt gravel with backhoe equipment was difficult
due to the cobbles and boulders and refusal to digging was encountered in the deposit at
Pits 1, 3, 6 and 8.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the pits included natural
moistute content and density, percent :finer than sand size gradation analyses and
Atterberg limits testing. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively
undisturbed liner samples, presented on Figs. 5 & 6, indicate low compressibility under
existing moisture conditions and light loading and showed a low to moderate expansion
potential when wetted. The sample from Pit 7 at 5 feet showed a minor collapse
potentia} (settlement under a constant load) when wetted and moderate settlement with
increased loading. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavation and the
subsoils were slightly moist to moisl.
H-P GEOTECH
--1
' '
-6-
GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT
There are several conditions of a geologic nature that should be considered in
project planning and design. These conditiOIJE should not require major modifications
to the proposed development plan, but engineered mitigation should be considered for
some. The geologic conditions and their anticipated influence on the project are
described below.
CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY
·The·;r~gional.geology iili:fsliown-Jaiidslide .. on.the-seuili"sicie of iii~ Crystal , .. . . -.
. spring Cr~"'k valiey to i:b.e ·south-of the project ru;ea (Kirkham andWi<Jw.ann,J997). . . . .. .. ,. '""' ...... .
Tht:·~andside app.ears .to be in the. El!gle_ Vall~Y..Ev:aporite where .contact siiiings .
diac:Mtge near the contact.wifu the overlying basalt flows. Siriiilar conditions are J
J.otan:Y present oil the north side of the valley_ in the project area .. AlthoU:g)i a Iilildside ·
_basnqt qcCUl.Ted 011 the _nOlih valley. side, in our opjiDon, t!J!s: area irtil.:Y be .ne\ll' a_'"
critical· stability stat~ and development is notl:ecomi:nend _on the steep)lor.i:hern Crystal
Cree'k.valley.side fu the 'VicinitY of the sprlllgs and seeps; see Fig .. .2 .. The prelJroinary}
(fe_y~l?P!lfiomt plans sii.ow ~i:he cj_uesi:ici:oable :ar~a to b'e open sp_ace. alJli. f!l~ $o~t!J.W~er:¥ ...
pal:f.ofLot 28. Suitable .. buildi:rig sites are present on Lo~ 28 on. the plat~au top to. the_:-
·. :·northeaSt of in~ steep vailey side. 7
Elsewher~_on the property we do not anticipate major problems with
construction related slope instability if the proposed grading is engineered and extensive
grading is not done on steep slopes. We should review the grading plans for the
common streets when the plans are available. Individual lot owners should not locate
buildings or driveways on slopes steeper than about 30% unless site specific
geotechnical studies are performed to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed grading.
Preliminary grading considerations are presented in the Preliminary Design
Recommendations • Site Grading section of this report.
1-1-P Gco' ECH
• 7-
POTENTIALLY EXPANSIVE FOUNDATION CONDillONS
Our laboratory tests show that the colluvium on the property has a low to
moderate swell potential when wetted. Preliminary recommends.tioiJS to mitigate the
expansion potential for building foundations are discussed in the Preliminary Design
Recommendations -Foundations section of this report.
REGIONAL EVAPORITE DEFORMATION AND SINKHOLES
The project site is iu an area where regional ground deformatioiJS have been
associated with evaporite solution and flow in the geologic past. These deformations
probably started about 10 million years ago, but it is uncertain if the deformations are
still active or if deformations have stopped. If deformatioiJS are still active, it appears
to be taking place over a broad area and there is no evidence of rapid deformation rates.
Because of this, the risk of problems with typical residential buildings appears to be
low. We are not aware of problems associated with regional evaporite deformations in
the area.
Sinkholes were not observed on the property in the field or on the aerial
photograph reviewed. However, a sinkhole is located about 1,300 feet to the west of
the northwestern property corner and sinkholes are present elsewhere in the region and
the property should not be considered sinkhole risk free. The si:nkhole risk on the
property is viewed to be low and no greater than that present in many other parts of
Garfield County .yhere the evaporite is near the surface. The potential for shallow
subsurface voids that could develop into sinkholes should be considered when planning
site specific geotechnical studies at specific building sites. If conditions indicative of
sinkhole related problems are encountered, the building site should be moved or the
feasibility of mitigation evaluated. Mitigation measures could include:
• Stabilization by Grouting
• Stabilization by Excavation and Backfllling
• . Deep Foundation Sys1:ems
• Structural Bridging
• Mat Foundations
H-P GEOT£CH
no;no~
-8-
Water features such as landscape ponds are not recommended near building sites
unless evaluated on a site specific basis. Home owners should be advised of the
sinkhole potential, since early detection of foundation distress aud timely remedial
actions are importmlt in reducing the cost of remediation, should a sinkhole start to
develop after construction.
EXCAVATION DIFFICULTIES
·Dense;·hm'-ct bitsiilt is likelY present at relatively shallow_ depths. 't:brciii".i~lioiit the · -,
_J?.I!Jject area: -DifflcUJt·excavatiO~S Should-be expected, partieu1atljT"in Confin¢., ·:_-_;)
e;:::ca'-:atigps_su~has trenches. Ripping-and ~lasting may' be :Oeeaed fu soriie pan pfaJl;,.
excavations that encounter dense·; lia:(d .basalt .. .......•......... · ..
-,
EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATlONS
The project area could experience moderately strong earthquake related ground
shaldng. Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking sbould be expected during a
reasonable service life for the development, but the probability for stronger ground
shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general
alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction.
Occupied structures should be designed to withstmld moderately strong ground snaking
witll little or no da:rnage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region
is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on our current
understanding of the earthquake hazard in this part of Colorado, we see no reason to
increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and reco=endatious presented below are. based on the
proposed development, subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory pits, and
our experience in the area. Tne recommendations are suitable for planning and
preliminary design but site specific studies should be co:uducted for individual im
development.
H-P GEOTECH
-9-
FOUNDATIONS
Bearing conditions vary depending on the specific location of the building on the
property. Based on the nature of the assumed construction, spread footings bearing on
the natural subsoils should be suitable at the building sites. We expect the footings can
be sized for an allowable bearing pressure in the range of 1,500 psf to 3,000 psf.
Expansive clays encountered in building areas may need to be renioved or the footings
designed to impose a minimum dead load pressure to limit potential heave. Excavation
difficulty could be encountered at site with basalt boulders. Nested boulders and loose
matrix soils may need treatment such as enlarging footings or placing compacted fill or
concrete bacliflll. Foundation walls should be designed to span local anomalies and to
resist lateral earth loadings when acting as retaining structu:<es. Below grade areas and
retaining walls should be protected from wetting and hydrostatic loading by use of an
underdrain system. The footings should have a minimum depth of 42 inches for frost
protection ..
WATER TANK
The water tank is proposed to be an above ground, steel structure 24 feet high
with a diamete{of 36 feet and a 200,000 gallon capacity located on fb.e site as shown on
Fig.l. The foundation for the tank should bear on undisturbed native soils designed for
an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf, excluding the weight of the water. We
should review the preliminary design plans and perform additional analysis as needed.
FLOOR SLABS
Slab-on-grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the natural soils.
There could be some post construction slab movement at sites with collapsible matrix or
e~>.'}Jansive clays. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs
should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints. Fioor
siab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to sbrink!lge cracking. A
minimum 4-inch rhick layer of free-draiuiug gravel should underlie basement level slabs
to facilitate drainage and provide suppon.
H-P OEOTF.CH
xva EE •91 OH.L LOOZ:/01/LO
.. '
"10-
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encormtered in the exploratory pits, it has been our
experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy
precipitation or seasonal runoff. An underdrai.u system should be provided to protec~
below-grade corutruction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas from
wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup. The drains should consist of drainpipe
surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain
should be placed at eacb level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent
fmisb grade and sloped at a m.inimum l % to a suitable gravity outlet.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction-induced slope instability at the site appears low provided
the buildings are located in the less steep p~ of the property and cut and fill depths are
limited. Cut depths for the buDding pads and driveway acces;·sl:tould not exceed about
10 feet. Fills should be limited to about 10 feet deep, especially where they encroach · ·
steep downb.ill sloping areas. Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95% of
the m.a."tirnum standard Proctor deruity near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill
placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and
topsoil. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20%
grade. The on-site soils excluding oversized rock and topsoil should be suitable for use
in embankment fi.l1s.
Permanent u:o.retained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to
1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation, rock riprap or other
means. Oversized rock from embank:m.ent fill corutroction will tend to collect on the
outer face. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to
corutruction.
PAVEMENTSUBGRADE
The on-site medium plastic clay soils have an AASHTO classification of A-6
with Group Indices of 14 and 18. These soils are considered poor for support of
pavement sections. The Hveem stabilometer 'R' value test resulted in a value of 5. An
H-P GE01ECH
• 11 -
'R' value of5 can be assumed for design of pavements in clay subgrade areas. The 'R'
value should be considerably higher in the basalt fragment deposit areas. A subbase
material such as an import aggregate could be used in improve the clay subg:rade. The
sub grade conditions at roadway grade should be evaluated for pavement design at the
time of construction.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The grading plan for the subdivision should consider runoff from steep uphill
slopes through the project and at individual sites. Water should not be allowed to pond
which could impact slope stability and foundatious. To limit infiltration into the bearing
soils nexr to buildings, exterior backfill should be capped with 1 to 2 feet of finer-
grained soils, be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the· building for· a
distance of 10 feet. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits
of all backfill.
PERCOLATION TESTING
Percolation tests were conducted on December 28, 2001 to evaluate tlle
feasibility of an iuf1ltration septic disposal systems at various locations across tlle
property. Percolation holes were excavated adjacent to the exploratory pits at the
locations shown on Figs. 1 and 2. The test holes (nom.inall2 inch diameter by 12 inch
deep) were hand dl!g at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and were soaked with water
and covered with rigid foam insulatio:o one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the
percolation holes aresimilar to those exposed in the adjacent exploratory pits (see Fig.
2). Average percolation rates ranged from about 10 to 30 minutes per inch. The
percolation test results are presented in Table n. Based on the subsurface conditious
encountered and the percolation test results, tested areas should be suitable for a
conventional infiltration septic disposal system. A civil engineer should design the
infiluation septic disposal system.
H-P GEOTECH
-12-
IJMIT ATIONS
TI1is study has been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principle; and practices in this area at tbis time. We :make no warranty
eimer expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in 11:\is
report are based upon the data obtained from the field reconnaissance, review of
published geologic reports, the exploratory pits located as shown on Figs. 1 and 2,
percolation testing, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area.
Our fmdings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions
identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not
become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during
construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified
so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning aud
preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by
others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued
consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation
of our recommendations. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or
smodifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site
observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by
a representative of the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Trevor L. Knell
Reviewed by:
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
TLKJksw
cc: High Cou:mry Engineering-Artn: Roger Neal
Land Design Partnership -Attn: Ron Liston
H-P GEOTECH
X~o 9€'91 OH~ LOOo/61/LO
-13-
REFERENCES
Kirkham, R.M. and Widmann, B.L., 1997, Geology Map of the Carbondale
Quadrangle, Ga!jield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File
97-3.
Widmann B. L. and Others, 1998, Preliminary Quaternary Fault and Fold Map and
Data Base of Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 98-8.
H-P GE:QTF.CH
no; L 101l'l
_.,
* Sinkhole
/
Qc/Qtdb
Qc/Tb
Explanation:
af Man-l"laced Fill;
Road l1JI, other fill and ground
dil>lurtied by grading.
Qc Colluvium
Qal Vall!i!y Floor Alluvi11m
QTdb Dsformed Basalt
Tb Basalt Flows
!Pee Eagle Valley Evaporite
Qc/QTdb
Qc/QTdb
*
P1 m
101 821 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, Inc.
HO/S10il!J
Contact:
Approximate boundary of map unils.
Strw;:tural Sag;
Approximate axis of stnJotuml sag.
Sinkbole
"Spring$ & Seep$
Strik0 and Dip:
(degress)
0
I
500ft.
I
Soale: 1 ln. =500ft.
Contour :ntarvai: 2ft,
Exploratory Pit & Perr;:olatlon Test S!ta:
Approximate localion.
Callicotte Ranch Development -Northern Part
Geology Map and Exploratory Pit Locations Fig.1
XV~ LE•91 OHili LOOo/61/LO
Qc/Tb
Qls
Exphmation:
Man·Piacoed Fill;
Road fill, other fill and ground
dleturbed by grading.
Qc Colluvium
Qal Valley Floor Alluvium
Qls . Landslide
QTdb Deformed Basalt
Tb Basalt Flows
!Pee Eagle Valley EV<Jpcrite
Qc/QTdb
*
P1
"
101 821 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, Inc.
H0/610~
Contact:
Apprc>xlmare bounoary of map units,
Structural Sag:
Approxima!B axl$ of structural sag.
Sil'lkhcia
Springs & Seeps
Stl'ika and Dip~
(degrees)
0
I
Qc/QTdb
500 fl.
I
Scale: 1 ltl. ; 500ft.
CQntour lt:ter lSi: 2 ii.
Exploratory Pi1: & Parcolatlon Te<st Site:
Approxirna±$ Jocsiion.
Callicotte Ranch Development -Southam Part Fig. 2
Geology Map and Exploratory Pit Locations
X'id L£ •91 OH;t LOOZ:/61/LO
PIT 1 PIT 2 PIT 3 PIT 4
0
0
-~ WC=11.8 I
"'
<!>
., 00=103 -~ wc ... 16.1 .,
"-
0Dc91 "-
5
5 .<:. -.!: 0-....
0-., " Cl
Cl
WC=41.S
00=70
-200=75
10
10
PIT 5 PIT 6 PIT 7 PIT 8
0
-· I WC=/;1.6
1 ..... ,2ooa:92 ~ -I LL-.37
"' --Pl•20 -~
.,
" "
"-R=5 '-'-
5
5
.c; I
WC=9.8 .<::. -00=61 -
c.
0.
"
.,
Cl
Cl WC-11.6
DD=103
10 10
PIT 9 PIT 10 PIT 11
0
0
-" -"' . WC=8.1 " "'
..... 00~102
"-
5
-zoo-e7 5 I
U..»:$4
..c Pl-17
WC=10.6 ..c
~ 00=77 15.
0.
--,
"'
-.200=70 "'
0
Cl
I
I
~ --10J ;
10
Note: Ex lonotion of s bois is shown on Fi . 4.
101 821 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 3
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
' ' r-------------------------------------~----------------------1 LEGEND: g TOPSOIL; orgonic sandy silt and clay. dark brown.
CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, very stiff to hard, slightly moist to moist. brown to light brown, blocky,
calcareous with depth, low to medium plostioity.
BASALT GRAVEL, COBBLES AND BOULDERS (GM); sandy silt and cloy motrix, medium dense,
slightly moist, light brown, calcareous.
GRAVEL AND COBBLES (GM-GP); silty, sMdy, medium dense, slightly moist, brown, rounded rock
Pit 10 only.
2" [Hameter hand driven liner sample.
Disturbed bulk sample.
T Practical digging refusal with Cot 420D backhoe.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on December 27 ond 28, 2001 with a backhoe.
2. Locations of explonltory pits were meosured approximately by pacing from features on the site pion
provided.
3. Elevations of the exploratory pits, were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan
provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory pits 'were not measured and logs of exploratory pits ore drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied
by the method used. ·
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate boundaries
between material types and tronsitions moy be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the pits ot the time of excovoting. Fluctuations· In water level may
occur with time.
7. Laboratory .Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % )
DO = Dry Density ( pcf )
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve
-200 ~ Perc;,rit possing No. 200 sieve
LL ~ Liquid limit ( % )
PI ~ Plostidty 'iniiex ( % )
R ~ Hveem Stabllometer "R" Volwe
101 821 HEPWORTH -PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 4
Xlld S€ •91 OH.L LOOo/61/LO
J li ·I
I
' •'
1
ll{
" 0 0 u;
<:
0
0.
X w
I 1
" 0 u;
"' 2 "' '-a.
E
0
0 3
0.1
2
ll{
.::
0 ·;; 1
<:
(J
~ w
I 0
c .2
"' "' 1 " a.
E
0
0 2
...
0.1
101 821
Moisture Content = 11.8 percent
Dry Density = 103 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Cloy
From: Pit 1 ot 2.5 Feet
-~ ,._
) "' 1\
(__ Expo!'lsion
upon
wettil'lg
1.0 10 100
APPUED PRESSURE -ksf
Moisture Content ~ 16.1 percel'lt
Dry Density = 91 pcf
Sample of:Sondy Cloy Matrix
From: Pit 4-at 3 Feet
.
f"--...
~
r--""' . ) \
\ (___ Exponsion
upon D wetting
.. .. . . .
1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
HEPWORTl-1-PAWLAK SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5
GEOTECHNICAL INC.
x~~ 8€191 nsJ. L00o(61(L0
,I
I
.,,.
Moist~re Content ~ 11.6 percent
Dry Density ~ 103 pcJ
Sample of: Sandy Cloy
From: Pit 5 at 7 Feet
~ 1
c:
0 ·c;;
" 0 0 ~ ~ 0.
X w ~ I 1
" CExpansion 1\ 0
00 upon
In wetting "' 2 ...
0.
E
0 <..>
3
-
0.1 l.D 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
-
Moisture Cont.;.nt = 9.8 percent
Dry Densfty = 81 pcf
Semple of: Calcareous Sandy Silty Cloy
From; Pit 7 ot 5 Feet
0
1-r-
"
1 ~ t-
!>\' ~ !"-Compression
" upon
0
'iii ~ wetting
"' 2 "' .. K 0. r--, E
8 3
4
... . -·-
I 0.1 1.0 10 100
APPUED PRESSURE -ksf
101 821
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 6
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I JOB NO. 101 821
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE LOCllnettl ' NAWFIAL ~ NATURAL Gar..DATJON i'EA<::ENT ATTERBERG UMITS l.J~CDNFlNED HVEEM
PIT OEPrH MOISTURE I PRY GA11.VEL SAr.;'O PASS!~G t!QUID P" .. ASTIC COMPRESSIVE .•. SOIL OR
rfc.el} (;(}!fffNf DENSITY "'' [%) t'O. 200 ur,qr INDEX ST.RE:'l.C3TH StASILOfi"".ETER BEDROCK lYPF
(%! fpc!) S.!EVE [%) (%]
1 zy, 11.8 103 sandy clay ;
2 ]y, 41.8 70 75 calcareous sandy silty
clay l
I
4 3 16.1 91 sandy clay matrix.
5 1-3. 8.8 92 37 20 5 slightly sandy clay
7 11.6 103 sandy clay
7 5 9.8 81 calcareous sandy silty
clay
.
9 3 8.1 102 87 34 17 sandy clay
11 5 10.6 77 70 sandy silty clay matrix
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
HOLE NO, HOLF. DEPTH lENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH
{INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF
I MINI INTERVAL INTERVAL
(INCHES) (INCHES)
' P-1 34 15 7 5 3/4
I 5 3/4 4 1/2 I 4 1/2 3 3/4
3 3/4 2 3/4
W£11ar added 7 112 6 3/4
6 3/4 6
6 5 114
5 1/4 4 1/2 -
P-2 ·39 15 7 1/2 6 3/4
6 3/4 6
6 5 1/2
5 1/2 5
5 4 1/2
4 1/2 4
4 3 1/2
3 1/2 3
P-3 38 15 10 1/2 8
8 6 1/2
·~
6 1/2 5
" water added 10 1/2 9 1/2
9 1/2 7 1/2
7 1/2 6
6 4 1/2
4 1/2 3
JOBN0.101 821
Page 1 of 4
,~ ...
DROP IN AVERAGE
WATER PERCOLATION
LEVEL RATE
(INCHES) IMIN,/INCHJ
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
1
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4 20
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2 30
2 1/2
1 1/2
'I 1/2
1
2
1/12
1 1/2
1 1/2 10
No1e: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits adjacent to
exploratory pits and soaked on December 27, 2001 _ Percolation lusts were c:onducted
on December 28, 2001. The aver<Jge percolstion ra1e were based on 1he last three
reedings of each 1est.
-
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH
{INCHES)
P-4 42
I
P-5 50' 1 /2
P-6 29 1/2
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN
INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER
(MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL
(INCHES) (INCMES) (INCHES)
15 9 i/2 7 2 1/2
7 5 1/2 1 1/2
5 1/2 4 1/2 1
water added 8 1/2 G 1/2 2
6 1/2 5 1/2 1
5 1/2 4 1/2 1
4 1/2 3 112 1 -
3 1/2 2 1/2 1
10 7 1/2 6 3/4 3/4
6 3/4 6 3/4
6 5 1/4 3/4
5 114 4 3/4 112
4 3/4 4 1/4 1/2
4.1/4 3 3/4 112
3 3/4 3 1/4 1/2
3 1/4 2 3/4 1/2
10 8 1/4 7 1/2 3/4
7 1/2 7 1/2
7 6 1/2 1/2
6 1/2 6 1/2 --
6 5 112 l/2
5 1/2 5 1/2
5 4 l/2 1/2
4 1/2 4 '112
JOB NO. 101 821
Page 2 of 4
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RAIE
(MIN./INCH)
15
..
20
20
No>e' Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits adj~cent to
exploratory pits and soaked on December 27l 2001. Percolation 1ests were conducted
on December 28, 2001. The average percolation rate were basecl on the last three
readings of each test.
H0/9ZO~
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH
{INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF
{MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL
{INCHES) (INCHES)
P-7 39 15 7 1/2 6 112.
6 1/2 5 314
5 314 5
5 4 1/2
4 112 4
4 :;! 1/2
___ 3 112 3
3 2 112 ----
P-8 33 15 6 1/2 5 112
5 1/2 5
5 4 1/2
4 112 4
4 3 112
3 1/2 3
3 2 1/2
2 1/2 2
P-9 42 15 11 9 112
9 112 9
9 8
8 7 112
' 7 112 6
6 5
5 5
5 4 1/2
DROP JN
WATER
LEVEl
{INCHES)
1
3/4
3/4
1/2
112
JOB NO. 101 821
Page 3 of 4
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
{MIN./INCH)
1/2 ·-
112.
-~
l/2 30
'I --
1/2
1/2
1/2
112
l/2
1/2
l/2 30
1 1/2
1/2
1
112
1/2
1
0
112 30
Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits adjacent to
exploratory pits and soaked on December 27, 2001. Percolation tests were conducted
on December 28, 2001. The average percolation rate ·were based on the last three
readings of each test.
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATm DEPTH WATER DEPTH
!INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF
(1\1111'1) INTERVAL INTI':RVAL
(INCHES) (INCHES)
P-10 42 10 8 7 1/2
7 1/Z 7
7 6 3/4
6 3/4 6 1/2
6 1/2 6
6 5 3/4
5 314 5 114
5 114 5
P-11 42 15 12 11
11 10 1/2
10 1/2 "10
10 9
9 9
g 8 1/2
8 112 8
8 7 112
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES!
1/Z
1/2
1/4
1/4
1/2
JOB NO. 101 821
Page 4 of 4
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
IMII'J .llNCHJ
1/4--
112
114 30
1 __
1/2 --
1/2
1
0
112
112
112 30
Nore: Percolation test holes were hand dwg in the bottom of backhoe pits adjacent to
exploratory pits and ·soaked on December 27, 2001. Percolation tests were conducted
on December 28, 2001. The average percolation rate were based on the last three
readings of each test.
nO/S~Oil'J
~tech
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNJCAL
July 15, 2003
Magna Casa, Inc.
Attn: Jack Mancini
1700 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 206
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Hepwon:h ... Plilwl:;k Geore~hnical1 lnc.
5020 Counrv Road l 54
Glenwood Spcings, Colorado 51601
Phone. 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-3<!54
Gmail: hpgec@hpe;eorech.com
Job No.l01 821
Subject: Radiation Potential, Proposed Callicctte Ranch, County Reads 112 and
103, Gameld County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Mancini:
As requested by Ron Liston, we have reviewe;d cur previous geotechnical study for the
projec~ with respect to radiation potential. We previol)sly conducted a preliminary
geotechnical study for the project and presented our findings in a report dated April19,
2002, Job No. 101 821.
The project sire is not in a geologic setting that would indicate high conce!ltrations of
radioactive minerals in the natural soils and underlying. rock formation. However, there
is a potential that radon gfl.S is presellt in the area. Based on our experience, we e::qJect
r<lclon gas concentrations to be low. It is difficult to assess future radon gas
concentrations in buildings before the building~ are constructed. Testing for radon gas
levels could be done when the residences and other occupied structures have been
completed. New buildings are often designed with provisions for ventilation of lower
enclosed areas should post construction testing show unacceptable radon ga,s
concentration.
If there are any guestions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us lmow.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHN1CAL, INC.
Daniel E. Hardin, P .E. '
Rev. by: SLP
DEH!ksw
cc: High Country Engineering-Attn: Steven Douglas
Land Design Fanners hip-Attn: Ron Liston
Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-6.3.3-5562 • Silverchorne 970-468-1989
XV~ 0~'91 OH~ LOOZ(ot(LO
~ _Til~
/
Jff Gt~v:~
/ -~ I @
~ ~
I
"' I ~ @ ~ ~ I
:r " I @) "' ~
f-.!
BLD1f,fN8T~~::DRT _J
I 38'-7 5/8' DIAMETER TANK
41'-6 112' DIAMETER GRADE BAND
ElEVATION
,.
21o•
teo·
BOTTOM PLAN
57
LATFDRH
Of DECK ~p e TOP
BOTTOM OF BOTTOM SI£ET
I~
56
51
1
BDTTOH Of
BOTTOM SHEET
~
SUGGESTED BLDtKDUT a.
DlHENSIONS (fOR fULL
SLAB INSTALLATIONS)
FILL AND COMPACT
BLOCKOUT BEFORE
INS:T ALLING BOTTOM
BACKING PLATE
.~.
-·. · ...
SJL T STOP t. SJL T STOP CLIP
@
BOTTOM SEGMENT
<FIELD CUT>
Ol T CHANNEL & PAL NUTS
150# fLANGE
c:HARD'JARE INCLUDED>
'v PIPE 'W/ 150# fLANGE I !. CBY CUSTOMER)
I' I_ ,!
··f::::!i
VERTICAL SEAM
1/2'
MOUNTiNG FLANGE
<DIAMETER VARIES>
USED T£J SECURE SQ BIJL TS TO fLANGE
SUUGESTED BLOCKOUT
DIMENSIONS <FOR FULL
SLAB JNST ALLA TUJNS}
FILL AND COMPACT
BLOCKOUT BEFORE
INSTALLING BOTTOM
lli1IEl
BOTTOM NOZZLE
1501 fLANGE
<HARDVARE INCLUDED>
I CBY CUSTOMER> JV PIPE \o'/ 150#
fLANGE
I___ ....
·f·
PVC PIPING IS NOT RECOMMENDED
BY CTT DUE TO IMPOSED STRESSES.
TYPICAL BOTTOM PENETRATION
DETAIL 1,/ I SILT STOP & CLIP
<OPENING IN BOTTOM SEGMENT FIELD LOCATED & CUT>
MINIMUM RECOJo!Ht:NDED
VERTICAL CLEARANCE
AT CHIHt:S
NOZZLE I FLANGE UNION
FIELD LOCATED DETAIL
FIELD NOTE:
ALL NOZZLES AND ACCESSORIES TO
BE FIELD LOCATED -ALL NOZZLES
OPENINGS TO BE FIELD CUT -SEE
FIELD LOCATED NOZZLE DETAIL FOR
REFERENCE
NOTES:
•
l. THIS BILL Ot MATERIAL IS FOR ONE COMPLEn: TANK.
C. DRA'WINGS REQUIRED fOR fiELD USE,
3. INTERIOR AND BOTH SIDES Of BOTTOM PAINTED ONE COAT
TRICO BOND EP ® THERHOSET CORROSlON RESISTANT PO\o'DER
EPOXY (5 HILS AVERAGE, DFT). EXTERIOR PAINTED ONE
COAT Of TRICO BOND EP ® THERMOSET CORROSION
RESISTANT PO'WDER EPOXY 'WITH fiNISH COAT OF <COLOR
LATER> PERFORMANCE URETHANE (4.5 HILS AV£RAGE, DfT).
4, VATER STORAGE TANK DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE VJTH AVIJA
D103-97 SPEC. SEISMIC ZONE 1, 1=1.25, R\b•3.SO, SzJ.50, 100
MPH \o'INDLOAD, 60 PSf LIVE DECK LOAD, SPECIFIC GRAVITY
= 1.0.
+ S. STAVE SHOP DRA\IlNG REQUIRED fOR fABRICATION.
DTHER'WISE.-US£ STRETCH OUT DRAVING FOR FABRICATION.
6. STANDARD CENTER DOME 'o/ITH VENT <20'> \o'ILL RELIEVE 24
CfS CU,OOO GPH> \o'HEN CLE:AN. ADDITIONAL VE:NTING TO
PRE:VENT A VACUUM GREATER THAN 0.4 oz PER SQUARE INCH
IS THE RESPONSIBlL1TY OF THE 0\INER.
APPROVAL
DO NOT USE
DRAVING ONLY
FOR CONSTRUCTION
27~ ,.
l'jll FULL FL CPL
l'JI Ftu. Fl CPL
DECK PLAN
CENTER COLUMN LOAD
12 kips
"
17
RAFTER SECTIONAL VIE\/
MAIN RAFTER CONNECTION
10
JACK RAFTER CONNECTION
12 TANK VAU.
12
PARTIAL RAFTER PLAN YIE\1
APPROVAL DRAVING ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
STRUCTURE ~ DECK PLAN
38'-7 5/8'¢ x 24' HIGH TANK G FOR• OLUMBIAN B.H. TANK \IORKS
T ec Tank lf~!!d':,IJ~~~R~A,~C~,!.Y:-J -21::~sA~"W»n.--"-==~------l
Jill BRANDY 07-5275 29 Ho.y
O£On.,. li'PRIIVQIJT 2001 938T024-075275B
JR
CONfiDENTIAL I TRADE SECRETS• BY ACCEPTING POSSESSION OF THIS DDCUHENT, RECJPlOO
AGREES THAT ITS CONTENTS ARE CONFJDENTJAL, PROPRIETARY TRADE SECRETS OF CDLUMBJAN
TECTANK, NO PORTION OF THJS DDCUHENT HAY ȣ RtPRIJDUCED, DlSTRIBIJTED OR USOI 1N
ANY HANNER VITHDUT \o'RlTTEN PERMISSION FROM COLUMBIAN TE:CTANk'.
0§
24" SQ MANIIAY IJ/ LADDER I. PlATfllRM
n I
I ..
c) 01 ]J I ..
<TYP.> @I
I
~ @
r @ @
I ~ 21
I eE ~ I @ i ~
~
I
I \-.J 56' ' 24" DIA.
SI£LL HAN'w'AY
@
,.
I
I
I
I
I
IE
I
l ~ ~
• I
I
l"fl FlU. rL CPl.
,,..
I
I
I
I
I
[1!: 11
.i~ ~
I.
I I
1"1!1 FULL Fl. CPL. 1"1!1 tULL F1. CPL.
TANK STRETCH-OUT
4.c444'14 INCHES PrR DEGR£E
VlEIJED I"RilM INSJBE TANK LOOKING OUT
33
6•11 D-F"l.DIJ
I
I
I I~
~
270'
~ I
I
_,
I
I
I
@ w ~
21 rl!:
~ I I
I ~ ~ ~ .L ~ ~ I • I •
I
I I I .... ' t•~t~ ruu. n. CPL t•tt tULL tL CPL.
24" DlA.
SH£l.L HANVAY
@
56' -/
LH VERTICAL SEAM
~ MINIMUM RECOMMENDED
HORJZONT AL CLEARANCE
AT VERTICAL SEAMS,
ANCHOR BOLTS STIRRUPS
tm DOORS.
VERTICAL SE~~ ? NOZZLE I fLANGE UNION MOUNTING tLANGE
<DlllttETER VARIES>
t~:o~\'\
,: ~ I
It! ~-:::::::
:L HJNIHUH RECOMMENDED \' ~~ VERTICAL CLEARANCE
AT CHIMES
STAVE CHIME
NOZZLE I FLANGE UNION
FIELD LOCATED DETAIL
FIELD NOTE:
ALL NOZZLES AND ACCESSORIES TO
BE FIELD LOCATED -ALL NOZZLES
OPENINGS TO BE FIELD CUT -SEE
FIELD LOCATED NOZZLE DETAIL FOR
REFERENCE
APPROVAL DRAVING ONLY
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
TANK STRETCH-OUT
38'-7 5/8'0 x 24' HIGH TANK G fDR• OLUMBIAN B.H. TANK '<IORKS
TecTank ~~~A~n;~R~A~,~c~~~,~~~sA~~~~tt--,-~c.-------~ :::;;. "' ""' 2007 938T024-075275C
CDNtlDENTIAL I TRADE SECRETS. BY ACCEPTING POSSESSION Dr THIS DIJCIM:NT, RECIPlENT
AGREES THAT ITS CONTENTS ARE: CDNF!DtNTIAL. PROPRIETARY TRADE SECRETS Df ctlt.liMliiAN
TECTANK. ND PORTION Dr THIS DOCUMENT HAY !E REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED OR USED IN
ANY HANNER \IITHDUT 'w'RJTIEN PERMISSION FROH COLUMBIAN TECT ANK.
-
--
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN fEET )
'" '
I inch ~ 60 lt.
--l
I
-~-------,
'
I I
\ \
I I
I I
I I
I I
(I)
'>-
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
STII-1~1 ~
0~
<
I
I
I
" "
22.5' BEND
N 300JJ.64
E2~~
I
" " Fo\ \(.M) A'\~
It e.pef\,.~
f?-) b .. ~ .... liM. ~ v~ + :r,..~~e~·
So...b .5a~ ~J. F~o pau:. 12.
NORTH •
T
to p I ~rc.~ ..,.....J-b t T Pr,~ ~
-----
AAV MANHOlE
N J{)n!;,7\
t 2:W02.3
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
~E:YMAI:
___ ," __ _
--··'" __ _ __ ,." __
--11!''11-
"' ---m--
----w
H
~
SCALE: 1"•.!000'
PROPOSED ASPHALT ROAOW ... ~
PROPOS(!) GRA\'!L ROAD
[)(ISTINC fENCEliNE
ROADWAY CENIDRIN[
ROW/PRoPERTY BOUNDARY
PROPOSED z• WATER tiNE
PROPOSED 8" WATER liNE
PROPOSED 10" WII.TER UN(
PROPOSED tZ" WATER UNE
PROPOSED WATER SERVICE
PROPOSO> £LECTR1C, ltL£1'>HON£
AND C.ABI..E UNE
PROPOSED PR!:SSORE TRANSDUCER
TEl(IJ(TRY UN£
PRQPQ$(0 GATE VAL¥(
PROPOSED fiRE HYORANT
txiS11NG OVERHEAD m:c. LINE
TO REt-lAIN
EXIS'TlNC OVERHEAD ELEC. LINE
TO SE REMOVED
BUILO!'<G SETS},C~
ACCESS/UnUTY/IRR. EASf:MENi
[XISTWC ROAD
EXfSTINC PO'M:R PCU:
PROPOSED AAV MANHOLE
PRQPOSEO 1\UL lOCATKlN
PROPOSED STORt.! ORAJN CULVERT
u g g
z • -8 0 u ~ g~ •• •• z ~~ ~m -l:t: . ~ •• os LlJ zg i~' LlJ ~e
z ~~ ~8 \ill. ~u.~ (§ ~~ i~~ z . -;~ LlJ ~~ ~~ ~ ~3 wR !!! ~~
~ a~ w~ oo ~0 ~iE ~a: :J ~ 0 ~ • u ' • §
PROJECT NO.
201 t 115.54
SHEET22