Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.18 - Reso 2012-80 Recorded Lake Springs Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan & PUD Amendment June 2015                                               Exhibit 17 | Resolution 2012‐80                  STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building in Glenwood Springs on Monday, 16th of April A.D. 2012, there were present: John Martin Commissioner Chairman ~~~~-~~------~ Mike Samson Commissioner ~~~==~~~----~-~ ..._T,,,om"'"""Jank=,,.ov ..... s..,ky"----------'' Commissioner An~dre=w~Go=rg"'ey~--------->' County Manager ""'C"'ar"'ey'-"'G_,.agn=o,.n __ --'--------'' Acting County Attorney Jean Alberico Clerk of the Board · ~~~~~--------~ when the following proceedings, among others were had aod done, to-wit: RESOLUTION NO. :Jo/~-to A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN AMENDMENT AND PUD AMENDMENT FOR LAKE SPRINGS RANCH PUD, ON A 459.38 ACRE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BERKELEY FAMILY LIMITED LIABILITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 3.5 MILES SOUTHEAST OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO IN SECTIONS 32, 33, AND 34, TOWNSIIlP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST AND SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6Tu P.M., GARFIELD COUNTY PARCELNO.s #2187-321-09-023; 2187-333-09-022; 2187-334-00-106; 2187-334-00-107 Recitals A. The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado (Board) received a request from The Berkeley Family Limited Liability Limited Partnership for a Preliminary Plan Amendment for 118 single-family lots and 18 multi-family units, aod for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to add the existing sod farm as a permitted use in the Residential/Single Family (R/SF) zone district and add a new zone district called Agricultural Preserve (AG/P) as further described in Exhibits A aod B, Preliminary Plan and PUD Zone Map. B. The Lake Springs Raoch PUD is located within a 459.38 acre parcel of land owned by The Berkeley Family Limited Liability Limited Partnership. C. The subject property is located within unincorporated Garfield County in the PUD 1 llll lr\l".i.Pl,,l"l.~l,~M'IMif,lifY,M Mt~il.~'' 11111 ReQeption#: 82a748 09/05/2012 03:38:49 PM Jean Alberico 2 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:W.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO zone district! approximately 3.5 miles southeast of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. D. The Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the 14th day of.December, 2011 for consideration of whether the proposed Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, during which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the request. E. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on the 14th day of December, 2011 to make a final decision. The Planning Commission voted to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve with conditions the Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment. F. The Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing on the 16th day of April, 2012 for consideration of whether the proposed Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, during which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the request. G. The Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on the 16th day of April, 2012 to make a final decision. · I. The Board of County Commissioners on the basis of substantial .competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determinations of fact: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Conunissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters, and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. The Preliminary Plan Amendment and PUD Amendment are in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030. 4. The following waivers from minimum standards contained in the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR) have been granted and determined as appropriate for the health, safety, and welfare of the future residents and the general public: a. Section 7-108 and Section 7-307, Road Standards: 1. Section 7-307 (A)(2) Requirement for Roadway Infrastructure: • Increase of the maximum grade for the Major Collector Road (CR 114) from 8% to 10% grade between Lake Springs Road and High Alpine Circle; 2 llll lll".i.Pi,,1\i,r1::1 1Wl,/M·~ 1111,l'n\l rti•.rwMH.~·~ II Ill Reception#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico 3 of 79 Rao Fe•:$0.00 Doc Fee~0.00 GARFI~LD COUNTY CO • Increase of the minimum right-of-way width for Secondary Access Roads from 5 0-foot to 60-feet for all Secondary Access Roads in the subdivision; and, • Decrease of the minimum shoulder width for Secondary Access Roads from 4-foot to 2-feet for all Secondary Access Roads in the subdivision. ii. Section 7-307 (A)(7)(b) Continuation of Roads and Dead-End Roads: • Allowance of the following five cul-de-sacs to exceed 600 feet in length: Van Cleve Lane, High Alpine Circle, Hanging Lake Road, Water Tank Access Road, and Spring Valley Road. 5. The Preliminary Plan Amendment and PUD Amendment, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in this Resolution and except where waivers have been granted, meet the requirements, approval criteria, and standards set forth in theULUR. 6. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. RESOLUTION NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that: · A. The forgoing Recitals are incorporated by this reference as part of the resolution. B. The approvals and conditions contained in this Resolution supersede all prior zone district designations and uses set forth in prior approvals, and supersedes in its entirety Resolution No. 02-109. C. The Preliminary Plan Amendment and PUD Amendment for Lake Springs Ranch PUD is hereby approved subject to compliance with the following conditions: Preliminary Plan 1. All representations of the Applicant made in the application and at the hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval, unless approved otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. Fees 2. The Applicant shall include 50% of the road impact fee with each fmal plat. The remaining 50% shall be collected at the time of issuance of a building permit. The cost of any improvements to County roads that are constructed by the Applicant and approved by the County may be deducted from the road impact fee. AU future Subdivision Improvement Agreement(s) shall include any terms necessary to accomplish such deduction. 3 llll lll".i.~•,,i'k.i.rt:~rtl& llfltl-la,rll\l rw.Hllt'.~1 i 11111 Reception#: 823748 0i/06/2012 03:38:49 PM Jean Rlberico 4 of 79 Rec Fae:$0.00 Dec Fee:0.00 GARFIELO COUNTY CO 3. The Applicant shall pay a Cash-In-Lieu Payment for Schools as calculated in Section 7-405 (D)(3) of the ULUR with each final plat. 4. Impact fees shall be paid to the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District prior to the approval of the first final plat submitted for approval subsequent to this Resolution. Permits 5. Prior to the approval of each final plat, the Applicant shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and air pollution permits from CDPHE. These permits shall be submitted to Garfield County for review. Agreements 6. Approval of the Preliminary Plan requires the Developer to complete the platting of all phases within 15 years of this Resolution and the first final plat must be recorded within one year of the final approval of the Preliminary Plan. Plat Notes 7. The following plat notes shall be placed on each fmal plat: a. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner in compliance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. b. Colorado is a "Right-to-Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et. seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. Those with an urban sensitivity may perceive such activities, sights, sounds and smells only as inconvenience, eyesore, noise and odor. However, State law and County policy provide that ranching, farming or other agricultural activities and operations within Garfield County shall not be considered to be nuisances so long as operated in conformance with the law and in a non- negligent manner. Therefore, all must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non-negligent agricultural operations. c. No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision. One (I) new solid-fuel burning stove as defined byC.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances. d. All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting shall be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the lot. Provisions may be. made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. 8. The Applicant shall adhere to the recommendations specified in the Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech's (HP Geotech) reports and attached as Exhibit C to this Resolution. Site specific 4 I-·---- studies shall be conducted for individual lot development. The need for site specific studies shall be disclosed in the covenants and on each final plat in the form of a plat note. Those recommendations include the following: a. Prospective building owners should be made aware of the potential low risk of evaporate defonnation. If the low risk is not acceptable to building owners, it can be reduced by the use of heavily reinforced foundation system preferably without a basement. b. It is recommended that buildings not be located within 50 feet of the fault trace identified in Figure 1 of the HP Geotech report dated January 15, 20!0 of which a Figure will be attached as Exhibit D to this Resolution. c. It is recommended that additional subsurface exploration be made in these areas to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the lake deposit. These areas include Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Block 2 and 200 feet of the western most portions of Spring Valley Road. d. The recommended foundation system will depend on the site specific expansion potential. Also, a structural floor system over a crawlspace may be warranted depending on the expansion potential at a specific building site. A site specific foundation study by the individual lot owners should be conducted for design level recommendations. e. More extensive grading should be evaluated on a site specific basis. As previously recommended, cut and fill should not exceed 1 0 feet deep and cut and fill slopes should be 2: I (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. A certified professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado should review the proposed grading plans when available and determine if addition subsurface exploration and analysis are needed. f. Occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region is in the Unifonn Building Code, Seismic Site Class B. Water 9. The Applicant shall verify water requirements for automatic fire sprinkler systems are adequate at the time of each final plat. IO. At the first final plat submitted for approval subsequent to this Resolution, the Applicant shall obtain a new well permit for Well D and submit this infonnation to Garfield County Planning staff for review. 11. At first final plat, the Applicant shall conduct a 24 hour pump test on Well D and have the water tested for quality to ensure it meets the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's standards. This information shall be submitted to Garfield County Planning staff for review. 12. The Applicant shall plug and abandon the well (Permit No. 160677) when the existing residence located at 3961 County Road 114 connects to the central water system of the subdivision. 5 1111 fll'.i. n~.tl\.i,,~~1¥'111 ·''''llt r111, ,,,r M'N'i?. ~·11 11111 Receptian#: 823748 09/06/2D12 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 6 cf 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 13. Prior to approval of the· first final plat, the Applicant shall consider additional water loop connections. 14. Prior to the approval of the first final plat submitted for approval subsequent to this Resolution, the Applicant shall meet all applicable Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE) regulations for a non-transient, non-community water system. 15. Prior to the approval of the final plat for Block 3, the Applicant shall submit to the State of Colorado a Notice of Intent to impound water for the detention pond east and adjacent to County Road 114 and receive approval from the State. Well Monitoring 16. Lake Springs shall participate with Spring Valley and other land owners in the Spring Valley area in a ground water monitoring program to monitor water levels in the Spring Valley Aquifer, as described in the Memorandwn dated December 6, 2000, authored by Anne Castle and Chris Thome of Holland & Hart attached as Exhibit E to this Resolution. The data collected pursuant to the monitoring program shall be provided to and maintained by the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the "Basalt District"). If and when the monitoring program, or other reliable data and information, provide evidence of a long term trend that indicates an inability of the Spring Valley Aquifer to satisfy expected demand associated with decreed water rights owned by Lake Springs, Spring Valley, and the other parties participating in the monitoring program, the Applicant shall cooperate with the Basalt District to identify and implement necessary and appropriate corrective measures which may include: (a) implementation of water conservation measures and/or (b) evaluation of the opportunities for provision of a substitute water supply from a supplement source. Waste Water 17. The Applicant shall comply with the following Spring Valley Sanitation District's (District) conditions including: a. Prior to any final plat approval, the Applicl!J!t shall provide the Spring Valley Sanitation District a complete set of the sewer construction plans for review and approval. b. The Applicant shall adhere to the Spring Valley Sanitation District's service conditions as follows: i. Obtain approval by the District of all required Line Extension Agreements or Line Connection Agreements as required by the District's Rules and Regulations and/or the Pre-Inclusion and Wastewater Treatment Plan Treatment Agreement (PDA); ii. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the PDA and the District's Rules and Regulations; and, iii. Reimburse the District for all costs incurred by the District regarding this project, including, but not'limited to legal and engineering review, as stated in the District's Rules and Regulations and PDA. 6 1111 W.i. Pi,~"m.i U :1 llfoll II~ l.il~lrll.fW.RIJll4. ~·II. 11111 Reception#: 823748 0!!/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 7 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Coo Fea:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Access Permits 18. The Applicant shall make application to the Colorado Department of Transpmtation for an access permit for improvements to the intersection of County Road 114 and State Highway 82. Such application and approved permit shall be tendered with each final plat document; and the intersection improvements shall be included as a public improvement in the subdivision improvements agreement for that final plat. In the event that the County secures a permit with CDOT and constructs improvements to the CR 114/SH 82 intersection prior to any homes being constructed at Lake Springs Ranch PUD, the Applicant will be responsible for a portion of those intersection improvements either equivalent to, or less than, the cost of the improvements that would have been required pursuant to the CDOT permit. For the purpose of determining the Applicant's fair share pursuant to the "equivalent to or less than" clause in the previous sentence, the Applicant will provide for the County's review and approval, an engineer's estimate for the cost of the improvements that would have been required, pursuant to the COOT permit issued to the Applicant. The engineer's estimate will be provided as part of the final plat submission for the first final plat. 19. Prior to the approval of each final plat, the Applicant shall obtain Access Permit from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department for all applicable Secondary Access roads that intersect County Roads 114 and 115. Roads 20: Roadways: The current preliminary plan application for Lake Springs Ranch PUD proposes five (5) separate accesses onto Garfield County Road 114, hereinafter "CR 114." Notwithstanding any future Board of County Commissioners amendments to current approvals which may be obtained for the currently proposed design of the roadway accesses for the Lake Springs Ranch PUD from CR 114 and the present design of improvements to CR 114 through the Lake Springs Ranch PUD, based on agreements and representations of the Applicant, the Applicant shall adhere to the following criteria. a. Grade of CR 114 at Intersections: At intersections with Lake Springs Ranch development roads, the vertical alignment of CR 114 shall have grades no greater than 5% for a minimum distance of 25 feet as measured from the centerline of the intersecting road. b. Grade of Intersection Road at Intersections: At intersections with CR 114, all Lake Springs Ranch development roads shall have grades no greater than 4 % for a minimum distance of 62 feet as measured from the centerline of CR 114 and not to exceed 6% within 120 feet. c. Angle oflntersections: Intersections shall be designed as nearly to right angles as possible, with no intersecting angles of less than 85 degrees. The centerline of intersecting roads shall be designed with a tangent at the intersection with a minimum tangent length of 60 feet as measured from the centerline of CR 114 to the Point of Curvature (P.C.) on the intersecting road. d. Proximity of Adjacent Intersections: Where two Lake Springs Ranch development roads intersect CR 114, the intersecting centerlines shall be directly aligned, or shall be separated not less than 200 feet as measured between intersection centerlines. In the event that one or both of the intersecting streets requires that CR 114 be provided with auxiliaiy lanes (acceleration and/~r deceleration lanes) as provided for herein, then the intersecting street 7 1111 All'.i.'i,,1\~,ril:11W,ll'IC,lft\LrH~'"'~~ ~"~ 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/06/2012 03;39:4B PM Jean ~lberioo 8 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO centerlines shall be offset sufficient distauces so that the minimum leugth of the auxiliary lanes, as required for herein, are provided and do not overlap. e. Requirement for Auxiliary Lanes: Intersections of all Lake Springs Rauch development roads shall be provided with auxiliary lanes (left deceleration lanes, right tum deceleration lanes, right turn acceleration laues, and left turn acceleration lanes) applying criteria set forth in Section 3.9 of the most current version of the Colorado State Highway Access Code. f. Design Criteria for Auxiliary Lanes: The design of all required auxiliary lanes shall be in accordance with then applicable Garfield County specifications, as applicable, and Section 4 -Design Standards and Specifications of the most current version of the Colorado State Highway Access Code. g. Intersection Sight Distance: At intersections of Lake Springs Ranch development roads and CR l 14, clear zones shall be designed and maintained to provide sight distance for the vehicle on the intersecting road (stop or yield) to observe a moving vehicle on CR 114. The clear zone shall be maintained free of all vegetation and objects taller than 24 inches except for traffic signs. The sight distance shall be measured from a point on the interesting road (stop or yield) which is 10 feet from the edge of pavement on CR 114. The minimum intersection sight distance for intersections with CR 114 based on a 35 MPH design speed shall be 350 teet. h. Access Points: Direct accesses onto CR 114 by individual lots shall be prohibited. No individual lot shall access a Lake Springs Ranch development road within a distance of I 00 feet from an intersection with CR 114, as measured from the nearest edge of pavement of CR 114. i. Utilities and Street Construction: Street aud road construction shall not proceed beyond subgrade preparation until all utilities which are intended to be placed under any part of the street or road are complete, including all service lines, and all utility trenches are backfilled and compacted in accordance with the street or road construction specifications as provided by a certified professional geotechnical engineer registered in the State of Colorado. j. Other Design Criteria: Except as modified above, CR 114 shall be subject to the following design parameters: Garfield County Road 114 Desi•m Criteria Design Capacity (Vehicles Per Day) 2500+ Minimum Right of Way Width 80-feet Type of Surface for Driving Lanes and Asphalt Shoulders Prepared by Registered Geotecbnical Engineer Pavement Design and Subgrade Based On-site Specific Soil Analysis and Stabilization Anticipated Traffic Volume for 20-Year Design Life Minimum Driving Lane Width 12-feet 8 1111 Wfl'i1r~i,,1\i,rf'.~~1•rt~.1r11.rw Ht#ll ~11J. II Ill Reception!!: 823748 09/05/2012 09:39;49 P~ Jean Rlbericc 9 ~f 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO Minimum Shoulder Width 6-feet Ditch Width and Storm Drainage Designed by Professional Engineer to Provide Minimum Hydraulic Capacity to Convey Peak Culvert Flow From 100-year Storm Event Cross Slope 2% to 8% Based on Superelevation Design of Roadway by Professional Engineer Shoulder Slope Identical to Cross Slope Min. Design Speed (Miles Per Hour) 35MPH Minimum Centerline Radius (Feet) Varies with Superelevation Rate of Superelevation: 2% Crown Section 610-feet 2% 470-feet 4% 420-feet 6% 380-fi:et 8% 350-feet Minimum Percentage ofRunout on 80% Tangent Minimum Runout Length (Feet) Varies with Change in Rate of Superelevation Change in Rate of Superelevation: 4% 84-feet 6% 126-feet 8% 168-feet 10% 210-feet 12% 252-feet 14% 294-feet 16% 336-feet Maximum Centerline Grade 10% Minimum Centerline Grade 1% K-Value for Crest Vertical Curve 40 minimum K-Value for Sag Vertical Curve SO minimum 21. A portion of CR 114 is to be re-aligned which is subject to the Garfield County Procedures for Vacating Public Roads and Rights-of-Way. The Applicant shall receive approval of this road vacation prior to recording of the applicable final plat. 22. Prior to first fmal plat approval, the Applicant shall conduct a geotechnical investigation of CR 114 from mile marker 3. I to 100 feet east of the intersection of CR I IS and High Alpine Drive. Based on this analysis, provide a pavement section design to the Garfield County Planning Department for review. Affordable Housing 23. If Tract A is to be subdivided into further separate interests, the Applicant shall tender an 9 1111 Wf/'.i. l\'ti~Jl11.!'~ I~,,, H Mir' lirlfl(lft""r.~·I 11111 Receptianfi: 823748 09/05/2012 03:39:48 POMO DJeanF R~b0e0r0iooG"RFIELD COUNTY CO 10 of 79 Reo Fee:$0. oo ee. . ~ application for the subdivision of the lot. 24. Affordable Housing: The location (on-site, off-site, or a combination of on-site or off-site) of the affordable housing, and an Affordable Housing Agreement reflecting these determinations shall be finalized prior to scheduling the first final plat application submitted subsequent to this Resolution for signature by the Board of County Commissioners. Revisions to the Preliminary Plan 25. The following changes below and redlines sent to the Applicant on 414112 shall be made to the Preliminary Plan sheets prior to the signing of the Resolution. These changes include: a. Add a cul-de-sac that meets ULUR standards to the end of Spring Valley and Rivendell Roads. This revision shall be documented on sheet PLAN-04 of the Preliminary Plan; b. Add the trail to sheets PLAN-0 I -PLAN-07; c. Add an Affordable Housing label to Tract A on sheet PLAN-06; and, d. Identify any access easements to adjacent property owners. Revisions to the Construction Drawings 26. The following changes shall be made the Construction drawings prior to approval of Final Plat including: a. Modify the Typical Special County Road 114 Road Section on Sheet DET-3 to reflect an 80 foot right-of-way; b. Add the trail to the Secondary Access road cross section; c. . Add trail detail to plan set; d. Add to the legend on sheet PHASE the phasing sequence for the subdivision .. e. Add notes to sheet CS2 reflecting that erosion control measures that shall be placed at culverts and along ditches. Add additional permanent erosion control blankets (SC250 or equivalent) to slopes along roadside ditches and ditches conveying water between lots or through open space parcels. These areas where the blankets are required shall be noted on the grading plans. Blankets will be placed where the major storm velocities exceed 5 feet/second. f. Revise the water line profiles in the plan and profile she.ets to avoid low points. g. Provide a detail of a typical roadside ditch/driveway crossing on the detail sheet. h. Fire hydrant locations are shown in the roadside ditches or in steep slopes. The locations shall be modified or details for construction in these difficult locations developed. i. Manhole HARDSSMH-10 is nearly 20-feet deep. This design shall be reviewed for 10 11111r .. riri111"Jlitr~,m1v M1+t:~i.w.t1r.~1 111111 Reoeptlon~: 82a748 09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 11 of 79 Rec Fee:S@.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO constructability and redesigned. Add notes to the plan to make potential homeowners aware of shallow sewer line mains. j. Many of the proposed lots are below the roads and the sewer lines connections are going to be too low for gravity flow of lower levels. Evaluate the situations where the potential exists for issues with basement gravity sewer and add plat notes and noticing in the closing documents to clarify design limitations related to sewer line depth for potential purchasers of affected lots. k. Remove the high points in the water line proposed for Lakeside Lane and Rivendell Road. I. Add the water line in the profile for Rivendell Road. m. Replace text on sheet MU-1 that references the "City with "sanitation district." n. Between Block 4, Lot 23 and 24 there is an 18 foot deep ditch and sewer line beneath the ditch. This is not practical for a sewer line and needs to be redesigned. o. Provide design information for the sewer line extension that is shown from the end of Lakeside Lane. p. Provide design information for the sewer services for Block3, Lots 17 and 18. q. No gas is shown in the utility trench detail but only one trench is shown on the plans. Include the proposed design for providing natural gas services. Vegetation 27. The improvements included with each final plat will include a revegetation provision for the disturbed areas associated with the improvements for the subdivision, along with security to guarantee that the revegetation has been successful. 28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit from the Garfield County Building Department on single family lots and the multi-family tract, an inventory of the existing vegetation and Harrington's penstemon shall be done by the lot owner and receive a statement of approval from the Development Review Committee prior to building. Historic Preservation 29. Prior to the approval of the final plat for Block 3, the Applicant shall conduct further evaluations of the sites that potentially contain the prehistoric "open camp hearth." This information shall be provided to the Garfield County Planning staff for review. 30. Prior to the approval of the final plat for Block 2, the Applicant shall further investigation the historic value of the structures on Lot 3. This infonnation shall be provided to the Garfield County Planning staff for review. Revisions to the Draft Amended Declaration of Covenants 3 L Prior to the signing of the Resolution, the Applicant shall amend the Draft Amended Declaration of Covenants. These amendments include: 11 1111l".i.llfftlP"Jl1~r·.i11v111i»".MLtra:w1•Nfi'~'' 11111 ReGept!on#: 823748 09/0012012 03:38:48 PM DJeanF Albe0 0r0looGARFIELD COUNTY CO 12 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 oc ee: . a. Prior to approval of the Amended Preliminary Plan, the Draft Amended Declaration of Covenants shall be further revised to reference, where appropriate, the existence and maintenance of the gravel pedestrian trail as a Common Element maintained by the Homeowner' s Association. b. Create a section in this document that identifies the lots that might require pressure reducing values and/or booster pumps to increase or decrease interior water pressure. GIS 32. Once each final plat is approved, the Applicant shall provide the Garfield County Planning Department a digital copy of the fmal plat to a standard acceptable to the Garfield Coun1y Information Technology Department. PUD Amendment 1. Prior to the signing of the Resolution, the Applicant shall modify the Draft PUD Development Guide including but not limited to the following: a. Add design criteria for parks/open space, trails, road right-of-ways, and all other land held in common to Section VI. Construction and Alteration of Improvements. LI t: S:: •. ~ Dated this _-. __ day of -~""""'r~r=-f=..a-,.,,...~~~~~---'' A.D. 20 IL ATTEST: COUNTY BOARD OF GARFIELD 12 Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: =C=O=MMI~=SS=I=O=N=ER~C=HA~IR=J=O=HN~F~·~MAR~=T=IN~------~''Aye ~C~O~MMI==~SS~I~ONE,....R~MIK~E...,.S~AM=><S~O~N __________ _,.Aye =C=O=MM=l=S=SI=O=NE=R~T~O=M~JANK~=O~V~S=K=Y---------~ Aye STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) I, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, ,now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this __ day of A.D. 20 __ . County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 13 ~ ~ 13 ~ " N "! ~ ;; ~ 0 N zi ..: Iii :s a.. ~~~~ of" IE~ -~~ --.. ~~!Iii • .'II' ~ID Q a. 2~ crJ ..J :c "!~~WB ~u ~~ .. ~!> .. ~§ii§~ ~ R 51~ ztn llfz., .. a §t!> ~g;;~ I~ i~2 ~~ It .. ~ D. ,.a§g15 fl) D~ of~ I.LI ~iii Sl ~ ~ """'"!jB s l!!~~ i!1~ ~j!:g~ ~ z~ ~~· 8 ~ 8 ~ .: ~ l5 ... 0 ~ ~ a ~ ~ < I ! ~ l mw··;:;i:; ,.,.,.,,;;;;;:;:·:::;;;;::: ;;;;·;;·;mi;~:::;; ;;·;;;;;;miiii;m;::~m;;;;:!~:;; -~iiiiiiiii!i~'i'' i ~1,~1.Jil~4~1,1.~ ,l,,J,1,A,l,.\~1,:,J,J.,J,,J,J..\n.:i:~ ......... 1,1,;tl;X .u.ult:t~uu.u.i.:t:t:ta H~UHJ.J.J.J..\.\H~~.IUJ.J,.\U.\AAJ.oV.fi~AJ. ~~oHHmmo~oUOH~J~ ~ !i!l!!i!!l!l!l !ll!!lil!!!i!l!l!iliillllil ii!ilil!!l!!!!i!!lll lllilililii!!!lliii!!!llll!!!l!lllli! iil!ill!Hiiliiiiiii i ""'"""'""'~,......, ..... c L9l5l"ilZBoorr-1 d :i a: :c ~~ t,, ll C> az o:-~a:: D. Ill llJ ~ s _, 'l I ' ' ' i I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' / ~1! i •' -~jl •"I I • lllCIO'eN30i'i'AM\M ~tGIU.o:"1:W .. •!Wllt&Hl(Oall2NOlfd 10111 G:i's!INllhlB'~ 'iOl:llU'fill!aAY~.!:111 NY"1dAHVN'li111"13~ "Q"n"d JCNYH MINR:lclS 3>1Y"l OOW0100 '..UNnO::>atllt..l!IVS .uttSl:J:l~\l<ltl3.!l~n1,;11'1\l..i~~ilB ~ ~. 1! ~1 ~I " = ~ 0 <> '.17 .L33HS O.L HO.LVW -~i: :E ~ .... ~· :!'.'. => .1 0 !ii (.) " ..J 9;;i "' N ti: :!:: "' ... g!! -.= .. ,, "" !lo= .. ~~ ~ ". I elf. • •• ~o ~co~: ~ ... -,..mm :.!gJ'!~ sea~: ~--~ ;li#CSIO cN: o_ -;::;:;:~~ ~o.~ •"'-•" 0 ~mm'° ... ,,_ NO:)'DN30N'Ml'IM -'-J<U·--llKOl!ol l!HllaO::)-..~ 'IOllLlll'3llN!llw-4:1SI 'ONI '9N111133NJDNS AYJ.NnO:) HDIH S .L33HS O.L H:>.LYW ~ N = : I i J) ~ : I !111 ' !i ] I I •i11r i I 1:1!& Ii! I I ~!i~ •!! b~ ·•~\!ll!Hfli !!Iii ~~ 11l1n -.... ·--- j ·---, .. ,_ ·-··- ' ' " I • • / ~/ • • I I • • ~ I • • ti i: ~I :C• U• ii i l i WOO"ONZ:!H"- -IOU!ltY.l•IUHirP'•(HIJ:INl)Hd 10119 CO 'r.INllbllla-... 'l13'1W1'31111lUr.'11'3llW"IUl.li"I ":JNI 'SNl!l:&N19N'3 Alil.NnO:> H91H ' ' I ! ' ~ : I !s . 1g i .. ' ~ldiilh 1 .• 1 I:; I~~~ .. ;,.1"'' 1m1 = I• I I -m I II~: I '"''" ;,~ HCIO'DN2mlf'MMM lllllHN(lla)JC.Y,d·-IN9)BlQHol -·· go .__.. .. DOMN;r'lll' •ro1 :U.'imH!IAYDY"m 1;1•1 ~I '9NRl38Nl£)N'S All.l.Nno::> HDIK 0 " /'.: z 8 l'llO:»'!Jle:>H"MlllM -c-xv.i·•-.couiDmi.i 10.HGO~llOOMNll"l:=I 'IOla&ll ... llNllAYJDIY"l&LIDJ I = 'I' i I " I : 11 I I " I ! I 1 ; 1111 •I ! ~ I d. l uUl1f ] ·+ iidi1• l fU!iiii JIJ .. ..,, I I ----. ___ _____J_ ____ --·----1 I 1 ----·---- r - '·--. I -'"'-·--i----! i ---. .. J. __ / ! I.. ' i i 1 s l J I u 1 ' I f!fil I!; -a 1 1i ui If 'f' -J '''"1 jJ Hhl I !I.ii d .i£., ·--~:' f ''1.{ , . ··'--'.-· \. -- \ '>-· / ,·. .... ,, .. ... i ! . 1111 Ml'.i.llfnl~Jl1K:M\MIV: Mlit:HIU'~W~11l. 11111 Receptian#: 823748 09/0512012 03·38·48 PM Jean Alberico 24 of 79 Rec Fee;$0.00 Doc Fee:0.0W GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit 2oa I 1997 HP Geotech Report Lake Springs Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan & PUD Amendment June2011 1111 Ml'.i. lll!P"J!it~:i ~lr.\M l~N!ll.111\':Hr.~·~ 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:48 PPI Jean Alberico 25 cf 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Ooo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO J • Hl!PWOaTK-PAWLAIC Gl!OTECHMCAt, INc. llJJORoadtM Gbmwaod Sprlop, COllHlll Faxt711- fbDlletJO- · PRELIMJNARY GEO'IECBNICAL BNGINEEBING STlJDY ,_OPOSED LA.IE SPJ.tlNGS RANCH P.U.D. COUNTY ROADS ll4AND11!>, GARFIEU> COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 197 348 AUGUST 29 , 19"1 MIKE AlllD MA.CI BJl!!KET ;y CJO LAND DESIGN PAlt'l'NERSBIP ATTN: RON LISTON !>18 COOPER A VENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81ti02 1111 W!l".i. lftP"Jlrtr:.i.1L•~1¥Lrrr: 1•r.:r«wri:w~·~ 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/0512612 03:38:48 PM Jean ~lberioo 26 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GRRFIE~D COUNTY CO August29, 1997 MJke and Maci llerlmley c/o Land Design Partaership Atlll: Rm! Lislml 918 Cooper Avonue Glenoad Spriugs, Coiondo 81602 Job No. 197 348 Subject: Prelimjnary Gootedmical EngiueeriDg Study, Prqiosed Lake Springs P. U.D., County Roads 114 and 119, Garfield County, Colmado. Dear: Mr. and Mrs Bethley: As ~. we have conducted a geotechnical study for the proposed residential clovelopmeat. . It should be posaible to develop tho prqiect as proposed without encoi;:::t severe COllSlraiDla or hazards usocmmd with Ifie geolOgy. ,~related detb,rmatiOIUI at very slew~ still be OCQlln'ing in the pmject area. Because alt.bis ~ sn. shoulCI not be I amxiu llmhaia tboeaswm part of the PtOJlldY, Also the risk of builcfins damage CID be mluced by spealal ibiuldadim designs.-Dease hmd basalt !llllY be at rlilatively sballow depths in m1111Y -and dift'icalt tm:llYltioA eonditions should be expected. · Subsurface condltlolls em:owumed in the exploratory borhms clrll1ed throughout the prqiosed davelo~ area are varlab1e llDlf aenerallY CODSlit of sandy clay and gravel to lloulder size llasalt ttagments In a sandy cliy .matrix. Groundwater waa not elllXWnteml In the b~ 11111 the soils ~ically slightly molBI. The ala,s are typlllally medium to JUgli. plasticlty and When Wead.. S~ footings placed on the natural clay or basalt ftamnent subsoils 8lld de.siJ.l:!ed for an allowable lieiring ptell1118of1,~ psf to 4,000 psf ~ sulrable for~ S!JPport In most of 1118 ~ment area. :e>panstve clai Soils, malnly fOlllld west of ~ Road.114 could~ JpeCJll cleslgjia to llmit the risk fJf foultdation and floor slab heave. Concellllatlld IOad on s~ fOol:ings, structural mats clcep ftmnd•tions such as drilled piers and crawlspace below floon am pOll&lble mew to mi!igatll expam!onpoteiilial. · The report which followa cfellmlles our investiga_tion, summarizes our fimllngs, and preBeJlls our recommendations suitable for pl•Ming ml~ deslml. -It is IDlpDilaDt !hat we pm\lide CODSU!tation dlll'J!ll deaip, anil field services Guriog COil8tnlction to reView and monitor the lmpleiu.ntation of the geom:hniall recommendations. Due to Ille expa!ISiv!I OlaJs encolllllered at the site, lubsoil studies for eaeh buildlng area are IecllllllDemled If you ba.ve aey questiolla regarding this report, please contact us • . Sh!ci:rely, HBPWORTH-PAWLAIC GBOTECHNICAL, INC. Steven L. Pawlak P .f!. Rev.BYRGM SI,.P/ROM/kw :-----. 11111\1".i. ~lfnlli"Jl1I~~ ll.'H' M,ll+/tltrtMl~lilrt1'1C~11A 11111 Re~ept1on~: 823748 - 09/0512012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 27 of 79 Reo Fee:S0.00 Ooo Fee:0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY • • • • • • • . • . • . • . • • . • • • • • . • . • • . • . 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT • • . • • • • • • . • . • • • . . . . • • . • • • • . • • • • • • . 1 SITB CONDMOHS .••••••••• -.•• I .................... I • • • • • • • 2 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SBTI'JNG • • • . • • . • • • • • • • . • , • • . . • • • • . • • , , 2 PROJECT ARBA GEOLOGY • • . • • • • . • • . • • • • . . • . • • • • . . • • . . • • . • . • 4 ~ DBPOSrl'S •• I ............. ~ • I •• I • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • 4 ALLUVIAL PANS AND STREAM VALLBY ALLUVIUM . • • • • • • • • . 4 COLLUVWM ........................................ 4 BASALT PLOWS AND COLLAPSE DBBRm ••..•.••. , ••• , , • , , • S FAULTS ••.•••••••• I •••••• I ' • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • s SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .•.•.•••••••.•••••••••••• , • • • • • • • • 6 GEOLOGIC SlTB ASSESSMENT •. , • . • • . . . • . . •.••• ; . . . • • • • • • • • • . 7 CONSTRUCI'ION RBLATBD SLOPB INSTABILITY • . • • • • • • • . • • • . 7 RBGlONAL BVAPORITB DEFORMATION •• : • • • • . • • • • • . • • . • . . 7 BARTHQUAKBS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • . 8 BXCAVATIONDIPPICULTIES ............................ 8 PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS. . • • . • • • • . • • • . • . • • • . • 8 FOUNDATIONS • • . . . • • . • .. . • • • • • • • . • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 FLOOR SLABS • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • . . . . . • . • • . • 9 UNDBRDRAIN SYSTEM • . • • . . • • • • • • • • . • • . • . . • . . • • • • • • . . 10 Sl'I'E GRADING ••••••••••••••••••••••..•.••••.•••.•• , 10 SURFACE DRAINAGE • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . • • • • • • • • . • • • 11 PA VBMBNT SUBORADE • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . . . • . . • • . . • •••• 11 LIMn'ATIONS .••.•. : .•..•••••••••••••. I ••••••••••••• I •••• 11 FIGURE 1 • GEOLOGY MAP FIGURES 2 &; 3 • LOGS OP BXPLORATORY PITS FIGURE 4 -LBGBND AND NOI'BS FIGURES S -1 • SWBLL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS PIGURB 8 • GRADATION ANALYSBS TEST RBSULTS PIGURB 9 • HVBBM ST.ABILOMETER TEST RESULTS T.ABLE I. SUMMARY OP LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1111111".i. llM!li"Jlrtf,'ll.ll ftl~ Ni~ l~f'rmltl.«t'W.W·~ 1111 I Re~ei>tlon#: 823748 09/0~/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 28 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO PVRPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY Th.ls report presoms I.be raau1ts of a prelimillary geoteclmical enpieering study for the proposecl developmont at Lab Sprlogs Ranch, County Roads 114 am! 119, Garfle1d County, Colorado. The project sile is shown on Pig. l. The purpose of the study was IO evaluata !he geologic and subsurface comlitiom and their potential impact on the project. The sllldy wai conducted in accordance with our proposal for geoleClmical ~ sorvilles to Mike and Mac:i BerkeJej, dated May 23, 19!17. A fiald explmation progiam consisting of a geologic recODDaiasaJK:o and exploratory borings wu cooducled to obtain iaformatll'ID on the sire and sub.sudirce conditioJJs. Samples oblaiJJcd during the field exploration were test.ed in the laboratory to ~ classification. comprersibil.ity or swell and olberqineering cbarllCterislia of the on-site soils. The results of !be field exploration and laboratory testiDg w1m1 aJlacyzed to develop recommendations for project planning and preliminary design. 'Ibis report Sllllimarizes the dara obtained during this study and presenll our COl!ClWJ!oos and recommendatiom based on the proposed development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . The Lake Springs Ranch Pl.ID will be a resideatial clevelopment conaia1ing of 96 single family lots, a neighborhoocl C01lllllel'Cial distric; and open apace, see Fig. 1. The single family lo1s will be one aete or~. A network of streets will be CClll8Wcted to provide acc:ess to the lots. The devalopmllllt will be semced by a commllllity sewer and waler system. Development will be on the valley side to the e&BI of Spring Valley. The Riveruiell Sod and Tree Farm presently operatu on the valley floor and lower valley side. Much of this ma will remain aa an .Agriculture Opu Space District If developl!leDt p!lllS cllange signifieutly ftOm lhose described, wa should be notlfted to reevaluate the recommendatkms presented. in tbls report. 1111 wr .. 1irniP'Jh•r.i1.~H M .ll'rlf lrf.lt'fil«Mnl·~ 11111 Reception#: 823748 1 09/05/2012 03F:3B:4$~ P•M0 0 J0~anFe~~~8 &0~ARFIELD COUNTY CO 29 of 79 Reo ee: "'· · · -2- SITE CONDll'IONS The Lake Sprinsl Ranch PUD is localed on the nortbeaa1em side of Spring Valley which is a broad, shallow valley Oil the bualt plateau to the east of the Roaring Fork River valley. The property covem parts of Seclions 32, 33, and 34 T. 6 S., R. 88 W. and part of SeGt!on 4, T. 7 S., R. 88 W. The 1Dpograpb,y in the area is shown oa Fig. 1. Slopes along the floor of Spring Valley are nearly leveL The valley side to the east is rolling. Slopes there range from 10 to 20% and some of the steeper billlicl1111 1n1 40%. ~ dialnages wfth perennial streams are not present on the valley side where the single family Iola ue pllll!Ded. This area is drained by small ephemeral streams which only have surface flew dnring periods of heavy pncipiiatfan or SDOWpack melt. A small pond behind a low eardl.11111h•nltmentis locatadjuat·m the east of the exislingranch headquarle!S. Poorly drained grauml and a small permnlal stream are present OJI the floor of Spring Valley, At the time oflhis B11lcly development on the property COllSisted of the Rivandell Sod and Ttee Parm, a single family residence on Lot 1, and a small cabin 1D the aauthesat of the pond. The property was being used for grazing. Vegetation on the valley side. outside the c:ultivated areas amaists of sage, oak and other bruslI. County Roads 114 and 119 cross through the property. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SElTING The project site is located on a basalt plat.eau to the east of theBaaring Fork valley. The bualt plateau at the site is a second-order, structuru l!encb, betwem the Grand Hogback. Manocllne to the west, the White River Uplift to the ncm;h and the Roaring Fode Syncline to the soulh and east (Tweto and Others, 1978). "Oiese regional structural fea1urea developed during tbe Laiamide Orogeny about 40 to 70 million Ye&IB 11111\1".i.W!i~J/JN"A~.¥.lllf,l'liit:lr+r&"Wlt\YMC~·l II Ill Rec~tionD: 823748 . 09/05/2012 03·38:48 PM Jean Alberico 30 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Ooo F•e:0.00 GARFI~LD_COUNTY CO • 3 - ago. Recent studies by the Colorado Geological Survey (Kirkham and W"!dm11111, 1997) show tbat the structural benGb ls a c:mnpleidy defmmecl c:ollaple blaolr: of regimllli extent. The collapse blouk funnes a regional topograpJiic deJn'easion with has much as 4,000 feet of relief. The regiollal collapse bloclc ls roughly circular-shaped with a diameter of about 16 miles. The regional collapse block covers about 200square Dliles. Carbondale ls locsted near Its center. The geologic llllllclure in the .regional collapse block is compl~ The complex slrueture appears to result fiom .shallow CEUStal detb!mations Nlaled to evaparito dissolutloa and flowage f'tom beneath the area (Xirkbam and Widmann, 1997). The eveporite ls in the Pennsylvanian-age, Eagle Valley Evaporlte wbieh lies at a .relatively .shallow depth below the llliface of the regional collapse block. Much of the dllf'omlation in the resiO!Ull collapse block: is younger than the basalt flowt in the are&; The basalt flows and olher volcanic rocks in the aiea have been da1llld at 3,0 to 22.4 million year befbre the p-(Kir!cham and Wiclmann, 1997). Some deformation has afi'ected .P1eistocene-ag (10,000 ID 1.8 million jelll!I old) de,!l!llita and landforms and possibly Holocene-age (less than 10,000 year old) deposits and lllllltbrms. The clefonnado.n SllUclures include: {l) syncliaa1 sags ll!ld bowl-like depressions, (2) short orthogonal faults, {3) large arc-shaped, half grabll!IS, and (4) collapse debris. Spring Valley is a half grabea with a iillllt aiollg ila Weatlll'D side. The b~ flow along the eaatern side of the Spring Valley COlllists moatly of collspse debris. The collapse debris appear to be the result of difflnntial vertical resional subsidence nsulting £tom evapodle dissolution. Tbe collapse debris along the eastem side of Spring Valley appears to also have a relatively hiSh horizontal mmpowont of subsidence deformation. The collapse . . debris consisfll ofhighlyftactured and locally brecciated bliSaltflows lntexmixed with intact but strongly tilted blocks of basalt which range up to about 20 acres in siZe. ' I I ! 1111 Mi".i.rlftrJ11~!il.1w.1wr.iir.w1:w1itrrw*'' 11111 Reception~: 823748 09100/2012 03:38:48 P" Jean Alb•ricc 31 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFI9...0 COUNTY CO .4. PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY Our interpretation of the geol0&ic condiliOllS in the project ma is shown on Fig. 1. The principle geoloaic ftaturea in the area are described below. LAKB DEPOSITS Spriog Valley was the site of a funner lake amt lake deposits 811' present aloDg the valley floor and lower valley sides. Two ages of lake deposits are present. The younger lake deposits (Qly) underlie the relatively level valley floor; The o!der lake deposits (Qlo) underlie a low mrac. which is about 2b t.o 40 feet above the valley floor. The lake deposits are interstratified silty clay, silt, and fine to came-srained lllDd. ALLUVIAL PANS AND STREAM VALLEY AILUVIUM smiu alluvial faiJs (Qaf) are present locally .in the lower parts of several of the ephemeral draiiiages on the esstem valley aide. Stream valley alluvium (Qsl) is present below tbe upland valley floor in tbe eaatem part of the property. The fan amt stream valley all.uvium. is a stratified samly clay witb scatteod bualt fragmen1S. The basalt fragments range from gravel to boulder~ize. COLLUVRJM Colluvlum (Qc) is present below the f!ll1lng terrain that tbrma the eastem. valley side, The i:olluvium GODSisls of clay and gravel to boulder-size basalt fragments in a sandy clay matrix. The matrix makes up most of the delJosit and there is usually li!t1e inter-grain c011tact between the bualtflagment& Witb depth the colluviwn grades inm highl.y fractured basalt with a sandy clay ftamure filliDg. In the exploratoty borings the uJiper colluvium was from 7 to greater than 20 feet tbick. 11111\1".i.tlln!li'Jhll'~ ~~IQ 1'1/f,l-W.rt\.:!4:W.~11~ 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/0£1/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberioa 32 of 79 Rec Fee;$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO -S· BASALT FLOWS AND COLLAPSE DEBRIS The colluvium o.n tbe easlllm valley side is underlain by basalt flows (Tb) which have broken by differential subsidence to fonn Wlapse debris. The collapse debris coosi&ts of highly ftactured and locally brecciated basalt flows intemllxed with intact but strongly tilted bloclcs of basalt which range up to about 20 111n11 in size. Also present in thls area are lnter·:flow sedimants. FAULTS Two, high-angle normal faults are .lnfemd to Cl'OSi the eastern part of the property, see Fig. I. The faulls lr8lld lo the llOlfb.east and are down-tbrowo o.n their weatem &.ides. The tauUs are part of a. regional orthogonal fault system in the regional collapse block {Kirldiam and Widmann, 1997). The fmdta wn pcoduced by evaporlte tectonics as discussed in the Regional Gsologtc Setting SOGtiOll above. FJELD E:Xl'LO.RATIDN Tile fiekl exploraiion for the p10ject was conduclecl on JW111 30 and Iuly 1, 19!17. Ten ezplaratory borings weze drilled at tire loca.tlons shown on Fig. l to evaluale tbe subsurface conditions. The boriDp were advanced with 4 Inch diameter continuous :flight auger powered by a truck-mounted Lonmar BK-SlHD drill rig. The borings were loaaed by a represenlalive of Hepworth-Pawlak: Geo11clmloal, me. Access 10 the drill rig was limited lo on or near the trails and roads at the site due lo the sloping terrain and vegetation cover. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven il11XI the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 im:hes. This lest Is similar to the standard penetration test de.scribed by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration reslsrance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depllls at wbich H-P GEOTECH llll l\l".i.l"°"ll'Jh~t:iMtMM~W:W.l.t"C!ilflJjj11.t, II Ill Receptian#; 823748 · 09/0612012 03:38:49 PM Jean Alberico 33 of 79 Rec Fee:S0.00 Dao Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO -6- the samples were taken and Iha pemtration realstance values are shown on the Lo(IS of Explorallxy Borings, Figs. 2 and 3. DiBtmbed bulk emples of the upper soils were alsO taken for roadway subgrade analysis. SUBSURFACE cONDmONS Clraphic logs of the subsurface conditions 8llCODllmred at the site are shown on Pigs. 2 and 3. The subsoils were variable and gene.rally consist of l to 2 feet of 1Dpsoil overlying vecy stiff ID hard sandy clay and gravel to boulder size basalt fragments in a sanely clay matrix. The clays are genmally mecb"um to high plasticity. The subsoils are typically calcareous espectally east of CDllllty Road .114. Drilling of tllo basalt frap!lll!S aubaoils was dlfflcult due to !be rock size 8lJd hardness and rmisaI was enoounteted in the deposit. Laboratory testing periormeil on samples obf<lined·from the borings included oatural moisture conleDt.and density, Allerberg Jimil5, gradation amlyses and Hveem. stabilomelel' 'R' values. Resul.IB of swell-consolidation testfDg performed on relatively undisturbed drive SIUllplCs, plllSlllltW on Figs. S, 6 and 7, iDdlcate the clay soils live low comprenibllity under light loading. The samples from Borings 1-S showed a low ID high expallSion potmUial when welllld under a col)Stint light surcharge. The non expansive clays, Borings 6 and 8 samples, exhibited moderata compressibility upon lucressed. loadiJJi after welling. Results of gradation inalyses perfou1*1 on drive samples (minus 11'-illch ftactlon) of Iha basalt fragment subsoils are shown on Pig. 8. At:l8rberg limits testing indicates the clay fraction of the subsoils ls of medium to high plasticity. The Hveem stshilometer testfDg resulm had 'R' values of S and 29. The laboratmy testing is summl!rized io Table L No fi:ee water was encoimlBred io the boriogs at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moilt. H-P GeoTE<:H llll l!l".i. llfft!P"Jl1l~l\."&N Ml-1\li:Nl'(IM:W~·' 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 34 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY co -7- GEOLOGIC 0SITE ASSESSMENT. It should be pOBSible ID develop the property as proposed without encountering severe constninls or bazards BS11ociated with the geology. There are, however, some geologie conditiDJJS which should be CDll8idered in project pllllllhlg u described below. CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY We do not ciqJeCt po1elltial problems with cDDStnlction rtited slope instability in the proposed development areu if conslruclion is not consi.deced on slcpea steeper than about 30%. Recommendations for site sxaclin8 are presented below in the Site Grading section of this report REGIONAL EvAPOlUTB DEFORMATION The project area. is located in a. iegiona.l collapse block wbere regional ground defbtmations ha.ve been associated with evaporite dissolution and flowage from beneath the &nla. It is uncerlllin iftbia deformation is still an active geologic procoos or if defonnatioll hu SIDpped. If ground defomiation is still oclllllring, it is likely that defonnatioa rates are very slow am! occur over relativefy broad areas. Abrupt, dift'erentlal fault creep could be localized along the inferred (aul1s in the ea.slam. psrtof theprojectsrea. Afaultmaycrosslbrough Lota 17, 18, 19, and20. Becauaeofthisitis rect'rmnended that site specilio sltldies be made OD these lots to determine if a fault is aGlllally present If a geologi.Gally young fault is present, then the building si1e should not be Jccated across tho fault. Although tlte poteotial for ground defbrmation problllll!ll appears to be low, the project area cannot be considered totally risk free. The risk of building damage can be reduced by special foundation designs. These special foundation designs would be a heavily reinforced mat foundation without & basement H•P GEOTECH 1111 MY'i1illfftil"'Jl1~t'M~MlliN Ml!r.llJl:l~Wi~·i 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:98:49 PM Jean Alberico 35 of 79 Rec Fea;$0.00 Coe Fee:0.00 GARF1ELD COUNTY CO - 8 -. !lAR.lHQUAKES The projec:t area could experience modenrtely strollg earthquake relaled ground shaking. Modified Mercalli 1llteasity Vl grauad shaking should be ezpected during a reasonable service life forlhe development, but the probability for stronger ground shaking is low. l'ntellslty VI ground shaking is felt by DlOllt people and causes general a1anrJ, bat mults in a.eslilible damage t.o slrUCIUres of good desjp and colllllnlClioa The faults in the study area, in our opinion, do not increase the seismic potential. All occupied structures in the development shmdd be designed to withstand moderately · strong ground shaking witll lilde or no damage and not to c:oUapso Wider stnmger gwund shaking; The region is in the Unlform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on Our current undemandhlg of the earthquake hazard ID this part of Colorado, we see no · reason to increase the COlllDlOD1y acc:epllld seismic risk zone for the area. EXCAVATIONDlFPICULTIBS Dease hard bualtshould be expected at relatively shallow depths at many of the proposed building sites and along road and utility alignments. Excavations in the dense hard basalt in moat areas will require ripping and blastmg may be needed. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusioDS and recommendations presemed below are based on the proposed clevelopment, subsurface condldons e11C01111tered in the exploratory borings, and our =xperiem:e in the area. Tile ·recnmmffl!l!alions are suitable for planniDg and pzelhninary design but.site specific sl:Udlas shoulcl be conducted for Individual lot. development. FOUNDATIONS H·PGEOTECH I 1111 Ml°• iirn,P"Jlilf ~ l\'rl M,M,!;ll"W.ltrirlr~11J. 11111 Recoplion#; 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 36 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARF1ELD COUNTY CO .9. Bearing coadltions will vary depending on the specific location of the l!,uilding on the property. Spread footings plal:ed an the natural SJJbsoils appear suirable for building support in most of the development ~· We expect the foaling$ can be sized for an allowable bearing pressure in the taDge of l,SOOpsfto 4,000 psf. ElqJaDsivB clays, mainly found west. of County Raad 114, could reCJ.Uire special ci"8ign to lilnit the risk of fouadat!on and floor slab heave. Concenlrated load& and spread footings that lmpase a minilnum dead load pressure should. be feasible in low llllp8DBive clay acees. Iii areas of relatively deep and higher expansive clay&, a slructtlral mat or drilled pier foundation miq be needed. Nested boulders 8lld loose lnattix soils may need 1reatment such as placing COlllpacted fill or conctete backfill. Foundation walls should be designed to apan local anomalies and to resist Iateial eardl loadings when acting as retaining structares. Below grade mas amt retaining walls should be protected from wetting and hydroslatic loading by use.of an underdrain system. The fuolhip should have a minimum depth of 36 inches for frost protection. A graded pad cut info the natwal soils appears suitable for support of an abOVB ground tank at the proposed 1allk location (Boeing 10). PLOORSLABs Slab-on·grade couatructian should be feasible foe bearing on the 11011-expaua.iv11 natural soils. There could be same post construction slab DIOVelllellt at sites wilb. hydrocompress.ive soils or expansive clays. To reduce tbc effeCIS of some dlffemltlal mavemenc,. floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints. Floor slab can1rol Joints should be UBed. to reduce damago due IO .: shrinkage cracking, A mloimnm 4-inch thick layer of he-drainlna grave.I should underlie basemen! level slabs to filcllilate dtaiI!age. In the mare expansive clay areas, a struciUrally BUpported floor aver • crawtspu::e 111111 be wamnted ro avoid diBtreU IO slabs caued by wetting of the expansive clay. H-P GEOTICH 1111 MY'.i. llM!li"Jillt:i l\.Vl.Q.H ltr.rrltllft:IM'~·ll. 11111 Reception#: 823748 09!05/2012 03:38:48 P~ Jean Rlberioo 37 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GRRFIS..D COUNTY CO -10- UNDI!RDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered. in the expwra111ry borings, it has been our experienl:e in thB area and where there are stiff clays !bat IOcal percbed groundwater can develop duriDg times of heavy precipi1atlon or seasooal l'Ullllff. An UDderdWn system sbould be provided to protEct below grade COllltnlCtion, such as retaining walls, crawlspace am! buemenl areas from wetting and hydros1atlc pressure buildup. The clraiDs should consist of drainpipe SU1'l'OIUlded sbove die invert l.evel. with free..draiDing granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at lllllt 1 foot below lowest adjacent fmish grade and sloped at a miniinum 1 % to a suitable gmvit.y outlet. SITB GRADING The following criteria are recommended fur site grading. If it is neceasary to perform extoDSlve grading, it should be evaluated on a site specific basis. Cut depths · for the building pads and driveway access should not exce'ed about 10 feet. Filla sboulcl . be llin.iled to about 10 feet deep, especially where Ibey encroach steep downhill sloping areas. Deeper cut ami fill sections may be :feasible and should be sllldm on an individual basis. Struclllral fi1Jll should be compacted to at least 95!1 of the maximum standard Proctor deDSil.y Dim optimum moistuie conteDt. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetalion and l'OpSOil. The fill sllould be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding :ZOl'li grade. The on-site basalt ftagm.ent soils excluding oversized rock and topsoil should be suifable for use in emh•nkment fills. The expllllSive clay soils may DOt be suilable for nse beI11181b. structures sensitive to differential settlement/heave. The clays could be difficult to work with due to their high plastii:il.y. Permamnt unretaioed cut and fill slopes should be grsded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protiected against erosion by revegetation, rock rlprap or other means. We can ievlew s~ grading plalls for the project as needed. H-PGEOTECH 11111\1".r.llM!rJ!i~P~iiMIHI' 1¥!1tltr."W.la'V:ll~~·~ 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/0012012 m3:38:4B PM Jean Alberico 38 of 79 Rec Fea:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO -11- SURFACE DRAINAGE The grading plan for the subdivision shoulcl COl!Sider runoff from steep uphill slope& tbrcugh the project and at individual sites. Waier sbould not be allowed 1D pOJld which could impact slope slability and 1buadalfcms. Backfill mxt to buildi!lg.s should be well compaellld and have a positive slope away from Iba building for a dislallce of at lwt 10 feet. Roof downspOUll and draims should dlscl!arge well beyond the limits of au backfill and landscape hrigatioo. s.bould be restricted. PAVEMBNT SUBGRADE The clay subgrade was found to have an Hveem 'R' value of S to 29 and is col!Sidered a relatively poor material fur support of pavmnenra. The basalt ftagmont soil should bo a fair support material. In clay subgrade areas we recommend an 'R' value of 10 bo assumed for.prelimimuy pavement design. An 'R' value of 2S can be asswnecl for tho more granular soils. The actual road Bubgrade should be evaluated for ~w~~supportatthetimeof<:oD8tn\Ction. LIMITATIONS This report bas bllell prepmd accordillg ta generally ll:Cepled geoteclmH:al englneeriag priaclplea and plactices in Ibis azea at this time. We mab no wmanty either eitpreSSOd or implied. The com:lusions and recom!l!e!!dations submilted in this report are based upon Iba data ob1aimlcl from the field reconnaissance, review of published geotosic epom, the exploralory borings located as shown on Fig. 1, lbe proposed cypa of conslrUOtioa and our eicperience In the atea. Our findings lncludo interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface co!Kfftions identified at the explorar.ory borings and variatious in the sublUl'lllce condltkms may not become evident until excavation is performed. If ooMitions ew:ountered during cons!ruclion appear different H-P Gl!Olteli 1111 l\l".i. llfnlrJ111r~ ~ 1 M M.11rr+.v1w~r,~.11, 11111 Reception~: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alba~ico 39 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Dco Fee;0.00 GRRFIE~D COUNTV CO -12- from tholle descrlfJed in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendatklas may be made. This report has been prepared for Ille exclusive use by our client for planning and prellmimry desip purpaua.. We are not respollliblo fer teclllllcal lnterprelatious by othen of oar infonllatioo. All the project evolves, we should provide continued · comultatlon, COllduct addi!lonal eviluatiom and rmew and mDllitnr the lmplemenlation of our recommendatioDs. Significant design cbaDges may require additional amlysis or modifications 11> the recom.mendatiom presented herein. We recommend site spi:ciflc subsoil studies for the iJidividual lot develqiment, observation of excavatiom and fouodalion bearing slrat.a and leSling of structural fill by a representative of the geotecbnir.al engineer. Respectflllly Submitted, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOl'ECHNICAL, INC. Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. and by: Ralph G. Mock Bngineering Geologist SLP/m . cc: Land Design Partnership • Attn: Ron Liston H.P GEOTECH 11111\1".i.111!1.ll'J!ir~'Mlltri' N lrlrt~~IM!:~r*•I 11111 Reception!!: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:4S PM Jean Alberico 40 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO -13- REFERENCES KirJcham R.M. and WidmannB. L.; 1997, Geology Map o/the Corllontlllltl.Quadrangle, Gl.trjield Coim{)I, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 97-3. Kirkham, R.M. and Rogm; W ;p,, 1981, Earthqua/rll Poml'ltial in Colorado-A Preliminary Evaluation: Colorado Geological SUlVey Bulletin 43. Tweto, and Othem, 1978, Geology~ oftlte Leadvllls I • X 2 •Quadrangle, Norlhwe#ml Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map I-999. H-PGEOTECH 11111'11'.i. t!MIVJl1M:\t.Jii'M,!ilf.ll'trW.lWWm·il II UI Reception#: 823748 09/0S/2012 03:39:48 PM Jean Alberico 41 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Dco Fee:0.00 GRRFIELO COUNTY CO \ ' I • I I I I \ ' Qly \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Qlo I \ 197348 \ ' ' \ \ \ I I I ' • Qly HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. CGLUMUM: OLDERIJllCEllEl'OmS: YllUNGERUl!Elll!l'OSl1S: 8"8Al.TFl.OWSANDCOUM'81!- CONrACT; ~-ryalmapda. INl'ERIUllFAlll.T: P4JP!wh1tallo_af_IWllllll_ Bllllomlborondo'"1- -lfalll<. lldd"'1naan-1>y.-m. EXPLORATORYIDRllG: ~ato-al"""""'°"b""'. --~ , _.. ,..,,,,, -·· , . EOLOGYMAP FIG. 1 1111 Fr\l".i. l'l!P"JlitC'il.fU~M.Nrlf lrllililr.IW.MC~·I II Ill Rec:eption#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:48 P~ Je•n Alberico 42 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Daplb -Feet 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 .. ., c .. ~ [!J -- .. I! ... s .. ~ lJti1 .. .iz .. ( ~ ~i ... Ill Iii "' -ltlltt?: ;C: ,':: :::: : : 5::: ;9 .. z ~ m .. ~ s ... ... ··i .. :: ~ ~l~ ~ ... .. " .. a~~ .. ~ .. .tm't.~~•~ dt I il: I-fl " I ii .. ~~a .. .. " .!! ~ Ii ~ ~ ~ m '8 ... a11E :;V: :;· .';fi7:@6w&t! .a .. t z ~ '& m •I!! i f 'I ! c-.·~,...g .... ti. .. ~ 1 ~II ·~i. l ~ ii N tlzt ;r;: ;~: ,': ~~:: ,·, A1tk¢A '5 ~ z ~ m ·i ·~li i !! .. .. .. .. ·--~----~ ... ... ~ = -·R·~ •:;' ' 7:-~· • -~ ~ ;• ' • ~ ... :.. • 7J .. l!: "' t , .. ,,_~ ,,.,_, .. , ... i 0 "' Iii [(j 0 "' --I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Depth -f'aat 197 348 HEPWORTH -PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL. INC. llll f'.i.llfti"Jlrl.t'~~l£1N' l'l"Plf.llll':rrlf.lfr.Nf,~1 11. 11111 Recept~on#: 823748 09/00/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 43 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:~.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Depth -Feet 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 0 "' 0 "' 0 ., --.. "' :itJ ~ I i -~ .. . " ~ e Iii ~ " 1Mtml!A'-t>R!·"=«t--z ~ rn I- ~ .. ~ .. j .. ~ ~i ~ <:; ~ .. -.. 1il ..,:· .. .Ill~--~•'~,,"' 'Jc,,• .. ~ a" •re :a'~ •re•":..~ t i m fi i .c .. ~!'"' ., .!! .. ~ ~ ,, Ii~ .!! ., ·-lt .. ~ 5 .. : ,tlldli&-i ! !ii 'II Ii "' .. ~-!! ~ i&tf .... l " ~ j A¥~~~ i .. ;; I ~~· i m l¥J~ ... i-~f Jj ~ ~ ~ ' .. .. ·ft~ 5; 7:::: :0:: ~· ~B 2 ii: g 0 II) Iii i!J 0 ., --I I I I I l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Doptll -Feat 197 348 HEPWORlH -PAWLAK .LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 11111\1".i. llln!l"Jlln,'~~ M• ltfi'.lltl(ll\l":l-l!l~l,tlir,IW~11l 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:4B PM Jean Alberico 44 of 79 Rao Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO l£GEND: lOPSOIL: organic sandy 111ty clay. dry. dallc brown, same acathred gravel, root zone. CLAY (CL); aBty to sandy. medium to "high pla9t;dty, scatteml gravel, very stiff to hard, slightly malat. brown to Ught brawn and ·white, · allghtly te highly calea1'8DUL BASALT FRACMENlS (GC): grawl, ccbble and boulder olze, calcareous sandy clay malrilr. medium denso allghtly molal, grey and whlta, low ta medium plostlclty flnSL RelatlVlly undisturbed c1n-... sample; 2-lnch 1.0. California liner aamplL Drive sample; atondard panatratlan teat ( SPT ), 1 3/8-inch 1.0. oplit spoon sample, ASlM D -15116. 22/1 2 Drive sample blow counl; indlcabos that 22 blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 lnchn were req!liAd ta driva tho Callfamia or SPT sampler 12 inoheo. T Pnlctlaal rfa rotllaal. Where shawn abow bottom of baring, Indicates that multiple attempts were made .to· advance the baring. NOTES: 1. Explarotcwy bcrlnga -e d~lled on June JO and July 1, 19117 with a 4-lnch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of .....,1cra1cry borings ......., ·measured apf'r-ately by pacing 1rDm -res ""'°"" on the site plan proVlded. 3. Elevations of explonltory bor'inga ...,. not measured and logo of exploratory borings are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring loeatlana and eleWltlana llhoUld be ean1Idanld accurate only to the degree Implied by th• malhod . ...m.. 5. lite lines, between matoriols -shown 11n the· exploratory bon"1f logs represent ihe 11PP•mllmote llaundarle• b~ mats'fal !)pea ond transitions may be gradual. 6. No fi'ee water was enoauntsred in the boringe at tha time of drilling. Fluctuatfon fn wat• level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory i:eat1ng Rasulll: WC -Water Oontsnt ( Ill ) DD = Dry Density ( pct ) +4 = Percent nrtalnad on No. 4 aleve. -200 = Percent passing No. 200 slew. LL = Lill!lid Limit ( Ill ) ~;: if.J:~lt:ltJt.l/l~~· Value HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LEGEND AND NOlES Fig. 4 1111 r«i".i. llfft!P"Jll~:1i.l!.I' 1111' H lilr.WICllr.~11111111 Reception#: 823748 09/0512012 03:39:49 PM Je~n Albe~ioo 46 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc FeedZl.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Moisture eom .. t -12.1 percerit Dry Danalty = 111 pcf 4 Sample of: Sandy Clay ·fram:-Saring 1 at 1 D Feet 3 ....... ~ ' "' 2 .§ " ' • Expanolcn .... upon ~ • 1 weMlng & s i"\ I o .., I ". 1 t 8 . 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -kaf Motature Content ~ 17.6 parcont Dry Density= 101 . pol " Sample of: Sandy aay t . from: Baring 2 at 2 Feet c 1 a -~ s ......:. . . ... .... I o ...... c .......... ~ ......... I • 1 i Ewpanatan ~ ~ " upon " ..wetting 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -kllf 197 348 HEPWORTH -PAWL.AK SWaL-CONSOLIDATIONTEST RESULTS Fig. 5 GIEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1111 Ml".i. llMli"Jilf:'~ W ~tlM.Mllrll!MIW'M•~ 11111 Reception#: 823748 . 09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jaan Alberico 46 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Dae Feei0.00 GARFI~LD COUNTY CO 7 "' Molature Content • 18.9 percent OryD-lty = 100 pof " 6 Sample oft Sandy Clay .. . '.· c Fram: Baring 4 at 5 f'eet .!! fi 5 ' a. I' ill I 4 j . r: 3 2! a. Expmalon s upon 2 wetting -. .. . . \ I \ D ... \ 1 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -kaf Molature Cant..nt = 13.7 ptnlnt ... "llry'Donalty • ·gs pcf Sample at Sandy Clay " F"rom: Boring 5 at ID Feet ~ 0 c ;. .. . . Id 1 .... -r-.,. I " i' II c ·2 2 " !! Ewpanlllo:r-' .. a. . ·I~~~~ .. § . .. . . 0;1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -lcof 197 348 HEPWORTH -PAWLAI< SWELL-CONSOLIOA TIONTEST RESULTS Flg. 6 GEO TECHNICAL., INC. llll l\l".i. llll't!l"Jl1~:1\ ~ ~ Ml'PI( 1-t~~~IWW~·I 1111 I Reception#: 823748 09/06/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico 47 of 79 Rao Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Moisture Content = 19.7 pe"'9111 Dry Density .. 86 pcf Sample ot. Calcareous Sandy Clay . . . From: Boring & at 3 Feet 0 H -.... ~ , Camprnalon Ii ................ '· :!:'1nn I - 2 ' a. s 3 '\ " ... ' 4 5 .. .. . . ..... . 100 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE -lcsf Moisture Content = 21.5 pm:cnt . -. ' .~ ... ·1GIO .,..., Sample of:Calcaraaus Sandy Clay From: Baring B at J F"eet Ill 0 c -......... , .II m 1 k I ..... I . B ' 2 ,.D movement • = • 'upon . ··ettrng . . - 0.1 1.0 10 100 1iPPL1ED-PRESSCRE -ksf 197 348 HEPWORTH -PAWLAK SWELL-CONSOLIDATIONTEST RESULTS F1g.. 7 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. llll Ill"• llMIP"Jll~~·Al11A MW. ~'1'111':1itr.W~·i& 11111 Receptlan~: 823748 09/0012012 03:38:49 PM J•an Alberico 48 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Ooo Fee:0.00 GFIRFIELD COUNTY CO .....,,. ........ --.... _ ..... "' .. .. •• I ................... .· •• .. .. .. ~ a .. . ... I .. .. . ~ .aat .aG1 .Ml .a Jtfl JJrl .1114 .150 .31111 .IQD. 7.ta UI 4.'71 U,a U IU 7U 11tJll 11.1 197 348 DIAMElER OF PARllCLES IN MIWMETERS l:UYlD Sl.T I ...._ I ±17 ii* Wiji**F!ii...:... ....... GRAllEL 49 II: SAND 28 II: SILT AND CLAY 23 II: LIQUID LIMIT Pl.AS'llCITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Clapy Sandy Gravel FROM' Boril>g 10 at 5 and ID Feat Combined HEPWORTI-1 -PAWLAK GE:OTECHNICAL. INC. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 8 1111 l\l'.i.1111~.tll~~!i. ~.l,M.l'f ~ ll,P,l.tTli.l\Wlt'!r~11.I. 11111 Rec~ption#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:49 PM Jean Alberico 49 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 ~RFIELD COUNTY CO . . lEST SPECIMEN 1 2 3 4 MOISTURE CONlENT (%) 18.6 20.4 22.2 QSNSITY (pet) 110:8 . 108.3 1'05.9 "R" VAWE/EXUOA TION PRESSURE' (pal) 37/456 31/321 22/220 "R" VALUE AT 300 psi & 29 100 90 ''R" 80. .. v 70 A L ·-so . u 50 E JI.'() / .,-0 30 . 20 / 10 0 100 200 ·3(')6 400 5fl0 800 700 800 EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) SOIL TYPE: Silty Clay SAMPLE LOCATION: Boring 1 at 1 ta 5 Feet GRAVEL " SAND " SILT AND CLAV 90 " LIQUID LIMIT 35 % PLASTICITY INDEX 21 " 197 348 HEPWORTH -PAWLAK HVEEM STABILOMETER TEST RE~LTS flg. 9 GE01ECHNICAL, INC. •u·---·-••M• ·----·. • _ .. ..,... -.. ,,_ ...... -ff ... ,_ --........ -... -1 1·5 10 12.1 111 2 2 17.6 101 6 18.9 3 s 14.3 102 4 5 16.9 100 6 6 16.2 97 10 13.7 98 1·6 6 1·5 a 19.7 86 7 1 .zs.a 80 8 3 21.6 100 9 2 17.7 112 10 5&10 10.1 combined -•1- HEPWORTH.PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ---A-----.... ....... ....... """"" ·-"'' !Ml llO. 2aa .. " ....,. .......... ..... ... , ... ..... 90 3B 21 . 78 55 34 78 34 15 83 46 26 27 64 18 19 28 23 JOB JllO. 197 348 ..... '" 19GILOA .... -- 29 SltyClay Sllft!ly C1ay Sllll!ly Clay -..ya.y Sanely Clay Sandy Clay Sanely Clay Sanl!vClay & Calcanaus Sandy Clay Calcareous Silly Sand Matrl• Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Clayay Sandy Gravel CJllSl::U. 19~3 == ~~~ -...Jhi~• tolSll .... _ ;vr;;JO ll!i 3ei:P (IJ•. :lliii ~Wm!; !'?~tJ=-­~;t ... --e s""Dit1P- IS'l3 ~ 0 ;;I; Sm =ii II~~ • !!~ ~ ~~ =--.,, --ac;-::I- "' r; ~ ~ ~ ii g !Ii "" .... -< EE g ~ • = 1111 W.i.lt11l"JJ1~·11r:+ilH"rt«.1111'\"rtv.litrMrM·~11111 Re<:•ption#: 823748 · 09/05/2012 09:39:49 PM Jean Alberico 51 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit 2ob ( 2002 HP Geotech Report Lake Springs Ranch SubdMsion Preliminary Plan & PUD Amendment June2011 September 9, 2002 Mike and Maci Berkeley c/o Land Design Partnership Attention: Mr. Ron Liston 918 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 Hepworlll-Pawlak Geoledmical, Ino. 5020ColllltJRoad154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone1 "1M4!-7988 Fm 97D-J45.84S4 bpgeo@hpgeolech.com Job No. 197 348 Subject: GeotecJmical Review of the Lake Sprlngs Ranch PUP, County Roads 114 and 119, Garfield County. Colorado Dear Mr. Liston: As requested, we have reviewed the current prelimhiary deve1opllleDt plan for the proposed Lake Springs Ranch PUD with respect to pOi:mial geologic lllld geotec.bnical engineering coustraiDts. We previously strbmitted a prelilillDary geoteclmical . engineering report for a similar but smaller PUD at the project site (Hepworth-Pawlak Geoteclmical, 1997). Also, we have reviewed two letters com:endDg the project submitted to the Garfield COUDty P!amring Department by the Colorado Geological Survey (Colorado Geological Survey, 2001 and 2002). This letter summarizes the finding of our review and presents ~ollB pertaining to the current preffnrinary development plan. PROPOSED DBVELOPMBNT It is our understamUng that the project is in the preliminary pJannhig stages. Project information available for our review was a preli1lliDary plan showing the proposed lots, building envelopes and street locations. Grading plans showing the extent of gracling for the streets have been prepared by High Countr:y Eng.ineelilJg. but were not included in this review. The currently proposed PUD will be a 193 lot single family residential development with 4 cluster home tracts, lllld 6 areas zoned agricul.t11ral/open space. The single family lots are typically about one acre in size with a is.coo square foot building envelope. The cluster housing tracts cover about 4 to 10 acres each. The agriculture/open space areas are located on the Spring Valley floor and in the steeper parts of the property. A street system will provide primary access to the lots. On lot driveways and grading for building sites will be the responsibility of individual lot owners. Water will be supplied by a central water system and the development will be serviced by the Spring Valley Sanitation system. It appears that the prelinlinary plan we reviewed differs somewhat from the plans reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey. The c;urrent PUD differs ftom the proposed development at the time of our previous geotechnirm study (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1997). The lot density has Increased, new development areas have been Mike and Maci Berkeley September 9, 2002 Page2 11111\1".i. flfli!l"Jilr.'A Uf\I~ l'ltr.lllrirll'rlW.l*"'.~111 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/06/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 53 of 79 Rec Fee;$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO added, some deleted and the street pattern has changed. FINDINGS OF REVIEW . Although the currently proposed development has substaDtially cbanged since our August 1997 preliminary geoteclmical study, the conclusions and recnmmendatiOJIS present.ed ln that study are applicable to the currently proposed PUD. There are several conditiona of a geologic and geotecJmical natnre that should be considered In project planning and design as discussed below. Evaporite Deformation: Tho project site is located in the Csrboiidale evaporiie collapse center, a roughly circular region with a diameter of about 16 miles centerod near Carbo.mlale and covering about 200 square miles (Kirkham and Wjdmann, 1997). The toWllS of C&rbondale, Glenwood Sprl:Dgs and El Jebel are located in the collapse center. As much as 4,000 feet of regional subsidence ls believed to bave occmred in the conap.o cent.er as the result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the region. Much of this subsidence may bavo occurred within the past 10 million years · (Kirkhmn and Widmann, 1997). fftbJs is the caie, the long-term average subsidence rate was about O.S inch per 100 years. There is some local evidence of evaporito deformation as .recently as the late Pleistocene in the Carbondale collapso center, but no definitive evidence of defotmation during the Holocene, within about the past 10,000 years (W"ubmmn and Others, 1998). Regional geologic mapping shows that the gradatlonal comacts between (1) the "Spring Valley landslide", (2) evaporite collapse debris, and (3) basBlt flows deibrmed by regiollal evaporite subsidence are present in the project area (Kirkham and Widtnann, 1997). They descn~ the "Spring Valley landslido" as collapse debris with a horizontal c:ompo.nent of movoment. The • Sp.riDg Valley .landslide• was not mapped' separately on the geology map accompa:ayiDg our August 1997 study because we were not able to find definitive field criteria :1br separating the "Spring Valley landslide• from adjacent areas shown as collapse debris and defo.rm.ed basalt flow on the regional geology map. Jn our opinion, all three features appear to have a common geologic origin and the "Spring Valley JandslideD does not present a greater· deformation hazard than the 1:9llapse debris and defo1med basalt flows shown on the regi.oual map. . . . . It is uncertain if evaporite deformatkm. is still active .in the Csrbondale collapse center, or if deformation has stopped. If evaporite deformation is still active, it appears to be taking place over a broad area, except possibly along filults, and there ls no evidence of rapid deformation rates in the modem landscape. Because of this, the risJc of evaporite associated problems with typical residential bnildlng at the project site appears to be low and no greater than other areas in the collapse center. We are not aware.of evaporite defOlmation related problems in the regiln. Prospective building owners should be 1111 Ml'.1. lirn.l"J!itr:~.~: ... M,Mlflr.lf(.WH~*·I 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/05f2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 54 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee;0.e0 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Mike and Maci Berkeley September 9, 2002 Page3 made aware of the potential low risk of evaporite def0rmat1on. It the low risk Is not acceptable to building owners, it can be reduced by the use of heavily reinforced foundation system pref'etabJy without a basement. Fads: We CODClll' with the reg.iona1 mapping by the Colorado Geological Survey tbat two faults likely cross through the eastern part of the project area (Kirkham and Wjdmann, 1997). If ev~ite deformation is still active, then there Is potential for locaHzPAi differential movement along the faults. Development ls not plamied near the eastern Cllle of the two faults, but 8 single family lots are proposed. near the western one of the two faults. It Is recommer.d that buildings not be located within 50 feet of the mapped fault trace unless site specific studies show that a iilult is not present or, if present, the fault is Dot geologically young. FoUndatioit Conditions: The general foundation condWOJIS in the project area were evaluated. by drilling 9 exploratory borings in August 1997. At that time, buildings were not proposed in areas where lake deposits are present. As presently planned, several btJikting areas will be underlain by lake deposits. It is l'ecommended that additional subsurface exploration be made in these areas to eviluate the engineering characteristics of the lake deposits. Our August 1997 preliminary study~ that spread footing foundations appear suitable in areas where expaoaiVe soil conditio!1ll are not present. Spread footings with irrinhnum dead load pressure, a stm.ctoral mat or drilled piers were considered. ieaslble foi•ndation systems in areas with expansive soil conditions are present. "The . recmnmended foundation system will depend on the site specific expansion potential. Also, a structoral flOOl' system over a crawlspace may be warranted depending on the expansion potential at a specific building site. A site specific foundation study by the individual lot owners should be conducted·ibr design level recommendatiOllS. Comtructicin Related Slope Instability: We do not anticipate major problems with coDStrllction related slope h!smbility if our August 1997 grading recommemfatlons are followed. More extensive grading should be evahulted on a site specific basis. As previously recommended, cut and fill should not exceed 10 feet deep and~ and. fill slopes should be 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. We should review the proposed grading plans when avafiable and determine if addition subsurface exploration and lllllllysis are needed. Storm Water Management: Drainages in the project area are ephemeral and their streams only have surface flow following heavy precipitation and snow melt. We did not find geologic conditioDs tbat should be considered by the hydrologic study in developing an appropriate storm water 111lWlgement plan for the project. The only 1111 W.i.~llAll"Jl1~·~ ~lllHI M.lrrcr.rri"WM&IH 11~ 11111 Ree~ptian#: 823748 09/05/2012 03;38:48 PM Jean Alberico 65 of 79 Rae Fee:$0.00 Dec Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Mike and Maci Berkeley September 9, 2002 Page4 stream chaunel in the project area with a relatively large off site drainage basin is located in the northem part of the project site in the vicinity of proposed Lots 11, 12 and 13. Access to Lot 12 :li'om the proposed cul*sac will require a stream cJumnel. crossll!g. The chamlel crossing should be designed for the appropriate flood discharge and include provisiOil8 for a high sediment com:e.ntrati.oll floodmg. Hydrologic aualysis in this area should also coDSider flood flow velocities and the need for channel erosion stabilization to protect proposed Lots 11, 12 and 13. . Earthquake Cdnsfderations: The project area could experience earthqua!re related ground sba!dng. Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground sbaldng should be expected during a reasouable service life for the development, but the probability for Stronger ground shaking is IoW. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most peqple and causes ' general alarm, but results in mgligtble damage to structures of good design and construction. Occupied structures should be dc!.tigned to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage ml not to collapse under strm:ger ground shaking. The region is in the Uniform .Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on our current understanding' of the earthqualre hazard in this put of Colorado, we see no reason to increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area. LIMITATIONS This study was conducted iiccon:ling to generally accepted geoteclmWal engineering principles and practices in thi,s area, at this time. we make no warranty either express or implied. The c:onclusions and remmmendaticms submitted in this ·review is based on the currently proposed development and iufo.rmation in our August 1997 prelimmary geotec.lmical study. Our finrlings in this report and our previous study include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface ®nclitioDS identified at the exploratory borings and variatiOllS in the subsurface conditions may not become evident UJJtil excavation is performed. If conditions em:ouDlmd during ~on appear different from those described In our previous prellmiDary geotechincal report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report bas been prepared exclusively for our client&¢ is a review of the current development p1aDs with respect to our previous preliminary geoteclmic:al stud.Y.. We are not responsible for t«bnic=Jl interpretations by others of our info.rma1ion. As the project evolves, we should proyide continued coIBU!tation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation of our rec:ommendations. Significant design changes may require additional amilysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein and in our previous preliminary geotechincal report. We recommend site specific subsoil studies for individual lot development, .observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. 1111M'l'"'llfnil"JllN':~~:.'1,MM~~r+lCll':'rtC~1 i&11111 Recept!on#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:49 PM Jean Rlberica 56 cf 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Dao Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Mike and Maci Berkeley September 9, 2002 Pages Respectfally submitted, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC Steven L. Pawlak, P.E . . andby: Ralph G. Mock Engineering Geologist RGM/~1> cc: High Country Engineering -Atta: Deric Walter REFERENCES Colorado Geological Survey, 2001, Lake-Springs Ranck PUD, Garjie14 County, Colorailo: Prepared for the Garfield Planning Departmellt (CGS Case No. GA- 02-0004, November 5, 2001). Colorado Geological Survey, 2002, Lake Springs Ranck PUD Prelimbfary Plan: Prepared for the Garfield Plamling Departmem: (CGS Review No. GA-03-002, July 31, 2002). Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1997, Preliminary Geotechni,cal Engineering Study, Proposed Lake Springs Ranch PUD, County Roads 114and119, Garjleltl County, Colorado: Prepared for Mike and Maci Berkely c/o Land Design Partnership, Glenwood Springs, Colorado (Job No. 197 348, August29, 1997). Kirkham, R.M. and Wi.dmann, B.L., 1997, Geology Map of the Carbondale Quadrangle, Galjie14 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. ·~c~tf!~~ta~~f:H:M,H,lir~llD:ML"~·Y. 11111 09/0612012 03;38:48 PM Jean i:llberico 57 cf 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit 2oc j 1/15/2010 HP Geotech Report I I / , I i I , I I ' I ' , r Lake Springs Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan & PUD Amendment June2ot1 11111!'1'.i. tllli"'Jllt.e:~ ~'-"'' MM~lftlt.IWNC~1 ~ 11111 Reception~: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 58 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:m.m0 GARFIELD COUNTY CO -~p_..L <..:::ec)tech tfEPWORTM· PAWLAK GEOTl;:CHNICAt. u:~f'W<•td1-·P.1.~dj:k t~~•.itn.Juuv.;;1l. In~ "i'"~'lt' r':ri11fl.H' R,1ad 1;:.J t:;J..:11•~,,.i,i-Spriwg:i, (;,~l1::ar-i,Jv <l I 6~11 Phon~: •l](L945 .• i\1'88 fll-'\~ '17fl-.<l45:-!S454 ,,-m~ilr hp~~){ii'firgit~1•~ch.c:iJ111 ADDJTIONALFAUL T STUDY PROPOSED LA.KB SPRINGS RANCHP.U.D. COUNTY ROADS 114 AND 119; GARFIELJJ COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. lOP 433A JANUARY 15, 2010 • PKEPAUJ) FOlt;. MIIG: AND MA.Cl BERKELEY e!oTGMALLOY CONS1JLTIN~. LLC A'ITNi 'OM MALLOY 402 PARK A\TENWB GLENWOOD SPRINGS; COLORADO 81601 1111 All"" !lfniP"JhM'~ It'll. IM M llr.fil~l~rViri~·l 1111 I Recept•W!#: 823748 09/06/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberioo 59 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIEL.0 COUNTY CO TABLE OF CONTENTS P'LJR.POSB" AND SCOPEi' OF STlJDY ........................ · ..................................... 1 - SI1'E. CONDmON'S ....................... ..-....................................................... -1- FIBI,,D BXl'LORATION ............................. I ............................................. l .. SUBSURFACE AND POSSIBLE FAULT CONDITIONS.~ ............................. -2 - TRB'lfClf 1~·••••••••·•000••1·11100000 ooooou 1••••••••••00000•00000011010001000 .. ooooeoo•o•100 .. 2 • TRBNCH·2. ...................... ,; ••••.•• ,, ......... -..o ................................ -2 .. TRBNCJ:l 3~•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••0000000•••••••••••••••·••••• l·- RBCO~A'ltONS. O le I I I I ol I I II 01 Oo ~ f ••·•I•••• o o I•••• no•••••••••••••••••••••• o •• O o o I•.,,• 3·-. LOOTATION'S ............................................................ u ...................... u .. 3 ... REPBRBN'CBS ...... ••• ,., .. ,,,,., ••••••• ........ L .. •·•••••• ••••••·••• •• ~•·••• ••••, ,, •••••••••••• ,, ............. 4- PIGURR 1-LOCATION OP EXPLORATORY TRBNCHBS. FIGt.JRB 2-LOG OF SOUTHWALLOFTRBNCH 1, 0, TO 30F.BBT FIGURB 3 -LOG OF SOOTH WALL oP TRENCH 1, 30'TO 200:PBBT. FlGURB 4-LOG OF SOtJTHWAlL OF TRENCH 2, OTO 140FBBT FIGURE 5-LOOOF SOUTHWALL OF TRENCH 3, OTO 29l>FEBT FIGURE 6-LOO OF SOtITH WALL, INSET OF TRENCH 3, 30 TO 60 FEET FIOURB 7 -PHOTOS;,.. TRENCH 1 OVERVIEW AND FAULT ZONE ' FIGURE 8-PHOTOS-TRENCH 2 UPPER AND LOWBl\FAULT ZONES FIGURE 9-PHOTOS-TRENCHES 2 AND 3 OVERVIEW FIGURE IO-PHOTO-TRENCH 3 FAULT ZONE 1111 Mi".i. llfft!P"Jli~~·.:i.l'.'ftl IP! Ni~lrl'~r.IA"IW'~·~ 11111 Receptian#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:49 PM Jean Alberico 60 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY Thii report presentt the results ofllll. idditional fault stUdy along the eastern edge oftbe propoaedLlkeSprinp Ranch, CouatyRo&dS 114and11,!>, fnGarfielcl Co~ Colorado, The study area it shown on Figure 1. ThepmposeofthestlJdYwas to thrlherevalilato If evaporite cleiJrmation has occurred 111181' the location of the lnfimed &.ult aJooa the eastern sectiilnofthe pmposed dmlop.mellt and aasesa if the fimJt is geologi!lalJy. )IOllllg. The study WIS eonducted :In accordance with ourpropolllll fbr a supplemental geological study to Mb and Maoi Bemly dated June 26, 2009'. Pmiously, pxellminary· . geoteclmical enafne8ring stuclils were ptll'fbmal and results were given ln reports.dated August 211; 19!>7 and September 9; 20oZ Job No .. 19714& A field exploration program CODSisting of exploratory trena1Jes was conducted to look tor evidence of the inked fmlt mapped(Kirkham and Widmann; 1997) alonglhe.e~ bomlary of the proposed dewfopment. Tlili report s11mn1vjzi!s tmtdata obtahu!cl dllring. tbiB study and presents 01ll' c:onclusionB. . Sll'ECONDn'IONS TbD Lake Springll RanckPUD lit located o.n thenoitbea8tmuille of~Valleywhich. is a broad, sballow valley on the basalt plateau to the esst of tile Road111 rirl/Jl\b'er valley. The property oova:s parts ofSeclions 32, 33; and 34 T; 68;. B. 88 w; ~part of Sectillll 4, T. 7 s:,.R 88 W. Tlie$ady amt ls along,the eastemboidmtof~I!!~ property about~~ ellit ofCoum.y Road 114; oa tlla Cllin'el!t·dewlil . , ···.. . . .... seven Iota are intlla ~of the inferrtd flmlt'lilllppeclby KilfdlBm amf.Wf ····.· · Tl!Dtopo8f8Pbyin &studyllteaoonsiatil ofllllrth ll»1111~Elit, with gently sloping drafnageirto the• 111111 west at as to IO:P,.cxi.i1f ' ··· .. . knoll about 50 ti> lQO &et higher lnellWlllion than the fimlt.aret fs tdi:af&t:~~1tllli~: The lntitmcl :fiwltmapped,byKii'ld!am amWldlllmm;(l997) !iUatreiid'~flii'1!$lt lad Wiii drawato mnthmlghthe cemtet of 11. valley ind cxlirespondlng·north ~ drainapi, Vegetlllion ln tho study are& consisted of gt'IBlj. weeds, llClltti1re1hiif'and oak brash. About 2 fi:et of snow covared tfuuite It tho ti!Bof aur viSit. · FIELD EXPLORATION TbD field exploration lbrtho proj1111t wu ~ed on Jailoary S, 6 and 7, 2010. Three exploratory ttllllChea were excavated at. the locatiom shown on Figun 1 to cwahiabl the location of the intmed fimlt mapped by Kirkham a1ld W!d111811ll (1997) in the area. The trenches werodug UBing a Komatsu PC-320 ~r with a 3 !bot wide buali:et Two tronches were dug at the north ind south ams and· fb1lllll evidence of fi.nl movemmit to the east of the previously Inferred filult. A third trench was added to furthar verify the· fimlt Jo cation. The three trenches were dug from out to west at varying lengttis of 130; 190, and 290 full!: and the southern wall was mapped by a representative ofHepworth ·Pawlak Geotecbnic:al, Inc; Jab No. !OJ 4l3A -2- SVBSURFACE AND FAULT CONDITIONS Oraphic lilgl! of the sulmnfaCe conditions enoountmd in the trenches are shown on Figures 2 to 6. The subsoils pnetally c:muiat of about 12 to 18 inobes oftOpsoil overlying layeni of clay, cJaYay pUy sand; and sandy graveJs cobblei:and '!Umldcn- Diging in the dense gramilar soils was diflilllJlt at times due to the basalt roai llld. · boulders and dfggiilg·rotbsil wu encountered ln aome areas oftbe treaohes; TRBNCHI . . . Trench I iS located about 200 iet BOUth of the nOlthem propeJty boumlary and about 150 feet llOith of tho dtainai• divide In the JJOrtli..trendiu& valley in the uea. · A possible surftoial 1imJt scarp was observed along the eastemhil18ide and the ll8SI end oftbe tteach. was located uphill ofthe·posmble scarp. Fmdt matures were observellwitfiln theirst 10 to 20 feet oftbe trench (see Figures 2, 3 and 7}. The besi evldenacrol · · · .. . . in Trench I iStliecolumn•oftrat111kl•eiHGf>SC1""hn-.:,~&a\C!. · · · .,.,_f!t!l ~:•th:::::::i:.:.::=~,:·;: .. ,.. ' colllllHllllf l'lltllieaoeluti·akmgapJl!ie.pamllefte die.J.i'liliW!liiih,. · ·· 'lilt' tbe bualt cobble at aditaaceof4fiieullllaaeliVatiliiiof723t'abia: · ' Tra!chl which ears to havil lleeiuOtilted iuchthaf its long;axilidipl~fiitli&west. This cobble is .:'1oiiated along the eastem.eclgeofa mixed zanec0flii.4J(J: .. li!Un the shape of a~-rjlfiuq ofsediD!m atir mov.emmt li1lmg a1liolt ~nttfiilms a wedp-1iapeQffiiler, looscrmateritdthantf11uurrolllll!Ulg'~ ~ · "' · shilpe41i'imd strata~ thltilqt·~~ ofTienoli Ii DJaP4u:(4) : ~2); 'Dmll>.oliluli~;isY~.W:.eaail!tto; · · · .· · ' amt!dten11U•"r".,t~~·ilt~~·iltM~~'.: o • ·m ·• •'•~m:;.TiUJit.l!fililiiiUtUiit·'·' ==mo~~~·~~'.~-iif~·o '."· ...... 1111COuntetedlii::tiai:rii~-l~t~ofmioattto•~ti · · ·· .. lllOV8Jllldln.thelireat.. Mavemeattl!it'urditthewesfllliil'•:ttto: '···· '.Gii both sides of the trench sugestlilg the filult continues 10 tbe mttlfat ii tted~$'fa B. The &ult focatecUn Trench 1 is geoliigically yDDDg aod located fiirtJIS .e~,. · pi11viousij11:aapped 11 llidieatcd on Plguro: l. · · TRENCH2 Trenalr 2 la the additional trench added just south of the draioap divide tQ verify the &ult locatioli between Trenches 1 8lld 3. A poasibkl surfioiel &ult IKlllip wu ID~'abng the eastern lnl!side and tbceast. mul of.Tteocb 2 was located about 40 &et uphill ftOm this· feature. Digging refu&al was encountered along the fimt 40 feet ofTtenob:2 lit &asalt mole. and boulders just below 12 to 18 Inches of topsoil. At a distaaee oflliout 45. fBilt disgiq became somewhat easier and lmlllh deptbii of 6. to 10 :!Ht wens lllC8Vlted. Alt&ilugh no soil soils were eooouotered al this area 9ftbc treoc1t, a 1liult can also be illfem4 it this location :&om the apparmt surfloial scarp. Digging refusal continued along& base of · Treoch2 to adiatallceof~OS mat, seoFigllre9. At lOStnt an areaofloose.soilil la the shape of a wedge was encoUlltered above a near wrticlll shear zone, see Figure s, Thia lower soft zooe is probably tho best e\lidence of faulting in Trench 2. However; !be vist'ble scarp and thin buried organic layer at SO fi:et may also indicate movmnent despite !abNo.1!1143:M llll lrl'.i. l~P"Jl1tr·~ ll:li M.Nir.l«~(~W~·l II II I Rec~tion#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:40 PM Jean Rlberioo 62 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Coo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO .3. not finding a shear zone. Both poSSl'ble :fimlt locatfona are mapped on Pigure 1 amt des!:n'bed in Figure 4. The lower &ult location was.1iintly represented on the north wan. and the &ult CODtliiuation is roprealllltild by a dashed line in·Flgure 1. TRENCH! Trenoh 3 ls located about 200 filet llOlth of the southern pmpllty bolllldafy in the area. A faillt sudicial scarp. was located along the east11m hillside and the eut end oftfie treach WU begun appmximately 40 M uphill to the eut; At about40 iW alollg'Ttlmclh 3 I• · rougblyWedp shaped zone of soil: soiJa WU mc:ountereclat an eleviltian of about 7210 to the deJith of"the trellch, see Fig1ires S, 6; 9 and l O. Th very dense la,v ofbaialt gravel&, cobbles and boulders also· seems to drop clowl1 to tbo WCiSt 1¢ this. JocatiO!L .. l'Ossible animal burrow& in loose material are tbund between 32' and 52 feet in Trench3 as shown la Figures 6 and.10. This area contains.the beat evidence ibr faultingwitliin.Trenoh 3 and . is mapped on Figure 1. 'I'heso teatum wme a1ao finlild oa this north W.lf ami tTie liiult continuesno.rthwant ata trelld ofN s·:e. Trench 3 was continuedw~-tMvalley bottom aml up the westmn hillsfde to ddennine if anY eviClililco offiiriltlilj(~ whore the liult was preyleusly mappecL No other evidilMlo offilultiiigwu«1~· No !tee water was em:ountCQ!d in the trendies at the tlme of dlggina and &.subioils were slightly moist to moist. RECOMMENDATIONS LIMlTATIONS . This study has been conducted In accordance with generally accepted engineering geological principles and practices In this area at this time. We make no wamnty either express or implied. The c:olllllwiioDS and recommendations submitted in tliill report are Job Na. 109 43!A •Ill lll".i.1"11P"Jlilf'U'M.IM' Ml.,,ll'r.IWIW'M 11l II II I Reception#: 823748 09/06/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 63 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:©.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO -4- based upon the data obtained iom the exploratory 1rench11S excavatlld at tlii;. l~ indicated on: Fi~ I.. our firidingJ inetude. iaterpolatiOn and exttapQ~oii-~~ subsuriiiee.comlitioJis identified at the eXploratOty trenches and~·~ ff conditiOns are encoimtlirell dumJg coDBll'llCliOn which may evideilce iliultfuti !f~lfltt from those descnbe<} in this report, we should be no.tilled so did re,..eyaJlliltioiofthl recemmondatiom !DllY·be made; Thisrepoithas been.~ rot the exclusive11St1 by our eliflllt ful'desigt!,~~ We are not! responsible ibr teo!irJii:aJ interpr$tiolla by qtlieiS of ow:infiiimati911; ~ tflo pmject llWl\'es, we sliliulil ptoWllt.eoaliilued oo~ltatilin amt :lhilil illirVki'Cs;dmillg construcdlD tQ r\IVIOW lllllfmo.iter.·dle ilnplementatio11 of Cllll'~-BlUH&. verifytliat the recollll!lendatiilni have bieit ilpptopl'iately in~- R~fy: Submittei, HEPWORTH~ J>.t\WLAK GJi!Q'FB~CAt, ING. ·~·--At. ·N ll1 ~bs ~ ® .:·1 SWRJ. HP OBOTBCH(l997) Preliluilnny G'eoteclmlcaLEngilieerina Study Pmpasild•take Springs Ranch; P.U.O., Co\Ulty R:oads 114 and 119, Garfield Coll!ltr. COloradli; Job. No · 197 348 dated August 29, 1991. Prepared fild\4ike and.Maoi ~. HP OEOTBCH (1997) Geoteclmical Review of the Lake Springs Rlillch, P.u.o., County Road& 114 and 11!1, Garfield Ci>untJ,. Colorado. Job No 191348 dated September 9; 2002. Prep!!red ibr Mike and Maci Betkele.y. Kirkham R. M. and W'tdmalll!i B. L., 1997 Geologic Map of tire Carbonifafe Qi¥ot:/Mngle, Garfield County, Colorado. Colorado Geological Suivey, Open File Report. 97-'.l Job No. 109"4.13A I : I I llll 1Yi"i1rl'111"Jl1~P:~'IKJD' N~W~IW~·i 11111 ReCEDtlon#: 823748 09/~Q/2012 03:39:48 PM Jean Alberico 64 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO \~ \ ·\ \ \ 109433A EXPLORATORY TRENCH ANO FAULTL()QATIONS FIGURE 1 i I 11111\1".i.llt!i"'Jll~'~l'l?.IH r.lllWWW¥'l!w:M•~ 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico B5 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFI~LD COUNTY CO TRl:NCH.1 1' Inch ·,,;·5 feet Distance : Feet. · • Ol\ST 0 . 5 10 . 15. 7240· ! . ' .§ Qi .. . ~. 7.235 .•. 7230 . : Elol!om ofTrench Ill (IB); Sandy clay rilolicine, dark brown B (OL); Burled 0111an1cs, dark brown. . m . (SM); ciayey gravelly Sand with scattered cobbles .• brown EJ . (CL); Sandy Clay with soattaradpraval•· rad 25 Iii .. (GC.GM); ·.Sandy 911ivets with slit and clay, cobbles and bOuldar&, ~alt 19ck Im . (SM): Fault scour mne of bose silty sand with gravels • Basalt boulder WEST 30 109433A LOG OF SOUTH WALL OF TRENCH 1, 0 To ~o FEET Figure 2 -, EAST Distance -Feet WEST • • • • • • • • ii ;; ;; • ;; § ii & • § "" I 1 JI I I I I I I I I I I I ! 11 I I I I I !"! I I I I I I I l l I I I I l I I 1 I I I JI I I I I I It I I I I I I I 1 I I I I !. I I )'! I I I d I I I I I I u I I ""' --- i LL "'" . !5 tii ""' > " w "" ""' --- ,.,. --- H)9433A 'l."ftz 'IR Iii ~ m m • Gll1ech 2X Vertical El<aggeration \ _,,.,- (fSJ; Sandy. cl,.Y roolzo!ie, dark brown (SM); Clayey gmvelly.s&nd with scattered ccbbles, brown (CL); Sel1dY Clay wlll'l scattered gravels, red (GC-GM); Saney.gravels with silt and clay, cobbles .and boulders, basalt rock ilasait boulder LOG OF SOUTHWALL OF TRENCH 1, 30 TO 200 FEET HEPWaRl'lflPAWi.AK GEalEc:HNICAL ,, !=___ •• I "" "" --"" I_ ·7220 L.......7215 Figure s me:;:a. m!e~ == ~SI·~ _.., ..... ...,,,.._,: toe.,.._ ;u~D~ . , o.,# c.>··=----., .. ~ :m~==-MAW~ e<11....i--;,.,,;!:~ "'" " -o~ ~ •m ..,, • . " ~ ~i .. , ~ .... 0 'il" ,, ~ -., -..-.. "' ~ b " 0 ~ <= z __, -< =-= " ~ 0 -- EAST 0 10 7160 7160 7155 ~ ·~ 7150 ~ 7140 7140 7"15 7130 109433A 20 ,. 40 "° TRENCH~ Distance -Feet •• 70. .. " 1' Inch= 15 feet 4 Vertical Exaggeration Basalt boulders Excavator refusal m g g Im! ·mi (TS); Sandy clay rootzone; dark brown . · (OL); Burled. organics; d!llk brown (SM); Olayey graveliy safid wilh llCB\Wed cobbfeS, brown ... . (GC-:GM); Sandy.giavelsWith sUt iiru::t clay,. colibles an<;! boulders, ·basalt rock (SM); FaU! scour zone of loose·silty sand with gravels· • Basalt boulder 100 110 LOG OF SOUTH WALL OF TRENCH 2, OTO 140 FEET WEST 120 130 "' Rgure 4 ~~,· ~ --ocsiO~ _,,~=-- ---INfl"~ ras--~;;;g, ~ill~:-;; ~~o.!:i <DCDN-f;,.'.f,.W~ GUD ..... -. ~=­g~CD-== 0 ;;:;;; D~ ~ Dre .,,, . -!'!~ ~ ~Ii ::l'I; ~;:!. ;L G'lg r; ~ ~ ~ !i § !I: z -. :< ~ 8 .... -= ·-... - ~ m .. " .. TR~· UI-~ a -_,,, _ _,· sr " 7220 ~ 11tiI111 ii 11!!I!![!I11pfII11I11HI111tI1!!!1111rI1n1T!I t! I I 1nf11!!I1111T111iif!,-.. -1!"Jo'?1Tu i I I !I p'j"j I!! h ·,f'J. !! ii 1 I I,--,~;[! ii 1 I 1 ;!"~!!ii 1 II;1;Itr!1!!; .• ~.-1 1] I 1 1 :1 -· ., " ,. ., ,.. '" .... '" , .. ,., "" ... ~ i "" ""' "" 109433A "" ~. 7185 .i 1 - "'' EAST Cistance ~:Feet 1 Inch .., ·20 feet 2X·Verlli:a1 Bcag~n. - - -------------L' !r.1II"11 "I"" 11•iH•-11•11 1 .i:, .... ·i;. II,., I"!!' i1_..," '"I I' 11·11·lrI'''"11:1IIII1 .• ! I I,, Iii "·•"td1 II I .. I ,;i1 I j1 i" ""I Ii t "11·' II I I I !!•!J f Ill (TS); San~ claii iQQtz<>ne, dark b'°"'" . iJ (SM); C1¥Y gravelly saai:!wilh scidleied cobbllis, biown l!!'i1 (CL); Sandy Clay wiih ~tiered gravEilS. red Im! (GC..GM); SandyJlravels with silt and clay; Cobbles and bwlders, basalt rock .lmJ (SM);. Fault sccLB'zone of IOosullly sani:! wllh.gravels: e Basalt b1J1Jlder 1-00 OF SOUTH WALL OF TRENCH 3, 0 TO 280 FEET ~:Eitch HEPW"ORTflo'PAWLAKGEOiltcHNICAL "" "" ... ""' "" ""' 7i85 l • ! Figure 5 ms::tl • o~~ :::= -m.g~ l'J~~ ... ......... _._ "f"'g~ o s:tt:i"' .... -.,,.. a:: m mco--- f,9:;..tJ::W. sm-..1--. .,.., .. iF= IS:IC0- 0 "" o~ -~m • m, :Fl!! 9~ ~ . • ;;;?;;; El~ !'I: .,o ... ,,o ..... 'll :I: ;;; r. ~ ii!i ~ ~ " =!!= 0 ..... • llll Ml'.i. llfftlll'Jillr~~ l'ik' M,M li-tri:~Wi!'f"1~~11I 11111 Rec<;ptionll: 823748 09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 69 of 79 Rec fea:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 7215 ~ 7210 ' c: I iij -,a05 7200 EAST 30 35 TRENCH3 1 Inch.,,., 5 feet Distance ~ Feet 40 45 . /II (TS); SMdyolay rootzone, dark brown II (QL); Buried organki$, dark brown 50 g {SM); Clayey gravelly sand with scattered cobbles, broWi'I: : · Ill : (CL); sBndy Clay With scattered gravels, red 55 WEST 60 ml (GC-GM); Sandy gravers With silt and clay, cobbles and boulders, basalt rock Im (SM); Fault"scour zone of loose silly sand with gravels • Basalt boul~r 109433A o'-51;ch l.OGOFSOUTHWALLOFTRENCH1, 30T060FEET Flgur'e6 HEP.WORTH.PAWLAK ~ . . ·· •.. 1111 Ml".i.llln!P"Jli~C'll~1'.~.l'futl'*l":llM'l+l'CW~·l II Ill Reception#: 823748 0e10=12012 03:38;46 PM Jean Alberico 70 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Dao Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO $outh wall onr'ehdh 1~ 5 feet Buried Organics .. --· _...,._'--'- POl!slble Animal Burrovi · · Rotated Cobble Possible ·scour Zone of Soft Soils'---'- 109433A Trench 1 at 5 (<;1et Looking East TRENCH 1 OVERVIEW AND FAULT ZONE · Flgure7 1111 Ml"i1illfnll-"Jl1~~il.~,'t IM', !'Pr llD:W~Mr~11L 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/05/2012 09:38:48 PM Jean Rlberioo 71 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 G~RFIELD COUNTY CO South wall of Trench 2 at 50 feat Upper Fault Zone Wedge of $oft Soils South lll(all, ot . Trench ::! at 105 feet . Lower Fault tcine · • Possl~I~ Soo1,1r Zone 109 433A o-5':Gt$d I · ·TRENCH 2 UPPER AND LOWER FAULT ZONES H~Oim+P,AY(IJJC GEvnl:CHNICi'J,. . 1111 Jil".i. tlfftlli'J11~~~.~».lft l'UllMr.1,~Nr~·I 11111 Reception~: 823748 09/05/2012 03:39:48 PM Jean Alberico 72 of 79 Reo Fes:$0.0!a Doc Fee:l!>.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Trench 2 Looking East Trench 3 Looking West Fault Zone in Center 10s 433A c§lt:e :h . . . . HSP.Woft'l'K" ~Y.fLAKGl.OTICHM~ . tRENCHES .2 AND3 OVERVIEW. '·, ;;,·.;·· Figure 9 1111 l\l'.i.1irnir11i1r~ MrM.1'11' lrP.'llhv.l«Wir.~1 111111 Reception#: 823748 09/0~/2012 03:3B:4B PM Jean Rlbericc 73 cf 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO I-~·· · 109433A TRENOl-I ;3 FAULT ZONE. Figure 10. 1111 IYI'• llt!l"Jiil~~ II» 11'1' .l'l!i',llll'CWl!f:IW:~·il 1111 I Reception#: 823748 09/06/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico 74 of 79 Rao F .. :$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Exhibit 2od j 2/16/2010 HP Geotech Report Lake Springs Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan & PUD Amendment · June2011 ~ech HEPWORTH ·PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL February 16, 2010 ' Mike and Maci Berkeley c/o TG Malloy Consulting, LLC Attn: Tim Malloy 402 Park Avenue GlenWood Springs, Colorado 81601 HL'p\vt1rth-P:1\\'lak ( h•11fL't.-hnli.::1I, Inc. ;020 Cl11uny R11<1J 154 tllcn\v11t1d ~rrinw•. c..:,1l11radn ~1601 Phunc: 970~945~ 7988 fox: 970.94;.s4;4 L"mniI: hpgeL1@hp,qeutech.co1n Job No. I 09 433A Subject: Review of Proposed Development Plan, Lake Springs Ranch PUD, County Road 114, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. & Mrs. Berkeley: As requested, we have reviewed the currently proposed develop8*1t plan with regard to our previous reports. The findings of our review and recommendations for the current development plan are presented in this letter. We previously conducted a preliminary geotechnical engineering study fur development of the site and presented our findings in a report dated August 29, 1997, Job No. 197 348. Subsequently, we provided a geotechnical review of the proposed development in a letter dated September 9, 2002, Job ·No. 197 348. Recently, we completed a geological fault study in the eastern side of the proposed development dated January 15, 2010, lob No. 109 433A. Proposed Development: We were provided with the current development Phasing Plan by High Country Engineering, dated February 12, 2010. The plan indicates the western third of the property will remain Undeveloped and the eastern two thirds will be developed in a similar pattern to the previously review.ed pll!JIS. The current plan indicates l 18 single family lots in S filings of 18 to 37 lots each. We understand that the single family lots are about l acre in size. Eighteen affordable units are planned fur Tract A on the south side of the development which is part of Filing 3 .. The road layout has been changed but the development area (including the land swap parcels) is similar to elements contained in the two previous development layouts. · Findings .of Review: The conclusions and recommendations presented previously are applicable to the CUITCDtly proposed PUD. The recent fimlt study indicated the fimlt is further east than previously shown and is generally more than SO feet outside the building envelopes of the nearby lots. The building envelope fur Lot 29, Filing 4 may be within SO feet of the fault which was survey located. The location of the building envelope on Lot 29 relative to the fault should be verified by the surveyor and adjusted as needed. As descnlied in the Foundation Conditions section of our 2002 review, a few lots and some roadway were underlain by geologic lake deposits. The original subsurfuce exploration did not include sampling of the mapped lake deposits since the original development was not proposed in that area and we recommended in 2002 that additional Parker 303-841-7119 • Gilorndo Springs 719-6.H-5162 • Silverrhnrne 970-468-1989 - I I Mike and Maci Berkeley February 16, 2010 Page 2 llll Ill"• llftP"Jli~~~ ~N'IM.: !'lr,lrli:lr!il"rit'CIM~~·ll. 11111 Reception#: 823748 B51/0S-/2012 03:aB:4B PM Jean Alberico 76 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Coo Fee:0.G0 GARFIELD COUNTY CO subsurface exploration be perfunned to evaluate the engineering properties of the lake deposits. The current development plan shows 3 lots (Lots 6, 7 & 8 of Piling 2) and about 200 feet of roadway over the lake deposits located on the tar western side. This represents only about 2% of the proposed development. Due to the small area involved, subsurface exploration at this time is not warranted but the subsurface couid ~e evaluated as part of a pavement section design study fur the on-site roads. The other recommendations fur development contained in our previous reports are "still valid for the current plan. The recommendations regarding the stream channel on the north end of the property mentioned in the Storm Water Management section of our 2002 report are not needed since this area is well outside the current development. Limitations: This study was conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area,.at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this review are based on the currently proposed development and infurmation in our previous studies. Our. findings in this report and our previous studies include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions previously identified. If variations in the subsurfuce conditions are encountered, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations can be made. This report has been prepared exclusively fur our client and is a review of the current development plan with respect to our previous studies. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our infurmation. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and monitor the implementation of our recommendations. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations pre5ented herein and in our previous studies. We recommend site specific subsoil studies fur individual lot development, observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geoteclmical engineer. Sincerely, DEH/kac cc: High Country Engineering -Attn: Dan Dennison/Scott Gregory Job No. 109 433A 1111 l'fi'.i. ~lfft!P"Jl1W:li.~"ff M.l'tlCl~lll'tl«WM 11). 11111 Reception~: 823748 09/0~/2012 03:38~48 PM Jean Alberico 17 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Ooo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO / ' ... J 'l.DL2f ; \, trcr j ! i ', \ ', •.._ ... ' ; • II \ \ II PREVIOUSLY ~I LI~ ,1 . fi'f\UL 'I\ · .·I .... · \ \ I I JI II \ -.,, II I i i ! -·7170---.: • .I '', ·~, '•. '\ \ ' \ '\ \, ' \ \, I I I I \ I I \ l \ , , I \ \ , \\\\\ ,./ t34U9' 109 433A EXPLORATORY TRENCH AND FAULT LOCATIONS FIGURE 1 . .. ::l BOIJ.l,ffll ·~ BART LiP MEMORANDUM December 6, 200.0 VIA .FACSIMILE TO: FROM: RE: Lon Satteifield I Sc.ott Balcomb, Basalt WateT Qonserv1,1I1cy District Lee lie.ilYCitWorih I Greg Ball, Los Amigos Ranch :Partnen;hip John Sc!ienk ;Berkeley Family Lililited Partnership · Kevin Patrick 1 Ramsey Kropf, ColPndo Mounb!ln College Anne Castle Chris Thome Spring Valley .Aquifer -Gtoillldwater Monitoring Plq This .memorandum foll(lws µp Qn our meeting in Glenwood Spfrogs on November 15., 2000, concerni~ ~he propcis1d .of Spring Valley Development, Inc. (~SVDj for Joint implementation of a grounilw!lter ~o:niton.ns plan by the major land .owners that YUi Qt plan to use groundwater wiihdraWn :ll-om the $prip;g Valley A.qwfer to supply development 0 n tbeir respective properiies. The priihary purpose o(tl}.e pr<>p!>sed plan is to, lli.liiiitor aquifer levels anr;I produotivjty as this resouroc becomes more widely utilized in upcotnin,g years. SVD wail pleiJ,Sed to learn th!lt .each of.the landowners id8!:1tmed ab.ove is interested in .partic\pating in the plan, :!lS t.his will increase the utility and quality of the data to be developed. · At the Novemb.er 15 n1~eting; we agn-:ed that within an JJ:PPr<>\)tiate perio(i of tjme, ea® landowne.r Will identify the well oT wells fo .be inoJUding in the monitoring Program. We further llgteed th\lt the Basalt Water Conservaney District would. be the ':best entity to serve 11$ a central repository for tbe data to be co1lee1:ed, an.d the Basalt District .has awe1rti t<> jlll this Tole. ;\s Januil!'Y 2001 would be an opportune .time to commencejobit dat\l c9lle1;don, we sµggest tllAt {;laC;h famdowner identify to 1'he llasalt Distdct tho well' or wells to be foclude!l in the program by DecembeT '.31, 2000. Eich participaIJt should receive a copy of the designation of Wells to be mpllitored. »ill Lorah'•s Noveiiiber 14, 2000, letter identiiies three SVD wells to be included in the prOJ!l'am. SVD has been .monitonng these wells f'o:r J111veral months .. SVD Will also designate an additional "upland well" f~r monitoring M S\lggested at the No'\leQ;iber 1 S meeting. We 11greed that stJ1.tic Wi\ter lc:veJs and total monthly diversions for eiu:h well should. b!'> recorded.and reported to the :B11-salt .DisP'ict's engineers on a monthly basis. The Bf!.siUt District will compile the reported data and report i\ t.o the . participants in sp.i'eadsheet fonnat. 'l')le data reported ·to the Basa)t :District will be = U.'07 /2000 11:16 FAX 303 29S ~•8i BOLLAND A HART t!.J> li!Jooa 1111 W.i. llfl'tlP'J!1W;~~:W.lft l'I~ IPA:W.litf.f«~·I 11111 Reception#: 823748 09/05/2012 03:39:49 PM Jean Alberico 79 of 79 Rec F••:$0.00 Doc Faa:0,00 GARFIE..O COUNTY CO publicly available. it is lllltk!pated that the Baslilt Pistdet m;iy utiliz.e. the reported data in disc11sstons with the Colorado Divis.iott of Water Resource§ ¢oncenii!lg th.e Basalt jjistricfs augmentation ·program and tempgrary substitute supply plans_ - Once ;!gain, SVP appreciates your in~\ll'C:St. i!l this plan,, which we hope will prov~ to )>e a useful tQp) for all ofthe Spring Vlilley water u_ser~,. Please lci.t us .know if y6u have any suggestions qr conC\lfl!s regarding the procedures for ciAiplementlng .the monitoring plm as described '1:>ove. lfwe do not hear from you by December 18, 2000, we will as.s!llile these procedures are acc~pt;il!!e. l!1 th.e meantitxle, .do no~ besitate to . colitact either :of 'US with any questions or comm.ent~ yo\I may have concerning this ll)~morandiilil or the p119_posed groundwater management plan. - cc: :;sm Pea.cher Call! Kick:ilghter Bill -Lorah 27400S3_1.DOC 2