HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 4.8.09Exhibits for PC Public Hearing on Glenwood Commercial Center held on April 8,
2009
A Mail Receipts
Proof of PublicationB
Garfield Cou Zonin lations of 1978, as amendedc
D Garfield Cou Com rehensive Plan of 2000 as amended
E Garfield County Subdivision Regul ations of 1984 as amended
F Staff ttlemorandum
licationG
lication Addendum Letter and an setH
I Letter from the Glenwood Fire rotection District dated 3125109
J Comments from County Project Engineering dated 2125109
K Memorandum from the County Veg etation manager dated 3/31/09
L
M
N
fro.^,.1 ,/,..r/r,q> i .,1*,1,/ t h4,>o
iylh. ,{'rn- L.t*'L ooht l/r/,qP
L.,,i A,,*,-,rzso
R
S
T
U
V
w
x
Y
z
EXHIBIT
Tog
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Preliminary Plan
Subdivision
PC 04/08/09
FJ
Glenwood CommercialREQUEST
APPLICANT / OWNER
LOCATION
PROPERry SIZE
WATER
SEWER
ACCESS
EXISTING ZONING
Glenwood Commercial, LLC, David Hicks
2520 South Grand, #210, South Glenwood
Springs at the municipal limits on the east side
of State Highway 82
4.19 acres
City of Glenwood Springs
City of Glenwood Springs
State Highway 82
Commercial General (CG)
i W,Y
Project Site
L:
ffi
ll
*--1
r
Il*
I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATI ON
The Applicant has recently constructed four commercial buildings that hold individual
warehouse and office spaces which are being rented to businesses. The property is
located just at the entrance to Glenwood Springs in South Glenwood on the east side of
State Highway 82. The propefty is located in the Commercial General Zone District and
is surrounded by the same on the east, bordered by BLM to the north, adjacent to the
City of Glenwood Springs to the west and State Highway 82lo the south. Central water
and sewer service are provided by the City of Glenwood Springs.
The property contains significant slopes that slope downward from the east to SHB2 at
varying degrees. The eastern portion of the property contains the most significant
slopes which appear to be in excess of 40% with sparse vegetation including low lying
scrub oak, sage, and pinion-juniper understory. The County has issued building permits
for all four buildings with the final inspections on the fourth building expected to occur
within a month.
II. REQUEST
The Applicant has developed the property in accordance with zoning as a use-by-right
and has met the building code requirements. The Applicant is requesting approval from
Garfield County to "condominiumize" the 99 office / warehouse spaces within each of
the four buildings in order to sell those spaces rather than rent or lease them. This
request requires the Applicant go through the County's subdivision process to create
3
fif
i0
a,Q
r.!
1.1
f,Lf
,' , " ,,?,.,
I't^!
nJ....}{.
ir.
.t
tnMr&{. &ds3 :.eer
hM lM.-M'hh'
k ftqr9.oe'k blr'
rns,4 €drm't 'er f./
hst t.!.$ 'C6w'
tu &o,,th'&elc'
separate interests in real property. As you will see in this memorandum, because the
property has been almost fully developed as a use-by-right in the Commercial General
zone district, there are just a few areas where the County's subdivision regulations
practically apply to an already developed property.
III. REFERRALS
The application was sent to the following entities for their review and comment.
Comments are generally incorporated into the memo and attached in full to the memo.
A. Citv of Glenwood Sorinos: No s pecific comments received, however, Staff
understands the City manager is preparing a "can and will serve" letter for water /
waste water taps.
B. Glenwood Springs Fire Protection: Completed a full review and approval of the
project (and site visits) during the County's building permit process. The District
recommends the removal of a parking space for access reason and requests
details as to what entity will be responsible for annual maintenance on the fire
protection system. (Exhibit l)
C Colorado Deoartment of Trans oortation:Has issued a CDOT permit for 72 DHV
and understands a revised permit may need to issue for the change in use
D. Colorado Division of Water Resources: No comments received.
E. Colorado Geoloqic Survev: No comments received.
F. Bureau of Land Management: No comments received
G. Garfield County Veoetation Manaoer: Provided comments regard i ng revegetation
and soil management. (Exhibit K)
IV GENERAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE C OTMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is located within Study Area 1 which has been designated as "Commercial
General" on the proposed land use designation map in the Comprehensive Plan which
supports commercial development in this area.
V. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS
As the Application was technically complete under the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as
amended and the Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended, those codes will apply
to the requested subdivision. The following is an analysis of the proposed development
with the required zoning regulations of the CG zone district pursuant to Section 3.08 of
the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended.
A. Uses Bv-Rioht (These are the uses that can be conducted in the four buildings.)
crafts, provided all activity is conducted within a building;
requirements are observed;
(1) All fabrication, service and repair operations are conducted within
a building;
(2) All storage of materials shall be within a building or obscured by a
fence;
(3) All loading and unloading of vehicles is conducted on private
property;
(4) No dust, noise, glares or vibration is projected beyond the lot;
goods, furniture, appliances, automotive and vehicular equipment, hardware,
clothing, mobile homes, building materials, feed, garden supply and plant
materials;
Laundromat laundry or dry-cleaning plant serving individuals only; miniature
golf course;
restaurant, reading room, private club, theater and indoor recreation;
vehicular equipment, vehicular rental, service and repair of appliance, shop
for blacksmith, cabinetry, glazing, machining, mini-storage units, printing,
publishing, plumbing, sheet metal and contractor's yard; and
storaqe.
B. Common Dimensional Requirements
All permitted development shall be required to adhere to the following common
dimensional requirements.
property is 4.19 acres which well exceeds the required
minimum lot area of seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet.
do not exceed the required 85% in lot coverage for commercial uses.
Note: By way of the zoning regulations, the County Commissioners may require
adequate screening of all parking and roadway areas in commercial uses from
adjoining residential uses and public streets. A maximum of ten percent (10%) of
the total parking and roadways areas may be required to be devoted exclusively
to landscaping of trees, shrubs, and ground cover to reduce visual impacts.
(1) Front vard: As scaled, the building closest to the front lot is approximately 70
feet from the front lot line which complies with the front yard
setback standard that buildings must be at least seventy-five (75)
feet from street centerline or fifty (50) feet from front lot line,
whichever is greater for setbacks from arterial streets,
(2) Rear vard: As scaled, the building closest to the rear lot line is approximately
75 feet away which complies with the minimum requirement of
Twenty-five (25) feet from rear lot line for lots occupied by
residential uses; seven and one-half (7.5) feet for lots with no
residential occupancy,
(3) Side vard: As scaled, the buildings closest to the side yards are
approximately 25 feet away from the side lot line which complies
with the required minimum of ten (10) feet from side lot line or
one-half (112) the height of the principal building, whichever is
greater.
type roofs which meet the requited maximum of
thirty-five (35) feet height requirement.
FAR 0.50/1.0 and as further provided under
Supplementary Regulations
The lot size is 4.19 acres or 182,516 sq. ft. The maximum FAR allowed on this
site is 91,258 sq. ft. The four buildings contain a total of 54,443 sq. ft. which
complies with this FAR requirement.
Section 5 (Supplementary Regulations). An example of what will apply to all
development on the lot includes the following provisions regarding slopes:
(
5.04.01 Lot Slope Determinations: ln determinin g lot slopes for use in
establishing minimum lot area requirements and build able area, existing and
proposed lots of less than two (2) acres shall be calculated on an individual lot
basis. Contour intervals of five (5) feet or less shall be used to make this
determination. For lots of two (2) or more acres in size and tracts of land
proposed for other methods of development wherein creation of individual lots
within said tract is not anticipated, the determination of lot slope shall be made
utilizing available topographic maps.
5.04.02 Development Limita tions Based on Lot Slope
(1)Lot Size Less Than 1 Acre: Land with original and undisturbed
slope in excess of forty percent (40%) shall not be credited toward
lot area in determining whether a lot meets the minimum lot area
requirements set forth in the zone district regulations; however, a
smaller building envelope may be approved by the Board, as a
Special Use permit, after review.
(2)Lot Size 1 Acre or Greater: Such lots shall have a minimum
building envelope of 1 acre in an area that has less than forty
percent (40%) slopes; however, a smaller building envelope may
be approved by the Board after review of the following which shall
be submitted by the applicant:
(A) A soil land foundation investigation prepared by a registered,
professional eng ineer.
(B) A topographic survey with contour intervals of not more than two (2)
feet.
(C) A site grading and drainage plan prepared by a register, professional
engineer.
(D) A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts, and fills in excess of five (5)
feet.
(E) A detailed revegetation plan
All of the above shall show the minimum building envelope size for each lot
and shall provide evidence that all structures and facilities can be built within
such building envelope area so as not to disturb any forty percent (40%)
slope area. The following shall be conditions of any approval:
(A) Foundations shall be designed by and bear the seal of a registered,
professional eng ineer.
(B) All final plans required to be submitted by a professional engineer
shall be approved in their final form and shall bear the seal of such
registered, professional engineer.
(3)For all lots: Dr iveways, access ways and access easements within the
development and on the property of developer shall have a maximum
grade of fourteen percent (14%).
Staff Response
Staff and the Applicant conducted an in-depth review of the slopes on this
property as part of the building permit review. Ultimately, the Applicant's engineer
and surveyor were able to show that the slopes were acceptable to allow the four
buildings on the site and still meet the County's slope requirements. This
standard has been met.
5.01.02 Minimum Off-Street Parkinq: Parki ng spaces shall be provided for
each use in the following amounts:
(1) Residential (except group quarters) - one (1) space per six
hundred (600) square feet of floor area or one (1) space per
dwelling unit, whichever is greater; each separately rentable
room or group of rooms shall be considered a dwelling unit;
(2)
(3)
Residential - group quarters - one (1) space per bed;
Retail and service commercial - one (1) space per two
hundred (200) square feet of floor area (except storaqe
area);
Staff Comments
ln a gross calculation, the proposal includes 184 spaces. The requirement is that
there needs to be 1 space for every 200 sq. ft. (except storage areas). ln this
case, it is unclear how much storage area is included. This may be problematic
because if the Applicant wants to "tenants finish" all the individual spaces as
shown on the preliminary plan (with no storage), they would need to provide 272
spaces (54,443 1200). Presently, the plan only shows 184 spaces which results
in a deficiency of 88 spaces.
VI. APPLICABLESUBDIVISIONREGULATI ONS
The following section addresses common subdivision components that applicable to this
Preliminary Plan submittal to the County.
A. Domestic & lrriqation Water
The Applicant has already obtained water service from the City of Glenwood Springs'
central water system which has been physically constructed and is presently operating.
The Application included a copy of the minutes from the City Council meeting approving
the provision of water service to the property. This arrangement is more formally
memorialized in a pre-annexation agreement.
Garfield County's standard requires, among other things, that "/n all instances, evidence
that a water supply, sufficient in terms of quality, quantity and dependability, shall be
available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the proposed subdivision. Such
evidence may include, but shall not be limited to:
Evidence that public or private water owners can and will supply water to the
proposed subdivision, including the amount of water available for use within the
subdivision by such providers, the feasibility of extending seruice to the area, proof
of the legal dependability of the proposed water supply and the representation that
a// necessary water rights have been obtained or will be obtained or adiudicated,
prior fo submission of the final plat; and
a
a lf connection is to be made to an existing water system, a letter from an authorized
representative of sard sysfem staging that the proposed development will be serued,
and evidence from either the Colorado Sfafe Engineer's Office or Water Court,
Water Division No. 5, that the existing water sysfem presently possesses adequate
legal water supply to serue the proposed development;
Staff referred the Application to the Division of Water Resources which did not respond,
This application does not need to meet the strict requirements of House Bill 1141
because it is not defined as "new constriction."
The City is preparing a "Can and Will Serve" letter which Staff suggests should be
tendered to the County prior to the hearing before the BOCC. Keep in mind, the City
already presently serves the uses on the property.
B. Waste Disposal
The project has obtained sewer service from the City of Glenwood Springs central
sewer system which has been memorialized in a pre-annexation agreement. This
system has been constructed and is currently operational. The City's minutes are
included in the application which demonstrates the City's approval of providing service.
The City is preparing a "Can and Will Serve" letter which Staff suggests should be
tendered to the County prior to the hearing before the BOCC. Keep in mind, the City
already presently serves the uses on the property.
C. Roads /Access
The property currently has access onto State Highway 82. The application contained a
Highway Access Permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) which
was issued in '10/13/05. That permit states that Access is granted to provide service to
the following uses with a maximum Design Hourly Volume (DHV) of 72:
Staff is aware that the Applicant proposed to install a traffic signal on HY82 at the
entrance to the subject property but was denied by CDOT. The Permit discussed above
did not include the additional pages that contain terms and conditions of the permit.
Staff is unable to determine if there were improvements required of the Applicant to
HY82 as a result of the projected traffic. Note, the County Traffic lmpact Fee does not
apply to commercial development. Any improvements to HY82 would be required by
CDOT.
Easement at Access Point to the Prope(y
There is an easement in place at the main access to the site from SH 82. lt is unclear as
to what easement rights the Applicant has over the adjacent property as the main
access point to the subject property from SH82. The preliminary Plan map needs to
depict the existing easements (per :50(O)) that are in the following documents: Book
349-page 562, #475777 , #57 1178, #57 1179, #684562.
lnternal Circulation
The main entrance to the property is located on the nofthwest corner. The internal
circulation consists of an asphalt driving surface which allows for two way traffic in front
of and behind all of the buildings except there is no access to the rear of the fourth
building against the hillside. There appears to only be one entrance and exit onto SH82
with no alternate emergency access provided; however, the site plan includes a
emergency turnaround area in the upper parking area behind the upper building which
shall be reviewed by the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District for compliance with
their standards.
On-site Parking
ln a gross calculation, the proposal includes 184 spaces. The requirement is that there
needs to be 1 space for every 200 sq. ft. (except storage areas). ln this case, it is
unclear how much storage area is included. This may be problematic because if the
Applicant wants to "tenants finish" all the individual spaces as shown on the preliminary
plan (with no storage), they would need to provide 272 spaces (54,443 I 200).
Presently, the plan only shows 184 spaces which results in a deficiency of 88 spaces.
D. Fire Protection
The property is located within the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District. lt appears
that water service for fire protection to the buildings has been accommodated by the
inclusion of internal hose connections and strobes at the ends of both buildings that are
served from the central water supply from the City of Glenwood Springs. The property is
located in the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District which reviewed the site and
buildings when they were constructed. Since they have already reviewed the site, they
only provided the following additional comments:
1- Site: Remove one parking space. The space to be removed is the on the plans
that is located in the most south western corner of the property near to the road
to the Colby and Lynch properties. The width of the original access road to these
properties prior to this development was not to code and now it is narrower.
Removing this one parking space will limit the possibility of congestion/blockage
of thid narrow access road which emergency vehicles use to access the
properties it services to the south east of this subdivision.
2. Condominiumization Documents: These documents shall contain la nguage that
specifically states who will be responsible for the annual tests and inspections
and any required maintenance on the fire protection systems installed in the
building and the site of this sub-division. The fire suppression system required a
fire pump to be installed on it to increase the water pressure to buildings three
and four; it requires special operational procedures to keep it functioning
properly. ln the these documents it shall also state that all unit owners or renters
are to supply a key to the door to their unit to the Glenwood Springs fire
Department to put in the Knox box that is installed on each building. ln the
application I did not see HOA convenience or similar documents stating how the
communized units will be managed in the future.
E. Engineerinq Review
ln addition to the geotech issues already raised in this memo, the County Project
Engineer reviewed the application and provided the following list of points that the
Applicant needs to address as the project moves fonrvard. Staff has recommended that
the Applicant meet with the County Project Engineer on these issues prior to going to
the BOCC.
1) Site Accessibility: ADA compliance was not part of this review. However, the
following accessibility deficiencies were noted:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The handicap parking spot, at the southeast corner of building #2, has a
handicap parking sign but lacks the required width.
One handicap parking spot is on a grade greater lhan 2oh.
Some handicap ramps lack the lower guiderails
The travel route from handicap parking spots transverses the parking lots.
(There should be sidewalks from the parking spaces to doorways.)
Each building requires a van handicap parking spot. None were provided.
(16-footwide van parking space needed - - 8-foot parking spot and an 8-foot
lane.)
e)
2) At least one of the standard handicap parking spots is too narrow and lacks the
required 4-foot wide travel lane next to the parking spot.
3) The handicap ramp from parking area to sidewalk cannot extend into the parking
area. These walks need to be part of the sidewalk.
4) One handicap sign was removed off building #1. (Looks like the building
occupant doesn't like having a handicap spot in front their unit.)
a. Purpose of Plat: On the final plat, add a purpose statement under the title of
the plat. For example: 'The purpose of this subdivision plat is to delineate
the condominium units within the subdivision. (Personally, l'd prefer calling
it a final condominium plat instead of a subdivision plat.)
b. Sheet 5: This sheet showing pre-development topography does not need to
be recorded.
c. Parking Requirements Per County Code (County's old Land Use Code,
5.01.02)
Note the following parking deficiencies
Lot 1: Req'd Parking 23,265 sf / one space per 200 sf = 1 17 parking
spaces; Parking Provided: 98 spaces
Lot2: Req'd Parking 14,413 sf / one space per 200 sf = 72 parking
spaces; Parking Provided: 54 spaces
Lot 3: Req'd Parking 16,765 sf / one space per 200 sf = 84 parking
spaces; Parking Provided: 32 spaces
Note: The five parking spots in the front of the property along highway 82 are
not striped. There are also a few parking spaces that are very awkward
being too short or difficult to enter.
5) Parking Spaces as Limited Common Elements
a. Some units are not shown as having a LCE parking space (reserved parking
space). For example, there are no parking spaces designated for Units 4-F,
4-W, and 4-V. Conversely, Unit 4-H has two LCE parking spaces.
b. Only parking spaces on the downhill side of buildings are designed as being
LCE. [NOTE: ln total, there are 92 units, 180 total parking spots, and 76
LCE parking spots (including handicap parking spots that are currently
designated as LCE).1
c. Handicap parking spots cannot be designated as LCE. They must be GCE
unless there is an excess of handicap parking spaces.
a
a
d. Each LCE parking spot must be designated as belonging to a particular unit.
The plan cannot simply show that 5 parking spots are LCE for 6 units. The
parking spots must either be designated as a LCE and belonging to a
particular unit or the parking space must be a GCE. (Currently, the parking
spaces are not signed as being reserved for a particular unit.)
6) Limited Common Elements Assigned to Each Building: Covered walkways are
designated as LCE for a particular building. This will need to be addressed in the
condo documents.
7) Building Elements Designated as LCE: Each unit owns half of their interior walls.
As shown, ceiling, floors and external walls are GCE. This should be clarified
with a note on the plans.
F. Drainaq e Analvsis
The Application contains a Final Drainage Report prepared by JLB Engineering
Consultants (dated 512512004). The report states that the developed site will generate
more runoff than historic rates. To accommodate this, the Applicant constructed
detention basins and swales to retain this drainage on-site using the 10O-year event
calculations. The discharge is directed through dispersement basins and into the
historic basin.
Because the site has been developed, Staff in unable to discern if the appropriate
measures were taken to properly manage the drainage on the site. As a condition of
any Preliminary Plan approval, Staff suggests the Applicant be required to submit a
letter from a licensed engineer that states that the drainage improvements were
constructed properly and in accordance with the recommendations in the Final Drainage
Report prepared by JLB Engineering Consultants (dated 512512004) as well with the
recommendations of HP Geotech Preliminary Geotechnical Study dated March 2001.
Specifically, the letter shall also provide a drainage plan, at the same scale as the
Preliminary Plan and prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado,
which shall depict the following:
1) Limits of tributary areas, where practical;
2) Computations of expected tributary flows; and
3) Design of drainage facilities to prevent storm waters in excess of historic run-off
from entering, damaging or being carried by existing drainage facilities, and to
prevent major damage or flooding of residences in a one hundred (100) year
storm, showing:
A. Area subject to inundation; and
B. Location and size of proposed culverts, bridges, ditches and channels.
4) Shall provide proof that all drainage easements, channels, and culverts have
been designed by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado.
5) Shall provide proof that all drainage facilities have been designed based on a
minimum of a twenty-five (25) year frequency storm.
6) Shall provide proof that the detention ditches and ponds are able to retain up to a
one hundred (100) year storm for run-off in excess of historic site levels.
7) Shall provide proof that all culverts have been designed such that the exposed
ends are protected by encasement in concrete or extended a minimum of three
feet (3') beyond the driving surface on each side. Culverts, drainage pipes and
bridges shall be designed and constructed in accordance with AASHO
recommendations for an H-20 live load.
G. Wildlife
The Applicant provided a Division of Wildlife (DOW) WRIS check list prepared by the
County lT Department which identified the area as being entirely located within the Bald
Eagle Winter Range, Black Bear Overall Range, Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat Overall
Range, Mule Deer Overall Range, Mule Deer Highway Crossing, and the Osprey
Foraging Area. Staff submitted this Preliminary Plan application to DOW for their
comments regarding any impacts to wildlife.
H. Soils / Geoloqv
The property contains steep slopes that rise over 140 feet in elevation a northerly
direction. The four structures have been constructed on the lower, less steep areas. The
Application contains a Preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared by HP Geotech in
2001. This study points out that the site has "geologic constraints which will affect the
project development including rock fall, debris flow, and hydrocompressive soils.
Mitigation of these conditions will be needed as part of the development of the site."
Staff does not know if any of the recommendations from the HP Geotech Study have
been incorporated into the structural design; further, the Study recommends that a
rockfall fence be installed on the uphill side of building four as a mitigation measure.
Staff recommends this be a condition of approval. Additionally, Staff recommends the
Applicant provide a letter from a professional engineer that states that the
recommendations in the HP Geotech study were followed during construction. This
letter is to be tendered to the County with the final plat application.
L Veqetation
The Subdivision regulations require that the Applicant submit a vegetation plan to
ensure that once the construction portion of the development is complete, there is a
plan in place to revegetate the disturbed areas and provides a method or a plan to
manage noxious weeds on the property. The Application contains a Weed I
Revegetation Plan prepared by John Taufer & Associates that indicates when certain
species will be planted within the Storm Water Detention Area. Beyond that area, there
is little to no revegetation to occur.
The County Vegetation Director reviewed the application and provided the following
comments:
1) Noxious Weeds: lnventory and mapping - The applicant has reported that there
are no Garfield County listed noxious weeds on the property.
2) Revegetation: The Applicant has quantified the disturbed area to be revegetated
as .64 acre. Staff recommends a revegetation security in the amount of $1600
(.64 acre x $2500/acre), The security shall be held by Garfield County until
vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the attached
Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will designate a
member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the
security.
3) Soil Plan: The Revegetation Guidelines also request that the applicant provide a
Soil Management Plan that includes:
a. Provisions for salvaging on-site topsoil.
b. A timetable for eliminating topsoil and/or aggregate piles.
c. A plan that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or stockpiles will sit
exposed for a period of 90 days or more.
J. Easements
As the Applicant prepares the final plat, all easements of record shall be shown on the
final plat. Of particular note, there is an easement that governs how the main entrance
to the property will work with CDOT, the Applicant and the neighbor directly to the NE.
These will need to be established on the final plat with all of the associated recording
information.
K. Condominiumization
The reason the Applicant is going through the subdivision process is to condomiumize
the offices and storage spaces to sell to other parties as separate interests. As such,
the Applicant shall be required to submit a Final Plat under Article V, then submit a
Condominium Plat under Section 5-307 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008
(ULUR). The reason for this is because the condominium section of the ULUR requires
that the Condo plat be consistent with a Final Plat. The Applicant should be aware that
both the Final Plat and Re-Subdivision processes are administrative processes. Staff
believes these two processes can be processed together.
Understanding all of this, the Preliminary Plan being reviewed here contains the general
physical illustration of the intended condominiumization of the 99 units in each of the
four buildings. The new land use regulations are included here for reference:
Section 5-307 Review Process and Criteria For Common lnterest Ownership
Community Re-Subdivision, lncluding Condominium and
Townhouse P/afs.
The re-subdivision of land for condominiums and planned communities, such as
townhouses, defined as common interest communities in the Colorado Common
lnterest Ownership Ac( C.R.S. 38-33.3-101 et seq. shall require approval of the plats
and maps described ,n C.R.S. 38-33.3-209, along with approval of the Declaration
defined in CCIOA. Re-subdivision sha// safisfy the criteria in Section 5-307 B. and the
recording of the appropriate common interest community plat showing the location and
dimensions of the vertical boundaies of each unit; the horizontal boundaries, if
included; and the identifying number of each unit, along with the location and dimension
of common elements and limited common elements, all as defined in the Declaration.
No perso n with any interest in units created in such re-subdivision shall transfer or
agree to sell or offer to sell or sell any unit before the plats described herein are
approved by the Board and recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder. Such a unit is
created upon recording of the re-subdivision plat.
A. Administrative Review Process.
The review process for re-subdivision of a Final Plat into common interest ownership
community units shall be the administrative review process, outlined in Section 4-
104 of Article lV with the addition of presentation of the re-subdivision plat to the
Board of County Commissioners for signature. Such a common interest ownership
plat, as approved by the Board, shall constitute a site specific development plan
establishing vested property rights pursuant to Part I of Article 68 of Title 24 C.R.S.,
as amended, and the provisions of Secfion 1-202, Establishment of Vested Property
Rrgrhfs of Article 1.
B. Criteria.
1. Consistent with Approved Plan or Final Plat. The proposed resubdivision
plat is consistent with the subdivision Final Plat and, if applicable, the
approved PUD plan zone designations.
2. Consisfent with Zone District Regulations.
a. The total common area and individual lot area of the whole project,
divided by the total number of units, meets the minimum lot size
requirements of the overlying zoning district.
b. A project within a PUD complies with the zoning outlined in the PUD
designations.
3. Maintenance of Common Areas. lf applicable, the condominium, townhouse or
other common interest community declaration and bylaws make adequate
provision for the maintenance of common area elements.
4. lmprovements Agreement and Financial Guarantee. An lmprovements
agreement has been signed and submitted by the applicant, and an adequate
financial guarantee for improvements has been posted or will be posted prior to
approval of the condominium, townhouse or other common interest community
plat.
5. Lot Located Within Legally Platted Subdivision. The lot in which the
condominium, townhouse or other common interest community is located was
approved and platted as part of a subdivision which meets the requirements of
the Land Use Code.
6. Adequate Easements. Adequate easements for water, sewer, utilities and
access have been provided.
7. ParU Wall Agreement. lf applicable, an acceptable party wall agreement has
been recorded.
L. Assessment/ Fees
The development is also located in the RE-1 School District. As such the developer is
required to either dedicate a portion of land to the district or pay the appropriate School
Site Acquisition Fee to be paid at final plat and included as a component of the
Subdivision lmprovement Agreement (SlA). This fee is generally calculated from the
assessed unimproved market value of the parent property.
Note, the property does not fall in a County Traffic lmpact Fee area so there are no fees
for traffic impact.
M. Mineral Estate
It is unclear if the property's mineral estate has been severed and is owned or leased to
another party. lf so, the Applicant shall include a plat note on the final plat stating the
following: "The mineral rights associated with this property have been partially or wholly
severed and are not fully intact or transferred with the surface estate therefore allowing the
potential for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or
lessee(s)."
N. PROJECT ISSUES
1. CDOT Permit: The CDOT Access permit for access to State Highway 82 does not
cover the proposed 99 condominium units being proposed. The permit is issued for
a mixed use project. Staff discussed this issue with CDOT who explained they are
l6
more interested in making sure the Design Hourly Volume (DHV) of 72 stays the
same regardless of what the uses are stated on the permit.
Staff believes the CDOT permit ought to state the right uses on the permit. To that
end Staff recommends the Applicant be required to obtain a new access permit that
correctly states the uses and the defined DHV prior to Final Plat.
2. Access Easement: lt is unclear as to what easement rights the Applicant has over
the adjacent property as the main access point to the subject property from SH82.
The preliminary Plan map needs to depict the existing easements (per 4:50(O)) that
are in the following documents: Book 349-page 562,#475777,#571178,#571179,
#684562.
3. Geotech lssues: There is little evidence that the drai nage system, building
structures, etc. have been built in accordance with the recommendations from the
geotech studies, although some of the studies were submitted for buildings 1 - 3 in
order to get COs. Staff recommends that the Applicant furnish the County with a
letter from a P, E. that can demonstrate that the buildings were built and drainage
issues were properly addressed. The Applicant indicated they would have that letter
prior to the hearing before the BOCC.
4. Parkinq Spaces: The proposal, if developed as shown into 99 condominium units
(totaling 54,443 sq.ft.), requires 272spaces, yetthe site plan only provides 180
spaces. lf all of the spaces are retail / professional office spaces with no "storage",
then based on the 180 spaces, the developer could only develop 36,000 sq.ft.
Presently, the design is under-parked.
The Applicant proposes an accounting method do deal with this restriction which
ultimately places the burden of making sure each tenant finish can accommodate
its parking through the CC&Rs. This topic will need more discussion with the
Planning Commission as to the most effective way to make sure the property does
not result in being under parked at full tenant finish. This has important enforcement
and fire protection issues associated with it.
5. Water / Wastewater Service: Staff needs to have a copy of the signed Pre-
annexation agreement with the City. Additionally, it is unclear as to what type of
easements are to be granted to the City for the water / wastewater lines and meters
on the property. We still need a letter from the City stating that they "Can and Will
Serve" the property.
The Applicant has discussed this issue with the City Manager who indicated that a
letter is forth coming. Staff still believes the terms of the pre-annexation agreement
need to be reviewed as only 20 units were discussed in the hearings where the City
Council took its action to provide taps to the development.
O. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
t7
Staff finds that these issues mentioned above can be solved as the application moves
through the process. The most significant issue is the geotechnical issue as it has direct
life / safety challenges associated with it. However, based on this, Staff recommends the
Planning Commission fonvard a recommendation of approval to the Board of county
Commissioners with the following findings and conditions:
Findinqs
2. That proper publication, public notice, and posting was provided as required by law
for the hearing before the Planning Commission.
3. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete; all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted; and that all interested parties
were heard at the hearing.
4. That the application can be in compliance with the standards set forth in Section
4:00 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended so long as the
following conditions are met.
5. That the application can be in compliance with the standards set forth in Section
4.00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended so long
as the following conditions are met.
6. That the proposed preliminary plan is in the best interest of the health, safety,
morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield
County.
Conditions
7. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission,
shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County
Commissioners.
8. The Applicant shall submit a letter from a licensed professional engineer (licensed
to practice in the State of Colorado) that states that the drainage improvements
were constructed properly and in accordance with the recommendations in the Final
Drainage Report prepared by JLB Engineering Consultants (dated 512512004) as
well with the recommendations of HP Geotech Preliminary Geotechnical Study
dated March 2001.
Specifically, the letter shall also provide a drainage plan, at the same scale as the
Preliminary Plan and prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado,
which shall depict the following:
a. Limits of tributary areas, where practical;
b. Computations of expected tributary flows; and
l8
c. Design of drainage facilities to prevent storm waters in excess of historic run-
off from entering, damaging or being carried by existing drainage facilities,
and to prevent major damage or flooding of residences in a one hundred
(100) year storm, showing:
1) Area subject to inundation; and
2) Location and size of proposed
channels.
culverts, bridges, ditches and
d. Shall provide proof that all drainage easeme
been designed by an engineer registered in t
fi
nts,(channels, and culverts havet
he State of Coloradol
e Shall provide proof that all drainage facilities have been d ned based on a
minimum of a twenty-five (25) year frequency storm s/A,a@Fr-"
Shall provide proof that the detention ditches and ponds are able to retain u/
to a one hundred (100) year storm for run-off in excess of historic site levels)
g. Shall provide proof that all culverts have been designed such that the
exposed ends are protected by encasement in concrete or extended a
minimum of three feet (3') beyond the driving surface on each side. Culverts,
drainage pipes and bridges shall be designed and constructed in accordance I ^ -, )
with AASHO recommendations for an H-20 live load. l. jdtf,> { /
9. Pursuant to the recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared I
by HP Geotech in 2001, the Applicant shall install a rockfall fence on the uphill side
oi oritding four as a mitigation ,"mri". :9 ,.n ; ,,-^ral-r* ,,Ifu"),:: -;/L-;; -,13,,
\r,l*"r.\, ''t) 'I \*d^)>" t 5lu'v t'')''-L't'
10.The Applicant provide a letter from a licenseU professional engineer (licensed to
practice in the State of Colorado)that states that the recommendations in the HP
Geotech study were followed during construction of the four buildings and their
associated retaining walls. This letter is to be tendered to the County prior to the
earing before the BOCC
That the Applicant provides a "Can and Will Serve" letter from the City of Glenwood
Springs stating that they can and will serve the uses on the property. This letter
shall be tendered to the County prior to scheduling the public hearing before theBocc'
'"t c tr.'..
12,ThepreliminaryPlanmapneedstodepicttheexistingeaSements@
s .that are in the following documents: Books- - 349-page 56{ #475777, #571178, #57 1179, #684562.
f ^,)
fi^v
Ls)-
\t{r*,t
J$
"{$
13.The Applicant
the uses and
authorizes the
Countv.'-4
,d
v 0 .,
^ ^fif ^,{t'J ht 'L
\x- ,/" i' ,'' (
shall be required to obtain a new access permit that correctly states
the defined DHV prior to Final Plat. By this condition, the BOCC
Applicant to apply for a revised permi! on the behalf of Garfield
a,f ,, ,v. t* ,,'l ',5 att- r'-r. h'N-, ,,{* D-T t4/ i't trtJ
.t
a- lr" o t ) ',n / *y,,r,- )-. ';\yr** ,-r" 1,lf- ) ''1
/-;t;'zt4'*A' '
d/^
co{
14.1n preparing the Final Plat, the County requires the Applicant place the following
notes be on the final plat and in protective covenants:
a) "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. 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."
b) "No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the
subdivision. One (1) new solid-fuel burning stove as defined by C.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."
c) "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State
Iaw and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and
irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control,
using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and
maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn
about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens
of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to
Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State
University Extension Office in Garfield County."
d) "All exterior lighting will be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior
lighting will be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the
subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting
that goes beyond the property boundaries."
e) "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit and the dog shall be
required to be confined within the owner's property boundaries."
15.The development is also located in the RE-1 School District. As such the developer
is required to either dedicate a portion of land to the district or pay the appropriate
School Site Acquisition Fee to be paid at final plat and included as a component of
the Subdivision lmprovement Agreement (SlA). This fee is generally calculated
from the assessed unimproved market value of the parent property. This shall be
calculated and paid at the time of final plat.
l6.Regarding revegetation, the Applicant has quantified the disturbed area to be
revegetated as 0.64 acre. The Applicant shall tender a revegetation security in the
20
amount of $1600 with the final plat application. The security shall be held by
Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to
the County's Reclamation Standards. The Board of County Commissioners will
designate a member of their staff to evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of
the security.
17.The Preliminary Plan (and Final Plat) shall be revised to show all antennas and
equipment exterior to the unit that Verizon will lease will be contained in an LCE
associated with their Unit.
1 8. Regarding Fire Protection
a. The Applicant shall eliminate the parking space that is located in the most
south western corner of the property near to the road to the Colby and Lynch
properties.
b. The Condominiumization CC&R shall contain language that specifically states
who will be responsible for the annual tests and inspections and any required
maintenance on the fire protection systems installed in the building and the
site of this sub-division. The fire suppression system required a fire pump to
be installed on it to increase the water pressure to buildings three and four; it
requires special operational procedures to keep it functioning properly. ln the
these documents it shall also state that all unit owners or renters are to supply
a key to the door to their unit to the Glenwood Springs fire Department to put
in the Knox box that is installed on each building.
19. The Applicant shall meet with the County Project Engineer to address the following
comments prior to the hearing before the BOCC:
a. Site Accessibility: ADA compliance was not part of this review. However, the
following accessibility deficiencies were noted:i. The handicap parking spot, at the southeast corner of building #2, has
a handicap parking sign but lacks the required width.
ii. One handicap parking spot is on a grade greater lhan 2o/o.
iii. Some handicap ramps lack the lower guiderails
iv. The travel route from handicap parking spots transverses the parking
lots. (There should be sidewalks from the parking spaces to
doorways.)
v. Each building requires a van handicap parking spot. None were
provided. (16-foot wide van parking space needed - - 8-foot parking
spot and an 8-foot lane.)
vi. At least one of the standard handicap parking spots is too narrow and
Iacks the required 4-foot wide travel lane next to the parking spot.
vii. The handicap ramp from parking area to sidewalk cannot extend into
the parking area. These walks need to be part of the sidewalk.
viii. One handicap sign was removed off building #1. (Looks like the
building occupant doesn't like having a handicap spot in front their
unit.)
21
\0
$
X
\Purpose of PIat: On the final plat, add a purpose statement under the title of
the plat. For example: 'The purpose of this subdivision plat is to delineate the
condominium units within the subdivision. (Personally, l'd prefer calling it a
final condominium plat instead of a subdivision plat.)
Sheet 5: This sheet showing pre-development topography does not need to
be recorded.
d. Parking Requirements Per County Code (County's old Land Use Code,
5.01.02)
Note the following parking deficiencies
Lot 1: Req'd Parking 23,265 sf / one space per 200 sf = 117 parking
spaces; Parking Provided: 98 spaces
Lot 2: Req'd Parking 14,413 sf / one space per 200 sf = 72 parking
spaces; Parking Provided: 54 spaces
Lot 3: Req'd Parking 16,765 sf / one space per 200 sf = 84 parking
spaces; Parking Provided: 32 spaces
Note: The five parking spots in the front of the property along highway 82 are
not striped. There are also a few parking spaces that are very awkward being
too short or difficult to enter.
e Parking Spaces as Limited Common Elements
Some units are not shown as having a LCE parking space (reserved
parking space). For example, there are no parking spaces designated
for Units 4-F , 4-W, and 4-V. Conversely, Unit 4-H has two LCE parking
spaces.
Only parking spaces on the downhill side of buildings are designed as
being LCE. [NOTE: ln total, there are 92 units, 180 total parking
spots, and 76 LCE parking spots (including handicap parking spots that
are currently designated as LCE).1
Handicap parking spots cannot be designated as LCE. They must be
GCE unless there is an excess of handicap parking spaces.
Each LCE parking spot must be designated as belonging to a particular
unit. The plan cannot simply show that 5 parking spots are LCE for 6
units. The parking spots must either be designated as a LCE and
belonging to a particular unit or the parking space must be a GCE.
(Currently, the parking spaces are not signed as being reserved for a
particular unit.)
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
e\
Lim ited Common Elements Assigned to Each Building: Covered walkways are
ignated as LCE for a particular building. This will need to be addressed in
condo documents.the
22
e walls. As shown, ceiling, floors and external walls are GCE. This should be
Build'ing Elements Designated as LCE: Each unit owns half of their interio
clarified with a note on the plans.
,l,V,
,ro t
a.zl"\
)1 ,//,U'1 V^ l"huD &7 L- ,n ) is u* ) t\
[\^
i ,r,r,l)
'lw" cn
l,- tlt L.-,
/,
--'/
t-
[)A
w ,'/ufi t1(-/
/,'t
f,T
4)E,
4y
/'
,/
t/
23
o
o srArE oF coLoRADo )
COLINTY OF GARF'"' ] ''.
AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFIED MAILING
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD )
I, Ellen Gaugler, being first duly sworn, state and allege as follows:
l. I conducted a search ofthe Garfield County Assessor's office for all property and
mineral right owners adjacent to or within 200 feet ofthe boundaries of Glenwood Commercial.
2. On March 5,2009,I mailed a copy of a Public Notice a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A, via certified mail, return receipt requested, to all mineral right owners and
property owners adjacent to or within 200 feet of the boundaries of Glenwood Commercial.
AND FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT
Ellen
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this 3- day of April, 2009,by
Ellen Gaugler.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires:
o I:\Clients\PrinceCrk\7-GWComm-3229\Public Notice\Gaugler Affidavit 4-8-09 Hearing.wpd
April 8,2009
1,I
-):
ld : .t An{-torn, 1
}IOM:Ub
o
o
o
o
o
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Glenwood Commercial, LLC has applied to the Planning
Commission, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request a recommendation of
approval for a Preliminary Plan application for Glenwood Commercial Subdivision, a
property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit:
Legal description: See Exhibit A.
Practical description: The property is located in the area of South Glenwood Springs
directly fronting onto (north side) State Highway 82 in Section22,Township 6 South,
Range 89 West.
This Preliminary PIan application requests the ability to convert the offices in 4
newly constructed office buildings into offices that can be separately sold through
condominiumization.
All persons affected by the proposed Preliminary Plan are invited to appear and state their
views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are
urged to state your views by letter, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to
the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to
grant or deny the request. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning
Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County PlazaBuilding,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
A public hearing on this application has been scheduled for the 8ft day of April, 2009, at
6:30 p.m., in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County PlazaBuilding,
108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County
EXHIBIT
bEoa n
o
a EXHIBIT A
Parcel A:
A tract of land situated in the NE1/4 SWl/4 Section 22, Township 6 South, Range 89
West of the 6th P.M., more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North line of said NEl/4 SWl/4 whence the Northwest corner
of said NEl/4 SWl/4 bears N 87 degrees 05'W 397.33 feet said point also being the
Northwest corner of the Amended Hughes Subdivision recorded as Rec. #419357 in the
records of the Garfield County Clerks office, thence along the westerly line of said
subdivision, S 15 degrees 17' W 330.31 feet to a point on the westerly line of said
subdivision, Parcel B;
Thence leaving said westerly line S 63 degrees 39'19" W 68.06 feet;
Thence S 26 degree s 20'4I" E 7 6.59 feet to a point said westerly line;
Thence S 15 degrees 17'00" W 207 .59 feet to a point on the northerly line of the right of
way of Colorado State Highway 82;
Thence N 66 degrees 05' W 3 1 .36 feet along the North line of said right of way;
Thence N 00 degrees 09' W 615.15 feet, more or less to the North line of said NE1/4
SWI/4;
Thence S 87 degrees 05' E 199.33 feet along the North line of said NE1/4 SWl/4 to the
point of beginning.
Parcel B:
A tract of land situated in the NEl/4 SWI/4 of Section 22, Township 6 South, Range 89
West of the 6th P.M., and more particularly described as foilows:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said NEI/4 SWl/4,
Thence S 87 degrees 05'E 198.00 feet;
Thence S 00 degrees 09' E 615.15 feet more or less to the North line of Colorado State
Highway 82 right of way;
Thence N 66 degrees 05'W 12.54 feet along said right of way;
Thence continuing along said right of way N 62 degrees 50' W 184.90 feet;
Thence continuing along said right of way N 60 degrees 18'30" W 25.35 feet to the west
line of saidNEl/4 SWl/4;
Thence along said west line N 00 degrees 09' W 96.18 feet to a point on an existing fence
line;
Thence along said fence line the following five (5) courses:
1. S 88 Degrees 31'43" E a Distance of 4.29 Feet;
2. N 0l Degrees 24'35" W a Distance of 157.01 Feet;
3. N 05 Degrees 14'22" W a Distance of 148.97 Feet;
4. N 00 Degrees 04'18" E a Distance of 22.40Feet;
5. N 06 Degrees 54'13" E a Distance of 100.10 Feet to the Point of Beginning.
County of Garfield
State of Colorado
o
o
;*s*
3ie*
;-E; i i ii
''i
i I ; ; E ff Eigp EirE fiEicEE'i'i'- ;isE gE i
tIEl IiLi fiE,riiH'Eff
i,g,i,i,ii
ffgg ii fftiEEHEi iiffi' #
ffiffi**ffiff
=
;i
U
L
€
L
J{"
1:1.
!€
EaC)
:
.o
Ei
(!
oz
(.)
bod
-_v 6r
; r'-t\
O
EDN
a()
Lr
a-X0)
aa
E
E
(-)
z
C
C)
(!
a
a)
ti
U
O
!
cn
o
-o
o.
L
(,r u
--ula-9.i LU
^ -a c\.)'=vJ-dOrtr 6(-)tL(U
^H(;Z
^!'
d
Si
?*.^
aa
fr
(u
'Ufr
a-Y-oU
Iao
(.)
li'o
o\OON
L
Z.,+
o
\o
l1=----'
C.)\
()
lio
()
(n
+-iooL()
aa()
().! a.>
OJ?
-)u!l o'o (rugfrE
L--co E":. q
=Xvd
.n, a A*Y o 1.;6r(J--,.C- (l ir9Y.E
=H.-.iL-U
-u-dQo;* .\ \v Lav>.--2V
Ehe.9s,Gi : !
fthtr.9\U--> Q.y-o )
-A(h()(,(H-
Elaao o) c i: ..Aa^l'- H .Y O a)E>t+ 3>-v.9:gvu^cocj)*=5L >:i- ()
^>ou-v i B
ar-oH E'o.Y cg.Eor Cd!-Ar*-AE! o5*e.c(.l o'iL.P\
i'"" o'r - ra o't_q€ !; d
C'ir q
v!fro c'<l X ox-i-.cor >r= cd e
-!lvt-= o .^ - tL>(,F-(e () E 9O\
-8ts 9 F"t:1 ", E H'61E = I B.n-* Yl r q)---
F .=.= c.v)
fEEE35reE,b_ENcgilcsir,,nh--'-= - r i- Y (<
.r E AAaE EEF :g -- =-
c; U= B
= c i cG q E SSe. a.Es P,oS - &c,.,:=='--:rn>., -ci:,5p,p=Elf
-yjuX:ro,=O
= g H- E e E 5E o,,n-r - E-i C-l;-E.*trJo'U=u :'6 o Cd n,r EE5 = EEpsE= EE-: a = CE a a =!n-^-.-6>i:f=[:E;gE
--; o = + L; aE s I E E S aE€ h o aE.! =*T i
Et#i;=aE;:EE>.X!-.e-O\"cr*a!3Hf-Q2-E(l - 61 6 fi i- d -L - 0J9 - rE 6"": -8,* a
l#s E:: FE $EEx;EE;?i9:*Ha.''6="!3EEifr=-E=;=o=illaPdu(socdo'o9U..Dtr-5.n2itr,i.=sEr.'43.;:E€B;ETIsai
^5€'E?BH=-o_ry5.; C) ar (J_
6t i- c =o. Y E E E oo,9g=EETEg€ tr\J
;*EEEgufEEE*p=.=Eb€a9tss
-.:F Q.() J o (d (g= Q.c/)
J
fEl
Fr,r
z4i:tre3(,><t&l Fel<
ca: Y1Zl)
FSo
L, F .4rrud
Ed5n'.rtu
t-l
Fr
Fa
r*
00
(a
UJ
::
Il_1(-!.t
l|:
F ..'.:Ht;
la{ll:a
OE
-s
a AFFIDAVIT OF SIGN POSTING
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
I, David Hicks, being first duly sworn, state and allege as follows:
l. On March 5,2009, at approximately 10:00 a.m., I posted a notice poster in front
of the Glenwood Commercial buildings at 2550 Highway 82, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
A picture of the notice poster at the posting site is affached as Exhibit A.
AND FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Hicks
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
Acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me this 8th day ofApril ,2009 ,by David
Hicks.
SS
)
)
)
I
o
SS
)
)
)
WTTNESS my hand and officia! peql. ,
My commission "*pii.r, / t-/4- aO t e .
Notary
t hclienb\PriMcrk\7{Wcom-3229\Public Noti@\Sign Afiidavit 4-8-09 H@in8.$9d
a
o
o
;i;ffiiffi:';5..'&6*"*ru
il
.* 'o'W*ru
.t!
*
Y
_t
I
.: . '
b
c*
t
1\,.r..i O^-
\
t'\
-rn;
qJ
ej-J
\ to\
-:-L -\s',s
\NJ
\'
\-
\lrt=r-t-,
\
q)
t-
*-r,\
\\r*-..
()
\
\_>"
e,-
N>*tt {r- t \s rs
\\e-x
t:
\-rr
\,t-t
ari"-fJ
?*1 .^b1L =or^q ,il"t
.t^N1s o;^ ?,.oo-t
foo\t*n |" q.*t{-
ro"{- -
o o
A
bfL
l-,.t"
nIP R\ r,r
A)\o\,i
Turo^Lrl.
-irtu^,
?
nyf L, :^Lr , ,s l, )"
i h J
L-'
E
a,!
\,A I 3
S€c -. [,-,t *nL.^J 'lk..lc's O
o
a c. Consideration/approval of a petition for annexation of a
portion of Fourth 7th Street to the City of Rifle
d. Consideration/approval of an IGA with the City of Rifle for
maintenance and repair responsibility for roadways in
Rifle Airpark PUD
3. Commissioner Report:
1*4. Consent Agenda: ltems of a routine nature are placed on the Consent
Agenda to allow the Board of County Commissioners fo spend its time and
energy on more important items on a lengthy agenda. Any Commissioner or
any member of the public may request that an item be "REMOVED" from the
Consent Agenda and considered on the Regular Agenda.
a. Approve Bills
b. Changes to Prior Warrant List
10:00 a.m. COMMISSIONER BREAK
10:15 a.m. REGULAR AGENDA:
1. Assessor's Office:
''"-t3:8il:lla:'xt1;Jl,ffi,,'"',T:"^iIff BE.?BH,"J'
;'Pregnancy Resource Center, lnc., Abatement No. 10-005,
Schedule No. R311675 - Lisa Warder
, 2. Public l\Ieetings:
a. Fracing Act - Tara Meixcell with Grand Valley Citizens
r Alliance
b. Garfield County Commissioner action relative to 2008t
Dirid" Creek Seep - Lisa Bracken
c. Change in request for Department of Education Grant -
Krisan Crow
3. Public Hearings:
Noon LUNCH
1:00 p.m.COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
lndividuals may be limited to 5 minutes each.
1:15 p.m.REGULAR AGENDA: BUILDING & PLANNING ISSUES
1. Public l/eetings:
This agenda is subject to change, including the addition of items up lo 24 hours in advance or the deletion of
items at any time. All times are approximate. lf special accommodations are necessary per ADA, please
contact 945-5004 prior to the meeting.
Prepared by: Linda Morcom, Administrative Secretary
Posted on: Wednesday, September 9, 2009
o
a
H
Far:f/G945'E{31
hpgm@hPgmtech*om
Tt -q+
fnEUn'mmY GEOTECENICAL STUD-Y
PROPOSffi;TFICTTW,UTNOUSEDEVEI,OPMEI\IT
sr\drrE PRoPERTilrocuvv'ry:a sotrrs oF GLENwooD SPRINGS
cinrrsro co[DrrY' coLoRADo
JOB NO. 101 175
MARCH 30, 2001
PREPARED FOR:
PRINCE CREEK CONSTRUCTION
AT[N; DAVID EICKS
1051 co[INTr ROAD 111
CARBONDALE COLORADO 81623
TX
EEPWORTH . PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL' INC'
March 30,2;001
Prince Creek Construction
Attn: David Hicts
1051 CountY Road 11i
Carbondale Colorado 81623
David A. Y
Rev. by: SLP
DAY/djg
Job No. 101 175
Subiect: Report Transmittal' Preliminary C1eolg"Fd l*O'' Proposed
- officeiTVarehouse Devetop;#, s-itn Top?tty, Highwiy 82' South of
cr.*oou Spiiogt' Garfieid County' Colorado
Dear Mr, Hicks:
As requested, we have couducted a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed
development at the subject site'
Geologic constraints which will affect theproject
;r;kfrft *d hydrocompressive soils' Mitigatioo
part of the site development plans'
development include debris flow,
Jtl"ti conditions will be needed as
* SrU*.f"". conditions encountered il the exPlofatory pits excavated in the general
building ".rr, *ilil, oi..air* a9*",iiid .i"y.1ti"a 3nd gravel with cobbles and
boulders. The marix soils are nyaro"lffitlrJiul. Go*a*utEr was Bot etrcoutrtered in
,#d;iG" toilt were slightly moist to moist'
y Development above roughly- elevation 5-,929f*1,do!1llt aPpear feasible bTd on the
- geologic conditions-.
^-$Eh
footings priceo on the mt.oar i'iusous and designed for an
f*g#"*ir*x**f,l+r*m-N'i*,1{i;l*'#i'Hry**3i'*'
Thereportwhichfollowsdescribesgyrexplorat'9o:'YmEizesourfindings,and
presents ou, ,oorril."oO"rio^ trit"Uf" ilt ph*4g and preliminary tlesigu' It is
important *", *"i*."-"i* consultation a*iIg a.titf, ;g field services during
constructioo. r" rlJlt* *Oi"rii* G impte-meutation of the geotecbnical
recommendations.
Ifyou have any questions regarding this report' please cotrtact us'
SincerelY,
- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
P
,1 1
TABLE OF CONIENTS
PURPOSE AI{D SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
FIELD E]GLORAIiION
SUBSIIRFACE CONDMONS
PRELI}{INARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOT'NDATIONS
FI,oOR SI.{BS
UI{DERDRAIN SYSTEM
SITE GRADING
SITRFACE DRAINAGE
LIMITATIONS
REFERENCES .
FTGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EX(PI,oRATORY PITS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF HGLORATORY PITS
FIGI]RE 3 - LOGS OF HOLORATORY PITS
FIGURE 4- SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESI]LTS
FIGURE 5 - SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESI]LTS
FTGURE 6.- GRADATION TEST R:IESULTS
TASLEI-SI.IMMARYoFLAB0RAToRYTESTRESULTS
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
nt H.P GEOTECH
1
PURPOSE A].{D SCOPE OF STUDY
This rryort presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical study for a
proposed office/warehouse development to be located on the smith PloPerry' Highway
82, south of Glenwood Springs, Garfietd County, Colorado. The project site is showu
on Fig. 1. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical
engineeringseryicestokinceCreekConstruction,rlatedFebruary2s,200|.
AfieldexplorationProgramconsistingofexploratorypits*a.sconductedto
obtaininformationonthesubsurfaceconditions.Samplesofthesubsoilsobtained
duringthefielde4plorationweretestedinthelaboratorytodeterminetheir
classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristiCI' The
results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop
recommeEdationsforprojectplanningandprelirninarydesign.Areviewofthe
geologic conditions at the site was also done' This report summarizes the dataobtained
durhgthisstudyandpresentsourconclusionsandrecommendationsbasedonthe
proposed development and subsurface conditions encountered'
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Theproposeddevelopmentwi]lconsistofseveraloffice/warehousebuildings
conceptuallylocatedonthesiteasshownonFig.l.Weassunethebuildingswillbe
twostory,wood-framestructutes,possiblywithpartialolfuubasementlevels.Grouud
floors will probabiy be slabon-grade. The development will be serviced with individual
oncepreliminarybuildingandgradinghavebeendeveloped,weshouldbe
contactedtoreviewtheplansandperforrnadditionalanalysesasneeded.
\\
H-P GeorrcH
_1 -
Thesiteconsistsofabout4acreslocatedadjacentthesouthernlimitsoftheCity
ofGlenwoodSpringstothenortheastofllighway32.Theterrainismoderatelysteepto
steep, southwest facing hillside with slope grades ranging from about 25 to 4STo in the
uPpeleasternpartandL0to20%inthedownhillwestempart.Theelevationofthesite
pnSesfromabout5830feettoabout6000feet'TheGlenwoodDitch,whichis
abandoned, closses the northeast part of the property (see Fig. 1). The sitb is ocrupied
byseveralexistingstnrctulesincludingaresidenceaadamobilehomeasshownonFig
1. portions of the site have undergone some previous grading consisting apparent of
shallowcutsandfills.Vegetationconsistsofgrass,weeds,brushandsomeuees.
SITE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
+ The Glenwood springs Metropolitan fuea regional geologic hazard study
indicates the site is exposed rc debris flow, rockfall and hydrocompressive soil hazards
(Lincoln.Devore,1978).TheLincol*Devorereportfoundthedebrisflow,rockfalland
hydrocompressivesoilhazardsrisktobesevere'RegionalmaPpitrgoftheGlenwood
SpringsareabyKirlfiamaldothers(1995)indicatesthesurficialsoildepositsare
eolluvium and younger d-obris flow deposits . .r - --^r^^+ nrar
$. The geologic eonditions at the site should be considered in the project planning'
.!ve berieve the debris flow and rockfa, hazard risks in the upper' steeper part of the
sitearesevereandwillprobablyprecludedevelopmentinthatarea.Development
shouldbefeasibleinthelesssteepterrainprovidedthepoteotialgeologichazardsare.
mitigatedasneeded.Mitigationofthedebrisflowandrockfallhazardsmayconsistof
bermsordeflectioBstrucures'Recommendationstolimitthehydrocompressivesoil
riskareprovidedinthe.heliminaryDesignRecommendation,,section'
xWhenpreliminarybuildingplanshavebeendeveloped,weshouldconduct
gedlogic assessments to develop recorrmendations for mitigation of the debris flow and
.V:H-P Georecu
-3-
\ rockfa, hazards. we expect that the geologic constraints and mitigation will probably
makedevelopmentaboveroughlyelevationS,g20feetatthesiteinfeasible'
FIELD EELORATION
Thefieldexplorationfortheprojectwasconductedon.MarchT,2ooT.Seveu
exploratory pits were excavated at the locations shown on Fig' 1 to evaluate the general
subsufaceconditions.Thepitsweredugwitharubber-tired.backhoe.Thepitswere
logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical' Inc'
Samplesofthesubsoilsweretakeowithrelativelyundistrrrbedanddisturbed
samplingmethods.DepthsatwhichthesarrplesweretakenareshowoontheLogsof
ExploratoryPits,Fig.2.T\esampleswerereturnedtooullaboratoryforreviewby
the project engineer and testing'
ST]BSURFACE CONDMIONS
* Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig.Z..ThezubsoilsconsistofaboutVztol'lhfeetgfman-placedfixor/zfootof
organictopsoiloverlyingmediumdense,siltyclayeysandandgravelcontainingcobbles
aud sma'll boulders extending to the pit depths of' 6 1/z to 8 feet'
I.aboratorytestingperformedonsalrrplesobtainedfromthepitsincludednatural
moistrire content and density, gradation anaryses and Atterberg limits' Results of swell-
consolidatioq testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples' preseuted on
Fig'4and5,indicatelowcompressibilityundernaturalmoistureconditionsandlight
loadi4withalowcollapsepoteTialwhenwettedugderaconstautlightload.The
samples showed moderate compressibility when loaded after wetting' Results of
gradation analyses performed on disturbed bulk sam-ples (minus 5 inch fraction) 9f the
natural granular soils are shown on Fig' 6. The laboratory testing is summarized in
TableI-
!.r H-P GeorEcH
-4-
)l No free water \ryas encountered in the pits at the time of excavation and the
subsoils were slightly moist to moist'
} PRELMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
.YTheconclusionsandrecomrrendationsPresentedbelowarebasedonthe
proposed developnent, subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory. piu, and
our experietrce 1g the area. The recommeodations are suitable for planning and
preliminary desigu but site specific studies should be conducted for the individual
buildings
FOUNDATIONS
Based on the natue of the proposed construction, lightly loaded spread footings
bearing on the natuml subsoils should be suitable for building supPort' The foundatioos
should be heavily reinforced and constructed itr a box-like configuration to limit the
effects of differential settlement if the bearing soils become wetted' Potential sources of
weuingincludesurfacewaterponding,excessiveirrigationandutihtylineleaks.
Precautions should be taken to prevent wetting of the bearing soils'
WeexpectthefootingscaubesizedforanallowablebearingPlessllleonthe
order of 1500 psf. Existing fi[], debris and topsoil encountered in building areas should
berenovedtoexposethenaturalsoils..Nestedbouldersandloosematrixsoilsmay
need freatmeot such as entarging ;sstings or placing compacted fill or concrete backfill'
Foundationwallsshouldbedesignedtospanlocalanomaliesandtoresistlateralearth
toadingswhenactingasretainingstructures.Belowgradeareasandretahingwalls
should be protected ftom weuing and hydrostatic loading by use of an underdrail
system.Thefootingsshouldhaveaminiinumdepthof36inchesforfrostprotection.
FLOOR SLABS
Slab-on-gradeconstructionshouldbefeasibieforbearingonthenaturalsoilsor
compactedsructuralfill.Therecouldbesomepostconstructionslabmovementifthe
t\H-P GeorEcrt
-5-
subgradebecomeswetted.Toreducetheeffectsofsomedifferentialmovement,floor
slabsshouldbeseparatedfromallbearingwallsandcolumnswithexpansionjoints.
Fioor slab con'ol joints should be used to rduce damage due to shrinkage cracking' A
udEimum 4 inch thick rayer sf frssfiaining gravel shourd underrie basement level slabs
to facilitate 6ftainage.
T]NDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although fiee water qas not encountered in the exploratory pits, it haq beeu our
experience in the area that local perched groundwater catr develop during times of heavy
precipitation or seasonal runoff. An uuderdrain system should be provided to Protect
below-gradeconstructiou,suchasretai.uingwallsandbasementareasfromwettingand
hydrostatic pressure buildup. The drains should consiit of drainpipe surrounded above
the invert level with ftss{reining granular material' The drain should be placed at each
level of excavation and at least I foot below lowest adjaceirt finish grade and sloped at a
minimumlvoloasuitablegravityoutlet.Animperviousmembranesuchas30mil
PVCshouldbeplacedbelowthedraingravelinatroughshapeandattachedtothe
foundation wali with mastic to Prevent wetting of the bearing soils'
SITE GRADING
* The risk of construction-induced slope hstability at the site should be low
(roughlybelowelevadons,gzofeet)providedthebuildingsarelocatedinthelessstecp,
Iowerpartandcutandfilldepthsarelimited.Cutdepthsforthebuildingpadsand
drivewayaccessshouldnotexceedaboutl0feet.Fil]sshouldbelimitedtoabout
l0feetdeepandshouldbecompactedtoat|east9l%ofthemaximumsundardProctor
densityDealoptimummoisturecoDtent.Priortoflllplacement,thesubgradeshouldbe
carefuJlypreparedbyremovingallvegetation'topsoilandexistingfiIlanddebris.The
fill should be benched into the portions of the trillside exceed'ing 20% grade' The on-
site soils excluding oversized rock and topsoil should be zuitable for use in elBbanka€Dt
fills
\:-
H-P Georecn
-6-
Y Permaoent uuetained cut and fill slopes should be graded at}boizontal to
I vertical or flater and protected against erosion by revegetation,'rock riprap or other
mearrs. Oversized rock from smlrnkment fill construction will tend to collect on the
outer face. A protection fence should be provided downslope of the embalkneot toe to
preventrockfallintodevelopedPropertyandonHighways2.Thisofficeshouldreview
site grading plans for the project prior to constructiotr'
SURFACE DRAINAGE
ThegradingplanforthesuMivisioushouldconsiderruuofffromsteepuphill
slopesthroughtheprojectandatindividualsites.Watershouldnotbeallowedtopond
which gsutd imPact slope stabiliry and foundations' To limit hfilratiou into the bearing
soils next to buildings, exterior bactfll should be well comPacted and bave a positive
slopeawayfromthebuildingforadistanceofatleastl0feet.Roofdownspoutsand
drains shourd discharge well beyond the rimits of a, bactfi[ and taudscape irrigation
shouldberesEicted.TheexistingGlenwoodDitchisparttyfilledwithdebrisfrom
recetrt flows. The ditch should be cleaned out to provide interim debris flow protection
until the site is develoPed'
LIMITATIONS
Thisstudyhasbeencouductedaccordingtogenerallyacceptedgeotechnical
engineeringprinciplesandpracticesitrthisareaatthistime'Wemakenowarranty
either expressed or imPlied. The conclusions and recoomendations submitted in this
report are based upon the data.obt2ined from available geologic t*T^-1"^:::::::T"
pits located as shown on Fig. i, th" proposed type of coDstruction and our expensnce n
thearea.ourfindingsincludeinterpolationandextrapolationofthesubsurface
couditions iddntified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions
maynotbecomeevideutuntilexcavationisperformed.Ifconditionsencountered
during construction aPpeal different from those described in this report' we should be
notifiedsothatre-evaluationofthe.recommeudationstrIZlybemade.
!U
H-P GeorecH
-7-
Thisreporthasbeenprepuedfortheexclusiveusebyourclientforplanning
and preliminary design purPoses. we are trot responsible for technical interpretations
byothersofourinformation.Astheprojectevolves,weshouldprovidecontinued
consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review aod monitor the inplementation
of our recommendatiom' Siglificant design changes may require additiola! analysis or
modificatioffitotherecommendationspresentedherein.Werecommendon.site
observationofexcavatioosandfoundationbeadngsEataandtestingofstnrctrrralfillby
a represeotative. of the geotechnical engineer'
RespectfirllY submittid,
,INC.
David A. Young P
Reviewed bY:
Steven L.Pawlak?. E.
DAYidjg
RE,r'ER.ENCE"S
Lincoln_Devore, 19Tg. Geologic Haards of ttu c"y?* slings Maropolitan Area'
&rfietd co;wlry, blorado. coroi# c"orogical survey open File Report
Kirltram, R.M- aod Others' lgg5' Geobgic Map of tlu G\vnoa Spings
Quadr anste' A;;:; 6u''v' c"; f'; ;'d" : cltoraoo Geolo gical Survev oPen
7&10.
t{
6
4-z<:t
File MaP 95-3
H.P GEOTECH
s9 10
s900
5890
\t
\
5880
EXISTII'IG
TRAE,ER
EOME
5920
t1
t\
s93 0
I
5940
\
PTT
s960
5950
s970 59 80
5990
\\
>*
7
I
ITP
82
tta
^*,
s940
tl
CONCEP|rtIAL
BIIII,DII{G
LOC.NIIONS
(TITPICAI,)I\ PIT
\
5930
PIT 4
\
5920
5910
\
\
\
\z'---z ry*- ,
\\ \r 'tsin1>
Xnul.s {5t,
I\^ $-t t{$\L
fi ou\t-ct
r\
\1
)
-\
I
\
\
areao$r] !ff,
PIT 1 s89 0
s Q sto
5880
*Qru
{artrrar
{
_PIT
\
1-
PIT3 \
Fis. l-
ON OF EXPI,ORATORY PITS
GEOIIECHIII
PA9JT,AK
INCCAl,101 L75
t\
PIT 1
ELEV.=5883'
PTA 2
ELEV. =5881'
PIT 3
ELEV. =5902'
PIT 4
ELEV. =5885'
0
0
rJoo
tlr
t
,q!)aoa
WC=7.4
DD=95
-2QQ=60
tlC=10 .9
DD=103
-200=52
Lt =23
PI=4
HC=12.0
DD=103
Dooh
I
.q
JJAoo
wc=8.3
DD=104
-2 00-3 5
LL=22
PI=1
wc=12.3
DD=106
5
5
I
I
I
I
-J
+4=60
_200=19
I
I
I
-J
10
10
PIT 5
gLEV.=5909'
PIT 5
ELE\/. =5893'
PIT 7
ELEI/. =5907 '
0
0
t)oo
It{
I
.4D
P{oa
Ir +4=76r -200=11
J
5
$o
(D
h
I
.c
JJaoo
5 I
t
I
I
t)
10
10
Elpla'naEiorr of symbols is strown on Fig:3
Note I
Fisr. 2
i,OGS OF EXPL'ORATORY PITSIIEPWORTH-PAWLAK
ce'riinciagrcAr., rllrc'101 1-75
lq
I,EGBID:{-to sandlr claYeY silt' moist'
E
a
ffi
.FII,L;
dark
manplaced, siltY sand.and gravel
b;;, some trash/d'ebris'
)h
TOPSOIL; organic sandy clayey silt' moisL' dark brown"
lF --r ^*-ll Lrnrr]riers. medir.rm dense,
SAIID AI{D GRA\|EL (SM-GM) ; till cobbles a-n'd smal1 boulders' med
slightrIy noisr"rJ-moi"i, =.a-b;;;; rocks are'prirnarily angular
sandstone.
F
2'Diameter hand driven liner sample'
t:DisEurbed' bulk samPle'
NO]ES:
ed Marclr 7 2 0 0 l_w1 th a backho e
Elrpl orats ory Pr.t E were exc avat on
1
2
3
asured approxima t eIy bry pac ins frorn
LOCats tons of erq)loratory Pits were
site Plan Provided
me
f ea t ure ob the
oratory Pitrs
1an provided'
obts a ined try int erpo 1^14 tsion between
E1 evations o f the e>(p1 were
corrt ours on ttre I t e p acctrraE10nsstrou1dbecolasidered.e
aq:lorato ry PiE 1 oca t ].ons and eleva t
4 The I ed by tshe method 11S ed.t o tshe d.egree am5)1 represent trhe
*ri h gradualshowntheexl)1 ora t.olY p 1 t 1 o!t s
Ttre 1 lne betrween ma terials on and trans I t IONS5boundarIbetweenmaterialtypes
aSrproximate e s
1 the p I t at the t,une o f excawats rng
6 free wa t er wa encollnt ered.n rmeNo
ll1 1 evel may OC cur wl-rh t
F 1 uct uat aons wa t er
n Laboratory Testing Results :
WC=
DD=
+4=
-2 00
uv-
rr-
WatercorrEent(B)
o=y u"o"icY ( Ptf )
i-"i"Eot re-tained on No' 4 sreve
= Percent Passrng No' 200 sieve
Licruidlimit ( * )pii=Li"itvrndex(*)
Fiq. 3
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITSIIEPWORTH - PAWI,AK
GEOTECHNICA],, INC.1-01 ]-75
4a
Dry DensitY = 95 Pcf
Somple oft SondY OoYaY Silt Motrix
Frorn: Pit 1 of 2.5 Feet
Mobture Content:7.4 percent
Compresdon0
1
N
c.odooLo
Eoo
2
3
+
5
6
7
I
Cl
10
10
APPUED PRESSURE .:-. ksf0.1 1.0
100
Fig. 4
S}UELL CONSOLIDAT1ON TEST RESULTS
EE8*SH'"it'*',f5-101 175
1r
Molsfure Content -
Dry DensitY =
Sonple of SrltY CIoFY
From: Pit 2 ol7 F*l
12,3 Percent
106 Pcf
Sond Motrir
uPon
o movernent
0
NI
co
DDoLo
Eao
2
3
4
10 10t)
o-1 1.0
APPUED PRESS'RE - ksf
o
1
N
co
oDoLo
Eoo
2
5
4
5
10
APPUED PRESSJRE - l€f
LO1 percerrtContentllctisture
o31 PcfDmsitYDry
MotrixsiltooFYSondYoftVery
From:Pit4ct4Feet
Co.mPression
uPon
wetting
o.l 1.O
loo
Fig. 5
SVJELL CONSOLIDAT1ON TEST RESULTS-PA 'I'LAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
HEP
101 175
q>
sErE ALrLY$
All Lllss cLE i s(tJrnE 0?oEl6
TE NEADaICE
us- sillorfiD SEFE 1l/i t f.' tr
,+tlt to
2+
{ll
o
lo
HE
tBL
7ln
t5 FL conlrt liDL +Er.tst
s
&
Io
2!oaFlrl aO
E,
L250td
3Eotd
TL
omZooef,
F8Zulotoffi
o-
70
E
to
s
D
to
o
EsuJ r9.o 5'5 * ,r1"205
too
-@ .G .61 -sle 'ol7 gl4 JS .Ut '!m 1't! 23 1'75
.al
DIAMTiER OF PARII CLES IN MILLIMEIERS
oogrEs
CUY TD AT
% SILT AND CLAY 19
PLAST]CITY INDEX %
%
$ ennla 60 SAND 21
UAUID UMIT
Sl,JvlPLE OF:
%
FROM: Pit '1 ot 6 thru 8'5 Feet
sil CloyeY SondY Grqvel with
CEAR SIIJAFE .FBTTG
nE ElDll6 us. srAr.I)AFD Sfi'E stt rl+'ttt .t Erf f,l6
z{ }F..lS llt
7lRt5 IL tEtl.4l.'t 1ITL
0
10 B
7p
60
50
44,
m
()z
tn
U'
.L
t-zlrl()Eul(L
opr
aFId ao
d.
la
ttJ
P""
LJL
70
E
s
D
10
0s
to0 gt 'g1+ '1$ '-s rd l'lt ?-u a'7s stzs lr! 5',5 7s2 tE 20:t
1D
.oot l[tr -G IPt 'gl9
OF PAR]ICLES IN MI LLIMETERS
DIAMETER
ctrY ro sLT
AND CLAY 11 %
q
ot4thru6Feet
SAND 13 %SILT
GRA\EL 76 %
UQUID UMIT
PLASNCITY INDEX
4snupur or Silty clopy Sondy Growl with FR0M: Pit 7
Cobbles
-mE
xllLlssSEIE
crExs
Fig. 6
GRADATION TEST RESULTSHEPWORTH
GEOTECHN
_PAWLAK
ICAL, INC101 175
4:
gr
GPo-
J()AOaE
g
x
LP(o2
P
6
q)
oo
E
o
U)
o>9E-Oc-o(oo
@()
)ro:,
a'E65ie6o
x
LPo
E'c
c,a
@
go
!6
x
LP(!
1Ccoa
Q)
o
o
v
@
o
(J
d
=U)
E
c,ax
>E
=(o;>
=a
0)
oo
EC(EAx
>E
=(U;>
o>9E-oc!oo
LOO
>-co.g
e=6rie
aO
#+lf *x .a(4
o{-
=EEa-
EEh
o
E
a
J
o
UEE!
E
9x6HQ47!E-
{
6ge=e
fJ
NN
o)N
Eg;E
oio O)t.C)
cr)
Nto
zo
F
aio
o_it e.l
0r,
*
Jg
Eo
o(o
@
t-.
JL<9^EZAEEEE-'zu
.r()io)
+o (oo cf)o coo
,OL<=ziEEEkoozEo
nf-
co
co
q
Nr
6l
o
q
N
7
(
l)o
g
Ja
E
o
riUC sN
s
@
I(o
I.o f.c.l
(o
I{
E N (r.L
q4
r,r\
o
ciz
cDo.)
o2
tnrl-
3A
zr
6ffiIJI FFO>*
rJ.t - H(9urF
Jd:z@dlfB
=r+o
FEoa
==O.a
IJJ
t
{
q
H Hepnonfi-Prwlak Gcoechsicai, ing
5020 Couruy Roed 154
Glrrrwood Sprbes. Colorrd.r 8150I
Pk'nc: 97O9{5.?988
Fax:9'10.9154151qil8: hpgeo0lpgeotech.com
April 6,2005
Prince. Crcek Coustmction
Attn:.Fred Camao,n
2520 Sordh Crrand Avenue, Suirc 210
Gienwood Springs, Colorado 81d0I
JobNo. 105 217
subjeeil Revieu,r of Proposed Retaining wa[ Designr, Glenwood comrnoos -
Phase I, Highuay 82, South of Glcnwood Springs, Garfeld Coupty,'
Colorado
::nr,.we heve reviewed the dcsis* for theproposed site retaiainswal in the
areas of Buiidings I aud 2 curreotly rrnder coDslrructiou at the subject site;- The reyiew
was perfomced aspart of orrprofessional services aerccrrcd with nince Creck
Construction daled March Z, 2A05. Heprwor&-pawlak Gmtcchnical previously conducted
a prgliqinary subsoil study at dre site and presentcd our findiags in a report dated March
30,2001, Joblfo. 101 175.
Pruposcd g;131lyqllr: The site retainirg walls are plauned along the east and west sides
gf the pronoty De1l$Jildinsl-lod t The walls m the east si& will rghin cit aud be
Aom ahorrt 3 !o 14 fcct higE:-ffi-Fan oristing rcsidenpc above thc proposcd rvall at
aboul 5 feet from thc poperfy line adjaceat &e deepcst anlarea- KurE and Associates
$; aeli.mect a oashin-placc conc,rete wall system for this area The walls along the west
side will primuily retain fiI aad be &om about 3 to l 6 fest higt. Some of thcJe,walls
will re.tain run-offdetmtionponds (Pon& B aod Q adjacent thc wcst side of Buildings 1
and2. it is desired to use sstone Strong" block gravity retaining wall system, vjherefpiUl"' The systcm consists ofprccast concretE open cell blocls and are proposed to bc
placed on a concrste footing and bacttrIlcd with cmsbed rock. The tecbni;al inlbrmation
on the modular blo* wall systcrn was provided by Tcrry Kirk.
Conclusions end Rccomrnendetions: It should be feasible to use the Stonc Strong block
Ielaining wall systcm for portions ofthe watls at the sitc. The primary exc.eptioa is the
tall wall segtiou below the e*isting residc,uce whcrc there is a risk of wall rnovernent End
ground sedement that could cause diskess to the building, The cast-in-place concrete
wall proposcd by Kurtz and Associates qppears suitable for the att wall-seotiot below tbe
residerce to help lirait tlc pot€trtial for unall moycmeml An uuderdrain should be
provided b€hind thc walls to preveot buil&up of hydmstatic prcssurc. The baqkfill of the
cast-in-place cortcrcte below an effestive I:f sbpe bcyond the residence fouodation
should tc a struchnal material, such as CDor Class 5 or 6 aggegate base couise,
compacted to at least 95% of the maximrru standard Proctor density (SPD) at a moisttue
contenl within aLnut}o/o of optimum. We estimatc this to be about tbe lower Ii3 of the
Parlcer 303-84ii7119 . ColoradoSprings 719.633-5502 . Silverrhome 97A448-19g9
HEPWO$MI . PAUII.AK GEgTECHNICA L
)b?
l09-))3
Z7/73'd FOilo3C d-H Z?ztrl %Z-BA-A*)
HEPUTOETH.6EOTECHNICAL
5020 County Road 134
Scnvrcod Epringre, co 81601
Phone: 970€4li-7988
Fax: 970445{454
hoorc6hooeotecficom
Report of Magonry Grout Testing
Prince Creek.Con#ruction
David Hicks
2520 South Grand Avenue, Ste, 210
Ghnwpod Sdrings, CO 8f 601
Job No: fi5217
Project Glenwood Commercial Proiec! Hwy 82, South Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Date:
Sheet
+7-O5
1of 1
Placemenl Location:Unft 1, Front Wall, I't Lifi
Typ" e-&; oi:specirnens: 6ast in block cells and a 3'diameter core cut
Siri,pfli- iaiuy Concreh Mk Desigrr No: Time Batehed: . -
Ticket No: Truck No:
#,4-F*-
Field Testing lnformation:
Time SarnPled: 1:30Pm
Air TemPerature: -'
Slump: - in.
Sample TemPerature:
WaterAdded:
o
28728Age
5-D5S4-14Tested
25,21314,23814,47IiFmum Load (lbs)
6.06.06.00n)
3.003.00 3.00Diameter (in)
7.077.077.07Area
2.O2.0LO
1.01.01.0UD Conedion
357020t0t-2050ComFressive Strength
(psi)
Specified Strength: 2000 psi @ 28 Days
Prograss RePort Grout was cast into block by corrtractor and pieked up by HP Geotech +1145.
*' Core had a.de$est along the side.
Copies:
Xurtz a A.ssociatee - Brian Kurtz
cas?y Concrele - Shewn Vondette
Technician Revieircd BY
zT/ffi'd I r,0
Ftf,=rof5 d-H zv|\l 9iaw-6a-Aw1
HEPryYOf;TTH.PAWLAK GEOTECI,INICAL
5gZ0 CountY Road t54
Ghnwood SPrings, co ElBOl
Phone: 970€1tl-79EE
Far:97044584&4
hpgeo@iPgeotech-com
REPORT OF CONCRETE TEST DATA
Prince Crcqk Construction
David Hic.ks
2520 South Grand Avrnue, Ste. 210
Glenwood SPrtngs, CO 81601
Project Glenwood Commons Project, Hv'ry 84 South Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Placement Location: Walls, Eastern End of Euilding
Supplien'CaseYConcrete
Truck No: '17
Ticket No: 125247
Mix Design: 3500 P$i
Method of Placamenl PumP
Cubic Yds: 10 at 30 of 60
Sample Point tnrck diacharg€
Job No. 1o5217
Date Cast 3-2-06
Sheet I ofl
Time Batched:
Time Anived:
Time Placed:
9:58
l0:20
t0;34
Time SamPled:
Air Ternp:
Concrete TemP
WatprAdded:
t0:4{l
510
690
5 gallons
Slump:
Air Content
wet unit wt:
51hin.
5.4Yo
137.0Pcr
Recommended SErcificationsSlump: 4 in.
Air Contentl 4.6%
Time Clinders'CEst 10:55
InitialCura 24 hrs onsite
Date StriPPed: 3-3'os
Field Storage: insul box under blanket
CylTemp @ Piof UP: " Mirr/Max:61"182"
Comprcssive Strength
Remarks
Compreesive
Shength
p3i
Area
in?
Diarneter
m.
Load
lbs.
DateAge Days
34002,e97
t7
47560,
12.694.023-302g
$pecified Strengt,: 3500 psi @ 28 days
Progress Report Contractor and s upplier were notified of test results.
Copies:
Xurtz a AEEociEteE - Brian Kurts
Ctsey Concrete'- Shewn Vondette
Julia Rebel Michael'Evans
Fleld Technician .Reviewed BY
I 1
zl/v1'd t-D3lo39 +-H E':TT 9EBZ-68-AULI
HEPIVORM.GEOTECHNICAL
5020 County Road t54
GlenttPod EPrings, 60 8t 601
Phonc; 970445-79E8
Fax: 970-941i€,f54
hpgcoenPgcotcch.com
REPORT OF GONCRETE TEST DATA
Job No,
Date Cast
fi5 217
3-14-05Pnnce Creak Gonstruction
David Hicks'
2520 Soirth Grand Avenue, Ste.210
Gt6nwood SPrings, CO 81601 Sheet I of I
Project:Glenwood Commerciat Proiect, Hwy 82, South Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Placement Loeation: Walls, Wcst End Building #2
Tirne Batched:
Time Anived:
Time Placed:
Supplier: Casey Goncrete
Truck No: ?1
'l'icket No: 1254gl-
Mix Design:
Methodof'Plaoement PumP
Time SamPled:
Air TemP:
Concreta TemP:
WaterAdded:
1:28
2t0Q
2:10
Cubic Yds: 4at11ol44
Sample Point truck discharge
Soeeificatioris
Slump:
Air Content
Min/Max M'EA"
2l2O SlumP: 4 in'
32" Air Content 6.0 %
6Zo Wet UnltWt 135.0 Pcf
10 gallons added bY PumP oPetator
Specifled Strangth: 30fi) psi @ 2t days
Progress RePort Contractor and supplierwerc notifpd of test esults.
$hane Ehlers
Field Technician
Cooies:
rurt, a Associates - Brian Kurtr
Cesey Concrctr - tha$m Vondette
4 in.
5-8 %
Time CYlinders Cast 2:30
tnitial Cure: 24 hrc onsite
Date StiPPed; 3'15'O5
FieldStorage: insul box
CylTerrrP @ Pick UP: 14o
HichaelEvans
Reviewed BY
Compressive Strength
Remarks
Compressive
Sbengith
psi
Area
in2
Diarneter
in
Load
lbs.
DateAge Days
4.3-173
30102.697
l2f,o+1
1z8
7r/90'd ) t)-H3flo39 d-H EF:TT 9ABZ-GA-AVA
HEFY,ORIH. FA\IILAK GEOTECHNICAL
5020 Courfi Road 154
Glcmrood gprings. CO 81601
Phonr:97044$70E8
Fexl0?0{45gl3t
hg!eo@hpoeotlcfi.cofit
Report of Masonry Mortar Testing
Prince Crcek Construction
David Hicks
2520 South Grand Avenue, Ste. 210
Glenwood Sprlnge, CO 81501
Job l',lo: 105 217 Date:
Sheet:
4-11-05
l of 1
Project Gtenwood CommercialProjec( W 82, South Glenwood Spfings, Colorado
Placemont Location:FrontWall, Unit l, South End,llth CoursE
Type &$ize ofSpecimens: 2 x 2cxrbes
Supplier: Fprmanent Bldrrs MLr Design No: job mixed
Type: N
Tirne Batctred: not observed
Field Testing lnformation:
Tirne SampleC:. 3:15
AirTemperature; 63o Sample Temperature: 61o
T
Specified Strengfi: 1800 psi @ 28 DaYs
28726Age Days
5-95€4-18Date Tested
12,915949612,973
-Maximum
Load{lbs)
2.O 2.02.0Length (in)
LO 2.42.0Vlidfi (in)
404.04.0Area(in')
323023743218StrengthCornpressive
(psi)
Progress Repqrt' Sampled from tub on scafrolding.
Copies:
Kurtr E Astociatq! - Brian Kurtz
Caeey Concrete r $hmvn Vondette
Michael.Fvanr
Field Teehnician By
z1/%'d
\11
FD31039 d-H Ei:TT 94A?-6A-AW1
TEPWORTH. PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
Mav 24,.2005
Prirrce' Creek Construoion
Attn: Frbd Camcron
2i20 South Grarul Avenue, Suite 210
Glenwooct Springs, Cotorado 81601
Subjcct
Dear Fred:
nutnher
i'icptvurJ,-I'utrlitl, Cicttteclri,i. l,i, i:rc
5ttlir C*:uurr Rou.l 1.1+
(.ilcrtnu,tl S!,rirtj:s' (-i,lttrilii' :' i r"il
[tol',i: t)7('n.ti45.?trllli
r :.,--, 9711-{){ i-f..1 5 {
turlil: hpggfihpgn,t "cit..t,:::
Jcrb Ntr. 105 217
H
*
\rq-\\q
Comments Regarding Rctaining WaIl Construction, Northeast }ortion trf
Glcnwood Commons - Phasc I, Highway 82' South of Glenwo<vJ
Springs, Garfield CountY, Colorado
As iequested, we arc providing comments regarding cotts.trucilon of the cast-in-place
concretc retaining *"ll ,o Ue f Jcated in the nortfteast portion of the subject site-
Hepworih-pawlak Geotechnisal previ ously providal re..?Try]fli ons fo r w a1l'des i g ns
at tlrctjtcsubmitring ourfiudings in a repoit dated April 6'2005 undel the ahove job
The reraining wall will be located bclow the residence adjacent the northeast prclerty
iine. fhc wall will be cast iFplace concrete construction as previously recornmended
to lirnir.the poleiltial for slope movernent aftl disffess to thercsidsnce' of concern is
ilre"porential for st,rpe iruirU'itlty below the residence during construction ofthe wall' ft
is desired ro Ese rlrain gravel ", thi lower portion of the wall backfitl to expcdite thc
backJill placernent ura-*ir*ire vibration dwing the backfill operations.
The wa-ll should be cxcavated, constructed aud bacHilled in at least two sedioBs below
the reSidence to rimii the ,irr "r slope instability. There is astep iu wall f99tfns.
elevation trelow ahout the middle o[ the residence thar can serve as the divide point for
the suge<i .on truction.
-
ri,. *rrr backlill can consist of drain gravel to within aht:ut 3
feetofthegrounclsurfaceprovidedthebackfillisplaclrtinrelativelythinliftsarrd
conrpacred *ittl ,.orrui;;i;;- of a vibratory .o*ir.tor' Th: upper 3 fcet (or'more) of
the backtill "uo "o*iri,rf
rhe orsite suil, "lrnpa"tua-
t1 prwiously rectlrrtrnenticti' lhe
drain gravel should te separatea from the on-sitt soils by filteI fahric to ptevent
;il g r:f fines from the soil into the drain gravel
Ihc ret;Unirtg wali scctions below the rcsidence should be constructed aBd backiilletl in
atirnetlrnrannertoretlucetherimctlreexcavationcutslopeisexposcd.Srrrfacewater
stroulcl not be ail.wed to discharge on,n ,rrd erode the exposul cut slope' Thb cut slope
;iilil i;;';J; r"t trg"'i'i-ittttititv on a regular basis' lf signs of instr$ilitv are
ohservcd, we should-tre ciiltactcd to Ohsitve the conditions and pfovide
I',arker. .iir.j-$4i .7L19 o colora,lo sptings 71g"633'5552 r silvertl:ornc 970-45ij'l9ii9
el./LB'd \lrF
H33r039 d-H lF:tr'i 9@,Z-6A-L$A
Itince Cteek Construction
May 24.20A5
Prge?'
rccomrgeidations for remedial repair. Other recommendatioru provide in our prdvious
report that are applicable shoultl also bc observed
If you hAve any quscrions or nccd further assistance, please call our office'
.Sincoreiy,
HEPWORTH . PAWLAK GEO'TECHMCAL, INC.
David.A,,Young, P.E.
Rev. b1':.DEII
DAY/djb
cc: Ku'rtz and Associates - Attn: Brian Kurg
c#gccrr
V?'tlT W&).HAzl/w'd
JobNo.105217
)\i
rn3J-0:lEl d+l
5020 CountY Rold f54
GldilYood SPriltgt, CO E1601
Phom:3?0aa&70EE
Fil: t7G9a5{aL
hPg'toehPgrotmh.oom
REPORT OF CONSTRUGNON ACTIVITIES
Prinoe Creek Congtruction Job No.: 10rO 217
DrYid Hlcks
2520 South Gnnd Awnuc, Ste.210
Glonwood SPrtngs, CO 81601
project Glenwood comrnaroial Prt icct, Hwy E2, South Ghnwood
Date: 5-345
Sheet 1 oi 1
Springt, Colorado
Weatlrer Conditiors and Temperature: party cloudy, 50'so
Contrac{o/ s Activiti es:
Major EquiPment:
H P Geotactr's Site Activlties: Sitc vlrit to oollcst a umPh of ProP ossd onstb backfill mabrlal
for lrboratolY terffng; tht rrsult! trr ettrchod.
Verbal Communication Wth:
Cooirs:
Xurtz a AsEoci4es-Brian Kurtr
Tim Banctt M
B'y
zl/54'd IW
Fleld
H)3rO39 d-H Wtll W)W-6*LWI
Particle Size Distribution Report
; ;9 r
,ii
::lt.t.
100
90
80
70
60
ii
li
:,
!l
,.::i-i
,:i!
I
I
lt
L2sorr Io
E,u.r 40
;'i
i'--;'
I
30
GRAIN SIZE - mm
!;i
.t
iii:
til.
iiill r
il
:'lI
I x
t
:i
I
It
t:ii
I
I
I
I
Clientl Prlncc Crcck Constructiolr
Proiecti Glen,r,ood cornr:scial ccnto' ProjccL Highrr.av sl'. GletrNotrd
Springs, Colorado
o: 105 7
Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical, lnc.
7c GRAVEL 9( SAilD % SILT % GLAY
0 ?(32 45
SIEVE
srzE
PERCENT
F'NER
sprc,'
PERCENT
PASS?
(XrNO)
J In.
I .) tll.
.75 in.
,.i r) rn-
rt't
#8
#r5
#30
it50
#100
#200
00
92
,85
?S
l)
65
O/)/
a:
43
(no spccilicution Pruvidcd )
Sample No.: I l4-5 Source of sample: On - Site Date Sampled: 5-34.i
Elev,/Deirth:Location: lVail 9ackfili
Soil DescriPtion
Silty, clayey sand with gravcl
Atterbero Limits (ASTM D 43i8) -pL= 2l
--IL=
26 Pl= 5
@eationuscs= sc-sM ffiry6=
Coefficients
DgS= t9.0 POO= O.++P
Paq= Pt!=ug- vc-
A-4(o)
Psc= 0'l3e
u1o=
Date Tesled: 5-5'05 Tested BY: AB,BB
Remarkr
See figure 1s for maximlrm dty dcnsity und opiinrr'rn:
nroisture.
F.M.=2.64
zT/aT'd llr Hf,3IO39 d-H VV:II 9A?Z-6A-AAW
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
oo;
=otr0,!
123,0
120,5
118.0
1 15.5
1 13.0
110,5
Test specification:
7lV tor
sP,G,=
z,0l
10
Water content, %
25
Remarks:
Scc figure I for graciniion'
Sarnple I l4-5
Ve ''
No.2ni.'
;l_i
MATERIAL DESCRI PTIOi'I
Silry,sand gtavtl
i.t
) tt
i
I
I\'7
ii\I
I li
II
I I
I
I
I I
Iitii:il
i
I
,ii
I
!
I
IiiIrl t:!t\\
t
-\
I
.,1
+-
-!t
\
il
II
I I
I
I
\I
Il
I
\lirlilii
\\itilriii:!I 'trtl
I
iiii1itlr
\
II
Irili:l
Clas6itication Yr>
3l4ln.PILLsp.G.Nat.
Moist.AASHTOuscsD
Elev/
r5,026)A4(0)SC-SM
TEST RESULTS
Maxinrum dry densitY = 121.9 Pof
Opti nrum moistrtre = 9,8 %
project . Glcnrvood cornn:crcial ccntcr'Project, Highrvay E?, Glenrvood spt'ing's,
Cotorado Date: 5'03-05
Client: Prince Cttek ConstructionProject No. 105 2i7
I Location: Wali Brrckf:Il
ak Geotechnicalworth-Pawl
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
He Inc.
z\/11'd Hf,3IO=3 d-H ??;\1 gB€,?-ffi-LU/'A
zI'd ']u10r
HEPWORTH.GEOTECHNICAL
5020 CountY Road 154
ei-nwooa Spdnga, co 8,601
Pfione: 870{i1&7888
Fgx:970€45{4&1
h pqeoehpoeotech,eot{t
Report of Hlaeonry Grout Testing
Prlnce Crcek'Co nstruction
David Hicks
2520 South Grand Avenue, Ste.210
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
Job No: 105 217
Projest Glenwood Comrnercial Proiect, Ftwy 82, South Gtenwood Springs' Colorado
Placement Location: Unit 2, Bond Beam
in block ccllc and a 3" diamcter core cut
Mix Design No: Tirne Batched:
Truck No:
Date:
Sheet
6-1545
1of I
Type & Size
SuPplier:
Ticket No:
of :Specimens: Gast
Gasey Concrete
Field Testing lrrformation:
Time $arnPted:
Air TemPerature: "o
Slump: - in.
Sample TemPerature:
Water Added:
o
28287Age Days
7-137.136.22Data
31,637?8,96222,720Load 1lus1
6.006.006.00Lengh (in)
2.982.982.s8(in)
6.976,976.97Area
2.012.412.O1UD Ratio
1.01.01.0UD Conection
#N41503260Empressive Strength
(psi)
Specified Strcnsh: 2000 Psi@ 28 DaYs
Progress RePort:Grout was cast into block by contractor and pioked uP bY HP Geotech 6'22'05'
Copies:
Xurtz a Associales - Brlan Kurtz
Casey Concreti ; Shawn Vondette
Michael
Techn By
cl/c I d llq Hf31035 d-H 9t:Ttr W)Ae-69-Lt,.'l
.t
.PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
Fleprvonh-I)ewi':rk Lle,.rre<Jrnr<:'i. l::c'
50i.0 ('irurLv Road I i4
i)tir"*r".d Sprirur, (,irkrnxir r Ii I t:Cl
I'hone: 970'945-79lltl
Fat; 970.9{ 5-S154
crrnil: hFFc()e&Pgelret'h'c om
It .ruty t. zoos
Prince Crcek Construction
Attn; Fred Cameron
2520 South Grund Avenue, Suite 210
Glcnwooclsprings, Colorarlo 81601 Job No. I05 217
subjcct: Repommendations for Mechanically stabilizcd E8fih Retaining wall
.
Design, Glenwosfl (srnrnons: P#; I, Highway 82, South of Glcnwood
SPringi, Garfield CountY' Colorado
Dear Frcd:
H
lJt- la.f
As requested, we are providing recommendations for mechanically stabilizerl eruth
(MSE) wall design at the subject site. Hcpworth-Pawlak Geoteohnicalpreviousll
provirled general rcesmnsndatiorx for retaining walls at the site' iocluding ttre feasibility
ofMSEwalls,zubauittingourfindingsinareportdatedApril6,2005,JobNol052lT.
Srron. gtrong walis were originaliy planned for the retaining uall and deterrtio'n pond
ateas oil the west sidcs of FJildinssl-gg!2' Due to the wall
leiehts
of up to abottt
14 feel mechanically stabilized earth is r[a-.6 to support the Stone Stong walls' It is
desired to use the on-site soils'x the MSE backfill' Attached as Figures 1 and I a are the
Iaboratpry test rcsults of stsnilard Proctor, gra.letion analrscs-(nrinus 3 inch fraction), arrd
Aflerberg ij-i1, p;;;ed on a sample of tre on-site soils' The soils are a silly gtayey
gandrrithgpvelmixtrre.Basedonthelaborat,orytestrcsultsandourexperience,we
estimare an angle of interual friction of about 28 degrees' nO COhcSion' and rnoist in-place
. unitwcightof about 125 pcf forthese soils'
TlreMsF,wallsshouldbeconsttrctedwitlrgee.gridplaoedoneachblocklcvei(3ftlot
intervals) aud exteud behind the blocks a aistanc" cquat to at least the wall height' 'l'he
geo-gri<lshouldxrruistofl.ensarl.Ixl500orequivalerrtwiththelongaxisofthegrid
placed perpendicular to tbe wali facc. The on-site predourinantly granular soils'
excludiug plus 3 inoh sizc rocks' can be placed ': q*t: backfill and should be
compactedtoatieastg5%ofthcma,.irn,,mstanclardProctordensity(SPD)atanoisture
content.within aborrt 2% of optirnurn. At curvcs in the walls whcre the geo-grid overlaps,
3 inches of soil should separate the overlapping geo-grirl. six ilches of aggrcgate base
c(lurse c<rmpactecl to 8t least 95% SPD ,t,oua be placed as a leveling coursc beitrw thc
Stonestrongblock.AnunderdrainshouldbeprovidedhehindtheMSEwallstolrcven|
buitd-up of hyctro'static prcssure'
Patker .1cj.84i-?119 . ColoradoSpriags 71,9.633.5562 r Silverrhome 97c.4ri8,1989
Hf,3IE39 d-H 5E;TT g?fl}-igl?_{V{
t&{9A/ZO'd
Pri nce' Crcek Constructi on
July 1;2005
Page 2
The re$ornmendations zubmittcd in this letter are basetl on the labor:rl-ory test rcstrLts' the
design guidelines by rensar, Inc. and stonc sfoong systcms, and our cxperience with
simitar wall systems. Wc strould observe thc wall construction and test backfill
compirction on a regular basis to evalrrate compliancc with orn resommgndations'
If you havc any qucstions or need further assistance' please call ou officc'
SincerclY,
HEPWORTH _ PAWLAK GEOTECIINICAL, INC'
David A, Young, P.E'
Rev. by; SLP
DAY/ksw
attachmentsFigurel-ParticlesizcDistibrrtiouReport
Iigure 1a - ConPaction Tcst RePort
Ge8€ch
avi.l w,-Es-Al,"tga/Ea',d
Job Nrr. l$5 21?
I a>-
H33rU39 d-H
Particle Size Distribution RePoft
$
:i
ti
ii
t:
:,
,00
90
70
30
10
!....:..--..
I
r :.
I
I
I
tru 60z
iI
Lz50lltUatu +oq
.!
.l
',:l
.: i, i
.. i
:!::i ;
:ii:i;
20
I
I
1...;.
':
0,0010
%ctr''l% GRAVEL% COBBLES % SILTSAND
25.1)0.0
SI€VE
slzE
PERCENT
Fi}iER
sPEc-'
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=No)
.t ln.
i.5 in.
.if, tn.
.375 in.i4
#8
I 0,1.0
97..0
lii.0
7 ti.{}
7:.0
#r6
#10
#50
,1100
ll200
70.0'fii.0
()2.0
.1 i.0
)i.0
4.i.t)
I
I
( no spcrilicrtitxr pnrvided)
Sample No.: i l{-5 Source of Sample: Orr - Site
Location: \\'ull llask,'ill
Soil Descriotion
Silty, cltycy sand with gravcl
Atterbero Limits (ASTM D 43JJJ -pL= 2l
-
LL= 26 Pl= 5
Classification
USCS= sC-SM -=ffiHTo=
A-1(o)
Coeffigients
DgS= t9.0 D6O= 0,++9 !i[0= u't-rt,
Qeo= P1!= u1o'
Lu= uc-
Date Tested: 5-5-05 Tested BY: AB.BB
Remarks
See l'igure I a for maximurn dry densiry and optimum
nroisturc.
r,M.=2.64
Date Sarnpled: .t-.j45
ElevJDbpth:
; tult)E
Clienfi Princc C.rsck Construction
Proiect G.lcnwuo<l Cornmercial Ccntcr Prtrjcct, I ligh\r'ay S2, Glcnwood
Springs, Colorario
F
Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechnical lnG.
sa/va'd
l-r'
H3fr0r9 d-H aF 11\ 9@e-64-Aul^l
Ea'a ruror
123.O
120.5
118.0
1 13.0
110.5
10
Test specificatior;: .\S'l M D 698'(rOa Mcthod C Stanclard
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
oo-
:i'6
c
d)E
bo
51
Water content. %
ZAV for
SP.G. =
2.67
25 30
"A<
No.200
4:\
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Silty, clu,vcy sand with gmvel i
20
Remarks:
Scc iigure I for ltrui:ation.
Sampie I l4-5
ll
r&v
I
I
I
\
I1-
I
I
I
I
I
l.
I
i_. .:-t:\ r..--\i
_l
:,I
\
Classificatiort Ye>
3/4 in,LLsp.G.Elev/PI
-5 15,026
Nat
Moist.USCS
SC.SM
AASHTO
A-4(0)
TEST RESULTS
op timum moisturc = 9'8'r'o
Maxirnum ciry r;l3p51o* = i 2l '!) pcl'
Project: ('ilcnrvotxl C.onrn:s'rciul (lcnrur Pr<rjet:t, llighway 82' Glcr"rwood Springs'
(lolrrraclo Date: 5-03-05
Location: vVall iiar:kfi ll
Client: Plince Creek ConstructionProject No. 105 2l7
orth-Pawlak Geo
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
He technical lnc.
g^/g@'d FDAIO3S d_H W:\tr 3AAZ-69-LVA
I
Heoworth'Pawlak Geotechnical' lnc'
5020 Countv Road 154
Cf."**a SPrings, Colorado 81601
Phone 970'945'?988
Fax:970'945'8454
email: hpgeo@hPgeotech'cornHEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
H
g'(r- I o -l
SI]BSOIL STUDY
FOR RETAINING WALL DESIGN
PROPOSED MCHWAY 82 DECELERATION LANE
GLENWOOD COMMERCIAL DE\IELOPMENT
SOUTH OF GLEI{WOOD SPRINGS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. lDs 217
q MAY 11, 2006
PREPARED FOR:
PRINCE CREEK CONSTRUCTION
ATTNJ DAYID HICKS
2520 sorl"rH GRAI'{D AVENUE' SUrTE 21'0
omrwooD SPRtr{GS, COLORADO 81601
parker 303-841-7119 . colorado Springs 719'633'5567 ' silverthome 9?0-468-t989
() ^i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AI'{D SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPoSED coNSTRucTION "" """ "' r"r " " " "" " r'
SITE CONDITIONS
FIELD E)GLORATION
SIJB SURFACE CONDITIONS
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS " " " " "'
DESiGN RSCOL{N{ENDATION S "'
1
1-
2-
_7 -
-3-
-4-
LMITATIONS """""""'
FIGURE 1 . LOCATION OF E}PLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 . LOGS OF E)CLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUIVft{ARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESI]LTS
q1
Thisreportpresentst}reresultsofasubsoilstudyforaproposedretainingwalltobe
constructed as part of the Highway g2 deceleration (and turn) lane into the Grenwood
Commercial Center, south of Gienwood SpringS, Garfield Counry, Colorado. The project
site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose oi*" study was to develop recommendations for
the retaining walr design. The study was conducted i, accordance with our proposal for
geotechnicalengineeringseryicestoPrinceCreekConstructiondatedoctober24,2005,
we previously conducted a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed commercial
deveiopment,submittingorrrfindingsinareportdatedMarch30,200l,JobNo.l0liT5
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STTTDY
Afieldexplorationplogramconsistingofexploratoryboringswasconductedtoobtain
information on the subsurface conditions. sarnpies of the subso,s obtaiaed during the
fieldexplorationweretestedinthelaboratorytodeterminetheirclassificationandother
engineeringcharacteristics.Theresultsofthefieldexplorationandlaboralorytesting
were analy zedtodevelop recommendations for the wa11 design. This report summarizes
the data obtained during this study a.nd presents our conclusions, design recommentlations
and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and
the subsurface conditions encountered'
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Thewailwilibelocatedaloogtheuphill,northernsideofHighwayS2aadretainacut
slope needed for construction of the highway deceleration lane westborurd turning lane'
Thewaliwiilbeabout400feetlong,extendi:rgfromHighwaySta.5+30to56p+23,
and be from about 5 to 12 feet high. The wa11 will be constructed of stone strong Biocks'
Tlle24SFblockspreviousiyusedattheprojectare3feettal]^,SYzfeetwideandEfeet
longmodularconcreteunitsthatweighabout5300poundseach.Theexistingwaterand
sewer iines ia the driveway above the,wall are to be relocated further north outside of the
retainingwallconstructionlimits.Ai5inchdiametercomrgatedmetalpipe(CMP)
cuivert is pl'nned below the wall at about Sta' 4+00'
,1
JobNo' 105 2l qa c$tecit
a
Iftheproposedconstrrrctionchangessignificantlyfromthatdescribedabove,weshould
benotifredtore-evaluatetherecommendationscontainedinthisreport.
The proposed retaining site is an existing cut at the base of generally moderately sioping
terrain. The cut is stqeP and ranges up to about t2 to llfeet high' We observe no signs
ofseepageorinstabilityfromthecutfaceandnofreewallwasencounteredi]1the
boringsdriliedabovethecut.Thereisadrivewaywithashallowfillembankmentabove
SITE CONDITIONS
FIELD E)CLORATION
the proPosed retaining wall
and testmg'
ThefieldexplorationfortheprojectwasconductedonNovemberl6,2005.Two
exploratoryboringsweredrilledatthelocationsshownonFigureltoevaluatethe
subsurface conditions. Theborings were advance. wrth alch diamets cootinuous flight
augerspoweredbyatrrrck-mountedCME.45Bdriiirig'Theboringsweleloggedbya
representative of He'pworth-P awlak Geotecbnical' Inc'
Sarrrples of the subsoils were take,lr with 1% inch and 2 inch I'D. spoon sarrplers. The
samplersweredlivenintothesubsoilsatvariousdepthswithblowsfromal40porurd
harnmer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard perretration test described
byASTMMethodD.l586.Thepe,lretrationresistancevaluesareani:rdicationofthe
relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples wsre taken
andthepenetationresistancevaluesareshownontheLogsofExploratoryBorings,
FigureZ.T\esampleswgrerehrmedtoourlaboratoryforreviewbytheprojectengineer
* sugsuRrAcn coNDITIoNS
{ craptric logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on rigure 2'
The subso*s, below about yzto z%feet of base course and sandy clayey silt fiIl' consisted
of medium de,nse, silty to occasionaliy very silry sand and gravel with cobbles and smali
boulders that extended to the drilled i"ptl, of 24yz and26feer. Drilling in the course
qlob No. 1 05 211
e$tecf'
* granular soiis with auger equipment was occasionally difficult due to the cobbles and
boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit'
horizontal to 11 verticai'
DESIGN RECON4I\{ENDATIONS
Laboratorytestingperformedonsa:rrplesobtainedfromtheboringsincludednatural
moistrrre content and dry density, and gradation anaiyses. Results of gradation analyses
performedonsrnaildiameterdrivesarrrples(minusl%nchfraction)ofthemainlysandy
soilsareshownonFigure4.Thelaboratorytestingissurnmarizedtn,Tablel.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subso,s were
moistinthefillbecomingsiightlymoistwithdepth'
* BNcwEERTNG ANALYSn
ItshouldbefeasibletoconstructtheretainingwallwiththestonestrongBlocks.The
lowerwallsectionsshouldactasgavityretainingstrrrctures.Mechanicallystabilized
earth (MSE) should be provided behind the tarlsr sections of the wali for stabiiity' The
earthreinforceme,lrtshouldconsistofgeo-gridplacedbetweeneachcourseoftheblock
and extended the specified distance behind the bl0cklA,, underdrain should be provided
behind the MSE backfill to prevent buiid-up of hydro-static pressur#o"".'u" variability
oftheon-sitesoils,animportedaggregatebasecourseorsimilarmaterialshouldbeused
as the MSE bac]dll'
For our analysis, we aszumed the foundation and retained soils have an angle of internal
friction of 30 degrees' no cohesion and a unit weight of 120 nT: *" ':: :,tTed
the
MSE backfill material will have 3 rninimurt angle of internal friction of 34 degrees' no
cohesionandaunitweightofl30pcf'Duetotheslope*."*:-q"""-i:abovethe
wall face, surcharge from a 2 horizontai to 1 vertical slope and 100 psf uniform load were
also assumed' The design is based on the 24 SF blocks, that are 3 feet ta,l, will be used
forthe.waliconsE.uction.Theblockshaveanaflrralconstnrctedbat|erofabouti
-3 -
wall should be constructed with geo-gld placed
extended behind the blocks a distance equal toThe mechanically stabilized earth (MSE)
on each biock levei (3 foot intervals) and
JobNo. 105 217 I nlr.
c$ecrr
-4-
atleast0.sthewallheight.Thegeo-gndshouldextendauniformdistancebehindthe
wall based on the total wall heiqht at that location' The geo-grid shouid consist of Tensar
tIX 1500 or equivalent with the long axis of the gud placed perpendicular to the wall
face.TheMSEbackfillshouldconsistofaggregatebasecoursemeetingColorado
DepartrrrentofTransportation(CDOT)Ciass5or6specifications,orCDOTClassl
structure backfill specifications. The MSE backfil, shourd be compacted to at least9'o/o
ofthema:cimrrmmodifiedProctordensity(ASTMD-1557)atamoisturecontentwithin
about2%of optimum' Twelveinches of aggregatebasecoursecompactedto atleast
95% modified proctor density should be placed as a leveling course below the blocks' At
the base of the wall, the blocks should bear at least 12 inches below the ground sr:rface at
theface.Forwallareas8feetorlessinheight,nogeo-gridreinforcementisneeded.
AlunderdrainshouldbeprovidedbehindthewallfaceandatthebaseoftheMSE
bacldll. The drain should consist of 4 inch fiameter perforated PVC pipe surrounded
above the invert ievel with frss-dmining granular material at least i foot thick that
extends up the entire height of one wall face on geogrid reinforce'ment' The drain pipe
should slope at n minimum 7o/o gladeto a suitable gpvity outlet' Free-draining granular
material used in the underdrain syste,m should contain iess than zyopassitg the No' 200
siete,lessthan50%passingtheNo.4sieveandhaveamaximumsizeof2hches.Fi]ter
fabric such as Mirafi i40N or equivalent should separate the drai:r gravel from the on-site
soils.ThevoidspaceintheblocksshouldbebackfiIledwithfreedraininggravel.A
drainage mat covered with filter fabric car be used against the uphili cut face instead of
the drain gravel
Aswaleshouldbeprovidedabovethetopoftheblockwallantlthedrivewayshouldhave
an uphill cross siope to divert surfice water'
Ln/trIATIONS
Thisstudyhasbeenconductedinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedgeotechnical
engineeringprinciplesandpracticesinthisueaatthistime.Wemakenowarantyeither
express or impiied. The conclusions and recolnmendations submitted in this report are
based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations
indicated on Figure 1, the design guidelines by Tensar, lnc. and Stone Stong Systerns,
7Job No. 105 2l Ib"l
e$tecrr
S=RIES
#4 3/8',314" 1 1l?'
19.0 31-5 162
2
CLEAF SOUARE OP=l.JlNGS
craL erJ JU
121
cosEus
COBELES
u.s
TIME #100 #50 #30 *16 #e
?: Mtt.t. t?Hi
3 MIN,60MlN1 gMIN 4 MIN, 1 MIN.#20c1
--'-->
10('
EI,(,
7az
U)a
50s
F-7soil
CJ.0ffi
o-
ou,z
F
iJJE
Fz
Lttr'\
Euo-
0
10
20
30
40
50
N
60
70
BO
90
'100
30
10
.o01 ,oo? 'ms '0o9 l)19 '[37 t71
DIAI/TTEB OF P
.1so '30o
ABTICLES
.60! 1 18 236
IN IilILLIMETEBS
115 12-5
4.75
CLAY TO s]L'i
U,S. ST ANDARD SERIES
1 MIN.#200 #1 oo #s0 #30 #15 #s
SILT AND CLAY 41 %
PLASTICITY INDEX ./L
FFOM: Boring 1 at 5 Feet
CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS
s/4" 1 117 3' 5'6' B',
9.E2.519.0 s7.5 76.2 1t52
SAND 34 o//a
{ onav+ 1e 9L
SAMPLE OF: Very
UOUID LIMIT
o//a
TIME HEADINGS
SiltY Sand with Gravel
^=
0
10
20
30
40
50
o
LIJZ
Fultr
Fzul
rulo-
7HR
'15 MlN.6oMlN1
(,
zoZ
U)
aofl
.Fnfi
C)
40ffi
o-
2n
60
70
80
on
20
10
0
.002 '005 'o09
Ct AY TO S]LT
.019 .037 '074
DIAMETER OF
.600 1 .18 2'36
MILUMTTEBS
SAND 30 %
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CI-AY 51 O/O
o//o{ snnvrl 13 /o
UOUID LIMIT /o
FFOM: Bo at 20 Feet
Figure 4
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
105 217
SAMPLE OF: V Sand with Gravel
f ul.r,
d)
t
oo
U)
ID
:-r
0.)!
0)
Loll
=(g
3t)
a
(+
a
i)
cia
A)
?
b{J
&
U)
a
(J
,
OIJ
d(r)
tr
6)
D.
Oy)U
a6
UJID
>rr
^luU\-u=+
=96Luz..Z d, it)oc-do=r-Z.^0Jt)
s
9xFUJ(no4?
Dv
=<d=,i -)
rno\
F.r:.!.
FL'O..e=R->
H2a'"; rL'
rn-f,
cO
oa.ZY<ia
c).
F-lo\
F{s
Jt!
d(,
ooN\9
-
cn
"-l
4t-
t-o*4Xz.
sdl
.+
q
(fl
F{
U?
m
Cr)
cn
.[JL"*52,
?GEE5E4Zv
Nr{sNo
F{tr)LFr
UJo
NF{
(Jz
oo
,1lx
|.\
N
tnc
.Dor.]
.aTJF7-l )in
rJ-t-Z. V)fLUOFtlJ !-t- .J
UJ=o .k\./ - d.Euto
1-e"s
o-I tLto
dd
LZlll =TA