Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationJuly 26, 1993 David Michaelson Garfield County Planner 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Larsh Subdivision Preliminary Plan Dear David: land design partnership On behalf of Mr.Ed Larsh, I respectfully submit the following and attached information in compliance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations for a subdivision Preliminary Plan application. Mr. Larsh is the sole owner of the property and resides on the property at the following address: Edward B. Larsh 9179 State Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The property contains 14.72 acres and is occupied by Mr. Larsh's residence and a detached garage/studio (the one with Ole train painted on it). An access easement crosses the property to serve an adjacent residence to the south. The property is bounded on the southwest by the Roaring Fork River and on the northeast by the Rio Grande Rail Road and Hwy 82. To the northwest is an agricultural property owned by a Mr. Bury. Access to the proposed subdivision is provided by an existing easement through the Bury property and a deeded access across the railroad right-of-way. The title policy does not list the railroad crossing as an exception because it is in the form of a deeded crossing of the railroad right-of-way without use limitations. Discussions are currently underway with Mr. Burry regarding the possible expansion in width of the existing eighteen foot access easement. The property slopes toward the river starting at an approximately 12 percent slope near the railroad and softening to 3-5 percent as the property approaches the river. The river bank along the property is very sharply defined with a grade change of 15 to 20 feet. The 100 year floodplain is contained within this high bank such that no usable area of the site is impacted by flood hazard. P.O. Box 517 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 918 Cooper Avenue (303) 945-2246 • • Michaelson 7/26/93 page 2 Cottonwoods dominate the river bank and new growth cottonwoods are encroaching into the fields. The area below the Glenwood Ditch has historically been flood irrigated with water rights from the Glenwood Ditch. Mr. Larsh has installed a pressurized agricultural irrigation system to more efficiently maintain the property. LOT LAYOUT The Preliminary Plan is reflective of the suggestions made by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the Sketch Plan review. A total of four lots are proposed but in a somewhat different configuration than the Sketch Plan. Lot 1 encompasses the existing residence, the river area and a majority of the zone identified by the soils report as being undesirable for construction. Lot 1 contains approximately 6.4 acres. Lots 2 & 4 each contain 2.6 acres with 2.9 acres in Lot 3. The nonbuildable area of Lot 1 is designated as a common use easement allowing the residents of the subdivision to have access to the river front area and to protect the riparian vegetation. The river is shown as a public use easement to allow rafting and recreational use of the river. The acreage of these lots assures adequate off-street parking. WATER SUPPLY Domestic water will be provided by individual wells augmented by Basalt Water Conservancy District Contracts. Copies of the contracts issued by the District to Mr. Larsh were submitted with the Sketch Plan. Well permit applications were submitted the first of June and are expected to be issued within 2 to 3 weeks. Lot 1 is served by an existing well located on the Burry property. This well will also be utilized to serve Lot 2. The Basalt Water Contracts for Lots 2, 3 & 4 are provide .04 acre feet of water annually and Lot 1 is approved for .06 acre feet annually. The well permits are for inhouse use. Shares in the Glenwood Ditch will be transferred with each lot on a proportional share basis according to the historically irrigated acreage on each lot. The existing well which serves the Larsh residence has a history of dependable water supply in both quantity and quality. WASTEWATER TREATMENT Individual septic tank and leach fields are proposed as the method of wastewater disposal. The preliminary plan lot configuration forces the treatment facilities away from the river. Lot 2 being served by the offsite existing well also loosens up the spacing between wells and leach fields. UTILITIES Electricity and telephone services are presently available to the site. Natural gas and cable TV are not available on the northeast side of the river. • • Michaelson 7/26/93 page 3 Impacts The Preliminary Plan accomplishes the desires of the Division of Wildlife regarding preservation of the riparian areas along the river and dog populations will be limited to one dog per residence. The applicant is in agreement with the Division regarding the protection of the eagle nest but does not find the criteria suggested by the Division to be consistent with the referenced Aspen Glen conditions. In Aspen Glen, a protective zone was established that stretched in some areas as far as one thousand feet from the eagle nest. Our closest building site is in excess of one thousand feet from the site and the nest can not be seen from that site because of terrain and existing vegetation. We do not think the Division's suggested construction limitations are appropriate. It is acceptable to the Applicant for the Division of Wildlife to restrict fishing on the Roaring Fork River during the critical eagle nesting season but the Applicant can not be responsible for the enforcement of such a restriction. Building sites are well removed from the river edge to minimize impact upon the river. The desirable building areas have gentle grades allowing construction without excessive site disturbance. Drainage from drives and parking areas will flow across vegetated areas which will naturally cleanse surface drainage water before reaching the river. The pressurized irrigation system will help avoid complications which might arise from soil saturation caused by excessive irrigation wastewater while assuring adequate irrigation of the fields by "novice farmers". Attached please find the following plans and documents which respond to the submittal requirements in detail: - Preliminary Plan - Drainage Plan and Report - Road Plan and Profile - Soils/Geology Report - Engineers Statement - Title Policy If you have questions or require additional information please call me. Thank you for your assistance with this application. Ronald B. Liston Edward B. Larsh July 27, 1993 Mr. David Michaelson Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street, 3rd Floor Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Larsh Subdivision Utilities HCE Job No. 93081.01 Dear David: This letter is to address the utility systems planned for the Larsh Subdivision. Domestic water is currently available and being used domestically, on site, and on the adjacent properties in the form of both springs and wells. Therefore, availability of water of usable quality and quantity is not deemed to be a problem. Electricity and telephone service are already existing on the property. Natural gas is not available. Wastewater treatment is proposed to be by individual sewage disposal systems on each lot. Preliminary percolation test results per Hepworth-Pawlak Geotech are acceptable for standard absorption systems. An individual sewage disposal management plan will be included in the covenants, and will include such things as: 1. Septic tanks shall be pumped a minimum of once each three years. 2. All absorption beds or trenches shall have a minimum of two observation wells installed to allow monitoring of the system without excavation. 3. Any construction or modification of any I.S.D.S. shall be in accordance with all Garfield County Regulations. 4. Nothing other than ordinary domestic wastes shall be introduced into any system. 923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: 303-945-8676 • FAX: 303-945-2555 • • Mr. Dave Michaelson Page 2 July 27, 1993 If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. Tim thy P. Beck, P.E. Prin •ipal Engineer TPB:rjh DRAINAGE STUDY FOR LARSH SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL HCE JOB NO. 93081.01 July 26, 1993 Timothy P. Beck, P.E. 923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: 303-945-8676 • FAX: 303-945-2555 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Hydrology Drainage Plan Summary Drawings: Basin Map (81/2"x11") Drainage Plan (81h"x11") Floodplain Plan (8'/2 "xl 1") Appendix: Calculations • • INTRODUCTION The proposed Larsh Subdivision project is located on the east side of the Roaring Fork River across from the proposed Aspen Glen P.U.D. See the enclosed Basin Map for site location. There are no major drainages that affect this property, except the small portion that is within the floodplain of the Roaring Fork River. The 100 -year floodplain and floodway lines from the Roaring Fork River that affect this property have been shown on the Floodplain Plan. This information was taken from the 1986 Flood Insurance Study for Garfield County. The storm runoff flows for this site will, in general, be quite diffuse and not particularly affect any parts of the project, except in the vicinity near where the existing culvert under the railroad discharges toward the 24" culvert under the existing roadway, then towards the northerly corner of the property. The 25 -year and 100 -year discharges from this culvert are shown in the Appendix. Otherwise, the flows are too diffuse to calculate to any significant accuracy. HYDROLOGY The hydrologic methods for this study are outlined in the Soil Conservation Service publication "Procedures for Determining Peak Flows in Colorado" (1980). Peak flows in this area will be primarily rainfall derived since the whole site is well below 8000 feet in elevation. Therefore, the storm drainage system will be more than adequate to handle spring snowmelt runoff. DRAINAGE PLAN The Preliminary Drainage Plan for the Larsh Subdivision is shown on the sheet entitled Drainage Study. Calculations were completed for the 25 -year and 100 -year return frequency events, as required by County regulations. Existing drainage paths have been left intact. This ensures that, in general, overland flow will follow predictable historic paths. This also decreases the amount of grading necessary for roadways and actual building areas, and thus reduces the possibility of erosion. We do not recommend creating a channel through the bulk of the property for the flow from the culvert under the railroad because it will flow infrequently and the flow would be best handled by dispersion across the vegetated site. Where the flows from the railroad culvert need to cross driveways, the grading difficulties, probable silting problems, and infrequency of flows pointed to letting the flows just pass over the driveways. A slight dip of only about six inches would be sufficient to pass the expected flows across the drives. The "channel" calculations and characteristics are shown in the Appendix. • • Larsh Subdivision Page 2 The building sites, however, should be protected by raising the finish floor of the houses at least one foot above the existing surrounding ground. The grading around the house should direct water away from the building so that any diffuse flow reaching the area will be deflected around the building. This will also help with control of irrigation flows. However, since irrigation flows are frequent flows, it may be necessary to cut drainage ditches at the edge of the field, around the buildings, to control irrigation water. No detention is proposed for this development because of the large lot sizes and the diffuse flows. The increase in flow due to development on any particular lot should be insignificant. The probable impervious area added would most likely be less than one percent of the total lot area. In addition, the diffuse flows would make construction of detention areas difficult and their construction would disturb more area and cause more erosion. In general, erosion control will consist of disturbing as little existing vegetation as possible and, therefore, reclamation of as little area as possible. It is anticipated that areas that must be disturbed will be seeded with hay or pasture grass as recommended by the Soil Conservation Service. SUMMARY The preliminary plan for Larsh Subdivision includes recommended drainage improvements which, if followed, should be sufficient to protect the improvements proposed from the design storm. BASIN ill SCALE: 1" = 1000' 7/20/93 HCE FILE NO 93081.01 -/- 67 -( 2 078 2'7" CAI/' u/VD g a • DRAINS STUDY 7/20/9 HCE FILE NO. 93081.01 // //// // // / 4 24/1 CMP UNDER CX/ST RoAo I \ 11 I \ \ \ I, 6047.0+ 48" CAlf D67',e6 a rce_o-w so�G�f? AJA1-"e-L /i✓ o,P0-56'v RIVE -1409 Y.5 1" = 200' GrNo E,e /7/141 CU/✓G2ETE L/Ad-p C ALX.W / E L +6027 4008. OT 4 6 AC. LOT 2.9 AC. 5998.3 /1 6060.8 +5998.2 0 0 \O� 0 0 4• FLOOD PLAIN STUDY PORTIONS OF WORKSHEETS FROM GARF I ELD COUNTY FLOOD PLAIN STUDY 1986 SHEETS RFI6 AND RF I7 HCE FILE 93081 7/24/93 SCALE 1" = 400' 2021 : O y I '�4 �} OO 4. f 1`,11P J�O APPENDIX: CALCULATIONS Job Title C,FiWS by // date Y-4/'!ck'd bydate Su[Sject Al h f .+� page / of Job No 923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Spris, CO 81601 Telephone: 303-945-8676 • 303-920-3669 • FAX: 303-945-2555 Job Title Job No by e date ck'd by date Subj t "e -PH page of („(77...J PrTe.„. V s es-&ne-A" A-5 /AJ L.C71 CKc 55 Cf" oc) c A 5 (_2,?C tt-ciao 55 174 -c7 -Ll /3( c. AJAJE-Z, Cgge cs YA 17 z= ... 923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: 303-945-8676 • 303-920-3669 • FAX: 303-945-2555 HEPWORTH - PAWLAIREOTECHNICAL, Inc. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY PROPOSED LARSH SUBDIVISION 9179 HIGHWAY 82 GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 193 106 JULY 2, 1993 PREPARED FOR: ED LARSH 9179 HIGHWAY 82 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 7840 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Fax: 303-945-8454 Phone: 303-945-7988 HEPWORTH - PAWLAKEOTECHNICAL, Inc. July 2, 1993 Ed Larsh 9179 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 7840 Highway 82 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Fax: 303-945-8454 Phone: 303-945-7988 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed Larsh Subdivision, 9179 Highway 82, Garfield County, Colorado. Job No. 193 106 Gentlemen: As requested, we have conducted a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed subdivision at the subject site. Development of the property as a four lot residential subdivision should be feasible based on the geologic and subsurface conditions encountered. The subsoils encountered at the site consist of fine-grained alluvial fan deposits, coarse river terrace gravels and siltstone bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite. The alluvial fan soils were encountered to depths of 10 to 30 feet and should be suitable for support of lightly loaded spread footings in the previously irrigated (below the Glenwood Ditch) parts of the property. Footings should bear on the dense gravels in the upper part of Lot 4. Building in the existing sinkhole area in the southwest part of the property and the steep escarpments next to the Roaring Fork River and Glenwood Ditch should be avoided. The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations suitable for planning and preliminary design. It is important that we provide consultation through the final design, to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. • • If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. Rev. By: 4c--tca /1 -e -741+r - Richard C. Hepworth, P.E. SLP/ro cc: Land Design Partnership - Attn: Ron Liston • • TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT 2 FIELD EXPLORATION 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 4 PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 4 FOUNDATIONS 4 FLOOR SLABS 5 SITE GRADING 5 SURFACE DRAINAGE 6 PERCOLATION TESTS 6 LIMITATIONS 6 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE II - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS r 179 • • PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed Larsh Subdivision to be located at 9179 Highway 82, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to identify the geologic and subsurface conditions for use in planning and preliminary design of the project. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Ed Larsh, dated May 7, 1993. A field exploration program consisting of a reconnaissance of the site and exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the surface and subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine engineering characteristics of the on-site soils. The results of the field work and laboratory testing were analyzed regarding potential geologic hazard impacts and recommendations for building foundations, grading, drainage and use of individual septic disposal systems. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions and recommendations for planning and preliminary design of the proposed development. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed development consists of a 4 lot single family subdivision located on about 15 acres as shown on Fig. 1. The lots will each range in size between about 2 1/2 to 6 1/2 acres and be serviced by on site wells and septic disposal systems. The common area in the southwest part of the property will be non -buildable due to existing sinkholes. If building locations or development plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The site is located about 9 miles southeast of Glenwood Springs between State Highway 82 on the uphill side and the Roaring Fork River on the downhill side. The Glenwood Ditch and a railroad spur line crosses the uphill part of the property. An existing residence and out buildings are located in the lower part of Lot 1 which will remain as part of the development. The ground surface is generally moderately sloping down to the west, with about 80 feet of elevation difference. Steeply sloping gravel terrace escarpments are located along the river and at the Glenwood Ditch. Topographic contours are shown on Fig. 1. Downslope of the ditch the property is mostly grass and weed covered and has been irrigated. Upslope of the ditch the vegetation is mostly sagebrush. An aspen tree grove is located just south of the existing residence. The field area in the southwest part of the property has numerous sinkholes with freshly eroded sides. The sinkhole conditions are discussed further in the geology section below. GEOLOGY CONDITIONS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT The surficial soils encountered at the site consist of alluvial fan and older valley alluvium deposits. The alluvial fan soils are sand, silt and clay size and derived mainly from erosion of the Eagle Valley Evaporite rock which is exposed in the valley side across Highway 82 northeast of the site. The older valley alluvium underlies the more recent alluvial fan soils and consists of gravel, cobble and boulder size rock in a silty sand matrix. This deposit is an old river terrace remnant and is exposed along the river bank and the open portion of the ditch at the site. The site is not impacted by severe geologic hazards in the proposed building areas, but conical shaped sinkholes about 10 to 15 feet deep have formed in the alluvial fan soils in the field area of the southwest part of the property. The sinkholes appear to be formed by subsurface piping or eroding of the fine-grained alluvial fan soils down gradient by surface and groundwater flow. Another possibility is that there may be cavities in the underlying bedrock which the soils are being washed into. The sinkhole area is not proposed for residential building. Based on our observations and experience, there is a low risk of sinkholes forming in the remaining proposed building areas but the site should not be considered totally risk free. -3 • Buildings should not encroach the steep terrace escarpments of the site. Application of water around buildings needs to be controlled and limited. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on May 18, 1993. Four exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck- mounted CME -55 drill rig. Two shallow percolation holes were drilled with a 6 -inch diameter auger next to Borings 3 and 4. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1 3/8 -inch and 2 -inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphical logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 6 -inches of topsoil overlying sandy clayey silt, and relatively dense, sandy gravel, cobbles and boulders. Drilling in the dense gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders. At 19 feet in Boring 2, hard siltstone of the Eagle Valley Evaporite was encountered below the gravel and extended to the depth explored, 25 feet. Free water was encountered in the gravel layer of Boring 2 at a depth of 12 feet. The upper silt soils were generally moist to very moist in the previously irrigated field areas (Borings 1, 2 and 3) and slightly moist in the sagebrush area (Boring 4). Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, density, liquid and plastic limits, gradation analyses, and water soluble • -4- • sulfates. Results of consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples, presented on Figs. 4 and 5, generally indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Samples with relatively low unit weight obtained from Borings 3 and 4 (Fig. 5) indicated a moderate to high collapse potential when wetted under a relatively light constant loading. The sulfate content measured on the upper silts is relatively high and a sulfate resistant cement such as Type II should be used in concrete exposed to the soils. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Development of the property as a four lot residential subdivision should be feasible based on the geologic and subsurface conditions encountered. Building in the existing sinkhole area in the southwest part of the property and the steep escarpments next to the Roaring Fork River and the Glenwood Ditch should be avoided. The fine-grained alluvial fan soils are susceptible to piping erosion and subsidence, and surface water should not be ponded without appropriate measures for controlling seepage loss. The following recommendations are presented for planning and preliminary design of the subdivision and structures. Additional subsoil studies should be conducted at each of the selected building sites to determine specific foundation, grading and drainage design recommendations. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Spread footings placed on the natural soils below topsoil should be suitable for support of lightly loaded structures in most areas. The upper silts in the previously irrigated parts of the development appear to have a low to moderate collapse potential when wetted and loaded. Continuous spread footings and low bearing pressures in the range of 1,000 psf to 1,500 psf should be used to limit differential settlement potential in this area. In the upper part of Lot 4 the silt soils appear to have high collapse potential which could cause large differential settlement of even lightly loaded footings. In this area, footings should bear on the dense gravels or the • 5- • silts should be removed and replaced compacted to at least 98 % of standard Proctor density at moisture content near optimum. Footings placed on the compacted silt can be designed for a bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Footings placed on the dense gravels should have a bearing pressure in the range of 3,000 psf to 5,000 psf and have relatively minor settlement potential. Basement foundation and retaining walls should be designed for lateral earth loading in the range of 45 to 50 pcf equivalent fluid unit weight. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab - on -grade construction. The upper silts could settle upon wetting and cause some distress. Floor slabs should be separated from foundations with expansion joints and constructed with control joints to help reduce damage due to differential movement and shrinkage. A minimum 4 -inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. Under slab fill materials should be compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. SITE GRADING The risk of construction induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the buildings are located at least 25 feet from the top of the steep terrace escarpments and cut and fill depths are limited. We assume 'the cut depths for basement construction will not exceed one level, about 8 to 10 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 to 10 feet deep, especially near the top of the steep escarpments. Embankment fills and road subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to 90% standard Proctor density. Embankment cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. • -6- • SURFACE DRAINAGE The site drainage should be designed not to allow ponding of water near residences and roadways. The soils are susceptible to erosion and concentrated water could increase the risk of building distress and ground subsidence. The exterior backfill area of the building should be compacted and sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. Landscape which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 10 feet from buildings. PERCOLATION TESTS Two percolation tests were conducted to evaluate the feasibility of individual septic infiltration disposal systems at the site. The subsurface profiles encountered at the test sites (Borings 3 and 4) are presented on Fig. 2 and the percolation test results are presented in Table II. Based on our findings, individual septic infiltration disposal systems are feasible at the site. Groundwater conditions and steep slopes may influence the design in some parts of the property. Site specific percolation testing should be performed at the selected disposal areas for final design. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described r - I r-• r fi in this report, we should be notified at once to re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning and preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend additional subsurface investigation for design of foundations, grading and drainage at the selected building sites. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Steven L. Pawlak, P Reviewed By: Cdy 04 a 15222 I* • fk7/q1/q 34 :r. m "6`. S/ONAL Eby o:n Ea OF Ca Richard C. Hepworth, P.E. SLP/ro LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS m 0 rn 0 Boring 1 L 6/12 WC=22.1 DD=82 11/12 5 WC=25.1 D0=98 / -200=85 WSS=0.93 /— 20/12 10 — 15 f— 21/12 — 20 WC=16.7 DD=97 — 25 30 Boring 2 10/12 WC=21.7 D0=105 11/12 9/12 58/12 Boring 3 Boring 4 8/12 WC=12.5 DD=93 200=77 11/12 WC=14.4 D0=89 14/12 2 13/12 z NOTE: SEE FIGURE 3 FOR LEGEND AND NOTES 4/12 WC =19.8 DD=93 -200=75 WSS=1.26 7/12 WC=9.7 DDa85 44/12 0 5 10 —, 15 -- 20.- 0 — 25- 25- 30— 30-- LU LJ- F— c_ w 193 106 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 LEGEND: Topsoil; organic silt and clay, very moist, black. Silt (ML); sandy, slightly clayey, medium to stiff, slightly moist to moist, brown. Grave! (GM -GP); sandy with abundant cobbles and boulders, dense, moist to wet, brown. ISiltstone bedrock; Eagle Valley Evaporite, fractured, hard with softer layers, moist, gray. 1 58/12 Symbol indicates 58 blows with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive a standard spoon sampler 12 inches. 6/12 Symbol indicates 6 blows with 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive a California Sampler 12 inches. Depth at which free water was encountered at the time of drilling. P -- Symbol indicates depth of adjacent percolation test holes. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled an May 18, 1993 with a 4 -inch diameter continuous flight auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were not measured and logs of exploratory borings are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated. No free water was encountered in Borings 1, 3, and 4, at the time of drilling. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Moisture Content in percent of dry soil weight DD = Dry Density (pcf) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve, clay & silt size. WSS = Water Soluble Sulfates (%) 193 106 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 COMPRESSION % COMPRESSION % 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moisture Content = 22.1 Dry Unit Weight = 82 Sample of: Sandy silt From: 1 @ 1' Additional Compression Upon Wetting percent pcf 0.1 1 o 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 Moisture Content = 21.7 Ory Unit Weight = 105 Sample of Sandy silt From. 2 @ 4' Pdditioral Compression Upon Wetting percent pcf 0.1 1.0 to APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 193 106 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 1 COMPRESSION 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 0.1 Moisture Content 14.4 Dry Unit Weight = 89 sample of: Sandy Silt From: 3 @ 8, percent pcf Additional Compression Upon Wetting 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 Moisture Content = 9.7 percent Dry Unit We,gni 85 pcf Sample of Sandy silt w/gravel From: 4 4' Additional Compression Upon Wetting 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 193 106 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 M Cl • 0 U z J U 2 U w O w —J C- 0 w w J (1J 1- J 3 w w H Lt.. 0 >- O 2 2 .-• •..-- V) C rp ul >1 .--+ -4--> , i Cr C` •- v a) > C) 4) — .r-. Ui >,, •0 C cc> -I--) .--. N '' C MI V) Landv silt ) 4.3 4 r-. I ..-. i N r -c C CC tn 4- .--.. ..-y >i -c C (ID fil ay > C+ +-) .-. .N :›- - C CC tn CO C1 C:3 t..p N ATTER©ERG LIMITS LIQUID PLASTICITY LIMIT INDEX I%) 1X1 ln CO n n n co CS Cn In o Cr) CD Cn w �c cc to r-. ,..D In• N v- ct CO Cr, Cti Z O Vi O W a N S_ W _ 0- !- <t Cr) .-' ct Cr) CO N c - 2 S r 0 — N M • • JOB NO. 193 106 TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS HOLE HOLE LENGTH WATER WATER DROP IN AVERAGE NO. DEPTH OF DEPTH AT DEPTH AT WATER PERCOLATION (Inches) INTERVAL START OF END OF LEVEL RATE (Minutes) INTERVAL INTERVAL (Inches) (Min./Inch) (Inches) (Inches) P-1 48 5 15 1/2 15 1/2 ( Next to Boring 3) 10 15 14 1 10 14 13 1 10 13 12 1 10 12 11 1 10 P-2 56 10 11 9 2 (Next :o Bcring 4) 10 9 8 1/2 1/2 10 81/2 8 1/2 10 8 7 1/2 1/2 10 71/2 7 1/2 10 7 61/2 1/2 20 r r c it 3; 3 3. SECTION 20 & SECTION 19• TP. 7S, RNG.• 88W •NS. (,LARSH) wen f�.4w n., qwt. +_•. o.n. e- ......n .., GKl ..t 14,, Iy4� Sr,� •4e j!_4‘ 4119 iii1V No. 13669-G ENDORSEMENT TO TITLERENT SERIAL NUMBER ISSUED BY rt♦va W S T EWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY HEREIN CALLED THE COMPANY ITEM NO. 4 UNDER SCHEDULE A IS HEREBY AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ..aa•u� CHARGE A Parcel of land situated in Lots 1 and 2, Section 20 and in the NE4NE4, Section 19 all in Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th P.M., lying Westerly of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad and Easterly of the center of the Roaring Fork River described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast Corner of that land described in Book 622 at Page 548 as Reception No. 339418, whence the point of beginning of said document bears S. 46°45'24" W. 148.69 feet and also whence the Witness Corner to the North Quarter Corner of said Section 20 bears: N. 21°42'45" E. 1414.36 feet; thence West 682.25 feet along the Northerly line of said document to a point in the center of said river; thence N. 48°00'00" W. 136.10 feet along the center of said river; thence N. 64°45'00" W. 336.27 feet along the center of said river; thence N. 54°54'00" E. 1105.42 feet; thence S. 36°09'00" E. 805.50 feet along the Westerly right-of-way of said railroad; thence West 271.01 feet to a point on the Easterly line of the Glenwood Ditch; thence S. 04°47'00" W. 223.72 feet along the Easterly line of the Glenwood Ditch to the point of beginning. :COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO ri This Endorsement is made a partsaid)4 of sai )4 Ofv nd is t m an ,s subject to the schedules, conditions and stipulations therein, except as modified by the provisions hereof. commitment Nothing herein contained shall be construed as extending or changing the effective date of saidudun ess otherwise expressly stated. Signed under seal for the Company, but this Endorsement is to be valid only when it bears an authorized countersignature, this the 1st day of JULY 79 86 ti'1`I;WA. I2'I` TILE GUARANTY COMPANY. 11 1 '4' 4♦ E E Chairman of the Board Countersigned: uthorized Countersignature President LYi 4 G !., f ri ti : N ♦l [NOOK{[HENT E-9904.2 9 3 7 0 0 iE111wL NUMtlEN } r: A PROEM . tIO. *3.3669-G 1110 , . • • , ttiched to and made a part of Stewart Title Guaranty Company Policy No. •,- ! .:,. o. ntinUation of Schedule roperty :Right,of way for the uninterrupted flow of Roaring Fork River. ..±2asement for road and utility-purposeS-18 feet in width:Aranted 1iaolaE.Hburry by instrument recorded. June 10, 1977 inBook 497 '''r'-'rj: !,• ,-..' :.„. tbRithadC. Martin and Palma S. Martin by Richard Burry and At',:Page.:220 AsReception No..278917. • ., , ! .,: ,TerMS,conditions, stipulations and restrictions contained in ,., :'. theEtKception from the County Subdivison Regulations, Resolution No. 82-79, recorded April 8, 1982 in Book 596 at •Paget:89Ias Reception No. 326566. ,. ROadway and utility easement being 18 feet in dt across sUbject property as. set forth and gran o d. Richardson Hand co6,in Deed recorded, March 21,. 1 83 1 Book 22jatj'age_ • • 0-625740 548 as'Reception No. 339418. .Deed of Trust from Ed Larsh nd Judy Lar .). to the.Public Ttustee of Garfiel -ounty, t r the ie of Raymond L. Baldwin anizipOnna„.Lee Bal in, to sec P ,000.00, dated July 10, 1986 Hrecordeduly 10,11986 19 Book 691 at Page 270 as Reception No. 372516;,- 203 -A -T T WARI"F T 1L111 SCHEDULE B is policy,does not insure against Toss or damage by reason of the following: ig}its or'claims;of parties in possession not shown by the public records. Easements; or claims of easements, not shown by. the public records. Discrepancies :conflicts in boundary lines,. shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correctsurvey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. Any lien,;or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished,' imposed. by law`and not shown by the public records. Anyand all unpaid taxes and assessments and any 'unredeemed tax``;;sales . .The effect of inclusions in any .general or specific water • :ronservanc;rr ;tlrep rorection, So.il conservation or,.ot%er 'district 'or inclusion .in any water service' or street ' :improvement area. •:; Right' of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove `his ore therefrom, shouldthe same be found to penetrate or .intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United • States'< Patent, recorded October 24, 193 n Book :12 at Page 249 as A/eception Uo. 16443. y Right .of way for ditches or i_ : al. const.: cued by the authority of ,,:the United Mates, as reser ed n Unite :Mates Patent recorded, October 24 C9: in •k 12 at Page 249 as Reception no. 16443. •:,Plat and .:" atement o the:. arp Ditch, filed for record June 897! as R ception No. . ' 0, as the same affects subject roperty. tch Stat:em_ of Glenwood Ditch filed for record March 7, 01 as Reception No. 23549 as the same affects subject ropertg Sements. and 'rights , of way as granted to The Glenwood iga.tion Company by Document' No: 239b0 recot,ded in Book 44 a e x:457, as';:' r'rrthe same affect: subject property. •wand ;Statement ;of the Burry Spring Ditch and Fish Pond filed ocuments oto:" ° 202129 . p •a.nd`Statement` of the Burry Spring ..Pump and Pipeline filed.: s Document"Mo. 202130. .,Easement and right of way as granted to Mountain Mates f. Teleo p� . hone, and Telegrph by Richard .Burry by: instrument recorded 390. at Page 353 a; Reception,No. 239537; across' subject See: Continuation Page 1613 )20M 3-85) Page 3 STENVART TITLE GUARANTY: COMPANY -*1,410614004461414100001*".+1 Woo • gr1',1,r tiff'S POLICY—Amended 10/17/70 SCHEDULE A '12669-G Order No.: Date of Policy July 10, 1.986 At 12:32 PM. 1. Name of Insured: ED LARSH AND JUDY LARSH Policy No.: 0-625740 Amount of Insurance: $68,000.00 . The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: 1':L•' SIMPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: ED LARSH AND JUDY LARSH 4. .The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: SEE. PAGE 2A AUTHORIZED COt W EP.S IGMATTJRE