The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.0 ApplicationSUBDIVISION NAME: OWNER: • Ske ch {'lan - Ober 11, 1996 Preliminary Plan Final Plat SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM Four Mile Ranch Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture ENGINEER/PLANNER/SURVEYOR: Vann Associates, 230 E. Hopkins Ave. Aspen, CO LOCATION: Section 34 Township 6 South Range89 West of 6th P.M. WATER SOURCE: Two wells to be located on the project property. SEWAGE DISPOSAL METHOD: Independent Sewage Disposal Systems PUBLIC ACCESS VIA: Four Mile Road, Garfield County Road 117 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD EASEMENTS: Utility Ditch See supplemental information (paragraph 10) TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA: (1) Residential Single Famiy Duplex Multi -family Mobile Home (2) Commercial (3) Industrial (4) Public/Quasi-Public (5) Open Space/Common Area TOTAL: PARKING SPACES: Residential Commercial Industrial Number Acres 62 138 0 U 0 Floor Area Acres N/A sq.ft. N/A sq.ft. N/A N/A 138 Each unit will have a two car garage and two additional parking spaces in the driveway. N/A N/A FOUR MILE RANCH SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH CYNTHIA C. TESTER SHANE J. HARVEY DONALD H. HAMBURG Of Counsel LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW October 11, 1996 Mr. Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Regulatory Office and Personnel 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Four Mile Ranch Sketch Plan Dear Mark: We represent the Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture. includes the owners of the Four Mile Ranch property: Colorado corporation, and One And A Quarter Mile Ranch, Joint Venture was formed on June 20, 1996. 1011 GRAND AVENUE P.O. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261 FAX: (970) 945-7336 Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture M -R Colorado Investors, Inc., a Inc., a Colorado corporation. The Enclosed please find our check in the amount of $325 for the application fee for the Sketch Plan review of the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision, as well as 15 copies of the Sketch Plan submittal, including supplementary information. Please contact us immediately if any additional information is required. Finally, we are writing to advise you that it is the Joint Venture's intent to pay the $200 school impact fee at the time of final plat in lieu of land dedication for school purposes. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. LEL: rlb Enclosures cc: Lester Colodny C:\FILES\BEA N.1 LT FOUR MILE RANCH SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION October 11, 1996 1. WATER SUPPLY. The proposed central water system for the site will be owned and operated by the homeowners' association and should include at Least two wells, a storage tank, a chlorination treatment facility, and distribution lines. We anticipate the storage tank site to be located on proposed Lot 15 and the distribution lines to follow the roadway alignments. Fire hydrants will be spaced throughout the site as required by the Fire District. Developer further proposes to develop a raw water irrigation system utilizing senior irrigation water rights from the Four Mile Ditch. Water rights for the project are more thoroughly discussed in that letter dated October 11, 1996, from Loyal E. Leavenworth to the Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. The wastewater from each residential lot will be treated with individual sewage disposal systems ("ISDS"). The proposed lots should not pose any challenges with respect to obtaining adequate percolation rates for installation of the ISDS based on the general geology of the site and the soils condition, as more particularly described in the General and Engineering Geology and Soils Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 3. SOIL DESIGNATIONS. Soil designations and interpretations are thoroughly discussed in the General and Engineering Geology and Soils Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 4. IMPACT OF SUBDIVISION ON TOPOGRAPHY. The proposed subdivision is located on a relatively level terrace above the Roaring Fork River. The site is bordered to the west by the Four Mile Road and the steeper slopes of the western side of the Roaring Fork Valley. The site is bordered to the east by a terrace edge, consisting of a steep drop off into the lower Roaring Fork Valley. The majority of the site consists of a broad open terrace, gently sloping, to the west. There are no natural lakes or streams located on the site. It is the intention of the developer to create a lake and a reclamation stream as a visual amenity and as a possible water storage facility for raw water irrigation distribution. Approximately 80 acres of the site have been historically irrigated. The proposed development will not significantly modify the topography of the site, and impact will be minimal. 5. RADIATION HAZARDS. There are no known radiation hazards affecting the site. See letter attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 6. SITE ACCESS. The project will be accessed from Four Mile Road, Garfield County Road 117. This is a county -owned and maintained public right-of-way. All lots will access Four Mile Road either directly or by internal roadways which will be constructed to County standards, will be maintained by the homeowners' association, and will be publicly dedicated easements. Secondary emergency access will be provided with a break -away gate, as more specifically shown on the Sketch Plan. C:\FILES\COLODNYA. IMS October 11, 1996 7. ELECTRIC, NATURAL GAS, TELEPHONE, AND CABLE. The site has access to all available utilities. Electricity will be provided by the City of Glenwood Springs. A confirmation letter from the City is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Natural gas will be provided by Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, a division of K N Energy. A letter of confirmation from Rocky Mountain Natural Gas is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Telephone service will be provided by U S West Communications. A confirmation letter from U S West is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. It is the intention of the developer to provide satellite television services to the project. Satellite equipment will be installed, owned, and maintained by a private corporation. 8. EXISTING CONDITIONS. A map showing the existing conditions is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. 9. SKETCH PLAN. The Sketch Plan for the Four Mile Ranch is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. 10. DITCHES. The Four Mile Ditch enters the property on the south and runs in a generally northerly direction until it terminates on the property. This ditch has historically irrigated the property. There are no users from the ditch downgradient of the property. C: \FILES\CO LOD N YA. 1 MS October 11. 1996 -2- i • FOUR MILE RANCH SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL EXHIBIT INDEX 1. Water rights discussion by Loyal E. Leavenworth, Esq., dated October 11, 1996. 2. General and Engineering Geology and Soils Report. 3. Radiation hazards letter from Donald E. Barnes, Development Director, dated October 10, 1996. 4. Letter from City of Glenwood Springs, dated October 9, 1996, re: confirmation of electricity. 5. Letter from K N Energy, Inc., dated October 10, 1996, re: confirmation of natural gas. 6. Letter from U S West Communications, dated October 9, 1996, re: confirmation of telephone service. 7. Existing conditions map. 8. Sketch plan map for the Four Mile Ranch. F:\F[IES\FOUR.3IN October IL 1996 • • LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH CYNTHIA C. TESTER SHANE J. HARVEY DONALD H. HAMBURG October 11, 1996 Of Counsel Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture c/o Don Barnes, Project Manager 1205 South Platte River, Suite 101A Denver, CO 80223 Re: Four Mile Ranch Water Supply Dear Don: 1011 GRAND AVENUE P.O. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261 FAX: (970) 945-7336 The purpose of this letter is to give you my opinion regarding the water supply and water rights necessary to provide water service to the proposed 62 -lot Four Mile Ranch Subdivision. It is my understanding that the water supply will consist of two or more wells located upon the property which will provide water for in-house use and limited lawn and garden irrigation. It is the present plan of the developer to secure the Water Court approval of an augmentation plan for this purpose, utilizing the water allotment contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District (i.e., Ruedi Reservoir) for augmentation purposes. I foresee no difficulty obtaining approval of an augmentation plan for this purpose and, following sketch plan approval, will commence appropriate Water Court proceedings and application with the West Divide District for that purpose. In addition, the Joint Venture proposes to utilize a raw water irrigation system for the majority of the lawn irrigation on the property. The owners of the property currently own the following decrees and irrigation rights: FOUR MILE DITCH Adjudication Date Appropriation Date Decree Joint Venture Ownership Interest in c.f.s. Total Amount of Decree 5/11/1889 12/29/1913 8/25/1936 10/24/1952 11/6/1881 12/7/1903 5/15/1919 6/1/1920 19 1475 3082 4033 1.6 .8 2.0 2.72 3.2 1.6 4.0 5.44 C: \FILES\FOUR. 1 LT LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCS, P.C. Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture Page 2 October 11, 1996 1 Based upon my review of water rights engineering reports contained within our files, it is my understanding that approximately 80 acres has historically been irrigated on Four Mile Ranch. The owners' interest in the Four Mile Ditch water rights should be more than sufficient to provide the raw water irrigation supply. The senior priority in the Four Mile Ditch is the most senior water right on Four Mile Creek. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. LEL:rib C:\FILES\FOUR. I LT • 1 Lincoln DeVore,lnc. Geotechnical Consultants 1000 West Fillmore St. Colorado Springs, CO 80907 11 Land Design Partnership P. 0. Box 517 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Attn: Mr. Ron Liston TEL: (719) 632-3593 January 2 6, 1 99 4 FAX: (719) 632-2648 II Re: Four Mile Ranch, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Lincoln DeVore Report No. 29874, Dated September 4, 1979 illDear Mr. Liston: As requested, personnel of Lincoln DeVore have reviewed the above referenced report entitled "General and Engineering Geology and observation of the site did not note major identifiable fill on Soils, Four Mile Ranch, Glenwood Springs, Colorado." Visual the site, although a more extensive comparison of data will be 11 required to determine if cuts and fills have been made on the site. The site appears to be in essentially the same condition as when it was studied in 1979. 111 The discussions of soils found in the exploratory borings and of the geologic hazards on the site are still valid. The 1979 study was intended to be a general study of the site and, in our opin- 111 ion, remains a valid discussion of the various geologic hazards found on the site and in the immediate vicinity. M We note, however, that the City of Glenwood Springs has enacted at least two ordinances since the issuance of this report, which will require some additional study. Definite identification of II areas which may be subject to potential rock fall and potential debris flow are the most important of these. We recommend further study to determine if these hazards actually exist at this time and the probability of such movement. 101 In addition, advances in the state of geotechnical art and im- proved geogrid and geofabric construction methods now exist which were not in existence in 1979. Specifically, the use of special foundations and geofabric construction to mitigate potential hydrocompaction at some places on the site is greatly improved. We recommend that these methods be considered for foundation design at some points on the site. We recommend grading and drainage recommendations, special foundation recommendations and earth retaining structure recommendations be revised to take advantage of the new technologies and City Regulations where such changes are found to be applicable. 1i �a . • Four Mile Ranch January 26, 1994 Page -2- In general, the majority of the site is covered by the various recommendations given in the report. Some site specific data is needed concerning the locations of areas of probable rock fall and debris flow --if any such locations exist on the site. It is further recommended that advantage be taken of technology im- provements since 1979. Other than this, we find the subject report to be generally applicable to the site. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based on a visual review of the referenced property and review of the refer- enced report. This review of the property is limited to observa- tion without probing or excavation on the property. For this reason, Lincoln DeVore makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, as to the recent observations, recommendations or pro- fessional advice except that they were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices in the fields of foundation engineering, soil mechanics and engineering geology. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact the undersigned engineer at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, LINCOLN DeVORE, INC. GDM/lab Enclosure i GENERAL & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & SOILS FOUR MILE RANCH GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO PREPARED FOR Four Mile Ranch Company 0^20 127 Road Glenwood Spring:,, Colorado PREPARED BY 1 51601 Lincoln DeVore, Inc. 1000 W. Fillmore St. Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907 • • Uncoin DeVcre 1000 Well Flllmo i SI Colorado SpnInca. Co1O id ..0007 13031637.3503 Mom. Of: ic. Four Mile Ranch Company 0a20 127 Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: John Ray Re: GENERAL & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & SOILS FOUR MILE RANCH GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO Gentlemen: --�,�r-_«.•� � ..._;sem �.o_:.�..:::.:-.i; � a 9 87r September 4, 1979 Transmitted herewith is a report concerning the general and engineering geology and soils of the proposed Four Mile Ranch located in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. This report has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Colorado Senate Bill 35 (30-28-133 C.R.S. 1973 as amended) and Garfield County Subdivision Regulations. Respectfully submitted, LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LJ1.9ORATORY, INC. By: Robert L. Bass Civil Engineer Reviewed by vfb LDTL Jo;. ..v. 043-1153 t ancy B. Lamm ; c;;;1 % ofeasional Geologist -c. `, 0 Y � t C`i Michael T. Weaver Professional Geologist 7090 ►�qnr 50 WNI ► 0 So+ 1427 101'bwroot Roza F.O. oro. 1111 i.0Viejo(3 3) . Colo4I160 009 (O+ 3) 345-6 Oo+o ttECt ( )244.1131,140t � 141 Oab 11Mat �3WH M� j A(2225;T I 0A e-11 '.810/011filaima•BNI At the request of Mr. John Ray, Lincoln-DOVore conducted an on site geologic and subsurface soils investigation of a parcel of land known as the Four Mile Ranch. This property is located in the South half of Section 27 and the North half of Section 34, 'township 6 South, Range 89 Nest of the 6th Principal Meridian, approximately 2 1/2 miles south of Glen- wood Springs in Garfield County, Colorado. It is our understanding that municipal water and d central sewage system are planned. Lincoln-DeVore did, however, conduct a limited number of percolation testa along the upper portions of the site in the event that on- site waste disposal is needed in this *lea. The Four Mile Ranch is located on a relatively level terrace above the Roaring Fork River. The site is bordered to the west by the Four Mile Road and the steeper slopes of the westerlside of the Roaring Fork Valley. The rite is bordered to the east by the terrace edge, consisting of a steep drop off into the lower Roaring Fork Valley. The majority of the site consists of a broad open terrace, gently sloping to the west. Four Mile Creek flows into the Roaring Fork south of the site, although indications are that at one time it may have crossed the site and flowed into the Roaring Fork to the north of the site. Current land use of the -site is primarily agricultural with the majority of the site in alfalfa and pasture. Vegetation on the remainder of the site consists of sage and grasses. Numerous unlined irrigation ditches cross the sit., r-- carrying water at the time of site investigation. -1- • • GEYMRAL GZcLOGY Eagle Valley Evaporite (Pev) Bedrock b.ne3th tho site is th. of Pennsylvanian Age, a seq,Jence of gypsum and shale with odmiytilrel of silt and salt. The Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the terrace deposits and outcrops in places along the vase of this terrace where it is not obscured by slope wash. Beneath, and to the w.st of the site, the Eagle Valley Evaporite intertongues with the Maroon Formation (PPm) of Permian -Pennsylvanian Age. The Maroon Formation outcrops as the distinctive red cliffs that border the site to the west. Overlying the Maroon Formation and to the west of the mita, the exposed bedrock consists of upturned sedimentary beds, dipping steeply to the west and forming the Grand Hogback. These up- turned beds are capped regionally, and in particular, immediately above the Four Mile Ranch, by faulted blocks of Quaternary basalt. The regional aspect of the bedrock geology is in direct relation to the surficial deposits found on the Four Mil. Ranch sits. Overlying the Eagle Valley Evaporite on the site is a sequence of rounded cobbles, gravels, and sands, mapped as older Quaternary terrace deposit (Qt2) of the Roaring Fork River. These cobbles and gravels consist of a varied mix- ture of sedimentary an4 crystalline rock. Overlying this terrace deposit is another terrace -like deposit comprised almost exclusively of basalt cobbles and boulders (Qtb). The majority of the cobbles and boulders in the deposit are rounded although some large ang- ular boulders were noted. The clear distinction between the overlying '.--Lt terrace and the underlying river terrace deposit is explained by the apparent source area for tha basalt. On the hilialcpws immediately above the Four Mile Ranch, several large landslides are mapped on the Garfield County House sill 1040 Land -2- Use Maps. These landslides are located immediately below areas of existing ha -,alt outcrops and possibly were planes of slippage along which large blocks of basalt moved down into the Roaring Fork Valley and onto existing terrace deposits. The rounded appearance or the basalt cobbles and bou1.er■ on the site is probably due in part to weathering and, in p+rt, to reworking by the Roaring Fork River and Four Mile Creek. Thie layer of basalt material probably once covered the entire Four Mile Ranch area, but at present, covers only about half of the site. From a review of the topography and geomorphology of the trod, it is probable that Four Mile Creek once flowed along the western portion of the site and could have transported much of the basalt debris away from the site. Surficial material■ over much of the western portion of the site are a silty clay overlying sand and some gravely these materialm are indicative of a stream envian ent. At some point in the re- latively recent geologic past, headward erosion pirated Four Mile Creek, which then down cut to its present channel south of the terrace and east into the Roaring Fork River. Colluvial deposits from the steeper slopes west of the site have formed a wedge along the base of the �illslopes west of the site. Debris from the Maroon Formation, including several large boulders, comprise this colluvial slope wash. The engineering significance of this and the occurrence of the basalt will be discussed in the Engineering Geology portion of this report. -3- ENGIKEERING GEOLOGY Slope $tabilit Although, at one time, there was apparently large scale mass movement onto the site, indic+tiona are that this maws movement is not an active phenomenon. fh, basalt debris on the site appears for the most part uniformly rounded and weathered and no indications of recent movement were noted. Much of the basalt material appears to have been tran- ported away from the site and no apparent mass wasting has occurred since then. A rockfall hazard does exist along the western boundary of the sits, and in particular, along the southwestern end. where rocks up to 4 feet in diameter were noted. It is felt that the rock■ have probably lost much of their mom- entum by the time they reach the site; nevertheless, this hazard should be considered in the proposed development. It is recom- mended that homesites be located away from the western boundary of the site, and some measure taken to mitigate the rockfall hazard. Sone suggested measures to slow the velocity of moving rocks would be the construction of an open trench or Rutschver- hinderung barrier or fend -like structure to catch or slow the momentum of moving boulders. There is no indication on the site of other forms of mass wasting from the steeper slopes west of the site. Floodways The site is located well above the floodplain of the Roaring Fork River. In addition, flooding frog Four Mile Creek is not considered a hasard on the site. -4- • • /i‘rtiflcal I -s •ds There are no known man-made or artificial hazards that should preclude development of the mita. A number of unlined irrigation Bitches cross the aio-e but their presence should not sig;,ificantly affect the proposed development. Soil Conditions Tun teat borings were drilled by Lincoln-DsVore to determine subsurface soil conditions. The re- sults of the soil testing as well as foundation recommendations will be discussed in detail in the soil engineering portion of this report. In general, no soil conditions were noted on the+ mite that would preclude the proposed development. A caliche layer was noted in Test Borings 1 and 6 and may be assumed to underlie a portion of the site. The presence of thiacaliche will affect subsurface drainage and may pose some difficulty in excavation. Sulfates were notod in most of the test borings. The presence of these sulfates are indicative of soil conditions corrosive to Type I Cement; a sulfate resistant cement in recommended for contact with these soils. Water Table Free water was encountered at a depth of 17' in Test Boring No. 9. This test boring is located in a shallow basin -like feature in the southwest portion of the site. A seasonal shallow water table can be expected in this area, due primarily to irrigation practice in the area. Cessation of irrigation and lining of existing irrigation ditches will help to this shallow water table condition. In general, how- ever, the majority of the site appeared well drained at the time of the site inspection and no free water was encountered in the remaining test borings. -5- Slopes on the site ere, for the most part, gentle and range from about 7% to about 15%. The degree of elopes s..eepen greatly in the northwest corner of the site,and to a marked extent along the eastern boundary of the site. Construction is not recommended in these areae of excessive slopes. Although the steep slope along the eastern boundary of the site is stable in its present condition, it is recommended that con- struction be set back from the edge of this slope to avoid loading the top of the slope. Rippabili.t_y and &;11ision Excavation is not expected to be a problem on the site. The majority of the subsurface appears to consist of fine grained material or rounded cobbles, which should pose little difficulty in excavating. Erosion is not currently a problem on the Four Mile Ranch and, with good land practices, should not be a problem after development. Drainage and runoff should be carefully controlled and vegetation should be retained as much as possible. Mi.3tr3l_i.iou1 35 The presence of the gravel terrace material provides a source of aggregate marerial, but its location beneath the layer of basalt material would appear to limit its economic value. The presence of this gravel terrace should not preclude the proposed development. per-c4.tn '£esti�q Two percolation teats were conducted on the Four Mile Ranch site; the results are as ta5ulated on the following page. -6- Te[t Eiu2a'_,a Minutes to Inc [ tt4yl _ca_Tt!A Des. Qn e__IQQ 1 Tout Boring 01 13 2 Test Boring 03 20 Refusal on cobbles at 7' Both percolation test results fall into the acceptable range for standard leach fields. No tree water was encountered in either test boring nor was bedrock encountered or expected. From the results of these preliminary tests, standard leaching fields will probably be acceptable/ however, it is recommended that individual testing be conc;icted in areas where individual septic s;•ste.zs are desired. Test pp�� Refusal on cobbles at 10' 2.92.$1-N9A.,_14bIQRY 1ST.. J,K RESULTS Ten test borings were drilled on this site at locations indicated in the ow:lowed Geologic Kap (Plats 1). Th. test borings were located in such a manner an to provide a reasonably yood profile of the subsurface soils beneath this site. While some variations were noted from point to point, sufficient information was obtained that no further test borings were deemed necessary. All test borings were advanced with a power driven continuous drill. Samples were taken with the stan- datd split -spoon sampler, with thin-walled Shelby tubes, and by bulk methods. The soil profile encountered can baudly be characterized as a two layer system. The upper layer of this system consisted of a layer of silty clay. This silty clay was quite variable in density, and contained a considerable portion of sand -sized particles at many locations. Zones of cal- iche were also encountered in this material in Test Borings 1 and 6. Below this upper silty clay layer was encountered dense, terrace gravel and cobbles. The depth to these terrace materials ranged from 7 to 19 feet depending upon location. Terrace material was not encountered in Test Borings 7 and 9. In rest Borings7, 8. and 9 a layer of very sandy silt was encountered immediately below the silty clay. With a very slight change in grain -sire characteristics this silt would have classified as fined grained, silty •and. The silt materials were generally of moderate density. The samples obtained during our field exploration program have been grouped into four soil types. Soil Types I and 3 are representative of the upper silty clay w -8- • materials. Sotl Iype No. 2 is representative of the coarse, silty, Bendy matrix,, surrounding gravel and cobbles in the terrace deposits. Soil Type No. 4 is representative of the sandy silt encountered in Test Borings 7,8, and 9. More pre- cise engineering characteristics of these 4 soil types are given on the enclosed summary sheets. The following dious.ion will be general in nature. Soil Types 1 and 3 both classifled as silty clay (CL/ML) and are representative of the surficial deposits on this site. Soil Type No. 1 contained significantly more sand -wised particles than Soil Type No. 3. However, the properties of these two materials as foundation soils will b. quite s'.milar and, therefore, they are groupa►d together here for purposes of discussion. Generally, Soil Types$o. 1 and 3 are slightly plastic, of low permeability, and were encountered in density states ranging from moderately low to high. In higher density states, these materials can be expected to expand upon the addition of moisture with expansion pressures of 900 to 1200 paf being measured. In lower density states, these materials can be expected to experience long-term consolidation upon loading. Due to the variation in consistency of these materials, it is considered important that proper maximum and minimum beating cap- acity values he determined for the foundation soils at each build- ing location. Additionally, balancing, reinforcing, and drainage recommendations are considered important. The bearing capacity values for these materials were noted to range from 2000 pat of maximum allowable bearing capacity, with a minimum recommended diad load pressure of e,sf to 4000 psf maximum allowaLle bear- ing capacity, with a minimum recommended dead load pressure of -9- 1200 psf. Intermediate variations between these two extremes can also be expected. Soil Types 1 anv1 3 contains sulfates in detrimental quantities. Soil Type bio. 2 classified as silty sand (V4) of coarse grain sine. This material is re- presentative of the silty sand matrix, surrounding gravel, cobble, and boulder-rised particles in the alluvial and basalt terraue deposits. G..lerally, Soil Type Mo. 2 is non -plastic, permeable, and was encountered in a moderate to high density condition. The terrace deposits will have no tendency to expand upon the addition of moisture, nor any tendency to long-term consolidation upon loading. Granular materials such as thele often experience settlement upon application of loading, but it is anticipated that settlement will be relatively minor under the proposed re- sidential loads. At any rate, any settlement will be fairly rapid and will probably be complete by the end of construction. The terrace materials were encountered beneath this site at depths ranging from 7 to 19 feet at the time of drilling. At this depth, it is felt that the majority of the foundation systems will not rest on the material of Soil Type No. 2. Avwev.c, should foundations rest in this material they may be proportioned on the basis of a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 4000 psf, with no minimum pressure required. Soil Type No. 2 contains a slight amount of sulfates. Soil Type No. 4 classified as silt (KL) with a considerable portion of sand -sired particles. With only a slightchange in grain -sire characteristics, this material would have classified as fine grained silty sand. Generally, Soil Type No. 4 is non -plastic, of low to moderate permeability, and -10- was encountered in a moderate density condition. It will have no tendency to expand upon the addition of moisture, nor any approciable tendency to true long-term consolidation. This mat- erial may settle somewhat upon application of foundation loads and may be subject to loss of strength upon saturation. However, ',..4'4: the detrimental propurrties of this material should not create -:. any difficulties if proper attention is paid to balancing and reinforcing of foundations and to control surface and subsurface drainage. Soil Type No. 4 was encountered at depths ranging from 9 to 20 tees below the ground surface at the time of drilling. At this depth, it is likely that foundations will rest in this material. However, should Soil Type No. 4 5e encountered at foundation level, foundations resting in it may be proportioned on the basis of a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 3000 psf, with no minimum pressure required. Soil Type No. 4 contains sul- fates in detrimental quantities. Free water was encountered in Test boring No. 9 at a depth of 17 feet below the ground surface. This free water level is believed to be the result of current irrigation practices on the tit* and of the presence of numerous unlined irrigation ditches. Additionally, soil conditions such as cal- iche :ones and sulfate stringers encountered at various locatio04 across this site would indicate a potential for periodic subsur- face seepage. Therefore, it is recommended that full and half basement foundations be well sealed. Additionally, subsurface drains may be required in many instances. -11- • • QNB A2szixs_ MKE HDA T six vino• the magnitudd and naturd of the proposed foundation loads are not precisely known to Linooln- DeJo:e at this time, the recommendations contained herein must be somewhrt general in nature. Any special loads or unusual design conditions should be reported to Lincoln-DeVore so that changes in recommendations can be made if necessary. However, based upon our analysis of the soil conditions and project charac- teristics previously outlined, the following recommendations are made. It is recommended that shallow foundation systems consisting of continuous foundations beneath bearing walls and isolated spread footing. beneath columns and other points of concentrated load be used to carry the weight of the proposed structures. All of the materials encountered in the teat borings are considered suitable for shallow found- ation support. However, considerable variation in bearing cap- acity values were noted across this site. Bearing capac'.tiea for the upper silty clay materials were noted to range from 2000 pat maximum, with a Tinimum recommended dead load pressure of 500 psf,to 4000 paf maximum, with a minimum recommended dead load pressure of 1200 psf. Intermediate variations be- tween these two extremes can also be expected. The terrace materials of Soil Type No. 2 will have a maximum allowable bar- ing capacity of about 4000 psf, with no minimum pressure required. The coarse grained, sandy silt of Soil Type No. 4 will have a maximum allowable bearing capacity on the order of 3000 psf, with no minimum pressure required. Bearing capacity values for any given structure should be established by inspection of the open foundation excavation prior to construction. The bottoms of • e foundations should be located a minLmum of 3 1/2 feat below finished yrcde or greater if dictated by local building codes, for frost protection. Whers the upper silty clay materials are encountered in a high density expansive condition, special techniques in foundation construction will b. necessary. One type of foundation which would be suitable for theae soils, would be the no -footing stem wall on grade foundation, with strategically placed voids, to help balance contact stresses and maintain the recommended minimum dead load pressures. Another type of suitable foundation system for expansive conditions would utilise a series of isolated pada, spanned by voided,reinforced concrete grade beams, around exterior foundations. With either of these two types of foundation systems, isolated interior pada should be carefully proportioned to satisfy the maximum and minimum bearing values of the foundation soils. It is recommended that the proposed foundation systems be well balancer,. Residential structures typ- ically are mole oeavily loaded on some walls and columns than on others, and the amount of variation can be quits significant. Bal- ancing can be accomplished by placing larger footings beneath heavier loadland smaller footings beneath lighter loads. As has been discussed previously, the judicious use of voids may be instru- mental in obtaining the desired balanced condition as well as in maintaining ti+s recommended minimum pressures for expansive soils. The criteria for balancing will depend somewhat upon the nature of the structure. Single -story slab on grade structures may be balanced on the basis of dead load only. Multi -story structures or ctructur.s with basements or crawl spaces should be balanced on -13- w o the basis of dead load plus approximately one -halt the live load. Using whichever criteria is applicable, foundations beneath ex- terior wa11s should be balanced to within ,t 500 psf at all points. Isolated interior footings should be designed for unit loads of about 200 psf greater than the average of those selected for the ,xterior walls. It is recommended that all stem walla for continuous foundations be designod as grade beams cap- able of carrying their loads over a clear span of at least 12 feet. Horizontal reinforcement should be placed continuously in found- atlon walls with no gaps or breaks in the reinforcing steel, unless specially designed. Foundation walls should be reinforced at both top and bottom, with the reinforcing being approximately balanced between these two locations. Were foundation walls will retain soil in excess of 4 feet in height, vertical reinforcing ray be necessary and should be designed. For use in designing this reinforcing, the equivalent fluid pressure of the soil may be taken as about 45 pcf in the active state. Where concrete slabs are used, they may be placed directly on grade or over a compacted gravel blanket of 4 to 6 inches in thickness. If the gravel blanket is Chosen, however, it smut be provided with a free drainage outlet tc the ground surface, so as not to act as a water trap beneath the floor slab. Floor slabs should be constructed in such a manner that they act independently of columns and bearing walls. These slabs should be placed in sections no greater than 25 feet on a side. Deep construction or contraction joints could be placed at these lines to facilitate even breakage. This will keep to a minimum any unsightly cracking which would be caused by differential movement. �� j-' -'l'1 , -14- Adequate drainage must be maintained around the structures both during and after construction to prevent the ponding of water. The ground surface around the structures must be graded such that surface water will be carried q.:ickly away. Minimum gradient within 10 feet of any structure will depend .ipon surface landsc.,ping. Bare or paved areas should have a minimum gradient of 2%, while landscaped areas should have a minimum gradient of 7%. Roof drains should be carried across all backfilled areas and discharged well away from the structure. The overall drainage pattern should be such that water directed away from one structure is not directed against an adjacent structure. As has been discussed previously there is a potential for periodic subsurface seepage on this site. Therefore, it i■ recommended that full or half basement foundations be well sealed. In some instances, subsurface peri- pheral drains may be necessary. Subsurface drains would be de- sirable fcr all of the structures as a precautionary measure against water from subsurface seepage, and from poor surface drainage conditions. Subsurface drains should consist of an adequate discharge pipe, gravel collector, and sand or fabric filter. The discharge pipe should be provided with a free gravity outfall to the ground surface if at all possible. If gravity out- fall is not possible, then a lined sump and pump should be used. Backfill around the propo►ed struc- tures and in utility trenches leading to the structuresshould be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor dry density. ASTM D-698. The native soils on this site may be used for backfilling purposes with the exception of any organic top- soil materials. Backfill should be placed in lifts not to exceed -15- 6 inches compacted thickness and at the Proctor optimum mois- ture content + 2%. Backfill must be compacted to the required 3ensity by mechanical means and no water flooding techniques of any type should be used in the placement of fill on this site. Any topsoil or debris should be removed from the construction area prior to beginning of con- struction of foundations. Additionally, should any pockets of debris, organic material or otherwise unauit::bls material be encountered during excavation for footings, this material should be removed and replaced with suitable backfill compacted to 95% of the maximum standard Proctor dry density, using the procedures previously outlined. The open foundation excavations should be inspected prior to the construction of forms or place- ment of concrete to determine the proper maximum and minimum bearing capacity values and to establish that no debris, soft spots, or other unsuitable materials are located in the found- ation area. The finer grained soils on this site contain sulfates in detrimental quantities. Therefore, a sulfate resistant cement such as Type II Cement is recommended for use in all concrete which will be in contact with the found- ation soils. Under no circumstances should calcium chloride ever be added to a Type II Cement. In the emwttnat Type II Ce- ment is difficult to obtain, a Type I Cement may be used pro- viding the concrete is separated from the soils by water resistant membranes. It is believed that all pertinent points concerning the subsurface moils on this site have been -16- 1 covered in this r• • part. If soil types and conditions other than those o':tlined herein are noted during construotion on this site, these should be reported to Lincoln-D.Vor• so that changes in recommendation' can be made if n•ces4acy. If questions ari.• or further informAtion is required, please feel free to contact our office. L. -17- 1, F[TEST HOLE Na TCP ELEVATION i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -10 _ -20 _ -25 L -30 06 Immo 0-35 0-40 - s ,wr►4...✓ii ..r 4. 4. 4. DRILLING LOGS u.� LINCOLN DCVORE sKiIM.(R1• $LOLO111 $ OOLORADO$ COLORADO MRIIF{1,"� PU[RLO , ♦LANf0 SPRIER' , GRAND JUMOTlON , WORTRO1i , 'rooms! ROCK 1PRIRC3 TEST MOLE NO. 1')P ELEVATION 0-10 • —Ib Woo —20 !L l"4S i4 r - :•N 4s 6 444 7 I AMA...We/ /. ..•• /114.4N • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ono 3,Ali.41tt • • • • ego w• - •4 ▪ J▪ .J • • • • • rt • • • • • • • • ONO • • • • • • • DRILLING LOGS ne 4../ • ,1 . �... A'rri.a.o.:ilAft. LING LN D.VORE CMIIN1iR• `10LOOI1T1 • • • • • • • • • • r 4. • • • • • T • 10 15 as OOt.ORADOI COLORADO •/RIMSS , /VEILO , *LINWOOD IPRINI $ , SNAND JUNCTION , NOMTR011 , WY4WINII RQ9 •P$tNf ':31 s • SUMM.&YcHIEE Soil Semple mow+. ce.,, 44 J �,.�s____ Location Ai..... rildir bring Sofr I e No . Tri Depth 1 Noturol Water Content (w)_i % Sp.ciflc Grovlty SIEVE ANALYSIS: Slew No. I1/2" % Poising 1" 3/4" 4 :0 20 40 004 rrr OR/ 100 200 Alt HYDROMETER ANALYSIS: Groin size (mm) SOIL ANALYSIS Test No. U • 41_/71 Test by .-t In luc, Density fro) _pcf Plastic Limit P.L 1A I _% Liquid Limit L. Plasticity index P.I. w t _% Shrinkage Limit J11_ Flow Index Shrinkage Rotio % V, Change Lineal Shrinkage MOISTURE DENSITY: ASTM METHOD Optimum Moisture Content - we _ % Maximum Dry Density -rri pcf California Bearing Ratio (av) % Sw• Il I _ l �eyt es, f % Swelagairst�rr�pef Wo goIr BLARING: Hous.l Penetrometer (cry) psf Unconfined Conprsuion (qu).i.p:f Plate Bearing: .pd Inches Settlement Consolidation % under pie PERMEABILITY: K (ot 20°C) Void Ratio Sulfates titi • PPm• LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO sib—c��f „d,,, ;�• ��„� ■ ■ a 1 V V !o 1 1 S m p I• 4 L6 w _Leri /ter,/ Project ,- .. rs _2E,,&4 t&*ple Location 7-'-/0 r,,r• 4,4, 10 9 8 7 6 5 4i 3 2 lu 0 • Test No. Date A 11117? Test by 1 D�aaeter-( I 11- )4-1t • , 44-4 1010 #20 s40 MI00 40200 - S! •-ve No. • .001 Sample No r Bpficific Gravity J.7, Me)isture Co: tent 4, Zff.ctive 61r Cu Cc Pinan.ss Modulus L.L. � 1'. 1 . NOP % BYAP 1Nr, _- .44•04s_ Per Sieve $17.0 % Passing 1 1/2” 1" 3/4" 1/2'• 3/6' 11.7 10 1/z 20 '.1.4t 40 Lr` 100 Act 20Q .,st 0200 « 7 or I Sulfate. tor, ' ��Pa GRAIN SIZF. ANALYSIS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO GRAVEL SAND SILT Tu CLAY Coarse Fine C. Mcdlum I Fine Nonplastic to P1..stic ' III I 01111 1111111-+ - ;, I 0 : � , -i--+-l � !IIIiIIi 3 i1r 1111111111=1 1 .� + tI �� - - 1— - If ' - n 1 ii ! I IIII i„1.. I 1 11 I' I' I i , i loo ■ I I 11111 ■ 1 1 D�aaeter-( I 11- )4-1t • , 44-4 1010 #20 s40 MI00 40200 - S! •-ve No. • .001 Sample No r Bpficific Gravity J.7, Me)isture Co: tent 4, Zff.ctive 61r Cu Cc Pinan.ss Modulus L.L. � 1'. 1 . NOP % BYAP 1Nr, _- .44•04s_ Per Sieve $17.0 % Passing 1 1/2” 1" 3/4" 1/2'• 3/6' 11.7 10 1/z 20 '.1.4t 40 Lr` 100 Act 20Q .,st 0200 « 7 or I Sulfate. tor, ' ��Pa GRAIN SIZF. ANALYSIS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO t_ L. tk SUJMM1ARY CHI ET Soil So mole 1iLrr ) Test t Jo . .Ft• /ice J Location Farr 14#V 2rta„f D • t/11/71 Boring No, 1 Depth I' Sample N . Test by s Natural Water Contrnt (w) /7 ar % Spocific Gravity (Gs) 1, {t In loci Density f o)f fK SIEVE ANALYSIS: Sieve No. % Passing 1 1/2” 3/4" i/2„ 4 10 v‘hci 20 :s,* 40 .:,i 100 P4,/ 200 .4.e HYDROMETER ANALYSIS: Grain size (m -i) 9b . •c 47,' SOiL ANALYSIS Plastic Limit Pi_ tht,1 % Liquid Limit L. L tA•A__. Plasticity Index P.I. t 0:___% Shrinkoge Limit t1 A % Flow Index Shrinkage Ratio % '/ .lumetric Change % Lineal Shrinkage % MOISTURE DENSITY: ASTM METHOD Optimum Moisture Content - w^_� Maximum Dry Density -rd pcf California Bearing Ratio (av) 9t, 1.E % Swell ogoinst is psf Wo BEARING: House) Penetrometer (av) psf Unconfined Companion (qu) _,pif Plote Bearing: psf Inches Settlement Consoiidotion % under Pe PERMEABILITY: K (at 20°C) Void Ratio Sulfates ii.v' ppm, LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO s'-�. Y d'r• • is Soli Sample • SUMMARY cH' ET io dc1L1cY.C� �if*!� Location _E3e•� r Borin9 No t Depth Sam Ia No. 4 Test No . 1A -//Ki (� s Test by .t" Natural Water Conttnt Specific Gravity (Gs) li/ In luct tensity (To) pcf SIEVE ANALYSIS: Sieve No. % Passing 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1 2" 4 10 /vo 20 t t d 40 100 74 4 200 rt .11 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS: Groin size (mm) Plastic Limit PA._ �6 Liquid Limit L. L. .96 Piasricity Index P.I. % Shrinkage Limit //.Q% Flow Index Shrinkage Ratio % V.Iumetric Chang. Lineal Shrinkoge MOISTURE DENSITY: ASTM METHOD Optimum Moisture Content - Ma.cirnum Dry Density -rd pcF California Bearing Ratio (av) Swell _Goya Swell against_psf Wo gain—% BEARING: House! Penetrometer (ov) Jell,* psf Unconfined Compression (qu) psf Plot. Bearing: paf Inches Settlement Consolidation % ur.der psf PERMEABILITY: K (at 20°C) — Void Ratio Sulfates er+eat ' pp -1. SOIL ANALYSIS LINCOLN-D.VORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 2 1 rd lirrirrillThilrirkl-11 t • Ft 89 W. 59/0 •II Alen q I. �I'., Cardiff I;, Airport • i 62 \ 0 i 1A rBN6 ,. Bol \ Qtb • • 818#5 ' V. 11.2. . I .'TF1 a/IOerl y ® \ .k 76 # 7' ' r1r1• I TE TBM3 6.1'0 ..9 5 Teae Approumale site boundary Qt2 - B. 24 / 19 Qat 011.2 I Oib I LEGEND Alluvium (Quaternary) Terrace deposits (Quaternary) relative age is designated by number, 1 1s youngest Terrace like deposit comprised of basal) cobbles and boulders (Quaternary) Qc Colluvial stopewosh (Quaternary) Landslide (Ouoternory) PPm Maroon formation (Permian Pe nnsylvorsan ) rev Eagle Volley Evaporlle (Pennsylvanian) outcrops obscured in places by stopewosh '9111.12 Location of test borings N IMJ 14" 0 500 1000 1500' 2000 ( 1 r 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCALE IN FEET GEOLOGIC MAP FOUR MILE RANCH SUBDIVISION GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Project No GS -1153 1, Lincoln DeVore • Building & Planning Department Garfield County 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Four Mile Ranch Sketch Plan 10 October, 1996 ER This letter is to confirm, based upon review of Title history, exploratory borings and the DeVore Geotechnical Report, there is no history of mining, or evidence of dumping on the Four Mile Ranch site. Group of Companies An updated Engineering Geology and Soils Study report will be provided at the time of preliminary plat. We are unaware of any potential radiation hazards on the site. Respectfully Submitted, Donald E. Barnes, Development Director 2500 North Military Trail, Suite 175, Boca Raton. FL 33431. Telephone (407) 241-3200 Fax (407) 241-1098 1205 South Platte River Drive. Suite 101A. Denver. CO 80223. Telephone (303) 733-9787 Fax (303) 733-9802 LL` 4000U ,r r i , CLC 1 U JVJ y'-�JJJ_ i i UL., i U, r U� • GLENWOOD SPRINGS ELECTRIC SYSTEM j.4)-slagoor October 9, 1996 Four Mile Ranch Joint Venture Attn: Donald Barnes Suite 101 - A 1205 South Platte River Drive Denver, CO 80223 Mr. Barnes; This letter is to inform you that Glenwood Springs Electric System's service area does include the "Four Mile" area where your development is proposed. Please feel free to call or write if you have additional questions. Sincerely, (.,t., /L Gambrel - Electric Superintendent enwood Springs Electric System 302 W. 8TH STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 303/ 945-6672 i Vi FV/70 • • va. i £ ..- .a.. iia:.igy arkD I1" 27 _ 0,57° GA T nc"n ton Mile KHnc►► Jrnn► VPithn- . Don T? es 1205 South Platte Drive Si lite 101 -A Denver CO. goTri Re: intent to serve Dear (ver. Barnes IAnurfain Tonin K N Enemy !nr 401 27(h Strae PC) box ofU !970) 1.1,5 -es? it u tAi g,y'a imeni to provide adequate natural gas resources t0 ail silts -developments wit= its V c o+ A:; :,Ur,u a:i i . Ly pipeline ayS n upgrade will be made at the deveiopmt us expanse. �-..::.:.:.an�ai.�.i nuc "waw aLL S neoroly 7-1 t � . /N` C_ Crary Elean Erztrzv TOTAL 1='.01 UL I 0:1 7b iU"Ji rr. UJ WCJ ��uLurl-iL�U ��J �J + a • Carole A. Veyscy 700 W. Mineral Ave. Room CO J4.28 Littleton, Colorado 10/9/96 Mr. Donald E Barnes 4 Mile Ranch Joint Ventures 1205 S. Platte River Drive, Suite 101A Denver, CO 80223 Dear Mr. Barnes, Per your request, U S WEST Communications will provide telephone service to the 4 Mile Ranch Subdivision located in Glenwood Springs, Colorado as required by the tariffs filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. For your information, in order to design the job and prepare the Land Development Contract, we will need a copy of the final plat with addresses shown, open trench dates and required service dates and any phasing schedules. This information should be provided to us early in the planning stages to insure timely response. If you have any questions, please call me at 303-707-8520. Sincerely, (2-4,61)-6c_,j- Carole Veyscy U S WEST Communications KK TOTAL PAGE.02 K'K ,z-;') I " \ \\wit \\\\\\.\\ \ I (� �- \\�\`\111 -\ \ 1 N 1, (1\ "'";- 7177\\\;\\\\! ( \\ 11 ;I�k \ \\ \ { �•\\\\1111 \ 11 1,1 I1��11((c\ pot 13\.& \ l o 7q10 l)1\ Q \\\ \\ \\ 1('1`IV\�) — 1 1 111\))O(S))}I ) I I 1(ll/() I{ ( ki(s\\/! ) )17( \) \' 1 11\(\\ � I �v \ /i 9 I ,•i,/r \ io \ 3e\\\\��. -sH L N \ M 4 \' ¶-nim ` ` 3 �L� \ \ \ \ c \ 3 ,Z11.174:129 • 1 , 1 \\e \o