Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Application - Permit
I Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 Bth Street, Suite #401 Glenwood Springs, Co . 81601 Office :970-945·8212 Fax: 970-384-3470 Inspe ction Line : 970-384-5003 Building Permit No. \\Oct~ Parcel No: 2395-013-29 -250 Locality: lronbridge PUD , Phase II , Filing 1,2,3, Lot 250 Job Address : 0004 Eagle Claw Cir, GWS --------------------~------~------------------ Use of Building: s/f on foundation w/ att. Ga rage & cov . Patio --------------------------~------------------ Owner: Bontempo, Anthony & Wendy Contractor: Hansen Canst. Fees : Plan Check : $ 78 7.90 Septic: Bldg Permit: $ 1,212.15 Other Fees : $ 750 .00 Total Fees: $ 2,750.05 Clerk: c~-~ Date: cr%t ~~OD~ I \ I GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIO N I 08 8th Street, Sui te 40 I, Glenwood Spri ngs , Co 8160 I Phone: 970-945-8212 I Fax: 970-384-3470 /In spection Lin e: 970-384-5003 Wll'll'.l!ar fi eld -countv.com Parcel No : (this infonnation is availa ble at the assessors office 970-945-9 1 34) Use of Building: De sc rib e Work: Cla ss of Work: o Alt eration o Addition Garage: Sept ic: o ISDS Driveway Penni!: Owners valuation of Work: $ NOTICE Authority. This application for a Buildin g Pcnn it must be signed by the 0 \\ller of the prop erty. describ ed ab ove. or an authori ze d age nt. If the signature be low is not that of the Owner. a se parate letter of authority . sign ed by the Q\\11Cr, must be provid ed with this A ppli cation . Legal Access. A Building Permit cannot be issu ed without proof of leg al and adequate access to the prop erty for pmposes of inspections by the Building Department. Other Permits. Multi ple separate permits may be requi red : ( 1) State Electrical Pennit. (2) County ISDS Penn it. (3) another penn it required for u se on the prope rty identified above. e .g. State or County Hi ghway/ Road Access or a State Wastewater Discharge Pennit. Void Permit. A Building Permit becomes null and void if the work authori zed i s no t commenced within I 80 days of the date of issuan ce and if w ork is s usp end ed or abandoned fo r a period o f 180 days afier commencement. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that I have read this A pplication and that the information contained above is true and correct. I understand that th e Building Dep artm ent accept s the Applicati on, al an~ with the plans and sp ecifications and other data submiued by me or on my behalf(submittals ). based u pon my cert ification as to accuracy. As~uming compl eten e~" of the s u hmittals and approval of this Application. :1 Auilfling Pennit wi ll h e isc;.nefl g mntin!' permi ssion tn me . :1s Owner. to construct tl1 e srmc ture(s) :1rul facilitiec;. det:1il ed on the submittals re viewe d by th e Building Departmen t. In considerati on of the issuance of the Building Penn it. r agree that rand my agents will comply with p rovis ion s of any fede ral. state or local law regulating the work and the Garfield County Building Code. ISDS regu lations and app licabl e land use regu lat ions (County Re~ulati on(s)). I ack nowledge that th e Building Pennit may be suspended or revoked. upon noti ce fr om the County. if th e loc ati on. constmction or u se of the s tnacture(s) and factlity (i es). d escr ibed above, are not in comp liance with County Regulatio n(s) or any oth er applicable law. I here b y grant pennission t o th e Build ing De partment to enter the property. described above. to inspect th e wo rk. I further acknowledge that the iss uan ce of the Building Permi t does not prevent the Building Official from: (I) requiring the correcti on of errors in th e s ubmittal s. if any. discovered after i ssuanc e: or {2) stopping constmctio n or u se oft he stmcturc(s) or fa cil ity(i es) if such is in viol ation of Co unty Re gulati on(s) or any other appli bl aw. Revi ew of thi s Appli cati on. including st mittals. and in spections f th e w ork by the Building Departme nt do not constitute an acceptance of re sponsibility or liability by the County o f errors. o missi on s or discre pancies. As the 0\\11er. I ackno , edge that responsibility for compliance with federal . state and l ocal laws and County Regulation s rest with me and my auth orized agents. including without lim itation my architect design er, en gi or build er. I HEREBY AC NOWLEDGE T AT I H AN NDERSTAND TH E NOTICE& CERTIFICATION ABOVE: DATE STAFF USE ONLY ~'j) t-<--zv 1f.-N.I u.1 (is ~~ ( 0 ·&_ r t l Conditions: I 0 f S'tr I ISDS Fee: Fees Paid: Dle: 11 ~~~~b-~._to ____ ~~J,qs~~~~~~~~~ Cdn-;t'Typ~: Setbacks: p DATE The following items are required by Garfield County for a final Inspection: I) A final Electrical In spection from the Colorado State Electrical Inspector. 2) Permanent address assigned by Garfield County Building Department and posted at the structure and where readily visible from access road . 3) A finished roof; a lockable building; completed exterior siding; exterior doors and windows installed; a complete kitchen with cabinets, sink with hot & cold running water, non-absorbent kitchen floor covering, counter tops and finished walls , ready for stove and refrigerator; all necessary plumbing. 4) All bathrooms must be complete , with washbowl , tub or shower, toilet, hot and cold running water, non-absorbent floors , walls finished, and privacy door. 5) Steps over three (3) risers, outside or inside must be must have handrails. Balconies and decks over 30" high must be constructed to aiiiBC and IRC requirements including guardrails. 6) Outside grading completed so that water slopes away from the building ; 7) Exceptions to the outside steps, decks , grading may be made upon the demonstration of extenuating circumstances., i.e. weather. Under such circumstances A Certificate of Occupancy may be issued conditiona ll y. 8) A final inspection sign off by the Ga rfield County Road & Bridge Department for driveway installation, where app li cab le; as well as any final sign off by the Fire District, and/or State Agencies where applicable. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (C.O.) WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL THE ABOVE ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. A C.O. MAY TAKE UP TO 5 BUSINESS DAYS TO BE PROCESSED AND ISSUED. OWNER CANNOT OCCUPY OR USE DWELLING UNTIL A C.O. IS ISSUED. OCCUPANCY OR USE OF DWELLING WITHOUT A C.O. WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR VACATING PREMISES UNTIL ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE MET. I understand and agree to abide by the above conditions for occupancy , use and the issuance of a C.O . for the building identified in the Building Permit. DATE VALUATION FEE DETERMINATION Applicant Address Date ··L~:£:~ &: r~po ~~~~~;~~~" '----"""'-'_.1._·_0;;....tr..:...._ ________ Contractor Finished (Livable Area): Main Upper Lower Other Total Basement: Unfinished Square Feet Valuation Conversion of Unfinished to Finished Total Valuation Garage: Valuation Crawl Space Valuation Decks/ Patios Covered Open Va lu ation Type of Construction : Occupancy: Valuation Total Valuation 1694 sf sf sf sf X $74.68 1694 sf sf X $41.00 sf X $33.68 555 sf X $18.00 sf X $9.00 89 sf X $24.00 sf X $12.00 Commercial sf X sf X sf X sf X sf X sf X Iron Bridge El "D" 126 ,507 .92 0.00 9,990.00 0.00 2 ,136.00 0.00 138,633 .92 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING 970-945-8212 MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS For SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION Including NEW CONSTRUCTION ADDITIONS ALTERATIONS And MOVED BUILDINGS In order to understand the scope of the work intended under a permit application and expedite the issuance of a permit it is important that complete information be provided. When reviewing a plan and it's discovered that required information has not been provided by the applicant, this will result in the delay of the permit issuance and in proceeding with building construction. The owner or contractor shall be required to provide this information before the plan review can proceed. Other plans that are in line for review may be given attention before the new information may be reviewed after it has been provided to the Building Department. TWO (2) SETS OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS & TWO (2) SITE PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR ALL APPLICATIONS. Please review this document to determine if you have enough information to design your project and provide adequate information to facilitate a plan review. Also, please consider using a design professional for assistance in your design and a construction professional for construction of your project. Any project with more than ten (10) occupants requires the plans to be sealed by a Colorado Registered Design Professional. To provide for a more understandable plan in order to determine compliance with the building, plumbing and mechanical codes, applicants are requested to review the following checklist prior to and during design. Applicants are required to indicate appropriately and to submit the completed checklist at time of application for a permit. Plans to be included for a Building Permit, must be on drafting paper at least 18"x24" and drawn to scale. Plans must in c lude a fl oo r plan, a concrete footing an d foundation plan , e levations all sides wit h decks, balcony , steps, han d rails and gua rd rail s, wi nd ows and doors, in cl udin g the finish grade lin e and or igi nal grade. A sec ti on showi ng in detail , from th e bottom of the footing to the top of th e roof, including re-bar, anchor bolts , pre s sur e treated pl ates, fl oor j o ists, wall studs a nd spac in g, in sul atio n, she eting , house -rap, (which is required), s idin g or a ny approved building mater ial. Eng in eered fou ndati ons may be required. A wind ow sc hed ule . A door schedul e. A floor framing pl a n, a roof framin g plan, roof must be designed to withstand a 40 po und per sq ua re foot up to 7,000 feet in elevation , a 90 M.P.H. wi nd speed, wi nd exposure B or C, and a 36 inch f rost depth. Al l sheets to be identified by number a nd indexed. All of th e above req uiremen t s mu st be met o r yo ur plans will be returned. All plans submitt ed must be incomp li ance with the 2003 IRC. I. Is a sit e plan included t hat id ent ifi es th e location of the proposed stru ct ure or additio n and distances to th e property lines from each corner of the proposed structure(s) prepared by a li cen sed sur veyor and has the s urveyors signature and professional sta mp on th e drawing? Properties with s lopes of 30% or greater mu st be shown on th e site plan. (NOTE Section: 106.2) Any site plan for the placement of any portion of a struct ur e within 50 ft. of a property lin e and not \Vi thin a previously surveyed building envelope on a subdiv ision final plat sha ll be prepared by a li ce nsed s urveyor and have the surve yo r's signature and professio nal stam p o n the drawing. Any structu re to be built with in a building enve lope of a lot shown on a reco rd ed subd ivi s ion plat shal l include a copy of the building e nvelope as it is show n on the fin al plat with the proposed str uc tu re located wit hh]: envelope. Yes 2. Does the s ite plan a lso in c lud e any other buildings o n th e property, setback ease me nt s a nd utili ty ea sement s? Please refer to Section 5.05 .03 in the Garfie ld County Zo nin g Resolution if the property yo u are apply in g for a building permit on is located on a corn er lot. Spec ia l setbacks do app ly .'{._ Yes --f-'.,__ __ 3. Does the s ite plan include when appli cable the loca ti on of th e I.S .D.S. (Individual Sewage Disposal System) and the di stance s to th e property lin es , wells (on subje ct property and adjace nt properties , str eam s or \Vater courses? Ye s ' 4. Does t he sit e plan indicate th e location and direction of the County or private road access in g the property? Yes "[-. 2 5. Are yo u awa re th at pri or to submitta l of a building permit application yo u a re required to s how proof of a lega l and adequate access to th e s ite? This ma y include (but is not limited to) proof of yo ur ri ght to use a priv ate easemen t/ri g ht of way ; A Cou nty Road and Bridge permit; a Co lo rado Dept. of Hi ghway Permit, including a Notice to Proceed; a permit fr om the federal gove rnm e nt o r any co mbin atio n. You ca n co nt act the Road & Bridge Department at 625 -8 60 I. See phone book for other agencies Ye s r 6. Do the pl ans in c lude a foundation plan indic at ing th e size, location and spac in g of a ll re info rcing steel in accordance with the IRC o r per stam ped engi neered design? Yes 'X r- 7 . Do the plan s indi ca te the location and size of ventilation o penin gs for und er floor craw l spaces and th e c learances required betwee n wood and earth? Yes ,X No ____ _ 8. Do th e plans indicate the s ize and locat ion of ventilation openings for the attic, roof joist spaces and soffi ts? ~ Yes ~ No ____ _ 9 . Do the plans include de s ign loads as re quired by Garfield County for roof snow loads , (a minimum of 40 pound s per square foot u p to & in clud in g 7,000 feet above sea leve l), fl oo r loa ds and wind loads? 't Yes --t-"---- I 0. Does th e plan includ e a building sect ion dr awi ng indic at in g foundation , wa ll , fl oor, a nd roo f co nstr:'J<m? Yes ___p... II. Does th e buildin g section drawing in c lud e s ize and spaci ng of floor j o ists , wa ll stud s, ceilin g joists, roof rafte ~r joists o r trusses? Yes ---+----- 12. Does the building secti o n draw in g or oth er detail include th e meth od of pos it ive co nnecti on of all columns and beam s? Yes 'fc 13. Does th e elevati on plan indi cate the heig ht of the buildin g or proposed add iti on from the undisturbed grade to the midp o int between the ridge and eave of a gab le or shed roof or the to p of a fl at roof? (Building height measureme nt usua ll y not to exceed 25 feet) Yes 'i, 14. Does th e plan include any stove or ze ro c lea rance fir e pla ce plann ed for insta ll ati on inc ludin g make and mo eland Colo rado Ph;x·e II ce1t ifi cat ions or phase II EPA ce rtifi ca ti on? Yes No -----.Pr---- 3 15. Does th e plan includ e a ma sonry fireplace includin g a fireplace sec ti on ind icatin g desig n to comply with the IRC ? \/ Yes ______ No __ Jv~---- 16. Does the plan include a window sc hedu le or ot her verification th at egre ss/rescue windows from s l eepin ~rooms and/or base ments comply with the requirements of th e IRC? Yes --f---=---- 17 . Does the plan include a wind ow sc hed ule or oth er verification that window s provide na tura l light and ventilati'to for all habitable roo ms? Yes --+--=----- 18 . Do the plan s indicate the locatio n of glazi ng subje ct to hum an impact s uch as g lass doors, glazing immediately adjacent to suc h doors; g laz in g adjacent to any surfac e normally used as a wa lking s urfa ce; s liding glass do ors; fixed glass panels ; showe r doors and tub enc los ures a nd s pecify safety g la z in gJ9r these areas? Ye s ~ No ______ _ 19. Is the lo cat ion of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnace s, boil ers an d water heaters indicated on the plan? Yes ~ 20. Do yo u understand that if you are building on a parcel of land created by the exe mpti on process or the s ubdivi s ion process, are building plan s in co mplianc e with all plat notes and /o r cove nan t s? Ye s ~ 21. Do you under stand that if you be long to a Hom eowners As so ciation (HOA ), it is your responsibility to ob tain written permission from th e assoc iati on, if required by th at as soc iatio n, prior to submitting an application for a building permit? The building permit applicat io n wi ll be accepted without it , but yo u run the risk of th e HOA brin g in g action to enforce the covenant s, which can res ult in revoca ti on of permit iss ued . Additionall y, yo ur Plan Review fee is not refundable if the plans have bee n reviewed by the Building Department pri o r to a ny action by th e HOA th at require s either revocat~m or substan tia l modific at ion of the plans. Yes ~ 22. Will this be the only residential stru cture on the parcel? Ye s "' No Ifno-Explain: ------- 23. Have two (2) complet e sets of co nstruc ti on drawing s be en su bmitted with the ap plicati o n? Ye s )< 24 . Do yo u und ersta nd that the minimum dim ens ion a home ca n be on a lot is 20ft. wid e and 20ft. long? Yes¥ 4 25. Have you designed or had this plan designed while considering building and other construction code require 'Fents? Yes "-----4--=-- 26. Do your plans comply with all zoning rules and regulations in the County related to your properties zone district? Yes f 27. Does the plan accurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will receive a final inspection by the Garfield County Building Department? Yes J"' 28. Do you understand that approval for design and/or construction changes are required prior to the application ofthese changes? Yes 'f-= 29. Do you understand that the Building Department will collect a "Plan Review" fee from you at the time of application submittal and that you will be required to pay the "Permit Fee" as well as any "Road Impact" or "Septic System" fees required, at the time you pick up your building permit? Yes f 30. Are you aware that you must call in for an inspection by 3:30 the business day before the requested inspection in order to receive it the following business day? Inspections will be made from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Inspections are to be called in to 384-5003. Yes f ..... No ------ 31. Are you aware that requesting inspections on work that is not ready or not accessible will result in a $50.00 'fre-inspection fee? Yes --1--...::...._ __ _ 32. Are you aware that you are required to call for all inspections required under the IRC including approval on a final inspection prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy and occupancy of the build in :(' Yes_,p,.~--- 33. Are you aware that the Permit Application must be signed by the Owner or a written authority being given for an Agent and that the party responsible for the project must comply with the IRC? Yes [' ... 5 34. Do you understand that you wi ll be required to hire a State of Co lorado Licensed Electrician and Plumber to perform installations and hookups , unless you as the homeowner are performing the work? The license number of the person performing the work wi ll be required at time of appl ic able inspection. Yes ~ 35. Are you aware, that on the front of the Building Permit Application you wi ll need to fill in the Parcel/Schedule Number for the lot yo u are app lying for this permit on prior to submitta l of a building permit appl ication? Your attention in this is appreciated. Yes P, 36. Do you know that th e local fire district may require yo u to submit plans for their review of fire safety issues? ~ Yes +· (please check with the building department about this requirement) 3 7. Do you understand that if you are planning on doing any excavating or gradi ng to the property prior to issu'tan e of a building permit that you will be required to obt ain a grading permit? Yes -+---- 38. Are yo u aware that if you wi ll be connecting to a public water and/or sewe r system, that the tap fees have to be paid and the connections inspected by the service provider prior to the issuance of a Certi ~fitca .e of Occupancy? Yes -p...~-- 1 hereby acknowledg read, understand and answered these questions to the best of my ability. Date 6 Notes: If any required information is missing delays in issuing the permit are to be expected. Work may not proceed without the issuance of a permit. If it is determined by the Building Official that additional information is necessary to review the application and plans to determine minimum compliance with the adopted codes, the application may be placed behind more recent applications for building permits in the review process and not reviewed until required information has been provided and the application rotates again to first position for review, delay in issuance of the permit or delay in proceeding with construction. BpminreqDec2007 7 ~d)tech HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL . Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 C ounty Road 154 G lenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970 -945-7988 Fax : 970-945 -8454 email : hpgeo@hpgeorech.com PRELUMITNARYGEOTEC~CALSTUDY PROPOSED IRONBRIDGE VILLAS IRO:N"BRIDGE DRIVE GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 105 115-6 SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 PREPARED FOR: L.B. ROSE RANCH, LLC A TTN: AARON BEVJNGTON 410 ffiONBRIDGE DRIVE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 Parker 303 -841-7119 • Colorado Sp r ings 719-6 33-5562 • Silverth orne 970-4 68-1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............................................................................ -1- PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... -2 - FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................................................. ~ ............... -2- SUB SURF ACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... - 3 - ENGJNEERING ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... -4 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. -5 - FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................................................... -5 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ............................................................ -6- FLOOR SLABS .......................................................................................................... - 8 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM .......................................................................................... -8 - SITE GRADING ......................................................................................................... - 9 - SURFACE DRAINAGE ................................................................. ~ ................ , ........ -10- PAVEMENT SECTION ........................................................................................... -11- LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................. -11 - FIGURES 1 AND 2-LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURES 3 THROUGH 8 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 9-LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 10 THROUGH 16-SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURES 17 AND 18-GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed Ironbridge Villas to be located along Jronbridge Drive, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figures 1 and 2. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation and grading designs. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for professional engineering services to L.B. Rose Ranch, LLC dated June 30, 2005. We previously conducted geotechnical studies for planning and preliminary design of the Rose Ranch Development (now known as Ironbridge) and presented our findings in reports dated October 29, 1997 and September 10, 1998, Job No. 197 327. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions within the depth of expected foundation loading. The potential for future ground subsidence due to deeper geologic conditions was to be evaluated by others. Samples of the subsoils o btamed during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation and for the subdivision grading. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design reco=endations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed Villas development is located in the central part oflronbridge near the main · club and other common facilities and will consist of tightly spaced, single family residences in two development areas as shown on Figures 1 and 2. The access roads and drives will connect to the existing and proposed Ironbridge Drive. The residences will be 2 story, wood frame structures constructed typically 8 to 10 feet apart. Ground floors will Job No. 105 115·6 -2- be structural above crawlspace in the residences and slab-on-grade in the garages. The entire development area will be elevated typically up to about 15 feet. The fill sections will grade into the existing Ironbridge Drive, the golf course 18th Hole and the Robertson Ditch. The flll material will be obtained on the project site, likely from :he Phase 2 development. The Robertson Ditch will remain open but be improved by lining to reduce leakage. After the subdivision grading, the excavation for the individual residences will be relatively minor. We assume the residences will be relatively lightly loaded, typical of the proposed type of construction. Ifbuilding loadings, location or development plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the reco=endations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The Villas development is located downhill to the east and south of the existing pro shop and other co=ons area, see Figures 1 and 2. The north Villas site was mainly vacant and covered with fl.eld grass and weeds. The south Villas site is partly disturbed and covered with grass and weeds with miscellaneous fill piles. The ground surface slope is about 5 to 7% with 20 feet of elevation difference across the north Villas site, and about 6 to 8% with 30 feet of elevation difference across the south Villas site. The entire project site is covered with debris fan deposits that generally increase in depth with increase in ground surface elevation to the west. Bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite outcrops to the west of County Road 109 in the golf course fairway and the steep valley side. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted between July 6 and 8, 2005. Twenty~ fl.ve exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figures 1 and 2 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig. The borings were Jogged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc . .,...,-.,.,.-~-,---::-:---------'--------------~ ··-- Job No. 105115·6 ~tech 0 -~ - Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1% 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 and hardness of the bedrock. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figures 3 through 8. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figures 3 through 8. The subsoils, below a thin topsoil root zone, consist of a variable depth of stratified silt, sand and gravel debris fan deposits overlying dense, river gravel alluvium. About 3 to 4 feet of existing fill was encountered above the natural soils in Borings 5, 6, 7 and 15, located just east of the Robertson Ditch. The debris fan soils were typically encountered between depths of 7 to 19 feet in the north parcel and between depths of 16 to 32 feet in the south parcel. In Borings 6 through 9 and 15 at the north parcel, the debris fan soils were deeper than the adjacent area to the north, with depths of22 to 38 feet before the gravel alluvium was encountered. Siltstone and gypsum bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite was encountered below the gravel alluvium at a depth of 42 feet in Boring 6. The bedrock quality appeared poor to fair and included gypsum, but did not appear to be a void or cavity. Drilling in the dense gravel alluvium with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and practical drilling refusal was typically encountered in the deposit Laboratory testing perfonned on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, liquid and plastic limits and gradation analyses. Results of swell-consolidation testing, presented on Figures 10 through 16, indicate the debris fan soils are typically hydrocompressive aod moderately to highly compressible under load after wetting. Some of the clay soils showed a low expansion potential when wetted but Job No. 105 115-6 -4- the resulting heave potential is not expected to be significant compared to the collapse potential. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 Yz inch fraction) of the debris fan soils are shown on Figures 17 and 18. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. Free water was typically not encountered in the borings and the subsoils were relatively dry. 1n Borings 6 through 9 and 15, the subsoils became moist ·with depth and free water was encountered at depths between 26 and 36 feet in Borings 6 and 15. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Development of the Villas project as proposed should be feasible based on geotechnical conditions. The upper 7 to 38 feet of soils encountered in the borings consist of debris fan deposits that tend to collapse (settle under constant load) when wetted. The amount of settlement will depend on the depth of the compressible soils and the wetted depth below the foundation. The settlement potential and risk of excessive building distress can be reduced by compaction of the soils to a certain depth below the foundation bearing level and by heavily reinforcing the foundation to resist differential settlements. The compaction should also extend to below driveway and utility areas. The soil compaction can consist of the structural fill proposed to elevate the project site but relatively deep structural fills will also have some potential for long term settlement. Proper grading and compaction as presented below in Site Grading will help reduce the settlement risks. In areas underlain by Jess than 10 to 15 feet of debris fan soils, mainly the northern part of the north parcel, additional compaction below the building foundation should not be needed. A heavily reinforced mat foundation designed for large differential settlements or a deep foundation that extends down to the underlying, dense river gravel alluvium could also be used to reduce the settlement risk. Eagle Valley Evaporite that underlies the project area is known to be associated with · sinkholes and localized ground subsidence in the Roaring Fork River valley. A sinkhole opened in the parking Jot of the Pro Shop to the northwest of the project site in January 2005 and other irregular bedrock conditions have been identified in the affordable JobNo.l05115-6 -5- housing site to the west of the Villas north parcel. Indications of ground subsidence were not observed in the Villas development area that could indicate a risk of future ground subsidence but the variable depth of debris fan soils in Borings 6 through 9 and 15 in the north parcel could be the result of past subsidence. In our opinion, the risk of future ground subsidence in the Villas project area is low and similar to other areas of the Roaring Fork River valley where there have not been indications of ground subsidence. We understand that the potential for future ground subsidence in the project area is being evaluated by others. The southern part of the northern parcel should be further evaluated for potential sinkhole development considering the variable subsurface profile encountered in that area Reco=endations for preliminary design of the proposed development are presented below. When the building plans have been developed, we should review the information for compliance with our reco=endations. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we reco=end the buildings be founded with spread footings bearing on at least 5 feet of compacted on-site debris fan soils or compacted structural fill. The feasibility of footings placed on the natural soils in the north parcel where the debris fan soils are less than about 10 to 15 feet deep should be evaluated prior to construction. If a mat foundation or deep foundation system is considered for building support, we should be contacted for additional reco=endations. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. I) Footings placed on at least 5 feet of compacted fill in deeper debris fan areas or on natural soils where there is less than 10 to 15 feet of the natural debris fan soils should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of Job No. 105115-6 -6- 1,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect initial settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. Additional differential settlement between about 1 to 2 inches could occur in deeper fill areas or if the undisturbed debris fan soils are wetted. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 20 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement offoundations at least 36 inches below e},.'terior grade is typically used in this area. 4) The foundation should be constructed in a "box-like" configuration rather ilian with isolated footings. The foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 14 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) The topsoil, existing undocumented fill and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed. The soils should be subexcavated as needed to provide at least 5 feet of structural fill below the footing bearing level compacted to at least 98% of the maximum standard Proctor density within 2 percentage points of optimum moisture content. Where footings are placed on the natural soils, the exposed soils in footing area should be moistened and compacted. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate the compaction of the fill materials and observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement for bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAlNJNG WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral Job No. 105 115-6 -7- earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site fme-grained soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the buildings and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site frne-grained soils. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An under drain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Site walls with a maximum backslope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical should be designed for an active earth pressure of at least 60 pcf equivalent fluid unit weight Backfill should be placed in unifonn lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side ofthe footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.3 5. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the lob No. 105115-6 -8- design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, and compacted structural fill can be used to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. The natural soils are compressible when wetted and there could be some post-construction settlement. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs above footing bearing level 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. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was typically not encouotered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area that local perched grouodwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal ruooff. Frozen grouod during spring ruooff can create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an Job No. 105 115-6 -9- underdrain system. An underdrain should not be provided around crawlspace and slab-on- grade areas. If installed, the drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No.4 sieve and have a maximum size of2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1 Yz feet deep. An impervious membrane, such as a 20 mil PVC liner, should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting of the bearing soils. SITE GRADING Extensive grading of the Villas area is proposed as part of the development plan. In addition, removal and replacement of the debris fan soils compacted is recommended in shallow fill areas to reduce the risk of excessive differential settlements and building distress. The structural fill should extend to at least 8 feet below design surface grade and to at least 2 feet below the water and sewer pipe invert levels. In addition, the water and sewer pipe joints should be mechanically restrained to reduce the risk of joint separation in the event of excessive settlement. Excavation and compaction below footing bearing level may not be needed where the debris fan soils are Jess than 10 to 15 feet thick. The structural fill materials below footing bearing level should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum standard Proctor density within 2 percentage points of optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the sub grade should be carefully prepared by removing the existing fil~ all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. The fill should be benched into slopes that exceed 20% grade. Based on our experience with the Phase 1 development, shrinkage of the debris fan soils due to compaction is expected to be about 15% to 20%. Job No. 105 115-6 -10- Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. SURF ACE DRAINAGE Precautions to prevent wetting of the bearing soils such as proper backfill construction, positive backfill slopes, restricting landscape irrigation and use of roof gutters need to be taken to help limit settlement and building distress. The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after each residences have been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. The slope should be at least 6 inches in the first 5 feet in unpaved areas and at least 3 inches in the first 1 0 feet in paved areas. Drain gravel of retaining walls should be capped with at least 2 feet of the on-site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof gutters should be provided with downspouts that discharge beyond the limits of the foundation wall backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation, such as sod, should be located at least 5 feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to use of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the building caused by irrigation. Job No. 105 115-6 -11 - PAVEMENT SECTION The upper soils encountered at the site consist of low plasticity sand, silt and clay that are considered a poor support of pavement sections. A Hveem stabilometer 'R' value of 15 was assumed for the native soils and required imported soils. The traffic loadings for the Villas development have not been provided but are assumed to be relatively light for the service traffic loading condition, after the construction phase. Based on these conditions, a preliminary pavement section consisting of 3 inches of asphalt on 8 inches of CDOT Class 6 ~ase course for the main drives and 3 inches of asphalt on 6 inches of CDOT Class 6 base course for automobile only parking is recommended. We can review the pavement section design when the roadway subgrade has been graded and the traffic loadings have been detennined. LIMITATIONS Tills study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figures 1 and 2, the proposed type of construction and our ex:perience in the area. Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice should be consulted. Our £ndings 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 in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for 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 Job No. 105 115-6 -12- construction to review and monitor the implementation of our reconnendations, and to verify that the reco=endations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill on a regular basis by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectfully Submitted, HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. Reviewed by: Daniel E. Hardin, P .E. SLP/ksw cc: High Country Engineering-Attn: Scott Gregory S.K. Peightal Engineers-Attn: Jack Albright Job No. 105 115-6 APPROXIMATE SCALE: ,. = 80' ~ 105115-6 ~1 HEPWORTH-PAWlAK GEOTECHNICAL \ \ \ \ \ LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS VILLAS NORTH PARCEL Figure 1 /) II LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS VILLAS SOUTH PARCEL Figure 2 0 5 10 1i5 Q) u.. . ' 15 20 25 105 115-6 BORING 1 ELEV = 5952' 20/12 WC=4.5 00=106 20/6,30/4 BORING2 ELEV. = 5950' 20/12 WC=6.2 DD=93 -200=85 25/4,10/0 BORING3 ELEV.= 5944' 24/12 WC=5.1 00=94 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9. BORING4 ELEV. = 5946' 25/12 WC=7.1 DD=104 -200=83 LL=28 Pl=11 20/6,40/6 T c~<6tech LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS He worth-Pawlak Geotechnical 0 5 10 1i5 Q) u.. .r:: a. 15 Q) 0 20 25 Figure 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 105 115-6 BORING5 ELEV. = 5950' 11/12 16/12 wc~9.3 DD=100 -200~54 17/12 BORING6 ELEV.= 5953' 15/12 12/12 wc~10.3 -200=50 10/12 wc~1s.2 DD=106 -200=73 BORING 7 ELEV.= 5954' 7/12 14/12 WC=16.3 DD=108 -200=62 32/12 7/12 WC=17.7 DD=107 -200~74 BORINGS ELEV. = 5946' 29/12 WC~4.0 OD~107 30/12 7/12 WC~6.6 DD~117 -200=44 12/12 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 4 0 5 10 1ii Q) LJ._ ' '.r:: n. Q) 0 15 20 25 105 115-6 BORING9 ELEV. = 5942' 24/12 18/12 28/12 10/12 WC=11.4 DD=104 BORING 10 ELEV.= 5938' 18/12 WC=4.0 DD=96 10/12 60/12 BORING 11 ELEV.= 5943' 9/12 11/12 WC=15.5 DD=109 -200=76 7/12 3/6,15/6 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9. BORING 12 ELEV.= 5938' 33/12 WC=6.1 DD=117 43/12 14/12 ~ LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS He worth-Pow1ak Geotechnical 0 5 10 1ii Q) LL .r:: n. 15 Q) 0 20 25 Figure 5 0 5 10 15 Q) Q) "-20 "" Q_ Q) 0 25 30 35 105115-6 BORING 13 ELEV. = 5944' 22/12 BORING 14 ELEV. = 5937' 28/12 WC=8.5 00=109 -200=91 LL=31 Pl=13 20/6,30/3 BORING 15 ELEV.= 5950' 15/12 WC=14.3 00=112 9/12 WC=14.5 -200=71 10/12 WC=14.4 00=112 +4=17 -200=58 24/12 32/12 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9. BORING 16 ELEV. = 5968' 15/6,35/5 47/12 33/12 WC=3.2 +4=34 -200=42 18/12 ~£tech LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS HEPWORTf+PAWlAX GEOTECHNlCAL 5 Q) Q) "- Figure 6 0 5 10 15 Q) Q) lJ_ 20 25 30 35 105115-6 BORING 17 ELEV. = 5963' 52/12 34/12 WC=5.9 DD=115 23/12 50/3 BORING 18 ELEV. = 5968' 3B/12 40/12 WC=3.6 DD=104 -200=5B 42/12 WC=3.6 DD=109 45/12 BORING 19 ELEV. = 5962' 13/12 30/12 WC=1.7 DD=120 +4=3B -200=26 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9. BORING20 ELEV.= 5967' 1 B/6,25/3 WC=1.9 DD=103 -200=36 55/12 c~&ech LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS He worth-Pawlok Geot~chnlcol Q) (j) lJ_ .<: 1i Q) 20 0 Figure 7 0 5 10 15 Q) (j) ll.. .c ,D. . (j) 0 20 25 30 BORING21 ELEV. = 5976' 52/12 15/12 43/12 WC=3.3 DD=108 15/12 BORING22 ELEV.= 5957' 21/12 WC=3.3 +4=38 -200=23 30/6,25/3 28/12 40/12 WC=3.4 DD=109 BORING 23 ELEV.= 5985' 52/12 WC=1.3 -200=27 57/12 BORING 24 ELEV.= 5985' 39/12 20/12 WC=2.6 -200=46 BORING25 ELEV.= 5990' 20/6,30/3 27/12 WC=4.6 OD=105 -200=62 30/12 WC=4.1 00=112 -200=64 50/6,10/0 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 9. 105 115-6 ~ LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS HEPWOR'll+PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL 15 Q5 "' ll.. t "' 0 20 Figure 8 LEGEND: 39/12 0,2 T NOTES: FILL; silty sandy gravel, loose to medium dense, slightly moist, brown. TOPSOIL; root zone, sandy silt, slightly moist, brown. SILT AND CLAY (ML-CL); slightly sandy to sandy, scattered gravel, some sandy clay, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, very moist with depth at Borings 6, 7 and 15, mixed brown, slightly calcareous and porous, low plasticity. SAND AND SILT (SM-ML); scattered gravel to gravelly, loose to medium dense, slightly moist, light brown. SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); silty, some sandy silt layers, medium dense, brown, subangular to rounded rock. GRAVEL, COBBLES AND BOULDERS (GM-GP); slightly silty, dense, typically moist, wet at Borings 4 and 15, brown, rounded rock. SILTSTONE AND GYPSUM; medium hard to hard, moist, gray and white. Eagle Valley Evaporite. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I. D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SP1), 1 3/8 inch 1.0. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586. Drive sample blow count; indicates that 39 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. Free water level in boring and number of days following drilling measurement was taken. Depth at which boring had caved when checked on July 8 , 2005. Practical drilling refusal. Where shown above bottom of log, indicates that multiple attempts were made to advance the boring. 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on July 6, 7 and 8, 2005 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight power 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 obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided. 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. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. Groundwater was only encountered in Borings 6 and 15. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC ~ Water Content (%) DO ~ Dry Density (pc~ +4 ~ Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve 105 115-6 ~ Hep!"orth-Pcwlok Geotechnical -200 ~ Percent passing No. 200 sieve LL ~ Liquid Limit (%) PI ~ Plasticity Index (%) LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 9 Moisture Content = 4.5 perc ent Dry Density = 106 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay From: Boring 1 at 4 Feet 0 * f-.. I-- c 1 0 -Compression 'iii ....., (/) upon E! ""' wetting Q_ 2 E .'\ 0 b 0 3 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf 105 115-6 ~ SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 10 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical Moisture Content = 5.1 perc ent Dry Density = 94 pcf 0 Sample of: Sandy Silt -r-r-..... From: Boring 3 at 4 Feet 1 2 3 !-'*' Compression upon wetting 4 5 6 'if!. 1\ c 0 ·u; 7 Cf) <ll 0. E 0 (_) 8 9 10 11 \ \ 12 \ 13 14 1\ 15 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE • ksf 105 115-6 ~ SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 11 He;worth-Pawlak Geotechnical Moisture Content = 4.0 perc ent Dry Density = 107 pcf 0 Sample of: Very Silty Sand -1--r-1--From: Boring 8 at 4 Feet 1 2 Compression ,, O' upon c 3 ' wetting 0 ~ "iii (/) Q) Q. E 4 0 \ 0 5 \ 6 \ 7 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf Moisture Content = 11.4 percent Dry Density = 104 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silt From: Boring 9 at 19 Feet 0 -t-'-I-. * 1 -Compression c ~ upon 0 "iii wetting "' 2 i'! ~ 0. E ~ 0 0 3 "> 4 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf 105115-6 ~cStech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 12 HePWorth-Pawlak Geotechnical 0 -r--I Moisture Content -4.0 perc ent --r--Dry Density = 96 pcf 1 Sample of: Sandy Silt From: Boring 10 at 4 Feet 2 r-r--1'-- If. 3 Compression c 0 ""' upon 'iii wetting (j) 4 ~ ~ Q. E 0 (_) 5 \ 6 1\ \ 7 f\ 8 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf Moisture Content = 6.1 perc ent Dry Density = 117 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay * From: Boring 12 at 4 Feet c 0 1 'iii c 8_ X -........ w ' 0 c "'\ ....., ..... , 0 '(jj (j) 1 Q) Q_ Ex pans on E 0 upon (_) wetting 2 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf 105115-6 ~ SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 13 HePworth Pawlak Geotechnical Moisture Content = 8.5 perce nt Dry Density = 109 pel Sample of: Slightly Sandy Silty Clay From: Boring 14 at 4 Feet 2 * c 0 1 P"--... "iii c ........ "' "" Q. ~ X L.U ~ ' 0 c \ ...... 0 "... "iii r-... en 1 ~ Q. 1 t:xpansrc r E 0 upon 0 wetting 2 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf Moisture Content = 5.9 percent Dry Density = 115 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Boring 17 at 9 Feet 0 * c 0 1 "iii c "' t--Q. rD ~ ' 0 c Expansion .......... "' 0 upon "iii en 1 wetting ~ Q. E 0 0 2 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf 105115-6 c~£-tech HEPWORTJ+PAWLAK GEottCHNICAL SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 14 Moisture Content ~ 3.6 percent Dry Density ~ 109 pet Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay From: Boring 18 at 14 Feet 0 ?fl. ~ 1 c:: ~ _No movement 0 'iii ""' upon en wetting ~ 2 0. " E 0 0 3 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf ' Moisture Content ~ 3.3 percent Dry Density ~ 108 pet Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay From: Boring 21 at 14 Feet 0 Compression ?fl. ~ 1-----v upon 1 / I-wetting c:: 0 ~ ·u; en [!! 2 0. "-., E t"-0 0 3 ['., 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf 105 115-6 ~ SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 15 HeDWorth-Pawlok Geotechnical Moisture Content = 3.4 perc ent Dry Density = 109 pet Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay From: Boring 22 at 19 Feet '#. 0 -...... t--' c ~ 0 'iii 1 (f) Q) ...., No movement ~ ~ Q. E upon 0 2 wetting 0 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE-ksf Moisture Content = 4.6 perc ent Dry Density = 105 pel Sample of: Sandy Silt and Clay From: Boring 25 at 9 Feet '#. 0 c ~ 0 'iii 1"---(f) 1 ~ ~ "' Q. E ~ 0 0 2 No' movement upon wetting 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf 105115-6 ~ SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 16 HEPWORTI+PAWLAK G~HNICAL I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS I 241-!!. 7 HA TIME READINGS I U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS I 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4' 1 1/2" 3" 5"6' 8" 0 ""' 10 90 0 20 80 w C9 z 30 70 z ~ Cii (f) 0: 40 00 it 1-1-z 50 " z w w 0 0 0: 60 ., 0: w w 0.. 0.. 70 30 80 " 90 " 100 0 '"" ·"" .005 ·"" .019 .037 .074 "' = .000 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 12.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 "' 203 '" DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAYTOSILT I ""' I GAAVEL I C06Bl£S RNE I MEDIUM !cOARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL 17% SAND 25 % SILT AND CLAY 58 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Sandy Gravelly Silt FROM: Boring 15 at 14 Feet I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS I 24 ~.~· 7 HR TIME READINGS I U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS ~· 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MINJ 9MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8' 3/4" 1 1/2' 3' 5'6' 0 100 10 90 0 20 80 w C9 z 30 70 z ~ Cii (f) 40 60 <( 0: 0.. 1-1-z 50 50 z w w 0 0 0: 60 40 0: w w 0.. CL 70 30 80 20 90 10 100 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.42.519.0 37.5 76.2 12t52 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS ClAYTOSILT ""' GFVIVEL FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 34% SAND 24 % SILT AND CLAY 42 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Siltv Sand and Gravel FROM: Borinn 16 at 14 Feet 105115-6 ~ GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 17 HEPWOR1l+PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAl. I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 24 H~-7HR TIME READINGS I U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS I 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MIN:19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8" 3/4' 1 1/2' 3' 5'6' 8" 0 "" 10 80 0 20 80 w CJ z 30 70 z ffi Ci5 UJ 40 60 ct 0: f-f-z 50 so z w w u u 0: 60 " 0: w w n. n. 70 30 80 20 90 10 100 0 ·"'' .002 .005 ·"" .019 .037 .074 ·'" .300 .000 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 12.5 \9.0 ,,. 76.2 "' 203 "' DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS Cl.AYTOSILT SAND GRAVEL ""' MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBo.ES GRAVEL 38% SAND 36 % SILT AND CLAY 26 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 19 at 9 Feet HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS I R 7 HR TIME READINGS I U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 1 .. 24 1 1/2' 3" 5"6. 45 IN. 15 MIN. 60MIN19MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN. #200 #100 #50 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8' 3/4' 0 100 10 90 0 20 80 w CJ z 30 70 z ffi Ci5 UJ 40 60 <( 0: n. f-f-z 50 50 z w w u u 0: 60 40 ffi w CL CL 70 30 80 20 90 10 100 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.~2.519.0 37.5 76.2 152 127 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAYTOSLT 5'ND GRAVEL COBBLES FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE GRAVEL 38% SAND 39 % SILT AND CLAY 23 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % ' SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Borino 22 at 4 Feet 105 115-6 c~&ech HEPWORTH•PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 18 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 1 Job No. 105 115-6 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS '!9_e 0 p 1 f 3 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG UMITS UNCONFINED MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR BORINGS DEPTH CONTENT DEN SID NO. 200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (%) (%) SIEVE (It) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (PSFl 1 4 4.5 106 Sandy silty and clay 2 4 6.2 93 85 Sandy clayey silt 3 4 5.1 94 Sandy silt 4 4 7.1 104 83 28 11 Sandy silty clay -- 5 81/2 9.3 100 54 Silt and sand with gravel 6 14 10.3. 50 Very silty sand and gravel 24 18.2 106 73 Sandy silt 7 9 16.3 108 62 Sandy silt 24 17.7 107 74 Sandy silt 8 4 4.0 107 Very silty sand 14 6.6 117 44 Very silty sand HEPWORTH-PAWlAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 1 Job No. 105 115-6 SUMMARY OF lABORATORY TEST RESULTS ag_e 0 p 2 f 3 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR BORINGS DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY NO. 200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (%) (%) SIEVE (It) (%) . (!'Sf)_ (%) (o/Q)_ _(PSF) 9 19 11.4 104 Sandy silt 10 4 4.0 96 Sandy silt 11 9 15.5 109 76 Sandy clayey silt 12 4 6.1 117 Sandy silty clay 14 4 8.5 109 91 31 13 Slightly sandy silty clay 15 4 14.3 112 Sandy silty clay 10 14.5 71 Sandy silty clay 14 14.4 112 17 25 58 Sandy gravelly silt 16 14 3.2 34 24 42 Silty sand and gravel 17 9 5.9 115 Sandy silty clay - HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 1 Job No. 105 115-6 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS age 0 p 3 f 3 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED MOISTURE DRY ·GRAVEL SAND PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR BORINGS DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY NO. 200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (%) (%) SIEVE (It) (%) (Dcfl (%) (%) (PSF) 18 9 3.6 104 58 Sandy silt with gravel 14 3.6 109 Sandy silty and clay 19 9 1.7 120 38 36 26 Silty sand and gravel 20 4 1.9 103 36 Silty sand and gravel 21 14 3.3 108 Sandy silt and clay 22 4 3.3 38 39 23 Silty sand and gravel 19 3.4 109 Sandy silt and clay Silty sand and gravel 23 4 1.3 27 Silty sand and gravel 24 9 2.6 46 Very silty sand with gravel 25 9 4.6 105 62 Sandy silt and clay 14 4.1 112 64 Sandy silty and clay ~ Ill ~+s=E=R=VI=c-E-s-,"""LLC==-----------------~-2o_5_s_. P_u_m __ RrvE_•_D_RIVE, __ su-IT_E_2o-o October 14, 2008 Iron bridge Golf Club & Sporting Community 410 lronbridge Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I ATTN: Mike Woelke RE: Post Tensioned Slab-on-Grade Certification 0004 Eagle Claw Circle Lot 250 Iron bridge Community Garfield County, Colorado Dear: Mike DENVER, CoLORADO 80223 OFFICE (303) 715·9885 FAX (303) 715·9890 As of October 7, 2008 all required construction observations for the Post Tensioned Slab-on-Grade Foundation System at !he subject site have been completed by this office. From our observations, we have concluded that this foundation has been constructed in accordance with the approved construction documents and guidefines set forth by the Post Tensioning Institute. All required observations and their subsequent letters by this office for the Post Tensioned Slab-on-Grade Foundation System which includes the Trench Beam and Steel Observation including Ufer Rod, Tendon Placement (pre-pour) Observation, and Tendon Stressing Observation have been approved by this office. We also note that the required insulation has been installed per our structural details and the International Residential Code, 2003 Edition. No further observations are required. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Fuhrmann Engineering Services, LLC I I . 11/1 vl{__ JHfrey R. Goben, PTI # 9160622 Reviewed by: Nathaniel P. Graf, P.F.. JRG:jma cc: fiie 1~ FuHRMANN ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC October 14, 2008 Iron bridge Golf Club & Sporting Community 410 1ronbridge Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Mike Woelke RE: Tendon Stressing Observation 0004 Eagle Claw Circle Lot 150 Iron bridge Subdivision Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mike: 1205 S. PLATTE RivER DRIVE, Sun'E 200 DENVER, CoLORADO 80223 OFFICE (303) 715-9885 FAX (303) 715-9890 Per your request, we visited the subject site on October 7, 2008 to observe the tendon stressing operations for post-tensioned slab-on-grade design. The stressing of the tendons were conducted within acceptable tolerances and appeared to be in general conformance with the construction. At this time, tendon tails may be cut off and the anchor cavities grouted with a high strength, non-shrink grout. This concludes the construction of the post-tensioned foundation system. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Fuhrmann Engineering Services, LLC ~1L Jeffrey R. Goben, PTI # 9160622 JRG:jma attachments file SEP 2 5 2008 ~~----~~~------------------------------~~ II~ SERVICES, LLC 1205 S. Purrr RivER DRIVE, SmTE 200 DENVER, COLORADO 80223 OFFICE (303) 715·9885 FAX (303) 715·9890 September 15, 2008 Iron bridge Golf Club & Sporting Community 410 Ironbridge Drive Glenwood Springs. CO 8160 I Attn: Mike Woelkc RE: Tendon Placement (pre-pour) Inspection 0004 Eagle Claw Circle Lot250 lronbridge Subdivision Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mike: Per your request, we visited the subject site on September I 0, 2008 to observe the tendon placement and interior trench beams of the post-tensioned slab-on-grade. The dimensions, geometry, and required options have not been verified at this time. The contractor assumes responsibility for the accuracy of all building dimensions, locations on lot, foundation elevations. and the slab step layout. The installation of the tendons and interior stiffened beams appeared to be in general conformance with the construction plans. We observed the top of grade appeared to be at the correct elevation to maintain the slab thickness per plan. It is the responsibility of the contractor to verify slab thickness and tendon layout remain as observed during concrete placement. No other items were observed at this time. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Fuhrmann Engineering Services, LLC .£1/t a-~ Jeffrey R. Goben, PTT # 9160622 JRG:jma attachments file ~~ 1FuHRMANN ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC September 15, 2008 Ironbridge Golf Club & Sporting Community 410 Iron bridge Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Mike Woelkc RE: Trench Beam and Skel Observation including Ufer Rod 0004 Eagle Claw Circle Lot 250 Iron bridge Subdjvision Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mike: SEP 2 5 200B r· ', I 205 S. Puri-E RivER DRIVE, SUITE 200 DENVER, COLORADO 80223 OFFICE (303) 715-9885 FAX (303) 715-9890 Per your request, we visited the subject site on September 10, 2008 to observe the construction of the trench beams of the post-tensioned slab-on-grade. The dimensions, geometry, and required options have not been verified at this time. The contractor assumes responsibility for the accuracy of all building dimensions, locations on lot, foundation elevations, and the slab step layout. · The trench beam depth, width, and required steel placement appeared to be in general conformance with approved construction documents. Also, we observed the required l-inch polystyrene foam (extruded) insulation was placed in the trenches at the exterior of the building footprint per plan and is temporarily to the trench wall. We also observed that an Ufer rod was placed at the time of the wall steel installation. No other items were observed at this time. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Fuhrmann Engineering Services, LLC JJ/1 rLJL • Jeffrey R. Goben, PTI # 9160622 JRG: jma Attachments file COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone (970) 945-8212 Job located at OOCJGf ¥ ~ Permit No. II oq;;.., I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed: A call for Re-lnspection 0 $50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid prior to Re-lnspection You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970-384-5003. Date ? ~9-C 'f 20 r-9----'=-y----- Building Inspector ~ Phone (970) 945-8212 COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone (970) 945-8212 Job located at (Jc::;Jo ~ ~ &;__ Permit No. ~!luOL::J.q"_..;l.."'-------------- I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed: XcaiJ for Re-lnspection 0 $50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid prior to Re-lnspection You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970-384-5003. Date /;? '3 -dft 20 ____ _ Building Inspector fr~~~ Phone (970) 945-8212 COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone (970) 945-8212 Job located at 0'0# £'¥-Le CL/l J Permit No. -+-/_/---'o=--+-f--=Z=------------- I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed: 7 I 0 Call for Re-lnspection 0 $50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid prior to Re-lnspection You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970-384-5003. Date //-Z ?? 20 0 /S. Buildi~g,lnspector ~z /t~ Phone (970) 945-8212 COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone (970) 945-8212 Job located at r!2tJd 9-£4Gc!C CLAuJ C/£.. Permit No. ,1/0-t-Z I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed: ·J7u.s.s .PLA/1/s A/or e;AJ S/nc C-o/(£ ICc. ITo ,US A/CJ T /?"/'A 0/Z- Mb/11 /?'L_c.-f'mS//1./G--/.11/se /%1 A--;/ic ' Caltfor Re-lnspection ~00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid prior to Re-lnspection You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970-384-5003. COUNTY OF GARFIELD -BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone (970) 945-8212 Job located at CJtf?(} 4 £.1/ G-L!C-CLAW C/ £.. Permit No. //0 cf-Z ' 1 have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed: 0 Call for Re-lnspection 0 $50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid prior to Re-lnspection You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. When correction(s) have been made, call for inspection at 970-384-5003. Date /0-:3/ 20 oS Buildi~g Inspector .:2~ ~~ Phone (970) 945-8212 ./' COUNTY OF GARFIELD'-BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION NOTICE 108 8th St., Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado Phone (970) 945-8212 Job located at 00 0 {f= /fAG-££ C?.d 44..J Permit No. /10 <J: 7- 1 have this day inspected this structure and these premises and found the following corrections needed: / ;:{altf()! Re-lnspection [i'$50.00 Re-lnspection Fee must be paid prior to Re-lnspection You are hereby notified that the above correction must be inspected before covering. N 11042 0. -----------Assessor's Parcel No. 2395-013-29-250 Date ___ 7_1_25_1_2_00_8 __ BUILDING PERMIT CARD Job Address --~0~0~04~E~ag~l~e~C~Ia~w~C~ir~c~le~,~G~W~S~-(~Ir~o~n~b~ri~d~g~e~P~U~D~,~P~h=2~,L~o~t~2~5~0L) _________ ___ Owner _____ B_o_n_te_m~p_o,:....A_n_th_o_n.:...y_&_W_e_n....:dy::.._ __ Address 184 Dakota Meadows Dr, C'daiEt=>hbne # ____ _ Contractor Hansen Construction Address 410 lronbridge dr, GWS Phone #384-3990 Setbacks: Front _____ Rear _____ RH, _____ LH Zoning ---'---- s/f on foundation w/att garage & cov patio INSPECTIONS GJ</C.. 4CZ-79''{1-9 _.:..:..o.::.:.._=..:...:..:==-- Soils Test -.::r"'_..-------,r::o-----;~~~~~tio~~ Grout . Underground Plumbi_n_g ll·-2 b~O%Mn -,&Rough Plull]bing /0-..51-&~5" c;::k...? ;r< Framing //-Z tv -o ::/ r uJ Insulation 1.:?-3-<-08 ~ ~ ~ Roofing --:-:::---:-::~-=--=:---..,..,.,.--.--=-- Drywall IZ-/~.?·-c'J$ ,p'tu Gas Piping /4~:.>1-cJ</ Z/(2/i? 'tf-S.CE Jvv"FZ -I d ~.]-tf~ NOTES Weatherproofing ____________ _ Mechanicai _____ ___,-,-......,..----,-,.,.----- EI ectri cal Rough (State) ___!...!___.J:::.___:;-....::::._ ___ _ Electrical Final (State), ___ ___J~------ Final3-/~-of /Checklis d?~ Certificate Occupancy # .-:\!.:?::<~.1;-,-~,_.........,..,,.,....-- Date septic System #¥1· 2·· !m~trum=:=~::::~:=~== Date -------------Final, ____________ _ Other ________________ _ s·va. AY/CC .£/ -rc; c#.,CC/<: /177/C · //ILSdG_, G///?/{6-r'£.. (continue on back) BUILDING PERMIT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO INSPECTION WILL NOT BE MADE UNLESS THIS CARD IS POSTED Oi'l THE JOB Date Issued -71-1'/~...-:::5.-L,f~gl=rog=-~~-Permit No. _____./+-'{(f{""+--&..,2"'1.. ~~~- AGREEMENT In consideration of the issuance of the permit, the applicant hereby agrees to comply with all-laws and regulations related to the zoning, location; construction and erection of the proposed structured for which this permit is granted, and further agrees that if the above said regulations are not fully complied with in the zoning, location, erection and construction of the above described structure, the permit may then be revoked by notice from the County Building department and IMMEDIATELY BECOME NULL AND VOID. :::.:.~~~~=== F!;Zct'.~:CD\1=0 Owne~ fl~erd~ Contractor ]ansen CJ:r6.t. Building Permit Type __ 1___ _ This Card Must Be Posted So It Is Plainly Visible From The Street Until Final Inspection INSPECTION RECORD Footing Driveway dk/ ,0 " ' Foundation"/ Grouting Insulation /..#.:-/ ""' . ati!L0c I) -3·(]g M-fi' Undergro~Piumbing Drywall k-k"J 0~-t:/ ' <f,-2-~-&'b ~ Rough Plumbing I 0 _ _.3 i-<YZ -;7-~<./. :Electric Finill (by State Inspector) 0~ H 1 /z.z-(o; {Prior to Final) Rough Mechanical ;c -Jj.\5-/v.t . Septic Final /k ' Gas Piping /(}<3 I-vZ >/'<c~ FINAL 3-j;z--o9'-~~-' \ \ Ele~~ Rough (by State I'Wor)' (You Must Call For finallnspedion) (d> 'cb f!;p Notes A0;c£J /-;:i c/(.Cc/<. I\T77c (Prior to Framing) ' GAMGJC Framing 11)j71f Cc?I(Ji;C.G77<·~J;, ~-z.w -o'3 Y'' I -1/.Y £,-' t:. ' . (to include Roof in place & Windows & Doors installed & Firestopping in placE:>) THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE For Inspection Call970-384-5003 Ofii-ce 970-945-82.12 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Giemvoocl Springs/ ColorCJdo 81601 DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD ~::.R_o_vE_D_r:J_J//j,~ ~mT p:!J~!W~B~LMfJ(£c:~--- (Do NOT LAMINATE) Parcel Detail Page 1 of3 Garfield County Assessor/Treasurer Parcel Detail Information AssessQr/Treal>JJter PropeJ1Y_Se<Jwh I A1>s~ssor ~ub_s~Q!l~ry I Asses~or SalesSear~h Clerk_&_ Recorder Recepti_o_!LS~an;h Basic_llui!ding_Chamcteristli:~ I TaxJnformation Parc_el Detllil I Value_Det<Jjl I Sales QeJgil I Resid~n1i_&I!C9mmercial Improvement Detilll Land_Petail I PhotQgnmhs I Mill LeyYRevenues D_etail I Tax Area II Account Number II Parcel Number II 2007 Mill Levy I I 090 II R043466 II 239501329250 II 64.976 I Owner Name and Mailing Address !BONTEMPO, WENDY & ANTHONY 1184 DAKOTA MEADOWS DR !CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Assessor's Parcel Description (Not to be used as a legal description) ISECT,TWN,RNG:1-7-89 SUB:IRONBRIDGE IPUD, PHASE II, FILING 1, 2 & 3 ILOT:250 PRE:R041508 BK:1596 PG:871 IBK:l565 PG:600 BK:1560 PG:438 IBK: 1560 PG:431 BK: 1057 PG:0745 IBK:1028 PG:768 BK:1028 PG:597 IBK:1006 PG:743 RECPT:746619 IRECPT:746618 BK:1822 PG:287 IRECPT:702424 BK: 1822 PG:283 IRECPT:702422 BK:1822 PG:250 IRECPT:702421 BK:1782 PG:269 IRECPT:694479 BK:1782 PG:264 IRECPT:694478 BK:1747 PG:1 IRECPT:686745 BK:1218 PG:738 IRECPT:572583 BK:1218 PG:715 http://www. garcoact.com/assessor/parcel.asp ?ParcelN umber=23 9 50 13 2 925 0 I I I I I I I I I I I 7/22/2008 Parcel Detail Page 2 of3 jRECPT:572582 BK:l217 PG:266 I jRECPT:572131 BK:l206 PG:852 I jRECPT:569200 BK:1206 PG:780 I jRECPT:569199 BK:l206 PG:768 I jRECPT:569197 BK:!206 PG:734 I jRECPT:569195 BK:l206 PG:662 I jRECPT:569194 BK:I206 PG:637 I jRECPT:569192 BK:l206 PG:629 I jRECPT:569191 BK:!206 PG:574 I jRECPT:569190 BK:I063 PG:0578 I jBK:I063 PG:0571 I Location I Physical Address: jj4 EAGLE CLAW CIR GLENWOOD SPRINGS\ I s bdo 0 0 IIIRONBRIDGE PUD, PHASE II, FILING I, 2 U IVISIOn: & I I Land Acres: llo I Land Sq Ft: jj4,661 I I Section II Towns hi~ II Range I I II 7 II 89 I 2008 Property Tax Valuation Information II Actual Value II Assessed Value I I Land: 86,270jj 25,020\ I Improvements: Jl oil 0 I Total: 86,270jj 25,020j Additional Value Detail Most Recent Sale Sale Date: jj4/14/2008 Sale Price: \1318,400 A9ditipnal SalesJ2etail Basic Building Characteristics http://www ogarcoact.com/assessor /parceloasp ?ParcelN umber=23 9 50 13 2925 0 7/22/2008 Parcel Detail I I I Number ofResidentiallo Buildings: Number of Commllnd lo Buildings: No Building Records Found Tax Information Tax Year II Transaction Ty~e 2007 Tax Payment: Second Half 2007 Tax Payment: First Half 2007 Tax Amount 2006 Tax Payment: Second Half 2006 I Tax Payment: First Half 2006 II Tax Amount Amount I ($674.12)1 ($674.12)1 $1,348.241 ($63.20)1 ($63.20)1 $126.401 ToJ1 ofPag~ AsseJ>sorJlmab<i~Search_QJ)tions I Tr~sun:r Database S_~'l!"ch 0_1:1tions Clerk & Recorder Database Search Options Page 3 of3 The Garfield County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Garfield County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2005 -2008 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by GoQd_"[urns_Sp_ftw<m:. http://www .garcoact.com/assessor/parcel.asp ?ParcelN umber=23 9 50 13 2925 0 7/22/2008 IRONBRIDGE CLUB / / / / L1 = N36'19'35"W L2 = N1 6 '22'21"E L3 = S73'37'39"E 14.03' 26.86' 14.62' LEGEND TRAN SFO RMER ELECTRI C PEDESTAL TELEPHONE P EDESTAL CA BLE PEDESTAL STORM MANHOLE SEWER MANH OLE IRRIGA liON CONTROL SEWER SERVICE MARKER l><l WATER VALVE C( FIRE HYDRANT Ocs WATER MARKER 0 Mkr G GAS MARKER 0 sRv STUB ELECTRIC MARKER 50.8 EXISTIN G ELEVATION ~ DESIGN ELEVATION CO MM ENTS: 1.MODEL 111 2.MODEL 111 3. 4. LOT / 1"=20' 7 1006 02 SUBDIVIS ION: IRO NBRIDG E P U D P HASE 2, ElliNG 3 ADD RESS: 0004 EAGI E Cl AW CIRCLE MINIMUM SETBACKS: FRONT: REAR: __ L OT: 250 BLOCK: _,_3L.__ CITY /COUN TY: /GARFIElD FIN I SHED GRADE: 5995 2 BUILD IN G/BUIL DIN G __ _ SIDE: __ CORNER: ___ _ TYPE OF HOUSE : ------ NOTE: 1. BUILDING IMPR OVEMEN TS ~O'IIN ON lHIS PLOT PLAN ARE CONCEPTUAL fOR THE SOLE PURPOSE Of OBTAINING A BUILDING PER MIT. REFER TO APPROVEO ARQ-liTECTURAL PLAN S fOR CONSTRUCnON Of BUILDING lloiPROVEioiENTS. 2. lHE OR AINACE PATTERNS ~OV.W ON lHIS PLOT PlAIN ARE CONCEPTUAL. loiOOiflCAllON loiAY BE REQUIRED BY EXJSnNG CONDinONS TO PROVIDE POSinVE DRAINAGE Of TliE RNI~ED SITE. DRAWN BY:.I.o!..X __________ _ REV : --------------- REV: ---------------- REV : --------------- DATE: 04/14,/08 DA TE : ___ _ DATE: ___ _ DA TE: ___ _ ~ JlR lENIGHNEER.l!NG A Subsidiary of Weslrian !ml Qemo.roj Paza 1M ·~ co 00111 :nl-740-9393 •Fax: 3ll-721-00'9 •WNNI~· ro:n " I· I I f ,I 1: H ., II I' II I 1\ !I I, :1 l! •I ! i' I i 1 I I i 1. ' r I ' I I I i I I ' I j I .I t60.6!661'--' -- BDI LDING S£TBACK (TYP .) S.F.± AC.:l: NO . SEC. LS FT. . R.O.i\1. PSCO ·FINAL PLAT IRONBRI -DGE ___ .P -bAN --NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -PHASE ' II, FILINGS 1, 2 & 3 · '-.. ' A RESUBDIVISION OF PHASE I GOLF COURSE ·PARCEL 6, PHASE II BLOCK 1 PHASE III BLOCK 2, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PHASE II, PHASE II BLOCK 3 , PHASE I GOLF COURSE PARCEL 4, PHASE IV BLOCK 4, PHASE I GOLF COURSE PARCEL 3, PHASE I COMMON ARE~ PARCEL CONTAINING 0.693 ACRES (ADJO INING LOTS 97 THROUGH 100) OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED FINAL PLAT OF JRONBRIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PHASE 1 RECORDED IN THE GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECOR DER 'S OFFICE AT RECEPTION NO. 654 210 ., SITUATED IN GOVERNMENT LOTS 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24 , 26 , 29 AND 30 OF SECTION 1, GOVERNMENT LOTS 2 , 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15 AND 16 OF SECTION 12 TO WN SHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 89 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN , COUNTY OF GARFIELD , STATE OF COLORADO GRAPHIC SCALE SHEET 6 OF 12 /'l _____ _ / LOT .306 11,138 S.F.± I 0 .255 AC .± l--5.oo·@ PHASE I GOLF COURSE PARCEL 6 1,529,774 S.f .± 35.118 AC .± lf"GEND J LOT 3os' 6 ,398 S.F.± 0 .146 AC.:t SET PROPERTY CORNER LSI J79J5 LOT STREff 1\00RESS SQUARE fEET ACRES NUMBER SECTION LAND SUR\'fYOR FEET RIGHT-Of-WAY PUBUC SCR';IC£ CO/.IPANY A • 24'34'31" R -238.00 l -102.0•1t-' ce~ S47'58'oo"E c = 101 .30 I LOT 250 4,661 S.F.± 0 .107 AC .± @B) LOT .312 7,575 s .r ::t 0 :113 AC .:t <§> N65"20 '15"E 18.31' SANITATION DISTRICT PARCEL ""' 19,998 S.f .:t I 0 .459 AC.:t ~ "'-. UTILITY ~~ --~E'ASEMENT \. (_,~ ~ I '"'"<'~ ..... ~ "" ~ / / S85'54'02"E 19 .97' N43'27'47"E 4 .07' N31'3J '16"E .1--,---4.57' •' PHASE 1 ~0 · 's· ~ 's ·· "-!!'> GOLf COURSE PAR CEL 6 1,529,774 S.f .:l: 30 .118 AC .:t -.....<. ·9· " " ' ' ' X \, A = 56'13'56 " \, R ~ 17 J .OO ""\\_ \, L = 16 9 .79 EGR ESS -INGRESS, Q \, /CB= NJ2'0 8'17 "W Et.AERG ANCEY ACCESS , , :L \ C = 163 06 DRAINAGE ANO ' -,--' u nuTY EASEMENT \, ~ \ WIDTH 6V ~I::.1)'5 s ·/\\~\ R = 147.00 \ \ L=144.27 I I CB= NJ2'08'17"W I I c -u8.55 I I t t " = 17'31 '21" " = 23'48 '36" I I R ~ 235 .80 R = 174 .11 I I /L ~ 72.11 CB= :Oa~ogs~~---------1 V ca: S1B '04 '04"E "'-...,.,~ \ c -71 .83 c = 7 1.83 1 CENTERLINE 40.0' WIDE ROBERTSON OITCH, IRRIGA nON EASEMENT BK 7/PG 115 I I I I 10' PEDESTRAIN I EASEMENT PER --\ THIS PLAT I I I I I I I I I \ 1 ~~~¥~~;•~~rc~7,-~1~~·~r~ ---.. _ .. ,,.-;? I I / "/ /-· ' ' / .:'---r"·-. ,r. ,r / r' I I I LJ5t ~ LOT 266 -:r ---4.225 S.F.± c§.:> 0.097 AC.± L J55 LJSJ ~~ uss .... LOT 267 B ~.582 S.F.± @0.105 AC .± lJ58 --·. --·. J N 1.73' 0 "' .., ..J m lSI ..J ! ' \ ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' \ ' • • \ \* <@> LOT 278 4,066 S.F.± 0 .093 AC.:I: LOT 275 4,866 S.F.:t 0 .111 AC .± L124 <@!) LO T 274 4 ,693 S.F.± 0.107 AC .± @ (§) LOT 273 5 ,045 S.F.:t 0 .115 AC .± LOT 271 5,514 S .F.± 0.126 A C .±~ ~ 178.25' IRONBRIOOE DRfVE LOT 295 5 ,041 S.F .:t 0 .115 AC.± @ LOT 291 4 ,516 S.F.± 0 .103 AC .± ® LOT 290 4,005 S.F.± 0 .091 AC .:I: @B) LOT 289 5 ,266 S.F.± 0 .121 AC .± LOT 288 5 ,193 S.F.:I: 0 .119 AC .± (@:> S89'00'~0 "E 255.26 '. ___ _ \ \ \ \ \ FILING 3 COMMON AREA 5 60,611 S.f .± 1.391 AC.± 15.0 0' ---------. !1 -~25.00' 1 LOT 71 1 I 16 ,570 S.F.:t I , I 0.380 AC .± I ! I \ i @ ! --·.. IIi. • • --··· MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 9 I , __ ea .p a• 1 ).. I~ ./ .., 1!11 I ,-------- 1 . 1-3 0 .00' I __ I I I I I I I I I LOT 63 32 ,194 S.F.:t 0 . 739 AC .:t '. ~ / . .' .-' .... .. ·' --~ . / ,· / . ,.-· .~ -, I I LINE 1 40 .00' I I I I I I I I I I L " ________ _j 100 Yb.R FLOOO LINE 2 5 .00' I I ----25:oo ' I I I LOT 64 31 ,456 S.t .± 0.722 AC .:t WETLAND -, UNE I 1~55 .00' I I I \ I I I L---------25 .00 ' \ ---' I I 40 .00' -1 ----------, BUI LDING /1 SETB ACK__... I (T YP.) I LOT 65 44,557 S.f.± I I I / I I I I I I 1.022 AC.± I 70 oo· ~-. I I I I I I I _ _j . / ,• . , / __ .... ' .· . .' ' ' ,' .· ··" . -~ ~ t F-·' ' .-/', . .' . . r'l' -·' ,· .-.· . •' ' ·' . ' ,· .. ~ . ,' .· ' ' - / ' .' ,. ' .. / ,.~ ' .· ,•' . 3 'J I 25.oo' __ ---- =---[._ -:-~-~~~··· ..... ' . C17 \ ---- \ 40.00' \ C15 I I I ~___ r---- I I I I I I I 25.0 0 ' -- I -- 1 I I ;. ------ LOT 6 6 51,981 S.F.± 1.193 AC .± 2s1' '' I I I I I I I .. ,j c~ I I ,f i---70.00' --1 I I I ___ _, -- 2s.o o' -., I I / / ,· / / / / _,· ' r •' ./. I --·· .. --· ·--·. --· , ( IN FB BT ) I lnch = 50 ft. > __ ,. . ' ' •' IRONBRIDGE P.U.D. KEYMAP llOT8 SC ALE: 1" -2000' ,-. ,. PROJECT NO;i 2051019,00 0511 8 ··f'li< .. ···~.W.· I.T '', ------_L_ '' .·.,. ~-: -. .