Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationWHITSITT & GROSS, P.C. TIMOTHY E. WHITSITT whitsilt@roaringforklarc corn ERIC J. GROSS* ejiraarrngfarklaw corn •Ales admitted in Alaaacha.etta Fred A. Jarman Building and Planning Director 108 8111 Street, Ste 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 LAWYERS 320 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200 CARDONDALE, COLORADO 81623 TELEPHONE: (970) 963-6363 1' M SIMILE' 1'970) 963-6667 June 24, 2010 ADRIENNE C. ROWBERRY arowberry' roaringforklaw corn CHERYL A. HASSELBRING Paralegal cheryl6'roaringfarklaw.com RE: The Sages at Aspen Glen — Application for Amendment to a Planned Unit Development and Request for Planning Director Review for a Determination of No Substantial Modification Under Garfield County Code Section 4-201 . Dear Mr. Jarman: This office represents Gerd Zeller, the owner and applicant of the property known as the Sages at Aspen Glen. Mr. Zeller has applied for a Preliminary Plan Subdivision (a copy of which is included) for the property referenced above. Mr. Zeller and his team have been working closely with Kathy Eastley in your office and the Aspen Glen Homeowners' Association on this application. (See attached Summary of Planning Conference and letter from the Aspen Glen Homeowners' Association) In fact, this application successfully completed a Sketch Plan review under the old code. In order for the preliminary plan application to be successful as proposed, Mr. Zeller has agreed to reduce the density of the project and build duplex units where he could otherwise build triplex units under the PUD zoning in place. The PUD has a more restrictive setback for duplex units than for triplex units for the Club Villas Zone District. This is the purpose behind the companion application for Amendment to a Planned Unit Development. We request that the zone text for Club Villas zone district be modified to indicate a setback of 20 feet for duplex units. We request the Planning Director review the application to consider whether it is a substantial modification. We believe it is not a substantial modification of the zone district because: 1) This is the last parcel to be developed under this zone district in the Aspen Glen PUD 2) The change allows for reduced density to occur (duplex rather than single family attached with more than two units) without allowing for increased density under any circumstance. 3) The change requested is for only one setback requirement. 4) The change does not alter the allowed uses in the district and does not create or increase incompatibility of the use. Please feel free to contact me should you require additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, WHITSITT & GROSS, P.C. Fay: EJG: Enclosures GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470 www.garfeld-countv.com RECEIVED JUN 2 5 2010 GARFIF Lr COUNTY BU1LD1Nf 'TANNING ❑ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) �] PUD Amendment (Check the Appropriate box above) GENERAL INFORMATION (Please print legibly) > Name of Property Owner: GERD Z ELLER > Mailing Address: PO BOX 37 Aspen CO Telephone: ( ) 948-1221 Aspen > City: CO )963-7454 Zi State: p Code: 81611 Cell: > E-mail address: gmz52@aol.com FAX: ( )9639894 • Name of Owner's Representative, if any, (Attorney, Planner, Consultant, etc): Eric J Gross Whitsi.tt & Gross P.C. > Mailing Address: 32 0 Main a„i t -Q 7 n,n Telephone: ( ) 963-6363 ➢ City: Carbondale State: Zip Code: 81623 Cell: ( )379-9034 > E-mail address: ejg@roaringfor]claw.com Property Parcel ID 2395 00 405 FAX:( p63-6667 > Existing Property Zone District: Aspen Glen PUD Club Villas • Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation: G1,hrJ i hri 9 -ion > Proposed Zone District: No Change • Purpose for the proposed rezoning to Planned Unit Development: Amendment to modify front yard set back from 25' to 20' to accomodate duplex use rather tahn triplex use \ ,\1V‘ Last Revised 12/12/08 8. Extension of Approval. A request for extension of approval shall be considered by the Board of County Commissioners at a regularly scheduled public meeting. a) The request for extension shall include the following information. 1) The reasons for the applicant's inability to comply with the specified deadlines. 2) Changes in the character of the neighborhood or changes in the Land Use Code or Comprehensive Plan which have occurred since approval of the preliminary plan, and the effect of such changes on the proposed development. b) The Board may grant an extension based upon the following criteria. 1) The applicant has applied for an extension prior to the date of expiration of approval. 2) There has been no change or proposed change in the Code, the Comprehensive Plan, or the surrounding neighborhood which would substantially affect the proposed development. F. Recordation. 1. Completion of Conditions of Approval. The applicant must complete all conditions of Final PUD Plan approval prior to recording the Final PUD Plan and associated documents. 2. Approval of PUD Development Guide. The Final PUD Plan may not be filed for recording until the Board has approved a PUD Development Guide. 3. Effective Upon Recording. The Final PUD Plan does not become effective until it is properly filed for recording with the County Clerk and Recorder. 4. Public Sale of Lots. A PUD becomes complete and eligible for public sale of lots and development only after the Final PUD Plan and associated documents are recorded. III. Process for Amendments to Existing Planned Unit Developments This section only applies to property owners wishing to amend an Existing Planned Unit Development. All amendments to an approved PUD shall be processed as a Rezoning as set forth in Section 4-201, of Article IV, Application and Review Procedures. A. Pre -Application Conference. A Pre -Application Conference shall be held in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-103 A, Pre -Application Conference. B. Application. The application materials required for a PUD approval are set forth in Section 6-301. Within thirty (30) working days of the date of the Pre -Application Conference, the Director shall make a determination as to whether the proposed change(s) constitutes a substantial modification to the approved PUD or conditions of approval contained in the Resolution of Approval. Garfield County defines Substantial Modification as a Substantial Change which is defined as a change to and existing approved land use resulting in one or more of the following. 1. A change in land use category; 2. A change in site design which increases a) The number of dwelling units. b) The maximum square footage of structures less than 10,000 sq. ft. over 100% and structures over 10,000 sq. ft. by 10%, if a maximum has been specified in a permit or approval. c) Projected traffic such that a highway access permit or an amendment to a highway access permit is required as a result of the change. d) The size of the land which is the subject of the permit or approval 3. A change in land use which creates or increases the incompatibility of the use. 1) No Substantial Modification. If the Director determines that the change does not constitute a substantial modification to the approved PUD, the Director shall determine the applicable submittal materials. 2) Substantial Modification. If the Director determines that the change constitutes a substantial modification, the PUD amendment shall be considered a new application and submit the required materials identified in Section 6-301. C. Written Notice of Decision. The Director shall inform the applicant of the determination in writing within five (5) working days of the date of decision. Notice of the Director's decision shall also be provided to the Board of County Commissioners. D. Request by Applicant for Reconsideration of Decision. An applicant may request review of the Director's decision by the Board of County Commissioners by fling a written request within ten (10) calendar days of the date of receipt of written notice of the decision by the Director. 1) Schedule Public Hearing. The Director shall schedule the request for review by the Board of County Commissioners. a) Public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners shall be held within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of receipt of the request for review. b) Public notice of the hearing shall be made pursuant to Section 4-103 F, Notice of Public Hearing. 2) Decision by Board. Following a public hearing conducted pursuant to Section 4- 103 G, Conduct of Public Hearing, the Board of County Commissioners may uphold the Director's decision, modify the decision, or reverse the decision. I have rea which is co is above and have provided the required attached information rate to the best of my knowledge. (Signature of S --1 S - l 0 Date GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT PAYMENT AGREEMENT FORM (Shall be submitted with application) GARFIELD COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and GERD ZELLER Property Owner (hereinafter OWNER) agree as follows: 1. OWNER has submitted to COUNTY an application for ppnpmarrlinmni- (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. OWNER understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No. 98-09, as amended, establishes a fee schedule for each type of subdivision or land use review applications, and the guidelines for the administration of the fee structure. 3. OWNER and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. OWNER agrees to make payment of the Base Fee, established for the PROJECT, and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to OWNER. OWNER agrees to make additional payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. 4. The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners for the consideration of an application or additional COUNTY staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial Base Fee, OWNER shall pay additional billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the PROJECT mentioned above. OWNER acknowledges that all billing shall be paid prior to the final consideration by the COUNTY of any land use permit, zoning amendment, or subdivision pla PROP NEI OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) II M1 Signatu ' - i Date Print Name Mailing Address: ` JG 3.7 ,dee.).0 c� Page 4 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department 108 8t' Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.384.3470 www.Qarfield-countv.com PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: February 26, 2009 TAX Parcel Number:2395-241-00-405 UPDATED DECEMBER 4, 2009 PROJECT: The Sages at Aspen Glen 4.243 acres OWNER: Gerd Zeller REPRESENTATIVE: Jeff McIntosh - 5GM ERIC GROSS PRACTICAL LOCATION: within the Aspen Glen PUD adjacent to the rear gate and CR109 TYPE OF APPLICATION: PUD Preliminary Plan,- PUD Amendment I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch Plan review (PC 12/10/08) was for 15 units configured as 7 SF, 1 Duplex and 2 Triplex lots. Comments from PC ranged from more density...see minutes. AG HOA does not approve of triplex lots at this location and the applicant wants to do duplexes. However the PUD zoning provides restriction for duplex lots that the development proposal cannot meet, so the developer proposed triplexes. A PUD Amendment, concurrent with Preliminary Plan application, can request changing the restrictions that are prohibiting creation of duplexes on two of the lots. This process involves creating a 'new" Aspen Glen zoning document Preliminary Plan requirements were discussed - plan should be submitted showing the above requested duplexes rather than triplex. Staff will present the two applications at the same hearing with PUD Amendment decision being made first. II. REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPLICANT I5 REQUIRED TO ADDRESS Comprehensive Plan, UL UR Article IV., V., VZ, and VI: III. PROCESS In summary, the process will be the following: -,,,--.._-=-,_-.1.-.%•:-:•1; . res ,, :.,. l. R. i 7"4.. .. ..:•z .-.1d;;::3r. _ fK� n e uest; , i:Y. - - ::, _x1J) :;:� :!1 .�'7 ........, '•:i`��%:!i}.•.._f-. • .. .T}ti,n •r:. ..r.:•t:; ..1.•: .,ry.l.. pa c+ions. _:: , �,': -: ��!17 ... ..�i�.i•-!.:.:. ...,........ ... ...�. ,;;i:.•;•iii;_•: eQ:a.:,-:Y$od ..: a 1:�::...,,,;,;� r. ng,. .F. ... .. �•. �• 1 Submit Text Amend/Prelim Plan Applications reviewed for technical completeness Planning Staff 2 Planning Commission Hearing Scheduled/Public notice sent Referral agencies sent request for comment n/a 3 Staff review and report Public notice BOCC Hearing Recommendation to PC Staff revises report PC Hearing n/a 4 5 PC recommendation forwarded to BOCC Public hearing at BOCC BOCC Once approvals are granted applicant can submit a final plat application compliant with any Preliminary Plan conditions of approval. Preliminary Plan approval is valid for one (1) year, a one-time, one-year extension can be requested to the BOCC. IV. APPLICATION REVIEW a. Review by: b. Public Hearing: c. Referral Agencies: Aspen Glen HOA Road and Bridge Planning Engineer COOT Fire bistrict V. Staff for completeness recommendation and referral agencies for additional technical review X Planning Commission X Board of County Commissioners Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation County Attorney Vegetation Manager Colorado Geologic Survey (required by state statute) Utility companies APPLICATION REVIEW FEES a. Planning Review Fees: b. Referral Agency Fees: c.TOTAL $ 675.00 PP / $300 Text Amendment $ 950.00 (separate check made out to CGS) $1,925.00 (additional hours are billed at $40,50/hour) General Application Processing Planner reviews case for completeness and sends to referral agencies for comments. Case planner contacts applicant and sets up a site visit. Staff reviews application to determine if it meets standards of review. Case planner makes a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the appropriate hearing body. Disclaimer The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the County. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. This summary does not create a legal or vested right. Pre -application Summary Prepared by: December 4,2009 Stewart title View your transaction progress 24/7 via SureClose. Ask us about your login today! Roaring Fork Division 60 South 8th Street, Suite 101 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone: 970-704-1000 Fax: 970-704-0205 Date: June 9, 2010 Order Number: 929788 Buyer: Seller: Gerd Zeller PropertyThe Sages at Aspen The Sages at Aspen Glen Glen The Sages at Aspen Glen Please direct all Closing inquiries to: Mary L. Scheurich Phone: 970-704-1000 Email Address: mary.scheurich@stewart.com SELLER: Gerd Zeller PO Box 37 Aspen, Colorado 81612 LISTING BROKER: Whitsitt and Gross, PC Attn: Eric Gross 320 Main Street Suite 200 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone: (970) 963-6363 Fax: (970) 963-6667 Please direct all Title inquiries to: Chuck Dom Phone: 970-704-1000 Email Address: cdorn©stewart.com SELLING BROKER: None Phone: ALTA Commitment (6117/06) ALTA Commitment Form COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by stewart >title guaranty company Stewart Title Guaranty Company, a Texas Corporation ("Company"), for a valuable consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the Requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company. All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate six months after the Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue the policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request. This commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized signatory. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. Countersigned: Authorized Couatasignature Stewart Title Roaring Fork Division 60 South 8th Street, Suite I01 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone: 970-7041000 Fax: 970-704-0205 --stewart L�•title guaranty company Senior Chairman of the Board Chairman of the Board q&apadg____ President Order Number 929788 ALTA Commitment (6/17106) Title Officer: Susan Sarver COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: May 28, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. 2. Policy or Policies To Be Issued: (a) A.L.T.A. Owner's Proposed Insured: To Be Determined (Extended) (b) A.L.T.A. Loan (Standard) Proposed Insured: To Be Determined, its successors and/or assigns Order Number: 929788 Title Officer. Susan Sarver Amount of insurance: 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the fee simple estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: Gerd Zeller 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: See Attached Legal Description Statement of Charges: These charges are due and payable before a Policy can be issued: To Be Determined $ TBD $ TBD SCHEDULE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land situate in Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of the 6th Principal Meridian being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly right of way line of County Road 109 and the west Iine of 2"a Amended Plat of Golf Course Parcel 9, Aspen Glen, Filing No. 1, County of Garfield, State of Colorado whence the W1/4 corner of Section 20, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian bears S 57°23'0I" E 5194.26 feet; thence along the west line of said Golf Course Parcel 9 the following courses: N 79°46'03" E, 87.38 feet; thence, S 29°23'03" E, 308.37 feet; thence, S 74°11'52" E, 10.61 feet; thence, S 29°23'03" E, 440.20 feet; thence, S 53°16'43" E, 36.29 feet; thence, S 14°34'35" E, 84.79 feet; feet to the north right of way line of Golden Bear Drive as shown on plat of Aspen Glen, Filing No. 6, County of Garfield, State of Colorado; thence along said north right of way line the following courses: thence 45.51 feet along the arc of a 814.50 feet radius non tangent curve to the left, having a central angle of 3°12'05" and subtending a chord bearing S 75°3T33" W 45.50 feet; thence 29.03 feet along the arc of a 199.75 feet radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 8°19'39" and subtending a chord bearing S 78°06'20" W 29.01 feet; thence 5 82°16'09" W, 45.30 feet; thence 61.73 feet along the arc of a 200.25 feet radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 17°39'47" and subtending a chord bearing S 73°26'16" W 61.49 feet; thence 55.09 feet along the arc of a 833.67 feet radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 3°47'11" and subtending a chord bearing S 62°42'47" W 55.08 feet; thence 38.40 feet along the arc of a 47.50 feet radius curve to the fight, having a central angle of 46°19'29" and subtending a chord bearing S 83°58'56" W 37.37 feet to the east right of way Iine of County Road 109; thence, along said east right of way line the following courses: thence, N 29°02'45" W, 166.98 feet; thence, N20°41'20" W, 11.95 feet; thence 545.79 feet along the arc of a 1635.67 feet radius non tangent curve to the right, having a central angle of I9°07'06" and subtending a chord bearing N I6°06'57" W 543.26 feet; thence, N 06°33'24" W, 135.34 feet; to the point of beginning. County of Garfield, State of Colorado COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B — Section 1 REQUIREMENTS Order Number: 929788 The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. Payment to or for the account of the grantor(s) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. 3. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company of payment of all outstanding taxes and assessments as certified by the County Treasurer. 4. Execution of Affidavit as to Debts and Liens and its return to Stewart Title Guaranty Company. NOTE: If work has been performed on, or in connection with, the subject property (architectural drawings, soils testing, foundation work, installation of materials), please notify the Company's escrow officer within 10 days of receipt of this title commitment 5. Payment of any and all Homeowners assessments and expenses which may be assessed to the property. 6. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENT IS FOR DELETION OF SURVEY EXCEPTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE OWNERS POLICY: A SURVEY, meeting the minimum detail standards of the ALTA/ACSM, Survey OR IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE, prepared by a registered Colorado surveyor, within the last TWO MONTHS, must be presented to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, for its approval prior to the deletion of any survey exceptions from the OWNERS POLICY. Stewart Title Guaranty reserves the right to take exception to any adverse matters as shown on said survey, or make further inquiry or requirements relative thereto. Said Survey, must be certified to Stewart Title of Colorado and/or Stewart Title Guaranty Company. 7. Stewart Title of Colorado, Inc. - CarbondaIe Division reserves the right to add and/or delete requirements and/or exceptions upon disclosure of additional information relating to subject property. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B -- Section 2 EXCEPTIONS Order Number: 929788 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. 6. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents, or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 7. Water rights, claims or title to water. 8. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. 9. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 10. Reservations or exceptions contained in U.S. Patents, or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof, recorded July 25, 1894 in Book 12 at Page 332 as Reception No. 17522. reserving 1) Rights of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom and 2) rights of way for ditches and canals constructed under the authority of the United States. 11. Resolutions by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, as follows: A. Resolution No. 92-056 recorded June 29, 1992 in Book 835 at Page 305 as Reception No. 436262. B. Resolution No. 93-121 recorded December 28, 1993 in Book 887 at Page 824 as Reception No. 457154. C. Resolution No. 94-008 recorded February 2, 1994 in Book 891 at Page 620 as Reception No. 458796. D. Resolution No. 94-089 recorded August 9, 1994 in Book 911 at Page 791 as Reception No. 466955. E. Resolution No. 94-139 recorded December 13, 1994 in Book 925 at Page 345 as Reception No. 472058. F. Resolution No. 95-004 recorded January 17, 1995 in Book 929 at Page 64 as Reception No. 473462. G. Resolution No. 96-26 recorded May 9, 1996 in Book 977 at Page 399 as Reception No. 492765. H. Resolution No. 96-06 recorded February 9, 1996 in Book 966 at Page 682 as Reception No. 488797. 1. Resolution No. 96-07 recorded February 9, 1996 in Book 966 at Page 686 as Reception No. 488798. J. Resolution No. 2006-79 recorded March 19, 2007 in Book 1903 at Page 967 as Reception No. 719257. 12. Agreements recorded April 12, 1992 in Book 827 at Page 636 as Reception No. 433216 and recorded June 29, 1993 in Book 835 at Page 364 as Reception No. 436263. 13. Master Declaration recorded April 6, 1995 in Book 936 at Page 350 as Reception No. 476328, First Supplemental Declaration recorded July 15, 1997 in Book 1026 at Page 161 as Reception No. 510976, Second Supplemental Declaration recorded November 26, 1997 in Book 1043 at Page 850 as Reception No. 516966, Third Supplemental Declaration recorded February I0, 1998 in Book 1053 at Page 8 as Reception No. 520203 Fourth Supplemental Declaration recorded February 10, 1998 in Book I053 at Page 30 as Reception No. 520209, Fifth Supplemental Declaration recorded May 1, 1998 in Book 1065 at Page 800 as Reception No. 524479, Sixth Supplemental Declaration recorded May 22, 1998 in Book 1069 at Page 58 as Reception No. 525647, Seventh Supplemental Declaration recorded August 24, 1998 in Book 1084 at Page 943 as Reception No. 531005, Eighth Supplemental Declaration recorded October 26, 1998 in Book 1094 at Page 517 as Reception No. 534299, Ninth Supplemental Declaration recorded August 17, 1999 in Book 1145 at Page 680 as Reception No. 550617, Tenth Supplemental Declaration recorded November 19, 1999 in Book 1161 at Page 293 as Reception No. 555596, EIeventh Supplemental Declaration recorded September 23, 1999 in Book 1 151 at Page 877 as Reception No. 552597, Twelfth Supplemental Declaration recorded December 14, 1999 in Book 1164 at Page 755 as Reception No. 556668, Thirteenth Supplemental Declaration recorded July 17, 2000 in Book 1197 at Page 740 as Reception No. 566379, Fourteenth Supplemental Declaration recorded May 8, 2003 in Book 1467 at Page 910 as Reception No. 626952, First Amendment to the Master Declaration recorded October 30, 2003 in Book1533 at Page 735 as Reception No. 639707 and Fifteenth Supplemental Declaration recorded December 21, 2004 in Book 1649 at Page 891 as Reception No. 665692, Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Aspen Glen recorded March 23, 2007 in Book 1905 at Page 523 as Reception No. 719512. 14. Declaration of Golf Facilities Development, Construction and Operational Easement, recorded April 6, 1995 in Book 936 at Page 314 as Reception No. 476327. 15. Subdivider's Agreement as contained in Instrument recorded April 6, 1995 in Book 936 at Page 444 as Reception No. 476329. 16. Plat of Aspen Glen Planned Unit Development recorded April 6, 1995 as Reception No. 476330. 17. Special Warranty Deed and Grant of Easement, recorded December 31, 1996 in Book 1005 at Page 228 as Reception No. 503024. 18. Declaration of Golf Course Easement, recorded December 21, 2004 in Book 1649 at Page 899 as Reception No. 665693. 19. Deed of Easement for Untreated Water Irrigation Line, recorded December 21, 2004 in Book 1649 at Page 907 as Reception No. 665695. 20. Transfer of Declarant Rights, recorded December 21, 2004 in Book 1649 at Page 912 as Reception No. 665696. 21. Amended Bylaws of the Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen recorded March 23, 2007 in Book 1905 at Page 577 as Reception No. 719513. 22. NOTE: Exceptions 1 and 4 may be deleted from the policies, provided the seller and buyer execute the Company's affidavits, as required herein, and the Company approves such deletions. If work has been performed on, or in connection with, the subject property (architectural drawings, soils testing, foundation work, installation of materials), and the Company has not reviewed and approved Iien waivers and indemnitor financials, Standard Exception 4 (mechanic lien exception) will not be deleted and no mechanic lien coverage will be furnished. Exceptions 2 and 3 may be deleted from the policies, provided the Company receives and approves the survey or survey affidavit if required herein. Exception 5 will not appear on the policies, provided the Company, or its authorized agent, conducts the closing of the proposed transaction and is responsible for the recordation of the documents. Gerd Zeller P.U. Box 37 Aspen, CO 81612 February 9, 2010 Via Electronic Mail to: lance@sopris.net sopris.net The Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen c/o Lance Luckett 0080 Bald Eagle Way Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Lance: This letter is to request a letter of support for our application to Garfield County for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. Specifically, I will be requesting the County to approve a change to the zone text of the Club Villas Zone District. Last year, I met with the Board to discuss the proposed preliminary plan application for the Sages at Aspen Glen. During this process we discussed with the Board the fact that a lot dimension requirement for a duplex use is more restrictive than for a multi family unit with three or more attached dwelling units. I am seeking to build duplex units on two of the lots in the Sages project. Although the overall PUD density allows for 15 units, I am seeking approval for only 13. I am willing to limit the project density, however I need to be able to build duplexes instead of triplexes on these two lots. You will see the attachment which sets out the zone text amendment sought. I am requesting a letter from the Board supporting this minor amendm; t to the zone text to allow a reduction in density to 13 units. 9 Ali4 4 le By: Sinc Gerd Attachment to Letter Dated February 9, 2010 to the Homeowners' Association at Aspen Glen Attached is the relevant Club Villas Zone District Text _. (PUD Zone Text at Book 835 Page 305) The relief sough is from Section 7 Duplex (Book 835 Page 340): Subsection (d) Minimum Front Yard Setback Change sought is a reduction from 25 ft. to 20 ft. Also included is Section 7 Single Family Attached (Book 835 Page 339) Note that in Subsection (d) the Minimum Front Yard Setback is 20 ft. The request is to bring the Duplex standard of Section 7 (d) to be consistent with the Single Family Attached standard at Section 7 (d). AECOADED AT 4411 O'CLOCKP.M. JUN 29 1992 AEC $ 436262 MILDRED• ALSDORF. COU'ITY CLERK • esNx 835 ricE305 STATE OF COLORADO ) )3s. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held at the Courthouse in Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 29th day of June, 1992, there were present: Arnold L. Macklev , Marian I. Smith , Elmer fBuckevl Albany , Don A. DeFord , Mildred Alsdorf , Commissioner Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney Clerk to the Board when the following proceedings, among others were had and to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 92-056 done, RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH TEE APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION OF TSE ASPEN GLS GUN=NY POR TEE ASPEN GLEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND APPROVAL OP ITS PLAIN WEEREAS, the Aspen Glen Company has filed an application with the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, for approval of the Aspen Glen Planned United Development rezoning and its Planned Unit Development plan; WNE_RBAS, the Board of County Commissioners has now considered that application. FON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TEE BOARD OF COUNTY CONAZSSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, that based upon the evidence, swain testimony, exhibits, study of the comprehensive plan for the unincorporated areas of Garfield County, gents from the Garfield County Department of Regulatory Offices and Personnel, and the Garfield County Planning Commission, and comments from all interested parties, this Board enters the following findings and conclusions: FiNDTNGS 1. The application was filed with the Regulatory Offices and Personnel Department of Garfield County on March 3, 1992, and referred to the Planning Commission on March 9, 1992. 1 EXHIBIT TO ASPEN GEM RESOLOTION REVISED ZONE DISTRICT TEXT BIM 835 i c=330 7. CLUB VILLA RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: BOK 835 Single-family attached and single-family detached residential dwellings intended far individual Iot ownership, which may include golf villas, townhomes, club villas, and duplexes Single-Famiy Attached: (a) Permitted Uses Single-famay residential (attached) plus accessory uses excluding guest and/or caretaker's quarters home occupation; water treatment facility (b) Minimum Lot Size 2,200 sq.ft. (c) Maximum Building Height 25 ft. (d) Minimum Front Yard if Abutting 20 ft. from roadway4 Public/Private Street easement/ROW (e) Minimum Lot Width' 22 ft. (at building setback) (f) Minimum Lot Depth 100 ft. (g) Maximum Floor Area Ratio for Entire Development Tract .5 (h) Minimum Rear Yard 20 ft. (i) Minimum Side Yards of Buildings 7.5 ft (I) Minimum Separation between 15 ft Buildings (k) Maximum Number of Attached Units 8 units (in a single structure) (1) Minimum Off Street Parking per DU 2 spaces (m) Minimum Open Space per each Villa Development Tract 25% CuI-de-sac, pie shaped and flag lots may have a less than minimum width measured at building setback, but no lots shall have less than 16 ft. of width on public access right-of-way or casement -9- BOOK 7. CLUB VIIIA RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT (cont'd,) Dunlsz (a) Permitted Uses (13) (c) (d) (c) (1) (g) (h) (i) Uj) (k) Minimum Lot Size Maximum Building Height Minimum Front Yard if Abutting Public/Private Street Minimum Lot Width* Minimum Lot Depth Maadmum Floor Area Ratio Minimum Rear Yard Minimum Each Side Yard Comer Lot Minimum Side Yard Abutting Public/Private Street 835 hi;E340 Single-family residential and two-family residential plus accessory uses excluding guest and/or caretaker's quarters; home occupation; water treatment facility 15,625 sq,ft. ?5 ft 25 ft. from roadway easement/ROW 125 ft (at building setback 125 ft. .30 2.0 ft 10 ft. or 1/2 height of principal building whichever is greater 15 ft. from roadway easement/ROW Minimum Off Street Parking per DU 4 spaces Cul-de-sac, pie shaped and flag lots may have a less than minimum width measured at building line, but no lot shall have less than 25 feat of width an public access right-of-way or easement. Aspen Glen Hantemi'ner'X Association February 25, 2010 Ms. Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Sages at Aspen Glen Zoning Text Amendment Dear Ms. Eastley, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on a PUD Amendment proposed by Mr. Gerd Zeller for the Club Villa Residential zone district in Aspen Glen which applies to the 4.243 acre parcel near the rear gate to Aspen Glen that Mr. Zeller proposes to develop as the Sages at Aspen Glen. As you know, the Aspen Glen HOA Board of Directors (the Board) and our Design Review Committee (DRC) have been working with Mr. Zeller on the Sages project for several years. It is our understanding that he now proposes a PUD amendment to change the front yard setback requirements for duplexes from 25 feet to 20 feet within the Club Villa Residential zone district. The Board supports this change to required setbacks conditional upon Mr. Zeller's project containing no more than 13 total dwelling units at build -out. Although Mr. Zeller originally submitted a sketch plan that proposed 15 total units (including seven single family homes, one duplex, two triplexes), for a total of 15 dwelling units, he has since agreed with the Board to limit total density within the Sages project to 13 dwelling units. The Board continues to support development of up to 13 dwelling units, as per the attached letter of November 20, 2008. We understand that the PUD Amendment proposed by Mr. Zeller, in order to reduce applicable setbacks, does not preclude him or any successor from submitting another plan entirely. However we believe that, with the addition of a 13 -unit density cap on this property, there will be enough constraints on the property, including the 15`h Supplemental, to prevent a development that is inconsistent with Aspen Glen and the intent of the zone district. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. If you have any questions or comments regarding this referral please do not hesitate to contact our DRC Administrator Leslie Lamont at 963-8434 or Ilamont@sopris.net. Sincerely, Ned Collum, President Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen Attachment: HOA Letter November 20, 2008 0080 Bald Eagle 1Nay Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (970) 963-3362 Fax: (970) 963-4550 Lance Lockett, Community Services Director Email: lance`a sopris net Aspen Glen Ilonwowncr's Association November 20, 2008 Ms. Kathy Eastley Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Sages at Aspen Glen Sketch Plan Review Dear Ms. Eastley, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the submitted land use application from Mr. Gerd Zeller called the Sages at Aspen Glen. Thank you as well for taking the time to meet with our Design Review Administrator Leslie Lamont. The Aspen Glen HOA Board of Directors and our Design Review Committee (DRC) have been working with Gerd on this project for a year. We realize that development has always been planned for this area within Aspen Glen and our Interest has been to ensure that development is consistent with the character of Aspen Glen and the proposed density of the site is appropriate. I believe it has been Gerd's interest to establish a working relationship with us that will facilitate the development of his parcel. We understand that Sketch Plan is only a review by the Planning Commission and the purpose is to seek initial input on the project input that the applicant may or may not choose to follow. In addition, because the property is zoned Club Villas, single family, duplex and triplex units are allowed uses and the zoning does not limit the mix of unit type. Zoning does however define the minimum lot size for each unit type and the minimum lot size for a triplex is smaller than the requirement for a duplex or a single family home. Review of the submittal confirms that Gerd has submitted a plan for seven single family Tots, one duplex lot and two triplex lots for a total of 15 dwelling units on site. After working with Gerd for a year we offer the following review of his application. L The number of units on this site is a critical element of the proposal for Aspen Glen. The HOA Board of Directors does Ant support a triplex product on the site and the Board only supports a total of 13 dwelling units on site. 0080 Bald Eagle Way Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel' (970) 963-3362 Far (970) 963-4550 Lance Luckett, Community Services Director Email: lance r@soprls.net 2. Gerd has stated to the Board that he intends to build only 13 units on the property but zoning forces him to identify two triplex lots to meet the minimum lot size requirements. He has told us that he will convert the triplex lots to duplex lots after subdivision approval via an administrative amendment to the approved subdivision. However, it is not clear to us what that process entails or when the conversion would occur. 3. Although we do not distrust Gerd's commitment to Aspen Glen we believe that we cannot 'trust" that changes will occur after a subdivision plat has been recorded and the land becomes entitled for 15 dwelling units. Therefore we ask that the Garfield County Building and Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the total number of dwelling units will not exceed 13 dwelling units and to prohibit the construction of any triplex buildings on the Sages parcel. 4. We also recommend that the applicant and the County staff identify a mechanism to ensure that the density is limited to 13 units. S. We recommend that the Sages development become a sub -association within the master association of Aspen Glen for landscape and other maintenance purposes. 6. We are concerned that the 30 foot setback from County Road 109 (CR 109) is not Large enough to support landscaping that will be critical for screening the development from the road and required drainage and slope retention systems. 7. We recommend that the preliminary plan submittal include a cross section drawing of the proposal from CR 109 to the two triplex Tots that are adjacent to CR 109. This drawing should include a building form within the building' envelopes (with proposed heights of the buildings) in order for County staff and our. DRC to study possible impacts. 8. We recommend a second cross section drawing from Bald Eagle Way (Golden Bear on the submitted plan) to the front of the duplex lot including the building forms and heights for the same purposes as outlined above. 9. We call staff's attention to the small detention pond in the southwest corner of the property. This is an area next to our back gate and the ability to install landscaping in this area will be important. A detention pond may not support landscaping of any significance. Thank you for requesting our input and we look forward to participating in this review as the application makes its way through the Garfield County land use review process. If you have any questions or comments regarding this referral please do not hesitate to contact aur DRC Administrator Leslie Lamont at 963-8434 or llamont@sopris.net. Sincerely, Doug Hacker, President Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen 0080 Bald Eagle Way Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel (970) 963-3362 Fac: (970) 963-4550 Lance Luckell, Community Services Director Email: lance@sopris.nel THE SAGES at ASPEN GLEN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PRELIMINARY PLAN ENGINEERING REPORT APRIL 2010 Prepared by David M. Kotz, P.E. Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Ina 118 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 April 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS THE SAGES at ASPEN GLEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION STREETS DRAINAGE GEOTECH SEWER EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL WATER APPENDICES A TRAFFIC REPORT B DRAINAGE CALCS C SOILS REPORTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.2006-361.001-01 Sages Preliminary Plan Engineering Report 2 i r 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Sages at Aspen Glen —consists of a 4.24 -acre parcel within the Aspen Glen PUD. This parcel is zoned Club Villa Zone District, and is subject to the development standards within that district. The Sages parcel is located in the northern portion of the Planned Unit Development near the back entrance off County Road 109. It is bordered by County Road 109 on the west, Bald Eagle Drive on the south and Aspen Glen Hole 3 on the east. The 1993 Aspen Glen Preliminary Plan Submittal included survey and engineering design for 6 single-family lots. A maximum of fifteen (15) units could be built under the current Club Villas zoning. This plan includes only seven (7) single-family Tots arranged on the east side of Allison Road and three (3) duplexes on the west for a total of thirteen (13) dwelling units. This revised Preliminary Plan submittal provides survey and near construction -level engineering design for the 13 unit configuration. Development of this parcel has always been a consideration in the overall master planning and engineering of Aspen Glen. Connections for all utilities are located immediately adjacent to the parcel. Existing water and sewer mains and downstream drainage infrastructure are more than sufficient to serve the Sages lots. The Sages will be constructed under the same standards, details and specifications used elsewhere in Aspen Glen. To minimize impacts on the golfing community, the public infrastructure will be installed in one phase. Residential construction and associated over -lot grading will proceed in a phased fashion based on market conditions. ■ STREETS The Sages is located east of County Road 109 just north of the Bald Eagle Way intersection. Improvements to County Road 109 were completed by Garfield County and the Aspen Glen PUD, per the approval resolution. Bald Eagle Way is the main collector street within the Aspen Glen PUD. It also provides the primary access to Colorado Highway 82 by way of an Access Permit granted by the Colorado Department of Transportation. 1:2008-361.001-01 Sages Preliminary Plan Engineering Report The interior road is tentatively named Allison Road. The roadway cross section matches the standard Aspen Glen residential template and includes two 11 -foot asphalt driving lanes with 27 -inch wide curb and gutter on each side. An intermediate eyebrow is provided to act as a turnaround. Radii exceed the minimums necessary for emergency vehicles and the design has been developed in compliance with criteria from the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. Like the other internal access roads within Aspen Glen, these roads will be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. Aspen Glen has constructed a bike trail on the west side of CR 109 thru "The Reserve" parcel. No separate trails, walkways or bikeways are contemplated within The Sages. Traffic impacts for the original PUD zoning of Aspen Glen were contemplated in the attached "Traffic Impact Study" by Mathew J. Delich, P.E. (Appendix A). Note that the original PUD zoning contemplated a larger number of dwelling units than can possibly be built with existing development and current zoning on the few undeveloped parcels. Thus, overall traffic impacts will be Tess than considered in the previous 1993 Preliminary Plan Approval. Trip Generation Rate calculations for The Sages using the most current Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, to establish an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) follow. Estimated Traffic Generation Aspen Glen — The Sages Land Use # of UNITS DAILY RATE AM RATE / % IN, % OUT PM RATE / % IN, % OUT DAILY TRIPS AM IN AM OUT PM IN PM OUT Single -Family Detached Housing r 7 9.57 0.75 / 25% Enter 75% Exit 1.01 / 63% Enter 37% Exit 67 1 4 4 3 A Recreational Homes 2 6 3.16 0.16 I 67% Enter 33% Exit 0.26 41% Enter 59% Exit 19 1 0 1 1 Total Traffic Generation: 13 UNITS 86 2 4 5 4 1— ITE Land Use Code #210 — Single -Family Detached Housing, trip rate based on number of dwelling units 2 — ITE Land Use Code #260 — Recreational Homes, trip rate based an number of dwelling units Notes: The rates are taken directly from Trip Generation, 7"' Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003). No reduction has been applied to any rates to account for possible transit, ride -share, bicycle, pedestrian, or trips made by another mode of travel. Peak hour calculated trips were rounded up to provide a more conservative forecast of peak hour traffic generation. 12008-361.001-01 Sages Preliminary Plan Engineering Report 4 r r Trip Generation defines single-family detached housing as, "all single-family detached homes on individual lots. A typical site surveyed is a suburban subdivision." Also of note, "Single- family detached units had the highest trip generation rate per dwelling unit of all residential uses because they were the largest units in size and had more residents and more vehicles per unit than other residential land uses; they were generally located farther away from shopping centers, employment areas and other trip attractors than other residential land uses; and they generally had fewer alternate modes of transportation available, because they were typically not as concentrated as other residential land uses. The peak hour of the generator typically coincided with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic." Trip Generation defines recreational homes as, "usually located in a resort containing local services and complete recreational facilities. These dwellings are often second homes used by the owner periodically or rented on a seasonal basis," Also of note, "A large number of internal trips were made for recreational purposes in resort communities containing recreational homes." For a worst-case, or a conservatively high, estimate of trip generation the above analysis assumes all seven of the single-family residences are primary residences and the duplex units are counted as recreational homes. If the duplexes were analyzed as Townhome/Condo use in Trip Generation, this would add approximately 3 more trips per unit (18 total additional). The approximate 50% assumption of recreational units is consistent with current ratios in Aspen Glen. Applying the recreational percentage to the duplex units produces higher trip generation estimates than if the single-family detached units were considered recreational. DRAINAGE The drainage plan and design for The Sages conforms to that envisioned in the 1993 Master Aspen Glen Drainage and Water Quality Report. All downstream Aspen Glen drainage infrastructure was previously designed and installed to provide water quality treatment and flood protection for post -development conditions. With a total parcel area of only 4.24 acres, the site runoff pales in comparison to the drainage from over 300 acres west of County Road 109 and the rest of the project. County Road 109 was re -constructed with drainage improvements (roadside ditches and cross culverts) that accommodate the offsite flows and those from post - development conditions on The Reserve parcel. In the vicinity of The Sages, large ditches 1.2008-361.001-01 Sages Preliminary Plan Engineering Report 5 along County Road 109 capture all flows and convey them to one cross culvert, Runoff is conveyed through The Sages by the 30" CMP located between Tots 5 and 6. Site drainage from the Sages will flow to the natural depression at the rear of lots 2 and 3. The previous plan routed this flow over land between golf tees to a small inlet on the right side of the course in front of the tees. Aspen Glen Golf opposed this plan due to concerns over excessive wetting of the course and unknowns associated with their drainage system (The outlet for their area drain is unknown.) The drainage plan has been revised to alleviate the concerns of Golf. A 15" pipe will now divert these flows away from the tees and into the 30" CMP at the rear of Lots 5 and 6. The 30" travels on to collect flows from Homestead Road. After changing to a 36" pipe, it outlets to the golf course stream on Hole 6. Flow continues on thru the stream and created wetlands and into the lake network. For on-site drainage, the primary concern is that proper residential site grading conveys runoff around and past the structures. Runoff from the westem tots (8, 9 & 10) will then be intercepted by the proposed roadway. The fronts of Tots 1 — 6 will also drain to the roadway and be piped eastward. The remainder of this section discusses the methodology, procedures and results of the drainage analysis conducted by SGM. Complete calculations are included in Appendix B. Sheet Cl serves as the drainage area map Methodology The NRCS TR -55 method was used for estimating the amount of runoff that will occur as a result of a particular precipitation event. This method calculates runoff from individual basins based on the basin area, SCS curve number, precipitation and the time of concentration. Drainage Basin Area No off-site basins are tributary to The Sages. The overall project area was divided into five sub -areas that range in size from 0.15 acres to 1.58 acres. All basins drain to the east to grassed swales on the golf course. Basins are delineated on sheet C1. 12006-381.001-01 Sages preliminary Plan Engineering Report SCS Curve Number A SCS curve number is assigned to each basin. The curve number provides the relationship between the amount of precipitation and the amount of subsequent runoff. The curve number is a function of soil type, vegetative -cover, land use, and antecedent moisture conditions. The SCS soil map and descriptive table are also included in Appendix 8. An area -weighted average curve number is assigned to each sub -area due to the variation in soil types, impervious and vegetative cover. Precipitation Large runoff events in this region of Western Colorado are caused by cloudburst type storms that are characterized by short durations of high intensity rainfall. The SCS Type II 24-hour distribution best represents these types of storms and was used for this analysis. Rainfall depths were taken from the NOAA Atlas 2, Precipitation -Frequency Atlas of the Western United States, Volume III- Colorado. Values for the 2-, 10-, 25- and 100 -year are 1.30, 1.60, 2.00 and 2.40 inches, respectively. Time of Concentration travel Time Time of concentration (TC) is an important parameter in runoff modeling. It is defined as the time it would take for a drop of water falling on the most hydraulically remote point in the watershed to reach the outfall. TR -55 uses a segmented approach consisting of three components: sheet flow, overland flow, and channel flow, to estimate (TC). The length of flow, surface roughness, slope and channel geometry all factor in. Flow velocities are estimated using Manning's kinematic flow equation. Shorter TC's produce more rapid runoff and comparatively higher peaks. As sub -areas on The Sages are relatively small, a minimum TC of 0.1 hour was applied in the calculations. Analysis & Results The following table summarizes the drainage characteristics of The Sages sub -areas and presents results of the 2-, 10-, 25- and 100 -year analysis. Complete computer output is include in Appendix B. 1.2009-361.001-01 Sages Preliminary Plan Engineering Report 7 r TR -55 Parameters & Results BASIN AREA CN Te Cz Clo Cas Q K 1hrlW______[cNij A 0.906 76 0 0.10 0.38 0.51 0.82 B 0.932 82 0.1 0.30 0.70 0.89 1.30 C 0.500 80 0.1 0.12 ` 0.31 0.41 0.61 D 1.575 79 0.1 0.33 ` 0.89 1.17 1.80 E 0.152 84 0.1 0.06 0.13 0.17 0.23 Total 4.065 0.91 238 3.13 4.77 Stormwater Quality There is little risk of temporary or permanent water quality impacts resulting from the construction of The Sages. Sediment discharged downstream during construction would be the primary concern. The golf course and HOA simply won't tolerate that. To minimize sediment transport, appropriate best management practices (BMP's) will be utilized. Straw bale check dams, culvert inlet protection and silt fence will prevent sediment from traveling downstream. Refer to sheet C7 for the Erosion Control Plan_ The contractor will need to obtain a "Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities over 1 Acre" from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and follow all requirements. Runoff that does leave The Sages will receive substantial treatment on Aspen Glen prior to ever possibly reaching the wetlands adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. That treatment includes the baffled inlets, dilution of the golf course stream flow, flow thru created wetlands and sedimentation afforded by three lakes in series. WATER Water Supply and Treatment The Sages will be served by the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (RFWSD). Refer to the "will serve" letter contained elsewhere in this application. The RFWSD water supply system has been approved and accepted by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment and has more than enough capacity to serve the 13 units in The Sages in addition to the previously platted lots. A copy of the RFWSD Water System Master Plan, June 2008 is on file with Garfield County. Water for the District is supplied through an augmentation plan, Case No. 93CW192, which was approved on October 31, 1995. Under this plan, water is supplied via wells on the Aspen 1.2008-361.001-01 Sages Preliminary Plan Engineering Report a Glen property, which are augmented through contracts with both the West Divide Water Conservancy District and the Basalt Water Conservancy District. The infrastructure completed as part of the previous phases of Aspen Glen includes a 700,000 gallon water storage tank east of Highway No. 82, a 300,000 gallon tank west of County Road 109, three wells and a chlorination well house. The RFWSD system also includes two separate 10" connections to Coryell Ranch where a 400 gpm well pumps thru a chlorination facility to a 200,000 gallon tank. A 12" transmission main also extends northward to Iron Bridge where a 300,000+ gallon tank is located. All these facilities are interconnected and provide redundant storage and connections to The Sages. A conservatively, high estimate for Sages average water demands would be 13 units x 3.5 persons/unit x 100 gallons/person/day = 4550 gallons/day. Water Distribution Water service will be delivered to The Sages by the 10" transmission main between tanks and the 8" main located in Bald Eagle Way. The new 8" main in Allison Road will be stubbed to the property boundary and available for connection when The Reserve parcel located west of County Road 109 is developed. This will further strengthen the district system. Waterlines and services will be built to the standards of the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District. Upon completion and acceptance, the Tines will be dedicated to the District. WaterCad water system computer modeling has shown that The Sages area will have normal water system pressures of around 70 psi, which is about optimal. The model predicts fire flows of about 2,000 gpm at the minimum residual pressure of 20 psi. Base conditions for the model considered all district tanks at the ',4 full elevation of 6216' and system -wide maximum day demands. Available fire flows will increase once the additional loops are completed across The Reserve. SEWER Wastewater Treatment Wastewater treatment will be through the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (RFWSD). 1.2008-381.001-01 Sages Preliminary Plan Engineering Report 9 The District has completed Phase I of the wastewater treatment facility, and it is operating under Discharge Permit No. CO -0044750 issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. At the present time, a limited number of residences are built and tied into the wastewater treatment facility. Total flow to the facility is well below capacity. Refer to the "will serve" letter provided by the RFWSD contained elsewhere in this application. A conservatively, high estimate for Sages average -day wastewater flow would be 13 units x 3.5 persons/unit x 70 gallons/person/day = 3185 gallons/day. Wastewater Collection System The Sages is included within the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District wastewater service area, and the interceptor sewer and wastewater treatment facility were ail sized to include The Sages wastewater contribution. Service to this parcel is consistent with the Water & Wastewater Master Plan previously approved for Aspen Glen. The internal 8" gravity collection sewer lines will be built to the standards of the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District, and then dedicated to the District upon completion and acceptance by the District. These lines will connect to the existing manhole and line in Bald Eagle Way. Wastewater will flow entirely by gravity from the collection lines to the interceptor sewer line that flows to the wastewater plant. SOILS A map and description of soil types and their boundaries based on the National Cooperative Soil Survey are included in Appendix C. These were taken from the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 1.1. Appendix C also includes the original "Geotechnical Engineering Study for Preliminary Plat Design, Proposed Aspen Glen Development, Garfield County, Colorado" by Chen Northern, Inc., dated May 28, 1993, After Preliminary Plan approval from Garfield County, SGM recommends that The Sages obtain a detailed, site-specific geotechnical and foundation report for use in preparing the Final Plans. 1:2000.381.001-01 Sages Preliminary Pian Engineering Report 10 U MISCELLANEOUS UTILITIES All affected utility companies have been notified of this application and have copies of the project layout so they may complete their respective designs. Electricity Power for the west side of Aspen Glen, or the west side of the Roaring Fork River, is provided by Xcei Energy. As part of the master planning and development of the Aspen Glen PUD an electric system sufficient to serve the entire development has been designed. Xcel Energy will service The Sages via the existing underground power lines extended to the project area below the proposed roads. Gas Gas Service will also be provided by Source Gas. The gas main, which previously crossed the Aspen Glen property on the west side of the Roaring Fork River, has been relocated along County Road 109. The main was sized at the time of installation to provide service to the Aspen Glen PUD. New gas lines will be simply be extended through The Sages. Telephone Qwest provides telephone service to Aspen Glen through a land development agreement dated December 5, 1991. Telephone lines, which previously cross the Aspen Glen property west of the Roaring Fork River, have been rerouted along The Sages parcel and below the roads. A fiber optic line is located between the existing bike path and County Road 109 on the Reserve parcel. ■ 1:2008-381.001.01 Sages Preliminary Plan Engineering Report 1 t APPENDIX A TRAFFIC REPORT THE ASPEN GLEN CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO APRIL 1992 Prepared for: The Aspen Glen Club 555 East Durant, Sults 4-A Aspen, Colorado 81611 Prepared by: MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.S. 3413 Banyan Avenue Loveland, CO 80338 Phone: 303-669-2061 I. INTRODUCTION Aspen Glen Club PUD is a residential community with a private golf course and clubhouse. The location of Aspen Glen Club is shown in Figure 1. The residential portion of Aspen Glen Club will consist of primarily single family detached and duplex dwelling units, with some condominium type dwelling units. A detailed description of the Aspen Glen Club is contained in the submission for "Planned Unit Development and Sketch Plan for the Aspen Glen Club," February 21, 1992. This study was performed to evaluate the traffic operation using the existing traffic, traffic generated during major construction phases, and at build out of Aspen Glen Club PUD. During the course of this study frequent contact was made with the Aspen Glen Club staff and consultants, the Garfield County planning and engineering staff, and the Colorado Department of Transportation. This traffic study generally conforms with typical traffic impact study guidelines. It involved the following steps: - Evaluate existing traffic and road conditions; - Trip generation; - Trip distribution; -- Trip assignment; - Operational analyses; Geometric analyses. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS In order to evaluate the impacts of a development such as the Aspen Glen Club, it is important that a thorough understanding of the existing road system be presented. The existing conditions present a base to which the future conditions can be compared. Roads The Aspen Glen Club is proposed to be located along the Roaring Fork River between State Highway 82 (8H82) and Garfield County Road 109 (CR109). These are the roads which will be primarily impacted. SHBG is a northwest -southeast road, connecting Glenwood Springs and Granite. The resort community of Aspen is situated approximately at the midpoint. Independence Pass is located southeast of Aspen. It is closed for a number of months during the winter. Adjacent to the Aspen Glen Club, SH82 has a four lane rural cross section. It has a grass median 16-18 feet wide. Shoulders are 8-10 feet. The posted speed limit is 55 mph. 1 No Scale SITE LOCATION Figure 1 • • CR109 is administered by Garfield County. At the north end, CR109 begins at CR154 at a bridge over the Roaring Fork River. It continues in a southeast direction on the west side of the Roaring Fork River to an intersection with CR108 near Carbondale. The road is approximately 6.1 miles long. The northern 1.7 miles has asphalt pavement. It is approximately 26+ feet wide. The posted speed from West Bank to the end of the pavement is 40 mph. The gravel portion of CR109 is approximately 4.0 miles long. The width of the travelled way varies from 16-24 feet. The determination of the travelled way was'based upon observed wheel tracks on the gravel surface. According to Garfield County staff, the right-of-- way available was uncertain. The gravel segment is posted at 25 mph. A chip and seal paved surface exists for 0.4 miles north of CR108. This pavement is approximately 20 feet wide. This segment is posted at 25 mph. Approximately 1.4 miles of the gravel portion of CR109 is bordered on both sides by the Aspen Glen Club PUD. Another 0.8+ miles of CR109 is "loosely" adjacent to the Aspen Glen Club PUD. The remaining 2.2+ miles of CR109 cannot be considered to be adjacent to the Aspen Glen Club PUD property. The condition of CR109, particularly the gravel portion, bears some comment. The portion of CR109 that is bordered by Aspen Glen Club on both sides has some mild vertical and horizontal curves. These do not cause operational constraints. Sight distance could be improved on some curves by keeping the roadside vegetation trimmed. There is a vertical curve. approximately 200 feet north of Sievers Corner with limited sight distance. This is complicated by an especially narrow roadway width. .If the sight distance cannot be improved through this vertical curve, the roadway should be widened. The horizontal curve at Sievers Corner could present some hazard. It is recommended that Garfield County investigate improvement of this combination of vertical and horizontal curves. Based upon observation, it appears that the utility poles are well to the west of the horizontal curve. Therefore, there may be right-of-way available to smooth the horizontal curve without acquisition of additional right-of-way. Just south of Sievers Corner, there is a 2000 foot long segment of CR109 that drops off severely on the east side. Tire tracks indicate that vehicles do not get very close to the edge. On the west side of the road, the terrain rises severely. There is an irrigation ditch running parallel to CR109 on a "bench" above the road. This ditch may limit widening of CR109 to the west. Widening to the east appears to be unfeasible. There is an intersection with limited sight distance approximately 0.9 miles north of the beginning of the chip and seal pavement. Dust is a problem on the gravel segment of CR109. Beside the nuisance problem of dust for motorists and adjacent land owners, dust can create visibility concerns. Based upon casual 2 4 observation, it took 2-5 seconds for adequate visibility to return after a vehicle passed. Traffic Traffic counts on 8E182 were obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation. In the segment between Spring Valley Road and SH133, the 1990 average daily traffic (ADT) was 10,900. The design hour volume (DHV) was 11 percent and there were 6 percent trucks. The 20 year projection factor was 1.7. Garfield County Engineering Department obtained traffic counts in September 1990 on CR1O9 at three locations: 1. At the Roaring Fork River Bridge — 3476 vehicles; 2. Just south of West Bank access 700 vehicles; 3. At the CR108 intersection — 631 vehicles. Applying factors for existing land uses and activities along CR109 between count locations 2 and 3, indicates that through traffic on the road ranges between 400 and 600 vehicles a day. Garfield County Engineering indicated that additional counts would be obtained in April 1992 to corroborate the 1990 traffic counts. During data collection conducted on March 31, 1992, the following observations of traffic were made: — From 10:00-10:30 AM, one passenger vehicle was observed on the gravel portion of the road. There were two gravel trucks exiting and one truck entering the gravel pit near the north end of the Aspen Glen Club property. The three trucks were to/from the north. From 2:30-3:15 PM, seven passenger vehicles were observed on the gravel portion of the road. Based upon judgment, no two vehicles were on the gravel portion at the same time. No gravel trucks were observed. Operation SH82 and CR109 were evaluated based upon methodologies contained in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (1985 HCM). Since gravel roads with a narrower than 18 foot width are not specifically addressed in the 1985 HCM, adjustments to the service flow rates and V/C ratios were made to obtain the threshold volumes for the level of service categories. The segment of 8H82 adjacent to the proposed Aspen Glen .Club is operating at level of service B. For rural highways, the Colorado Department of Transportation defines acceptable as level of service C or better. This analysis was performed using the 1990 DHV as reported earlier. 3 U a 1 • The gravel portion of CR109 is operating at level of service H, considering an average ADT of 500 vehicles and a DHV factor of 11 percent. From an operational perspective, CR109 would appear to be adequate as it currently exists. However, consideration must also be given to the general condition of the road. The minimum effective width of any road is established at 20 feet, based upon American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials criteria. Garfield County should strive to attain this minimum for all roads with an ADT greater than 60 vehicles. Based upon criteria in the Federal Clean Air Act, the surface of any road with an ADT of >200 should be paved. Based upon these criteria, it is recommended that Garfield County both pave and widen CR109 to meet minimum design standards. This recommendation is made whether or not the Aspen Glen Club develops in this location. In consideration of availability of funds to accomplish this improvement, Garfield County should place this road on an improvement plan, detailing when the improvement will be made. Land Uses Land uses both on the site and surrounding the site are agricultural or open. Land uses north and south of the site are in active agricultural use, focusing on hay production and livestock pasturing. There is a gravel extraction operation immediately north of the proposed Aspen Glen Club. East and west of the site is rugged terrain with limited agricultural use.. The community of Carbondale lies three miles to the south. The 1990 population was reported at 3,004. Glenwood Springs is 7.5 miles to the north. The 1990 population was reported at 6,561. Both communities offer basic retail services, but Glenwood Springs has more retail stores and likely offers a wider variety of goods and services. Recreational activities exist throughout tliis area of Colorado. However, the most attractive recreational activities are in Glenwood Springs and Aspen. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Aspen Glen Club is a residential golf community located in the Roaring Fork River Valley approximately 7.5 miles south of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The development will include 643 dwelling units, most of which are single family detached homes. A clubhouse with tennis and swimming activities will be at the center of the development. A site plan is shown in Figure 2. More detailed site plans, showing specific uses and activity Locations, are provided in other planned unit development and sketch planning documents submitted to Garfield County. 4 No Soil Primary .1) Aspen Glen C1 Access SITE PLAN Figure 1 • Primary access to Aspen Glen Club will occur at a security controlled road to SHB2. There will be an emergency only access located approximately 3600 feet to the south of the primary access. An access is also proposed to CR109, located approximately 3500 feet north of Sievers Corner. This will be a limited use access, primarily used by the residents of the 31 dwelling units located west of CR109. It is proposed that this access be controlled by a card activated gate with full access allowed for the 31 dwelling units west of CR109. Egress will be allowed at this location for all Aspen Glen Club residents. Other than the 31. dwelling units west of CR109, this access is expected to have limited use. The existing access to/through the gravel pit operation at the north end of Aspen Glen Club will continue. This road will provide vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access to the public river park. Other accesses along CR109 are .for emergency vehicles only to access long cul-de-sacs. These accesses will not have day-to-day use. As part of this development, the Aspen Glen Club is proposing to participate in paving CR109 from the end of the existing pavement, a distance of 9,000 + feet to the golf course maintenance area. Aspen Glen Club will also participate in applying a chip and seal surface another 4000 + feat to the south. This chip and seal surface will extend through most/all of the narrow segment with the steep side slopes. Trip Generation The number of Trips generated by a use such as this will have a direct impact on the area road system. Garfield County expressed an interest in knowing the amount of construction traffic that will be generated and the traffic generated by the residents of the Aspen Glen Club. Prior to construction of any dwelling units, certain infrastructure items and the golf course will be completed or near completion. In accordance with the proposed schedule, the construction access activity contained in Table 1 will' likely occur. The estimate of trips contained in Table 1 are based upon information supplied by the Aspen Glen Club, research for similar construction activities, and a contingency factor of 20 percent. It is assumed that Phases A, 8, and C will not overlap. Phase A assumes that all construction vehicles and workers will be required to access via the primary access to SH82. During Phase a, it is assumed that the bridge would not be completed. Therefore, a significant number of workers will be required to access the area west of the river via CR109 through the gravel pit entrance road. By Phase C, the bridge is expected to be completed and as such, all construction trips will be required to access via SH02. Timing of construction of any home will be under the control of each Aspen Glen Club resident. The expected development will occur over a 10- 5 • Table 1 Construction Trip Generation Access Location Analysis Phases SH82 CR109 A. Golf Course -- back nine Infrastructure east of Roaring Fork River Bridge construction 220 vpd B. Golf Course ,- front nine Infrastructure west of Roaring Fork River Bridge Bridge construction Waste Water Plant C. Clubhouse Miscellaneous homes D. Miscellaneous homes (vpd : vehicles per day) u 55 vpd 380 vpd 320 vpd 220 vpd 12 year period. The construction traffic► related to miscellaneous home construction, assumes that 10 percent of the single family and duplex homes will be at various stages of construction per year. The townhouse units (Club Villas) will be built by the Aspen Glen Club developer as the last phase of construction (Phase XI). Phase D accounts only for miscellaneous home construction. During each of the remaining years to the expected build out of Aspen Glen Club, there will also be resident related travel activity. Trip Generation prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers is customarily used to determine the vehicle trips that will be generated by development proposals. This reference lists recreational homes as a land use code. The daily trip rate is listed as 3.162 per dwelling. Inconsideration of sources used to develop this rate and following conversations with Garfield County staff, this rate was factored by 1.5 times, giving a daily rate of 4.74 trips per dwelling unit. Maid and lawn service trips were factored into the trip generation. It was assumed that these services would be required once a week and would occur over a six day period (Monday through Saturday). It was also assumed that a given service could handle three dwelling units per day. During the summer months, Aspen Glen Club employees are expected to number 100 (golf course, clubhouse. etc.). Not all would be on—site during the entire day, nor arriving and departing at the same time periods. It was assumed that Aspen Glen Club employees would make one trip in and one trip out during a typical day. In the winter, the number of employees would be significantly lower than in the summer. Since the Aspen Glen Club is expected to be largely a second home community, not all residents are expected to be on site at a given time. For analysis purposes, 85 percent occupancy was assumed. This is considered to be a conservatively high estimate. It might occur over a one to two week period in July or August. Trip Distribution Trip distribution was estimated by developing a series of gravity models for each of the travel activities. Population and/or recreational activities in the area were determined to be the variables used in each model. Each of the various routes to potential destinations was also considered. For example, there are two routes to Glenwood Springs and two routes to Carbondale. Each route was evaluated with respect to travel time from areas within the Aspen Glen Club. It was concluded that for much of the Aspen Glen Club residents, use of the main access on SH82 would be the fastest route. to either of these communities. For construction workers, maid/lawn service, and Aspen Glen Club employees, population was used as the gravity model variable. 6 C n 0 The trip distribution Was assumed to be 70 percent to/from the north and 30 percent to/from the south. Access for construction workers is shown in Table 1. Access for maid/lawn service and Aspen Glen Club would be confined, by policy, to the SH82 primary access. Aspen Glen Club resident trips were divided into two categories: shopping trips and other trips. It was assumed that two shopping (grocery, etc.) trips per dwelling unit would occur per week. These trips would be randomly distributed throughout the week. The other trips are defined as recreational trips to/from activities outside of Aspen Glen Club. Both of these types of trips were distributed to the SH82 and CR109 accesses based upon the relative location of the dwelling unit within Aspen Glen Club, the travel time to/from the activity, and the policy regarding CR109 access. Background Traffic Background traffic is defined as the traffic that is on the area road system that is not related to the development proposal (Aspen Glen Club). Traffic projections for SH82 are providedrby the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Based upon a factor of 1.7, provided by CDOT, the year 2010 ADT on SH82 adjacent to Aspen Glen Club will be 18,530. This assumes an annual rate of - increase of slightly less than 3 percent per year. It is reasonable to assume that adjacent roadway development will cause some of that increase over the next 20 years. Some of the Aspen Glen Club traffic is assumed to be part of that increase. Background traffic on CR109 is expected to grow less than that on the state highway system and be related more toward adjacent development. It was assumed that traffic on CRI09 would increase a the rate of 1 percent per year. The twenty year factor is 1.22. It was also assumed that the 21 single family lots at the Teller Springs development would be built and occupied. Traffic Assignment ' Traffic assignment is the resultant of the trip generation and trip distribution process. Traffic assignments were conducted at various levels of Aspen Glen Club construction, and build out and occupancy of Aspen Glen Club as a residential community. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the daily traffic assignment of the construction traffic at Phases A, 1, and C, respectively as described in Table 1. Background traffic on SH82 and CR109 are included in these figures. Phases A, B, and C correspond to 1993, 1994, and 1995, respectively. A Phase D assignment is not presented. A Phase D assignment will likely be less than a Phase 7 0 515b15 County Road 109 0 515 11 LEGEND: Construction Traffic Total Traffic State Highway 82 220 220 150 12,190 70 12,110 PHASE A CONSTRUCTION & TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC (1993) Figure 3 150 670 County Road 109 70 590 • 220 220 LEGEND: Construction Traffic Total Traffic PHASE B CONSTRUCTION & TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC (1994) State Highway 82 55 55 40 12,470 15 12,445 Figure 4 0 525 0 co 0 525 LEGEND: Construction Traffic Total Traffic • State Highway 82 380 380 270 13,080 110 12,920 PHASE C CONSTRUCTION & TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC (1995) Figure 5 i C assignment in the short range future and less than full build out in the long range future. Figure 6 shows the daily traffic assignment at full build out of Aspen Glen Club. This assignment includes background traffic and considers the occupancy assumptions presented under "Trip Generation." XV. IMPACTS Traffic impacts were determined at each of the traffic assignment futures shown in Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6. Operational analyses were conducted on roadway segments similar to that described under "Existing Conditions - Operation." The analysis of SHS2 assumes the existing four lane cross section. The analysis of CR109 assumed the existing gravel road and an improved paved road as recommended in Chapter II of this report. Construction Traffic Impacts Construction traffic will have varying degrees of impact on, the area roads. Phase A impacts will be confined to SH82. SH82 will continue to operate acceptably as a four lane road. The primary access to Aspen Glen Club will be built• with all the necessary auxiliary turn lanes. The geometry at this access will be discussed later in this report. Due to the nature of construction traffic, impacts will be highest at the beginning and end of the work day. Once heavy equipment is on site. it will remain there until no longer needed. Supply/material trucks will access the site throughout the day. However, this activity will not be at a concentrated time period. Their impact will be minimal. Phase B impacts will be higher on CR109 and less on SH82. It is expected that the SH82 -traffic will be confined to bridge construction activity. Operation on SH82 will continue to be acceptable. Since the bridge will not be completed, all traffic related to the front nine, infrastructure, and waste water plant construction will be required to use CR109. It is expected that this construction traffic will comprise 12 percent of the daily traffic on CR109 south of Sievers Corner during this period. .The bridge is expected to require one year to build. Since it was started under Phase A, the impact shown on CR109 under Phase B is expected to last only about six months. With the existing gravel road, operation will be at level of service B. Even if CR109 were paved, operation will also be at level of service B. a 120 850 130 130 County Road 109 70 750 • 100 100 -- State Highway 82 2500 2500 -0. LEGEND: Aspen Glen Club Traffic Total Traffic 1200 19,1 1300 19,200 FULL BUILDOUT OF ASPEN GLEN CLUB & TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC (2010) Figure 6 Once the bridge is completed, all construction traffic can be redirected to SH82. During Phase C, no traffic will be allowed to access the Aspen Glen Club property via CR109. This will confine the construction traffic to SH82. The access will be constructed to handle this traffic activity. SH82 will continue to operate acceptably. The traffic on CR109 will return to background traffic only. Build Out Impacts Using the traffic shown in Figure 6, the operation on SH82, both north and south of the primary Aspen Glen Club access, will operate at level of service D with the existing four lane cross section. The operation of these segments will be at level of service D with background traffic only. The Aspen Glen Club traffic will cause a slight deterioration in operation within the level of service D category, but it is the background traffic that causes the operation to fall into level of service D. Operation at the stop sign controlled intersection will be acceptable, except for left -turn exits from the site. These left turns will operate at level of service F, based upon the 1985 HCM technique. However, new research regarding stop sign controlled intersections indicates that based upon vehicle delay, this operation is more appropriately defined as level of service D. Since these impacts are likely to occur for a relatively short period during the year, it is recommended that they be accepted. Good design of the intersections will provide adequate storage for turning vehicles. CR1O9 will operate at level of service B to the north of the Aspen t31en Club access. In this segment, the Aspen Glen Club traffic will comprise approximately 14 percent of the total traffic an CR109. In the segment to the south of Aspen Glen Club, approximately 9 percent of the daily traffic will be attributable to Aspen Glen Club generated trips. CR109 will operate at level of service C as a gravel road and at level of service B as an improved paved road. Additional restrictions at the CR109 access to the Aspen Glen Club, beyond those proposed and stated earlier in this report, are not required. Further limitations on access would have little bearing on the operation of CR109. In Carbondale, it is expected that 100-150 vehicles a day will be added to the Main Street/SH133 intersection due to Aspen Glen Club generated traffic. These vehicles will be via both the CR109 and SH82 accesses to Aspen Glen Club. Current traffic volumes are not available on the east and west legs of Hain Street. However, the ADT on SH133 was 9,000 between SH82 and Main Street in Carbondale in 1990. This count was obtained prior to the opening of a number recent developments in Carbondale. Town staff indicated that volumes are much higher in 1992. The additional 9 traffic added to this intersection by the Aspen Glen Club will' be small. State Highway 82 Access Geometry The access to SH82 must be designed in accordance with the State Highway Access Code. Design hour volumes, developed using the full build out analysis, were applied to criteria in the State Highway Access Code. There are railroad tracks which cross this primary access to Aspen Glen Club. While no trains currently operate on these tracks, there is a possibility that as many as three coal trains per week could operate here in the future. It was assumed that a coal train would be a unit train (1 mile long). A conservative 30 mph train speed was assumed. This would cause blockage of this access for just over two minutes. This was considered in the recommended auxiliary turn lanes shown below: -- Southbound right turn deceleration/storage lane - 555 feet plus 22.5:1 taper; Southbound right -turn acceleration lane - 960 feet plus 22.5:1 taper; Northbound left -turn deceleration/storage lane - 555 feet plus 22.5:1 taper. Other Issues Garfield County expressed concern about access to the Roaring Fork River Park at the north end of the Aspen Glen Club. This park will be open to the public. It will be accessed by vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians via the road which is currently used by the gravel extraction operation. Parking for this river park will be provided near the park itself, not near the CR109 access. A second access to SH82 is proposed approximately 3600 feet south of the primary access to Aspen Glen Club. This access will is not a public access, but may be used by emergency vehicles only. It is recommended that it not be subject to access criteria in the State Highway Access Code. An equestrian facility is proposed on the east side of 5H82. It is expected that approximately 30 horses will be boarded at this facility. Typically, horses are not visited by owners on a daily basis. The vehicle traffic generated by this use will be minimal. Aspen Glen Club has proposed, in their submittal, that a shuttle service be provided from this development to popular common destinations (i.e. hot springs pool in Glenwood Springs, Aspen for skiing, etc.). This shuttle is intended to be a dial--a-ride service for residents. The preceding 'analyses regarding traffic impacts did not consider this service. Therefore, the previously described impacts could be reduced with this shuttle service. 10 APPENDIX B DRAINAGE CALCS winTR-55 Currant Data Description --- Identification Data --- User: MIK Date: 9/9/2009 Project: Aspen Glen - The Sages Units: English SubTitle: Areal Units: Acres State: Colorado County: Garfield Filename: I:\2008\2008-361 Sages\AspenGlenSages.w55 Name --- Sub -Area Data --- Description Reach Area(ac) RCN Tc Sub -area A Outlet 0.91 76 0.100 Sub -area B Outlet 0.93 82 0.100 Sub -area C Outlet 0.5 80 0.100 Sub -area D Outlet 1.58 79 0.100 Sub -area E Outlet 0.15 84 0.100 Total area: 4.07 (ac) --- Storm Data -- Rainfall Depth by Rainfall Return Period 2 -Yr 5 -Yr 10 -Yr 25 -Yr 50 -Yr t00 -Yr -Yr (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in} 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.2 Storm Data Source: User -provided custom storm data Rainfall Distribution Type: Type II Dimensionless Unit Hydrograph: <standard> WinTR-55, version 1.00.08 2.4 .0 Page 1 9/9/2009 2:53:48 PM DMK Aspen Glen - The Sages Garfield County, Colorado Watershed Peak Table Sub -Area Peak Flow by Rainfall Return Period or Reach 2 -Yr 10 -Yr 25 -Yr 100 -Yr identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) SUBAREAS Sub -area A 0.10 0.38 0.51 0.02 Sub -area B 0.30 0.70 0.89 1.30 Sub -area C 0.12 0.31 0.41 0.61 Sub -area D 0.33 0.89 1.17 1.80 Sub -area E 0.06 0.13 0.17 0.23 REACHES OUTLET 0.91 2.38 3.13 4.77 WLnTR-55. version 1.00.08 Pags 1 9/9/2009 2:53:49 PM DMK Aspen Glen - The Sages Garfield County, Colorado Hydrograph Peak/Peak Time Table Sub -Area Peak Clow and Peak Time (hr) by Rainfall Return Period or Reach 2 -Yr 10 -Yr 25 -Yr 100 -Yr Identifier (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (hr) (hr) (hr} (hr) SUBAREAS Sub -area A 0.10 12.03 Sub -area B 0.30 12.01 Sub -area C 0.12 12.02 Sub -area D 0.33 12.02 Sub -area E 0.06 11.96 REACHES 0.38 0.51 12.01 12.01 0.70 0.89 11.95 11.94 0.31 0.41 11.95 11.95 0.89 1.17 11.96 11.95 0.13 0.17 11.94 11.94 0.82 11.95 1.30 11.94 0.61 11.94 1.80 11.94 0.23 11.94 OUTLET 0.91 2.38 3.13 4.77 WinTR-55, Version 1.00.08 Page 1 9/9/2009 2:53:49 PM 1 DM( Sub -Area Identifier Aspen Glen - The Sages Garfield County, Colorado Sub -Area Land Use and Curve Number Details Land Use Hydrologic Sub -Area Curve Soil Area Number Group (ac) Sub -area AOpen space; grass cover > 759 (good) H .542 61 Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways 8 .274 90 Paved; curbs and storm sewers H .09 98 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number .91 76 Was 0= Sub -area BOpen space; grass cover > 759 ;good) B .408 61 Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways B .279 98 Paved; curbs and storm sewers B .245 98 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number .93 82 ==a C0 Sub -area COpen space; grass cover > 75% (good) 8 .25 61 Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways B .069 98 Paved; curbs and storm sewers B .181 98 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number .5 80 -- R0 Sub -area DOpen space; grass cover > 75% (good) B .829 61 Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways B .746 98 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 1.58 79 =00= rM Sub -area EOpen space: grass cover > 75% (good) B .056 61 Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways B .006 98 Paved; curbs and storm sewers B .09 98 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number .15 89 000 WinTR-55, Version 1.00.08 Page 1. 9/9/2009 2:53:49 PM WInTR-55 OutputHyclrograpb Project Aspen Glen -The Sages 9102009 Subareas: (Sub -area A. Sub -area 13, Sub -area C, Sub -area O, Subarea E, Outletl Storm 100 -Yr I:@008i2008.361 SegeslAspenOIenSeges.w55 4.5 4.0 3.5 r 0 3.0 3 2 2.5 2.0 4.8 1.0 .5 .0 , • Trial #I. Sub -area A — — .-.. Trial #1, Sub -area D Trial #1, Sub -area C .- .... . rriul : I, ,,ui, aro.' U ----- - — Trial #I, Sub -area E Trial #1, OUTLET • 1 .0 J .1 2. 4. a. 8. 10. TIME (his) APPENDIX C SOILS REPORTS USDA United States Department of Agriculture 4 MRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Aspen Glen - The Sages September 9, MN Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in surrey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (httpq/soils.usda.gov/sqi/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://offices.sc.egov.usda,govllocator/app agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://soils.usda.gov/contact/ state_offices/). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey Information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C, 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 Soil Map 5 Soil Map 6 Legend 7 Map Unit Legend 8 Map Unit Descriptions 8 Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties 10 6—Almy loam, 1 to 12 percent slopes 10 Soil Information for All Uses 11 Soil Properties and Qualities 11 Sail Qualities and Features 11 Hydrologic Soil Group (Aspen Glen - The Sages) 11 Soil Reports 16 Sail Physical Properties 16 Engineering Properties (Aspen Glen - The Sages) 16 4 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. r r 3r 26' 29' r i i i 0 0 0 1. 0 304110 361330 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 0 9 Nrwom 30!1726 C t [39.26 11' C 30160 b Meters o A 0 1S 30 60 90 Feat 0 50 100 200 300 30420 301360 Map Seale: 1 1320 6 printed an A size C&5 1 11'] !heft 304300 Sao 331/20 i 3!i 29' 30` tr Custom Soil Resource Report MAP INFORMATION MAP LEGEND Map Scale:1:1.720 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The sail surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. a. O i al 10 m D = E to w Olri N N 3 G S to m u), 'yy c �i O 8 U 8 IN NSI O Tr a.. ref 0 2 03 yam. N w uza� z 0 o D Z 4� b N 'C Ua p 01 r E 0.i- a E E 0 m 7 « N a) 13 a N G m -IN il gnc a a1in e E a e CO a wb a� i- a E 3j "2 2D7 m m c`o m E ¢ U qa 'c Z c mim. en m as—_ 4 D 2 >, 2 c m is = 4 i0 D .21 m e o c n2cn� Qua io ov ac s u4'v am yym o 0. a) E N gmg mm 88 L� a. E v)5U 1-3 �3u) a 8.k`D A Short Sleep Slope 4 m a o U r 2 AP 14 as 441 e re s w � y 11. . < `L4 a'50 ; 4 r g a E. 2. r 1 i $ la o o aQ wr y O y N Q to o Q U U C1 i1 j i S i c 2 2 in Vl N H co 0. Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties (C0655) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 6 Totals for Area of Interest Almy loam, 1 to 12 percent slopes Map Unit Descriptions 15.0 15.0 The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of sods of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit Is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. 8 100.0% 100.0% Custom Soil Resource Report An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. l[ These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattem and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha - Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties 6—Almy loam, 1 to 12 percent scopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 6000 to 7,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 42 to 46 degrees F Frost -free period: 95 to 105 days Map Unit Composition Almy and similar soils: 80 percent Description of Almy Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sandstone and/or alluvium derived from calcareous shale Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table. More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability (nonirrigated): 4e Ecological site: Rolling Loam (R048AY298C0) Other vegetative classification: ROLLING LOAM (nuIl_20) Typical profile 0 to 8 inches: Loam 8 to 26 inches: Fine sandy loam 26 to 60 inches: Sandy clay loam 10 Soil Information for All Uses Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Soil Qualities and Features Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil. Hydrologic Soil Group (Aspen Glen - The Sages) Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long - duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (AID, BID, and CID). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that Impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, BID. or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. 12 39'26'2W 39' 26` to la b Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Hydrologic Soil Group (Aspen Glen - The Sages) 30403 11452D 30.20` .311" 34'26' 74' 3044130 to ▪ A Map Sale: 1 1.720 1 printed en A size (BS z lfl sheet O 55 30 60 O 50 100 200 Meters 60 Feet 300 [ Custom Soil Resource Report MAP INFORMATION MAP LEGEND Map Scale: 1:1,720 If printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. 0 0 k E at ® in @ £i 0 §2 U 22 § 04 0� _ 0. $ § 8 a k k 6- § Zi'� z § g § Ii:� ka ~ 72 «< c■Q■ % k 0 2 §. 2 a 2 e ,t, . £. / �f� Iam a 1.$ k 2.§a2 CC o ;�N _ e. 7 ��. ■ k_i k§ ��� -� � 2 $ ■ A 2§@ c- e. % Ea .• � 2 & I ii i . 8 a 2 §k .§� 2� 2$2 • :2k� z§ na =& �_a) , �.$« DI§ 0U) )�> 2 2fO. ■- _�� A> �z a e1�§ g§ 220 A� o0J 0 g8.$3 k k_ § t'S 2 .f 2 f« 2_ 2 0§ o art ❑ ❑ q 0 0 0 ❑ 2 A !_ Not rated or not available Di Political Features Local Roads Custom Soil Resource Report Table—Hydrologic Soil Group (Aspen Glen - The Sages) Hydrologic Soil Group—Summary by Map Unit—Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado. Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 6 Almy loam, 1 to 12 percent slopes Totals for Area of interest B 15.0 15.0 Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group (Aspen Glen - The Sages) Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower 15 100.0% 100.0% f L Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Soil Physical Properties This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present sod physical properties. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Soll physical properties are measured or inferred from direct observations In the field or laboratory. Examples of soil physical properties include percent clay, organic matter, saturated hydraulic conductivity, available water capacity, and bulk density. Engineering Properties (Aspen Glen - The Sages) This table gives the engineering classifications and the range of engineering properties for the layers of each soil in the survey area. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated. Texture is given in the standard terms used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These terms are defined according to percentages of sand, silt, and clay in the fraction of the soil that is Tess than 2 millimeters in diameter. "Loam," for example, is soil that is 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and less than 52 percent sand. If the content of particles coarser than sand is 15 percent or more, an appropriate modifier is added, for example, "gravelly." Classification of the sails is determined according to the Unified soil classification system (ASTM, 2005) and the system adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 2004). The Unified system classifies soils according to properties that affect their use as construction material. Soils are classified according to particle -size distribution of the fraction Tess than 3 inches in diameter and according to plasticity index, liquid limit, and organic matter content. Sandy and gravelly soils are identified as GW, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SM, and SC; silty and clayey soils as ML, CL, OL, MH, CH, and OH; and highly organic soils as PT. Soils exhibiting engineering properties of two groups can have a dual classification, for example, CL -ML. The AASHTO system classifies soils according to those properties that affect roadway construction and maintenance. In this system, the fraction of a mineral soil that is less than 3 inches in diameter Is classified In ane of seven groups from A-1 through A-7 on the basis of particle -size distribution, liquid limit, and plasticity index. Soils in group A-1 are coarse grained and low in content of fines (silt and clay). At the other extreme, soils in group A-7 are fine grained. Highly organic soils are classified in group A-8 on the basis of visual inspection. 16 Custom Soil Resource Report If laboratory data are available, the A-1, A-2, and A-7 groups are further classified as A -1-a, A -1-b, A-2-4, A-2-5, A-2-6, A-2-7, A-7-5, or A-7-6. As an additional refinement, the suitability of a soil as subgrade material can be indicated by a group index number. Group index numbers range from 0 for the best subgrade material to 20 or higher for the poorest. Rock fragments larger than 10 inches in diameter and 3 to 10 inches in diameter are indicated as a percentage of the total soil on a dry -weight basis. The percentages are estimates determined mainly by converting volume percentage in the field to weight percentage. Percentage (of soil particles) passing designated sieves is the percentage of the soil fraction Tess than 3 inches in diameter based on an ovendry weight. The sieves, numbers 4, 10, 40, and 200 (USA Standard Series), have openings of 4.76, 2.00, 0.420, and 0.074 millimeters, respectively, Estimates are based on laboratory tests of soils sampled in the survey area and in nearby areas and on estimates made in the field. Liquid limit and plasticity index (Atterberg limits) indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. The estimates are based on test data from the survey area or from nearby areas and on field examination. References: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. 17 Custom Soil Resource Report l u W to 0 0. id; 0 3 •Fi> a) m 0. a) 1 a) A) O Q) m 0 (11 m a) E N m 0 c) c) a) 4) N a) C m • a • O 3 U a: ea ea W ea ea a 0 CD a 3. to a 2 a C 0 0 us r r sea sea I'- Ls, 0 N 0 r el. • to in 8 M c1 111 Ul 17/ N 1[9 Iti S 0 S ✓ r r O 0 0 tla a 01 4 4 S u▪ i - sn - sn C m E 0 u. r Ly A C 5 g 0 0 0 Classification co z 2 JU) 2 V _CUU JU to J2WV) U v) 0 USDA texture t D J 'Fine sandy loam 'Sandy clay loam Chen.Northem,Inc. May 28, 1993 Camping Elglnw..nd Scientists 5000 Raid t54 Glenwood Springs. Ccestado 81601 341915-7458 303 045-2363 Fecsense Aspen Glen Company Attn: Terri Hart 555 East Durant, Suite 4A Aspen CO 81611-1815 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study for Preliminary Plat Design, Proposed Aspen Glen Development, Garfield County, Colorado Job No. 4 112 92 Dear Ms. Hart: As requested, we have conducted a supplemental geotechnical engineering study at the subject site for the preliminary plat design. The study included additional subsurface exploration, field reconnaissance and geologic hazard assessments for planning and preliminary design purposes. The scope of the study included subsidence risk of sinkhole and ground depression areas; debris flow hazard impacts and mitigation; foundation considerations for the bridge across the Roaring Fork River and the waste water treatment plant; suitability of the two water tank sites for construction;, setback of residential building lots next to steep slopes; surface and subsurface drainage considerations; and pavement subgrade conditions. The findings of the supplemental geotechnical study are presented in this report. Interim findings have been provided to the client so that planning and preliminary design could proceed concurrently with our work. Based on the findings of our additional study, the project remains feasible based on geotechnical considerations with the conditions and recommendations as presented in this report. The report which follows describes our investigations, summarizes our findings and presents our recommendations for planning and preliminary design purposes. It is important that we provide consultation through final plat design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. Site specific subsurface explorations are recommended for final design of individual structures proposed as part of the site development. We will be available for continued consultation and additional investigations as needed. If you A member d the Ft 14;1 gown al Companies have any questions regarding the information provided in this report or if we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, -NORTHERN, IN. Pa4-Laja. Steven L. Pawlak, P. E. Rev. By: RGM SLPIIr cc: Pittman Poe & Associates - Attn: Tim Terra! The Land Design Partnership - Attn: Ron Liston vSchmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. - Attn: Louis Meyer f f l l L [} ChenONolthem, Inc Consulting Eng neem and Scientism TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 PREVIOUS STUDIES 2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2 SITE CONDITIONS 3 FIELD EXPLORATION 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 SINKHOLE AND SURFACE DEPRESSION AREAS 4 BRIDGE ABUTMENTS 4 WASTE WATER TREATMENT SITE 5 LABORATORY TESTING. 5 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 6 SINKHOLES AND SURFACES DEPRESSION AREAS 6 Hazard Evaluation 6 Development in Sinkhole Areas 7 Development in Surface Depression Areas 8 DEBRIS FLOW RISK AND MITIGATION 11 Hazard Evaluation 11 Hazard Mitigation Concepts 13 BRIDGE ACROSS THE ROARING FORK RIVER 15 WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT 16 WATER TANK SITES 17 STEEP SLOPE SETBACK 17 DRYWELL DRAINAGE 18 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE 19 LIMITATIONS 19 TABLES AND FIGURES FIGURE 1 & lA - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS & GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS FIGURE 2 - EXPLANATION OF GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS FOR FIOS. 1 & IA FIGURE 3 & 4 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 5 - BRIDGE ABUTMENTS LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 6 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS - WASTE WATER TREATMENT SITE FIGURE 7 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 8 - PIEZOMETER CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY FIGURE 9 - BUILDING AND UTILITY SETBACK FROM SINKHOLES FIGURE 10 - TYPICAL DRY WELL CONSTRUCTION TABLE I - SUMMARY OF WATER LEVEL READINGS TABLE II -WEST SIDE ALLUVIAL AND DEBRIS FANS APPENDIX A - CORE LOGS APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ChenNorthern, Inc. Cor ugrnpEnOisemsandScientais PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a supplemental geotechnical engineering study for the preliminary plat design of the Aspen Glen Development, Garfield County, Colorado. The site development area is presented in Figs. 1 and IA. The study was conducted to obtain additional subsurface and geologic information needed for planning and preliminary design purposes. The work was conducted in accordance with our proposal to the Aspen Glen Company, dated March 2, 1992. Our work was coordinated with the various project designers and consultants to obtain the appropriate geotechnical information for their planning and preliminary designs. The field exploration program consisted of geologic reconnaissance and exploratory borings to obtain information on the subsurface conditions and for geologic hazard mitigation. Samples obtained during the subsurface exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine engineering characteristics of the on-site soils and bedrock. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were evaluated for subsidence risk of the sinkhole and ground depression areas; debris flow impacts and mitigation; foundation considerations for the bridge across the Roaring Fork River and the waste water. treatment plant; suitability of the two water tank sites for construction; setback of residential building lots next to steep slopes; surface and subsurface drainage considerations; and pavement subgrade conditions. Results of the field exploration and laboratory testing are presented in this report. This report has been prepared to summarize the additional data obtained during the study and to present our conclusions and recommendations based on the current proposed construction, the additional geologic assessments and the subsurface conditions encountered. Additional design parameters and discussions regarding the subsurface and geologic conditions impacting Chen Northern,Inc Consultand Scientists 2 the proposed Aspen Glen Development are included in the report. PREVIOUS STUDIES Chen -Northern, Inc. previously conducted a preliminary geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Aspen .Glen Development and presented their findings in a report dated December 20, 1991, Job No. 4 112 92. The study included geologic mapping and potential geologic hazard impact evaluations, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and analysis for planning and preliminary design purposes. Based on the sinkholes and depression areas identified during the study, trenching and additional reconnaissance was conducted to better delineate the sinkholes and broad surface depression areas. The findings of this additional work were presented in a report to you dated April 28, 1992, Job No. 4 112 92. The current geotechnical engineering study was performed as a supplement to these two initial studies. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The current proposed development plans for the property are similar to those described in our previous studies and as submitted to the Garfield County Commissioners. We refer to the land planning drawing prepared by Pittman Poe and Associates for details of the development plan. The drawings were in progress at the time of our additional work. We should review the drawings and provide additional consultation as needed for continued implementation of our recommendations. Chen Northern, Inc Cansulung Fn9h+ +a andScierNests 1 3 SITE CONDITIONS The property boundaries and proposed development areas are essentially the same as that described in our previous reports. The location of a waste water treatment plant at the north end of the property has also been identified. The additional study work is generally located west of Highway 82 except for a water storage tank site located near the top of a drainage basin fan in the southeast part of the property. A more complete description of the property site conditions can be found in our December 20, 1991 report. HELD EXPLORATION. Thirteen exploratory borings were drilled at the approximate locations shown on Figs. 1 and 1A, in addition to the fifteen previous borings, also shown of Figs. 1 and LA. Two other borings, RE -1-93 and RE -2-93 were also drilled at the request of Resource Engineering for water supply purposes. Six exploratory borings were drilled in the sinkhole and surface depression areas and two borings were drilled at the bridge abutments to evaluate the overburden depth and quality of the underlying bedrock. These borings (B-1-93 through B-8-93) and Borings RE -1-93 and RE -2-93 were advanced through the overburden soils by Becker Drills which utilizes a percussion driven casing advancement method. The underlying bedrock at selected borings was drilled using an NX size core drilling method which obtains a continuous sample. Borings B-9-93 through B-13-93 were drilled at the waste water treatment site with 4 - inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck -mounted CME -55 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Chen -Northern, Inc. Chen Northern,Inc. Consulting Engineersand Soloniisis 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphical logs of the subsurface profiles encountered at the exploratory borings drilled for the current study are presented on Figs. 3 through 6. An explanation of the symbols and notes regarding the drilling and other procedures are presented on Fig. 7. The core logs of Borings B-1-93, B-2-93,. B-5-93 and B-6-93 are presented in Appendix A. A summary of the plexometers installed in the borings is presented in Fig. 8. SINKHOLE AND SURFACE DEPRESSION AREAS The subsoils encountered in the borings consisted Mainly of 1 to 27 feet of silty sandy clay above the coarse gravel terrace deposits. The Eagle Valley Evaporate was encountered below the gravel deposits between depths of 23 and 98 feet. At Boring B-4-93, bedrock was not encountered to the depth drilled of 109 feet. At Boring R.E-1-93, sandstone bedrock of the Maroon Formation was encountered. Additional discussion of the subsurface conditions relating to the subsidence risk is presented below in the "Development in Sinkhole Areas" and "Development in Surface Depression Areas" sections. Groundwater was encountered between about 35 and 47 feet below the ground surface at the time of the field work. Subsequently, water levels have risen to depths of about 31 to 37 feet. A summary of the water Ievel measurements made during the study are presented in Table I. BRIDGE ABUTMENTS The subsoils encountered in the proposed abutment areas consist of about 2 to 5 feet of topsoil ChenONorthern,Inc. Carawluq Engineees and Sckngws f { 5 and silt above dense coarse gravel terrace deposits. The Eagle Valley Evaporate was encountered at depths of 23 to 33 feet. The bedrock appeared soft and weathered at the P Ply west abutment (Boring B-8-93). WASTE WATER TREATMENT SITE Five exploratory borings, 8-9-93 through B-13-93, were drilled in the waste water treatment plant site as requested by Westwater Engineers. The borings encountered a small amount of topsoil and up to about 1 I/2 feet of sandy silt above the coarse gravel terrace soils. The gravels are dense to very dense and refusal to auger drilling equipment was encountered in the deposit. ShaIe/siltstone bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite was encountered below the gravel terrace soils at depths of 11 and 14 feet which extended to the maximum depth investigated, 30 feet. 1 Groundwater was encountered in two of the borings between 2 1/2 and 14 feet below ground surface but caving of the gravel soils in the borings prevented continued groundwaterlevel monitoring. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included in-situ moisture content, grain size analysis and liquid and plastic limits. The results of gradation analyses preformed on samples of the gravelly soils (minus 1 1/2 and 3 inch fraction) are presented on Figs. B-1 through B-3. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table B-1. 1. . Chen0Northern, Inc. CarewNino Engineers and Sperm= 6 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The findings of the additional field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration performed for the current study are generally consistent with those of our previous studies. The following recommendations are made for planning and preliminary design of the various conditions and facilities included in the current study. SINKHOLES AND SURFACE DEPRESSION AREAS Hazard Evaluation: Six exploratory borings (B-1-93 through 8-6-93) were drilled in the area of concern to evaluate the overburden depth and quality of the underlying bedrock. Casing was advanced through the overburden soils by Becker Drills and the underlying bedrock was drilled by using NX size core drilling. The subsoils encountered in the borings consisted of between 1 to 27 feet of' silty sandy clay above the coarse gravel terrace deposits. Two of the borings were drilled next to sinkholes, one was drilled within a sinkhole and the other three borings were drilled in the broad depression areas, well away from specific sinkholes (see Fig. 1). Groundwater was encountered between about 35 to 47 feet below ground surface at the time of drilling. Large cavities which would indicate a potential for collapse and additional sinkhole development in areas outside of the existing sinkholes were not encountered in the borings. The rock quality was found to be variable and localized zones of clay breccia and voids were encountered. ChenNorthern,Inc corsoing E fIneu: and 5ciergi s f r 7 Develo,ent in_ Sinkhole Areas: Residential lot development is proposed in the area of the existing sinkholes. These features should be considered potentially unstable. Our recommended approach to the land planning is to avoid the sinkhole areas by making them open non -buildable space. The sinkhole areas could be avoided by including them as golf course fairways, parks or other non building areas. Potential ground settlement„outside of building limits within residential lot boundaries should also be considered. Where development of residences and roadways are proposed next to sinkholes, two approaches can be considered: 1) avoid the sinkhole footprint including a minimum setback distance from the edge of the sinkhole and 2) mitigate the future settlement risk of the sinkholes. The required setback distance from the edge of the individual sinkholes was evaluated based on the subsurface profile, depth to bedrock and size/configuration of the sinkholes. The calculated minimum setback distance from the sinkhole is presented in Fig. 9, attached. The minimum recommended setback distance for each sinkhole is graphically shown on the topographic map, Figs. 1 and 1A, attached. In general, the setback distances from the top rim of the sinkhole vary between about 15 to 30 feet. The actual sinkhole limits and setback distances should be field verified at the time of the lot line and building envelope staking. Mitigation of future settlement risk of the sinkholes may be possible by various methods of ground stabilization and by designing the structures adjacent to the sinkholes to withstand potential gross distortion, The stabilization may consist of: 1) subexcavating the loose material within the sinkhole and replacing it with a relatively high quality and high density material and 2) grouting the natural dense soils along the perimeter of the sinkhole to reduce the potential for future widening of the sinkhole. The subexcavation and replacement procedures do not appear ChenetNorthern,Inc co-twlinp Englneats and Scieniisrs 8 practical due to the depth of the sinkholes. The grouting procedure should help reduce the settlement risk but not totally eliminate it. Therefore, we believe that avoiding the sinkholes by building setback is the lower risk and the more appropriate approach that should be taken. Based on our findings, development within the ground surface depression areas (shown on Fig. i) should be feasible provided appropriate mitigative designs are implemented for the residential buildings, utilities and roadways as described below. The appropriate level of the mitigative designs depend on the potential ground deformation, the building type, location and configuration and level of tolerable maintenance (mainly for roadways and utilities). Building design considerations include use of a relatively rigid foundation, (such as a stiffened slab or raft) and a simply shaped building footprint to reduce potential damage in the event of differential movement. These design concepts would be included in the engineered foundations for residences located in the depression areas. Utilities should be designed and constructed to be relatively flexible and allow for differential movement without rupturing. Where possible, settlement sensitive main utility lines should be routed outside of the ground surface depression areas. Roadways can be conventionally designed and constructed with provisions for maintenance if subsidence related distress is experienced. There are several geotechnical design concepts which can be used to mitigate potential subsidence damage to residential buildings and underground utilities. Special mitigative designs for a specific lot should be developed by the owner's architect and structural engineer and should be based on the type of building proposed and the site specific foundation conditions. The following design concepts are presented to assist in evaluating design options prior to site ChenONorthern,Inc. CansuUiig F1+aneen and Sc enats 9 specific investigations for an individual building site. The concept for underground utilities should be incorporated into the utility design by the developer. Building Configurations: The extent of damage to a building subjected to the surface effects of subsidence may be reduced by implementing several architectural measures in the building design, These measures would include the following: * Relatively flexible structural systems such as wood frame construction, flexible exterior siding, and dry wall interior partitions are preferable to less flexible masonry structural system and exterior sidings. * Interior non-bearing partitions resting on the floor slab should be provided with slip joints so that slab movements are not transmitted to the upper structure. * The building should be a low structure preferably limited to one or two stories. * The building should have relatively small plan dimensions of 60 feet or less. If this is not practical then the building should be divided into independent modules. * The building configuration should be a simple rectangular configuration with straight foundation walls and a minimum of side projections from the main building. * The ground floor should be on a single level rather than using a split level design. * Basements are particularly susceptible to subsidence damage and are not recommended unless the entire foundation is at basement level and designed for lateral earth loading. Chen Northern, Inc Consulting Engineers and Scis lusts 10 Building Foundations: A raft foundation with a bearing level near the exterior grade appears to be an appropriate foundation system for reducing the vulnerability of buildings to differential subsidence damage. Typical shallow spread footings would be a relatively flexible system and a rigid system is preferable for the larger magnitude deformations. Foundation system considerations are outlined below: * A raft foundation system is the preferable system and should be designed according to the site specific soil bearing conditions. • The bottom surface of the raft should be smooth and free of vertical projections. * The raft should be separated from the bearing soils by placing the raft on a minimum 4 -inch thick compacted, clean sand. A polyethylene sheet should be placed between the raft and the sand Layer. * The use of deep foundation walls should be minimized to the extent practical. The soil pressure equal to at least twice the "at rest" earth pressure (on the order of 80 to 100 pcf equivalent fluid unit weight) should be assumed to act on all vertical surfaces in contact with the foundation soils. * The bearing elevation of the raft should be placed below frost depth or sufficient soil cover should be provided for frost protection. Underground Utilities: Underground utilities are susceptible to the affects of area subsidence. As outlined below there are several mitigative design concepts which can be used to reduce the potential for damage. In our opinion the mitigation measures should be used where underground utilities are located in the ground surface depression areas shown on Fig I. ChenONorthern, Inc counmo Engineeis and Sc*i I1 * Flexible joints should be used between adjacent pipe segments for both gravity and pressure lines. * Positive restraints should be provided in pressure lines to prevent pipe separation. * A flexible joint should be provided as close as practical to any building, manhole, or other rigid structural connection. * A soil cushion in the immediate vicinity of the pipe should be provided by not over -compacting the backfill soils close to the pipe. * Check valves should be placed at appropriate locations on all gas and water mains to permit interruption of flow in case of subsidence distress. DEBRIS FLOW RISK AND MITIGATION Hazard Evaluation: This study shows that the alluvial and debris fans along the western side of the development are potential sites of water flooding and debris flows. The area evaluated is shown on the attached Fig IA. A summary of the basins and fans evaluated is presented on the attached Table II. The calculated flow depths and volumes arc based on hydrological data provided by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. Potential water floods, with high sediment concentrations, should be considered for all of the basins upslope of the fans. Appropriate surface water hydrologic methods should be used to evaluate the flood hazards on all fans. Fans I and 2 in the southern part of the area are not subject to debris flows, but debris flows should be considered on Fans 3 through 25 and the area to the north (see Fig. IA). Based on numerical debris flow modeling, we have designated three potential hazard l ChenONorthem, Inc. Consuiling Ensoneers Suss 12 zones on the debris fans. The "high hazard zones" are Located near the fan heads where flow velocities and impact pressures are expected to be relatively high. Impact pressures in the "high hazard zone" could be greater than 200 psf. The "moderate hazard zones" are located in the middle parts of the debris fans where intermediate flow velocities and impact pressures are expected. Impact pressures in the "moderate hazard zones" are expected to be in the range of 60 to 200 psf. The "low hazard zones" are located in the lower parts of the fans where relatively low flow velocities and impact pressures are expected. Impact pressures in the "low hazard zones" are expected to be less than 60 psf. The recommended design debris flow parameters presented on Table II are expected to be associated with relatively infrequent debris flow events. Recurrence probabilities for the design debris flows are expected to be greater than 100 years. The design debris flows are expected to have peak discharges in the range of 830 to 37 cfs in the confined channels near the fan heads. Flow depths in the confined channels are expected to be from 13.9 to 5.6 feet. On the fans below the confining channels the flow will spread laterally and begin to deposit. Because of the potential for blockage of.the shallow fan channels it is not possible to predict the exact path that a flow will take as it travels down the fan, therefore, the entire fan surface should be considered in the potential hazard area. The design debris flows on the fan surfaces are expected to have widths of 30 to 50 feet. Average flow depths of the design debris flows are expected to very from 2.4 to 1.0 feet. Total design debris flow volumes are expected to be in the range of 685 to 15 cubic yards. In our opinion, debris flow hazard mitigations should be considered for all occupied structures located in the three potential hazard zones shown on Fig. IA. The debris flow ChenONorthern, Inc ConsuNirg Engineers and Seieniisis 13 mitigations should be coordinated with the overall surface water runoff management plan. A discussion of possible hazard mitigation concepts follows. Hazgrd Mitigation Concepts: There are several planning and engineering methods which can be used to mitigate debris flow hazards. The appropriate method for a particular project will depend on several factorswhich include the location and type of construction proposed and the degree of risk the developer and prospective home owners are willing to accept. To eliminate the risk, the hazard areas could be avoided or mitigation methods could be used to protect the property. Possible debris flow hazard mitigations which have been used to mitigate potential debris flow hazards include: (1) debris retention basins, (2) deflection structures, and (3) direct flood proofing of the exposed structure. Debris Retention Basins: When terrain is suitable, debris collection basins can be constructed near the fan head to collect and store potential debris flows, but to pass potential water flood runoff. This method of mitigation will provide protection of the entire downslope fan area. The collection basins typically consist of an earth, soil -cement, or concrete dam and excavated or natural storage basin. There are several factors at the Aspen Glen site which will make construction and maintenance of effective debris retention basins difficult. There are over 25 individual drainage basins and debris fans in the project area which would require a large number of collection basins. The fan heads and upslope channels are very steep. Based on these topographic ChenONarthern,Inc Conwlinq DOWNS and Scierstals 14 constraints, we expect that use of debris retention basins will not be a practical mitigation method. Deflection Structures: Deflection structures can consist of earth berms or reinforced concrete walls similar to retaining walls. The purpose of the deflection structure is to direct flood waters and debris flows away from individual structures or group of structures. The effectiveness of the deflection structure, and a reduction in design loads and berm heights can be achieved by angling the deflection structure to the flow direction. Properly Located deflection structures can be used to completely divert debris flows away from the area to be protected. It should be feasible to use deflection structures at the Aspen Glen project to protect individual structures or groups of structures. The protection of large areas will require relatively extensive berms or walls. Care should be taken to avoid directing debris into adjacent structures or properties. The redirected debris flood should be considered in the surface drainage designs of the residential building sites along the downhill side of County Road 109. Direct Flood Proofing: Direct flood proofing of individual structures can be an effective method of protecting a structure but will not prevent some property damage as the result of deposition of mud and debris. Flood proofing consists of developing architectural and structural designs that will: (1) allow the structure to directly withstand the impact pressures and debris depositional pressures, usually by the use of reinforced concrete building walls which extend above the height of the design debris flow, (2) locating doors, windows, and other structurally weak wall areas above design debris flow depths, and (3) designing the building and site grading Chen Northern,Inc. C nsuit.no En veers and &Amiss 15 to eliminate topographic or building wall obstructions which would prevent the free flow of flood waters and debris around the building. Direct flood proofing should be feasible in all hazard zones except in the "high hazard zone" near the fan heads. However, the developer and potential home owners should be aware that if this method is used exclusively, that some property damage can be expected as a result of the deposition of mud and debris adjacent to the structure. The data and design concepts presented above are suitable for conceptual planning purposes. When the preliminary mitigation designs and lot layout have been determined, we should review the information and preform additional analysis as needed to develop the final mitigation plan. BRIDGE ACROSS THE ROARING FORK RIVER Borings B-7-93 and B-8-93 were drilled at the approximate proposed bridge abutments to evaluate the subsurface conditions for foundation design. Access to the center pier supports with the truck -mounted drill rig was not possible because of the irregular terrain. The subsurface conditions encountered at the borings consist of about 23 and 33 feet of relatively dense coarse gravel terrace deposits above relatively soft to hard shale/siltstone bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite. The coarse granular soils are generally considered suitable for spread footing foundations but considering possible excavation depth required at each abutment, structural loadings of several hundred kips at each support location, and the variable quality of the underlying bedrock, spread footings may not be acceptable. The footing sizes required to support the structural Ioading and the differential settlement potential could both be excessive. Olen eNorthern. Inc Consulting Englnesrs and5cxnrKfs 1 16 A deep foundation such as drilled piers or driven piles appear more appropriate for support of the structure. Drilled piers would likely be cased through the overburden soils and weathered bedrock and socketed into competent bedrock. We expect that pier diameters would be at least 3 feet and extend at least I0 feet into the underlying competent bedrock. Design bearing pressures for that portion of pier in the competent bedrock is expected to be on the order of 20,000 psf maximum allowable end bearing and 2000 psf allowable skin friction. A driven pile would probably consist of and H section with a reinforced tip capable of being driven through the coarse gravel terrace deposits. The pile should derive its capacity through end bearing and peripheral shear and when driven to virtual refusal should develop its structural capacity, typically taken as a working stress of 9 ksi. Additional geotechnical investigation should be conducted at the individual bridge abutment and pier locations to determine site specific subsurface conditions and geotechnical design recommendations for the structural design of the bridge. WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT Five exploratory borings were drilled between depths of about 5 to 30 feet within the general proposed waste water treatment plant site. Graphical logs of the subsurface profiles encountered in the borings are presented on Fig. 6. The subsoils consist mainly of dense gravel terrace deposit which should be suitable for support of moderately loaded spread footings. The topsoil and silt soil should be removed from beneath the structures to expose the dense gravels. Below grade construction could require temporary excavation dewatering and designing the structures to withstand hydrostatic forces. When the waste water treatment facilities have been ChenNorthem,tnc Consulting Eng'neei. end Sdenlele 17 better identified, we should review the information and perform additional analysis and subsurface exploration for final design of the facilities. WATER TANK SITES Two storage tanks for domestic water supply are proposed, one near the southeast corner of the property and the other near the northwest corner at the locations shown on Figs. 1 and 1A. A reconnaissance of the tentative tank sites was conducted with the project engineer and planner to assess the feasibility of the sites based on geotechnical considerations. Based on the reconnaissance, construction of the water storage tanks at both sites should be feasible based on geotechnical considerations. The southeast site consists of steep hillside with bedrock outcrop of the Maroon Formation. The cut slope for this site will need to be engineered based on the rock quality conditions. For preliminary design purposes the cut grade can be assumed as 1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical. The northwest tank site is on a strongly sloping ridge which should not be impacted by steep slopes and debris flows. When more detailed information has been developed regarding the tank construction and grading plans, we should review the information and perform subsurface exploration and analysis for the structural design of the tanks. STEEP SLOPE SETBACK Numerous terrace escarpments are located on the property and building envelopes are proposed near the top of some of these escarpments. in general, under current site conditions most of these escarpments are relatively stable but some of these escarpments are over steepened and show signs of ravelling and minor erosion. Repairs and maintenance of the Glenwood Ditch ChenONorthern,Inc Cowling Ovine= and Scientists 1 18 appear to have also created localized over -steepened fill embankment sections. Buildings located next to steep slopes which could continue to erode or fail are normally setback a specified distance so that if continued slope movement occurs, the buildings will not be affected. A slope setback criteria suitable for tithe coarse gravel terrace deposits consists of an imaginary line extended up from the toe of the slope at a grade of 1112 horizontal to 1 vertical. The approximate limit of this setback slope projected from the toe of the escarpment to the ground surface in the affected areas is shown on Fig. 1. Buildings should be located no closer to the top of the escarpment than this setback line without further investigation and analysis. The actual setback should be established in the field during the lot layout staking. DRYWELL DRAINAGE We understand that the surface drainage design will incorporate detention areas with controlled surface release and subsurface percolation depending on the site specific conditions. Where clay soils are predominant, percolation from surface ponding should be relatively slow. Drywells which extend into the gravel terrace soils could be used to enhance the surface water disposal for low flow conditions. The coarse gravel terrace soils would have relatively good infiltration characteristics compared to the fine-grained overlying soils. A typical detail of a drywell suitable for surface water disposal is shown on Fig. 10. We can assist in sizing the drywclls once their location and disposal capacities have been better determined. The design should include subsurface profile and percolation information. Dry wells should not be located within the sinkhole limits shown on Fig 1 and 1A. We should review the dry wells in the surface depression areas for possible subsidence affects. ChenNorthem,Ino Can SWIM Enpneersand $ u 19 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE The subgrade soils encountered across the property are variable and range from silty clays to dense gravels. We expect the majority of subgrade will consist of the fine-grained silty and clayey soils. We understand that for preliminary design purposes, the pavement section consisting of three inches of asphalt above 8 inches of aggregate basecourse hu been assumed. Typically for the types of roadway use proposed on the project site (excluding Highway 82) this section is expected to be adequate. in low traffic areas and where gravelly subgrade soils are present, thinner pavement sections may be possible. Where roadways cross sinkholes, a thick layer (a few feet or more) of compacted gravel subbase should be provided. We recommend that a pavement subgrade study be conducted to determine design level pavement sections once the roadway alignments, grading and traffic conditions have been determined. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figs. 1 and 1A, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is ChenONorthem,Inc. Consuming Ei gue lane Scientism 20 performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear to be different from those described in this report, we should be notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning and preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our exploratory information which has not been described or documented in this report. As the project evolves, we should 'provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications of the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. Sincerely, CHEN-NORTHERN, IN By: Steven L. Pawlak, And By: Ralph G. Mock Engineering Geologist Chen ONorthern, Inc Consulting Entj nee►s and Saenii s 2- V E F. �� MI 3 VAN 6 _ 2.2 4ws � t��110 721 E yy�t O .� tl *N OyNS WO amb One .2 1m11 1C��. 1.214 F' yam.. MO. Y O daFre • FL+ G VM M C N O4 .41 4 M N .N. '� u0 N C ti .- - -O NN CN•- • • C Z. ~M 1.1 • qg O - Aird La N y M �N+ 0.r W. a YLM F07 Irl 2. N Y N� N N ~ 3no r g II II. i g8g a C N 2 7:4 w • 4O7Cfy}N 2NM Jo a'« ••• -32 14 ...it 41 Mx � .a.�3 a1+�Z2 2Y ArSO +s4'E r. N 8 N 3'4'ML V 2 Q NC $ a ag .;a 4.53: L11 6 .41., .2Es1. e.' w C C * i 2 1 0 ML.L 4, Y� aIt bN.�11 NN} Spq N ply 'N4' •$ T $'$ p p O id Y 12 01.1 M1 A w V G M Nig Lp r41li .+7s" 7 S O�iu ii p41 N 1 5 0 il.! Y' P CC M p ut `. 6 Y P� �Q C 1 7 M 1 i-. V I 1f • ~O 6182 S L w it inli 1 L W f. LF T1. ;2 N (Iy d 1,..614. y O Na A1� ar �+ }li .3 u4 y M M > :-: yi 1s2 1.91 1 4a s.a.Iiiii 0 0 N Y 414 3 m P w� oi3• SAQ 1.1 N i es y v 0 01 N r 05 N 4.4 Y I". 1. 1. » O y NI 2 ve goo � 8 ri L pl Y N rt�E Tie• 2 O21 2� 4 d +N M5 h -i 1~ q a e tag rib ra O y C g 482o u a* $ v • uo • M 1•• 01•+ O gip oo- w01n as 52 9 60 - 7 5 5 10 10 +4.69 3 -200.6 Boring Boring Boring Oaring Boring 0-5-93 8-1-93 0 10 20 17 30 B 6 40 7 6 2 50 60 6 6 5 70 13 80 90 O0 ID 20 30 4 r+ • 0-2-93 WC.26 0 -200.09 LL.31 0 P1.12 0 43 -�3 4 3 2 3 5 3 0 0 0 9 2 13 20 73 nor6 5 0,300 ger 5+. 6 B-3-93 8 :4.71 i5 11-200.11 26 11 0, st �11 B-4-93 0 12 9 t1 12 21 31 45 23 44.33 -200.2 dote: Explanation of syeeois presented on Fig. 7. Core Lags of Borings B-1. 2 8 5 shorn on Figs. A-1. through A-7. Appendix A. 20--- 40- 50 — 60 nn 70 — BO 90 100 110 120 130 Logs or Exploratory Borings mom▪ m mm Irm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Baring 8-6-93 0 8 16 7 11 12 26 B 40 29 29 29 20 14 74 22 23 80 23 110 • �-- 130 64 rev Boring RE 1 0 4 6 24 2 41 16 i 25 25 16 9 0.2 12 10 16 16 9 12 33 64 Boring RE 2 19 55 39 17 16 11 16 8 10 7 6 10 9 Elate; Explanation of symbols presented on Fig. 7. Core Log of Boring 8-6.93 drown on figs. A-8. Al and A-10, Appendix A. 0-- 10 — 20 30 — 40 60 — N 5 70 —• It 80 — 90 100 — rm 110"" W. 124' 130 — — 15 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 • 40 Boring B-7-93 13 15 36 15 15 we=10 -200=70 LL=24 .1 P1=3 Boring B-8-93 9 Mi 13 14t 6 3 6 3 1 1 MI 10 --- NIMMO 15 20 25 3D 35 ilaNNIMP 40-- 45 45 Note: Explanation of symbols presented on Fig. 7. 4 112 92 ChenONorthern, Inc Bridge Abutments Logs of Exploratory Borings Depth e Feet Fig. 5 Depth - Feet III ilr I Hi] fO tt! 0 11) 0 {V N Ii CO • C7 1,0 t II O 11 11 N ..J rw CO1 .J C. 0 11 ▪ u:. CV N,0 N . + 11 0 If 11 ▪ UNJ6-. fel PI 3 1 ,.1 O. El t 11.4 OCO Ca 0 I4 o Explanation of symbols presented on Fig. O t!1 O .u2 0 N M FjIII1III1IrIII1i1IHIiFi1III Depth - Feet 4 112 92 ChenONorthern, Inc Logs of Exploratory Borings Waste Water Treatment Site Fig. 6 d t t ^ L a U • YG . a. L i• 1..111 M f 0 c o �� ilp2 0 $5 a a y• ay.8 YEN 15 4. C► ▪ W 2 LA • w Oat g0r►N a o• . 1 S`a lin 9yy-I N Y1 pO0 0Yy{ WS � y� W xG ySµa�i 6 . a6 s—N 11 5 .E .• 5 e VI O ro �qf b8L C0— 1N• ON a t� y YQ .1 y L o Si i C M% IR" .. I a A a 8 vu yyN47 CA ▪ I 0. 2i �N 6N 2.1M - L wa ~ 8'�'Y • `S w _riN+.Al �S Ooo N ? N ..�.y•'k {Y, OL VN LA Mw A i M... ✓ Y .4 4� M In �� �� k r▪ amkr* 08 a$ 8l az ii g' ;gagµ.. pi. I. On 4 09 il 11 w� L'J� 02 YY 290 >"•ESv L1p..A= .01° • C. ofe �QNji do oa°Ll i t le Lr0 ,a CN.yyv'1••���• yy L YO HI lQ(a `yam It L.2 �▪ �„1.4 �6 ■ �d ✓ y{ pYL LOI VA Yt02 42 34 r�C. d� 2$ • •R • M iw W 7� Qu u v} a J w w 1 0 rye 7t ..... 1 J a a42• •uwoJQ glop '1016.so 'tel' Allis 'tlosdoj tom • ri 12 S. du au Li 1.1 ZI CI ..• A W w - N .Cr v .... r a h} n 1 a. a 11 O 011 N .+ 3 r• 1. '.• N a 02 ~ 1 w: r �r L �•� Ig ►yy' .+ e� v ▪ ,o Q N IJ •• 1 S J 5 L r N 7 T G .4• l~ • yy V 1- a� e N al L N L N r� Lp ?. G Q1 L ..Oa M W C (a1 L L O + p1 2 9�' LL• G M • s 'J m0 iJ- N N Cu u�+ u9 w ` N OI _"a ▪ .4 eg u • inx rE ~ei rn 14 �.1 NA• L U a l.• i. in la N • 1.0 • 111 s :+ s Yy pi v a - L M 41 d MN 4 ▪ Y Y ti MN f GI . 7 Y 11. 4 5 g s JN�11 14 Nm 1.21 :5 IA N M Gq~M A RM . • 2. • 7 r 14 9do.i ua in 410. V}• N • M ...4g$▪ AL kg u & L+- i3 a roN N .11 Li p. 1 f 1. r f 1 r I • W V to 2 O to N O m y, N S �.. S .�.. o r .� $ - 8 . + S N 2 N CASING AND MATERIAL DIMENSIONS (FT.) PI M P! in na M PI 1A W W O to ^ M a I1 N 0 Q = Q r . CO141 cm h4 in. a s . •c I g s x .- W r u 15 r _ . . _ • a t8 2. P m P/I Gt m et di M m RI Ca es 01 • y,� 19i II yN� O[ .W PIEZOMETER 125 1- a. w 100 MINIMUM SETBACK FROM EDGE OF -�� SINKHOLE * OVERBURDEN 4 112 92 75 50 0 10 20 SETBACK DISTANCE (ft ) 30 * ASSUMES GRAVEL IS AT GROUND SURFACE. INCREASE SETBACK BY 1/3 THE CLAY SOIL DEPTH. Chen Northem,Inc. BUILDING AND UTILITY SETBACK FROM SINKHOLES F19. 9 urface Grate Finish Grade 3' Clay Soil Typ. Gravel Alluvium 3/4" - 1 1/2" Screened Rock • • • :+ . • •s • • • • Compacted Backfill Solid Concrete Pipe 6" Diameter Solid Standpipe with Trash Screen at Top Perforated Below ter abric I, Varies 1 4-6' typ. DRY WELL SCHEMATIC Perforated Concrete Pipe 4' Minimum Penetration into Grave! Alluvium NOT TO SCALE 4 112 92 ChenONorthern, ine Typical Dry Well Construction Flg. 10 TABLE SUMMARY OF WATER MEL ABADDR33 Job No. 4 11292 Dann! to Watt. Level att.) Belaw Grund /offset Bodnj No. Tip Depth 3-13.93 3-20-93 3-22-93 4-4-93 5-17-93 (Pt.) 144-93 97.0 47.0 36.2 B-2-93 127.3 - 31.7 B-393 62.0 412 40.7 31.4 8.4-93 109.0 45.0 44,7 37.0 B-5-93 100.5 34.1 33.5 56.93 100.5 - - 372 33.2 RH4-93 79.0 45.0 45.1 33.7 RE -2-93 54.0 10.7 3.7 JobNo.411292 r+ N qei�++ .M.. - RIRROAR ....... r • • riFOelNO"' 01 w 01 m m m * H .. 0 0 0 0 0 0¢ IE O MUM is 00000cio a V►:+O�.a+.i 4.1w r AriEgRAIIE f4a�1��1bl��10 IW pm1+Am1+m !+ o1. r- r2— O O O O o O O O 19, aood0aoa o P+ m O1 m m 001 O'0 em (�/1 .Mi -ti--NIMri��yye+e 4 1 r e. RRINIAS ct stq t r 010 wirwtuanNwi I'0 xuriltQA 0000000 Ia WI�q it n 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 of-oe..i L_ APPENDIX A CORE LOGS cw- ODD N0. 4 112 92 PROJECT Aspen Glen CIJOLIWO .oi,4i tos SHEET 1 of 2 LCCMION See Flo. DEPTH OF BOIIWG N0.jz1i3 ,ELEVATION _ DEPTH _ 103.5' OVIDOILIRDDI . DATE ANGLE FROM BEARING Of DEPTH OF BLOUN 4.1-93 Kamm 90 ANGLE BORI!!0 WATER TABLE 32' FIND 4.2-9a COMIC 1.00 GRAPHIC 1.00 DISCONTINUITY ITY LOG 0.0 to 1.0 ft. TOP SOIL: Silty Clay, moderately organic. dark brown 1.0 to 9.0 ft. SANDY CLAY: Kediuk to st1rr. iow plasticity. moist to wet. red -brown 13 9.0 to 75.0 !t. GRAVEL, Coutes ANO BOULDERS: may, s11gltly silty to Clean, dense to very dense. moist to wet. gray - brown. River Terrace Alluvium. 20 X RQO/ s REoY Fig. A -I 13024IN0 8-1-93 xe Iio. 4 112 92 Opera 1i0. 8-1-93 (*iamb SHEST 2 OF 2 1:00 1 ORA>tiic L00 DISCOMINURY lm MST RESULTS x RC0/ x RScOMY DEPTH — Fw 9.0 to 75.0 ft. GRAVEL, COIBLES ARNu l5: sandy. sILghtly silty to clean, dense to very'dense, moist to wet, gray -brown River Terrace Alluvium. 5 — 60 — $3 — 70 7 75.0 to 90.5 ft. SILTSTONE: Z.elcariaus, with thin 9ypsum and calcite stringers. small vuggs, hard, well cemented. gray and tan. Eagle Valley Evaporite. 00—, 85- 90.5 to 94.5 ft. VOID: Fur foot high void In rock. little resistance to drilling 75.0 to 90.5 ft. SILTSIONE: 95 — calcarious. with ,thin gypsum ant calcite stringers, Hiatt vuggs, hard. well cemented. gray and tan. Eagle Valley Evaporite. 94.5 to 103.5 ft. CLAY: Red clay catty fi111ng. 103 DRI4 WATER CIRCULATION 31.0 to 911.5 rt. Good 98.5 to 99.0 ft. Poor 99.0 to 103.5 ft. Last 70 CORING STARTED AT 81.0 ft. Run 1 Rec • 1% ROD • 0% Run 2 Rec • 16% ROD • 0% Run 3 Rec • 625 ROO . 45% Total Oepth 103.5 ft. Illi Ili1 f 50 1 10 Flg. A-2 BORINO 8-1-93 i i 1 r f r t i ANO: 4 112 92 PROJECT Aspen Glen ROEM4 LOG SNEST� OF 10CA110N See F19. 3 GROUND GORING NO. 0-2-93 Et(VA110N _ ODe1�Ii 127.5' MOLE FROM KAMM Of DIEP114 OF DEM Of DHRBuR0E71 OTE E 4.1-43 An20m . 9r ANGLE DORM VA= TARE 43' FINISHED;, 4-4-93 GEOL00IC LOG GRAPHIC'S)* DiSSOirmsumr 0.0 to 10.0 ft. MAYAN, GRAVEL: wi1;1I same c000ts:. m Mins to stiff0 1ow plasticity, mist to wet. red - Dram. Sinkhole Inflliing. 10.0 to 27.0 ft. SANDY CLAY: tv witrsaat gravel, meatus( to stiff. low plasticity. mist to wet, red- Grown.' Sinkhole Infilling. r r r , • , r 15 — r i, r r i 4 20— 23 -/ • 4 r r r , 9 , r , r I r I 27.0 to 99.0 ft. SILTY GRAVEL: with some eocotes. meiituu dense. moist to wet. brown. Sinkhole lhfllling. 30 DEPTH — FEET 10 15 X ROD/ ISOM" 1 Fig. A-3 BO4G 9-2-93 X41140. 4 112 92 0-243 woo HIOr-;00NiltitlED MLA= 1.00 io1d* LOG 60 27.0 to 90.0 ft. SILTY GRAVEL: Hate sase.C000aes, medius dense. moist to wet. brown. Sinkhole• lnf11!ing. 00 70 as -• 90.0 to 127.5 ft. SHALE: -carbonaceous mita gypsum partings fissile, small vuQgs, non- ��— Cenetted, black. •• )'r 9HQ7 2 of 3 DEPTH — FWr 00 55 05 70 75 X00 a4 Drill Water Circulation itre.0 to I4/.5 fr. uood 90 45 100 t05 Coring started at 102.0 ft. Run 1 Roc • 60% RQO . SOY 50 dFig. A-4 OCMs40 0.2.93 Joe No. 4 112 92 BUNG 10. B-2-93 COWINU= gym 3 of 3 OEUL0GC LOO GRAPHIC 100 D1SC0111111UITY 100 X R0O/ X REcos RY 98.0 to 127.5 ft. SHALE: earibornceous wltn gyms partings as Visalia, s,ee11 vagi, non- cemented. black. 110 - 115 120-) 125 - TEST ItElIIL1S P1H -' FUT tO5 1t0 113 120 125 Run 1 Res • 601 RQD • 50t Run 2 Rec • 641 ROD • 501 Run 3 Ree • 1001 ROO • 1001 NUR 4 Ret • 1001 AQD • 1001 Run 5 Rec • 1001 RQ0. 1001 513 130- 135 - 140 - 143 150 - 155 - 1610 -+ - 130 ▪ 115 - 140 - 143 - 130 - 155 180 Total 0eptb 127.5 ft. b So 100' Fig. A -i BORN10 3-2-93 &Obert 140 ASIA 4 11292 SHEET, 1 OF 2 pRoacT Upon Glen LOCATION See Fig. 1 GROUND TOTAL104.51OET1H OF BMW KO. 0-5-93 E1EYAl10H OEM OVERBURDEN DA1E mica FROMKARIM OF 0131114 Of l HORIZOW 90° AMU 80 N0 WATER TABLE 44" 1:121k4-1- ' . CEOL000 1.00 7 CRAPIAC 1,00 • DI3COit11I U11Y 1.00 1 $1 RtCOV 1!Y feStAcn MTH - FEET -0-1�sT 0.0 to 2.0 ft. SAROV CLAY: 0 Helium to sum Tor plasticity. gist to wet, red-brown. �ti 2..0 GRAVEL, COBBLES. 5— ,,' 5 tto0ft. i'; ' 4 iTightly silty to clean, dense t.6 very dense, Main to wet. gray-brown. River TerreCea6 Alluvium. 107 IS— 20- .. 23 - 0 35 - ,A .` 50 - . A'J :},S M� -,-y J .)) YYa U ••i. :_-)11 ''.7.! -44? 630 y?. 4' I . 51 ro 4.. ~Y t'‘ Li 4. 4 10 13 • 20 25 35 ,A 50 L y JI q ~ } M 0 • 0 w Eu O 30 1.. A 1 Fig. A-6 BORING 6-5.43 i f f i f i 110AN 10. ;1O® NO. 4 112 92 MOM N0. 8-543 =ROWED WU 2 of 2 GEOLOGIC 1,03 I CCRA?NI8 lO4 TEST RESULTS 2.0 to 62.0 ft. GRAVEL. COBBLES Anv 10nuew: sandy, 'rightly silty to clean, dense to very dans*. moist to wet. grey -brown. River Tarmacs Alluviva. SS 80 - OISCONfINUITY LOO Ss Drill Haar Circulation,. as.v to 1W.1 rt. Gooa 62.0 to 70.0 ft. SHALE: 6SJl araeeoui wain 0ypsum partings. fissile. scall vuggs, non-cemented biddc. Eagle Palley Evaporlte. - 70.0 to 86.6 ft. CLAY BRECCIA: - - rine a -maim sites angular shale an0 slitstone fragments in a clay Matrix. non-cenwnted moderate plasticity, gypsum 'emus. gray to black. Cavity infilling. 73- 3- 80 - 60- 35 65 86.0 86.0 to 100.5 ft. GYPSUM: massive. 4371voiuteo banding, gray to dark gray. Eagle Valley Eraporlte. 95 •- 1013 103 10S 1 Coring started at 65.0 ft. Run l Rec . 45% ROO.0% Run 2 Rec . 8D% RQD . 0% Run 3 Rec . 1001 RQO . 351 Run 4 Rec 501 RQO . 131 Run 5 Rec . 1005 ROD • 661 Run 6 Roc . B31 RQO . 831 Run 7 Rec . 58% RQO . 591 total Depth 106.5 ft. Frannlo Fig. A-7 RoRNg 6-5-93 O.O to 1.0 ft. TOPSOIL: SIILy Lity, moaerately organic dirk brown. 1.0 to 2.0 ft. SANDY CLAY: nasus Io stssr, /ow plasticity. moist to wet, red -brawn. 2.0 to 85.0 ft. GRAVEL. CO8EES 1S Alio :sputum: aanay. slightly silty to clean. dense to very dense. moist to wet, gray -brawn. River Terrace Allovion. DORM LOS ;Ipa N, 4 112 92 soma Kt 8.4-93 COMM= SHEET 2 aF 3 OEDLOGIC L00 GRAPHIC WG DISCcKISeiATf L00 E RQO/ S RECOVERY 2.0 to 86.0 ft. GRAVEL, COMES. TEST RE3ttfl Uu auuwexs: sandy. alightly silty to clean. dense to very dans!. moist to wet. gray -brown. River ferric' Alluvium. 86.0 to 93.0 ft. WEATHERED 511A E: wltt angular gravel. cop and boulders, wry stiff, we brown. Colluvium. 93.0 to 100.0 ft. SHALE: arbOnateCUs wltil gyps= partings. fissile, small vugg non-cemented. black. Eagle Valley Evaparite. SS 40 63 — 70 100.0 to 102.0 ft. SELISTOME: Galcareedi. wfcif Coln Ms= and calcite stringers. small rums, Mrd, well Cemented. gray and tan. Eagle Valley Evaporlte. 43 — 102.0 to 109,0 ft. CLAY BRECCIA\ rime w meal= Siren Linguist' Shale sad slltitone fragments , io0 in a clay matrix, non-cemented. moderato plasticity. gypsum seams. NN gray to black. Cavity Rrfilling. COS Drill Mater Circulation od Coring started et 106.0 ft. Run 1 Rae • 100% 1100 • 41% Run 2 Rlc • 1008 140 • 02 30 190 1111111)1 1119 1111 0 SD 100 fig. A-9 BOR1H0 8.6493 4 • Joe No. 4 112 92 OCASa-6-93 MIMEO SOWN tOS SHEET 3 cF 3 OE01.000 1.00 j GRAPHIC 100 102.0 to 109.0 ft. CLAY BRECCIA: rine.to 4ealtsm slz40 ang:iar shale and slltstone fragments In • clay matrix, non cemented, moderate plasticity, gypsum seams, gray to black. Cavity infilling. 103 123T RESULTS 109.0 to 112.5 ft. SILTSTOIIE; • 1.alcareous, witn Chin gypsum and / calcite stringers. null vuggs, hard, well dented. gray and 113 - tan. Eagle Valley Evaporlte. / 112.5 to 118.5 tt. SHALE: caroonaceous witn gypsum partings fissile, small vuggs, non -cement black. Eagle Valley Evaporlte. 120 118.5 to 121,0 ft. SILTSTORE: calca-reous. with Lein gypsum and calcite stringers. small vuggs. hard. well cemented. gray and tan. Eagle Valley Evaparlte. 12I.0 to 130.0 ft. CLAY BRECCIA; rslte tO mama Sited angular shale and siltstene fragments in a clay matrix. non-cemented moderate plasticity, gypsum seams gray black. Cavity 140 InfIfling. 123 130 133 143 130 - 163- 160 DISCONTINUITY 1.00 1:0111 - Ff1 T 103 110 113 123 Run 3 Rec • 41% RQO • 16% Run 4 Rec • 67% ROD 231 Run 5 Rec •1001 ROD • 601 Run 5 Rec • 1001 RQn • 171 Run 7' Rec • 513% ROD• 0% 130• Total Depth 130.0 ft. - 133 - 140 - 143 - 130 - 133 160 X RCD/ Ai REcosQ y 0 s' 0 tli0 F19. A -l0 90�tli0 B-6-93 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS TIME A6AOINGS 24 FRI 7IM ; 43 1111N IS MIN, 60 M1N 19 .61114 .4 MIN, 7 90 6o 70 1 SIEVE ANALYSIS U.S. STANOARO SERIES I MIN. *no '100 •So '40..30 '16 • -6 • M" k' 1'A- 3 1 t w I a r f• CLEAR SQUARE OPENINQS - I r �• • 1 i 1 ' 1. i l 1 • fts 20 10 �T f I0 20 34 461 o 1• -170 r 1 1 1 1 4 1 • 3 (k--7051-1-411"005 011 TASI •.07 t 9 7 1.10 i 3 52 6 4. 6• •1. DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 45 100 00 60 30 tat ut. 10.2 12rrotr1 32 OAAUEL 1 CLAY TO SILT OAAVEL 71 % LIOUID LIMIT SAND Fad 1 64E040.4 I(,`OAR56 SAND 18 % PLASTICITY INDEX FRN. 1 COAASE SILT ANO CLAY 11 % SAMPLEOF clayey sandy gravel HYDROMETER ANALYSIS TIME RCAOINBS HR. 7 H1L t FROM COBBLES Boring B-2-93 at 53' thru 62' SiEVE ANALYSIS '90 IN11S MIN. 60 MIN. 11 Mkt! MIN. t Mlll '200 U.S. STANDARD SERIES 100 30 'b 96 •IQ6 -1 M % I71- 3" ' s'5 - CLEAN SQUARE OPENINGS rM� a�� � ii. 0..i.�- �i �. •••� •l•M.r. �s i •te ari. • _ AMY • iii •.a. i YMM r rrM �0 M! M=A ■ I J r- •. .r— `. err— •r•m•Y-1 —— mi mi •MM��aaaaaM- m1—•...aaa-- McNiff.^�=� M.M.. •MMMM M• WOI_ •M• Mme. —M• �• 1 • •�-•a••- MMM• i a•.M• i- iM • •mow a• �M 1•Ni■.� All= • M +ter IM^rAMI .n^..� 60 70 a EA.) rarramlEIMM Y! s� _—_-- A.ra a_ !a ^Mal YMr ri a•• r—w ,M•.••II Y•I••M•...a A •••I __ MMM. Arm•E•Errr mar, a!a—.Mkkb •aa•• riYi--. ...ill •—r•A•••► i ri aY.a•• it—MM••M—II•mf /AO--a!A-- M•••• — te•1M.a ra•a•�.I... ...- .••rAM MYill••=M I Yr' yaI • Ma—•. •.•1�• Arm... .•a •• AM ai•A •I..•==. imm mmM•AM MINIM.. A a• a• = .Yr Ymli .••••Im• ImIMME••.. •• A4.1•• !• MAR ,4•.Aml•.!PIM !•!-tectal Y•—r err •—t=Elf AIIIMMa1=111aaAa—•1 rM •� aaaa •• r..•- Al •• ••MMM. WIN••M Mid•Y• imo .ww �. oe. mi0•4 — ^r ••••A•. • a✓✓ ...Mar 1.�1...• ir^ i. NM i •M. AMM•.•Y!IMAM a IME at Ya•MIl !.•ta .•.•A• a•• •• A i MM..-—a•MM•MI•Il.II.— irmr •.I .M,Aa=AN. _ _ rri• r MMMa M! !i A=1.••aa�•• .. I••—M. •-I•r• 0 r J.. •! in.i A Maya 11_M a..i-• 111.• .M YYYaY.M••. •'. m•• ..!•— IMIIMM•• MM=01 A M• ate. am rYM1—aMNMA•Mr••.IMAM-MMM. iMMi M!•• IY•I•• •m m. �M Mme— Yrs AaAaa.• • •aA—!r -m••••- I•aa..m.ri md• •• mommiM•- Aar il• ••aaaaaa A.—• MI•MI• •aa•_.• a•MMI --Mr I ANN ••• ••..—i• M` r.••••• I...•AIA• Ym•• MMi.4 •• •ra mil M1- •Ala a.Miil IMA••MIMMI• MMM•.rr1•� •...I•. -M •p•^...•aaaaa •—•r r !•aaa•A ---- .oldmIl— rYa �II•I.11 Ml••YM M_I•MO a•!`•I< r4 w—MM-• MM••M MM. ._A A •••M• •••!aa••— a•! s Jct w•IA •fir ••. NM YM•r• MMM- M! •I•M Y.Y•• A• !r!M• M� iYr•.M••�r f! •Y•! s �A✓• r_• aaaYr• MM•— air—rr•• ••• -r _ r - A A.•�r rlM IEM Y� .�..•Aa�•✓i•rm. .•M•M• trb••A.M•i••..AA.�M� rr.r� — -Y••..IM.a. romami •.• M••IMl A•M.•. 11•• • w••• v.� MRtr a! MI•!•11.Mar• — aIIM a! _! • MN — MEM I raa—rY1 Y•mor Jct! • An. aI sMMMI•MitIll .•L Amwwwww 6sM•ww-i••.MMr ••••AIMa•a.•— MEM a=r•OP•a•AM. A•MM• 1••••al MEM M••• In m••••. I 4 • 1 .002 .003 .009 .010 .037 .476 .1g9 .267 .590 1.15 • 30 1.11 6.32 11.1 24.1 76 2 127 AMP IV =1•1•1•111•11••=111 rM•w •••••• I.••A aa.M ate. YrIYMM=�M rr•a- A.•Yl-• �✓• OM1 A.•MI •=1 • i. ar— a! •Mir � � •rr• 0 30 10 00 a2 2.0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT 4 tit 92 GRAVEL 33 % LIOL110 UNIT 152 SAND GRAVEL FINE 1 MEDIUM 'COHSE FiME 1 COARSE SAND 65 SAMPLEOF gravelly sand CheneNorthern, Inc• COBBLES '+k SILT AND CLAY PLASTICITY INDEX 2 • % FROM goring B-4-93 at 108' thru 109' 00: GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. B-1 r r {_ a i 24114R. T HR. 43 MIN IS MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MIN.4 MIN 1 MIN. laa HYDROMETER ANALYSIS TIME HEADINGS 90 so 70 ea s50 g 30 20 10 a 001 .007 mommiumlion — SIEVE ANALYSIS UA STANDARD SERIES -ie ' �Qe • '100 •30 •40.30 p CLEAR SOUARI OPENINGS Wok ---1=M-. 1 1M- r s -r r 10 20 111111•111111E r =NW MI iffIdaml • r 1111111111P" -ffI----fir= -� 1 X Al .009 a; �,� ?0 a _146 .297 42 1 14 3. 4.79 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS a•r CLAY TO SILT GR AVER. 69 LIOUID LIMIT SAND PINE ( MEDIUM (COARSE 111 7 L .a C OMYEL se. • SAND 25 % SAMPLE OF sandy gravel SILT AND CLAY PLASTICITY IND X NNE COARSE 6 so 00 1 COBOLES FROM Boring 8-5-93 at 7' I `s4 HR. 7 NR. 100 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS TIME READINGS 90 40 TO 70 1 SIEVE ANALYSIS 04.13 MIN. e0 MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. T MIN 200 100 -r-.MrIdEm r` MMINE •=n111111 -w • --ter •.+—.— U.S. STANDARD SEINES 50 'a0 70 •1e •IRA • CLEAN SQUARE OPENINGS M- x• IA• r - S-/- •• —•—.r- -rr� 11.r�-r•---IMM. --- mod Ern — --m,.• --� .trim -r �. r -.r=- a—rrr rni- +r—.1.. -r -- 1.r—. mmondm--- _f. 1•M - -r mmom .....-r. _ a Ar•_rr1 -r•--- -r ..� •+- --.—.— •-rim — —. r•...1r -r. �- — r_r---r-.--•_ -trim- r--r---.ice -EMM �-- r -r ra •=MMEm- w<f-- -- /— — _ mMimM — ----- —r --y m- Imo---- MaMM modEldmd -r1_ -rte:Nam lr—r--r il1..1 rim —• -- ter•—•.• - Mindima -1.1- ffr rum — r~r • w•-.—. —r fl. --- — Mi..-- -MI= -r -— - fl. ... -..-1.- r�-— -_..r. r• ..r+—_ -tai w a-- ----I r+ ----y 1...�•-- i -r --rim--- •----•r-MIN —l- --- MN ,.-•f•I 1. -Elf - •••r — —tea_ i --MMM- ..r1-1- Mn= --i- I+ -- ml .1 .mow --rte nw-- - - im,..m e•` — .---..-111 PPF —A•- �• r--• 1w1,— 1!r --•MMI Mr r —r -•r- MiN- -1Em•r rte — — •B and— �• - — a - Nm mr._ ff._ �r �� --r •r.l-r--wr ,•-a�.lr �r — _ in rte•• rnlww .r_ •r✓+ m-1 rim--• ' r.,.. --II ter. 01•1— rim-- r—^ -- _— =....•=1---IMMEMM._—. M.'_ r•. 1w -.w ----fir. -- M. -M. .•..--Imo,.-, ..+�. �•....�...- nMH. 1. -----1 �r-1..11r —f—rim•---.1---. M --- �I1wir a�rrl--��---i�rr��..1r�--r.1_-1- •- r_r r --a. —r rim rr•.r ----- -� w,-1w•.�-r rw•.—.rte 1 +==•.-tom—r- ..-r i ---ter rim -�-r d••.- aim— -.�- ---- - r -- .•••- — .--• ✓,den • •• — �—r trim r_-�Y-- A07 .00S .000 .019 .037 A74 .1 .293 .SED 1.19 40 4.74 942 19.1 39.1 1. 173 , DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT GRAVEL 57 UOUID LIMIT SANG GRAVEL FINE 1 MEOIUU _1COARSI Mt 1 COARSE 162 COMES sANO 34 !1 SILT ANO CLAY PLASTICITY INDEX FROM SAMPLE OF sandy gravel 4 112 92 Chen°Northern, Inc 9 '/ Boring B-9-93 at 2.51 1 GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 8-2 301 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS YiuE RMD1lres SIEVE ANALYSIS US SIANDARb SERIES atm SOUAAQ O9€ 4IHGS L CLAY TO .511.1 SAND foie r MEDIUM COARSE, GRAVEL Me ] COARSE CO09LES GRAVEL 58 % SAND 33 9i SILT AND CLAY 9 % LIOUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF sandy gravel FROM Boring B-12-93 at 4' HYDROMETER ANALYSIS TIME READINGS 90 40 70 SIEVE ANALYSIS u.3 SfANOAN0 3Ef�1E5 i CLEAR SOUARE OPENIFNGS- 40 min. is MINA MIN, 1 MN •200 •I0D •30 •40'70 •10 [�1 �" A• 1W 0" • S•4' 0 1 1 10 ,30 J 1_I 4 40. 90 a 1 J 1 -: 20 10 0 1 L 1 l CY 1 .0U .005 .001 .011 .077 .014 .110 211 I?510 1,1! 7.3$ 4,76 OIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SANS f� I w ■ CLAY TO SILT GRAM. EIOUmD LIMIT SAMPLE OF 4 112 92 9114E SAND 30 IW 0.62 11.1 *1 762 127 201 S= GRAVEL COARSE 1114E COARSE SILT AND CLAY PLASTICITY INDEX CheneNorthern, [nc FROM % COBBLES GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 8-3 1 C r l f f Chen -Northern, Inc. N N 0 0 0 SUMMARY N iii C 1n ' ,, [clayey sandy gravel cn.y laa to C W tv, C very sandy silt sand► gravel weathered siltstone 1111 Ziiri CV CO Co) ct C*1 is 7") . CO 1.0 1 il CO 1,0 N CI en r. 33 I CO • 141 MEN 1 of I zoo NI SAMNA LQ AflON iii n 1 .d N t0 1 Co7 In 1 C11 2 ...i 1 CO ^ 1p 1 10 tt, N Lt) 0 _ tr 1 111 • • ' C .- CO 0 1 1 CO C1 Ch 1 CO ,..y CS Q1 1 CO 0' 1[7 CO 0$ t� 01 �1 CO 1' 1 1 CO C7 C $ N CC] 1 •