HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Road Issues• •
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building and Planning Department
Barton Porter
2571 County Road 314
New Castle, CO 81647
RE: Sierra Pinyons Subdivision
Dear Mr. Porter:
Return Receipt No. P 164 023 839
Recently, the enclosed petition was received from a number of the existing land owners in the
Sierra Pinyon noting that the roads had not been completed as agreed to in the Subdivision
Improvements Agreement. After an inspection of the roads, it appears that the road surfacing
has not been completed according to the specifications agreed to at the time of the subdivision's
approval. In the agreement, you had agreed to complete the improvements by September 1,
1996.
To satisfy the agreement, it will be necessary to make the improvements and have your engineer
submit a letter certifying the completion of the roads according to the specifications agreed to at
the time of subdivision approval. If the improvements are not completed and certified within
thirty days of the receipt of this letter, it will be necessary to initiate the appropriate action to
revoke final plat approval for the lots you still own.
If you have any questions about this letter or your obligations as a subdivider, you may call or
write to this office.
Sincerely,
Mark L. Bean, Director
Building & Planning Department
xc: Board of County Commissioners
Don DeFord
109 8th Street, Suite 303
945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
•
May 5, 1998
Barton Porter
2571 County Rd 314
New Castle, CO 81647
Mr. Porter,
Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
Homeowners Association
PO Box 283
Silt, CO 81652
We, as homeowners in the Sierra Pinyon Subdivision, are letting you know that we are not
satisfied with the way the roads are. We do expect you - as the developer - to complete ALL
roads - Rio Seco, Rio Bravo & Harmony - to the specifications you agreed.to when the
Subdivision Plat was signed. We will NOT except anything less.
Mark Bean, in the Garfield Planning Department, has also been sent a copy of this letter.
.
o e) 2` v SGw
�o12e,ve. I)AsI,Lis
G 0 Ai2mar1,.-)Ay
L G4s s -
Gov ,' yzv,7
e,„4,1
771-t/LL vec 00(
�ljt.e`-
C-)ThcO , o See 6-- r
lu
02 AL) Cr 6°
RO
/gy L . /6/0Ac-zL.
0213? Re 45X0406
4.4
z.
:2o3q ,e') 2f4(X
February 3, 1998
Garfield County
Planning Dept.
Attn: Mark Bean
109 8th St, Ste 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Bean,
During the process of negotiating the contract to purchase lot 3 in the Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
and subsequently the building of our house, we were assured that improvements were going to
be made to the existing roads (Rio Seco, Rio Bravo) which is not much more than a smooth 4 x 4
road. Consequently, during inclement weather the dirt becomes mud and the mud becomes
slippery, to the point that 4 -wheel drive is necessary.
Since our closing in December 1996, little work has been done to improve either road. The
lower 1/4 mile (approx) of Rio Seco has been widened and two months after the road was
widened gravel was finally put down in this area. This part of the road seems to in good repair.
However, for the remainder of Rio Seco, approximately 1, mile is still narrow, there is little
gravel to speak of and in numerous places standing water and sink holes after it rains or the
snow melts. On two corners in particular the gravel is nonexistent and very slippery when wet.
It is my understanding these roads were to have road base all the way up.
Rio Bravo has very little, if any gravel on it. If what is there could be considered a road.
We have requested that the Post Office put a cluster box in the Subdivision, but we were told
that the roads are not to county specs and they are to narrow.
These are not the conditions, as new homeowners, we expected to have to deal with.
Mr. Porter was asked in our November Homeowners Assoc. meeting when we could expect
someone to finish the roads. We were all told next month (Dec.). Well, as you can see it is well
past December and there has been no attempt to finish these roads.
Enclosed are some photos of the roads. We appreciate your time in reviewing this matter.
Sincerely,`
a/zozd
LA -(44_,
Caro e ipfe
Sec/Treasurer
Sierra Pinyon HOA
R\ tifES eie. 1-e,Ke-r ?-111(--1)
I
Geotechnical
1 1
• •
Engineering
Group, Inc.
July 7, 1998
Barton Porter
2571 314 Road
New Castle, CO 81647
Subject: Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
Construction Material Testing Services
Approximately 1.2 Mile, Gravel Road
Silt, Colorado
Job No. 140
Dear Barton,
As requested, a Geotechnical Engineering Group (GEG) representative
tested approximately 1.2 miles of existing gravel road at the Sierra Pinyon
Subdivision located in Silt, Colorado. Our representative identified approximately
2,330 lineal feet of Rio Seco Road, 1,358 feet of Access Road, 1,080 feet of Rio
Bravo Road and 1,500 feet of Harmony Road. We tested the traveled surface of
each identified roadway for compaction and thickness. We obtained a sample of
the gravel material and tested for gradation, Atterberg limits and standard Proctor
value. The purpose of this letter is to transmit results of testing.
On June 30, 1998 a GEG representative arrived on-site to test compaction
of the subject gravel roadways. Field compaction report Record Nos. 1 through 3
(attached) indicate compaction ranging from 88.8 percent to 100.1 percent of
standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density at moisture contents
ranging from 5.6 percent to 2.6 percent below optimum moisture. Twenty-one of
23 tests (91 %) were at least 90 percent compaction and ten of 23 tests (43%) were
at least 95 percent compaction. The GEG representative also measured the
thickness of gravel using a pick to excavate into the traveled surface from the
shoulder area. Gravel thickness measurements ranged from 4.0 to 11.5 inches as
shown in the following Table A:
Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Testing Consultants
(970) 245-4078 • fax (970) 245-7115
685 West Gunnison Ave., Suite 110, Grand Junction, Colorado 81505
•
•
TABLE A
Thickness of Gravel Roadway
Street
Station
Side
Thickness
(inches)
Rio Seco Road
2 + 50
Left
11.5
Rio Seco Road
7 + 50
Right
4.0
Rio Seco Road
12 + 50
Right
6.0
Rio Seco Road
17 + 50
Left
5.0
Rio Seco Road
22 + 50
Right
5.0
Access Road
5 + 00
Right
7.0
Access Road
10 + 00
Left
6.0
Rio Bravo Road
2 + 50
Left
9.0
Rio Bravo Road
7 + 50
Right
7.0
Harmony Way
2 + 50
Left
6.0
Harmony Way
7 + 50
Right
10.0
Harmony Way
12 + 50
Right
6.0
A sample of the gravel material was obtained from the right shoulder of Rio Seco
Road at station 1 + 50. The sample was tested for gradation, Atterberg limits and
standard Proctor (ASTM D698). Results of Atterberg limits and Proctor testing are
attached in Fig. 1. Gradation test results are presented in the following Table B:
TABLE B
Gradation Test Results
Sieve
Designation
Percent
Passing by Weight (%)
3 -inch
100
1.5 -inch
99
3/8 -inch
59
No. 4
53
No. 8
47
No. 16
44
No. 30
39
No. 50
30
No. 100
20
No. 200
13
Sierra Pinyon Subdivision 2
GEG #140
• •
We appreciate the opportunity to provide professional services. If we can
be of further service or answer any geotechnical or materials testing related
questions, please call.
Sincerely,
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
John P. Withers, P.E.
Principal Engineer
jpw:ss
(3 copies sent)
Sierra Pinyon Subdivision 3
GEG #140
• •
FIELD COMPACTION REPORTS
PROJECT:
Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
Silt, Colorado
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
CLIENT / ON SITE REP:
Barton Porter
GROUP, INC.
CONTRACTOR/REP:
None
PROJECT NO:
DATE:
Geotechnical, Environmental
140
6-30-98
and Materials Testing Consultants
TECHNICIAN:
Bob Fleischer
HOURS:
8.75
* F.S. = Final Subgrade DAILY COMPACTION REPORT
TEST
TEST TYPE
MAX. DRY
MOURE
NO
LAB
NUMBER
LOCATION
ELEV.
NUC SAND
DENSITY
(K0
MOISTUREOPTIMUM
CONT. (%)
DENSITYDRY
(pcI)
CONTENT
(%)
PERCENT
COMPACTION
WITHINT
SPEC.
SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLE
NUMBER
01
Rio Seco Rd; Station 2 + 50, Left Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
133.5
2.4
97.4
GM
Fig 1
02
Rio Seco Rd; Station 5 + 00, Center
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
136.5
2.6
99.6
GM
Fig 1
•
03
Rio Seco Rd; Station 7 + 50, Right Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
128.9
5.0
94.1
GM
Fig 1
04
Rio Seco Rd; Station 10 + 00, Left Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
133.5
3.8
97.4
GM
Fig 1
05
Rio Seco Rd; Station 12 + 50, Center
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
128.0
2.6
93.4
GM
Fig 1
06
Rio Seco Rd; Station 15 + 00, Right Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
135.0
3.5
98.5
GM
Fig 1
07
Rio Seco Rd; Station 17 + 50, Left Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
133.3
4.4
97.3
GM
Fig 1
08
Rio Seco Rd; Station 20 + 00, Center
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
134.2
3.0
98.0
GM
Fig 1
09
Rio Seco Rd; Station 22 + 50, Right Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
129.5
4.6
94.5
GM
Fig 1
10
Access Road; Station 2 + 50, Left Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
132.4
2.9
96.8
GM
Fig 1
MOISTURE / DENSITY SPECIFICATIONS
OBSERVATION / TESTING
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
SPECIFIED Cohesive Soils
COMPACTION Not Specified
Full Time:
Weather Conditions: Sunny
Compaction Equipment Used:
REQUIREMENT: Coheslonless
Soils
Part Time:
Wind: Mild
Sheepsfoot:
SPECIFIED Cohesive Soils
Number of Site Visits/Day:
1
MOISTURE Not Specified
REQUIREMENT: Cohesionless Soils
Testing Only:
X
Temperature: 90's °F
Smooth Drum Roller.
1
LABORATORY Cohesive Soils
Requested By (Company Name):
Precipitation: None
Vibratory:
TESTING ASTM D698
PROCEDURES Cohesionless Solis
Barton Porter
Informed (Rep. Of Company) of Test
Other (List Below):
Unknown
DENSITY/COMPACTION
Results:
TESTING WAS NOT PERFORMED ON THIS
DATE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Insufficient amount of
Material placed
N/A
GEG was not In r m
fomed
prior to our arrival on
Contractor Not Working Due To:
The Contractor Is:
Field Copy Given To:
site that the contractor
would not be working
Inclement Weather
Processing Frozen Material Processing Wet Material
on this date.
Equipment Malfunction
Stripping and/or Grubbing Site Moisture Conditioning Dry Material
Unknown
Stockoillna Fill Removina Unsuitable Materiel
RECORD NO. 1
PROJECT:
Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
Silt, Colorado
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
GROUP, INC.
Geotechnical, Environmental
and Materials Testing Consultants
CLIENT / ON SITE REP:
Barton Porter
CONTRACTOR/REP:
None
PROJECT NO:
140
DATE:
6-30-98
TECHNICIAN:
Bob Fleischer
HOURS:
DAILY COMPACTION REPORT
TEST
NUMBER
LOCATION
ELEV.
TEST TYPE
MAX. DRY
DENSITY
(Pc0
OPTIMUM
MOISTURE
CONT. (%)
DRY
DENSITY
(pct)
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
PERCENT
COMPACTION
NOT
WITHIN
SPEC.
SOIL
TYPE
LAB
SAMPLE
NUMBER
NUC SAND
11
Access Road; Station 5 + 00, Center
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
123.7
3.5
90.3
GM
Fig 1
12
Access Road; Station 7 + 50, Right Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
136.1
2.7
99.3
GM
Fig 1 1
13
Access Road; Station 10 + 00, Left Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
128.1
3.0
93.5
GM
Fig 1
14
Access Road; Station 12 + 50, Center
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
125.8
4.6
91.8
GM
Fig 1
15
Rio Bravo Rd; Station 2 + 50, Left Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
124.3
2.8
90.7
GM
Fig 1
16
Rio Bravo Rd; Station 5 + 00, Center
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
126.9
5.4
92.6
GM
Fig 1
17
Rio Bravo Rd; Station 7 + 50, Right Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
121.6
4.9
88.8
GM
Fig 1
18
Rio Bravo Rd; Station 10 + 00, Center
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
123.4
5.0
90.1
GM
Fig 1
19
Harmony Way; Station 2 + 50, Left Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
129.8
2.6
94.7
GM
Fig 1
20
Harmony Way; Station 5 + 00, Center
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
137.1
2.5
100.1
GM
Fig 1
MOISTURE / DENSITY SPECIFICATIONS
OBSERVATION / TESTING
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Weather Conditions: Sunny
Compaction Equipment Used:
I
SPECIFIED Cohesive Soils
COMPACTION Not Specified
Full Time:
REQUIREMENT: Cohesionless Soils
Part Time:
Wind: Mild
Temperature: 90's °F
Precipitation: None
Sheepsfoot:
SPECIFIED Cohesive Soils
MOISTURE Not Specified
Number of Site Visits/Day:
1
Smooth Drum Roller:
REQUIREMENT: Cohesionless Soils
Testing Only:
X
LABORATORY Cohesive Soils
TESTING ASTM D698
PROCEDURES Coheslonless Soils
Requested By (Company Name):
Barton Porter
Vibratory:
Other (List Below):
Unknown
Informed (Rep. Of Company) of Test
Results:
N/A
DENSITY/COMPACTION TESTING WAS NOT PERFORMED ON THIS
DATE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Insufficient amount of
Material placed
GEG was not Informed
prior to our arrival on
site that the contractor
would not be working
Contractor Not Working Due To:
Inclement Weather
Equipment Malfunction
Unknown
The Contractor Is:
Processing Frozen Material Processing Wet Material
Stripping and/or Grubbing Site Moisture Conditioning Dry Material
Stockoilina Fill Removing Unsuitable Material
Field Copy Given To:
on this date.
RECORD NO. 2
PROJECT:
Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
Silt, Colorado
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
CLIENT / ON SITE REP:
Barton Porter
GROUP, INC.
CONTRACTOR/REP:
None
PROJECT NO:
DATE:
Geotechnical, Environmental
140
6-30-98
and Materials Testing Consultants
TECHNICIAN:
Bob Fleischer
HOURS:
DAILY COMPACTION REPORT
TEST
TEST TYPE
MAX. DRY
OPTIMUM
DRY
MOISTURE
NOT
LAB
NUMBER
LOCATION
ELEV.
NUC SAND
DENSITY
(p��
MOISTURE
CONT. (%)
DENSITY
(pc()
CONTENT
(%)
PERCENT
COMPACTION
WITHIN
SPEC.
SOIL
TYPE
SAMPLE
NUMBER
21
Harmony Way; Station 7 + 50, Right Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
131.0
2.9
95.6
GM
Fig 1
22
Harmony Way; Station 10 + 00, Left Side
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
123.2
2.9
89.9
GM
Fig 1
23
Harmony Way; Station 12 + 50, Center
F.S.*
X
137.0
8.0
125.7
3.9
91.8
GM
Fig 1
MOISTURE / DENSITY SPECIFICATIONS
OBSERVATION / TESTING
HELD OBSERVATIONS
SPECIFIED Cohesive Soils
COMPACTION Not Specified
Full Time:
Weather Conditions: Sunny
Compaction Equipment Used:
REQUIREMENT: Cohesionless Soils
Part Time:
Wind: Mild
Sheepsfoot:
SPECIFIED Cohesive Soils
Number of Site Visits/Day:
1
MOISTURE Not Specified
REQUIREMENT: Cohesionless Soils
Testing Only:
X
Temperature: 90's °F
Smooth Drum Roller:
LABORATORY Cohesive Soils
Requested By (Company Name):
Precipitation: None
Vibratory:
TESTING ASTM D698
PROCEDURES Cohesionless Soils
Barton Porter
Informed (Rep. Of Company) of Test
Other (List Below):
Unknown
Results:
DENSITY/COMPACTION TESTING WAS NOT PERFORMED ON THIS
DATE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Insufficient amount of
Material placed
N/A
GEG was not informed
prior to our arrival on
Contractor Not Working Due To:
The Contractor Is:
Field Copy Given To:
site that the contractor
would not be working
Inclement Weather
Processing Frozen Material Processing Wet Material
on this date.
Equipment Malfunction
Stripping and/or Grubbing Site Moisture Conditioning Dry Material
Unknown
Stockollina Fill Removing Unsuitable Material
RECORD NO. 3
,150
145,
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
0
I I
1
T
GEOTONICAL ENGINEERING GROUP,•C.
MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
1
1
Ii
1
III
II
1
r
1
1
I
1
1 r
I
I1 11
IT
I i l 1 1
II
1
11
1
I
1
Project Name: Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
Sample Location: Station 1 +50, Right
shoulder Rio Seco Road
Sample Description: Gravel, sandy, silty,
dry, brown (GM)
Test Method: ASTM D-698, method D
Maximum Dry Density: 137.0 PCF
Optimum Moisture: 8.0 %
Liquid Limit: NP
Plasticity Index: NL
Gravel: 47
Sand: 40
Silt & Clay: 13
5 10 15 20 25 30
Moisture Content -A
Job No. 140
Fig. 1
r
1
Office of the County Engineer
Letter of Review:
September 9, 1998
For: Sierra Pinyon Subdivision
Re: Engineering Group, Inc. Letter
After examination of the presented geotechnical letter/report of September 4th,
1998, I have the following comments:
1) Project Parameters — The following parameters are noted:
a) Rio Seco Road sta. 2+50 through sta. 22+50
b) Rio Bravo Road sta. 2+50 through sta. 7+50
c) Access Road sta. 5+00 through sta. 10+00
d) Harmony Road sta. 2+50 through sta. 12+50
**Testing for/on Harmony Road was only done to sta. 12+50 — This excludes
almost half of the plotted roadway section for Harmony Road.
2) Testing —
a) Material Thickness was tested every 500 feet (Table A).
3) Standards — Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction:
State Department of Highways, 1991.
Specific references:
Page 742, Section 703.03 — Aggregate for Bases: "Aggregates for bases shall
be crushed stone, crushed slag, crushed gravel, natural gravel, or crushed
reclaimed concrete or asphalt material which conforms to the quality
requirements of AASHTO M 147... The requirements for the Los Angeles
wear test (AASHTO T 96) shall not apply to Class 1, 2, and 3. plasticity index
shall not exceed 6... liquid limit not greater than 30."
Page 743, Table 703-2, Classification for Aggregate Base Course —
Percent by Weight Passing Square Mesh Sieves
Sieve
Size
Class 5
Class 6
11/2"
100
1"
95-100
3/4"
-
100
No. 4
30-70
30-65
No. 8
-
25-55
No.200
3-15
3-12
4) Theory — AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993
Examination of the in-place material was compared with the design/blueprint
requirement of 8 inches of compacted Class 6. Many of the required
parameters will be the same regardless of what material is used.
Requirements are compared with the following results:
For:
ESAL loading- In-place Material = Design Class 6
Base Soil - In-place Material = Design Class 6
Moisture - In-place Material = Design Class 6
Traffic - In-place Material = Design Class 6
The only unanswered question pertains to AASHTO Structural Layer
Coefficients: Is the in-place material equal to or better than the Class 6
requirement? Answer: with layer thickness' and coefficients being equal —
these two structures are equivalent.
SNin-place = SNclass 6
SN=txa
tin -place X ain-place = tclass 6 X aclass 6
8 -place X .14in-place = 8' class 6 X .14class 6
Key:
SN = Structural Number
t = Layer Thickness
a = Layer coefficient (.14 for crushed stone)
5) Conclusion -
The Sierra Pinyon blueprints represent a typical (agreed upon) cross-section of
eight inches of compacted Class 6 material at 20 feet +/- with no specific
shoulder designation. Any gravel road built at Sierra Pinyon (per plan) will be
required to meet or exceed the bearing capacity and serviceability of eight inches
of compacted Class 6 as a minimum.
The analysis of in-place materials at Sierra Pinyon by Engineering Group, Inc.
appear to meet the bearing capacity and serviceability of the originally designed
section (excluding the untested section of Harmony Road - sta. 12+50 to sta.
24+64 = approximately 1200 feet.)
cerel
o•ert B. Szrot, P.E.
Garfield County Engineer
Memorandum
June 18, 1998
From: Robert B. Szrot, County Engineer
To: File
Re: Sierra Pinyon Subdivision Roadway Inspection
Earlier this morning, I was asked by Don DeFord if I could go out to Sierra Pinyon and look at
the additional work that was done to the roadway(s). I was called by Joe Hope of High Country
Engineering and we car pooled out to the road site at 2:30p. As I had previously examined the
Preliminary Project blueprints and visited the road site, I expected to see a completed roadway
consisting of eight inches of Class 6 aggregate (3/8"min-3/4"max), compactive effort to set and
seal the aggregate, and drainage and ditch work to assure longevity of the roadway(s).
During my previous visit, 1 had observed only pit run material ranging from 3/4"min to over
3"max placed in excess of five inches thick, rutting, potholes, and no evidence of any Class 6
material being placed.
During today's visit, I observed that additional aggregate was placed, but this material ranged
from '/2"min to 2"max. I also noted rutting and washboarding which denotes lack of compactive
effort. I also observed soil over washing the aggregate roadway, a small drainage culvert that had
edge erosion, and inefficient or nonexistent ditch work. I found no evidence of eight inches of
compacted Class 6 material - which was required on the plan sheets. I also observed several roads
within the subdivision that had no aggregate, some with course pit run, and several areas of
standing water on the roadway in excess of several inches.
Based on what was required in the plan sheets, this road systems falls far short of meeting the
requirements set forth to assure an all-weather gravel roadway to service this subdivision. In
addition, the deficiencies in the ditch and drainage work have already started to degrade several
areas of the existing road system.