HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Resolution 12-801111 InFriiilattl#1.1111.11KILNI 11111
Reception#: 823748
09!05!20'12 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield )
At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County,
Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building
in Glenwood Springs on Monday, 16th of April A.D. 2012, there were present:
John Martin , Commissioner Chairman
Mike Samson , Commissioner
Tom Jankovsky , Commissioner
Andrew Gorgey County Manager
Carey Gagnon , Acting County Attorney
Jean Alberico , Clerk of the Board
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NO. a420- s'D
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN
AMENDMENT AND PUD AMENDMENT FOR LAKE SPRINGS RANCH PUD, ON A
459.38 ACRE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BERKELEY FAMILY LIMITED
LIABILITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 3.5 MILES
SOUTHEAST OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO IN SECTIONS 32, 33, AND 34,
TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST AND SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH,
RANGE 88 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., GARFIELD COUNTY
PARCEL NO.s # 2187-321-09-023; 2187-333-09-022; 2187-334-00-106; 2187-334-00-107
Recitals
A. The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado (Board) received a
request from The Berkeley Family Limited Liability Limited Partnership for a Preliminary Plan
Amendment for 118 single-family lots and 18 multi -family units, and for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Amendment to add the existing sod farm as a permitted use in the
Residential/Single Family (R/SF) zone district and add a new zone district called Agricultural
Preserve (AG/P) as further described in Exhibits A and B, Preliminary Plan and PUD Zone
Map.
B. The Lake Springs Ranch PUD is located within a 459.38 acre parcel of land owned by
The Berkeley Family Limited Liability Limited Partnership.
C. The subject property is located within unincorporated Garfield County in the PUD
1
111114Yr��1'��i�i'�R ':I�rirllflrl+�ln�l� �4�GI hi�,l �� 1I III
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 OS:38:48 PM Jean Alberlco
2 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
zone district! approximately 3.5 miles southeast of Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
D. The Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the 14th day of. December,
2011 for consideration of whether the proposed Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment should
be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, during which hearing the public and interested
persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the request.
E. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on the 14th day of December,
2011 to make a final decision. The Planning Commission voted to recommend the Board of
County Commissioners approve with conditions the Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment.
F. The Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing on the 16th day of
April, 2012 for consideration of whether the proposed Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment
should be approved, approved with conditions, or denied, during which hearing the public and
interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the request.
G. The Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on the 16th day of
April, 2012 to make a final decision.
I. The Board of County Commissioners on the basis of substantial competent evidence
produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determinations of fact:
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
2. The hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters, and
issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. The Preliminary Plan Amendment and PUD Amendment are in general
conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030.
4. The following waivers from minimum standards contained in the Garfield County
Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR) have been granted and
determined as appropriate for the health, safety, and welfare of the future residents
and the general public:
a. Section 7-108 and Section 7-307, Road Standards:
i. Section 7-307 (A)(2) Requirement for Roadway Infrastructure:
• Increase of the maximum grade for the Major Collector Road (CR
114) from 8% to 10% grade between Lake Springs Road and High
Alpine Circle;
2
111114 NrirliCirEl IUM i#411 IWINTA11111111111
Reception#: 823748
09/0512012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberlco
3 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
• Increase of the minimum right-of-way width for Secondary Access
Roads from 50 -foot to 60 -feet for all Secondary Access Roads in the
subdivision; and,
• Decrease of the minimum shoulder width for Secondary Access Roads
from 4 -foot to 2 -feet for all Secondary Access Roads in the
subdivision.
ii. Section 7-307 (A)(7)(b) Continuation of Roads and Dead -End Roads:
• Allowance of the following five cul-de-sacs to exceed 600 feet in
length: Van Cleve Lane, High Alpine Circle, Hanging Lake Road,
Water Tank Access Road, and Spring Valley Road.
5. The Preliminary Plan Amendment and PUD Amendment, subject to compliance
with the conditions of approval set forth in this Resolution and except where waivers
have been granted, meet the requirements, approval criteria, and standards set forth in
the ULUR.
6. The proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
RESOLUTION
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County, Colorado, that:
A. The forgoing Recitals are incorporated by this reference as part of the resolution.
B. The approvals and conditions contained in this Resolution supersede all prior zone
district designations and uses set forth in prior approvals, and supersedes in its entirety
Resolution No. 02-109.
C. The Preliminary Plan Amendment and PUD Amendment for Lake Springs Ranch PUD is
hereby approved subject to compliance with the following conditions:
Preliminary Plan
1. All representations of the Applicant made in the application and at the hearings before the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of
approval, unless approved otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners.
Fees
2. The Applicant shall include 50% of the road impact fee with each final plat. The remaining
50% shall be collected at the time of issuance of a building permit. The cost of any
improvements to County roads that are constructed by the Applicant and approved by the
County may be deducted from the road impact fee. All future Subdivision Improvement
Agreement(s) shall include any terms necessary to accomplish such deduction.
3
Eli " Pail CAVE i ri i 11 III
Reception#: 823748
09/0512012 03:38:48 PM Jean Plberico
4 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
3. The Applicant shall pay a Cash -In -Lieu Payment for Schools as calculated in Section 7-405
(D)(3) of the ULUR with each final plat.
4. Impact fees shall be paid to the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District prior to the
approval of the first final plat submitted for approval subsequent to this Resolution.
Permits
5. Prior to the approval of each final plat, the Applicant shall obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit and air pollution permits from CDP[IE. These permits
shall be submitted to Garfield County for review.
Agreements
6. Approval of the Preliminary Plan requires the Developer to complete the platting of all phases
within 15 years of this Resolution and the first final plat must be recorded within one year of
the final approval of the Preliminary Plan.
Plat Notes
7. The following plat notes shall be placed on each final plat:
a. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner in compliance with the
Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Weed Management Plan.
b. Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et. seq. Landowners,
residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of
Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a
County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. Those with an urban
sensitivity may perceive such activities, sights, sounds and smells only as inconvenience,
eyesore, noise and odor. However, State law and County policy provide that ranching,
farming or other agricultural activities and operations within Garfield County shall not be
considered to be nuisances so long as operated in conformance with the law and in a non -
negligent manner. Therefore, all must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud,
dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and
disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers,
soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur
as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations.
c. No open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the subdivision. One
(1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations
promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be
allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances.
d. All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and all exterior lighting shall
be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the lot. Provisions may be made
to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries.
8. The Applicant shall adhere to the recommendations specified in the Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotech's (HP Geotech) reports and attached as Exhibit C to this Resolution. Site specific
4
■i11 W :4 iM 1iri 11111
Reception#. 823748
09105/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
5 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
studies shall be conducted for individual lot development. The need for site specific studies
shall be disclosed in the covenants and on each final plat in the form of a plat note. Those
recommendations include the following:
a. Prospective building owners should be made aware of the potential low risk of evaporate
deformation. If the low risk is not acceptable to building owners, it can be reduced by the
use of heavily reinforced foundation system preferably without a basement.
b. It is recommended that buildings not be located within 50 feet of the fault trace identified in
Figure 1 of the HP Geotech report dated January I5, 2010 of which a Figure will be
attached as Exhibit D to this Resolution.
c. It is recommended that additional subsurface exploration be made in these areas to evaluate
the engineering characteristics of the lake deposit. These areas include Lots 6, 7, and 8 of
Block 2 and 200 feet of the western most portions of Spring Valley Road.
d. The recommended foundation system will depend on the site specific expansion potential.
Also, a structural floor system over a crawlspace may be warranted depending on the
expansion potential at a specific building site. A site specific foundation study by the
individual lot owners should be conducted for design level recommendations.
e. More extensive grading should be evaluated on a site specific basis. As previously
recommended, cut and fill should not exceed 10 feet deep and cut and fill slopes should be
2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. A certified professional engineer registered in the
State of Colorado should review the proposed grading plans when available and determine
if addition subsurface exploration and analysis are needed.
f. Occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking
with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region is
in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Site Class B.
Water
9. The Applicant shall verify water requirements for automatic fire sprinkler systems are adequate
at the time of each final plat.
10. At the first final plat submitted for approval subsequent to this Resolution, the Applicant shall
obtain a new well permit for Well D and submit this information to Garfield County Planning
staff for review.
11. At first final plat, the Applicant shall conduct a 24 hour pump test on Well D and have the
water tested for quality to ensure it meets the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment's standards. This information shall be submitted to Garfield County Planning
staff for review.
12. The Applicant shall plug and abandon the well (Permit No. 160677) when the existing
residence located at 3961 County Road 114 connects to the central water system of the
subdivision.
5
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
6 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
13. Prior to approval of the first final plat, the Applicant shall consider additional water loop
connections.
14. Prior to the approval of the first final plat submitted for approval subsequent to this Resolution,
the Applicant shall meet all applicable Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE)
regulations for a non -transient, non -community water system.
15. Prior to the approval of the final plat for Block 3, the Applicant shall submit to the State of
Colorado a Notice of Intent to impound water for the detention pond east and adjacent to
County Road 114 and receive approval from the State.
Well Monitoring
16. Lake Springs shall participate with Spring Valley and other land owners in the Spring Valley
area in a ground water monitoring program to monitor water levels in the Spring Valley
Aquifer, as described in the Memorandum dated December 6, 2000, authored by Anne Castle
and Chris Thorne of Holland & Hart attached as Exhibit E to this Resolution. The data
collected pursuant to the monitoring program shall be provided to and maintained by the Basalt
Water Conservancy District (the `Basalt District"). If and when the monitoring program, or
other reliable data and information, provide evidence of a long term trend that indicates an
inability of the Spring Valley Aquifer to satisfy expected demand associated with decreed water
rights owned by Lake Springs, Spring Valley, and the other parties participating in the
monitoring program, the Applicant shall cooperate with the Basalt District to identify and
implement necessary and appropriate corrective measures which may include: (a)
implementation of water conservation measures and/or (b) evaluation of the opportunities for
provision of a substitute water supply from a supplement source.
Waste Water
17. The Applicant shall comply with the following Spring Valley Sanitation District's (District)
conditions including:
a. Prior to any final plat approval, the Applicant shall provide the Spring Valley Sanitation
District a complete set of the sewer construction plans for review and approval.
b. The Applicant shall adhere to the Spring Valley Sanitation District's service conditions as
follows:
i. Obtain approval by the District of alI required Line Extension Agreements or Line
Connection Agreements as required by the District's Rules and Regulations and/or
the Pre -Inclusion and Wastewater Treatment Plan Treatment Agreement (PDA);
Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the PDA and the District's Rules and
Regulations; and,
iii. Reimburse the District for all costs incurred by the District regarding this project,
including, but not limited to legal and engineering review, as stated in the District's
Rules and Regulations and PDA.
6
1111 ON ICI KKhiht, IN 11 III
Reception#: 823748
09105/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
7 of 79 Rec Fee:$0,00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Access Permits
18. The Applicant shall make application to the Colorado Department of Transportation for an
access permit for improvements to the intersection of County Road 114 and State Highway 82.
Such application and approved permit shall be tendered with each final plat document, and the
intersection improvements shall be included as a public improvement in the subdivision
improvements agreement for that final plat. In the event that the County secures a permit with
CDOT and constructs improvements to the CR 114/SH 82 intersection prior to any homes
being constructed at Lake Springs Ranch PUD, the Applicant will be responsible for a portion
of those intersection improvements either equivalent to, or less than, the cost of the
improvements that would have been required pursuant to the CDOT permit. For the purpose of
determining the Applicant's fair share pursuant to the "equivalent to or less than" clause in the
previous sentence, the Applicant will provide for the County's review and approval, an
engineer's estimate for the cost of the improvements that would have been required, pursuant to
the CDOT permit issued to the Applicant. The engineer's estimate will be provided as part of
the final plat submission for the first final plat.
19. Prior to the approval of each final plat, the Applicant shall obtain Access Permit from the
Garfield County Road and Bridge Department for all applicable Secondary Access roads that
intersect County Roads 114 and 115.
Roads
20. Roadways: The current preliminary plan application for Lake Springs Ranch PUD proposes
five (5) separate accesses onto Garfield County Road 114, hereinafter "CR 114."
Notwithstanding any future Board of County Commissioners amendments to current approvals
which may be obtained for the currently proposed design of the roadway accesses for the Lake
Springs Ranch PUD from CR 114 and the present design of improvements to CR 114 through
the Lake Springs Ranch PUD, based on agreements and representations of the Applicant, the
Applicant shall adhere to the following criteria.
a. Grade of CR 114 at Intersections: At intersections with Lake Springs Ranch development
roads, the vertical alignment of CR 114 shall have grades no greater than 5% for a
minimum distance of 25 feet as measured from the centerline of the intersecting road.
b. Grade of Intersection Road at Intersections: At intersections with CR 114, all Lake Springs
Ranch development roads shall have grades no greater than 4% for a minimum distance of
62 feet as measured from the centerline of CR 114 and not to exceed 6% within 120 feet.
c. Angle of Intersections: intersections shall be designed as nearly to right angles as possible,
with no intersecting angles of less than 85 degrees. The centerline of intersecting roads
shall be designed with a tangent at the intersection with a minimum tangent length of 60
feet as measured from the centerline of CR 114 to the Point of Curvature (P.C.) on the
intersecting road.
d. Proximity of Adjacent Intersections: Where two Lake Springs Ranch development roads
intersect CR 114, the intersecting centerlines shall be directly aligned, or shall be separated
not Tess than 200 feet as measured between intersection centerlines. In the event that one or
both of the intersecting streets requires that CR 114 be provided with auxiliary lanes
(acceleration and/or deceleration lanes) as provided for herein, then the intersecting street
7
•III NAL IKA Pi 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 of�790Rec0Fee:$0.00MDocean Fee:0.00ico
1GPRFIELO COUNTY CO
centerlines shall be offset sufficient distances so that the minimum length of the auxiliary
lanes, as required for herein, are provided and do not overlap.
e. Requirement for Auxiliary Lanes: Intersections of all Lake Springs Ranch development
roads shall be provided with auxiliary lanes (left deceleration lanes, right turn deceleration
lanes, right turn acceleration lanes, and left turn acceleration lanes) applying criteria set
forth in Section 3.9 of the most current version of the Colorado State Highway Access
Code.
f. Design Criteria for Auxiliary Lanes: The design of all required auxiliary lanes shall be in
accordance with then applicable Garfield County specifications, as applicable, and Section
4 - Design Standards and Specifications of the most current version of the Colorado State
Highway Access Code.
g.
Intersection Sight Distance: At intersections of Lake Springs Ranch development roads
and CR 114, clear zones shall be designed and maintained to provide sight distance for the
vehicle on the intersecting road (stop or yield) to observe a moving vehicle on CR 114.
The clear zone shall be maintained free of all vegetation and objects taller than 24 inches
except for traffic signs. The sight distance shall be measured from a point on the
interesting road (stop or yield) which is 10 feet from the edge of pavement on CR 114. The
minimum intersection sight distance for intersections with CR 114 based on a 35 MPH
design speed shall be 350 feet.
h. Access Points: Direct accesses onto CR 114 by individual lots shall be prohibited. No
individual lot shall access a Lake Springs Ranch development road within a distance of 100
feet from an intersection with CR 114, as measured from the nearest edge of pavement of
CR 114.
J•
Utilities and Street Construction: Street and road construction shall not proceed beyond
subgrade preparation until all utilities which are intended to be placed under any part of the
street or road are complete, including all service lines, and all utility trenches are backfilled
and compacted in accordance with the street or road construction specifications as provided
by a certified professional geotechnical engineer registered in the State of Colorado.
Other Design Criteria: Except as modified above, CR 114 shall be subject to the following
design parameters:
Garfield County Road 114 Design Criteria
_ Design Capacity (Vehicles Per Day)
2500+
Minimum Right of Way Width
Type of Surface for Driving Lanes and
Shoulders
80 -feet
Asphalt
Pavement Design and Subgrade
Stabilization
Prepared by Registered Geotechnical Engineer
Based On-site Specific Soil Analysis and
Anticipated Traffic Volume for 20 -Year Design
Life
Minimum Driving Lane Width
12 -feet
8
1111 VI Nrii%ULM IN &KIN ii 111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
9 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Minimum Shoulder Width
6 -feet
Ditch Width and Storm Drainage
Culvert
Designed by Professional Engineer to Provide
Minimum Hydraulic Capacity to Convey Peak
Flow From 100 -year Storm Event
Cross Slope
Shoulder Slope
2% to 8% Based on Superelevation Design of
Roadway by Professional Engineer
Min. Design Speed (Miles Per Hour)
Identical to Cross Slope
35 MPH
Minimum Centerline Radius (Feet)
Rate of Superelevation:
Varies with Superelevation
2% Crown Section
610 -feet
2%
470 -feet
4%
420 -feet
6%
380 -feet
8%
3 50 -feet
Minimum Percentage of Runout on
Tangent
80%
Minimum Runout Length (Feet)
Change in Rate of Superelevation:
Varies with Change in Rate of Superelevation
4°/O
84 -feet
6%
126 -feet
8%
168 -feet
10%
210 -feet
12%
252 -feet
14%
294 -feet
16%
336 -feet
Maximum Centerline Grade
10%
Minimum Centerline Grade
K -Value for Crest Vertical Curve
40 minimum
K -Value for Sag Vertical Curve
50 minimum
21. A portion of CR 114 is to be re -aligned which is subject to the Garfield County Procedures for
Vacating Public Roads and Rights -of -Way. The Applicant shall receive approval of this road
vacation prior to recording of the applicable final plat.
22. Prior to first final plat approval, the Applicant shall conduct a geotechnical investigation of CR
114 from mile marker 3.1 to 100 feet east of the intersection of CR 115 and High Alpine Drive.
Based on this analysis, provide a pavement section design to the Garfield County Planning
Department for review.
Affordable Housing
23. If Tract A is to be subdivided into further separate interests, the Applicant shall tender an
9
1111! 'JJJWJhI lin IIIrfl rvalifI I Vii lllui 11111
Recept i on*E : 823748
09/05/2012 03:39:48 PM Jean Rlberico
10 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
application for the subdivision of the lot.
24. Affordable Housing: The location (on-site, off-site, or a combination of on-site or off-site) of
the affordable housing, and an Affordable Housing Agreement reflecting these determinations
shall be finalized prior to scheduling the first final plat application submitted subsequent to this
Resolution for signature by the Board of County Commissioners.
Revisions to the Preliminary Plan
25. The following changes below and redlines sent to the Applicant on 4/4/12 shall be made to the
Preliminary Plan sheets prior to the signing of the Resolution. These changes include:
a. Add a cul-de-sac that meets ULUR standards to the end of Spring Valley and RivendelI
Roads. This revision shall be documented on sheet PLAN -04 of the Preliminary Pian;
b. Add the trail to sheets PLAN -01 — PLAN -07;
c. Add an Affordable Housing label to Tract A on sheet PLAN -06; and,
d. Identify any access easements to adjacent property owners.
Revisions to the Construction Drawings
26. The following changes shall be made the Construction drawings prior to approval of Final Plat
including:
a. Modify the Typical Special County Road 114 Road Section on Sheet DET -3 to reflect an 80
foot right-of-way;
b. Add the trail to the Secondary Access road cross section;
c. Add trail detail to plan set;
d. Add to the legend on sheet PHASE the phasing sequence for the subdivision.
e. Add notes to sheet CS2 reflecting that erosion control measures that shall be placed at
culverts and along ditches. Add additional permanent erosion control blankets (SC250 or
equivalent) to slopes along roadside ditches and ditches conveying water between lots or
through open space parcels. These areas where the blankets are required shall be noted on the
grading plans. Blankets will be placed where the major storm velocities exceed 5
feet/second.
f. Revise the water line profiles in the plan and profile sheets to avoid low points.
g. Provide a detail of a typical roadside ditch/driveway crossing on the detail sheet.
h. Fire hydrant locations are shown in the roadside ditches or in steep slopes. The locations
shall be modified or details for construction in these difficult locations developed.
i. Manhole HARDSSMH-10 is nearly 20 -feet deep. This design shall be reviewed for
10
■III I '� �+�Il�Y"J iV I I��CN�{I '�h��l� 1 II I
Recept i on# : 823748
09/05/2012
11 of 79 Rec Fee:$0,00 a
Doc Fee:Jean 0.00cGARFIELD COUNTY CO
constructability and redesigned. Add notes to the plan to make potential homeowners aware
of shallow sewer line mains.
Many of the proposed lots are below the roads and the sewer lines connections are going to
be too low for gravity flow of lower levels. Evaluate the situations where the potential exists
for issues with basement gravity sewer and add plat notes and noticing in the closing
documents to clarify design limitations related to sewer line depth for potential purchasers of
affected lots.
k. Remove the high points in the water line proposed for Lakeside Lane and Rivendell Road.
1. Add the water line in the profile for Rivendell Road.
m. Replace text on sheet MU -1 that references the "City with "sanitation district."
n. Between Block 4, Lot 23 and 24 there is an 18 foot deep ditch and sewer line beneath the
ditch. This is not practical for a sewer line and needs to be redesigned.
o. Provide design information for the sewer line extension that is shown from the end of
Lakeside Lane.
p. Provide design information for the sewer services for BIock 3, Lots 17 and 18.
q. No gas is shown in the utility trench detail but only one trench is shown on the plans. Include
the proposed design for providing natural gas services.
Vegetation
27. The improvements included with each final plat will include a revegetation provision for the
disturbed areas associated with the improvements for the subdivision, along with security to
guarantee that the revegetation has been successful.
28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit from the Garfield County Building Department on
single family lots and the multi -family tract, an inventory of the existing vegetation and
Harrington's penstemon shall be done by the lot owner and receive a statement of approval
from the Development Review Committee prior to building.
Historic Preservation
29. Prior to the approval of the final plat for BIock 3, the Applicant shall conduct further
evaluations of the sites that potentially contain the prehistoric "open camp hearth." This
information shall be provided to the Garfield County Planning staff for review.
30. Prior to the approval of the final plat for Block 2, the Applicant shall further investigation the
historic value of the structures on Lot 3. This information shall be provided to the Garfield
County Planning staff for review.
Revisions to the Draft Amended Declaration of Covenants
3I. Prior to the signing of the Resolution, the Applicant shall amend the Draft Amended
Declaration of Covenants. These amendments include:
11
1111 Ki leirir liti AVIVIiMICIW1tIetCkii 11 111
Reception#: 823748
09105,2012 03:38:4B PM Jean Rlberico
12 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
a. Prior to approval of the Amended Preliminary Plan, the Draft Amended Declaration of
Covenants shall be further revised to reference, where appropriate, the existence and
maintenance of the gravel pedestrian trail as a Common EIement maintained by the
Homeowner's Association.
b. Create a section in this document that identifies the lots that might require pressure
reducing values and/or booster pumps to increase or decrease interior water pressure.
GIS
32. Once each final plat is approved, the Applicant shall provide the Garfield County Planning
Department a digital copy of the final plat to a standard acceptable to the Garfield County
Information Technology Department.
PUD Amendment
1. Prior to the signing of the Resolution, the Applicant shall modify the Draft PUD Development
Guide including but not limited to the following:
a. Add design criteria for parks/open space, trails, road right-of-ways, and all other land held
in common to Section VI. Construction and Alteration of Improvements.
Dated this day of t a --m. , A.D. 20. 11— .
ATTEST:
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSII ► RS, GARFIELD
COUNTY, DO.
of the Board
12
1111 womiVihMitI ilerIACWIffael Nfil 11111
Reception#: 823748
09105/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
13 of 79 Rec Fee:$9.00 Doc Feer0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the
following vote:
COMMISSIONER CHAIR JOHN F. MARTIN
COMMISSIONER MIKE SAMSON
COMMISSIONER TOM JANKOVSKY
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield )
Aye
, Aye
, Aye
I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the
annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the
Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said
County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of A.D. 20
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
13
LEIBI-Z2600E1-1
W.
RUA
isswaxn
l7
HMI ON
WOO'41N30H'1N.y.M
SCC10910 L6}.rd-8Ld0000 I INnHH
10810 00'S�JHIN aponLIol3
'103 d.o'311N3AY 9.10L lsl
ONI `9N11133NIDN3 AW.NROO H01H
60
F
0 g7R ' d1 e
E�A q 39 '14 E z i H
�R `� m 9QP" e 6Ni i &$
_� a �W€g Gm is
0 4 eas aha g e e;
a a= 3
3 s:
_ � as u �a e�` € `a
A a `r RP 4, g` R V
-��"��� =a Fg ya ti a 4S
�5 i t l„ 1tY �� 0
$d s3 e s i
6$ 33 9
0a €au flag €ah 09 E:°
a.�
. 6d_ 1
00 0 7 6,
"s®a o
z
U
S
2
a3 mg
Ead r
glar
EXI mai nEi
Baa$ R�ga�g
rand Atrominaad
-0'n'd HJNtlq 89Nmds 3W,
OOr3O1O3'AINnO� q -p Iddro
d1HS03NJOVS L13JIWr1 A1JNV313130000
E
mew a'B 2
Rigg N
is 2
IS .21
9N -i
pas3
0
E r,a=5
SHEET INDEX
w
W
0)
z.
52 00PR @e
.-NP)OIO(Ofs
LLUUW
wwwwwww
OZ)w Uw1N0=)0)0=)
333LEIL5
aaaaaaaaz
MCEaa�daaaa a
zzzzzzz_J0
JJWw0=
JJ
w <
Lori aaa0a
000000000000
zzzzzzzzz
nn55n1
aaaaaaaao_
.,�.1Eo¢¢o�44 34 e2e 139 19999v39999e1 tGGfdseppuYQwwiwwW`a
aaa
�a�n�aa� aae,a �e��Ea5 3 3 3�aaaaaa�����e.e� 00000gamlmmi3lgYaaYuaaY rumSuinS
riijL GTa°;i€€1W�5511 Y ugh ii
9omnu0mmmgmg g g soaa5 asaaad saa
E9nausaame 99998EEEEEEEE89E8999F999fi69 9E R0E009998EE85501 WBEEE99899E9EEREEE98999999E6EEEEE 6EE9999999EEEEReee
aEsomREAlip m$Ri mao@m mgprogyHEHE o m w=s"3"04.mme.1as
ss`oss�99999s 0 000 oo02.E40 asao2NETRs s9gg9oavo�s 'z=_c»xs _ .00,. - 22RragAng'ANAMpAPARW4 _400 e _
99 JJ'O 9� 9��e6^H^g99��99?ss�9�9a�9??`ss ��g^e`g`g`g�g�g6� 4� 99""915399999
rvrZxddA d.'..',.T, .A.IAA.IA �AAAAaAAJ�A,i XhJ..1AA.tXX 3J1111YYSSSSSY1YYYJJ 'AA.1.SJ,:,AJ,AJ,d:d.,A AAAJ, J, J, J,Ar.A Ad.I:,A AA AJ, Ab4mm„„„„eS ;,Sndmm,;AA
nu°ea LiS 55/1 scams a3so3sH !!!!! 9 225.25 1 ifnl4 MLU HME # � $88! EE $ AA
�������mmmffi%mm� �s�����s������m���������a�� ��55smm�s�l�������dd� �� m ����m m ���mmmsmmm�m��mmo �ffimmmmwmmm���mmmmm
4
aL9`k;
o
3510
xaaag
M
00
EjiE )-
lEmM 1-
z
0
0
0
.— H
2 O
K
_4
0.0
L 0
e
SF CW
WO
nO
■a 030 0
�
Ma�
03(7' k
`1
V0)
0)pOCN
"4 0 0)
-I 4Je.l
Doo
GB61.756O09-1 ao
.49
411,11.1.
151O3'9N37H'MMM
9592999 IOL611Nd-a[88998IOL10 aNOHd
IGaIe O.5'99N1111d$000MN310
'101 a4s'3nN3Avrlrta L1a 1
ONI 'JNRl33N19N3 A21,,N11O3 H91H
Nvld.t?IVN11Ml3ad
'Q'rrd M Nv2! S9NRId3 3]Iv-I
GO maD'uNf07.912Jev9
dIIS419N19yd43LWIlk1I64Vd n37 *J U
av'
si p,arc�m
a a
ra g�
Y?Q9
lEg
-3g
7r g$
eya
53
0.45
0.1,1
a�3ae
2-1465..�o.
-1
wl
g?a
g
Mal E9.1.7116
-.441112.60V OP.41
4114 wvao"n�
T
111.114 la I
i1
09%
•-'RA`.F-9W=_3,`-5ae.A
2-.3.852.2.15.038
"'
113Wy'k
c'`
-nen
^9K
10-M;
1E
E Tin
ate-
T.
h.ww...ng5gEgwcc"egg33.3533.8CWCCx
5333,
N
ff
15
i
fi
d
2
o
-- 0
›-
ME
.- F
0
0
M 0
0
▪ tir▪ ,
ce
o�
L0
SLI
Q ill
W (U
N
Li -
212 0
'-'3 O
gli 0
co
ante
Maur
_ N CO ti;
• 03 .L
0U
0NK
♦+.N,
U00
-00N
o
a GEIs2ZZ6aoSl en
Nvraa HOO'DNa'JN'IIRMNI
z lsl Innaare ooem xra •aeremee0DH.na Ha
Arm mine
`8'JNRIdB¢nELLIslIO
' lox vs'anNanr�Ivlaus
,NI `ON1HJJNION3 A2l1NflOO H�JIH
NYId AlIYN[W k.13Hd
'°'n•d HONVEI SSNI ds TNYI
dot/HO-100 ',..1.f1001=1AHVO
HIHSafNLU Vd oa.uwn).7I VNd 22Ndae
z
aE
co
Lu
tr1331-1SO1HOIVW
.CL'9Ce M.01,9 105
-• 6910--
L
I!
FI (
~= y sero --------J
� f
it �_ z< - �� _ __- j
\ I
ry�� 1___
1:11/
1� s� � I Nor��1 xi
—�-- _ anla liONvil Nas M+vi\ \
1' I
534
Ni3
and
8,
N
L;,
8
EAM'22222222L,N
..21P
2.2gC,11,222
:Y2.122
sz1.0'snaoAoa'so'9
1
gmi=�
88888888
p..,.,,w2n-
^Rryn2..
m.-a'.3$Mmbr
m Rm
a:
2
o$$SS$$e$$aeno
.2g$82822$2.....--
- - x
Ai
ma$
°*0',0228 �a"s8
N E
O
0
2-
F-
C)
-
zU
0
J
��
CE
CE
U°
- ...0
L0
• 1,0
cc w
CW
ro
'3 o
o0 0_
W„,- ""
it0m
ni
—1+~N_n
0o
u
@O
-Cep—
6660
L0B zzsco -t
Ho°uva°H amthnu rn
Mudd
Z 191�p m
.\a
9.I.Yp 'ON
N079N37H' AINI,
CNTC®.04AIXrd-51LflW0 OL413NOHd
105110 O]' 09N310000NH9-19
'101318'311143 V9]1, 19L141
ONO
3N1 `9NR13NN19NH AU:LLNROD H01H
133HS 01 H01VW
11.1,01P14.2
NV']d Ai3VNIN1`I�t1d
'4'fl'd HONVH SONRj LS 30110'1
O aykro 1o0'AI.Nf10] o-0laava
dIHSl13NSHtld V31.IWIlr114NVA_I-In1t33H
d
a 3
>
g
0r
_
p`0
plPe-
-red
g$1
.09
\/
5,
�yyOO \
MWIr ..IMq ElEIN=1
E 133HS 01 H01VW
0
0
0
nN
8
&9m
01
01
01
w}
77
R
0
R
2.
01
a
01
m
55,
01b
a
01
3
R
fi
01
8E
01
A
8
01
nI�
RR
A
ti
7
Fr
ry
01
01
•s
EN
FE
U
ar_g
F
9
0001
Migig
04
a.
MI
o
m 1—
o
0
- hi
• Et
w00
0
2
g CIL
ill
0
IM Ce 6D,—
--'-'3Frae.Mr ItZ°.
1:13.*1813MAILI e3g.epp- 91,21J0
L.063ZZ6O0E•I
• 'aM. p.,21 MW,
loadd
...91190
Who
NOIRDUU
22;20a oN
140.0'.0003HWJAAR
41200.100010.032,01•23,001220 (01.002110Nd
10010 OD 9ON111022.2100.201.17140
101 Ws 2021•015V 92112-101L1
3N1 tIN1e1.43NION3 ANINI100 H1H
59
t.;
;;
38
te8,"
52.1
.?;
92
8
00
•3
•
08
SR
58
8-3
09
05
•
.383
38
a
5
33
5.
• •
PP
98
30
28
55
•
83
A
•
•
•
'g•
t
8
3
6
iE
44!
80
.a.24
83
• •
2.0
53
0 0
•
Ng
!!
98
P
55
83
28383
2 •
•
.1;
38
22°
•
3
1,9
•
29
3
55
a
38
80
ga
55
9289
Pr
•
83
23
t;
23
2, 2
5
3-3
38
23
80
55
5 5
N•
;2
• '0
5
'
F
•
E.
728
•
s•
20
•
•
P
•L2
t:
83
8
•
58
88
38.
00
3,038
82
83
00
8
80
58
28
28
50
El 5
E.
22
3
88
55'
o
•FE
83
33
33
80
NNE
98
iF5
33
33
93
02835
35
0388
8853592538829888380
3g ga'421gR42g8Igaarg.agg,152432;g.,4;23
05835058.885
21„2-.24e2-2..
24..2.-2,,Lat2.:.e.-w.,,•2-,t2,2-...•....!
5gflNgW4!ag,,.•;g23-W2APR2AgW2a0
":42,6.aaNg07,9F:4242;1;a2
N5
'12'122m2.22E-g2-1:m1FUEiaho5'928REil
'1,31-o2E,2,];'EEESIEMEEF.....=5AM4P.
58
30
33 ElE7',
85
2
8
32
5
50
9292
NVIdAIT1AW11321d
THYd1-10NVEISONWaSaMVI
oagucroo'kucouolaway.g.
d 1-28801•18Vd 02.11221-222.111•00.31082,138
820.526-0420,50--'
4 0'
(
g! / ;„ 4
A
, g,
L
,..
99 39
. ,,,
i 1 L.-__.
'r /7/-it;i
'24
vs - •20••
I.
, ta,
/ 212 a
•
-----1=7."714."''' _ =cw..______,__Ag• _.:_s_______:. - _ • -!-:--"Clir...5-..--.77.-:".-7r7.....1: 7, --:"--;-?1 r." .,,,,,,,D, lEd '-:'
r 4,,:,1' :I 1- '..1.
1_ Li,,,, -,,, 3j
,._ 'i
/
Ii
55
1 , -
0.
a1 95 - -- -. - . ',... .5.,,2111-1W
.11.20.111 OT
93
/548 44
2. 7.—
7
14:8411!1:11-k
'11-- .
/.LIE,F., 0
..,..,, 4-.42:
449439244,, 28
e3 . ,o.o...-,_L.-.>
-.,
l'/‹.•%'20'-':',:-:•::.‹. '4- 47", i'
4; '-.4;
.‘
• --- ---
-;-.;-...../_.., I
1. -7--
'[..---„.___I
i:\ - -/kii:f
, ,95
Ct•
-
383.
_ -
6 \I
E.; 1
g
g'22 I min
•-•
-'88188 n• •••.S.In
Pa a
gnsnitilmia mg
15
1,13HS 01 HaLVIAI
335
0920
4w4
553
•
LSB I-ZZ000geo
1
NVIdd
L151gp w
NOISLl3N
ON
021.1
W99'0Nai01.170MM
Cs0rays[oz4.M.DLSOcfl(OLS 0Nosw
1019 Q0' CDHlsdsoo0DMNrlp
' I d 19as'acN3AY 3](n0L 131
3N149NR133N19N3 iau,NfOD H91H
NYId AdYNI Wfi311d
'a'll'd HONYB S9N18dS H)W 1
OOv![P�P3'ALAno] Cl31dhV9
d1liSil3N12Nd a3LWIl A7IWvd,{3 1300313
- 0
_
0_
0
0
O
N 0
0
▪ lil
O
a
OC7
0
▪ 0
-40
LB
A9
OI
41
CL_
m
N U
O
a;MCOd9
lMaOCA
timet_
iso
m
o��
—.10 a)
0
0
000 0
MIX
001
i1
ohWr8°2
==-
�Y"-P8Vm-:i1.4a-
,PV,”
Sys
�
:TP---4r07e27'nm;
rlW"marrVM—^
'n:._o
t
no?°U,-,1,1.4P.
:n"z'�.nRP.
�Ag
l
_ 4
4-4..enR
r?O:S:
7
m42,,^
rb'm.2PkPP.:!.pPpom'.am,'r
02;7-P.wF.2m..e.
m5
nQ�PM227,
mQ,t
-¢
A
F1m-
=xtl'3-`_
n
nnm
.V g
u
d$
$•n
r8„
...vnm.2
N
IW.
rg
,t,
-_,tl-
1,-
__n
a$$o
1-
B,F.",
b$b1222t
YUm$2
388H.3°°088$
".M5
$
$2
M33.•.SFAHFmeme
$8$$$
g8
$
$$
$8g
om
oa8
oP m
1.ggE
E
u3$mGffm_
ft'Nu
aWEHmG^
-pTMEu1uH3Na
wPI-
�
; SP
- 'aa°va b'
-Rewv
-
m
,7732,2rmSmm07n,395@n
n n
- 0
_
0_
0
0
O
N 0
0
▪ lil
O
a
OC7
0
▪ 0
-40
LB
A9
OI
41
CL_
m
N U
O
a;MCOd9
lMaOCA
timet_
iso
m
o��
—.10 a)
0
0
000 0
MIX
001
ea 3�
m. L96I-ZZ6Oog{—
31Va ON
I of•..�I
G.
WOO'ON33H'MMM
S44Z9v6wL81YYd-9L9B4vs(oz 3WOHd
Lama
a3 t 0
NIOS000MNMS.
' 101314311N34Y3l1rie L1c1
'3N1'9NR133N19N3 A21J,NI1O3 H91H
9.L3aHS OL HOIVIN
W
5
1•
mne•.e
NKidAHyNIWNf73ild
'and HONV SSN18dS 3WI
OOYi10101'xlNf100 4"13192Y'S
d IHS>l3N1.2Vd a311N11 A1IWYd A373}[2139
243 argg''
r1` r1
; rc a a-42 II`
a i°
Ir
J
•
65,
a5
91 L4fI x,££.£1.90N
a-
■
ti
•
/
1'
•
•
•
•
• ■
X•169 0,2S
03,
a4e
_2Ett.
�
S$_-�3S
„3=
AR
og"
1,
P,s.
S"
2',V,7
a^
-
R5.,.1211.2,1,,,-..r5,';55
o°:+,a
WI°.Sa"
E.
,.M$4
i m
$44t,,,sti
PPE
s
�atz88
p":s$^§'.
kl
Uizz
r r..
z. ,ZfLan
zazs4IgUg
.$bv
z ..
>:n
n9'gsggi'''EnF3?.ddnngnn2OP
-^
e.a.9-
- -
rMrT.4
R3..,g=
t„Iti2aE!
`Rvo.o.,
,'"
_a^e
a^N
•Wn.
W;,.,_
S4PS0P.
4R
aYtRF
�A;iR".-
;1 '.m,e-
N!
:Ra'
,,R1,
n"u`,."
5F,:
.,
-
.5.........,....,xzxh«H.„„•...„
:zz
ii
zzx s:
.awn.,
s.,...•..
v..z x::"i
r,
. .....
u...z
..
ebe__
.$,.,%.
.$
.,S
5r
d$995;.
,101,$x
-"31%N
^-
a-gw$r
Re
^
..:
m
,i, 2
�3
n
a 8
&
g
9
2"
g�w,
-Rn.R
R gk
•F,
-
$,I
s..%3
9
_V a
:
4
d
mSi18r-
N %OV'em
"mm_n
e
u
,nW;TW21-1,,
e:
*bk
5W;Sh
'a.
ah
d!.1d
;_sa'.
T: 1
:.s:.
111.1.7:8;
4
;',7,
313.7ndot
Fe i4n
Ptifq?,°P
YY$
oo
Ed
8a
nY, ;:.'
aan.RM1�a=$'
..319$
$s
S
.
aBR
t2W.”=m8"aa
2R•
SS:
452
S$
-°o$.888
.SoB.BS$88S2823$$go8$o8$e
S$o$nt!n
ns
e$o-�
vE%E'a$g`$a8
'Hd:LBAr..,..
...,.,SflIEL5.na
.'
W,2@rr3ee
R05
^..n..V
,1.72
. _.,,,...,
.,m,de°°A`„
ge6
H
PM
cc Gc
ma
RAV
%q_R nUV
-RA9M.T.IS
ogeas
aagGEAPin.
1
1$$
$vo£$�$kM$$„I�.1g8
o
�
„3=
AR
$Sde
K.."§1...��$81;9^=mw�Baaw.,�....,-..'02,-
a:E
ma„Px
2',V,7
oea4%$�ao
Win.',
o°:+,a
WI°.Sa"
a ,=“.M1
:%4i'l
,.M$4
i m
$44t,,,sti
PPE
s
�atz88
p":s$^§'.
kl
Uizz
r r..
z. ,ZfLan
zazs4IgUg
:VI,
z ..
>:n
n9'gsggi'''EnF3?.ddnngnn2OP
aasr
=„x=4=
t„Iti2aE!
N
o
_. 0
iE
r
• m
0
0
0
• 0
u1
w
•
,Y IL
a
1
f07
—II1-_'1(3
• .0m
W E LL
(0
m O
0 O
O
Mc1a61
• M ,.t. .6!!
Nm m
�03m1
DGI
No=
ecri
000 000
MIXori�l
T im
� N4YJ=°^�T,LBI-�Z6'W
" ^1
-
100VDNVJWAPJ1M
999raoa 03.1 nd-Dp99vWLi3NOiXd
105,{9 OD
101 gAY9%Y'9 CI91
SNI 'VN]1:I33NISN$AI1N11Oa ROM
A '
- 3a- -
cIVINTIV133A0
NYId AaVNIrlr3321d
'wad HUNV2[59NladS 3]IV1
OObtl O103'.V.Nf03413L�F{VD
O16.11-AZIWVA/3Ntl39
.g
'
C-3'.dIHSM3N2Md
a O
N
aTSIdanOMndd°E2Eff�
Flslea
Nae
1.4o15lM19t
fIvo
ON
•
--w
1 1 V
d
.746
SEE
F. QEF --I —
ei
IIII-
0
0
�
_
Om. 3-
0
• 0 0
0
J
m !1J
LL
Ir
Q
• U0
L0
{ Jae
Q N
01
C!_
g
OiClUh O CO
___•,,,,
o01- LL
%- 00
.•[061
♦ NI,
.8-.L.-,--
„„0 0
•
NIso-Nrf Yl
'061- a0 -0
00o-,
ci
0
za
JZ
zN
ELry
a. Et
0.
(1)
lsis0
AN NOISIPON
311,1 ON
MO
111O0'0N33H'MMM
aligrionY 10LS1 r'A-A.0E9010LA1]NOMd
10810 on 'SONlade 000MNrIO
• 4 0 I MAC 3N0fl909 -lOLlel
9NI `9NR133N19N3 A2l1Nf100 H9IH
NYId 'JNI8VHd
NYId AHYNINR1311d
'fl'd HONY2189NleldS 3Wl
oc-v od aauI,lnoo.ol3aT9
dIliSN3N IANd aal W A
-1 AIIWVd n-laxae
Jl
FF °�'�9��. POPo0Oc1c=cV
o000c°c
°° 0°0 0`c o- 1
?S ^6 O Cj°Ly
SCO VOO "G
° oC G G GVG• O Op}�pPOpu^G
00gyp!
o..Gv--�,GP ., oG con�cc
0
"0000,000007.0,-,..000.00000.0,000,o
1c.° °onooo",.
o=oocc i. Jno.0 0 n cy0
P P 0
I,°0„°°°°GGGa
P�
f °_�00. 0001c
000000
1 0°00 000 0 Y�
IuPCPc�O0-J0OCGc='Cc
'V °oOO pC0o0
1o°o0o 000G
01:0100 -300,009
o IqCO00oo°c.o
VoGG ^na,con 0O� °°0' bco�co°'occ clOC 20'2,70'4'0
� 0000000,0,,,0000 ocq .�.oPCa Va,-o0,00`0oL
o oo P 0000 uc•
0 PC -
oo000IJ 00°OC
jpp,�uu /.pppp„o Vococ �.-00 000^^1c^_ c .',00000
2W0J°CPOOCG0W- 1 :,C001)000,
➢, ' 0Nc nn FPC ogno Yo° °
OOG00
cYr(YAt�▪ V° r o G O°- 000
_ o r CO
'
ac
r�
0 �,0 0
FF _f�(!I1P°"PYiC Ijpp
._JIPC
°Gp
•
O° °0 °C . C Ib°0
°U_O.°cVVVn0°C °
000Po 01 . °C° L a
0-C:100GCVLC
Q000-00.00,10000,7.000▪ 0,300-, CO
�oc000000fo1�1-oo' 1nG1 - o G.p�c0 0010°`'
r%. h.'p� y,u'
v,a°- °P1go...a.5-.17.00W0''''''''''
° -r..Au uPcsoPP cmaooaa 0occ'° -''a °co°�oc000
e•.°O..,0000.-,
-PoG °0OC
o oGa-_y 0c0G1=o
o'P5roc0010`aPoPp°pp
o000'0^,c.0'o1_o°oa-0oo0,P°0G"0`0rCC0c:GC
PP°00orooc�r
PoC000„..0-• r
x0 :Zb•rolY
^
°
° ,V,° 1
mo' a te" P il ° ,.
^°u `gyp ; n• I o c °o c
:qac _A° �'Zr°P 1'oeol
Ll
Pl ° yryry,yy.� J. pc A, UCI ;G \V ..: llC+.t.p
oo �L OVe�'..L.,..-A.1.-Th''--1°.,,,, , OI ▪ �C J,MOaa
"�.I+"�rL^ �.r ,,,i.;7,1
(W7
J
0
1
z
ff
0.
01,4
it
ado
MI -
MI -a 0
H
0
m
0
0
0
Lli
-m.
Or
rE
rE
U�
- 0
L0
13 .D 0
Q N
10
�
a
Mo
�c0o o
21171.
.GNOc co
LL
VonIsi s
u ..i 061
♦r (1N
000
-1'@N
'IDZone MaZ
i*
8
5
E
e
2
2
0
O
4
Pi
O
m
- , U
r
k 0
2
0
M u
Q
L.
..
EC
D
LI
0 .
• 00
Q I111
ll
g ra
NU
,, O
0
coag
==M;',' CO
M v«»
�03V) m
NmIt0
.u_
0
Om
Na
-.4" NN
0.0
-k0N
1
g ` Bigla
1 7 'NM
Z E g
I ' g4-
j 821,
N
d.
.l
g
F
LI a
:
3
g
i*
8
5
E
e
2
2
0
O
4
Pi
O
m
- , U
r
k 0
2
0
M u
Q
L.
..
EC
D
LI
0 .
• 00
Q I111
ll
g ra
NU
,, O
0
coag
==M;',' CO
M v«»
�03V) m
NmIt0
.u_
0
Om
Na
-.4" NN
0.0
-k0N
111111 J1' G IRI% 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
24 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
IBI
Exhibit aoa 11997 HP Geotech Report
Lake Springs Ranch
Subdivision Preliminary Plan & PUD Amendment
June 2011
•I rillihieZIPANIPANdlifiliMICIVIIIII 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:39:48 PM Jean falberico
25 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970945-$454
Phone 970 $95-7988
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED LAKE SPRINGS RANCH P.U.D.
COUNTY ROADS 114 AND 119, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 197 348
AUGUST 29 ,1997
PREPARED FOR:
MBE AND MACY BERKELY
CIO LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP
ATTN: RON LISTON
918 COOPER AVENUE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
■III ' lipeciErom14 Iom ificwwpokroi • 111
Reception#: 823748
49/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
26 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
August 29, 1997
Mike and Mani Berkeley
c/o Land Design Partnership
Attn: Ron Liston
918 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Job No. 197 348
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Lake Springs
P. U.D., County Roads 114 and 119, Garfield County, Colorado.
• Dear: Mr. and Mrs Berkeley:
As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical study for the proposed residential
development.
It should be possible to develop the project as proposed without encounteringsevere
constraints or hazards associated with theeolo
g gy.•Evagorite related ground
deformations at very slow rates may still be occurring in the project area. Because of this
building sites should not be located across faults in the eastern part of the property. Also
the risk of building damage can be reduced by special foundation designs. Dense hard
basalt may be at relatively shallow depths in many areas and difficult excavation
conditions should be expected.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled throughout the
proposed development area are variable and generally consist of sandy clay and gravel
to boulder size basalt fragments in a sandy clay matrix. Groundwater was not
encountered in the borings and the soils are typically slightly moist. The clays are
typically medium to high plasticity and expansive when wetted.
Spread footings placed on the natural clay or basaltent subsoils and designed for
an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf to 4,000 psf appear suitable for buliding
support in most of the development area. Expansive clay soda, mainly found west of
County Road 114 could require special designs to limit the risk of foundation and floor
slab heave. Concentrated load on spread footings, structural mats, deep foundations
suck as drilled piers and crawlspace below floors are possible methods to mitigate
expansion potential.
The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and
presents our recommendations suitable for planning and preliminary desi . It is
important that we provide consultation durmg design, and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical
recommendations. Due to the expansive clays encountered at the site, subsoil studies
for each building area are recommended.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
StevenyyL. Pawlalc P.E.
Rev. BSLP/RGMGk v
1111 I i :11l4KJ'di1E'' liNgINC1+ 111i 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2042 03:38:48 PM Jean Aiberico
27 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1
SITE CONDITIONS 2
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING 2
PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY 4
LAKE DEPOSITS
ALLUVIAL FANS AND STREAM VALLEY ALLUVIUM 4
COLLUVIUM , 4
BASALT FLOWS AND COLLAPSE DEBRIS 5
FAULTS 5
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6
GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT 7
CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY 7
REGIONAL EVAPORITE DEFORMATION 7
EARTHQUAKES 8
EXCAVATION DIFFICULTIES 8
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 8
FOUNDATIONS 8
FLOOR SLABS 9
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 10
SITE GRADING 10
SURFACE DRAINAGE 11
PAVEMENT SUBGRADE 11
LIMITATIONS 11
FIGURE 1 - GEOLOGY MAP
FIGURES 2 & 3 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FIGURE 4 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 5 -7 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 8 - GRADATION ANALYSES TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 9 - HVEEM STABILOMETER TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1111 lih1 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberioo
28 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical engineering study
for the proposed development at Lake Springs Ranch, County Roads 114 and 119,
Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the
study was to evaluate the geologic and subsurface cenditions and their potential impact
on the project. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for
geotechnical engineering services to Mike and Maci Berkeley, dated May 23, 1997.
A field exploration program consisting of a geologic reconnaissance and
exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the site and subsurface
conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory
to determine classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering
characteristics of the on-site soils. The results of the field exploration and laboratory
testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for project planning and preiiminsty
design. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our
conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed development.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Lake Springs Ranch PUD will be a residential development consisting of 96
single family lots, a neighborhood commercial district, and open space, see Fig. 1. The
single family lots will be one acre or larger. A network of streets will be constructed to
provide access to the lots. The development will be serviced by a community sewer and
water system. Development will be on the valley side to the east of Spring Valley. The
Rivendell Sod and Tree Farni presently operates on. the valley floor and lower valley side.
Much of this area will remain as an Agriculture Open Space District.
If development plans change significantly from those described, we should be
notified to reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report.
Ilii Iu♦ICK.r INAMIN1RINIII 40011 1111
Reception#. 823748
09!0512012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
29 of 79 Rep Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-2-
SITE CONDITIONS
The Lake Springs Ranch PUD is located on the northeastern side of Spring Valley
which is a broad, shallow valley on the basalt plateau to the east of the Roaring Fork
River valley. The property covers parts of Sections 32, 33, and 34 T. 6 S., R 88 W. and
part of Section 4, T. 7 S., R 88 W. The topography in the area is shown on Fig. 1.
Slopes along the floor of Spring Valley are nearly level. The valley side to the east is
rolling. Slopes there range from 10 to 20% and some of the steeper hillsides are 40%.
Major drainages with perennial streams are not present on the valley side where
the single family lois are planned. This area is drained by small ephemeral streams which
only have surface flow during periods of heavy precipitation or snowpack melt. A small
pond behind a low earth embankment is located just to the east of the existing ranch
headquarters. Poorly drained ground and a small perennial stream are present on the floor
of Spring Valley.
At the time ofthis study development on the property consisted of the Rivendell
Sod and Tree Farm, a single family residence on Lot 1, and a small cabin to the southeast
of the pond. The property was being used for grazing. Vegetation on the valley side
outside the cultivated areas consists of sage, oak and other brush. County Roads 114 and
119 cross through the property.
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
The project site is located on a basalt plateau to the east of the Roaring Fork
valley. The basalt plateau at the site is a second -order, structural bench between the
Grand Hogback Monocline to the west, the White River Uplift to the north and the
Roaring Fork Syncline to the south and east (Tweto and Others, 1978). These regional
structural features developed during the Laramide Orogeny about 40 to 70 million years
H -P GEOTECK
El I'i"• 11 II
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean AIberico
30 of 79 Rea Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-3-
ago. Recent studies by the Colorado Geological Survey (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997)
show that the structural beach is a complexly deformed collapse block of regional extent.
The collapse block formes a regional topographic depression with has much as 4,000 feet
of relief The regional collapse block is roughly circular -shaped with a diameter of about
16 miles. The regional collapse block covers about 200square miles. Carbondale is
located near its center. The geologic structure in the regional collapse block is complex.
The complex structure appears to result from shallow crustal deformations related to
evaporite dissolution and flowage from beneath the area (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997).
The evaporite is in the Pennsylvanian -age, Eagle Valley Evaporite which hes at a
relatively shallow depth below the surface of the regional collapse block.
Much of the deformation in the regional collapse block is younger than the basalt
flows in the area. The basalt flows and other volcanic rocks in the area have been dated
at 3.0 to 22.4 million year before the present (Kirlrharn and Widmann, 1997). Some
deformation has affected Pleistocene -age (10,000 to 1.8 million years old) deposits and
landforms and possibly Holocene -age (less than 10,000 year old) deposits and landforms.
The deformation structures include: (1) synclinal sags and bowl -like depressions, (2)
short orthogonal faults, (3) large arc -shaped, half grabens, and (4) collapse debris. Spring
Valley is a half graben with a fault along its western side. The basalt flow along the
eastern side of the Spring Valley consists mostly of collapse debris. The collapse debris
appear to be the result of differential vertical regional subsidence resulting from evaporite
dissolution. The collapse debris along the eastern side of Spring Valley appears to also
have a relatively high horizontal component of subsidence deformation. The collapse
debris consists of highly fractured and locally brecciated basalt flows intermixed with
intact but strongly tilted blocks of basalt which range up to about 20 acres in size.
H -P GEOTECH
1111 r.6 111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 Pit Jean Alberioo
31 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-4-
PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY
Our interpretation of the geologic conditions in the project area is shown on Fig.
1. The principle geologic features in the area are described below.
LAKE DEPOSITS
Spring Valley was the site of a former lake and lake deposits are present along the
valley floor and lower valley sides. Two ages of lake deposits are present. The younger
lake deposits (Qly) underlie the relatively level valley floor. The older lake deposits
(QIo) underlie a low terrace which is about 20 to 40 feet above the valley door. The lake
deposits are interstratified silty clay, silt, and fine to coarse-grained sand.
ALLUVIAL FANS AND STREAM VALLEY ALLUVIUM
Small alluvial fans (Qaf) are present locally in the lower parts of several of the
ephemeral drainages on the eastern valley side. Stream valley alluvium (Qal) is present
below the upland valley floor in the eastern part of the property. The fan and stream
valley alluvium is a stratified sandy clay with scattered basalt fragmentsts. The basalt
fragments range from gravel to boulder -size.
COLLUVIUM
Colluvium (Qc) is present below the railing terrain that forms the eastern valley
side. The colluvium consists of clay and gravel to boulder -size basalt fragments in a
sandy clay matrix. The matrix makes up most of the deposit and there is usually little
inter -grain contact between the basalt fragments. With depth the colluvium grades into
highly fractured basalt with a sandy clay fracture filling. In the exploratory borings the
upper colluvium was from 7 to greater than 20 feet thick.
tt-P GeoTEcH
1111 NA 1111.1114 NIA litICClJEW. 411 II I
Reception#: 823748
09105!2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
32 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-5-
BASALT FLOWS AND COLLAPSE DEBRIS
The colluvium: on the eastern valley side is underlain by basalt flows (Th) which
have broken by differential subsidence to form collapse debris. The collapse debris
consists of highly fractured and locally brecciated basalt flows intermixed with intact but
strongly tilted blocks of basalt which range up to about 20 acres in size. Also present in
this area are inter flow sediments.
FAULTS
Two, high -angle normal faults are inferred to cross the eastern part of the
property, see Fig. 1. The faults trend to the northeast and are down thrown on. their
western sides. The faults are part of a regional orthogonal fault system, in the regional
collapse block (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997). The faults were produced by evaporite
tectonics as discussed in the Regional Geologic Setting section above.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on June 30 and July 1, 1997.
Ten exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous
flight auger powered by a truck -mounted Longyear BK-51HD drill rig. The borings
were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Access to the
drill rig was limited to on or near the trails and roads at the site due to the sloping
terrain and vegetation cover.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13 inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon.
samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows
from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard
penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values
are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which
H -P GEOTECH
11111K1VliIIIMIl l+s'WCQ+1519i 11111
Reception#: 823748
33/ofl79Rec ac
ee:$0.00 DocFee:0.00GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-6-
the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of
Exploratory Borings, Figs. 2 and 3. Disturbed bulk samples of the upper soils were
also taken for roadway subgrade analysis.
SUBSURFACE CQNDMONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Figs. 2 and 3. The subsoils were variable and generally consist of 1 to 2 feet of topsoil
overlying very stiff to hard sandy clay and gravel to boulder size basalt fragments in a
sandy clay matrix. The clays are generally medium to high plasticity. The subsoils are
typically calcareous especially east of County Road 114. Drilling of the basalt
fragments subsoils was difficult due to the rock size and hardness and refusal was
encountered in the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained'from the borings included
natural moisture content and density, Atterberg limits, gradation analyses and Hveem
stabilometer 'R' values. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively
undisturbed drive samples, presented on Figs. 5, 6 and 7, indicate the clay soils have
low compressibility under light loading. The samples from Borings 1-5 showed a low
to high expansion potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. The non
expansive clays, Borings 6 and 8 samples, exhibited moderate compressibility upon
increased loading after wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on drive
samples (minus 11A -inch fraction) of the basalt fragment subsoils are shown on Fig. 8.
Atterberg limits testing indicates the clay fraction of the subsoils is of medium to high
plasticity. The Hveem stabilometer testing results had 'R' values of 5 and 29. The
laboratory testing is summarized. in Table L
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the
subsoils were slightly moist.
H -P GEOTECH
1111 IiiliVAILM1J4t I 1•11M410:11145111111111
Reception#: 823748
0Jean 9/05/2012
03:38:48
0 Doc Fee:9.00oo
GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-7-
GEOLOGICSITE ASSESSMENT
It should be possible to develop the property as proposed without encountering severe
constraints or hazards associated with the geology. There are, however, some geologic
conditions which should be considered in project planning as described below.
CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY
We do not expect potential problems with construction related slope instability in
the proposed development areas if construction is not considered on slopes steeper than
about 30%. Recommendations for site grading are presented below in the Site Grading
section of this report.
REGIONAL EVAPORXTE DEFORMATION
The project area is located in a regional collapse block where regional ground
deformations have been associated with evaporite dissolution and flowage from beneath
the area. It is uncertain if this deformation is still an active geologic process or if
deformation has stopped. If ground deformation is still occurring, it is Nicely that
deformation rates are very slow and occur over relatively broad areas. Abrupt,
differential fault creep could be localized along the inferred faults in the eastern part of
the project area. A. fault may cross through Lots 17, 18, 19, and 20. Because of this it is
recommended that site specific studies be made on these lots to determine if a fault is
actually present. If a geologically young fault is present, then the building site should not
be located across the fault. Although the potential for ground deformation problems
appears to be low, the project area cannot be considered totally risk free. The risk of
building damage can be reduced by special foundation designs. These special foundation
designs would be a heavily reinforced mat foundation without a basement.
H -P GECTECH
■III MaI+lieZiKIVIN illi elICARVItNI11111111
Reception## : 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
35 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-8
EARTHQUAKES
The project area could experience moderately strong earthquake related ground
shaking. Modified Merestli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a
reasonable service life for the development, but the probability for stronger ground
shaking is Iow. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general
alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. The
faults in the study area, in our opinion, do not increase the seismic potential. All
occupied structures in the development should be designed to withstand moderately
strong ground shaking with little or. no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground
shaking. The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on
our current understanding of the earthquake hazard in this part of Colorado, we see no
reason to increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area.
EXCAVATION DIFFICULTIES
Dense hard basalt should be expected at relatively shallow depths at many of the
proposed building sites and along road and utility alignments. Excavations in the dense
hard basalt in most areas will require ripping and blasting may be needed.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations presented below are based on the
proposed development, subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings,
and our experience in the area. The recommendations are suitable for planning and
preliminary design but -site specific studies should be conducted for individual lot
development.
FOUNDATIONS
H -P GEOTECK
1111 In mum IMIPANIC#1111417fililliiii 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
36 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-9-
Bearing conditions will vary depending on the specific location of the building
on the property. Spread footings placed on the natural subsoils appear suitable for
building support in most of the development area. We expect the footings can be sized
for an allowable bearing pressure in the range of 1,500 psf to 4,000 psf. Expansive
clays, mainly found west. of County Road 114, could require special design to limit the
risk of foundation and floor slab heave. Concentrated loads and spread footings that
impose a minimum dead load pressure should be feasible in low expansive clay areas.
In areas of relatively deep and higher expansive clays, a structural mat or drilled pier
foundation may be needed. Nested boulders and loose matrix soils may need treatment
such as placing compacted fill or concrete backfill. Foundation walls should be
designed to span local anomalies and to resist lateral earth loadings when acting as
retaining structures. Below grade areas and retaining walls should be protected from
wetting and hydrostatic loading by use of an underdrain system. The footings should
have a minimum depth of 36 inches for frost protection. A graded pad cut into the
natural soils appears suitable for support of an above ground tank at the proposed tank
location (Boring 10).
FLOOR SLABS
Slab -on -grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the non -expansive
natural soils. There could be some post construction slab movement at sites with
hydrocompressive soils or expansive clays. To reduce the effects of some differential
movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with
expansion joints. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to
shrinkage cracking. A minimum 4 -inch thick layer of free -draining gravel should
underlie basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. In the more expansive clay areas, a
structurally supported floor over a crawlspace may be warranted to avoid distress to
slabs caused by wetting of the expansive clay.
H -P GEOrECH
1111 rillynicrliti.RAEINIMIlirIVIRVISfirliii 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/06/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
37 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-10-
UNDERDRA1N SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered in the exploratory borings, it has been
our experience in the area and where there are stiff clays that local perched
groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. An
underdrain system should be provided to protect below grade construction, such as
retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas from wetting and hydrostatic pressure
buildup. The drains should consist of drainpipe surrounded above the invert level with
free -draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation
and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a
suitable gravity outlet.
SITE GRADING
The following criteria are recommended for site grading. If it is necessary to
perform extensive grading, it should be evaluated on a site specific basis. Cut depths •
for the building pads and driveway access should not exceed about 10 feet. Fills should
be limited to about 10 feet deep, especially where they encroach steep downhill sloping
areas. Deeper cut and fill sections may be feasible and should be studied on an
individual basis. Structural fills should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum
standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the
subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil. The fill
should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade. The on-site
basalt fragment soils excluding oversized rock and topsoil should be suitable for use in
embankment fills. The expansive clay soils may not be suitable for use beneath
structures sensitive to differential settlement/heave. The clays could be difficult to
work with due to their high plasticity.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to
1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation, rock riprap or other
means. We can review site grading plans for the project as needed.
H -P GEOTECH
■III l 'i[ K1.1i111' Ilii' ICiIfre1a;I I11.Ckii 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
38 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-11-
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The grading plan for the subdivision should consider runoff from steep uphill
slopes through the project and at individual sites. Water should not be allowed to pond
which could impact slope stability and foundations. Backfill next to buildings should be
well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of at
least 10 feet. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill and landscape irrigation should be restricted.
PAVEMENT SUBGRADE
The clay subgrade was found to have an Hveem 'R' value of 5 to 29 and is
considered a relatively poor material for support of pavements. The basalt fragment
soil should be a fair support material. In clay subgrade areas we recommend an 'R'
value of 10 be assumed for preliminary pavement design. An 'R' value of 25 can be
assumed for the more granular soils. The actual road subgrade should be evaluated for
pavement support at the time of construction.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared according to generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in. this area at this time. We make no warranty
either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this
report are based upon the data obtained from the field reconnaissance, review of
published geologic reports, the exploratory borings located as shown on Fig. 1, the
proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include
interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory
borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until
excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different
H -P GEOTECH
1111 In milo rd, 16\' WIC? 11111
Reception#: 823748
09105/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
39 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIEL.D COUNTY CO
- 12 -
from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the
recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning
and preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations
by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued
consultation, conduct additional evaluations and review and monitor the implementation
of our recommendations. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or
modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend site specific
subsoil studies for the individual lot development, observation of excavations and
fo»ndaiion bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the
geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
and by:
Ralph G. Mock
Engineering Geologist
SLP/ro
cc: Land Design Partnership - Atm: Ron Liston
H -P GEGTECH
1111 ! '.610Wr1.IVA W Ill ErIrifel'OCK1VCIiliii 11111
Reception#: 823748
09105!2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Aiherico
40 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:2.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-13-
REFERENCES
Kirkham R.M. and Widmann B. L., 1997, GeologyMap of the Carbondale ,Quadrangle,
Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 97-3.
Kirkham, R.M. and Rogers, W.P., 1981, Earthquake Potential in Colorado • A
Preliminary Evaluation: Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 43.
Tweto, and Others, 1978, Geology Map of the Leadville 1 ° X 2 ° Quadrangle,
Northwestern Colorado: V.S. Geological Survey Map 1999.
H -P GEOTEGH
1111 11 11 1
Reception#: 823748
09105/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberioa
41 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
i . ` lo.
.
i ,�1 , • i r
$ `.� 1- LANA
r f / '�.� r `� ! t3-1 r STREAM VALLEYALLUVIUM:
Ir Qaf ALLUVIAL FANS:
rt
`.. ;\A
\ t Clio
i —
.1'/
%(•
} i f
•
;QIo \
(14) RIV NDELI11\
1 SOD !St teEU RIC
t IIA 1% `4 _r
tC %�Qaf V QIo
t
�• ..s..0.•Fx-i-\,...
N. AGRICULTURE % NO' T t ` '
vi
OPEN SPACE ►, a 1 QID t i ~ \\�.
DISTRICT 1.�� \ ,� \ \ % \ \\\
134.1 AC. St i +� \.,
' l\\\'
1
1 1•
'I e
1 L t Qaf .� h;k \,% % Oa!
Qlo 1 NA. `..� 5v r: i• t l�?F ,♦
Qly
COLLUVIUM:
OLDER LAKE DEPOSITS:
YOUNGER LAKE DEpoSTTS:
BASALTELOWS AND COLLAPSE DEBRIS:
— CONTACT:
Approximate boundary or map unite.
..a INFERRED FAULT:
Appraldmate tacaffan of nferred. normal fault. Ball and bar an down -
thrown block. Dotted where concealed by alluvium.
EXPLORATORY BORING:
Approximate location of exploratory boring.
Pi, PP;IiI 1
/ir !/
1 •.'6,041/' /
t Qly • //ir'f., %
95 SINGLE
1 ACRE P
(Includes off
scALE 1'- sob'
5/7/97
197 348
1
Qc!Tb
t _ ,r
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL INC. LEOLOGY MAP
FIG. 1
1
IIIIIM.111101MILIMEMITICCIPNICE11111
Reception#: 823748
89!05!2'12 03:38:48 PN Jean A1berioo
42 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:D.09 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
z
0
z
m
rs
0
EE"
0
Depth — Feet
1.1I1IIII1I11111111I1111111
0 0 us
g
agiaXia
PRIX
N
ti
a �
N
474
N
n
otg
N'�J^r mi - vI
oa . . . . . . . . . % litaratf.11
N N N N�
ZN N
47.
N____M ti Vii N a
z .4-n<t-1..,.-.R,.,R1.1.-C
N.\
0
111111111111111-1111(1(iill
Depth — Feet
197 348 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK J LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
1 Fig. 2
GEOTECHNICAL.. INC.
■III 1FAMMi CkEICIF ' 11111
Reception* 823748
09105/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Albericc
43 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Q
z
re
tTl
z
0
m
z
0
m
z
EE
0
Depth — Feet
imrpriiiiirilimir i I
itl
RaiC'1 . R
17.
07
M7
,..c-L••%Ck1..CJ
i
•
}Ny� p
.44
to
NW
RS ,
037
can
a •f�JPIL . . N. 7k -
0
�lIIJlIttil� iilHIIlHii�
Depth - Feat
197 348
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC..
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig_ 3
1111 r♦ Villir.11.1111EMI 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
44 of 79 Rep Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
LEGEND:
aTOPSOIL; organic sandy silty clay. dry, dark brown, some scattered gravel, root zone.
CLAY (CL); sffty to sandy, medium to high plasticity. scattered gravel, very stiff to hard, slightly
moist, brown to Tight brown and white..slightly to highly calcareous.
BASALT FRAGMENTS (GC); gravel, cobble and boulder size. calcareous sandy clay matrix. medium dense
slightly moist, grey and white, low to medium plasticity fines.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch 1.0. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/0—inch I.D. split spoon sample. ASTM D — 1556.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 22 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were
22/12required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
T
NOTES:
Practical rig refusal. Where shown above bottom of boring. indicates that multipre attempts
were made to, advance the boring.
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on dune 30 and July 1. 1997 with a 4—inch diameter continuous
flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were -measured approximately by pacing from features shown
on the site plan prodded.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were not measured and logs of exploratory borings are drown to depth.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied
by the method. used.
5. The lines between materials •shown on the. exploratory boring loge represent the approximate boundaries
between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
INC = Water Content ( Y )
DO = Dry Density ( pof )
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve.
—200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve.
IL = Liquid Limit ( X )
Pi = Plasticity Index ((Sb
R Hveem stabilorneter le Value
197 348
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LEGEND AND NOTES
Fig. 4
•
1111 Pi H1nir.17MIck 1 ` 11111
Recept ion#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Albericc
45 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Compression — Expansion %
Compression — Expansion %
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
Moisture Content = 12.1 percent
Dry Density = 111 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Clay
-From:-Boring 1 at 10 Feat
Expansion
upon
wetting
Imp
•0
•
0.1
1.0 10
APPUJED PRESSURE — ksf
100
Moisture Content = 17.8 percent
Dry Density = 101 pcf
Sample of; Sandy Clay
, From: Boring 2 at 2 Feet
Expansion
upon
-wetting
0.1
1 0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
100
197 348
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
SWELL-CONSOLIDATIONTEST RESULTS
Fig. 5
1111 Prioniriiiin FAIMMIl4I'1VOIC4ii4.I INiii II 111
Reception*: 823748
09/0512012 03:38:48 PM Jean llberico
46 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
7
to 6
Compression — Expansion
Compression — Expansion 9b
5
4
3
2
0
1
0.1
0
1
2
Moisture Content = 16.9 percent
Dry Density = 100 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Clay
From: Baring 4 at 5 Feet
Expansion
upon
wetting
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — kef
100
Moisture Content = 13.7 percent
"flry'Density = 98 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Clay
From: Boring 5 at 10 Feet
0
N
Expansio
upon
-wetting
01
10 10
APPUED PRESSURE — kef
100
197 348
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL INC.
SWELL-CONSOLIDATIONTEST RESULTS Fig. 6
1111 Ir♦� 1111,1i1V + KIM 11 HI
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Plberico
47 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
0
ae
1
c
D
Compression X
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
Moisture Content = 19.7 percent
Dry Density = 86 pcf
Sample of: Calcareous Sandy Clay
From: Boring 6 at 3 Feet
4,0
Compression
upon
wetting
01
10 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
100
Moisture Content 21.5 percent
Dry.Density = .410 •=pcf
Sample of:Calcareous Sandy Clay
From: Boring 8 at 3 Feet
I
No movement
upon
wetting
0.1
10 10
APPL1ED-PRESSURE ,- ksf
100
197 348
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SWELL—CONSOUDAT1ONTEST RESULTS
Fig. 7
111
Reception#: 823748
09/0512012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
48 of 79 Roc Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
RCENT PASS 1
li10RORElni MALT= SIEVE ANu1r�
ME 22400400u et OTAROAIIO RF 1 1 ague =ME 5I 0NCS
3440..7118
1 iR IqM. 15 e41L S0 001.101011. 4 NM 1011: X700 4700 : 6O 130 110 19 N WOW 1 1/,1:• r ea' era
ME OE= EMNI. Al MEMEME ME= IMI.
EM M. EMMEN Mr WId1.1I Mi
IE..III•Mdmt_..�� _ 10
ili ME Elim.-
— _�-- ME MEE_
Ei/EkE .0.1 IM /ARE IMMEEmr NEE.
.�.�. .\...... is
03 Ta
O . �-
.■...P..E..:.. =sem ....RE ..E..
�MM.• ..EM
a•N Miff MINIM= EWE=
=mils AMMI Om =no. ors Earn. ru
30
rte.. ImmEw.m�..���.
MINIM
.14E11 ONEI
EMm
40
■nim �.,
.rte w...�..
ME ME`s MMM IEE
00 MEE.. o. MN MI MM•mbn WEE MMME 00
�... �...E1i0 M :_ +.ir.:o� MmEEEME
40 SEMM-
00
`j
IMOI Sol
E. .r rr..wwwE i.. ....
M --IN MUMMY IMMEIMA MEMEEM
.mmW•— YEEdist mo
'EMME 70
�.... -www ..i
IMIE_
�iE.1 +wwin.. ME
----- —
lEmbil mow.
MIMM
20
.r.� —
IEMMEi
---...w..^. w....
INEMEMEEEE
woo
11.1.11.11•14 11.•111
,...
..
......:r
minn =arm.
irrr
_�--PEWEE
—
00
0 100
.001 .003
.000 .000 .010 .037 .074 .150 also MO 310230 �. Rs1 1s.e 377.5 7.2 1152 303
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILUMETERS
, 197 348
CLAY TO 50.7
GRAVEL 49 %
FFINE 1 MEDIR4 IORAIesE 1 FINE a'r mum1
SAND 28 X SILT AND CLAY 23 9b
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Clayey Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 10 at 5 and 10 Feet Combined
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 8
1111 ir.611111.rhin IIMICArlikli 11111
Reception#: 823748
09105/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
49 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
TEST SPECIMEN
1
2
3
4
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
18.6
20.4
22.2
DENSITY (pcf)
MB '
106.3
105.9
"R" VALUE/EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
37/456
31/321
22/220
100
90
"R° 8O
V
70
A
L ..60 .
U
E
50
4'0
30
• 20
10
"R" VALUE AT 300 psi =29
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
SOIL TYPE: Silty Clay
SAMPLE LOCATION: Boring 1 at 1 to 5 Feet
GRAVEL SAND
LIQUID LIMIT 35 %
SILT AND CLAY 90 %
PLASTICITY INDEX 21 %
197 348
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
HVEEM STABILOMETER TEST RESULTS
19g. 9
++i 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
50 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
z
J
0
W
i --
r
- o
C9 w
4 ao
Q,z.a 0
H e
o 2
D
a 0
JOB No.197 348
TEST RESULTS
•
g
d u
I Q
4$
[..
Silty Clay
Sandy Clay
U
n
N
m
U
ti
(7
Sandy Clay II
m
u
.p
1A
m
c3
a.
fl
Sandy Clay
Calcareous Sandy Clay
Calcareous Silty Sand Matrix
Sandy Clay
Sandy Clay
Clayey Sandy Gravel
I 1
N
�o
n
e �
3 3f. CO
0
m
12
8
m
I
l
0
r
0
n
CO
w
l)
CO
i4
0,
0)
00
4)
(0
N
d
Lri
n
CD
r0
ID
CO
0,
n
0,
0
r -
W
eh
co
0,
CD
CO
CO
0)
M
CO
azt
n
0
co
N
p.
0
0
N
0,
1111Iriil iVIIV'h F PHIRIMIONEIRIArliiiii 11111
Receptaian#: 823748
09/05!2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
51 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Exhibit Zob 1 2002 HP Geotech Report
Lake Springs Ranch June 2011
Subdivision Preliminary Plan & PUD Amendment
Gtech
September 9, 2002
Mike and Maci Berkeley
c/o Land Design Partnership
Attention: Mr. Ron Liston
918 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-94S-7988
Pax: 970-945-8454
hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
Job No. 197 348
Subject: Geotechnical Review of the Lake Springs Ranch PUD, County Roads
114 and 119, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Liston:
As requested, we have reviewed the current preliminary development plan for the
proposed Lake Springs Ranch PUD with respect to potential geologic and geotechnical
engineering constraints. We previously submitted a preliminary geotechnical
engineering report for a similar but smaller PUD at the project site (Hepworth Pawlak
Geotechnical, 1997). Also, we have reviewed two letters concerning the project
submitted to the Garfield County Planning Department by the Colorado Geological
Survey (Colorado Geological Survey, 2001 and 2002). This letter summarizes the
finding of our review and presents recommendations pertaining to the current
preliminary development plan.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the project is in the preliminary ',tanning stages. Project
information available for our review was a preliminary plan showing the proposed lots,
building envelopes and street locations. Grading plans showing the extent of grading
for the streets have been prepared by High Country Engineering, but were not included
in this review. The currently proposed PUD will be a 193 lot single family residential
development with 4 cluster home tracts, and 6 areas zoned agriculturallopen space. The
single family lots are typically about one acre in size with a 15,000 square a foot building
envelope. The cluster housing tracts cover about 4 to 10 acres each. The
agriculture/open space areas are located on the Spring Valley floor and in the steeper
parts of the property. A street system will provide primary access to the lots. On lot
driveways and grading for building sites will be the responsibility of individual lot
owners. Water will be supplied by a central water system and the development will be
serviced by the Spring Valley Sanitation system.
It appears that the preliminary plan we reviewed differs somewhat from the plans
reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey. The current PUD differs from the
proposed development at the time of our previous geotechnical study (Hepworth Pawlak
Geotechnical, 1997). The lot density has increased, new development areas have been
8
r
0
z
0
0
W0
0
_ J
M
LT
L„ o�
U
^F ...0
L0
.D0
Q W
ii-
mU
0
:..J:caao
+Maw
ti„ML
0U
awe
-III 40 ry r-
- 000
-010
Mike and Maci Berkeley
September 9, 2002
Page 2
NM 1V.1 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05!2012 03:38:48 PM Jan Alberioo
53 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
added, some deleted and the street pattern has changed.
FINDINGS OF REVIEW
Although the currently proposed development has substantially changed since our
August 1997 preliminary geotechnical study, the conclusions and recommendations
presented in that study are applicable to the currently proposed PUD. There are several
conditions of a geologic and geotechnical nature that should be considered in project
planning and design as discussed below.
Evaporite Deformation: The project site is Located in the Carbondale evaporite
collapse center, a roughly circular region with a diameter of about 16 miles centered
near Carbondale and covering about 200 square miles (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997).
The towns of Carbondale, Glenwood Springs and El Jebel are located in the collapse
center. As much as 4,000 feet of regional subsidence is believed to have occurred in
the collapse center as the result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the
region. Much of this subsidence may have occurred within the past 10 million years
(Kirkham and Widmann, 1997). If this is the case, the long-term average subsidence
rate was about 0.5 inch per 100 years. There is some local evidence of evaporite
deformation as recently as the late Pleistocene in the Carbondale collapse center, but no
definitive evidence of deformation during the Holocene, within about the past 10,000
years (Widmann and Others, 1998).
Regional geologic mapping shows that the gradational contacts between (1) the "Spring
Valley landslide", (2) evaporite collapse debris, and (3) basalt flows deformed by
regional evaporite subsidence are present in the project area (Kirkham and Widmann,
1997). They described the "Spring Valley Iandslide" as collapse debris with a
horizontal component of movement. The "Spring Valley landslide" was not mapped'
separately on the geology map accompanying our August 1997 study because we were
not able to find definitive field criteria for separating the "Spring Valley landslide"
from adjacent areas shown as collapse debris and deformed basalt flow on the regional
geology map. In our opinion, all three features appear to have a common geologic
origin and the "Spring Valley landslide" does not present a greater deformation hazard
than the collapse debris and deformed basalt flows shown on the regional map.
It is uncertain if evaporite deformation is still active.in the Carbondale collapse center,
or if deformation has stopped. If evaporite deformation is still active, it appears to be
taking place over a broad area, except possibly along faults, and there is no evidence of
rapid deformation rates in the modem landscape. Because of this, the risk of evaporite
associated problems with typical residential building at the project site appears to be low
and no greater than other areas in the collapse center. We are not awareof evaporite
deformation related problems in the region. Prospective building owners should be
1111 Magri K1.111M1:4114.1E1 111111 +11C 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/0512012 03:3B:4B PM Jean Alberico
54 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Mike and Maci Berkeley
September 9, 2002
Page 3
made aware of the potential low risk of evaporite deformation. It the low risk is not
acceptable to building owners, it can be reduced by the use of heavily reinforced
foundation system preferably without a basement.
Faults: We concur with the regional mapping by the Colorado Geological Survey that
two faults likely cross through the eastern part of the project area (Kirkham and
Widmann, 1997). If evaporite deformation is still active, then there is potential for
localized differential movement along the faults. Development is not planned near the
eastern one of the two faults, but 8 single family lots are proposed near the western one
of the two faults. It is recommend that buildings not be located within 50 feet of the
mapped fault trace unless site specific studies show that a fault is not present or, if
present, the fault is not geologically young.
Foundation Conditions: The general foundation conditions in the project area were
evaluated by drilling 9 exploratory borings in August 1997. At that time, buildings
were not proposed in areas where lake deposits are present. As presently planned,
several building areas will be underlain by lake deposits. It is recommended that
additional subsurface exploration be made in these areas to evaluate the engineering
characteristics of the lake deposits.
Our August 1997 preliminary study concluded that spread footing foundations appear
suitable in areas where expansive soil conditions are not present. Spread footings with
minimum dead load pressure, a structural mat or drilled piers were considered feasible
foundation systems in areas with expansive soil conditions are present. -The
recommended foundation system will depend on the site specific expansion potential.
Also, a structural floor system over a crawlspace may be Warranted depending on the
expansion potential at a specific building site. A site specific foundation study by the
individual lot owners should be conducted for design level recommendations.
Construction Related Slope Instability: We do not anticipate major problems with
construction related slope instability if our August 1997 grading recommendations are
followed. More extensive grading should be evaluated on a site specific basis. As
previously recommended, cut and fill should not exceed 10 feet deep and cut and, fill
slopes should be 2:1(horizontal to vertical) or flatter. We should review the proposed
grading plans when available and determine if addition subsurface exploration and
analysis are needed.
Storm Water Management: Drainages in the project area are ephemeral and their
streams only have surface flow following heavy precipitation and snow melt. We did
not find geologic conditions that should be considered by the hydrologic study in
developing an appropriate storm water management plan for the project. The only
111111 I10111,1i1i'f VAIN GIZIOVOICIAVIRC N 111Il
Reception*: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
55 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GPRFIELD COUNTY CO
Mike and Maci Berkeley
September 9, 2002
Page 4
stream channel in the project area with a relatively large off site drainage basin is
located in the northern part of the project site in the vicinity of proposed Lots 11, 12
and 13. Access to Lot 12 from the proposed cul-de-sac will require a stream channel
crossing. The channel crossing should be designed for the appropriate flood discharge
and include provisions for a high sediment concentration flooding. Hydrologic analysis
in this area should also consider flood flow velocities and the need for channel erosion
stabilization to protect proposed Lots 11, 12 and 13.
Earthquake Considerations: The project area could experience earthquake related
ground shaking. Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected
during a reasonable service life for the development, but the probability for stronger
ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes
general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and
construction. Occupied structures should be designed to withstand moderately strong
ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground
shaking. The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on
our current understanding of the earthquake hazard in this part of Colorado, we see no
reason to increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area.
LIMITATIONS
This study was conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area, at this time. We make no warranty either express
or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this review is based on
the currently proposed development and informationin our August 1997 preliminary
geotechnical. study. Our findings in this report and our previous study include
interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory
borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until
excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different
from those described in our previous preliminary geotechincal report, we should be
notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared exclusively for our client and is a review of the current
development plans with respect to our previous prelim ii ry geotechnical study. We are
not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project
evolves, we should provide continued consultation, conduct additional evaluations and
review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations. Significant design
changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations
presented herein and in our previous preliminary geotechincal report. We recommend
site specific subsoil studies for individual lot development, observation of excavations
and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the
geotechnical engineer. .
1111Iiif krZiAMP,Arr In:41C1 CN MC Mill 11111
Recep t i nn# : 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
56 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Mike and Maci Berkeley
September 9, 2002
Page 5
Respectfully submitted,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, nvc.
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
and by:
Ralph G. Mock
Engineering Geologist
RGMIdjb
cc; High Country Engineering - Attn: Deric Walter
REFERENCES
Colorado Geological Survey, 2001, Lake•Springs Ranch PUD, Garfield County,
Colorado: Prepared for the Garfield Planning Department (CGS Case No. GA -
02 -0004, November 5, 2001).
Colorado Geological Survey, 2002, Lake Springs Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan:
Prepared for the Garfield Planning Department (CGS Review No. GA -03-002,
July 31, 2002).
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1997, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study,
Proposed Lake Springs Ranch MD, County Roads 114 and 119, Garfield
County, Colorado: Prepared for Mike and Maci Berkely c/o Land Design
Partnership, Glenwood Springs, Colorado (Job No. 197 348, August 29, 1997).
Kirkham, R.M. and Widmann, B.L., 1997, Geology Map of the Carbondale
Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File
97-3.
Widmann B. L. and Others, 1998, Preliminary Quaternary Fault and Fold Map and
Data Base of Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 98-8.
11111111VAIWKIMIP011011114PKIIIMMillii 11111
Reception##: 823748
09/05/2072 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberiao
57 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Exhibit 20C 11/15/2010 HP Geotech Report
Lake Springs Ranch
Subdivision Preliminary Plan & PUD Amendment June 2011
1111 DPI voiriziPth. Di% Inaitirwrintaiii 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberioo
58 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:8.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
tech
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
E.11,0d:
Sp6Itgi, lom„ky ;S1601
F;;\:745.49
7. rtv*ik
ADDITIONAL FAULT STUDY
PROPOSED LAKE SPRINGS RANCH P.U.D.
COUNTY ROADS 114 AND 119, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 109 433A
JANUARY 15, 2010
PREPARED FOR:
MIKE AND MAC! BERKELEY
c/o TG MALLOY CONSULTING, LLC
ATTN: TIM MALLOY
402 PARK AVENUE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS; COLORADO 81601
t ;)9 a ( 71'4
1111 roorJun 1 1 G 1i licri r1 te111ai 11 11 1
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:49 PM Jean A1berica
59 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
TABU OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY „-1 -
SITE CONDITIONS - 1 -
FIELD EXPLORATION .-1-
SUBSURFACE AND POSSIBLE FAULT CONDITIONS ' 2 -
TRENCH 1 . . -2-
TRENCH 2 - 2 -
TRENCI 3 - 3
RECOMMENDATIONS - 3. -
LIMITATIONS - 3 -
REFERENCES .- 4, -
FIGURE: 1- LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCHES
FIGURE 2 - LOG OF SOUTH WALL OF TRENCH 1-, 0: TO 30 FEET
FIGURE 3 -- LOG OF SOUTH WALL. OF TRENCH 1, 30 TO.200 FEET
FIGURE 4 - LOG OF SOUTH WALL OF TRENCH 2, 0 TO 140 FEET
FIGURE 5 - LOG OF SOUTH WALL OF TRENCH 3, 0 TO 290 FEET
FIGURE 6 - LOG OF SOUTH WALL, INSET OF TRENCH 3, 30 TO 60 FEET
FIGURE 7 - PHOTOS = TRENCH 1 OVERVIEW AND FAULT ZONE
FIGURES - PHOTOS - TRENCH 2 UPPER AND LOWER FAULT ZONES
FIGURE 9 - PHOTOS.- TRENCHES 2 AND 3 OVERVIEW
FIGURE 10 - PHOTO - TRENCH 3 FAULT ZONE
1111 Aga KJ' 1 TiIN 1IPIA1 WG i:1CV 11 11 1
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
60 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of an additional fault study along the eastern edge ofthe
proposed Lake Springs Ranch, County Roads 114 and 119, in Garfield County, Colorado.
The study area is shown on Figure 1. The purpose ofthe study was to further evaluate if
evaporate deformation has occurred near the location of the inferred fault along the
eastern section ofthe proposed development and assess lithe fault is geologically young.
The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for a supplemental geological,
study to Mike and Maci Berkely dated June 26, 2009. Previously, preliminary
geotechnical engineering studies were performed and results were given in reports dated
August 29, 1997 and September 9, 2002, Job No. 197 348.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory trenches was conducted to look for:
evidence ofthe inferred fault mapped (Kirkham and Widmann; 1997) along the eastern
boundary ofthe proposed development. This report sumamarixes the data obtained during
this study and presents ow conclusions.
• SITE: CONDITIONS.
The Lake Springs Ranch PUD is located on the northeastern side of Spring Valley which
is a broad, shallow valley on the basalt plateau to the east of the Roaring Fork River
valley. The property covers parts of Sections 32, 33, and 34 T. 6S., R 88 W and part of
Section 4, T. 7 S., R 88 W. The study area is along the eastern border ofthe imposed
property about A mile east of County Road 114. On thecurrent davelopmentt.plan seven
lots are in the vicinity of the inferred fault mapped. by Kirkham and Widma,
The topography in the study area consists of north to northeast trending ridg ;s and valleys
with gently sloping drainages to the east and west at a 5 to 10 percent grader A sem'
knoll about 50 to 100 feet higher in elevation than the lank area is Iocated to tbe cast.
The inferred fault mapped by Kirkham and Widmann (1997) has a trend ofN 1 B' and
was drawn to nm through the center of a valley and corresponding north anct south
drainages. Vegetation in the study area consisted of grass, weeds, scatteredsage and oak
brush About 2 feet of snow covered the site at the time of our visit.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on January 5, 6 and 7, 2010. Three.
exploratory trenches were excavated at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the
location of the inferred fault mapped by Kirkham and Widmann (1997) in the area: The
trenches were dug using a Komatsu PC -320 excavator with a 3 foot wide bucket. Two
trenches were dug at the north and south areas and found evidence of fault movement to
the east of the previously inferred fault. A third trench was added to further verify the
fault location. The three trenches were dug from east to west at varying lengths of 130,
190, and 290 feet and the southern wall was mapped by a representative of Hepworth
Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc:
Jab Na 109 433A
1111 ! i ler.rhi1"ihritm !iigieivainamiii 11111
Reception*: 823748
09/0512012 03:38:48 PM Jean R1berico
61 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-2-
SUBSURFACE AND FAULT CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered in the trenches are shown on
Figures 2 to 6. The subsoils generally consist of about 12 to 18 inches oftopsoil.
overlying layers of clay, clayey gravelly sand;: and sandy gravels cobbles and boulders.
Digging in the dense granular soils was difficult at times due to the basalt • rock and
boulders and digging refusal was encountered in some areas of the trenches.
TRENCH 1
Trench 1 is located about 200 feet south of the northern property botmdary and about 150
feet north ofthe drainage divide in the north -trending valley in the area. A possible
surficiai fault scarp was observed along the eastern hillside andthe east end of the trench
was located uphill of the possible scarp. Fault features were observed within the first 10
to 20 feet ofthe trench (see Figures 2, 3 and 7). The best evidence of fault'movement in
Trench 1 is the column of translocatedloose sediment, mapped as . T,bls"sediment . a
result of fault scour during movement,; or, the dragging of scan s o tiro fat ple e'
firm displaced strata or the in -filling of sediment into tension crack& T$O
commonly rotates clasts along a planeparallel to the: fault which may be represented: by
the basalt cobble at a distance of 4 feet and an elevation of/238 along theprofile of
Trench 1 which appears to have been rotated such that its long: axis dips doh to the west.
This cobble is also located along the eastern edge of a mixed zone of finer material in the
shape ofa wedge. Infilling of sediments after movement along a fault commonly firms a
wedge shape offiner, looser material than the surrounding strata;: There are twa wedge
shaped mixed strata in the first 30 feet of Trench 1 mapped as (4) which evidencesthis
(Figure 2). This loose material' is comnnonly easier to
and often has animal burrows as shown in F
igi�ces� 2 and � '�heFbmcd4�
organics mapped as (2) in Trench 1 at about 10 feet and awe pf'124� p a to
evidence movement down and to the west No other 'sub aurface.cond orzs we
encountered in the remaining 180 feet. of trench to the west to suggest an add o%iak fault
movement in the area. Movementfeatures at the west end of the trenchr°were farm on,
both sides ofthe trench suggesting the fault continues to the north at a trend of N'12 E.
The fault located in Trench 1 is geologically young and located farther eastzt en
previously mapped as indicated on Figure 1.
TRENCH 2.
Trench 2 is the additional trench added just south oldie drainage divide to vel the fault
location between Trenches 1 and 3. A possible surftciel fault scarp was located- along the
eastern hillside and the east end of Trench 2 was located about 40 filet uphill from this
feature Digging refusal was encountered along the first 40 feet. of Trench 2 hi basalt rock
and boulders just below 12 to 18 inches of topsoil.: At a distance of about 45 feet digging.
became somewhat easier and trench depths of 6' to 10 feet were excavated. Although no
soft soils were encountered at this area ofthe trench, a fault can also be inferred: at this
location from the apparent surficial scarp. Digging refusal continued along the base of
Trench 2 to a distance of 105 feet, see Figure 9. At 105 feet an area of loose soils in the
shape of a wedge was encountered above a near vertical shear zone, see Figure 8: This
lower soil zone is probably the best evidence of faulting in Trench 2. However, the
visible scarp and thin buried organic layer at 50 feet may also indicate movement despite.
Job No. 109 433A
VIII i lirlhr'k H* 11
Reception#: 823748
09105!2012 03:38:48 PM dean Alberico
62 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-3-
not finding a shear zone. Both possible fault locations are mapped on Figure 1 and
described in Figure 4. The lower fault location was faintly represented on the north wall
and the fault continuation is represented by a dashed line in Figure 1.
TRENCH 3
Trench 3 is located about 200 feet north of the southern property boundary in the area. A
faint surfncial scarp was located along the eastern hillside and the east end of the trench.
was begun approximately 40 feet uphill to the east: At about 40 frau along Trench 3 a
roughly wedge shaped zone of soft soils was encountered at an elevation of about 7210 to
the depth of the trench, see Figures 5, 6, 9 and 10. The very dense layer ofbasalt gravels,
cobbles and boulders also seems to drop down to the west at this location.. Possible
animal burrows in loose material are found between 32 and 52 feet in Trench•3 as shown
in Figures 6 and 10. This area contains the best evidence for faulting within Trench 3 and
is mapped on Figure 1. These features were also found on the north wall and the fault
continues northward at a trend ofN 813 Trench 3 was continued westwardto the valley
bottom and up the western hillside to determine if any evidence of faulting existed where
the fault was previously mapped. No other evidence offaulting was observed:'
No free water was encountered in the trenches at the three of digging and the.subsol7s
were slightly moist to moist.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In our opinion, evidence of evaporite related fault deformation: was. enc ountterred; in all
three trenches alongthe eastern edge of theproposed: development Thus fa lt related,
defbimation occurs a distance.to the east from the location ofthe inerred lin 'mapped
by Kirkham and Widmann (1997), as shown on Figure 1. No evidence of evapori e
related fault deformation was found in the area of Kirkham .and Widamnr�s-
inferred fault. Movement along, the Omit plane appears to be related to evapor•to
deformation and not large scale ground ruptures associated with earthquake related
faulting. This disturbance does not extend into the overlying col#uviel'units and may be
related to infilling: of tensionalground cracks that were later covered by the -overlying
colluvial units. This indicates that the ground cracking was post glacial, less than 15,000
years, but has been dormant for some uncertain time. The risk of fhture movement along
the mapped fault is considered to be low within the lifetime expectancy ofproposed
structures in the area. However, we recommendthat buildings not be located within 50
feet of the fault trace determined from our trenches. Foundation recommendations. for
lots adjacent to the fault should be developed on a site specific basis and could include a
mat foundation alternative as previously discussed. Fault locations were staked in the
field and surveyed into the existing plan by High Country Engineering. Other
recommendations from our previous reports should also be followed.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering
geological principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either
express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are
Job No. 109433A
nil InItiwzia *LK II 111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PFI Jean Alberico
63 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
-4-
based upon the data obtained from the exploratory trenches excavated at the locations
indicated on Figure 1. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of
subsurfaceconditions identified at the exploratory trenches and variations: nage :xst. If
conditions are encountered during construction which may evidence limiting d fferent
from those described in this report, we should be notified so that reevaluation ofthe
recommendations may be made.
This. report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client %redesign pauses:_ We
are not responsible filr technical interpretationsby others of our information, As the
project evolves; we should provide continued consultation and field sers+ices during
construction to review and''monitorthe implementation of our recommendations, and, to
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted..
Respectfully Submitted;
HEPWORTH. - PAW ,AK GEOTECHNICAL, INC..
M %s
Scott W. RRichards,.. E.1,
Reviewed by .tea!
Daniel E. Har
SWR/
ttS e
arr?4
NAL tir-'
a 44
cc: High Country E cott. Gregory(sgregoi t(hcenng
High Country Engineering-- Dan Dennison (ddenruson(hce€igrcom)
REFERENCES
H P GEOTECH (1997) Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Lake
Springs Ranch; P.U.D:, County Roads 114 and 119, Garfield County, Colorado. Job No
197 348 dated August 29, 199'1. Prepared for Mike and. Maci Berkeley.
H P GEOTECH (1997) Geotechnical Review ofthe Lake Springs Ranch, ?..U.D, County
Roads 114 and 119, Garfield County, Colorado. Job No 197 348 dated September. 9
2002. Prepared for Mike and Maci Berkeley.
Kirkham. R. M. and Widmann, S. L., 1997 Geologic Map of the Carbondale Quadrangle,
Gatfield County, Colorado. Colorado Geological Survey, Open File Report 97-3.
Job No. 109-433A
■IIIN`l4aliliii 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05!2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
64 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
PREVIOUSLY !N ED
FAULT-
a�.
a
i'
it
11
•
-
i
�6gv24Y E
• '1,0T-37
tie
OPEN SAAcV
LtL "
1
-- r
109 433A
Geotech
HEPINORTrAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
EXPLORATORY TRENCH AND FAULT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 1
1111 In verzipar1al per iorwerch B111
Reception#: 823748
09/0512012 03:39:48 PM Jean Rlberico
65 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
7245
EAST
0
10
TRENCH.1
1 Inch = 5 feet
Distance - Feet
15
1.111111
20 25
•I.11i1•11
WEST
30
7240
0
_m
LU 7235 —
7230 —
Bottom of Trench
(TS); Sandy clay rootzone, dark brown
(OL); Buried organics, dark brown .. .
(SM); Clayey gravelly sand with scattered cobbles, brown
(CL); Sandy Clay with scatteredgravels, red
(GC -GM); Sandy gravels with silt and clay, cobbles and boulders, basalt rock
(SM); Fault scour zone of loose silty sand with gravels
Basalt boulder.
109 433A
IHERWOHTH-PAWLAK GeoTrCHNICAL
Gated,
LOG OF SOUTH WALL OF TRENCH 1, 0 TO 30 FEET
Figure 2
1111 RICOMJliw i{Cr4P IIMfMIRIC141114Iilili 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/0512012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
66 of 79 Req Fee;$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Distance - Feet
130 —
480
170
150
110
180
120
110
100
1b
80 —.
10—
80
40
30
IIIIIIHIJ!IIIIIHil�iiihIIII
1Inch =20f
!ii
2X Vertical Exaggeration
O
.0
[[J
co
CO
ro
Il.l
ia
cofrj
w(Et
Lt
i.v 1 lilt ri1111111111111i1
P 0 0. 0 0 1
}aaJ - tiopnaI
0
U
U
0,
i[}
0)
0
0
U
.0
w
N
0
-U 0
m-
u.; U- '
U
• coED.
c
U w
w q)
N
0
Cd T
U
V7
U 0
Basalt boulder
•
30 TO 200 FEET
LOG OF SOUTH WALL OF TRENCH
cvD
■III ri me.ri i rmitre hiK nifir i �I 111
Recep.ion#: 823748
09/0512012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
67 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
07
W —
3
0 -
—
O
W
16
V '
U -
w
8
7.
D
0
nch = 15 feet
Vertical- Exaggeration
N
Possible Fault Shear Zone
0
2
ig
fA
5
a
73
.0 LC
47:,
sa 0
U 0
13
• 3
C y
U CC6
LE- S .0 y
73
= D0 0
en 15
o • c a�
cd C
o. a ca
C c
_ C7'
til,i111i11111111111111iiii11111
0
aaej - uo!senel3
n n n
W
A
CD
••
0
(0
0)
.N
m
•N
0
0
0
m
C
N
a
O
LL
U�y7
Basalt boulder
•
LOG OF SOUTH: WALL OF TRENCH 2, 0 TO 140 FEET
■11111MANMAFWR'ri l lUVOCIAVVA41 G 4li4 11111
Reception#: 823748
08/0512012 03:38:48 PM Jean Rlberico
68 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.06 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO
R-
0 N
0=
iAd- VOITEMp
�1111111.11I1111111111-1f111 11111111
1;
C M 0 8 .9
� �
U
lll— 11111111111111111111111 11 1111
0 0 0 0
8
0
L5
w
LL
co
cy0
1-
0
1
0
z
w
CC
LL.
0
H
V .
0
2 8
Md -UC 003
Basalt bot
IP
00
CO0)
.0
1111 Pi 1611:11.V. Pik' Nal' IreCIWK11 CIIIIi 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/0512012 03:38:46 PM Jean Alberico
69 of 79 Rec Fes:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.30 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Elevation - Feet
7215
7210
EAST
30
35
11111111
TRENCH 3
1 Inch = 5 feet
Distance - Feet
40 45
111111111111111111111
WEST
50 55 60
7205 •
7200
109 433A
H
i
(TS); :Sandy clay rootzone, dark brown
(OL); Buried organics, dark brown
(SM); Clayey gravelly sand with scattered cobbles, brown:
.(CL); Sandy Clay with scattered gravels, red
(GC -GM); Sandy gravels with silt and clay, cobbles and boulders, basalt rock
(SM); Fault scour zone of loose silty sand with gravels
• Basalt boulder
HEPWORTH-PAIN AK GEOTECHNICAL,
LOG OF SOUTH WALL OF TRENCH 1, 30 TO 60 FEET
Figure 6
KIIIWAII:71111CP.MilloirilleICIMPliiii 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
70 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:9.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Trench 1 at 5 feet Looking East
South wall of Trendh 1 at 5 feet
Buried :Organics
Possible Animal Burrow
Rotated Cobble
Possible Scour Zone of Soft Soils
109 433A
HERINORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL,
TRENCH 1 OVERVIEW AND FAULT ZONE
Figure 7
1111 ric +K1iIi ' ' 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/0512012 63:38:48 PM Jean Rlbericn
71 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
South wall of
Trench 2 at 50 feet
Upper Fault Zone
Wedge of
Soft Soils
South wall of
Trench 2 at 105 feet
Lower Fault Zone
Possible Scour Zone
09 433A
TRENCH 2 UPPER AND LOWER FAULT ZONES Figure 8
1111 114 lifnirI FC1,i1.1V110141Clir 141Clith 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/0512012 03:38.48 PM .lean Pilberioo
72 of 79 Rea Fee:$0.130 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Trench 2 Looking East
Trench 3 Looking West
Fault Zone in Center
109 433A l C�@HCh ` TRENCHES .2 AND 3 OVERVIEW
HEPWORTH'PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAi.
Figure 9
1111 r.6 vamnorimo minium lownviciiii 11111
Reception#: 823746
09/05/2012 03,38:48 PM Jean Alberico
73 oF 79 Rec Fee:50,00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
109 433A
E
<
0 a)
FIEP4V0Ki+PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
TRENCH 3 FAULT ZONE
Figure 10
OM iiviligliXidelOCG IN 11111
Reception#: 823748
09105!2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
74 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Exhibit and 12/16/2010 HP Geotech Report
Lake Springs Ranch
Subdivision Preliminary Pian & PUD Amendment June 2011
Gtech
HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
February 16, 2010
Mike and Maci Berkeley
c/o TO Malloy Consulting, LLC
Attn: Tim Malloy
402 Park Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Her v rrh-P:Lwlak (eorerhnii u1, Inc.
7020 County RLFaL1 154
Glen.v xJ Springs, (.:n1nrailn 8160[
Phone: 970-945.,7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
email: hpgea@hpgeotech.com
Job No. 109 433A
Subject: Review of Proposed Development Plan, Lake Springs Ranch PUD, County
Road 114, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Berkeley:
As requested, we have reviewed the currently proposed development plan with regard to
our previous reports. The findings of our review and recommendations for the current
development plan are presented in this letter. We previously conducted a preliminary
geotechnical engineering study for development of the site and presented our findings in a
report dated August 29, 1997, Job No. 197 348. Subsequently, we provided a
geotechnical review of the proposed development in a letter dated September 9, 2002, Job
No. 197 348. Recently, we completed a geological fault study in the eastern side of the
proposed development dated January 15, 2010, Job No. 109 433A.
Proposed Development: We were provided with the current development Phasing Plan
by High Country Engineering, dated February 12, 2010. The plan indicates the western
third of the property will remain undeveloped and the eastern two thirds will be
developed in a similar pattern to the previously reviewed plans. The current plan indicates
118 single family lots in 5 filings of 18 to 37 lots each. We understand that the single
family lots are about 1 acre in size. Eighteen affordable units are planned for Tract A on
the south side of the development which is part of Filing 3. The road layout has been
changed but the development area (including the land swap parcels) is similar to elements
contained in the two previous development layouts.
Findings of Review: The conclusions and recommendations presented previously are
applicable to the currently proposed PUD. The recent fault study indicated the fault is
further east than previously shown and is generally more than 50 feet outside the building
envelopes of the nearby lots. The building envelope for Lot 29, Filing 4 may be within 50
feet of the fault which was survey located. The location of the building envelope on Lot
29 relative to the fault should be verified by the surveyor and adjusted as needed.
As described in the Foundation Conditions section of our 2002 review, a few lots and
some roadway were underlain by geologic lake deposits. The original subsurface
exploration did not include sampling of the mapped lake deposits since the original
development was not proposed in that area and we recommended in 2002 that additional
Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-6.33-5562 • Silveri -home 970-468-1989
Milce and Maci Berkeley
February 16, 2010
Page 2
1111 1111.191CIO CMOCIrnrIl lii I! 111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean falberico
76 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
subsurface exploration be performed to evaluate the engineering properties of the lake
deposits. The current development plan shows 3 lots (Lots 6, 7 & 8 of Filing 2) and about
200 feet of roadway over the lake deposits located on the far western side. This represents
only about 2% of the proposed development. Due to the small area involved, subsurface
exploration at this time is not warranted but the subsurface could be evaluated as part of a
pavement section design study for the on-site roads.
The other recommendations for development contained in our previous reports are still
valid for the current plan. The recommendations regarding the stream channel on the
north end of the property mentioned in the Storm Water Management section of our 2002
report are not needed since this area is well outside the current development.
Limitations: This study was conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in this area, at this time. We make no warranty either
express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this review are
based on the currently proposed development and information in our previous studies.
Our findings in this report and our previous studies include interpolation and
extrapolation of the subsurface conditions previously identified. If variations in the
subsurface conditions are encountered, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the
recommendations can be made.
This report has been prepared exclusively for our client and is a review of the current
development pian with respect to our previous studies. We are not responsible for
technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should
provide continued consultation and monitor the implementation of our recommendations.
Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the
recommendations presented herein and in our previous studies. We recommend site
specific subsoil studies for individual lot development, observation of excavations and
foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the
geotechnical engineer.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH -- PAWLA
Daniel E. Hardin,
Reviewed by: SLP
DEH/kac
ICAL, INC.
44
el
24443 s
`iL 1/234o ;
"�111iira.,,,0--5.PO NAL .
cc: High Country Engineering — Attn: Dan Dennison/Scott Gregory
Job No. 109 433A
1111 11111
Reception#: 823748
09105/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
77 of 79 Reo Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
OPEN SPACI
S
1M1$
LOT 23
PREVIOUSLY INFERRED
FAULT
N,86172'47" E
FAULT TRA
FAILT,TRACE THIS STUDY;
DASHED WHERE WILD
\ OPEN SPACE
S 8690 vr`W
ems._
ll
170_...._............
109 433A
534228'
Gbh EXPLORATORY TRENCH AND FAULT LOCATIONS FIGURE 1
HEPWORT4 PAWLAI( GEOTECHNICAL
1:.:'07/2009 11:15 FAX '303 295 8281 HOLLAND & HART LLP
HOLLAND & HART Lip
VIA FACSIMILE
TO:
MEMORANDUM
December 6, 2000
Lori Satterfield / Scott Balcortib, Basalt Water Conservancy District
Lee Leavenworth / Greg Hall, Los Amigos Ranch Partnership
John Schenk, Berkeley Family Limited Partnership
Kevin Patrick / Ramsey Kropf, Colorado Mountain College
FROM: Anne Castle
Chris Thorne
Spring Valley Aquifer - Groundwater Monitoring Plan
This memorandum follows up on our meeting in Glenwood Springs on
November 15, 2000, concerning the proposal of Spring Valley Development, Inc.
("SVD") for joint implementation of a groundwater monitoring plan by the major
land owners that use or plan to use groundwater withdrawn from the Spring Valley
Aquifer to supply development on their respective properties. The primary purpose
of the proposed plan is to monitor aquifer levels and productivity as this resource
becomes more widely utilized in upcoming years. SVD was pleased to learn that
each of the landowners identified above is interested in participating in the plan, as
this will increase the utility and quality of the data to be developed.
At the November 15 meeting, we agreed that within an appropriate period of
time, each landowner will identify the well or wells to be including in the
monitoring program We further agreed that the Basalt Water Conservancy District
would be the best entity to serve as a central repository for the data to be collected,
and the Basalt District has agreed to fill this role. As January 2001 would be an
opportune time to commence joint data collection, we suggest that each Iandowner
identify to the Basalt District the well or wells to be included in the program by
December 31, 2000. Each participant should receive a copy of the designation of
wells to be monitored.
Bill Lorah's November 14, 2000, letter identifies three SVA wells to be
included in the program. SVD has been monitoring these Wells for several months.
SVD will also designate an additional "upland well" for monitoring as suggested at
the November 15 meeting.
We agreed that static water levels and total monthly diversions for each well
should be recorded and reported to the Basalt District's engineers on a monthly
basis. The Basalt District will compile the reported data and report it to the
participants in spreadsheet format. The data reported to the Basalt District will be
MN
o
0
9E H
0
0
M 0
0
J
Lai';'.
oca
i_.
aa)
0
ELL.
as
0
—0000
a
"iCO(!'-u_
_u00
9Ng
♦-0N�
.0 4
12,°07/2000 11:18 FAX 303 295 P'61
HOLLAND & HART LLP Qn003
1111rionuourot ri h+2C 7147,14444J14k 11111
Reception#: 823748
09/05/2012 03:38:48 PM Jean Alberico
79 of 79 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
publicly available. It is anticipated that the Basalt District may utilize the reported data
in discussions with the Colorado Division of Water Resources :concerning the Basalt
District's augmentation program and temporary substitute supply plans_
Once again, SVD appreciates your interest in this plan, which we hope will prove
to be a useful tool for all of the Spring Valley water users. Please let us know if you
have any suggestions or concerns regarding the procedures for implementing the
monitoring plan as described above. If we do not hear from you by December 18, 2000,
we will assume these procedures are acceptable. In the meantime, do not hesitate to
contact either of us with any questions or comments you may have concerning this
memorandum or the proposed groundwater management plan.
cc: Bill Peacher
Cam Kicklighter
Bill Lorah
2740083_1.10C
2