The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSoils Report 02.28.2003Geotech HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 email: hpgeo@hpgeotech.com RECEIVED MAR n 3 2003 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY RANCH AT COULTER CREEK COUNTY ROAD 115 GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 103 115 FEBRUARY 28, 2003 PREPARED FOR: SNOWMASS LAND COMPANY ATTN: JOE ENZER P.O. BOX 6119 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthome 970-468-1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 GEOLOGIC SETTING 2 SITE GEOLOGY 3 FIELD EXPLORATION 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT 7 PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 10 FOUNDATIONS 10 FLOOR SLABS 11 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 11 SITE GRADING 12 SURFACE DRAINAGE 12 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE 13 RADIATION POTENTIAL 13 LIMITATIONS 13 REFERENCES 15 FIGURES 1A, 1B AND 1C - GEOLOGY MAP AND BORING LOCATIONS FIGURES 2•through 4- LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 5 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 6 through 11 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 12 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 13 - HVEEM STABILOMETER TEST RESULTS TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE 2 - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed Ranch at Coulter Creek, County Road 115, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the geologic and subsurface conditions and their potential impacts on the project. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Snowmass Land Company, dated January 10, 2003. A field exploration program consisting of a reconnaissance and exploratory borings and pits was conducted to obtain information on the site and subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for project planning and preliminary design. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed development and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed Ranch at Coulter Creek development consists of about 479 acres which will be divided into 26 single family residential lots located adjacent to 305 acres of open space. The preliminary development plan is shown on Figs. 1A, 1B and IC. The residential areas will mainly border the south and west perimeter of the open space. The individual .lots will vary in size typically from about 4 to 6 acres with larger lots along the southwest perimeter. The lots will be accessed by several roads that connect to County Road 115 at two locations to form a loop. A chip seal road surface is proposed. The lots will be serviced with a central water system and have individual septic disposal. The water plant will be located in the area of Boring 3 (Fig. 1B) and an above ground steel tank will be located in the area of Boring 4 (Fig. 1A). Grading for H -P GEOTECH 2 the development improvements is generally proposed to be relatively minor with cut and fill depths up to about 6 to 10 feet. If development plans change significantly from those described above, we should be contacted for review and additional analysis as needed. SITE CONDITIONS The Ranch at Coulter Creek covers about 479 acres and is located on the northern side of the Missouri Heights upland to the west of the confluence of Cattle and Coulter Creeks. The upland is rolling terrain that stands above and lies to the north of the Roaring Fork River valley. Topography in the area is shown by the contour lines on Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C. Cattle Creek has eroded a deep canyon below the upland along the south side of the project area. Much of this canyon side is a large landslide complex. Slopes in the proposed 26 building envelopes on the upland to the north are moderate and typically do not exceed 15%. Major drainages do not cross through the project site. Much of the project site is irrigated hay fields and pasture. Vegetation outside the irrigated areas is mostly sage, oak and other brush with some juniper trees. At the time of this study, the property was an operating ranch. The only buildings on the property were the ranch headquarters near the northeastern corner of the property. Much of the ground had a shallow snow cover at the time of our field review. GEOLOGIC SETTING The project area is located in the northern part of Missouri Heights, a rolling upland in the central part of the Carbondale evaporite collapse center. The collapse center is a roughly circular region with a diameter of about 20 miles and an area of about 460 square miles (Kirkham and Others, 2002). As much as 4,000 feet of regional subsidence is believed to have occurred in the collapse center within the past 10 million years as the result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the region. Much of the collapse appears to have occurred within the past 3 million years which H -P GEOTECH 3 also corresponds to high incision rates along the Colorado River and its main tributaries such as the Roaring Fork River (Kirkham and Others, 2002). If this is the case, the long-term average subsidence rate was between 0.04 and 0.1 inches per 100 years. There is some local evidence of evaporite deformation such as tilted river terraces and fault scarps as recent as the late Pleistocene, but there is no definitive evidence of deformation during post -glacial times, within about the past 15,000 years (Widmann and Others, 1998). The closest fault zones to the project area with known or suspected post -glacial activity not associated with evaporite deformation and considered capable of generating large earthquakes are the southern section of the Sawatch fault zone located about 63 miles to the southeast and the Williams Fork Mountain fault zone located about 58 miles to the northeast (Widmann and Others, 1998). SITE GEOLOGY The main geologic features in the project area are shown on Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C. Most of the project area is underlain by the sediments of Missouri Heights (QTm) with some Miocene -age volcanic rocks (Tvm) in the southeastern part of the project area. Regional geologic mapping indicates that the Eagle Valley Evaporite is present below these two geologic units at an unknown depth (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997). The evaporite is susceptible to solution in fresh water and the resulting subsurface voids can produce sinkholes. Sinkholes are locally present in the region, but evidence of sinkholes was not apparent in the project area. Surficial deposits locally present in the area are stream alluvium (Qal and Qat) along the valley bottoms of Cattle and Coulter Creeks, local alluvial fans (Qat) and colluvium (Qc) below the hillsides. A large landslide complex (Qls) borders the property on the south and covers much of the north Cattle Creek canyon side. Several northwest trending, normal faults are inferred to be present in the southeastern part of the property. H -P GEOTECH 4 SEDIMENTS OF MISSOURI HEIGHTS The sediments of Missouri Heights (QTm) were deposited during the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene in a broad bowl shaped area of Cattle Creek. The bowl is an evaporite subsidence depression that is about 7 miles long in the east -west direction and about 2 miles wide in the north -south direction (Kirkham and Others, 2002). The sediments were deposited by a west flowing stream in fluvial, deltaic and lake settings. The project area lies near the western margin of the bowl and moderate to high plasticity clays, probably deposited in a former lake, were encountered in most of our exploratory borings, see Figures. 2, 3, and 4. The lake clays have a moderate to high expansion potential and are greater than 20 to 30 feet thick at the boring sites. MIOCENE -AGE VOLCANIC ROCKS Miocene -age basalt flows (Tvm) that have been broken and deformed by evaporite subsidence are present below the prominent hill in the southeastern part of the project site and probably underlies the sediment of Missouri Heights elsewhere in the project area. Basalt locally crops out, but it is usually covered by thin colluvium. Broken and fractured basalt was encountered at the surface in Boring 11 near the top of the hill. The basalt is a black, very dense and hard rock. The evaporite deformation has broken the rock into large blocks that typically have soil in fillings between the blocks. FAULTS Three normal faults related to past evaporite deformation are inferred, based on aerial photograph lineations and local topographic expression, to be present in the southeastern part of the project area. The inferred faults lie along the trends of previously mapped faults to the south of Cattle Creek (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997). In places, steep escarpments in basalt that are about 10 feet high are present along the H -P GEOTECH 5 trend of some of the inferred faults and the western two faults form a graben on the southwest side of the hill in the southeastern part of the project area. LANDSLIDE COMPLEX A Large, deep seated rotational landslide complex (Qls) covers much of the northern Cattle Creek canyon side to the southwest of the project area and locally extends onto the property. Judging from the size of the individual rotational blocks, the basal shear surface may be over 100 feet deep and is probably in the Eagle Valley Evaporite or evaporite collapse debris that crops out down canyon from the landslide complex. The landslide appears to have been dormant with respect to large scale movement for some time, but it could be undergoing seasonal creep. The present crown escarpment appears to be along the trend of the western most of the three inferred faults in the southeastern part of the project area. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was initiated on January 13, 2003 when digging with a backhoe for four percolation tests was attempted. Due to the frost, only Pit 1 on Lot 23 could be dug. The field exploration for the remaining project was conducted between January 30 and February 5, 2003. Twelve exploratory borings were drilled with a truck mounted CME -45B drill rig using 4 inch diameter power auger at the locations shown on Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils and hardness of the bedrock. Depths at H -P GEOTECH 6 which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figures 2 through 4. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figures 2 through 4. The subsoils generally consist of 1 to 2 feet of topsoil overlying very stiff sandy clay with scattered gravel layers. Relatively dense, silty to clayey sandy gravel with basalt cobbles and boulders was encountered at various depths in Borings 4, 6, 10 and 11 and in Pit 1. Drilling and digging in the basalt materials was difficult due to the rock hardness and size and practical refusal was encountered in the deposits. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, Atterberg limits, gradation analyses, unconfined compressive strength and Hveem stabilometer `R' value. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay soils, presented on Figures 6 through 11, generally indicate low compressibility under existing low moisture conditions and light loading and a low to high expansion potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. The clays with low expansive potential showed swelling pressures typically between about 3,000 to 5,000 psf, and the clays with moderate to high expansive potential showed swelling pressures typically between about 8,000 to 20,000 psf. Results of gradation analyses performed on the more granular soils are presented on Figure 12, and the Hveem stabilometer test results are presented on Figure 13. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. No free water was encountered in the borings or pit at the time of drilling or digging and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. H -P GEOTECH 7 GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT There are several conditions of a geologic nature that should be considered in future project planning and design. These conditions are not expected to have a major impact on general project feasibility, but some modifications to the currently proposed building locations would reduce potential risks associated with a major landslide reactivation. The geologic conditions that should be considered in planning and design and their potential risk are described below. EXPANSIVE FOUNDATION CONDITIONS Most of the proposed 26 building envelopes and proposed roads are underlain by the sediments of Missouri Heights (QTm). Our exploratory borings and laboratory testing shows that this geologic unit is mostly moderately to highly plastic clay that has an expansion potential. C ene t foundation recommendations appropriate for the on-site expansive clays are discussed in the Preliminary Design Recommendations section of this report. EXCAVATION DIFFICULTIES Difficult excavation conditions should be expected when excavating in the basalt (Tvm) in the southeastern part of the project area. Because of the fractured and broken nature of the basalt it can probably be ripped with heavy duty equipment in open excavations. Blasting or other rock excavating techniques may be needed to excavate the basalt in confined excavations such as utility trenches. Also, blasting may be needed in open excavations if large basalt blocks are present or if unbroken basalt is present. H -P GEOTECH 8 LANDSLIDE REACTIVATION The landslide complex along the northen Cattle Creek canyon side appears to have been dormant with respect to large scale moment for some time, but the landslide may be undergoing seasonal creep movements. Seasonal landslide creep should not affect areas beyond the mapped landslide boundary shown on Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C. Although active creep may be occurring, in our opinion, the likelihood of a major landslide reactivation during a reasonable exposure time for the project is low. In the unlikely event of a major landslide reactivation the large scale movements would probably be restricted to the mapped landslide boundary shown on Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C, but they could potentially extend further to the northeast of the present landslide boundary If a low risk of major landslide reactivation is not acceptable, then buildings or other movement sensitive facilities should not be located within about 150 feet from the landslide boundary shown on Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C. AAs presently planned, pans" proposed building envelopes on Lots 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 are within 150 feet of the present landslide boundary. The 150 foot setback is approximate and when specific building and other facility locations have been determined, their location should be field review to determine that an appropriate setback has been considered. REGIONAL EVAPORITE DEFORMATION The project site is in the Carbondale evaporite collapse center where regional ground deformations have been associated with evaporite solution and flow in the geologic past. Evaporite deformation in the project area probably started about 10 million years ago, but it is uncertain if the deformation is still active or if deformation has stopped. If evaporite deformation is still active, it appears to be taking place at very slow rates and over broad areas with little risk of abrupt differential ground displacement except along evaporite related faults. We are not aware of evaporate related deformation problems in the region. In our opinion, the currently available information on regional evaporite deformation would indicate that risks to the residential development at the project site H -P GEOTECH 9 are low. The low risk can be further reduced by not locating buildings or other movement sensitive facilities within 50 feet of the faults shown on Figs. 1B and 1C. Faults are present in parts of the currently proposed building envelopes on Lots 18, 19, 20and 21. SINKHOLES Evidence of sinkholes was not observed on the property in the field or on the aerial photographs reviewed. The sinkhole risk on the property is viewed to be low and no greater than that present in other parts of Garfield County where the evaporite is near the surface. The potential for shallow subsurface voids that could develop into sinkholes should be considered when planning site specific geotechnical studies at building sites and other movement sensitive facilities. If conditions indicative of sinkhole related problems are encountered, the site should be abandoned or the feasibility of mitigation evaluated. Mitigation measures could include: • Stabilization by Grouting • Stabilization by Excavation and Backfilling • Deep Foundation Systems • Structural Bridging • Mat Foundations • Set -back from the Potential Sinkhole Area Water features such as landscape ponds are not recommend near building sites unless evaluated on a site specific basis. Home owners should be advised of the sinkhole potential, since early detection of foundation distress and timely remedial actions are important in reducing the cost of remediation, should a sinkhole start to develop after construction. H -P GEOTECH 10 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS The project area could experience earthquake related ground shaking. Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable exposure time 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 and other important 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. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions and recommendations presented below are based on the proposed development, subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and pit, and our experience in the area. The recommendations are suitable for planning and preliminary design but site specific studies should be conducted for the individual development facilities and for building on each lot. FOUNDATIONS Bearing conditions will vary depending on the specific location of the building on the property. Most of the soils encountered at shallow depth consist of expansive clays. In general, we expect lightly loaded spread footings placed on the natural clay soils with lower expansion potential or on granular soils should be suitable for building support. We expect the footings can be sized for an allowable bearing pressure in the range of 2,000 psf to 4,000 psf. Where clays with low expansive potential are encountered in building areas, the clay may need to be removed or the footings designed to impose a H -P GEOTECH 11 minimum dead load pressure to limit potential heave. Where the clays have moderate to high expansive potential, drilled piers or helical piers that extend to below the expansive material will probably be needed. Boulders could result in irregular bearing conditions for spread footings and make pier installations difficult. Foundation walls should be designed to span local anomalies and to resist lateral earth loadings when acting as retaining structures. Expansive clays should not be used as backfill behind foundation walls that act as retaining structures. Below grade areas and retaining walls should be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure by use of an underdrain system. The footings should have a minimum depth of 36 inches for frost protection. The subsoils encountered at the tank site (Boring 4 location) appears suitable to support an above ground steel structure placed on a prepared subgrade. FLOOR SLABS Slab -on -grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the natural soils with low to no expansion potential. There could be some post construction slab movement at sites with expansive clays. Crawlspace construction should be used in moderately to highly expansive soil areas. Subexcavation of the clays to a depth of at least 3 feet and replacement with non -expansive structural fill may be used in the garage areas with a risk of heave. 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 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area and where clay soils are present that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. An underdrain H -P GEOTECH 12 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. srrE cpanu The risk of construction -induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the buildings are located in the less steep parts of the property and cut and fill depths are limited. Cut depths for the building pads and driveway access should not exceed about 10 feet. Fills should be limited to about 10 feet deep and not encroach steep downhill sloping areas. Structural fills should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density within 2% of 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 slopes that exceed 20% grade. The on-site soils excluding oversized rock and topsoil should be suitable for use in embankment fills. The highly plastic clays should not be used as structural fill beneath buildings and pavements. 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. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE The grading plan for the subdivision should consider runoff from uphill slopes through the project and at individual sites. Water should not be concentrated and directed onto steep slopes or allowed to pond which could impact slope stability and foundations. To H -P GEOTECH limit infiltration into the bearing soils next to buildings, exterior backfill should be well compacted and have a positive slope away from the building for a distance of 10 feet. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill and landscape irrigation should be restricted. PAVEMENT SUBGRADE The subgrade soils encountered at the site consist primarily of medium to high plasticity clay. Silty to clayey sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders was encountered beneath the topsoil at some of the borings. The clay soils are considered a poor support for pavement materials. Based on the soil conditions encountered in the borings and the laboratory test results, a subgrade Hveem 'R' value of 5 is recommended for pavement design. The coarser soils encountered in several of the borings would have a higher 'R' value, on the order of 25. The actual subgrade conditions should be evaluated at the time of construction. It may be feasible to provide a subbase layer of the on-site gravelly soils to improve the subgrade support condition. With adequate subbase and base course material depths, a chip and seal roadway surface should be feasible. RADIATION POTENTIAL The proposed development is not located in an area where geologic deposits are ctedto have unusually high concentrations of radioactive minerals. However, there is a potential that radon gas could be present in the area. It is difficult to assess the potential for future radon gas concentrations in buildings before the buildings are constructed. Testing for radon gas can be done after construction of a residence or other occupied structure. New buildings are often designed with provisions for ventilation of lower enclosed spaces should post construction testing show unacceptable radon gas concentrations. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or 14 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 and pit located as shown on Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C, 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 pit and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for 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 review of geologic conditions at the building locations, and additional subsurface exploration and analysis for the individual building designs. Respectfully Submitted, HEPWORTH - PA • TECHNICAL, INC. Steven L. Paw SLP/djb cc: Sopris Engineering - Attn: Yancy Nichol H -P GEOTECH 15 REFERENCES Kirkham, R. M. and Widmann, B. L., 1997, Geology Map of the Carbondale Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File 97-3. Kirkham R. M. and Others, 2002, Evaporite Tectonism in the Lower Roaring Fork River Valley, West -Central Colorado, in Kirkham R. M., Scott, R. B. and Judkins, T. W. eds., Late Cenozoic Evaporite Tectonism and Volcanism in West -Central Colorado: Geological Society of America Special Paper 366, Boulder, Colorado. 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. H -P GEOTECH fi BLM PROPER'"' "� / '/ 6 w Comm „spa Lot Sac ►dunnSpace' 4.47 ac B-8 d t SCS IJJ 4.37 ac aCC4e,,rtite x 0- Comm.;,- �. , Space 03 �`� of 10 47 ac '` M�, Ot 3 3 QCiTVm /---._ � Lo 1-1 se R: \,Lo824 ac ill . r•o: e, 30 •sac 1 • l • r Qls6.39 BLM PROPERTY ---.-_.. Sec. 1 Sec. 6 \QdT \"---.„,,,,___ 12 ' Sec. 7 \\. r Bt,M PROPERTY as Explanation: of Man -Placed Fill Qc Colluvium Qat Alluvial Fan Qat Younger Stream Alluvium Qat Older Stream Alluvium Qls Landslide QTm Sediments of Missouri Heights Tvp Pliocene -age Volcanic Rocks Tvm Miocene -age Volcanic Rocks u D B -1e P-1 ■ Contact: Approxdmat■ boundary of map units. Escarpment: Toe of landslide escarpment. Normal Fault: Inferred normal fault approximate location, dotted where concealed, U up -thrown side, D down -thrown side. Boring: 0 6001t. Apprcedmate location of exploratory boring. L 1 1 Plt: Scale: l in. = 600 R Apprcodmatelocation of y pt Contour Inilervd: 2 ft. and 40 R 103 115 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. Ranch at Coulter Creek Geology Map - Northwestern Part Fig. 1A BAR, lAc'Y Y, LTD. ' t -'' ''a"c""pae -rC$ Cs 1 �3 ► �� af Qaf o egg I of„I*.3 4 \ !I � 1, / CI r•.r 1 w •� if i vw av wr J JJcf Qai� 5 cif i 111. • 5 C. - o ; •,. en , . . 30.5ac \ \\ K J /. 7, Zo M N J ZJ \ N N QTm i 8e . 6 Sec. 5 1 Firirls='Clif.mmiri4rI Sec. 8 ,, >• �,_ / I 4.9 5 I • QTm Lot 5.36:. VP .., �' _ p 1 i Qls ...1.iii 1 t\:•.- 1 il.r.A4 .ti �►ii 1 C.ckk............diihi KlllliA1vv� Qa c • Qa2 Explanation: Contact: of Man -Placed Fill Approximate boundary of map ung. Escarpment: Qc Colluvium ' . ' Qaf Alluvial Fan u Toe of landslide escarpment Normal Fault: Qa1 Younger Stream Alluvium D Qa2 Older Stream Alluvium inferred normal fault approximate location' Qls Landslide &� dotted where concealed, U up -thrown side, D • down -thrown side. QTm Sediments of Missouri Heights Boring: o Tvp Pliocene -age Volcanic Rocks P"1■ Approudmate location boring.t 800 ft. t t of exploratory Tvm Miocene -age Volcanic Rodes Ph: Scale: 1 in. = 6001 Carlota' interval: 2 ft. and 40 ft Approximate location of exploratory pit 103115 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. Ranch at Coulter Creek Geology Map - Northeastern Part Fig. 1 B HARRIETT MCKNIGHT CROSBY REVOCABLE TRUST Explanation: of Man -Placed Fill Qc Colluvium Oaf Alluvial Fan Qat Younger Stream Alluvium 082 Older Stream Alluvium Qls Landslide QTm Sediments of Missouri Heights Tvp Pliocene -age Volcanic Rocks Tvm Miocene -age Volcanic Rocks u D B -1e P-1 ■ Contact: Approxdmate boundary of map units. Escarpment: Toe of landslide escarpment Normal Fault: Inferred normal fault apprordmate location, dotted where concealed, U up4hrown side, D down -thrown side. Boring: 0 600 ft. Appnoodmate location of exploratory boring. 1 1 1 Pit: scale: l km. = 6001t. Approxi� location of pit. Interval: 2 R and 40 R 103 115 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. Ranch at Coulter Creek Geology Map - Southeaster Part Fig. 1C Depth -- Feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 BORING 1 ELEV. =7135' 20/12 24/12 WC -12.7 00=118 -200=87 U.=36 PI=20 16/12 12/12 WC=34.1 D0=88 -200=99 LL=78 P1-57 32/12 BORING 2 ELEV.= 7140' l 1 STORAGE POND _ 35 13/12 30/12 WC -21.6 00-107 -200-99 LL -59 PI=40 32/12 BORING 3 ELEV. =7186' 33/12 31/12 15/12 WC=16.2 00=112 28/12 32/12 `. 18/12 WC -15.5 00-112 -200=82 LL=29 PI -15 UC -7300 13/12 BORING 4 ELEV.= 7380' WATER WATER PLANT TANK Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 5. 23/12 WC -12.5 00=101 30/12 WC=10.1 00=117 24/12 10/0 BORING 5 ELEV.=7364' 0 21/12 r r WC -21.8 DO -107 10 v � r 18/12 r r' 15 r � r 9/12 20 25 30 35 Depth — Feet 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 1 C. t3 BORING 6 ELEV.=7312' 16/12 30/12 WC=20.6 00=107 31/12 41/12 BORING 7 ELEV. = 7240' 23/12 WC=18.8 DD=106 30/12 WC=18.1 00=107 —200=88 LL=46 PI=28 26/12 67/12 BORING 8 ELEV.= 7368' t 16/12 —200=90 LL=60 PI -42 R=5 29/12 WC=20.2 00-104 BORING 9 ELEV.=7358' 15/12 WC=16.7 0D=110 ' —200=89 LL -59 ' J PI=40 22/12 , 13/12 !s 22/12 WC=18.3 D0=111 i • 18/12 ' ei 16/12 , , 19/12 ' ,- 16/12 , Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 5. BORING 10 ELEV.=7231' 0 25/6,10/0 61/12 W=6.0 +4=40 —200=21 5 18/12 10 Wf-23.4 D0-103 22/12 15 17/12 20 25 Depth — Feet 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure BORING 11 ELEV.=7370' +4=29 —200=37 LL=39 Pt=14 R=24 BORING 12 ELEV.-7176' 20/12 WC=9.0 D0=105 —200=71 LL=37 FI=21 32/12 49/12 WC=13.8 D0=117 PIT 1 ELEV.=7195' /ti 677 ikm Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 5. 5 10 15 20 Depth — Feet HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PIT Figure 4 LEGEND: 1 v 20/12 Disturbed bulk sample. TOPSOIL; organic sandy silt and clay, dark brown, frozen. CLAY (CL); sandy, scattered gravel to gravelly, very stiff, slightly moist to moist, brown, slightly calcareous, medium to high plasticity. CLAY (CH); slightly sandy, stiff to very stiff, moist, mottled brown and grey, high plasticity. CLAY AND SAND (CL—SC); gravelly, very stiff/medium dense, slightly moist to moist, mixed brown, slightly to highly calcareous, low to medium plasticity. GRAVEL AND CLAY (GC—CL); sandy, basalt cobbles and scattered boulders, medium dense, slightly moist to moist, brown, slightly calcareous. GRAVEL (GM—GC); silty to clayey, sandy, with cobbles and boulders, medium dense to dense, slightly moist to moist, mixed grey—brown. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch 1.0. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM 0-1586. Drive sample blow count; indicates that 20 blows of a 140 pound hammer failing 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. TPractical drilling or excavating refusal in basalt boulders. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on January 30 and 31 and February 5, 2003 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger. Pit 1 and percolation hole P-1 (Lot 23) were excavated with a backhoe on January 13, 2003. P-2, P-3 and P-4 are 8 inch diameter power auger drilled percolation borings. 2. Locations of exploratory borings and pit were measured approximately by pacing from the features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings and pit were obtained by interpolation between contours shown on the site plan. 4. The exploratory boring and pit 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 and pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings or pit at the time of drilling or excavation. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing. Results: WC = Water Content ( X ) 00 = Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve. -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. LL = Liquid Limit (% ) P1 = Plasticity Index ( % ) UC = Unconfined Compressive Strength ( psf ) R = Hveem Stabilometer "R" Value 103 115 I HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 3 2 c a o. w 1 Compression — Compression — Expansion 0 1 2 4 3 2 0 1 2 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 Moisture Content = 12.5 percent Dry Density = 101 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 4 at 5 Feet Expansion upon wetting AI 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 6 Moisture Content = 16.2 percent Dry Censity = 112 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay with Gravel From: Boring 3 at 10 Feet • • Expansion upon wetting . • 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 Moisture Content = 12.5 percent Dry Density = 101 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 4 at 5 Feet Expansion upon wetting AI 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 6 4 2 0 X 1 Compression — 0 2 2 1 0 c 0 0. x w 0.1 1.0 -10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf Moisture Content = 21.6 percent Dry Density = 107 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 5 at 8 Feet Expansion upon wetting 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Moisture Content = 10.1 percent Dry Density = 117 pcf Sample of: Very Sandy Clay with Gravel From: Boring 4 at 10 Feet i 0 • T - Expansion upon 3 wetting • ----________________A i 9- i 4) 0.1 1.0 -10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf Moisture Content = 21.6 percent Dry Density = 107 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 5 at 8 Feet Expansion upon wetting 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 2 Compression 0 1 2 E 3 0 c 0 c. w 22 c 0 m 0. 0 0 1 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 Moisture Content = 18.8 percent Dry Density = 106 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 7 at 3 Feet Expansion upon wetting 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 8 Moisture Content = 20.6 percent Dry Density = 107 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 6 at 8 Feet i► 1 Expansion upon wetting • • u • 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 Moisture Content = 18.8 percent Dry Density = 106 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 7 at 3 Feet Expansion upon wetting 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 8 0.1 Moisture Content = 20.2 percent Dry Density = 104 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 8 at 5 Feet Expansion upon wetting 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf i 100 10.3 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Figure 9 Compression — Expansion 2 1 0 1 0.1 2 = 1 0 N C 0 o. x Lai C .0 1 y N C. 0 2 U 0.1 Moisture Content = 18.3 percent Dry Density = 111 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 9 at 10 Feet Expansion upon wetting 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf Moisture Content = 23.4 percent Dry Density = 103 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 10 at 10 Feet Expansion upon wetting 1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 100 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 1 Figure 10 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1 0 0 a 0 Lu 1 m • 2 0. E 0 y 3 4 O 2 o 0 0. • 1 O • 0 N fR 0. o i U 2 0.1 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf Moisture Content = 13.8 percent Dry Density = 117 pcf Sample of: Slightly Sandy Clay From: Boring 12 at 13 Feet Expansion upon wetting 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf 100 100 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 11 Moisture Content = 9.0 percent Dry Density = 105 pcf Sample of: Sandy Cloy From: Boring 12 at 3 Feet t U • I Expansion upon wetting 0.1 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf Moisture Content = 13.8 percent Dry Density = 117 pcf Sample of: Slightly Sandy Clay From: Boring 12 at 13 Feet Expansion upon wetting 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf 100 100 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 11 CENT RETAIN i • •1 Al DI7 liYDROA11702 AN4LY51S SIEVE ANdLY5S 24 HR. 7 HR 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 6OMIN. 198181. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. 0 TIME READINGS 10 , 20 30 40 50 so 70 30 30 goo 1100 U.S. STANDARD SERIES 990 030 936 j6 L CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 3/8' 3/4' 11/2' 3 5' s' 8' 100 f 170 1 4. 100 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 475 11.51 19.0 37.5 73.2 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY 70 SU.? GRAVEL 40 % LIQUID UMIT 90 1N I IUM !COARSE FINE GRAVEL1 COARSE 152 203 CONIES SAND 39 Xe SILT AND CLAY 21 % PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Clayey Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 10 at 5 Feet MIROMESER ANALYSIS 24 NR. 7 HR TIME READINGS 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60MN. 19MI1. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60• I SIEVE ANALYSIS U.S. STANDARD SES 1 CLEAR SQUARE CPamlas 1200 1100 50 130 916 0 0 ' 3/5' 3/4' 1 1/2' 3' 5'6' 41' ( I N- 70 so so; 100 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .1100 1.19 2.36 4.73 9.512 19.0 37.5 76.21 52 203 27 CLAY TO SILT DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL 29 X LIQUID UMIT 39 X F1NE '"moi !COARSE FINE �t� COARSE SAND 34 X SILT AND CLAY 37 X PLASTICITY INDEX 14 % SAMPLE OF: Clayey Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 11 at 1 thru 5 Feet 60 50 40 20 10 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 RCENT PASSIN • CENT PASSIk r, 103 115 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK 1 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 12 TEST SPECIMEN 1 2 3 MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 15.3 14.9 14.3 DENSITY (pcf) 111 117 119 "R" VALUE/EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) 20/215 28/358 40/477 100 90 "R" 80 V 70 A L 60 U E 50 40 30 20 10 "R" VALUE AT 300 psi = 24 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) SOIL TYPE: Clayey Silty Sand and Gravel SAMPLE LOCATION: Boring 11 at 1 thru 5 Feet GRAVEL 29 % SAND 34 LIQUID LIMIT 39 SILT AND CLAY 37 PLASTICITY INDEX 14 103 115 HEP WOR TH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. HVEEM STABILOMETER TEST RESULTS Figure 13 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE BORING LOCATION DEPTH (teen NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT 1%1 NATURAL DRY DENSITY IpcH GRADATION PERCENT ATTEFIBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED GRAVEL (%I SAND I%) PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTIC INDEX 1%) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IPSFI 1 5 12.7 116 87 36 20 15 34.1 88 99 78 57 2 10 21.6 107 99 59 40 3 10 16.2 112 20 15.5 112 62 ;29 15 7300 4 5 12.5 101 10 10.1 117 5 8 21.6 107 6 8 20.6 107 7 3 18.8 106 8 18.1 107 88 46 28 8 2 - 5 90 60 42 5 20.2 104 Page 1 of 2 JOB NO. 103 115 HVEEM STABILOMETER VALUE SOIL OR BEDROCK TYPE sandy clay clay clay sandy clay with gravel sandy clay with gravel sandy clay very sandy clay with gravel sandy clay sandy clay sandy clay sandy clay 5 slightly sandy clay sandy clay HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Page 2 of 2 JOB NO. 103 115 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL DRY DENSITY Ipcfl GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING DEPTH (feet) MOISTURE CONTENT 1961 UNCONFINED HVEEM STABILOMETER R. VALUE SOIL OR BEDROCK TYPE GRAVEL 1%) SAND 1%1 PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE LIQUID LIMIT 1%1 PLASTIC INDEX (%) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IPSF) 9 2 16.7 110 89 59 40 slightly sandy clay 10 18.3 111 sandy clay 10 5 6.0 40 39 21 clayey silty sand and gravel 10 23.4 103 sandy clay 11 1 - 5 29 34 37 39 14 24 clayey silty sand and gravel 12 3 9.0 105 71 37 21 sandy clay 13 13.8 117 slightly sandy clay HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 2 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 103 115 P-2 Lot 15 P-3 Lot 11 P4 Lot 6 36 33 33 reti 37/6 3 743 3 2% 7A3 21/6 7� 30 10 10 0 10 9% 1/6 9% 9% '/4 9% 9Y2 t 30 10 8 %4 1% 8'A 7' 1 7% 6% ''4 6'/4 6% 4 17 240 30 10 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 60 no perc. Note: Percolation test hole P-1 was hand dug in the bottom of a backhoe pit and soaked 1 day prior to testing on January 17, 2003. Percolation tests P-2, P-3 and P-4 were performed in 8 - inch diameter power auger borings and soaked 1 day prior to testing on January 31, 2003. The average percolation rates were based on the last three readings of each test. The percolation test holes were covered with 2 -inch rigid foam insulation to protect the hole from freezing overnight. HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P-1 Lot 23 48 15 61/2 3% 2% 3%4 2% % 2% 2 743 A7L, w7, P-2 Lot 15 P-3 Lot 11 P4 Lot 6 36 33 33 reti 37/6 3 743 3 2% 7A3 21/6 7� 30 10 10 0 10 9% 1/6 9% 9% '/4 9% 9Y2 t 30 10 8 %4 1% 8'A 7' 1 7% 6% ''4 6'/4 6% 4 17 240 30 10 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 60 no perc. Note: Percolation test hole P-1 was hand dug in the bottom of a backhoe pit and soaked 1 day prior to testing on January 17, 2003. Percolation tests P-2, P-3 and P-4 were performed in 8 - inch diameter power auger borings and soaked 1 day prior to testing on January 31, 2003. The average percolation rates were based on the last three readings of each test. The percolation test holes were covered with 2 -inch rigid foam insulation to protect the hole from freezing overnight. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FINAL SATISFACTION OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT that: WHEREAS, SLC -Laurence, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, entered into a Subdivision Improvements Agreement ("SIA") with the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado (hereinafter "Board") dated March 15, 2004. recorded on June 9, 2004 in Book 1595, at Page 119 as Reception No. 653767 of the Garfield County records for the improvements of The Ranch at Coulter Creek; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the SIA SLC -Laurence posted an irrevocable standby letter of credit issued by Alpine Bank Aspen in the amount of $762,376.88 which was the estimated cost of completing the subdivision improvements for The Ranch at Coulter Creek which were not completed at the time of approval of the SIA; and WHEREAS, SLC -Laurence, LLC has presented a certification from Sopris Engineering, LLC dated July 26, 2004 certifying that SLC -Laurence, LLC has completed subdivision improvements associated with The Ranch at Coulter Creek having an actual cost of construction of $2,320,401.88 including those that were incomplete at the time of execution of the SIA, and requesting that based upon said certification the amount of the original letter of credit in the amount of $762,376.88 be reduced to a total amount of $0.00 as a result of all construction obligations required in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement being completed as detailed in said certification. NOW THEREFORE, at the request of SLC -Lawrence, LLC and in consideration of the premises and prior agreements, the Board hereby acknowledges the satisfaction of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement entered into by SLC -Lawrence, LLC and.the Board for The Ranch at Coulter Creek, and hereby authorizes the release of the security from the above identified Alpine Bank letter of credit in the amount of $762,376.88 which will result in a remaining balance of said letter of credit in the amount of $0.00 and constituting a full and final release of said letter of credit; and the Board further authorizes the Chairman to sign a Reduction Certificate for The Ranch at Coulter Creek Planned Unit5evelopment, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and deliver the original thereof to SLC -Lawrence, LLC, for further delivery to Alpine Bank. The parties further agree that this Acknowledgment of Final Satisfaction of Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be recorded in the records of Garfield County, Colorado, and such recording shall constitute notice that SLC -Laurence, LLC has satisfied all of the terms, conditions and requirements of the Owner contained in the aforesaid SIA for The ch at Coulter Creek Planned Unit Development except for those relating to revegetation which are described • • . ; graph 4(d) of said SIA and which are secured by a different and still valid letter of credit. ARD OF OF . RFIE By: Chairm lerk to the Board 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 III 11111 Illi 1111 659489 09/08/2004 11:118 81620 P594 11 pLSDORF 1 of 1 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO MMI 'STONERS S° REDUCTION CERTIFICATE THE RANCH AT COULTER CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO: Alpine Bank Aspen 600 E. Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Alpine Bank Letter of Credit No., dated March 15, 2004 Original Letter of Credit Amount: $762,376.88 Gentlemen: The undersigned, a duly authorized official of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, hereby acknowledges that the improvements required by the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, dated March 15, 2004, between SLC -Laurence, LLC and the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, have been certified as complete by the project engineer and, therefore, the amount of the above -referenced Letter of Credit shall be reduced by: USD $762,376.88 To a new total of: USD $0.00 Dated: f - %- p BOARD OF OF GAR I COMMISSIONERS 014444, • d' A sd1 orf, Clerk to the Boar 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111(111111 658490 09/08/2004 11:1311 61620 P595 11 ALSDORF 1 of 1 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO By: Cha 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLM PROPERTY BLM PROPERTY P ov—A S89'59'22'W CENTERLINE COUNTY ROAD 115 BAR LAZY Y, LTD. S89.37'04'E 5011.21' BAR LAZY Y, LTD. CENTERLINE COUNTY /ROAD 115 QiiPv WA 7120.; 13LTu3 t?a ceeu ud rutin Legend S89 '26'E 1315 0 BL.M PROPERTY N w Common Open Space 11 Lot Area (outside envelope) Building Envelopes Roads and Driveways ■ma - IWO 743070 1011 71103 4 A 401 tl00Tlf31111 913 300017 3. IW +r hl. O. - 4J0010 4& M•0101001 PL01/ •SMA400 12160011101a • 0001 01001T IOi1iOZI•1 81147M, - =PST 030147100 R RR II LLE100/1001 SIC 043SWIM - 74010003 31100 10011 1110 1118 NUMMI' CO. 000000111' 0074 - 1001 NM IRC 10000'1 fait R0fat A 110 RBI 001107110E - N 11000 m71 000041000000041111001 4713001 01 10 AOPSA0.. - ALL 0/1000 11/eis mT swing • - JOICITA mama 1101101214 103 10070 018010 0571101I10l IOM ® me1TA colon= pour BLM PROPERTY O - DOOR= RA *000 • 134.40 14P 010 ALL 31944 P1 V 89'45'48' S87 28'04'E 416.15889'45'48'E� 1332.58' 489.64' C 1332.?7_.13------�— S8 7.211.11't 581.47' �NU0'52'56'1,/ 1N484.24'33" 60.73' N87.27'33'V 52.00' 1373.09' IvAl2RTRCATi4 v..ctuc,E.1. STlIRAT:E .0 PROV 51241, N: -'39'27'W 1333.97' TEST WELL #S Cr,•3"1�, Crock Road —' W.wahod SmWekLioe Lot 23 - 00041'RT 30/011 OP Mai - WHOM 11@ OL R40R0 Or MS 37000 - 1000LT12 WONNOmO PROW LIR 9.743470E 010307 "Len" O►atR4 na _ MIA= ROI 1700e 00M /T 0004701 31P 0 - MAWS PRL ® - 1004701 0131 11 - 11116 MOND 1740030 1010 349WIBB 07004811000 Ranch at Coulfer Creek Land Use Map Date: September, 2002 Prepared By: TG Malloy Consulting, LLC I14 4.91 .c Lot 24 5.36., outman Open Space NORTH 1363.84' movmuc WATER !.CELT., CABLI, TEL 10 BE .CRIED O9DERROAO PO3L0O11LT AIf01A071 BLM PROPERTY Scale: 1"=450' i9. OPEN SP Lot 19 6.46., Lot 22 4.05c •W 1+?31 cR N Lot20 5.80 ac .v.0 N88'36'05'E 1347.67' Lot 25 495 c 6 Lot26153 lac N89'54'47'E 1335.54' ASPEN BLUE SKY HOLDINGS, LLC. HARRIETT MCKNIGHT 5 N00.02'33'E 180.00' Finure 4