HomeMy WebLinkAbout260 Rolling Hills Dr - 210508211009 - 1303-93ISINDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT
EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
P.O. Box 179 - 500 Broadway • Eagle, Colorado 81631
Telephone: 328-8755
YELLOW COPY OF PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT INSTALLATION SITE. PERMIT NO. 1 J O 3
Please call for final inspection before covering any portion of installed system.
OWNER: Frank Lynch/Creamery Gulch Land Company PHONE: 949-1743
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1587 city: Avon State: CO Zip: 81620
APPLICANT: Sandy Treat PHONE: 949-1743
SYSTEM LOCATION: 2044 Creamery Gulch /Trail' ` TAX
/PARCEL
�NUMBER:
2105-082-09-0%03
LICENSED INSTALLER: �JC ��� C����`\� / �� u k s �;Yt l� �C.�-�y1 l� LICENSE NO:
DESIGN ENGINEER OF SYSTEM:
INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING:
1750 GALLON SEPTIC TANK
ABSORPTION AREA REQUIREMENTS:
SQUARE FEET OF SEEPAGE BED 1208 SQUARE FEET OF TRENCH BOTTOM.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: Install as per Engineer's revised design of 12-1.0-93.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: G/ DATE:
CONDITIONS:
1. ALL INSTALLATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO AUTHORITY GRANTED IN 25- 10- 104. 1973, AS AMENDED.
2. THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY FOR CONNECTION TO STRUCTURES WHICH HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH COUNTY ZONING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS. CONNECTION
TO OR USE WITH ANY DWELLING OR STRUCTURE NOT APPROVED BY THE ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE A VIOLATION OF A
REQUIREMENT OF THE PERMIT AND CAUSE FOR BOTH LEGAL ACTION AND REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT.
3. CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.03.29 REQUIRES ANY PERSON WHO CONSTRUCTS, ALTERS OR INSTALLS AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM TO BE LICENSED.
FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM: (TO BE COMPLETED BY INSPECTOR):
NO SYSTEM SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS UNTIL THE SYSTEM IS APPROVED
PRIOR TO COVERING ANY PORTION OF THE SYSTEM.
INSTALLED ABSORPTION OR DISPERSAL AREA: 1462.5 SQUARE FEET.
INSTALLED SEPTIC TANK: 1750 GALLON 270 DEGREES 21 FEETFROM SW corner of lower west wall.
SEPTIC TANK ACCESS TO WITHIN 8" OF FINAL GRADE AND
PROPER MATERIAL AND ASSEMBLY X YES NO
COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY / STATE REQUIREMENTS: X YES NO
ANY ITEM CHECKED NO REQUIRES CORRECTION BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM IS MADE. ARRANGE A RE -INSPECTION WHEN WORK IS CORRECTED.
COMMENTS:
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE:
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE:
(RE -INSPECTION IF NECESSARY)
APPLICANT / AGENT:
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS
NPl 0:113
PERMIT FEE PERCOLATION TEST FEE RECEIPT # CHECK #
ISDS Permit # 1303
Building Permit #
APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE- EAGLE COUNTY
P.O. BOX 179
EAGLE, CO 81631
328-8755/927-3823(Basalt)
PERMIT APPLICATION FEE $150.00 PERCOLATION TEST FEE $200.00
PROPERTY OWNER: Frank Lynch d/b/a Creamery Gulch Land Company
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1587, Avon, CO 81620 PHONE: 303/949-1743
APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON: Sandy Treat PHONE: 303/949-1743
LICENSED SYSTEMS CONTRACTOR:
{qk3
ADDRESS: PHONE:
***************************************************************************
PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: (X) NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR
LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM:
Legal Description: Lot 5, Creamery Gulch Ranch Subdivision
Parcel Number: -
Lot ��J _ _ �� 3.85 acres
o size:
Physical Address: 0204 Creamery Gulch Trail
BUILDING TYPE' (Check applicable category)
(vResidential / Single Family Number of Bedrooms
( ) Residential / Multi -Family* Number of Bedrooms
( ) Commercial / Industrial* Type
TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: Well( ) Spring ( ) Surface )
Public ( Name of Supplier:
-These systems require design by a Registered Professional Engineer
NOTE: SITE PLAN MUST BE ATTACHED TO PPLICATION
MAKE ALL REMITTANCE PAYAIk1,LE TO: "GLE COUNTY TREASURER"
SIGNATURE: DATE:
AMOUNT PAID: 0 ram- RECEIPT# ?o DATE: ��6
4)3
CHECK # U% Z2 CASHIER:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
(303)328-8730
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
August 10, 1994
Frank Lynch/Creamery Gulch Land Company
P.O. Box 1587
Avon, CO 81620
500 BROADWAY
P.O. BOX 179
EAGLE, COLORADO 81631
FAX: (303) 328-7185
RE: Final of ISDS Permit No. 1303-94 Parcel # 2105-082-09-003
Property located at: 204 Creamery Gulch Trail, Avon
Dear Mr. Lynch,
This letter is to inform you that the above referenced ISDS
Permit has been inspected and finalized. Enclosed is a copy to
retain for your records. This permit does not indicate
compliance with any other Eagle County requirements. Also
enclosed is a brochure regarding the care of your septic system.
Be aware that later changes to your building may require
appropriate alterations of your septic system.
If you have any questions regarding this permit, please contact
the Eagle County Environmental Health Division at
328-8755.
Sincerely,
Jeff Fedrizzi
Environmental Health Specialist
ENCL: Information Brochure
Final ISDS Permit
cc: files
COMMUNITY DEVLOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
(303)328-8730
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
March 30, 1994
Davis Excavating
Environmental Health Division
500 BROADWAY
P.O. BOX 179
EAGLE, COLORADO 81631
FAX: (303) 328-7185
RE: Issuance of Individual Sewage Disposal System
Permit No.1303, Tax Parcel # 2105-082-09-003
Property Located at: 0204 Creamery Gulch,Edwards
Enclosed is your ISDS Permit No. 1303 is valid for 12.0 days. The
enclosed copy of the permit must be posted at the installation
site. Any changes in plans or specifications invalidates the
permit unless otherwise approved. Please call our office well in
advance for the final inspection.
Systems designed by a Registered Professional Engineer must be
certified by the Engineer indicating that the system was
installed as specified. Eagle County does not perform final
inspections on engineer designed systems.
Permit specifications are minimum requirements only, and should
be brought to the property owner's attention.
This permit does not indicate conformance with other Eagle County
requirements.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Tania M.
Busch -Weak at 328-8755.
cc: files -
�:J,MNIL1N1F) P E\ ELOPMENT
PEPARi11ENT
13031 _ 'S S?30
December 6, 1993
Mr. Sandy Treat
P.O. Box 1587
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Mr. Treat,
The Environmental
Individual Sewage
$150.00 payment
Subdivision.
500 RROaPWAY
P.O. ROX 1 ? 9
FAG[F. COLORADO S 1631
FAX (303) 32S-71207
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Health Division has received your application to obtain an
Disposal System (ISDS) Permit along with the appropriate
(receipt enclosed) for Lot 5, Creamery Gulch Ranch
Please be advised that plat notes appear on the recorded Final Plat which
require special attention by a Registered Professional Engineer regarding the
design any ISDS's within the subdivision. I've attached a photocopy of the
plat notes for your review. Draw your attention to Plat Notes #3 & #12.
Your building permit application will remain on hold in accordance with
Colorado State Law, 25-10-111, C.R.S.(1973), which prohibits the issuance of
any building permit without first having been issued an ISDS permit. .
In addition to the above referenced item, two other deficiencies appear on
your application which need to be addressed:
1. The tax parcel number for this property needs to be submitted.
2. The Systems Contractor you listed, Vanderwalker Excavating, does not
appear in our records as a 1993 Licensed Systems Contractor, allowed to
install septic systems in Eagle County. Perhaps this company would like to
become Licensed. They must contact our office to become Licensed.
Should you have further questions regarding this letter, please contact me at
328-8757.
Sincerely -
Ray o�P P. Merr , EHS
Environmenta He anager
cc: Tania Busch -Weak, REHS, Env.
Building Permit File #6199
Keith P. Montag, Director of
Health Sp. ✓ P%aim ��ac� �ti� /SOJ /30_3
Community Development
—W.%.di
2;
3)
s;
a)
7)
8)
Y
12)
13)
Survey dote: February and March, 1992
The bearing,s, shown hereon are based an a bearing of
S.8r39'20 W. for the north fine of the North line of the h
South half of the northwest quarter of Section a. manumentotion Is found, as shown.
1
septic gatems must be designed by a Registered
Professional Engineer licensed to practice In
Individual the State of
Calorado and must follow the recommendations set forth in thi ,'
geologic report and map prepared by Chen and Associates (Job M
4 442 84) and the Chen Northern Study and Map doted February'
1992 (Job No. 4 202 92). Copies of the above studies are on fps
In the offices of Chen Northern, Isom & Associates and Eagle y
County Department of Communit, Development.
Completion date of Improvements; August, 1994.
Building heights on Lot 3 shall not exceed 30 feet as measured
from the top of Irlgation ditch passing through the Lot to the ; midpoint of the roof.
A blanket easement Is hereby
reserved upon, across. over and
under oil roads Tracts for tre
Installation. replacing. 9�s to and egress from and the
g. repairing and maintaining of drainage,
utility, service lines and systems, Including but not limited to
Irrigation, water, sewer. gas. telephone, television, cable, or
communication and electric systems and drainage systems.
A site Specific drainage study is required prior to the Issuance
of a building permit.
A site specific geotechmicd report, prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer, is
9 required for all structures prior to
the issuance of a building permit. '
A utility easement. 15 feet In width, Is hereby rsserwd along ; the boundaries of all Lots, shown hereon.
The property, shown hereon, may be subject to a right—of—way fo►A
Creamery Ditch, Insofor as It may affect sub jsct property. This;Y
easement It 15 feet wide, being 7,5 feet on each Side of the x=ri
centerline of sold ditch,
The Creamery Gulch Homeowners Association has the right, In co—operation with the Individual lot owners, to maintoln the .
irrigation ditches that cross the Individual lots. Sold ditch
locations will not Interfere with the right of each owner to
build on his or her lot, and shall be abandoned at the request of the owner. Individual Sewage Dlsposd Systems (ISDS) must be designed
y a Registered Professional Enginnew licensed to practice in the
State of Colorado. ISDS iocations and alternate locations for
each dwelling unit must be Identified on the site plan submitted r,
for the ISDS permit. ISDS Pwmlts must precede the issuance of
any building permits. Upon approval of the Architectural ContraComm'
and leach Raids. the
Space may be used for locating septic tonks ;
AN roads within this subdivision are private roads.
PLAT NOTE:
No lots within this subdivision shalt be conveyed until all of the
Mnprovemsnts required under the Subdivision Improvements Agreemt
We
I plocel and approved by Eagle County. At that time. a retail
nWQa9 this plot note wM be adopted by the Board of County
Commimloo and recorded in the perk and Recorder's Office.
The Developer may substitute collateral •otlsfactory to the Board of
County Commissioner
s to secure the completion of the Improvemen
The Board of County Commissioners shall adopt a resolution releosh
this note upon receipt of acceptable collateral.
.. .
ri ;A`F' j .
Im
I AL'A YY lJlll IJ' 1 J1 VYa.rl IN ♦JI.%;J a.�.Ialr a�.rla.� IIN% .
J(Wil 1116111VAY n.:
("IC111vood Springs, CC) 81001
Fax 303 945 8454
Phone 30.1945-7988
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 5, CTZEAMERY GULCH
EAGLE, COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 193 204
NOVEMBER 9, 1993
PREPARED FOR:
SUMMIT HABITATS
ATTN; SANDY TREAT
P.O. BOX 2755
AVON, COLORADO 81620
-------------------------------------------
'-,, ►epworthPawla.k Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Nov 10 93 16:11 No.005 P.03
H1iPWORT71-PAW1•AK CAL, INC. 784UHighway82
' Glenwood Springy, C:( ) H1601
November 9, 1993 Fnx 3n3 945 MS4
Phone 303 945-7988
Summit Habitats
Attn: Sandy Treat
P.O. Box 2755
Avon, Colorado 81620 Job No. 193 204
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 5,
Creamery Gulch, Eagle County, Colorado.
Gentlemen:
As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study at the subject site, located on Lot 5,
Creamery Gulch, Eagle County, Colorado.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and pits located drilled in
the general proposed building area consist of 1 to 1 1/2 feet of topsoil overlying low
density compressible sandy clays and clayey sands. At a depth of about 20 feet the
clayey sand became more dense. Groundwater was not encountered in the pits or
boring at the time of excavation/drilling.
The proposed residence should be founded with a drilled pier foundation that extends
into the underlying dense clayey sand and be designed for an allowable end bearing
pressure of 5000 psf and a skin friction value of 300 psf. As an alternative, spread
footings bearing on a minimum 3 feet of compacted structural fill and designed for an
allowable soil bearing pressure of 1000 psf may be used for support. of the structure.
Other design and construction criteria relating to geotechnical aspects of the proposed
residence are presented in the body of the report.
The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and
presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during
design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the
implementation of the geotechnical recommendations.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HEPWOR'1'H-PAWLAK GEOTECI-iNICAL, INC.
Daniel E, Hardin, P.E.
Rev. By: STY
cc: Ron Preston
J.C. Bauer - Attn: John Bauer
HP-r)wnr+hP.vi1.=,6r f;Nn+r,r•h TFI 707-QAS-PA17,l him% - 1fl G-� 1r-I'> NI f)nc; P nil
t
TABLE OF CONTENT'S
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............ . . ... . ....... I
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2
SITE CONDITIONS ...................................... 2
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL ................ . .. . ............. 3
FIELD EXPLORATION.. ................................. 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . 4
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. .5
FOUNDATIONS .................................... 5
FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVE .......................... 7
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ........ . ....:..... 8
FLOOR SLABS ..................................... 9
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ............................. 10
SITE GRADING ................................... 11
SURFACE DRAINAGE ......... 12
PERCOLATION TESTING ............................. 13
LIMITATIONS ........................................ 13
FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - I.FGFND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - 7 SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 8 - 9 GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE" II - PERCOLATION TESTING
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be
located on Lot 5, Creamery Gulch, Eagle County, Colorado. The project site is shown on
Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design,
The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering
services to Summit Habitats, dated September 16, 1993. in addition to our original scope of
services, we also drilled a deep boring at the site in order to provide drilled pier
recommendations.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory pits and a deep boring was
conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field
exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine compressibility and other engineering
characteristics of the on -site soils. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing
were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable
pressures for the proposed building foundation. The results of the field exploration and
Laboratory testing are presented in the report.
This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this study and to
present our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed construction and the
subsoil conditions encountered. Design parameters and a discussion of geotechnical
engineering considerations related to construction of the proposed residence are included in
the report.
H-P GFOTECH
-z-
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Design and location of the residence was conceptual at the time of our study, The
proposed residence will generally be a single story wood frame structure over a walkout
basement. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be
relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 8 feet. We assume relatively light
foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. The building will
generally be located in the upper part of the building envelope shown on Fig 1.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those
described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the reconunendations contained in this
T'eport.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site consists of fallow grass pasture and was vacant at the time of our field work.
The topography of the site is relatively flat to gently rolling with a 10% slope down to the
west and southwest. The building area is located in the northeast portion of the building
envelope above an abandoned irrigation ditch, The proposed leach field area is located west
of the building area below the abandoned irrigation ditch. Access to the site is from
Creamery Gulch Drive to the north of the building area.
H-P GEOTECH
•-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.._..._....lc_n- .I-1. r, —i. t, TC'i 4n-Z-0,1C_0+1�A kin,, 1n 07 1F•17 kin nnC', P n7
-3-
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian Age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Creamery
Gulch Development. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained
sandstone/siltstone with some massive beds of gypsum and limestone. There is a possibility
that massive, heavily bedded gypsum deposits associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporitz
underlie portions of the lot. Dissolution of the gypsum under certain conditions can cause
sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of localized subsidence,
Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. A small
depression located at the soutli edge of the Profile Pit appears to be from an animal burial.
The exploratory boring was 5J feet deep and bedrock was not encountered. No evidence of
cavities was observed. Based on our present knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the
site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not develop. The risk of ground
subsidence on Lot 5 throughout the service life of the proposed residence, in our opinion, is
low. However, the owner should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole development.
If further investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired, we should
be contacted.
FIELD EXPLORATION
Exploratory pits were excavated at the site on September 29, 1993. An exploratory
boring was drilled on October 13, 1993. The exploratory pit. and boring locations are shown
H-P GEOYECH
\ ` 4 -
on Fig. 1. The pits were dug with a rubber -tired back-boe. The. boring was advanced with
4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck -mounted CMF-55 drill rig. The
pits and boring were logged by a representative of Hepwortli-Pawlak Geotecbnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken from the pits with relatively undisturbed and
disturbed sampling methods and from the boring with 1 3/8-inch and 2-inch I.D. spoon
samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a
140-round hatntner 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 the samples were taken
and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Holes, Fig, 2.
The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsoil conditions encountered at the site are shown graphically on Fig. 2. The
subsoils consist of about 1 to 1 1/2 feet of topsoil overlying interlayered sandy clay, clayey
sand and silty sand. Scattered gravels and occasional cobbles were encountered in the pits
and boring. The soils encountered in the pits were generally low density. The soils below
about 20 feet in the boring were medium dense to dense.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the exploratory holes included
natural moisture content, density, Atterberg limits and gradation analyses. Results of
consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the clays and sands,
H-P GEo7ECH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
u.,..,,_„-- L- ,M,,,i -.i, r--.�,. -t, -rn .7n7_(*1nC_0AcA 4.1rn., 1 ri Q-K 1 r, - 1 c-, kill r)nCZ P ()Q
5�
encountered within the upper 10 feet, presented on Figs, 4-7, indicate low compressibility
under light loading conditions, A moderate to high collapse potential (settlement under
constant load) was observed when the samples were wetted under light loading. Moderate to
high compressibility of the clays was observed under increased loading after wetting. Results
of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 1/2-inch fraction)
of the deeper, more granular soils are shown on Figs. 8 and 9. Atterberg limits testing
indicates the finer portion of the subsoils is of low plasticity. The laboratory testing is
summarized in 'fable 1.
No free water was encountered in the pits or boring at the time of excavation/drilling
and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist with depth.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
The subsoils encountered down to about 10 feet depth consisted of low density and
compressible sandy clays and clayey sands. These soils tend to settle under constant load
when wetted (collapse). In residential areas there are several sources of subsurface wetting,
such as irrigation, surface water runoff and utility line leaks, A relatively low risk
foundation system with regard to potential settlement caused by wetting of the upper soils is
a straight -shaft drilled pier foundation that extends to below the potential depth of wetting.
In addition to their ability to reduce settlements, the piers have the advantage of providing
higher supporting capacity. The piers can be constructed rather quickly and should
H-P GEOTECH
--------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
HepworthPawlak Geoterh TEL:303-945-8454 Nov 10 93 16:15 No.005 P.10
-fi-
experience a relatively small amount of movement.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
straight -shaft drilled pier foundation system:
1) The piers should be designed for an allowable end bearing pressure of 5000 psf and a
skin friction of 300 psf for that portion of the pier between 10 and 20 feet deep. The
top 10 feet of pier penetration should be neglected in the skin friction calculations.
Additional pier capacity can be gained by extending the piers below 20 feet deep.
Skin friction of 500 psf can be used for the portion of the pier below 20 feet deep,
2) All piers should have a minimum total embedment length of 20 feet and minimum
diameter of 16 inches,
3) The pier holes should be properly cleaned prior to placement of concrete. The natural
clays and sands are generally stiff which indicates that casing of the holes should not
be required, Some caving and difficult drilling may be experienced in the bearing
soils due to scattered gravels and cobbles. Placing concrete in the pier hole
immediately after drilling is recommended.
4) The pier drilling contractor should mobilize equipment of sufficient size to achieve the
design pier sizes and depths,
5) Free water was not encountered in the boring made at the site and it Appears that
dewatering should not be needed.
6) A representative of the soil engineer should observe pier drilling operations on a
full-time basis. This is important. because drilling conditions and concrete placement
methods can affect the capacity of the piers.
H-P GEOTECH
-7-
FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVE
Based on the subsurface conditions identified in the exploratory pits and boring, the
residence can be supported by lightly loaded spread footings placed on a minimum Moot
depth of compacted structural fill with some risk of long term foundation settlement and
distress. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
spread footing foundation system.
1) Footings should be placed on a minimum Moot depth of compacted structural fill and
be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1000 psf, Based on experience,
we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section
will be about l to 2 inches which could occur over a long time period. Heavily
reinforced continuous wall foundations rather than isolated pads should be used to
limit the effects of differential settlement.
2) Prior to placing structural fill for the foundation, the area should be stripped of
topsoil and cut to the design level. Structural fill should be placed in uniform lifts not
to exceed 8 inches and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor
density at a moisture content within about 2% of optimum. Fill should extend
laterally beyond the edges of the footing a distance at least equal to the depth of fill
below the footing. The structural fill should have sufficient fines content to restrict
subsurface water flow such as the on -site soils.
3) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and
2 feet for isolated pads.
4) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with
H-P GEOTECH
adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of
foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area.
5) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span an
unsupported length of at least 12 feet.
6) A representative of the soil engineer should evaluate fill placement for compaction
and observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing
conditions,
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be.
expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth
pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pcf for backfill
consisting of the on -site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the
residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure
condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an
equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site soils.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic
and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and
equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls
and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping
backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining
structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup
behind walls,
H-P GEOTECH
-9-
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the
maximum standard Procter density at a moisture content near optimum, Backfill in
pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard
Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large
equipment near the wall since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some
settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected even if the material is placed
correctly and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of
the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation matcrials and passive earth pressure
against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be
calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.30. Passive pressure against the sides of the
footings (or piers) can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 250 pcf. The
coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil
strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which
will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the ease of passive resistance. Fill placed
against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at
least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The upper fine-grained soils encountered in the pits possess variable settlement
potential and slab settlement could occur if the subgrade soils were to become wet.
Slab -on -grade constriction may be used provided precautions are taken to limit potential
H-P GEOTECH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tI-.-..-.-,i-M-..,-1. r'__.,._-L. Tr-1 .Znz_0AC:_4.1C,A Wnu 1t1 Q.5 1h:Iit Nn_00S P.14
- 10-
settlement and the risk of distress to the building is accepted by the owner. Removal and
replacement of the natural soils to provide at least 3 feet of compacted structural fill below
slabs can be done to reduce the risk of slab settlement. The structural fill should be
constructed similar to that. described above in "Foundation Recommendations".
To reduce the effects of some differential settlement, nonstructural floor slabs should be
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained
vertical movement. Floor slab control ,joints should be used to reduce damage clue to
shrinkage cracking. Slab reinforcement and control joints should be established by the
designer based on experience and the intended slab use.
A minimum 4-inch layer of base course gravel should be placed immediately beneath
slabs -on -grade. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 50%
passing the No, 4 sieve and less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve. The gravel will
provide slab support and help break capillary moisture rise.
Required fill beneath slabs can consist of the on -site soils or a suitable imported
granular material, excluding topsoil and oversized rocks. The fill should be spread in thin
horizontal lifts, adjusted to at or above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least
95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. All topsoil and loose or disturbed soil
should be removed and the subgrade moistened and compacted prior to fill placement..
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater may develop during times of
H-P GEOTECH
U c. ni.�r.rl k r) n- 1n Ii f-,on+orIn TP71 : A c�—pdSA tgnk) 10 93 16.18 No.005 f .15
-11-
heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff, Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a
perched condition, We recommend below grade construction, such as retaining walls and
basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain
system,
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain should be
placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and
sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular material used in
the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50%
passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches, The drain gravel backfill
should be at least 2 feet deep. An impervious liner such as 20 mil PVC should be placed
beneath the drain gravel in a trough shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to
prevent wetting of the subsoils.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the
building is located as planned and cut and fill depths are limited. We assume the cut depth
.l
for the basement level will not exceed one level, about 8 to 10 feet. Fills should be limited
to about 6 to 8 feet deep. Embankment 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 and
compacting to 90% standard Proctor density.
H-P GEOTECH
-12-
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical
or flatter. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and
flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an
investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut
stability. Graded slopes should be protected against erosion by revegetation or other means.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Wetting of the subsoils beneath the building could result in floor and foundation
settlement and distress. Extreme wetting may even cause the drilled pier foundation to settle.
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at
all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the building excavations should be avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisw e and compacted to at
least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to
at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain
away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a. minimum slope of
12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the
first 10 feet in paved areas, Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about
2 feet of the on -site soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill,
H-p GEO7ECH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!•__, __I_ Tri .'n-7 nnc nnrn AI. If1 07 1a—')o m_ rlfl[:� P 17
�B
S) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least S feet
from foundation walls.
PERCOLATION TESTING
The subsoils encountered in the proposed leach field area consist mainly of slightly .
moist to moist silty sandy clays. No free water was encountered to the pit depth of 8 feet..
The percolation test results, presented in Table II, indicate a rate of 20 minutes per inch.
Based on these findings, an infiltration septic disposal system is suitable at the site.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in this area at this tune. We make no other warranty
either expressed or implied, The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report.
are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits and boring excavated at the
locations indicated 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 holes and variations in the subsurface conditions may not
become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction
appear to be different from those described in this report, we should be notified at once so
re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
H-P GEOTECH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LI--...---�-kD-....1 ,1, C.,,+nrh TC'I - 7n;-Qi1C�—Q.A['�A NnV 10 c13 1f):70 Nn _A0S P.18
-14-
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes.
We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our exploratory information.
As the project. evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
changes may require additional analysis or modifications of the recommendations presented
herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata,
pier drilling and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. .
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Daniel E. Hardin, Y.E.
Reviewed By:
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
H-P GF.OTECH
Scale
1 inch T 54 feet
C1
' 06
a
Building
^ / ,Envelope
Lot 5
P_ 1
/ �0, *�N P-2 Pit 1-
f / P-3 Q stake
tig lY,,Platform �Boring 1
Lot 6 irrigation � .-'~+ "Pit 3
1 J� 4
/ 1 Ditch o
Pit 2
0
^ Lot 4
193 204 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK Location of Exploratory Holes Fig. 1
GE�OTECHN{GAL, Inc,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boring 1 Pit 1
elev=7524 elev=7519
r 7530
Pit 2 Pit 3 Profile Pit
elev=7.`32i elev=7528 elev=7514
753
a
a
7525
. 20 WN
16/12
. 15
10/12.
L1C�r
�•
nD=113
_200 : 19
,10
14/12
WC=8
+4=20
-•20p=�a
.05
, ;`
N!)
29/12
IJC=g
DD=107
,200=30
.0�
17/12
WC=,I
+4.=25
-200=35
95
_..
23/12_
1!C=10
D =0
WC=1;3
DD=95
-200=83
I-L=31
P1=15
•1 ldC;S
-I-200=30
WC=a
DQ-93
1•1C=11 7525.
MO=P9
-200=2
7515 -
7 510 .
10
750
7 500 .
7495 .
74.90 .
d
,'A19/12
Bottom of noring 0 51 feet
e 1 ev::747'3
193 ?.04 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK Logs of exploratory Holes=9.
l-�EOTECHNICAL, Inc,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPSOIL; clay, silty, sandy, organic, soft, moist, dark brown to black.
CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, scattered gravel, up
er claStiff, slightly moist to moist, light to medium brown is porous, calcareous,
'':�" • SAND SC • clayey,
::;:;: ( ); y y, gravelly, scattered cobbles, loose to medium dense,
' "• : slightly moist to moist with depth, brown, slightly calcareous, stratified.
SAND (SC-SM); interlayered clayey sand and silty sand, scattered gravels,
medium dense, moist, light brown to EMgray brown. Moist stiff to very stiff clay and sand below 30 feet. y tlff
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8-inch I.D. split spoon
sample, ASTM D-1586,
1fi/12
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 16 blows of a 140-pound hammer
falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12
inches.
Hand Driven liner sample.
7
-J Disturbed bulk sample.
NOTES:
1 • Exploratory Pits were excavated with a rubber -tired backhoe on September 29, 1993,
2. The Exploratory boring was drilled on October 13, 1993 with a 4-inch diameter continuous
flight power auger.
3. Locations of exploratory boring and pits were measured approxitnately by pacing from
features shown on the site plan provided.
4• Elevations of exploratory boring and pits were obtained by interpolation between contours
Of' the site plan provided.
8• The exploratory boring and pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only
to the degree implied by the method used.
8• The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring and pit logs represent the
approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual.
7. No free water was encountered in the boring or pits at the time of drifting/excavation.
Fluctuations in the water level may occur with time.
8• Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Moisture Content (%) bb
L.L = Liquid Limit (%) = Dry Density (pef)
PI = Plasticity Index (%u) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
NP = Nonplastic +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve
193 204 HEPWQRTH-PAWLAK
GEOT OE-1tNICAL, Inc, LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
--------------
-----
IFni_inrthF'�nil.al! f;P------------ - ;--------------------------------------- ----- h
_ntarh TEL:303-945-8454 Nov 10 93 16:93 Nn_nnS P ��
0
1
ZA
3
C
7
IS
Moisture Content I U Pbrumit
Dry Unit weight • g, pot
SamPle 0h sandy silty. clay
From, Pit 1 @ 3 feet
I-
Ir
N
0ompression
Upon
Netting
I.0
APP41ED PRESSURE kSi
11M
IVV
193 204 GE�TIIOC�-iiVjCAL"' AK I SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.. . . — — , rri . -�r.� r, n r r, A r n 6i, .. 4 n r�7 4 C . 117 A1... n017 D r)7.
0
2
4
6
a�
C 8
0
.r.
V)
Q6
10
9
U
�2
14
16
18
20
■11Moisture
Content 8 percent
=11NIII'm
CNN
I'llCompressi
on.'
mill
=III
E1111111
nNIMMUM
m�■ui
V.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -- ksf
H
204 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS F19. 5
EOTECt- NiCAL, Inc.
1
2
3
4
5
0
N 6
L
CL
a=
7
9
10
11
Moisture Content ! 11
Dry Unit Weight = 89
Sample of: sandy silty clay
From: Pit 3 @ 2. 112 feet
percent
pcf
.... ........... ...........
Compression
Upon Wetting
1
0.1
1,0
APPLIED
PRESSURE
10
-- ksf
100
193 204 '
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GECTECHN1CAL, Inc.
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
mg. 6
0
L
� 3
4
Moisture Content ■ 5 percent
Dry Unit Weight Y 11.3 PC,
sampisof: Silty gravelly Sand
From: Boring 1 @ 10 feet
Compression
Upon, letting
0.1
IMN
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
IV
I 193 ?04 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS eta. 7
G50TI' CHNICAL, Inc.
lqr
O
N
M
0
z
co
O
U (n
J
J D
U)
U w
w r
o
CD J Q
m
J ~ m
J
a u-
o
0 <
W
W
w
O
C
(
o
L
C
C
C
C
o
�=
C
N
V1
N
N
coo
cTo
�0
U
m
>
>
>
>
N
V)
U
!�
N
w
o
m
m
C
C
C
C'
cu
,o
ro
ro
'N
'v,
'tn
,N
cA
to
U
t4
cn
U
Ea WL
E
t,
f
r--
4
M
C7 b
? 01
a
M
O
M
O
m
0
O
lh
a z
M
d
d
a
M
N
LO
N
m
rn
rn
oo
x o
a
M
U)
co
Ln
00
W
CD
q
! U
N
N
i
M
M
r-
O
to
O
in
4
r
r
N
N
a
N
N
N
M
r.
00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HenworthPaw l ak Geotech TEL :303-945-8454 _Nov__10. 93 __ 16 :27 No .005 P .29
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 193 201
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.ANCH)
P-1
53"
15
water added
11
9 114
1 314
20
9 1/4
8 3/4
1/2
8 3/4
7 3/4
1
7 314
7
3/4
11 1/4
9 3/4
1 1/2
9 3/4
9
3/4
9
8 1/4
3/4
8 114
7 1/2
3/4
P-2
49 1/2
15
water added
11
7 314
3 1/4
20
7 314
7
314
7
6 $14
1 1/4
11 1/2
10 1/2
1
10 1/2
9 1/4
1 1/4
9 1 /4
8
1 114
8
7 114
3/4
7 1/4
6 112
314
P-3
66 1/4
15
water added
11 1/2
9 314
1 314
20
9 3/4
9 1/4
1/2
9 1/4
8
1 1/4
8
7 1/2
1/2
71 1/2
10 1/4
1 1/4 .
10 1/4
9 1/2
3/4
9 1/2
8 3/4
.3/4
8 3/4
8
3/4
Note: Percolation tests were performed October 1, 1993 in sandy silty clay. Percolation Hole locations are show
on Fig 1.
13��93 - Parcel 3 - T Z6 U 1'bl I'� + { II� ]�I VC,
Lo Creme-r Gulch L�H 1 /
JOB NA 02 reamery i ch Trail
JOB NO.
JOB LOCATION
BILL TO
DATE STARTED
DATE COMPLETED
DATE BILLED
/v 9�
->�� Jt1rS " �J�LUi sX���u ' - S,l , ' �• `
JOB COST SUMMARY
TOTAL SELLING PRICE
TOTAL MATERIAL
r Y / ,
Lq ve-,
I I
TOTAL LABOR
INSURANCE
flJk
SALES TAX
MISC. COSTS
k)ew 'Pamol
kew W q
TOTAL JOB COST
1 ��C ��`, ��1�%+��-t'�
GROSS PROFIT
LESS OVERHEAD COSTS
% OF SELLING PRICE
NET PROFIT
JOB FOLDER Product 277 ®® NEW ENGLAND BUSINESS SERVICE, INC., GROTON, MA 01471 JOB FOLDER
w
Printed in U.S.A.
tl
41
i!!►tsi—�—
_
�' : ley 4 ' ; �; ,. - • • �, �' -
ey
�C�� Ee
tf-4-7 �/
C,C> CLI4
f-p-A'/'r p
C���rc-,7e,/, �cc��
(TYP.) - -- - 1750 GALLON
SEPTIC TANK
SEPTIC FIELD
SCALE: 1 = 20
!� A = 1208 S.F.
INFILTRATOR 40% REDUCTION
1208 S.F. -40%' X 1208 S.F. = 725 S.F.
SEE DETAIL SEPTIC FIELD9.
i 1 e a
725 S.F./18.75 S.F 39 UNITS aE
WsPEcTIoN PoRT HOLES = SEPTIC TANK CALCULATION �Wy
8 TOTAL
A
t urfxn2ATDR CHAMM (TYP.}
f 1350 x 36 HRS/24 HRS = 1687.50 '
'
TYPICAL SEPTIC TANK DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
THAN FBELOW FINISH GRADE.
I SEPTIC TANK SHALL BE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND H-23
AXLE LOADS, OR BARRIERS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO EXCLUDE
VEHICLE TRAFFIC FROM THE TANK SITE.
4. THE SEPTIC TANK SHALL BE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND 5 FEET
OF SATURATED OVERBURDEN
TRENCH DETAIL m
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE:
INSTALL INFILTRATOR TO MANUFACTURERS RECOMENDATION.
SIZE STANDARD INFILTRATOR 3' X 6 1/4' X 1' =
1) TRENCH TOLERANCE .10' PER 100'
I �- _
