HomeMy WebLinkAbout290 Old Creamery Rd - 210508303001 - 1708-97ISINDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Box 179 - 500 Broadway • Eagle, CO 81631 Telephone: (970) 328-8755 COPY OF PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT INSTALLATION SITE. PERMIT NO. 1708-97 BP NO. 11142 OWNER: DEBBIE HEUGA PHONE: 970-926-3006 MAILING ADDRESS: C/O SUMMIT HABITAT. P.O. BOX 1829, EDWARDS, CO 81632 APPLICANT: DAVE STANISH. SUMMIT HABITAT PHONE: 970-926-1743 SYSTEM LOCATION: 290 OLD CREAMERY RD., EDWARDS, CO TAX PARCEL NO. 2105-083-03-001 LICENSED INSTALLER: DAVIS EXCAVATING, RICK FILTER LICENSE NO. 23-97 DESIGN ENGINEER: LKP ENGINEERING, LUIZA PETROVSKA PHONE NO. 827-9088 INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: 1500 GALLON SINGLE AUTO SIPHON SEPTICTANK DELIVERING281 GALLONS PER DOSE, 937.5 SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA, WITH 6882 SQUARE FT OF TOTAL MOUND AREA. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: INSTALL AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN DATED 7/3/97. ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL INSPECTION BUILDING CO WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT THIS CERTIFICATION. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: q DATE: JULY 11,1997 CONDITIONS: I. 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 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: 93 7 .5 SQUARE FEET (VIA mound system ) INSTALLED 3 compartment TANK: 1500 GALLONS IS LOCATED DEGREES AND FEET FROM Gee site plan fnr locntinn COMMENTS: Engineer certification received 11-1 — 7 ANY ITEM NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE CORRECTED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM IS MADE. ARRANGE A RE -INSPECTION WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL :A� DATE: November 11, 1997 .(Site Plan MUST be attached) 7 . ISDS Permit # APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE - EAGLE COUNTY P. O. BOX 179 EAGLE, CO 81631 328-8755/927-3823 (El Jebel) ************************************************************************** * PERMIT APPLICATION FEE $150.00 PERCOLATION TEST FEE $200.00 * * * MAKE ALL REMITTANCE PAYABLE TO: "EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER" ************************************************************************** PROPERTY OWNER: MAILING ADDRESS: (9`70 ) 9 Z(.- 3c"4, APPLICANT/.CONTACT PERSON-. I�e- r 13M 15� �tni Vnw I}W� t� + PHONE: (q-)y ) ` Z&-17V 3 MAILING ADDRESS: �e X ! f 29 �s� � ��_� , C o e, (LL32 LICENSED ISDS CONTRACTOR: t�1-5 Z - PHONE: 1q'-70 94q-8"706 COMPANY/DBA: b6nC iS C-V CA-t;&-hne ADDRE S: 8DX 138L/ Fc(wV1J-4 L, Sr !L 3Z ************************************************************************* PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: (N*ew•Installation ( ) Alteration ( ) Repair *************************************************************************** LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Building Permit # (if known) Legal Description: Subdivision: I^,'ACh Filing:_Block• Lot No. 13 Tax Parcel Number: 2- / D - ® - p 3 - © D % Lot Size: /d -7 Z 4vV- Street Address: 710 OJC,� CrccMe�21 2©r-,k Uwe, Cc, '�1(63Z *************************************************************************** BUILDING,TYPE: (Check applicable category) r� (� Residential/Single Family Number of Bedrooms 5 ( ) Residential/Multi-Family* Number of Bedrooms ( ) Commercial/Industrial* Type TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category) ( ) ,Well ( ) Spring ( ) Surface W Public Name of Supplier *These syste s require design by a Registe/r_e�d Professional Engineer SIGNATURE: _l F S Date: ",4 TO BE COMPLET B THE COUNTY J AMOUNT PAID: IS RECEIPT #: jo 3 DATE: CHECK #: S CASHIER: // Community Development Department (970) 328-8730 Fax: (970) 328-7185 TDD: (970) 328-8797 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO November 13, 1997 Debbie Heuga C/O Summit Habitat P.O. Box 1829 Edwards, CO 81632 Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 RE: Final of ISDS Permit No. 1708-97, Tax Parcel #2105-083-03-001. Property location: 290 Old Creamery Rd., Edwards, CO. Dear Ms. Heuga: 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 (970) 328-8755. Sincerely, Janet Kohl Environmental Health Department Eagle County Community Development ENCL:Informational Brochure Final ISDS Permit cc: files Community Development Department (970) 328-8730 Fax: (970) 328-7185 TDD: (970) 328-8797 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Date: July 11, 1997 TO: Davis Excavating Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle. Colorado 81631-0179 FROM: Environmental Health Division RE: Issuance of Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit No. 1708-97. Tax Parcel # 2105-083-03-001. Property Location: 290 Old Creamery Rd., Edwards, Heuga residence. Enclosed is your ISDS Permit No. 1708-97. It is valid for 120 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. 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. Your TCO will not be issued until our office receives this certification. 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 the Environmental Health Division at 328- 8755. cc: files LKP Engineering, Luiza Petrovska 11f 1CJ7177/ 11: GO DFV-0zF-DV0D L-Nr CIVU1l4CCKl1YU. llAu iIAU , al 4 LIB' Engmi ee rmg, YnC. November 10, 1997 Mr. Dave Stanish. Summit Habitats, Inc. P.O. Box 1829 Edwards, CO 81632 RE: Inspection of Septic System Inst*llation Lot 13, Creamery Ranch Subdivision Eagle County, Colorado Project No. 9745 Dear Dave; ✓) AIL ' _ Colo' ,At the request of Mr. Scott Davis, the installer, on November 5, 1997, vpe visited the construction site on Lot 13, Creamery Ranch Subdivision, south of Edwards, Eagle County, Colorado. The purpose Of Our site visit was to observe the installation of the septic system. They installed the system in overall compliance with the septic system design, Drawing No. 9745SD.DWG, dated June 30,1997. The system was connected on the north side of the mein residence. The building sewer was between the garage and the maim building. They installed 1500-gallon, three compartments, a precast, concrete septic tank with a single auto siphon. b� . ()((� The mound system was installed as shown on�above-mention wing. One cleanout r6n11 be installed, on the delivery pipe between the tank and the nwund. Two cl uts or inspection ports, were installed, one on each silo of the absorption be& If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, LKP Engineering, Luiza Petrovska, PI President cc: Ms. Heather Savalox, Eagle County Environmernel Health Division, fax. 328-7185 C:10FFIC6IWMN+WPV0CVV14$0S1. WPD P.O. Sox 1452, Mon, Colorado 81620 6 (970) 827-W Tel 0 (970) 827.9089 Fax i M HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 `d Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 t May 14, 1997 Fax 970 945-8454 VIL Phone 970 945-7988 E Summit Habitats Attn: Dave Stannish P.O. Box 2755 Avon, Colorado 81620 Job No. 194 445 Subject: Percolation Testing, Lot 13, Creamery Ranch Subdivision, Eagle County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Treat: As requested, we performed percolation testing at the subject site for design of an infiltration septic disposal system. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. previously performed a subsurface study for foundation design at the site and reported our findings under Job No. 194 445, dated October 27, 1994. A previous feasibility percolation test was done on Lot 13 under Job No. 194 280, dated June 15, 1994. The profile pit and percolation test holes were excavated on May 12, 1997 with a backhoe. Holes 14 inches to 18 inches in depth were hand dug in the bottom of three pits for percolation testing. The holes were pre-soaked on May 12, 1997. Percolation testing was performed on May 13, 1997 by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The results are presented on Table I. Percolation test locations are shown on Fig. 1. Approximately 4 inches of water from the pre-soaking was remaining in percolation holes P-1 and P-2 prior to percolation testing on May 13, 1997. The subsoils exposed in the Profile Pit consisted of 2 feet of topsoil overlying sand s� ilty cl with varying amounts of gravel to the maxim p exp ore oT 8 et.. o free water was observed in the Profile Pit on May 12, 1997. The subsoils in percolation hole P-3 appeared to be more porous then the soils in the other holes. The percolation test results indicate an engineered system will be required at the current proposed disposal site. Additional testing and relocation of the disposal area may determine a site suitable for a conventional infiltration system. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. zo v Louis Eller � 9 z • Rev. b 242 LEE/ro attachment9'.: ->:._;°,,'nr,'n, E� a cc.: Tohnsola - }ttn: Bill Sapinbton APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" = 40' A P-2 �' P-3a pBORING 2 / PROFILE ■ P-1 PIT \ LOT 13 1 O BORING 1 �\— BUILDING ' ENVELOPE ❑ PIT 13 AND PREVIOUS PERC LOCATION LOT 14 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK 194 445 ,��_�. � ,; INC.LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST HOLES Fig, 1 a v Cl : ,LCH, JICAL, N r^.3WORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNIL _, INC. TABLE I PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 194 445 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE (INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION (MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL RATE (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) (MIN./INCH) P-1 32 30 11 1 /2 11 3/8 1 /8 11 3/8 11 1/4 1 /8 -- - ( 120 ,} t 11 1 /4 11 114 P-2 36 30 11 5/8 11 1 /2 1 /8 11 1/2 11 1/4 1/4 11 1/4 11 1 /8 1 /8 i 2 P-3 37 15 6 5/8 5 3/4 718 12 1 /2 10 2 1 /2 refill 10 8 1/4 1 3/4 8 1/4 7 1 1/4 7 6 1 refill ` 14 , 10 3/4 9 1 /2 1 114 Note: Percolation test holes were excavated with a backhoe and presoaked on May 12, 1997. Percolation testing was performed May 13, 1997 by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. fICNWUI 4111 uwiur•,'- F C HEPWoji'r!4-PAWLAK GEOTEGHNICAL, INC. 5020 knad 15A Glenwood Springs, t: p 4] 501 Fax :03 •)43-8451 Ilmi'ltone '03 �i45-7938 ob SUBSURFACE STUDY FOR I+OUNDATJON DESIGIN PROPOSED HUEGA RESIDENCE LOT 13, CREAMERY RANCH SUBDIVISION EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 194 445 OCTOBER 27, 1994 PRFPARF,D FOR: SUMMIT HABITATS ATTN: SANDY TREAT P.O. BOX 2755 ANON, COLORADO 81620 HEPWORTH-PAW LAX \,r.0THCHNIC:AL, I'N- - October 27, 1994 C;len aped Springs, CO 81001 Pax :ii1.3 945.8454 Phone 303 945•7938 Summit. Habitats Attn: wady Treat P.O. Box 2755 Avon, Colorado 81620 Job No. 194 445 Subject: Subsurface Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Huega Residence, Lot 13, Creamery Ranch Subdivision, Ragle County, Colorado. Gentlemen: As requested, we have conducted a subsurface study for design of foundations at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory bot:iv�G_c%t�lieai in_the-prslpsl,5ed building area consisted of 12 to over 16 feet of stiff, sandy clay overlying dense sand and grovel. - Laboratory testing indicates that the clays are expansive. Groundwater was not encountered at the time of drilling or when cheeped four days later. The residence should be founded with straight -shaft piers drilled into the lower more granular soil designed for an allowable end bearing pressure of 5,000 psf, a skin friction value of 300 psf for that portion of the pier below five feet, and a minimum dead load pressure of 10,000 psf based on pier end area only. 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, HLPWORTH-PAWLAK'-GE OTEC HI'N'1C.rkL, ItiC-.- ... . Richard C. 14:.pworth, P.E. il'Xy. By: DE1-1 RCH/ro '••: r_._,. ... -.... ,, v�u .�,��. �� •�vv v-'.� v�t.�.+ 1'taI ,A�.,f yf 1V D-1 I`1C .UU'�) h'.U.S TABLE OF CONTE' NTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY L.I PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.................................1 1 SITE COND1T1ONS ................................... FIELD EXPLORATION ........... . ..... . 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... Z FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ........................... 3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .... . ............... . ........... 4 FOIJNDATIONS....................................... 4 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ....... ...* ........... 5 FLOORSLARS........................................ G UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM .............................. I .. S SITE GRADING ....................................... S SIIRFACE DRAINAGE ............................ . .... 10 LIMITATIONS ............................................ 10 FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE-2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FI�;TIRE 2 --LEGEND AND NOTES ... _....... FIGURE 4 & 5 SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS f PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsurface study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 13, Creamery Ranch Subdivision, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Summit Habitats. dated September 73, 1994. A field exploration program consisting (.)f exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine compressibility or swell characteristics and classification of the 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. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our cone.lusions, recotniuendations and ether geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRICTION At the time of our study, design plans for the residence had not been finalized, but a 4,000 square foot residence is planned. The building is proposed in the area roughly between the exploratory boring locations shown on pig. 1. We assume excavation for the building will have a maximum cut depth of one level, about 10 feet hPtnw rh,� existing urCtl�nrl cnrfacc: For the nugrx7se c)f curtliysis; foundation loadings for the structure were assumed to be relatively ligl�.r and typical of the pronosed type of con5t.ructiot; . If building loadings, location or grading plans are significantly different from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the reconunendadons :1 LhIG 1 CC 0"i C. -2- SITE CONDITIONS The lot varies from steep on the west to strongly sloping on the east. Construction will be on the east part. The general slope is down to the north and east. A drainage borders the north side of the lot and is about 10 feet lower than Boring 2. A new paved road is on the east side. Some. cobbles are exposed on the higher ground on the west. Vegetation consists of grass on the east and sagebrush on the west. FIELD EXPLORATION 'fhe field exploration for the project was conducted on September 29, 1994. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck -mounted Longyear BK-51 HD drill rig. The borings were lagged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak C ntrriinir.al 1nr.. Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 2-inch I.D. California sampler. The sampler was'driveiri 111W le subsoils at various depths*with blows groin a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1585. 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 -Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSC RIi ACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. Below about one foot of organic topsoil, the subsoils consist of stiff, sanely clay to claycy sand. At a depth of about 12 feet in Boring I the subsoils became a clay H-P G[o7ECH ' f -3- and gravel mixture. The clay portions of the soils possess a low to moderate expansion potential when wetted. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included in -situ moisture content and dry density, grain size analyses and liquid and plastic limits. Swell -consolidation testing was performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay subsoils. The swell -consolidation test results, presented on Fig. 4, indicate low compressibility under light to moderate surcharge loadings and the upper clay soils possess a moderate expansion potential when wetted under a constant liglit surcharge. The lower clay soils showed a low expansion potential. No free water was encountered in the Borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to iiioist. The holes were dry when checked 4 days after drilling. Free water was .measured in borings drilled on Lot 14. F+OUNDA'HON 13EARING CONDITIONS The upper clay subsoils encountered at t"L%, %.AiMnsive. Shallow foundations placed on the expansive soils similar to those encountered at this experience movement causing structural distress if the clay is subjected to changes in moisture content. A drilled pier foundation can be used to penetrate the expansive soils to place the bottom of the piers in a zone of more stable moisture conditions and make it possible to load the piers sufficiently to resist uplift movements. Using a pier foundation, each column is supported on a single drilled pier and the building walls are founded on grade beams supported by a series of piers. Loads applied to the piers are transmitted TO- ilte ire;rt tttg-straturrr jra7tidlly -through -peripheral •ithear• stresses• and partially through end bearing pressure. In addition to their ability to reduce differential movements caused by expansive soils, straight -shaft piers have the advantage of providing relatively high supporting capacity. The piers can be constructed relatively quickly and should experience a relatively small amount of movement. H-P GEOT[CH _4- DESIGN RE COMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Based on the data obtained during the field and laboratory studies, we recommend straight -shaft piers drilled into the lower granular soil be used to support the proposed structure. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a straight -shaft pier foundation system: 1) The piers should be designed for an allowable end bearing pressure of 5,000 psf and V"4_h Y r)f 3.[.)D P,q' fn_r Thar poll on of !bi~ Paer below five feet Delow the top of the pier, 2) Piers should have a minimum pier length or 20 feet. 3.) Piers should also he designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 10,000 pst' based on bier end area only. If the minimum dead lout{ requirement cannot be achieved, the pier length should be extended beyond the minimum penetration to make up the dead load deficit. This can be accomplished by assuming the skin friction for that portion of the pier below 20 feet deep acts to resist uplift. 4} Piers should be designed to resist lateral loads assuming a modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction of 50 t.cf in the clay soils. The modulus values given are for a long, 1-foot wide pier and must be corrected for pier size. 5) Piers should be reinforced their full length with one #5 reinforcing rod for each 16 inches of pier perimeter to resist tension created by the swelling materials. G) A 4-inch void form should be provided beneath grade beams to prevent the swelling soil and rock from exerting uplift forces on the grade beams and to concentrate pier loadings. A void form should also be provided beneath pier caps. 7) Concrete utilized in the piers should be a fluid mix with sufficient slump so that. concrete will till the void between the reinforcing steel and the pier hole. S) Pier holes should be properly cleaned prior to the placement of concrete. H-P GEorECH -5- Cobbles were encountered in the lower soil and stratum and could cause caving and difficult drilling. The drilling contractor should mobilize equipment of sufficient size to effectively drill through possible coarse soils. 9) Although free water was not encountered in the borings drilled at the site, some seepage in the pier holes may be encountered during drilling. If water cannot be removed prior to placement of concrete, the tremie method should be used after the hole has been cleaned of spoil. In no case should concrete be placed in more than 3. inches of water. 10) Care should be taken to prevent the forming of musluoom-shaped tops of the piers which can im:rease Uplift force on the piers from swelling soils. 11) A representative of the soil engineer should observe pier drilling c7peratic�tts on a tii11••time basis. F017NDATION AND aETAINING WALLS _ - - Foundati£Jii Willis iitld'F•.ititiitisG'3iu laterall.7 v��Fpnrt n — 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 60 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the house and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the frill active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backiil]7viisrstiilg-vf-iiie --.. 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 recoirunended 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 liyd.otatic pressure buildup behind walls. H-P GEOTEICH -6- Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content slightly above optimum. Backfill in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcoinpact 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. Shallow spread footings may be used for support of retaining_ walls separate from the house, provided some differential movement and distress can be tolerated. Footings should be sized for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The lateral resistance of retain-Ing arli iuJtirtga' 111�i'r�''a-Coiibiliv,iWIT-Of"thic-slidi-mg.......... resistance of the footing on the foundation materials 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 .35. Passive pressure against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 250 pet'. The (;oefficient 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 case 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 c,untent near optimum. FLUOR SLABS Floor slabs present a problem where expansive soils are present near floor slab elevation because sufficient dead load cannot be imposed on them to resist the uplift pressure generated when the materials are wetted and expand. We reconunend tlmt. structural floors with crawl space below be used for all floors in the building that will he sensitive to upward movement, H-P GEOTECH -7- Slab-ern-grade construction may be used such as in the garage area provided the risk of distress is undetsivOu" iiy tale ownei:--`JJ-e-rewrinimend- placing -atc-least-3-feet of...... __.... nonexpansive Structural fill below floor slabs in order to mitigate slab movement due to expansive soils. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, nonstiuctural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls, columns and partition walls with expansion Joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Interior non -bearing partitions resting on floor slabs should be provided with a slip joint at the bottom of the wall so that, if the slab moves, the movement cannot be transmitted to the upper structure. This dGmail 1, itilii2 tOr wallboards ; Stall'1v4iy$ ii'iiu (io; lltiiaa,rd. 'Slip �VAi:tri which allow at least 2 inches of vertical movement are recot..incn—d. All tl»::biri5 lines should he pressure tested before backfilling to help reduce the potential for wetting. ?Mechanical units that are slab supported should be provided Willi a flexible connection to pipes and ducts above. J,'Joor slab control joints should be used to reduce T is stab reinforl .Lent ShOu'il1 Vb damage due to shrinkage i:iaCl�TI2�. �uiiii S�ii�iiia cilia tug established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4-inch layer of free -chaining gravel should be placed immediately beneath basement level slabs -on -grade. This material should consist of minus 2-inch --TO'-- \7 .i. c:..,2-,. n�ri l.;vc. �j�•r.:7.Crr�� :.r. it ��• _ _ aggregate 1�%llll ILaS thanS0 �IP pCl�'J11��LtIG O•+:��r• •uu v.,.. j Z. �'• • No. 200 sieve. The free -draining gravel will aide in drainage below the slabs and should be connected to the underdrain systems, Required fill beneath slabs can consist of a suitable imported granular material, excluding topsoil and oversized rocks. The suitability of structural fill materials should be evaluated by the soil engineer prior tv puitrE.-mle ►. ho rill Shioulubc sprcau Mn thin horizontal lifts, adjusted to at or above optimum moisture content, and compacted to 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. All vegetation, topsoil and loose or disturbed soil should be removed prior to \fill placement. The above recommendations will not prevent slab heave if the expansive soils underlying slabs -on -grade become wet. However. the recommendations will reduce the H-P GEo-r=CH nGNwU� I a 1 C7r. I, , :1.. -- 1- - - i! effects if slab heave occurs. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although groundwater was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas and where clay soils are present, that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. Therefore, we. recommend below grade construction such as crawl space and basement areas be Protected from wetting by an underdrain system. The drain should also act to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind foundation walls. The underdrain system should consist of a drainpipe surrounded by free-draini'lig granular material placed at the bottom of the.wall backfill. The drain lines should be placed at each level of excavation and at least foot below lowest adjacent finish grade, and sloped at a tninlmum 1 % grade to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining; granular material used in the drain system should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. The. drain gravel should be at least 2 feet deep. An impervious liner such as 20 toil PVC may be placed below the drain gravel in a trough shape and attached'to the grade -bears!'. with mastic to keep drain water from flowing beneath the grade beam and wetting. the underlying soils. SITE GRADING Fill material used inside building limits and within 3 feet of pavement grade should consist of nonexpansive, granular material. Fill should be placed and compacted to at least 95 % of the maxumm standard Proctor density near the optimum moisture content. Fill should not contain concentrations of organic matter or other deleterious substances. The soil engineer should evaluate the suitability of proposed fill materials prior to placement.. In fill areas, the natural soils should he scarified to a depth.of 6 in(,hos, adiusted to a moisture content near optimum and compacted to provide a H-P GcorccH -9- uniform« btse for fia The natural soil encountered during this study will be expansive when placed in . K conditicm -Consequent!"', thom InateriH!sn.m. be s--fill.. ............ material beneath building areas or directly beneath pavement areas. The natural soil can be used for fill material near the bottom of fills outside building areas. A detailed slope stability evaluation -and- resultant rccommmendations are beyond. the scope of this report. However, general guidelines are presented below so planning and design of the structures can be accomplished by the project designers and contractor. After initial planning and design are completed, we should be contacted to. review the information so recommendations for additional investigation or consultation may be made. I) Permanent unretained cuts in the overburden soils less than 10 feet in height should not exceed 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. The risk of slope instability will t)e significantly increased if seepage is encountered in Luts.... . 2) kills up to 10 feet in height can be used if the till slopes do not exceed 2 horizontal to 1 vertical and they are properly compacted and drained. The ground surface underlying all fill should be prepared by removing all organic matter, scarifying io a depth of 6 inches and compacting to 95%, of the maximum standard Proctor density prior to fill placement. Fills should be benched into hillsides exceeding 5 horizontal to I vertical. 3) Good surface drainage should be provided around all permanent cuts and fills and steep natural slopes to direct surface runoff away 4em tho sippe faces Slopes and other stripped areas should be protected against erosion by revegetation or other methods. 4) Site grading,. drain details and building atrim shouuld he -prepared by qualified engineers familiar with the area. 'A construction sequence plan of excavating, _ F wall construction and bracing and backfilling indicating the time requiredshould be prepared by the contractor. a•P GkOT�CH 11-M SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: 1) Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided du ing -construction: ;}.,its could increase -the erga: potential of the soils. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. Free - draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 to 3 feet of the on -site soils to reduce- surface .:3t:c�n: 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all di1CL 6011s. "w"e: r(Xcntuiu:iid.a iiiilli=111 slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feerin unpaved areas and -a inhiiinaur stopu -cn -- - -- 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. 4) Root downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 10 feet from foundation walls. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained froW 1.- cx�•l;.ruto=y'l:o:i gs drilled 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 borings and variations in the H-P GEOTECH not become evident until excavation is performed. If subsurface conditions may,, conditions encountered during construction appear to be different from those described in this report, we should he notified at once so reevaluation of the reconu-nendations may be made. Thisreporthas bee11 prepared for the exeliak:vc usi' vy Gul maw++4 fi dviibu ible for technical interpretations by others of our purposes. We are not respons information. As the project evolves, 'we should provide continued consultation and Held services during construction to review _and monitor the implementation of our rccollunendatians, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately x . interpreted. Significant -design changes may require additional anttlysis or modifications of the recommendations.presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing. strata and testing of structural till by a representative of the soil engineer. Sincerely, HEPWUR'I'iJ_PAWLAK C;F.QTECHNICAL, INC. Richard C. Hepworth, P . F , Daniel E . Hardin, P.E. Approximate Scale 1 " — 40' Bench Mark:, Invert Of Storm Culvert; Flaw, 20 00 Q'. Assumed. ' 0 i LEGEND: TOPSOIL.; silty, sandy clay, slightly moist, dark brown, organic rich. CLAY (CL); sandy to SAND (SC) clayey, stiff to very stiff, moist, reddish - brown. SAND AND GRAVEL (SC -GC); clayey with cobbles, moist, reddish. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. California liner sample. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on September 29, 1994 with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. The exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from property corners shown on the site plan provided. 3, Elevations of exploratory borings were measured by instrument level and refer to Bench Mark on Fig. 1. 4, The exploratory boring locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on- the exploratory boring logs represent. the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. G. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. water level may occur with time. 7, Laboratory Testing Results: WC Moisture Content (%) DD = Dry Density (pcf) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve Fluctuations in HEPWORTH-PAWLAK 194 445 A 1 LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 MOISTURE CONTENT = 12.•OPERCENT DRY UNIT VEIGHT = 1.12 PCi= 3 l j ( rRGM: Boring 1 5 Feet i I ! t N I '\ 0 z a I ff I Expansion Upon. Wetting I ( ( I1 { •. � (._...... III 0.1 �.a 100 • .nn� .r-�, Y]hC bCt 1Dr ._ 4/CC 14 3 1 t0 z c Q J _n -3 _q { MOISTURE C13NTENT =14,3 PERCENT I f. DRY UNIT WEIGHT =109 . SAMPLE OF: sandy-clayi 1 ! 1 } FRO K Boring 2 @ 5 feet I I + t I I t j Expansion`--� I I f Upon ( II Wetting I ! i I � I i►�i I ! (I I. I I a HEPWORTH-PAWLAK•- (' 194 445 ri;:rm:rwN1rA1 ;.. I SWELL-CL3NSt'�L117L1TIC�N TEST RERULTS � pia_ 4 3 2 _3 -4 0. 3 Expansion Upon Wetting In MOI'STURL LUNTENT =jy; j'KRC-Ei4'I-•• .. - - DRY UNIT WCIGHT � 110 PCF SAMPLE OF°sandy clay FROM: Boring 2 G, 10 Feet 10 MOISTURE CONTENT PERCENT DRY UNIT WEIGHT Pcr SAMPLE OF, �IYI�I��O mill Magi IIN III III HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. I SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fia. 1708-97 Tax# 2105-083-03-001 Lot# 13, HEUGA JOB NAME %� 1 `!/ Creamery Ranch Sub. JOB NO. + ':' Edwards, CO BILL TO DATE S AR ED DATE COMPLETED DATE BILLED td h G A6i�4 2 b c l // /01 JOB COST SUMMARY 0 %02 D � 0azul TOTAL SELLING PRICE p 'TOTAL MATERIAL ai jXAa TOTAL LABOR INSURANCE SALES TAX MISC. COSTS TOTAL JOB COST GROSS PROFIT LESS OVERHEAD COSTS % OF SELLING PRICE NET PROFIT JOB FOLDER Product 278 ®, NEW ENGLAND BUSINESS SERVICE, INC., GROTON, MA 01471 JOB FOLDER Printed in USA i Design percolation rate T > 20 minutes per in MOUND , DIMENSIONS 44 DESCRIPRON SYMBOL DIMENSION (fee t) BED W/D TH A 11.0 BED LENGTH B 85.0 MOUND DEPTH D 1.0 D MOUND DEPTH E 2.87 BED DEPTH F 1.0 6 CAP AT EDGE OF BED G 1.0 CAP A T CENTER OF BED H 1.5' D0WNSLOPE SETBACK 1 42.0 UPSLOPE SETBACK J 9.0 SIDESLOPE SETBACK K 13 0 MOUND LENGTH L 111.0 MOUND WIDTH W 62.0 ttro owest Ground Waer e/evan was measured at 4 feet bellow the ground surface. MOUND TYPE SYSTEM with a pressurzed distribution network is recommended for this site. Loading fi Rate fora Medium Texture Sand = 1.2 gpd/sf E w ' Number of bedrooms Maximum daily Flow = Qmax Qmax = 5 x 2 persois/bdrm x 75 gallons/person/day x 1509 S; Qmax = 125 9P SEPTIC TANK ' V = Qmax/24hrs x 30 hrs Ili V = 14 allons Use t5OO Gqllon Single Auto Siphon Septic Tank by Front � Range Precast Concrete or equiv _ F E F. 4 ABSORPTION AREA Q A = Qmax/1.2gpd/sf A = 1125/1.2 = 937.5 s. f. o F the absorption bed dimensiol within the Mound System will be 11 feet: wide by 85 feet long. 0i2cLh Z E I ' RL FABRIC CU L OR TOPSOIL t L �0 N p •• ..• 1 VpHO To i T ` .! - - L D 1 1� t 3—INCH D/AMETE'R MANIFOLD PIPE NiP !lJUllllltll �� ttro owest Ground Waer e/evan was measured at 4 feet bellow the ground surface. MOUND TYPE SYSTEM with a pressurzed distribution network is recommended for this site. Loading fi Rate fora Medium Texture Sand = 1.2 gpd/sf E w ' Number of bedrooms Maximum daily Flow = Qmax Qmax = 5 x 2 persois/bdrm x 75 gallons/person/day x 1509 S; Qmax = 125 9P SEPTIC TANK ' V = Qmax/24hrs x 30 hrs Ili V = 14 allons Use t5OO Gqllon Single Auto Siphon Septic Tank by Front � Range Precast Concrete or equiv _ F E F. 4 ABSORPTION AREA Q A = Qmax/1.2gpd/sf A = 1125/1.2 = 937.5 s. f. o F the absorption bed dimensiol within the Mound System will be 11 feet: wide by 85 feet long. 0i2cLh Z E I ' RL FABRIC CU L OR TOPSOIL t L �0 N p •• ..• 1 VpHO To i T ` .! - - L D 1 1� t 3—INCH D/AMETE'R MANIFOLD PIPE NiP !lJUllllltll �� Chdmbw Pwr cya. W l 8 I B, 1/0t O Pu 1 `1 i DRAWN g .L.P.