HomeMy WebLinkAbout95 Polar Star Rd - 210518201005 - 1716-97ISINDIVIDUAL 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. 1716-97 BP NO. 11375
OWNER: ANTHONY AND PATRICIA PEEPLES VANGALIS PHONE: (970I 926-6244
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 2013, VAIL, CO 81658
APPLICANT: SAME PHONE:
SYSTEM LOCATION: 0095 POLAR STAR DRIVE, EDWARDS, CO TAX PARCEL NO. 2105-182-01-005
LICENSED INSTALLER: GROUND CONTROL EXCAVATING LICENSE NO. 54-97
DESIGN ENGINEER: LKP ENGINEERING, LUIZA PETROVSKA PHONE NO. (970) 827-9088
INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING:
1500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK, 1336 SQUARE FEET OF TRENCH ABSORPTION AREA VIA 43 INFILTRATOR UNITS AS PER DESIGN.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: INSTALL AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN DATED 4/18/97. ENGINEER IS RESPOSIBLE FOR FINAL INSPECTION.
BUILDING CO WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT THIS CERTIFICATION.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: f� ��i� `� 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 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: 1336 SQUARE FEET (VIA 41 i n f i l t r a t- o r i i n i t s )
INSTALLED 2-comp. s p t i jfANK: 1500 GALLONS IS LOCATED DEGREES AND FEET FROM
See site Plan for loratinng_
COMMENTS: Engineer certification received 9- -97.
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 DATE: September 26. 1997
„(site Plan MUST be attached)
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 $150.0 PERCOLATION TEST FEE $200.00
*
* MAKE ALL REMITTANCE PAYABLE TO: "EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER”
PROPERTY OWNER: PHONE: ( �7�')
MAILING. ADDRESS: ass A;r,1, , one, -f-5;:
APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON: -7vy�e PHONE: (iiw
MAILING ADDRESS:
LICENSED ISDS CONTRACTOR: k32-
COMPANY/DBA: ADDRESS:
PHONE: ( )
PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: D' New Installation ( ) Alteration ( ) Repair
LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM:
Building Permit # (if known)
Legal Description: Subdivision:�.,,�'-- cAisrew�_,4� Filing: r Block:. Lot No.72_
Tax Parcel Number: -r" Lot Size:
Street Address:
BUILDING TYPE: (Check applicable category)
()o Residential/Single Family
(IR Residential/Multi-Family*
( ) Commercial/Industrial*
Number
Number
Type _
of Bedrooms
of Bedrooms S—
TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category)
( ) Well ( ) Spring ( ) Surface
-) Public Name of Supplier:
*These systems require design �y a Registered Professional Engineer
SIGNATURE:%/ii+��i ��" Date:
TO BE COMPLETE BY THE COUNTY
AMOUNT PAID: I�-l� RECEIPT # : DATE: J
CHECK #: CASHIER:
-1". LI lLi I'"l N 1 I 14 F lIII--
mow,
F"Ur- of
September 25,1997
Mr. Tony VanGalis
P.0, Box 2013
Vail, CO 81658
RE; Inspection of Septic System lnsttllation
Lot 4, Block 5, Lake Creek Meadows
Eagle County, Colorado
Project No. 9716 - Permit No.1716-97
Dear Tonyr;
At your request, between July 30 and September 19,1997, we visited the oonstruction site on Lot 4,
Block 5, Lake Creek Meadows, Eagle County, Colorado. The purpose of our site visits was to observe the
installation of the septic system.
They installed the system in overall compliance-Aith the septic system design, Drawing No.
97160.1)WO, dated April 19,1997. /
The sys connected to the main residence, as shown on the septic system design drawing.
They install 1500-galla compartments, a prccast, ooncrcte septic tank,
-thr tanderd infiltrator Chamb= were installed in three trendies, with serial distribution. In
the last i. 4 trator of each trench, they installed cleanout ports. Horizontal distance from center to center of
the trenches, was 9.5 feet ommore. All piping was D -35, 4-inc_h per. "1`�he soil profile in the trenches was
consistent vdth the soil exposed in the profile hole. Depth of the tnmchas was between_12 and 24 inches.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to tall.
Sincerely,
LIP Eagineerin
29526
r d
Luiza Petrovska, PE Ply AL I
President +uu11100%,
cc: Ms. Heather Savalox, Eagle, Ca mty Environmental Health Division, fax: 329.7185
��s�cs�wrwrrnwr�cs���aosa,wkn
P.O. Box 1452, Avon, Colorado 81620 - (970) 827.9088 Td ► (970) 827.9089 Fax
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154
. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945-9454
Phone 970 945-7988
PRELE%M4ARY SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED DUPLEX RESIDENCE
LOT 4, BLOCK 5, LAKE CREEK MEADOWS
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 196 194
MAY 20, 1996
PREPARED FOR:
TONY VANGALIS
c/o R.A. NELSON & ASSOCIATES
P.O. DRAWER 5400,,,A "
AVON, COLORADO 81620
COMM EAGLE
UN1 i' V ::[.opmMP.�'
T
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
May 20, 1996
Tony Vangalis
c/o R.A. Nelson & Associates
P.O. Drawer 5400
Avon, Colorado 81620
Job No.196 194
Subject: Report Transmittal, Preliminary Subsoil Study for Foundation Design,
Proposed Duplex Residence, Lot 4, Block 5, Lake Creek Meadows,
Eagle County, Colorado.
Dear Mr. Vangalis:
As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for a proposed duplex residence at the
subject site.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the general
building area typically consist of a thin layer of topsoil overlying clay, sand and gravel
colluvium. Hard gypsum bedrock was generally encountered beneath the colluvium at
depths between about 4 and 6 feet except at Boring 2 where the depth to bedrock was
36 feet. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
The variable soil depth encountered between the borings could result in differential
settlement and risk of distress to the building. The proposed residence can be founded
on spread footings placed entirely on the undisturbed gypsum bedrock at shallow depth
and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Precautions should be
taken to prevent construction -induced slope instability of the uphill steep terrain.
The report which follows describes our exploration, 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,
I-�ORTH - PAWLAK G) TECHNICAL, INC.
1 r>
Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr., P.E'
Rev. By: SLP
JZA/ro
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............................. 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .................................. 2
SITE CONDITIONS ......................................... 2
FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................... 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... 3
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL .................................... 4
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 5
FOUNDATIONS ......................................... 5
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..................... 6
FLOOR SLABS ........................................ 7
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ................................. 8
SITE GRADING ....................................... 9
SURFACE DRAINAGE.............I..................... 9
LIMITATIONS ............................................ 10
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a preliminary subsoil study for a proposed
duplex residence to be located on Lot 4, Block 5, Lake Creek Meadows, Eagle County,
Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to
evaluate the subsurface conditions with respect to potential sinkhole development and
for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement
for geotechnical engineering services to Tony Vangalis dated April 16, 1996. Two
previous subsoil studies had been completed for building on the property, one by Chen
and Associates, Inc. as presented in their report dated September 10, 1980, Job No.
20,891 and the other by Intermountain Engineering Ltd. dated November, 1993,
Project No. 93817G.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to
obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils and bedrock
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 foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed
building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and
presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering
considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions
encountered.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Chen and Associates, Inc. excavated two exploratory pits as part of their
September 10, 1980 study. A location plan of the exploratory pits was unavailable at
the time of our study. The pits encountered clayey silt above clayey gravels at depths
between 11 and 12 feet deep. Swell -consolidation testing performed on two samples of
the upper silt soils indicated a moderate to high collapse potential. Chen and
H-P GEOTECH
-2-
Associates recommended placing the residence on a spread footing foundation either on
the clayey silts with a risk'of settlement or on the granular subsoils or compacted
structural fill with less risk of settlement.
The study conducted by Intermountain Engineering in November of 1993
consisted of excavating two test pits in the approximate current proposed building area.
Their pits encountered about 3 feet of topsoil with cobbles overlying very hard gypsum
bedrock. They recommended placing the proposed residence on a mat type foundation
to bridge possible voids caused by potential dissolution of the gypsum bedrock. No
voids were encountered by the test pit exploration.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed residence will be a one and two story wood frame structure built
in two levels cut into the southeast facing hillside with a walkout lower level. Garage
and basement floors will be slab -on -grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be
relatively minor with cut depths up to about 8 feet. We assume relatively light
foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those
described, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this
report.
SITE CONDITIONS
At the time of our field work, the site was vacant and vegetated with grass,
weeds and sagebrush. Scattered small brush was located on the hillside to the west of
the proposed building. The ground surface is irregular with a general slope down to
the east. The slopes are moderate to steep with grades between about 20 and 30
percent. Approximately 15 feet of elevation difference occurs across the proposed
building area. Two irrigation ditches cross the lot on either side of the proposed
residence in a northeast -southwest direction. A depression about 5 to 10 feet deep is
H-P GEOTECH
-3-
located near the southern boundary of the property. A small depression with an old
culvert is located about 30 feet to the east of Boring 4. Outcrops of gypsum bedrock
are located immediately north and southwest of the proposed building area. A broad
swale is located in the lower part of the building area where Boring 2 was drilled.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on April 8 and May 14,
1996. Five exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to
evaluate the subsurface conditions. Borings 1 and 2 were initially drilled but due to the
variable bearing conditions, Borings 3, 4 and 5 were later drilled to help delineate the
bedrock depth. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight
augers powered by a track -mounted CME-45 drill rig. The borings were logged by a
representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The boring locations were
selected based on the assumed building area provided by the client.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/s 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 bedrock.
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.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils typically consist of a thin layer of topsoil overlying clay, sand and
gravel colluvium. Gypsum bedrock was generally encountered beneath the colluvium
at depths between 4 and 6 feet except at Boring 2, where the depth to bedrock was 36
H-P GEOTECH
-4-
feet. The gypsum is hard to very hard and cemented and not- easily recovered by drive
sampling. Voids or soft rock which would indicate solutioning of the gypsum were not
encountered in the borings. However, the loose condition and thickness of the
colluvium encountered in Boring 2 may be the result of infilling of a solution cavity or
differential weathering of the rock. Refusal to drilling was encountered at Borings 1
and 2 apparently due to the cemented condition of the rock.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included
natural moisture content and percent finer than #200 sieve (silt and clay fraction).
Results of consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of
sandy clay with gravel, presented on Fig. 4, indicate low compressibility under
conditions of loading and wetting. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the
subsoils were slightly moist to moist and the bedrock was dry.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian -age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the project
site. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained sandstone/siltstone
with some massive beds of gypsum and anhydrites. The borings drilled at the site
encountered massive gypsum deposits. Dissolution of the gypsum under certain
conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of localized
subsidence. Our observations and the previous work by others indicate that the
enclosed contour depressions on the property are active sinkholes. These sinkholes
appear similar to others associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite in area of the Eagle
Valley. The deep colluvial deposit encountered at Boring 2 may be associated with an
inactive sinkhole or erosion of the bedrock.
Borings 1 and 2 were drilled relatively deep to assess the presence of cavities in
the subsurface materials. Boring 1 was drilled about 24 feet into the bedrock and did
not encounter cavities. Boring 2 encountered practical refusal to augers at a depth of
about 21h feet into the rock. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the
H-P GEOTECH
-5-
site, the risk of ground subsidence in the area of shallow bedrock (Borings 1, 3, 4, and
5) throughout the service life of the proposed residence, in our opinion, is low.
However, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not develop and the owner
should be made aware of the potential risk. The risk of future subsidence in the deep
soil area (Boring 2) appears high and should be avoided by the building and utilities. If
further investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired, we
should be contacted.
PREMENARY DESIGN RECOWAENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings
and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded
with spread footings bearing on the undisturbed gypsum bedrock. The building should
be located in shallow bedrock areas and the Boring 2 area should be avoided. A mat
foundation does not appear warranted due to the competent condition of the shallow
bedrock.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
spread footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed bedrock can designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Based on experience, we
expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in
this section will be about 1 inch or less. Surface and subsurface drainage
should be provided to prevent wetting of the bedrock materials which
could increase the settlement risk.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost
H-P GEOTECH
protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior
grade is typically used in this area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least
10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be
designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation
and Retaining Walls" section of this report.
5) The colluvial soils and any loose or disturbed bedrock should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the hard
undisturbed bedrock. Any soft areas found in the excavation that could
be the result of gypsum dissolution should to be probed.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
7) Foundation concrete should contain sulfate resistant cement and be
designed to prevent degradation due to sulfate attack by the native
gypsum rock and soils.
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 excluding topsoil and rock larger than about 6
inches. 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 backfin consisting of the on -site soils
excluding topsoil and rock larger than about 6 inches.
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
H-P GEOTECH
MR
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.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90 % of the
maximum standard Proctor 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 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 0.40.
Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be
calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 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 case of passive resistance. Fill placed
against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a compacted to at least
95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS:,
The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly
loaded slab -on -grade construction. There could be some settlement potential of slabs
placed on the upper compressible soils. To reduce the effects of some differential
movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with
expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints
H-P GEOTECH
��
should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint
spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on
experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free -draining gravel
should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material
should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve
and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 %
of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required
fill can consist of the on -site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
The on -site soils may be difficult to compact and it may be more practical to import
road base for use as backfill beneath slabs.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of
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 1'fa feet deep. An impervious
membrane 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 bearing
soils.
H-P GEOTECH
MOM
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 depths for the basement and foundation levels will not exceed one level,
about 8 to 10 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 feet deep, especially in areas
where the natural slope is about 30 % and steeper. 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. 95 % standard Proctor density.
The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20 % grade.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical
or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The bedrock is
cemented and could require rock excavation techniques to excavate to design bearing
levels.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The grading plan for the property should consider runoff from above the
building site. Water should not be allowed to pond near the building. The following
drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times
after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture 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.
H-P GEOTECH
-10-
Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the
on -site clayey soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof 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. Consideration should be given to
use of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting below the foundation
caused by irrigation.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted 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 from the exploratory borings
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
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 design
purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our
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
H-P GEOTECH
-11-
to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of
excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a
representative of the geotechnical engineer.
Sincerely,
E WORTH - PAWLAK OTECHNICAL, INC.
Jody Z ( Adamson, Jr., P.
x
i
Reviewed By:
9 E
Steven L. Pawlak,
JZA/ro
s a •
e
'°: 15222 e�
A a
. SlzOA6�K'�e
�r ea.w•
H-P GEOTECH
LOT I
LOT 4
•BORING I \
\ . BORING
BORING 3 � `
LOT 2
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1 = 80,
JT 3
140
• \8IORIN� \
O \ � 4 �- 130
�` EASEMENT �� \
120
PROPERTY �� \ `�
BOUNDARY O 0-0 � AJID
i
JACKMAN RANCH ROAD
196 194 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fill. I
GEOTECHNICAL, Inc.
Depth - Feet
m
V
N
N
p
ccn
!r
ZLLJ
:� _O:•
O
m
w
w
N
r..
Z
II
a�'�•'g:>* d_*4p
O
m
�
w
ii
c
0
c
s
0
Ncc•1
e
L
Ch
Z
it
RIV
_
011
O
-j
E
m
w
>.
co
r
n
O
o•
o
c
C4CD
N
W
C7
Z
II
n> D.• �. ��ono [j�p Q. �'no O��p �.• �;no
O'
o• ,
.Q.•'0•ne'O• :O.''��no
m
O
Zj
Z
m
w
ee
�
u
o
w
In
Wp
I
m
( I I
N
(
N (
I I
I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I
Depth - Feet
I
I I I I I I
196194
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
Fig.
2
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; sandy silt, slightly clayey, organics, medium stiff, slightly moist, brown.
CLAY AND SILT (CL-ML); sandy, medium stiff, very moist to moist, brown to light brown. Low plasticity.
SAND AND GRAVEL (GC); clayey to very silty, cobbles, shale fragments, medium, dense to loose with
depth, slightly moist, brown.
GYPSUM BEDROCK; hard to very hard, cemented, dry, white. Eagle Valley Evaporite.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 24nch I.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/84nch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586
31/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 31 blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches were required
to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
TPractical Rig Refusal
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on April 8 and May 14, 1996 with a 44nch diameter continuous
flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were located by pacing and taping and shown -on the site plan provided
by Eagle Valley Surveying.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided.
Logs of exploratoryborings are drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate
boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
Fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (%) -
DD = Dry Density (pcf)
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve.
1
196194 1 GEOTECHNICALV INC. I LEGEND AND NOTES I Fig. 3
Moisture Content = 13.7 percent
Dry Unit Weight = 112 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Clay with Gravel
From: Boring 2 at 9 Feet
0
0
°
1
4)
a
E
0
U 2
No movement
upon
wetting
0.1
100
1.0
APPLIED
PRESSURE
- ksf
10
196194
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC..
SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4
rn
cc
rn
O
z
m
0
U
Z
�
�
J
J
�
U
LU
2
cn
V
W
w
F'
F—
W
0.
CD
LUa
Y
J
m cr
~ m
J
Q
a
�.
0
F-
ac
}
�
CL
W
2
�
1716-97 Tax# 2105-182-01-005
Lot#4,Filing 1,Blck 5-VANGALIS'
JOB NAME Lake Creek Meadows
0095 Polar Star Dr_
JOB NO.
Y.
OB LOCATION
BILL TO
DATE STARTE
DATE COMPLETED
DATE BILLED
1.5 kui� 336 S. 14:�
WV44-11 Jet,
rIq %
- `41 ft4al- I / _ay-& uze� G(,� 41�
dA
g�ZS q
JOB COST SUMMARY
TOTAL SELLING PRICE
'TOTAL MATERIAL
TOTAL LABOR
INSURANCE
SALES TAX
MISC. COSTS
TOTAL JOB COST
GROSS PROFIT
LESS OVERHEAD COSTS
% OF SELLING PRICE
NET PROFIT
JOB FOLDER Product 27a ®@ NEW ENGLAND BUSINESS SERVICE, INC., GROTON, MA 01471 JOB FOLDER Printed In USA
