HomeMy WebLinkAbout2419 Colorow Rd - 210724102015INDIVIDUAL 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. 1994-00 BP NO. 13200 OWNER: JOE GOLTZMAN PHONE: 636-227-7359 MAILING ADDRESS: 107 MEADOW BROOK, BALLWIN, MO 63011 APPLICANT: GARY HILL PHONE: 970-390-3413 SYSTEM LOCATION: 2419 COLOROW ROAD, EDWARDS TAX PARCEL NO. 2107-241-02-010 LICENSED INSTALLER: SPIEGEL CONSTRUCTION, CHRIS SPIEGEL LICENSE NO.20-00 PHONE: 970-524-7148 DESIGN ENGINEER: LKP ENGINEERING, LUIZA PETROVSKA PHONE NO. 970-926-9088 INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A 5 BEDROOM RESIDENCE 1500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK, 1875 SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA, VIA 60 INFILTRATOR UNITS AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: INSTALL AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN DATED 2/2/00. INSTALL THE TRENCHES ALONG THE CONTOURS AND BE SURE TO MAINTAIN ALL APPLICABLE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS. ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL INSPECTION. DO NOT BACK FILL ANY PORTION OF THE INSTALLATION UNTIL THE ENGINEER HAS INSPECTED AND APPROVED IT. BUILDING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE SEPTIC SYSTEM HAS BEEN APPROVED. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: as_irx �` DATE: JUNE 26, 2000 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 WILL RESULT IN 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: 1875 SQUAREFEET(VIA VIA 60 INFILTRATOR UNITS PER DESIGN ) INSTALLED CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK: 1500 GALLONS IS LOCATED DEGREES AND 60 FEET INCHES NORTH FROM THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING. COMMENTS: ENGINEER FINAL CERTIFICATION RECEIVED AUGUST 7, 2000. THIS SYSTEM IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE A FIVE BEDROOM RESIDENCE. 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: AUGUST 8, 2000 Incomplete Applications Will NOT Be Accepted (Site Plan MUST be attached) ISDS Permit # acM Building Permit # 1 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) * FEE SCHEDULE * PERMIT APPLICATION FEE $150.00 PERCOLATION TEST FEE $200.00 * SIZING AND SITE -VISIT FEE $85.00 (WHEN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SIZES THE * SYSTEM USING YOUR SOILS REPORT) * MAKE ALL REMITTANCE PAYABLE TO: "EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER" ************************************************************************** PROPERTY OWNER: MAILING ADDRESS: 101 PHONE : APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON: k�oi 11--1-- PHONE :q-10-39Q LICENSED SYSTEMS CONTRACTOR: SI Tfi CA.,L C'cgAy1 , PHONE :9-70--90q —06+4 COMPANY/DBA: W)_L. 4_Q45T )ZlCj ADDRESS: TO EL_\X 1-73S CO *************************************************************************** PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: (X NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Legal Description: L—QT e> 6&V, S� 4�D►VISi 9Ll ��/ W l_�Zcr Tax Parcel Number: A,1Ql nk4j t®YQ to Lot Size(o �c s Physical Address: aAAM C.QLQEQS. i—ea 'BoEa4�RCo BUILDING TYPE: (Check applicable category) t< Residential/Single Family ( ) Residential/Multi-Family* ( ) Commercial/Industrial* Number Number Type _ of Bedrooms of Bedrooms *These systems require design by a Registered Professional Engineer TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category) K Well ( ) Spring ( ) Surface ( ) Public Name of Supplie APPLICANT SIGNATURE: Date: [�- �- **********************************************J***************************** AMOUNT PAID: M-6 RECEIPT # : �� O DATE: �( Iq CHECK #: !1 d CASHIER: �1 Community Development Department (970)328-8730 FAX (970) 328-7185 TDD (970) 328-8797 Email: eccmdeva@vail.net http: //www.eagle-county.com Date: June 26, 2000 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO TO: Spiegel Construction FROM: Environmental Health Division Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 RE: Issuance of Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit No.1994-00. Property Location: 2419 Colorow Road, Edwards, CO., Goltzman residence. Enclosed is your ISDS Permit No. 1994-00. 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. Please note any special requirements that may have been added to the design by this department. 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. Please notify this office if you have not been contracted to perform this installation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Environmental Health Division at 328- 8755. cc: files LKP Engineering, Luiza Petrovska Community Development Department (970) 328-8730 FAX (970) 328-7185 TDD (970) 328-8797 Email: eccmdeva@vail.net http: //www.eagle-county.com August 8, 2000 Joe Goltzman 107 Meadow Brook Ballwin, MO 63011 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 RE: Final of ISDS Permit #1994-00, Tax Parcel #2107-241-02-010. Property location: 2419 Colorow Rd., Edwards, CO. Dear Mr. Goltzman: 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. Z rely, Janet Kohl Environmental Health Department Eagle County Community Development ENCL: Informational Brochure Final ISDS Permit cc: files uvr c, r r cW c.. a V..J r .r r v-- �Gv-�Vv� LYtiI- r-IWIl'IMMMI UY 11'`Il.r r'Hl7t bl L ,011 Engineeav r: August 7, 2000 - Mr. Todd Hatami ICE: 4to Installation Steven Jam" Riden Gol P-f). Box 3238 Lot 81f... � A2�13`. t�iox'ow Road F V<t►I, co 81658Fa81e:„ xoj+ is j?*WjkjE".Ne, 1994-00 Uear Todd- request of Chris ,: °duly 7, 2000, tr.ion site at 2419 At the re 9 :. Road, Eagle County, C,'olorow Ro , g �ii''1r- --p purpose of our ••'ii'1�t1�y:,•,;--• to ire the installation of the ,Septic system. Tbey installed the systelkli, iompliawce wi _ pep m gn, Drawing No. 2015SD.DWG, dated February �;`' :`:, I `'•system was in orrisabctve-narned drawing. They installed a 100-gallon, tvvC+ ... nt, precast, yc. �;1i�.tank was installed on the cast side of the proposed reA ' „t 60 feet north e 9 y' t'+sei�ier. Tlae effluent Bate 7. wzu) connected to the top of'the i�+�' . • ator in the first'�f i ... ra at#late south end of the P .row of trenches Sixty Standard Initltxati ware Installed tr ;. contained fifteen inftjtratars. Tl'' were connected. tsili. in the last infiltaator „err:!",,., •,,.. . Hari�oxatai nt+a';center of the trenches, of each trench, inspection P-,:. was 12- feet or more. All i y j5, 4�incb PVC: ; ,'del re tr tlrrah4s was no more than 36 inches. .;. Y. l f you have any questid not hesitate to .: Sincerely, LK.P Engincvriag, .q"4 p ' ll uiza Petrovska, PE-P. .' President :r cc: Ms. Heather Savalox, l ei Environmental ion,; : 32$-0349 •I'axnyIwm1cMYiiI��WurddocWPi30�VAi3U30.W!_�'�;`. _ .�.�. . P.O. Box 2837, Edwards, A'I*' :(970) 926-908g ``(9 ��, E--mail: lkpcng(,�st,bwaap.net :.e _ r., 31. ]I If__7_�filfilfil Mf"ihl M(M-r nM Tn-• 7nr_I C I'hI��F.�l`t'V CF.�I '�..IC©I TI-I ` ::.. ..�y? •�r;' POf:.'G• 1 - Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 te c �Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970.945-7988 Fax:970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE ALTERNATE BUILDING ENVELOPE LOT 8B, PILGRIM DOWNS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 198 758 DECEMBER 319 1999 JOE GOLTZMAN 107 MEADOW BROOK BALLWIN, MISSOURI 63011 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECIMCAL, INC. December 31, 1999 Joe Goltzman 107 Meadow Brook Ballwin, Missouri 63011 Job No. 198 758 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Alternate Building Envelope, Lot 8B, Pilgrim Downs, Eagle County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Goltzman: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for design of foundations at the subject .S1i.V. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed.. building area generally consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying relatively dense clayey sandy gravel with cobble to boulder size rock fragments and clay zones. Stiff to very stiff sandy silty clay was encountered in Boring 3 between 2 and 71/2 feet. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked about 2 weeks later. The proposed residence. can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The footings should also be designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 1,000 psf. The expansion potential of the subgrade should be evaluated at the time of construction. 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, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Z. By: ro TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............................... 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS ............................................ 2 SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL ..................................... 2 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................... 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... 3 FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ........................... 4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 4 FOUNDATIONS ........................................ 4 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..................... 5 FLOOR SLABS ........................................ 7 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM .................................. 8 SITE GRADING ........................................ 8 SURFACE DRAINAGE ................................... 9 PERCOLATION TESTING ................................. 9 LIMITATIONS ............................................. 10 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 & 5 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE H - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located in the alternate building envelope on Lot 8B, Pilgrim Downs, Eagle County, 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 Joe Goltzman, 6_.r1ed December 7, i999. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotec'- .ical, Inc. previously conducted a subsoil study for the eastern building envelope on the lot and presented our findings in a report dated December 11, 1998. An engineering geology evaluation of the alternate building envelope was conducted by Church & Associates, Inc. and presented in a letter dated February 8, 1999, their Job No. 10702. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the assumed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION At the time of our study, design plans for the residence had not been developed. The building is proposed at the location in the alternate building envelope as shown on Fig. 1. We assume the building will be a one to two story wood frame structure over a walkout basement level. We assume excavation for the building will have a maximum cut depth of one level, about 10 to 12 feet below the existing ground surface. For the purpose of our analysis, foundation loadinZP gs for the structure were assumed to be relatively light and typical of the assumed type of construction. -2- If building loadings, location or grading plans are significailtly different from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The lot was vacant and covered with 6 to 12 inches of snow at the time of our field work. ThL grc and 5urfac� uI t le alternate bu ' ing area slopes mode---ately steep down to the east at grades between about 16 % and 20 % . The terrain beccmes steeper to the southeast below the building site at grades up to about 30 % . There is about 18 feet of elevation difference in the proposed building area. Vegetation consists of aspen trees and brush. SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL. Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian -age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Pilgrim Downs Subdivision. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained sandstonelsiltstone and limestone with some massive beds of gypsum. There is a possibility that massive, heavily bedded gypsum deposits associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite 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. No evidence of cavities was encountered in the subsurface materials, however, the exploratory borings were relatively shallow, for foundation design only. 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 8B 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. H-P GEOTECH -3- FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 15, 1999. Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a track -mounted CME-45 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with i 3/o-inch and 2-inch 1.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driver :zto ti.- ��:_Jsoils at various depths with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which 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 profiles encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. Below about 1 foot of organic topsoil, the subsoils generally consist of relatively dense, clayey sandy gravel with cobble to boulder size rock fragments and clay zones. Sti f to very stiff anti; silty clay ,7ias enccuntered in 3oring 3 betNveer_ 2 and 71/2 feet. The subsoils encountered in the Profile Boring were a clay and gravel mixture. The clay portions of these soils can possess an expansion potential when wetted. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included in -situ moisture content and dry density, finer than sand size gradation 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 Figs. 4 and 5, indicate low compressibility under relatively light surcharge H-P GEOTECH M loading and a low to moderate expansion potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. Swelling pressures between 3,000 psf and 7,000 psf were indicated from the testing. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at time of drilling or when checked about ^ weeks later. The subsoils were slight'_.NT moist to moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The clay portion of t^.- subsoils encountered at Lhe site possess a low to moderate expansion potential when wetted. The expansion potential can probably be mitigated by load concentration to reduce or prevent swelling in the event of wetting below footing level. The rock content of the subsoils should also be a mitigating factor in the expansion potential. Surface runoff, landscape irrigation and utility leakage are possible sources of water which could cause wetting. The expansion potential of the subgrade should be evaluated at the time of construction. DESIGN RECOIMNMNDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the residence be founded with spread footings placed on undisturbed natural soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The footings should also be designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 1,000 psf. In order to satisfy the minimum dead load pressure under lightly loaded areas, it may be necessary to concentrate loads by using a grade beam and pad system. Wall -on -grade construction is not recommended at this site to achieve the minimum dead load. H-P GEOTECH M6M 2) Based on experience, we expect settlement or heave of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch. There could be some additional movement if the bearing soils were to become wet. 3) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for isolated pads. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies and limit the risk of differential movement. One method of analysis is to design the foundation wall to span an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structu_-::s should also be &s gned to resist a lateral earth pressure as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walils" section of this report. 5) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this area. 6) Prior to the footing construction, the topsoil and loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to competent bearing soils. If water seepage is encountered in the excavation, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 7) A representative of the soil engineer should 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 55 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site granular -soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect surriciently 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 45 pcf for backfill H-P GEOTECH . -6- consisting of the on -site granular soils. Backfill should not contain vegetation, topsoil, predominantly clay soils or oversized rock. 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 fc _indz. or. wall or retaining structure. An underdrain shovel- be rro ded 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 at to 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 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 against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 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 compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. at a moisture content near optimum. H-P GEOTECH A -7- FLOOR SLABS The on -site soils possess an expansion potential and slab heave could occur if the subgrade soils were to become wet. The subgrade should be evaluated for expansion potential at the time of construction. Slab -on -grade construction may be used provided precautions are taken to limit potential movement and the risk of distress to the building is accepted by the owner. A positive way to reduce the risk of slab movement, which is commonly used in the area, is to construct structurally supported floors over crawlspace. To re�?uce the effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns 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 detail is also important for wallboards, stairways and door frames. Slip joints which will allow at least 1 1/2 inches of vertical movement are recommended. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due 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 free -draining gravel should be placed immediately beneath basement level slabs -on -grade. This material 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 free -draining gravel will aid in drainage below the slabs and should be connected to the perimeter underdrain system. Required fill beneath slabs can consist of the on -site gravelly 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 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 GEOTECH effects if slab heave occurs. All plumbing lines should be pressure tested before backfilling to help reduce the potential for wetting. 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 crawlspace 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 -draining granular material placed at the bottom of the wall backfill. The drain lines should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade, and sloped at a minimum 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 1 1/2 feet deep. An impervious liner such as 20 mil PVC may be placed below the drain gravel in a trough shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to keep drain water from flowing beneath the wall and wetting the underlying soils. SITE GRADING The risk of construction induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the building is located above the steeper slopes as planned and cut and fill depths are limited. We assume the cut depth for the basement level will not exceed one level, about 10 to 12 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 to 10 feet deep, especially at the downhill side of the residence where the slope steepens. 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 H-P GEOTECH 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 risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in perrmment cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. T ais office should r.., iew site grading pies .` - tr project prior to construction. 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 during construction. Drying could increase the expansion potential of the clay 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 at least 2 feet of the on -site finer - graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from th:, foundation in all directions. WD recoramend a 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. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation tests were conducted on December 17, 1999 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile boring and H-P GEOTECH -10- three percolation holes were drilled at locations as shown on Fig. 1. The test holes were drilled with 6 inch diameter auger and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The holes were covered with rigid foam insulation to protect against freezing overnight. The soils encountered in the percolation holes are similar to those encountered in the Profile Boring shown on Fig. 2 and consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying sandy clay and gravel with scattered cobbles to the boring depth of 10 feet. The percolation test results are presented in Table H. The percolation test results indicate an infiltration rate beM---n 16 ar,_ 30 riir--dtes per inch with an average of 24 minuteq per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a conventional septic disposal system. 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 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 to be different from those described in this report, we should be notified at once so reevaluation 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- of the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site gbservation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of -structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK G n T v�o 9 .;ordy Z. Adamson, r., A Reviewed By: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. JZA/ro �T C. 7 O4�Oc�' AD?' O�r;•,� N RPO Vo / 4 7 cc: Steven James Riden, Architect H-P GEOTECH APPROXIMATE SCALE 1 " = 40- __ _ ----� -.�-970 ------------� ALTERNATE I BUILDING ENVELOPE �aI 1 LOT 86 970 BORING 1 } 1 I- • } 1 I BORING 2 }~ " 960 } 95G - � I PROPOSED RESIDENCE 940 - - - .. ~ 1 }� 950 `� • BORING 3 } 930 �. P20 P1 } 1 0 } I `� _ P 3 PROFILE I BORING } \ � ' 930 198 758 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 PROFILE BORING ELEV. = 964' ELEV. = 959' ELEV. = 947' ELEV. = 943' 960 44/6 WC=6.6 ° e' DD=1.26 955- 50/12 4S/12 }� WC=8:4 °' -200=39 'cp DD=115 e� LL=32 P1=10 v:a ai � . 1j• Li.. O o 1 950 30p2 50/3 _ 945 50/11 50/11 d' WC=5.2 ° —200=45 ° • ' LL=29 S. .. P1=9 . .940 39/2 0� 935 930 rb6 46/12 965 •°• 955 41 950 I c 0 a A Ld 10/12 945 20/12 WC=6.5 DD=11Q e' —200=74 940 s° Oyu 50/10 WC=6.7 a° DD=124 935 o• 40/12 30/1 e' 930 9.25 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3. 925 198 758 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LEGEND: pq F1TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, medium stiff, moist, dark brown. CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, scattered gravel, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, brown to reddish brown, low plasticity. •a: CLAY AND GRAVEL (CL—GC); sandy, occasional cobbles, very stiff/medium dense, slightly moist, red. GRAVEL (GC); clayey, sandy, with cobbles and boulders, clay zones, medium dense, slightly moist, red, .o. angular fragments of siltstone/sandstone and claystone, low plasticity fines. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch I.D. California liner sample. Drive sample— starrdurci-^erretrotiorr test ( SPT ), 1 3/8—inch '.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D — 1586. Drive sample blow count; indicates that 39 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were 39-/1-2 required- to- drive the CaRfornia- or SP-T sampler 12 inches. NO -TES: 1, Exploratory borings were drilled on .December 15 and 16, 1999 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by- the method- used-. 5. The lines betweerr materials sh-awnorr the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries isetween m.aterial types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Na free- water was encourrtered- in the borings at the time of drilling, or when checked about 2 weeks later_ Fluctuation in water level ^icy occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing- Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. LL = Liquid Limit ( % ) PI = Plasticity Index ( 198 758 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK I LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. c 0 2 c D n. x W 1 1 c o_ or N 0 a E c0 1 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 1A- 0 c a c 0 d 1 X W I c 2 J N N a� a E 0 U 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 1911 7511 JHEPWORTH — PAWLAK SWELL —CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Moisture Content = 6.6 percent Dry Density = 126 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay with Gravel. From: Boring 1 at 4 Feet Expansion u porr Wetting . I Moisture Content = 8.9 percent Dry Density = 115 pcf Sample of: Gravelly Sandy Clay From: Boring 2 at 4 Feet i E; ponsi^n upon _ wetting Moisture Content = 6.5 percent Dry Density = 110 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay with Gravel From: Boring 3 at 4 Feet I L Expcnsinn. upon wetting I 0.1 c 0 U' 1 c v a x w 0 c 0 0) 1 EL E 0 U 2 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf . 100 Moisture Content = 6.7 percent Dry Density = 124 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay with Gravel From: Boring 3 at 9 Feet E-,jnsion upon wetting 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 198 758 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK SWELL —CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 100 Fig. 5 1 p f U z J Q V z U W 0 W C7 J Q a 0 a W 00 LO r- 00 r� 0 z m 0 LL: L� r w �M I..L Lu J Q m= Q 0 f— m J LL 0 r cc Q (`Q c`o CLQ cc d > m (II y N cc cO U U U U _> a) ? A U > C co ca ca ca co cn U C7 vJ cn cn W Q 2 WLo Z , ZO 2 W S Z C y � U U x o o rn Z a C7 W 67 W o N a (Y) N .J W N N >• 0) I�S,y%, � C7 V I - W Q of a a Z 0 Za ZQ rn O F- 6 O 6 C � J W a o J — ^ LO It z } Z � a Co r w 0i N o o 06 In a 2 U O W � O Q U O J W Ja C7 a s N CO HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 198 758 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP 1N WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P-1 33 15 17 1 /4 13 314 3 1 /2 26 13 3/4 12 1 3/4 12 10 3/4 1 1/4 10 314 10 3/4 10 9114 314 9 1/4 8 1/2 3/4 8 1/2 8 1/2 8 7 1/2 1/2 P-2 39 15 14 3/4 11 1/4 3 1 /2 30 11 1/4 10 1/4 1 101/4 91/2 314 9 112 8 3/4 3/4 8 3/4 8 3/4 8 7 1/2 1/2 7 1/2 7 1/2 7 6 1/2 1/2 P-3 41 15 22 1 /2 20 2 1 /2 16 20 18 1 /4 1 3/4 18 1 /4 16 1 /2 1 3/4 16 112 15 1/4 1 1/4 15 1/4 14 1/4 1 14 1/4 13 1/4 1 13 1/4 12 1/4 1 . 12 1/4 11 1/2 3/4 Note: Percolation tests were performed in the bottom of 6 inch diameter auger drilled holes. The holes were soaked on December 16, 1999 and covered with rigid foam insulation to protect against freezing. Percolation tests were conducted on December 17, 1999. The average percolation rate was based on the last three readings of each test. Lyy4-uu 'rax lfZlU/-Z41-02-010 JOB NAM.r_ Lot 8B, Colorow GOLTZMAN JOB NO.Op- oub 2419 Colorow Rd., Edwards LOCATION BILL TO DATE STARTED DATE COMPLETED DATE BILLED za/ 60 ok 135(� L14f1l", di-i(wt z-z-�� 4�L 0 .1641 i it i 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 278 JOB FOLDER w Printed in U.S.A. 1 - - ! F Ftt - 1 F k > 4 _