The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About758 Graham Rd - 210709406026INDIVIDUAL 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. 2133-01 BP NO. 13860 OWNER: MICHAEL J. SCHNEIDER PHONE: 970-390-3973 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4118, EDWARDS, CO 81632 APPLICANT: SAME PHONE: SYSTEM LOCATION:_0758 GRAHAM ROAD, EDWARDS, CO TAX PARCEL NO. 2107-094-06-026 LICENSED INSTALLER: SPIEGEL CONSTRUCTION, CHRIS SPIEGEL LICENSE NO. 9-01 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 4 BEDROOM RESIDENCE 1250 GALLON CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK (ENGINEER RECOMMENDS 1500 GALLON) , 2000 SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA CREDIT, VIA&4 INFILTRATOR UNITS, AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: INSTALL AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN DATED S8/30/01, WITH A CLEANOUT BETWEEN THE TANK AND THE HOUSE AND INSPECTION PORTALS IN EACH TRENCH. ENGINEER AND EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO FIELD VERIFY A 4 FEET SEPARATION TO GROUNDWATER AND BEDROCK WHEN THE LEACH FIELD IS INSTALLED, BECAUSE THE PROFILE HOLE WAS DUG ABOVE THE LEACH FIELD LOC- ATION. BE SURE TO MAINTAIN ALL APPLICABLE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS, AND DO NOT INSTALL IN WET WEATHER. CALL EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO BACK FILLING ANY PART OF THE INSTALLA- TION, OR WITH ANY QUESTIONS. THE BUILDING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE SEPTIC SYSTEM HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2001 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: 2 0 0 0 SQUARE FEET (VIA 64 INFILTRATOR UNITS PER DES IGIN INSTALLED CONCRETE SEPTIfANK: 1 500 GALLONS IS LOCATED 312 DEGREES AND 9 FEET 6 INCHES FROM THE CLEANOUT ON THE NORTH WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE COMMENTS: THE FINAL INSPECTION WAS DONE BY LAURA FAWCETT OF EAGLE COUNTY ENV HEALTH AND THE DESIGN ENGINEER ON NOVEMBER 30, 2001. THE FINAL ENGINEER CER— TIFICATION WAS RECEIVED —CAI`! a'ANUARY 7, 2002 THIS SYSTEM IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE A FOUR 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. y ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL �/�Q� s DATE: JANUARY 17, 2 0 0 2 -- - - --, , , i ��,�.- f"1_rl I U: 9269371 P: 3s 11 Incomplete Applications Will NOT Be Accepted (Site Plan MUST be attached) ISDS Permit # OZ153 -6 Building Permit #p --A 5 8� (v () APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE - EAGLE COUNTY P. 0. 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: M/ Gh Qa V , 5�, h6 e� clerZ. MAILING ADDRESS: ;jg), 0" eon elil DUMTW . �-h 71 APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON: c5amG PHONE: LICENSED SYSTEMS CONTRACTOR: lgtM`- iHONE: COMPANY/DBA: ADDRESS: PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: (Vl--'NEW INSTALLATION { ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Legal Description: Tax Parcel Number: Physical Address: 1 0 0 64 BUILDINC/fiYPE: (Check applicable { ) Residential/Single Family { ) Residential/Multi-Family* { } Commercial/Industrial* rz� tie su 04 oax0/.'Iler9 Lot �r // Size: Z. ! #C R 01 /� O470( rl�AA A VA category) Number Number Type _ of Bedrooms !� _ of Bedrooms TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category) ( %) Well ( ) Spring ( ) Surface (r Public Name of Supplier: f/ele— *These systems require design b a Registered Professional Engineer SIGNATURE: Date: A14OUNT PAID: �fV ✓ RECEIPT # : ' C DATE : a CHECK #:=_�j'�_ CASHIER: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (970) 328-8755 FAX (970) 328-8788 . TDD: (970) 328-8797 TOLL FREE: 800-225-8136 www.eagle-county.com EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO January 17, 2002 Michael Schneider P.O. Box 4118 Edwards, CO 81632 Raymond P. Merry, REHS Director RE: Final of ISDS Permit #2133-01 Tax Parcel #2107-094-06-026. Property location: 0758 Graham Rd., Edwards, CO. Dear Mr. Schneider: 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 Eagle County Environmental Health Department ENCL: Informational Brochure Final ISDS Permit cc: files OLD COURTHOUSE BUILDING, 551 Broadway, P.O. Box 179, Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 icf L0f L00J_ il.J:! DfUDZ-Q3U07 L-Nr" r_1AU11VGCK114U INU rAut UZ ((LKP Enffin.ee in r CI TW(1EirtWMffCAL .�C'�iG111be] LO AV ti1 -Mr. Michael Schneider Scott Built P.Q. Sox 4118 Edwards, Co 81632 Dear Michael, RE. Inspection of Septic System Installation Lot 66, Ssttler's Woods Cordillera Filing No. 27 0758 Graham Road Eagle County, Colorado Project No. 20154 - ISDS Permit No. 2133-01 At the request of Mr. Chris Spiegel on October 10, November 29, 30 and December 5, 2001, we visited the construction site an. Lot 66, Settler's Woods, CoxdWera Filing No. 27, 0758 Graham Road, l;agle County, Colorado. The purpose of our site visit was to inspect the installation of the septic system_ T hey installed the system in overall compliance with the septic system design, Drawing No. 20154SD.DWG, dated August 30, 2000. They installed a 1500-gallon, two compartments, a precast, concrete septic tank, The septic tank had "T's" in both compartments. A, cleanout was i istailed between the house and the septic tank. Sixty-four, Standard Infiltrator Chambers were installed in four trenches with 16 infiltrators in each oftlae four trenches. The infiltrators were contrected with serial distribution and were 10 :Feet on center. In the first and last infiltrator of each trench, inspection ports were installed_ The effluent Brae was 4-inch SDI.35 PVC. The leachfield was installed about 30 feet lower than the proposed leachfield area shown on the above -named drawing. An additional profile hole was excavated on September 7, 2001, oil the downhill side of the lower leachfield area as requested by the Eagle County Environmental Health Department, since the original profile hole excavated and logged by HP Geotech was not on the downhill side oftbe leachfield and it was not dug to a sufficient depth of 8 feet. The soil exposed in the profile hole was suitable and it consisted of 2 feet of topsoil over 6 feet of brown, sandy olay, with angular rock fragments near the bottom of the hole. 11e lowered location. of the leachfield is more suitable for Uie absorption trenches, since the slope is flatter, has fewer trees and the soil profile is better. ffyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ' 7 ngineer► '��rwa.gi ViEr-96 ,� 15 29526 Luiza Petrovska, `+ Presidents°•"Q 7ON A Enclosure J ikLllWfltEl�� cc. Mrs. Laura Fawcett, Eagle County Building Department, fax: 328-0349 C.\MyFile.slcoreldoclwPDoCS1201 S4.OST, WPD P.Q. Box 2837, Edwards, CO 81632, (970) 926.9088 Tel, (970) 926-9089 Fax �� 1•, Go otech Ifepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgco «)hpgeotcch.couj SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 66, FILING 27 SETTLERS WOODS AT CORDILLERA EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 100 102 FEBRUARY 14, 2000 PREPARED FOR: SCOTT-B1LT, INC. ATTN: MICHAEL SCHNEIDER P.O. BOX 2853 AVON, COLORADO 81620 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. February 14, 2000 Scott-Bilt, Inc. Attn: Michael Schneider P.O. Box 2853 Avon, Colorado 81620 Job No. 100 102 Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 66, Filing 27, Settlers Woods at Cordillera, Eagle County, Colorado Dear Mr. Schneider: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for design of foundations at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring drilled and profile pit excavated in the proposed building area consist of about 11/2 to 2 feet of topsoil overlying medium dense to very stiff sand and clay with angular fragments of basalt. Portions of the clay soils can possess a low swell potential. Groundwater was not encountered in the boring at the time of drilling. 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 800 psf. The expansion potential of the subgrade should be evaluated at the time of construction. The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings "and v-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- r.ovtir r Jo rd Z. Rev. by: JZ /ksm TH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. l� Ada son, Jr. P. )E I TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............ . PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ........... I SITE CONDITIONS 2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2 FIELD EXPLORATION SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS .......... ................. 4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 4 FOUNDATIONS .......... 4 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ...... 6 FLOOR SLABS 7 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ...................... g SITE GRADING 9 SURFACE DRAINAGE ........................ 9 PERCOLATION TESTING ............. 10 m.:-.LIMITATIONS ... _ v.... ,....... 10 FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING AND PROFILE PIT FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORING AND PROFILE PIT FIGURE 3 LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS H-P GEOTECH PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 66, Filing 27, Settlers Woods at Cordillera, 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 Scott-Bilt, Inc, dated January 3, 2000. Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., previously conducted a preliminary geologic hazards and geotechnical engineering study for the Cordillera Far West Parcel which includes..the Settlers Woods filing, submitted January 30, 1997, Job No. 196 550. We donducted a geotechnical review of the lot and presented our findings in a letter dated January 20, 2000, Job No. 100 102. A field exploration program consisting of an exploratory. boring and a profile pit 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, reconunendations 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. We understand that the findings of our study will be considered in the purchase of the lot. We assume the building will be 2 stories over a walkout basement level cut into the hillside and daylighting to the north. 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. H-P GEOTECH -2- For the purpose of our analysis, foundation loadings for the structure were assumed to be relatively light and typical of the assumed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans are significantly different from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The lot is vacant and located on a north facing hillside at the eastern end of Graham Road. The ground surface slopes moderately steep down to the north at grades up to about 30 % in the building envelope. The southern half of the building envelope is the steepest and was not accessible to the track mounted drill rig. Elevation different across the building envelope is about 35 feet and about 90 feet across the lot. The lot is vegetated with aspen and evergreen trees, scruboak, grass and weeds. About 1 to 1'/2 feet of snow covered the lot at the time of our field work. Graham Road has been graded. There are no residences in the immediate area: GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The surficial soils at the site are colluvial deposits typically more than 30 feet deep consisting of clayey sand and sandy clay with scattered basalt rock fragments. Geologic hazards which may affect the site include the potential for construction induced slope instability, sinkhole development and seismic activity. The building envelope is outside of the mapped older landslide areas. A portion of the mapped landslide is located in the northwestern part of the lot. Recommendations to limit the risk of construction induced slope instability are provided in the "Site Grading" section of this report. Sinkholes in the Eagle Valley area are typically related to dissolution of gypsum in the Eagle Valley Evaporite. Our boring, was relatively shallow, ,for foundation. de'sign only, and did not encounter bedrock. Our preliminary study indicates that the site is underlain by Eagle Valley Formation bedrock. Sinkholes have not been H-P GEOTECH -3- observed in the area of Lot 66 and the risk of sinkhole development at the site appears low. The site is in U.B.C. Seismic Risk Zone I which should be adequate for building design on Lot 66. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on January 20 and February 7, 2000. One exploratory boring was drilled at the location shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Access to the drill rig was limited to the location drilled due to the steepness of the southern portion of the lot and snow cover. The boring was advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a track -mounted CME-45 drill rig. An exploratory pit was excavated with backhoe at the location shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate subsurface conditions in the southern portion of the building envelope. The boring and pit were logged by a representative of Hepworth- v, Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils in the boring were taken with a inch I.D, spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depth 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. Samples of the subsoils in the pit were taken with relatively undisturbed and disturbed sampling methods. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Boring and Profile Pit, 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 11/2 to 2 feet of organic topsoil, the subsoils consist of medium dense to very --stiff sand clay containing scattered fragments of basalt, siltstone and H-P GEOTECH Z� claystone. The soils encountered in the boring and pit are similar to the soils encountered at other nearby lots. The clay portions of these soils can possess an expansion potential when wetted. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included natural moisture content and 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 Fig. 4, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the boring and pit at time of drilling. The subsoils were slightly moist to moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS Some of the clay subsoils encountered in the area typically 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 the foundation bearing level. Surface runoff, landscape irrigation, and utility leakage are possible sources of water which could cause wetting. We should observe the soil bearing conditions at the time of foundation excavation to determine the expansion potential of subgrade. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and profile pit 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. H-P GEOTECH -5- 1) Footings placed oil the undisturbed natural soils can be designed I'or an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The footings should also be designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 800 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. - 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 -f06ffhgs 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 structures should. also be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" 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, topsoil and loose or disturbed soils and potentially expansive clays 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 geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. H-P GEOTECH Brov 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 soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site soils. The backfill should not contain vegetation- topsoil 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 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 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 of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated H-P GEOTECH -7- using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pef . 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 ,v The on -site soils possess an expansion potential and slab heave could occur if the subgrade soils were to become wet. 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 reduce 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 11/2 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. H-P. G.EO-td -8- The on -site clay soils could be expansive when compacted. Required fill beneath slabs can consist of predominately granular soils or a suitable imported non -expansive 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 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 I foot below lowest adjacent finisli 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. Void form below the foundation can act as a conduit for water flow. 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 to other areas of the building. H-P GEOTECH. M SITE GRADING The risk of construction -induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the building is located in the less steep part of the building envelope 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 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 begraded 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 permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. This office should review site grading plans for the 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 about 2 feet of the on -site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. H-P GEOTECH -10- 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. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation tests were conducted on February 8, 2000 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit and three percolation holes were;dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The test holes (nominal 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits 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 exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig „2-and, consist o -about 2 =feet of topsoil overlying: medium dense to=very°.stiff sand and;,clay.,� with angular> fragments .of <b.asalt. The percolation test results are presented in, :Table Ii<: The, percolation test.resul,ts indicate -<an infiltration "rate between 2-3-,-,,--an& 60° mintrtes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the test area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. 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 warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory boring drilled and profile pit excavated at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the assumed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory boring and H-P GEOTECH -11- profile pit and variations in the suhsurface 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 of 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, HEPWORTH - P WLAK G 14�1�_POO RED 0 0 297 /too Reviewed by: SS�QNAL �r r Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. Jordy Z. Adamson/ Jr JZA/ksm L INC. H-P GEOTECH APPROXIMATE SCALE 1 " = 80, 8130 IL I ----------...._.,� 8140 / / LOT 66 �-s -- 8150 AP 2 / _ f PROFI P _ , LOT 67 PIT - - - 1 8160 CENVE \ 8170 LOT 57 \ BORING 1 - 8180 --8190 8200 --- 8210 GRAHAM ROAD 100 102 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig. 1 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I AND PROFILE PIT n BORING 1 PROFILE PIT ELEV. = 8190' ELEV. = 8158' Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3. 100 1.02 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PROFILE PIT LEGEND:' TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, firm, moist, dark brown. SAND AND CLAY (SC—CL); scattered angular basalt, siltstone and claystone fragments, medium . •Y dense to very stiff, moist, reddish brown to grayish brown. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch I.D. California liner sample. / Drive sample blow count; indicates that 19 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were )12 required to drive the California sampler 12 inches. �! Hand driven liner sample. i Disturbed bulk sample. _J :)TES: Exploratory borings were drilled on January 20, 2000 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger. The profile pit was excavated on February 7, 2000 with a backhoe. Locations of exploratory boring and profile pit were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on -'the site plan provided. i. Elevations of exploratory boring and pit were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided. Logs are drawn to depth. The exploratory boring and pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. I, 'The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring and profile pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. '(No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or the pit at time of excavation. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. LL = Liquid Limit ( % ) PI = Plasticity Index ( % ) 0 0 C 1 0 N a 2 E 0 3 0 1 2 5 Moisture Content = 19.2 percent Dry Density = 106 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay with Gravel From: Boring 1 at 9 Feet No movemen upon wetting M 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 Moisture Content = 10.3' " percent Dry Density - 112 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay with Gravel From: Boring 1 at 14 Feet Xi Compression upon wetting 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 102 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK SWELL —CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC_ N O O O > > co N O C7 C7 z t ca O o J U 3 m 7 U U � s-: (n , U) fn ; ° > x Z 0 N F-. U J J Q � U w Fx z CC F ui ° Z- = F- W FW- H C) d - N LU — O M J C7 w F- Y m CC Q O F- Z o J inW Q N> K y O V1 cD .Ny. V �- O y cr. Z O O 5 C7 w W..�r U i J } _ Co N I� z �— J C F z N CO d di O Ln z i x .. 0 WJJ 1 y Lp- O CL o¢ m d 11 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ANK k• TABLE II PFRf'nl ATInki -rcc,-r m -.+... NO P-1 P-2 P-3 HOLE DEPTH ` 32 33 40 LENGTH OF INTERVAL- ' 15 15 15 water added WATERDEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) 8 1 /2 WATER DEPTHE(INCHES)- AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) 8 tii �U - _2. NU.-'100 =NAHOLE ON(MIN) ) 1 2 60 8 7 1/2 1/2 7 1/2 7 1/2 7 6 1/2 1/2 6 1/2 6 1/4 1/4 V'o 6 1 /4 6 6 5 3/4 1/4 �A0 5 3/4 10 5 1/2 9 1/4 1 36 9 8 1/4 3/4 8 1/4 7 112 3/4 7 1/2 6 3/4 3/4 6 3/4 6 1/4 1/2 6114 5 3/4 1/2 `' 0 5 3/4 5 1 /4 1/2 ` 5 114 11 5 9 1 /4 1t0 2 23 9 7 1/2 1 1/2 7 1/2 6 1/4 1 1/4 6 1/4 5 1/4 1 6 1 /2 5 1 /2 - 1 5 1/2 4 3/4 3/4 ?, 4 3/4 4 ` 3/4 20 4 3 1 /2 1/2 �-D NOTE Percola ion_test holes were hand dug. n-tog bottom on backh.oe pits and soaked on February 7, 2000. The holes were covered wtih rigid foam insulation to protect against freezing overnight. Percolation tests were conductedonFerbruary 8, 2000. The average percolation rate was based on the last three readings of each test. ISD5 Permit # Z 3 3— O Date 0 130 1 C? i ISDS Final Inspection Q=leteness Form ✓ Tank is 0 0 gal. Tank Material ,rnv 6 V Tank is located q I/L ft. and 3� degrees from LQ.P,�'LV.ts 1pmmmmit l zk) Tank is located ft. and degrees from (P"Uffl=t l.m uft) Tank set level. Tank lids within 6" of finished grade. �rc.�c a� ruu Fc� size of field �ft° a- /L units lineal ft . Technology11na-� v �Cleanout is installed in between tank and house(+ 1/100ft). There is a "T" that goes down 14 inches in the inlet and outlet of the tank: _�� inlet.and outlet is sealed with tar• -,tape,. rubber va—s-i-elt etc. ✓mac s tHro ccilmpartments with the.; arger-.•.,.CpMa rtment closest to the house . .... ... .. . Xsa&=-e: distsnce and relative direr. -tom. ta-Held. ..DOpth of field. ? ft. 'Soil interface raked. MM Inspection portals at the.end of each trench..�. Proper distance to setbacks. y Chambers properly installed as per manufacturer$ specifications. (Chambers latched, end plates properly installed, rocks 'removed from trenches, etc.) Type of pipe used for building sewer line 2D V 3 '< leach field SCl qQ Other Inspection meets requirements. Copy form to installer's file if recommendations for improvement were suggested. ACTION TAKEN: Setbacks Well Potable House Property Lake Dry Tank Drain Water Lines line stream Gulch Field 100 25 20 10 50 25 10 10 Zd,3k 50 10 5 10 50 10 * 10 y�P Un 0 ■ „ rr r rr _ r g�t4t jrj a 14.�• � 1 ` y 1j aFig R a zq 5.5' j s oz 6,91 cl j Zo ADVC4 :ANT gNTNgqWTnW-A r\Al F-QMF-Q7P Ml r n7 "Qa Tmn7 107 17T JOB NAME• 21 33-01 Tax #21 0709406026 Lot066,Filing27 SCHNET_DER 0758 Graham Road, Edwards JOB NO. � P I �')g(d 0— a AR 1 nr'A'rlf%u S-/-3c%l I Ua' � '�t / e/�d �' F)&-�o,--(, DATE JOB FOLDER Product 278 JOB FOLDER 27 or Printed in U.S.A.