No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90 Juniper Trl - 194122205002Work Classification: NewPermit CO Address Owner Information Permit Status: Active Project Address 194122205002 Permit Type: OWTS Permit Permit NO. OWTS-10-14-11563 Expires: 2/7/2015 Issue Date: 10/10/2014 Parcel No. 90 JUNIPER TRL Private Wastewater System Environmental Health Department P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, CO 81631-0179 Phone: (970)328-8755 Fax: (970)328-8788 Phone: (225)938-5526 Cell: Inspection For Inspections call: (970) 328-8755 Inspections: IVR OWTS Final Inspection 095 PhoneEngineer(s) (888)406-2289Eliminite Contractor(s)Phone Primary ContractorLicense Number Holland Creek (970)343-0229 Yes04-14 Chris Ewing Permitted Construction / Details: Install the sewer line, 1,500 gallon two compartment Front Range Precast tank, effluent line and connect to the stub out specifically as shown on the Kallenbach, Inc. design drawing dated September 23, 2014 stamped, signed and dated by Thomas J. Kallenbach. Tank manhole risers must be installed to bring access to or above grade. Certification of proper installation by the design engineer is required to be sumbitted to Eagle County Environmental Health and approved prior to occupancy of the dwelling. Office Copy October 10, 2014 Issued by: Environmental Health Department, Eagle County, CO Date Terri Vroman CONDITIONS: 1. THIS PERMIT EXPIRES BY TIME LIMITATION AND BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF THE WORK AUTHORIZED BY THE PERMIT IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS OF ISSUANCE, OR BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF AN ASSOCIATED BUILDING PERMIT 2. ALL INSTALLATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED IN C.R.S. 25-10-101, et seq., AS AMENDED 3. 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 4. CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.03.29 REQUIRES ANY PERSON WHO CONSTRUCTS, ALTERS OR INSTALLS AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM TO BE LICENSED DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH P.O. Box 179 (970) 328-8755 500 Broadway FAX: (970) 328-8788 Eagle, Broadway 1631 TOLL FREE: 800-225-6136 wEagle, l COO 81631 www.eaglecounty.us PA EAGLE COUNTY APPLICATION FOR ON -SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (OWTS1 PERMIT INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED (SITE PLAN MUST BE INCLUDED) FEE SCHEDULE APPLICATION FEE FOR NEW OWTS OR MAJOR REPAIRS $800.00 MINOR REPAIR FEE1100.00 Fee includes the design review, permitting and maintenance of OWTS records Make all checks payable to: Eagle County Treasurer Property Owner: _ Chris and Karen Ewing - Phone: 225-938-5526 ess email: Holland Creek Metro, 28 Second St, hollandcreekwater@centuryllnk.net Owner Mailing Addr Professional Engineer: Thomas Kallenbach Phone: 406-581-1613 Applicant / Contact Person: Rolland Creek Metro / Donald Odell Phone: 970-569-3045 Licensed Systems Contractor Name / Company: Greek Msuo� Donald Well Contractor Mailing Address: 28 Second St, Suite 213, Edwards, CO.81632 Contractor License #• 4-14 Contractor Phone Number: _ 970-569-3045 email: holland€rcckwaterLLicentufylink.net OWTS Permit Application is for: x New Installation Alteration Repair Tax Parcel Number: 1941-222-05-002 Lot Size: 0.59 Assessor's Link: www.eagecounty.us/patie/ Physical Address: 0090 Juniper Trail Legal Description: ja28 Red Sky Ranch Building Type: X Residential / Single Family Number of Bedrooms: 3 _ Residential / Multi Family Number of Bedrooms: Commercial / Industrial Type of Use: *As of 06/27/2014, all systems require design by a Registered Professional Engineer Type of Water Supply: Private Well Spring Surface x Public If Public, Name of Supplier: PSWID: CO-0119673- Red Sky Ranch water treatment facility � Applicant Signature: Date: 9/28/2014 Office Use Only: OWTS PERMIT #BUILDING PERMIT # cc Amount Paid: �500 rReceipt #: heck #: „ - Date: _f 0 � October 1, 2015 Mr. Chris Ewing 15103 Copping Dr Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810-0314 RE: Final approval of septic permit OWTS-10-14-11563; Tax parcel #194122205002; Property location: 90 Juniper Trail, Lot 28 Red Sky Ranch Jonathan: This letter is to inform you that the above-referenced septic permit has been inspected and finalized. This permit was approved and sized for a 3 bedroom dwelling. Additional information about the maintenance your septic system needs as well as information about private wells can be accessed through web site links provided on the Environmental Health Department’s home page at http://www.eaglecounty.us/envHealth/ Be aware that changes in the use of your property or alterations of your building may require commensurate changes to, or relocation of, your septic system. It is important that you notice and immediately repair dripping faucets and hissing toilets as this could compromise the system. By following a few simple guidelines, like avoiding grease or other additives down the drain and making sure your septic tank is on a pumping schedule, your system has been designed to last for many years. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact us at (970) 328-8755 and reference the OWTS septic permit number. Sincerely, Terri Vroman Administrative Technician IV cc: OWTS electronic permit folder Energov electronic file Tom Kallenbach - Engineer Don Odell – Holland Creek Metro DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (970) 328-8755 FAX: (970) 328-8788 TOLL FREE: 800-225-6136 www.eaglecounty.us RAYMOND P. MERRY, REHS Director September 30, 2015 Raymond P. Merry, RHES Environmental Health Director Eagle County Government P.O. Box 179 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Permit NO. OWTS-10-14-11563 Subject: Onsite Wastewater System Final Certification, 90 Juniper Trail, Red Sky Ranch Lot 28, Wolcott, CO 81655. Dear Mr. Merry: Please accept this letter as final certification of the installation of the septic tank for the above referenced property. Holland Creek Metro District completed installation and I have reviewed their work and found it to be in compliance with the plans approved by your office. A record drawing showing the location of the septic tank with coordinates is attached. If you have questions, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Thomas J. Kallenbach, P.E. 9/25/2015 Eagle County Government Mail - Red Sky lot 28, Ewing Residence completion } I" EAGLE COUNIT Red Sky lot 28, Ewing Residence completion message Holland Creek Water Dept <hollandcreekwater@centurylink.net> To: "Thomas J. Kallenbach, P.E." <tjk@mail.eliminite.com> Cc: environment@eaglecounty.us Terri Vroman <terri.vroman@eaglecounty.us> Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:37 PM Hi Tom, Red Sky lot 28, the Ewing Residence on Juniper trail is complete and functional. You visited this one on the last time you were here. At that time we still had to get power to the alarm panel which has now been finished. This is the gravity connection to the AA system with an alarm only for the effluent filter (no pumps) The system is ready for the completion letter for Eagle County. I will be sending a couple of photos and a drawing with the measurements to you tomorrow. Thank you. Don O Donald Odell CWP, CIOWTS-A Holland Creek Metropolitan District 970-569-3045 water/wastewater office hollandcreekwater@centurylink. net hftps:Hmail.google.com/mai I/u/0/?ui=2&i k=30478a9c52&view=pt&search=i nbox&th=14ffc5a848el6bb3&si m l=14ffc5a848e16bb3 1/1 Lot 28 Red Sky Ranch located at 0090 Juniper Trail, Wolcott, CO. 81655 Lot 29 Lot 31 North East corner of Residence Lot 28 North Lot 28 A G B D C H F E A- clean out N39.68949 W106.68105 B- 4” sewer 79’ bearing 176 degrees C- septic tank N39.68969 W106.68090 D- clean out N39.68969 W106.68092 E- 4” effluent pipe 70’ bearing 300 degrees F- clean out N39.68981 W106.68103 G- stub out lot 29 55’ bearing 246 degrees H- lot 29 clean out N39.68983 W106.68125 1500g Roth 2 compartment tank r�•'� +�•3hx3•' vY3� r r 1 l HCPW,uth•[`.Ml.,l, (ir,uedhnical. 117C. 50-20 (:,,UItly r.,,:ill 154 Plume: 970-94i- 9." Fj%. 970)4i-N4Tr rm-til• it��,ru�nh��,r"rrtlt.�u�tt SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED EWING RESIDENCE LOT 28, TRACT AA, RED SKY RANCH 90 JUNIPER TRAIL EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 114 357A SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 PREPARED FOR: HERMES MOUNTAIN CLASSICS, LLC ATTN: JEFF TOWNSEND P.O BOX 2633 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 jtowiisciidla'lieruicseLT.com lo. of .. it 6 f9 Parker 303-841-7119 0 Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 s Silverthttrne 970468-1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ................................. ....................................... - 1 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION............................................................................ 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................ .......................... - 2- SITECONDITIONS................................................................................................... - 2- GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS....................................................................................... - 2- FIELD EXPLORATION............................................................................................ - 3- SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS......................................................................... - 3- FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ...................... - 4 - ......................................... DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................. - 4 - ............................. FOUNDATIONS ........................................... ............................ - 4 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS......................................................... - 6- FLOORSLABS ....................... ......... .................. - 7 - ........................... ....... ........ UNDERDRAINSYSTEM...................................................................................... - 8- SURFACE DRAINAGE......................................................................................... - 9- LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................... - 9- FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 4 AND 5 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed Ewing residence to be located on Lot 28, Tract AA, Red Sky Ranch, 90 Juniper Trail, Eagle County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Hermes Group dated August 25, 2014. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the held 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 proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. BACKGROUND INFORMATION We have been provided with previous geotechnical reports of Tract AA and Red Sky Ranch prepared by Golder Associates. These reports consist of m Geotechnical Infrastructure Report for Tract AA Property, Red Slcy Ranch, Wolcott, Colorado, prepared for Vail Resorts Development Company, dated April 15, 2005, Project No. 97-2291-6.18. ® Expansive Soil Characterization Study for Tract AA Property, Red Sky Ranch, Wolcott, Colorado, prepared for Vail Resorts Development Company, dated December 4, 2003, Project No. 97-2291-6.18. ® Geotechnical Investigation for Red Sky Ranch West Golf Course Infrastructure, Wolcott, Colorado, prepared for Vail Resorts Development Company, dated December 27, 2000, Project No. 97-2291-6.18. Job No. 114 357A G!MeCh -2- Information from these reports has been reviewed and considered in the preparation of this report. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The residence will be a one story wood frame structure over a walk -out basement level with an attached garage at the main level and located on the lot as shown on Figure 1. The garage and lower level may be slab -on -grade depending on the findings of our study. Main floor and assumed basement floor elevations are shown on Figure 1. Grading for the structure is expected to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 to 10 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed 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 the ground surface appears mostly natural. The terrain is strongly sloping hillside below Juniper Trail down to the northeast. Slope grades range from about 12 to 15%. Elevation difference across the proposed building is about 12 to 13 feet and across the lot is about 25 feet. Vegetation consists of weeds and grass with sage brush and juniper trees. There are scattered cobbles and boulders exposed on the ground surface in areas of the lot. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Red Sky Ranch is located in a mapped landslide complex. Based on the Geotechnical Investigation for Red Sky Ranch West Golf Course Infrastructure (Golder Associates, 2000, Project No. 97-2291-6.18 ), particularly their Development Constraints Map (Figure 3), Tract AA is located in areas designated as Class 1 and 2, which are defined as having minimal to low risk of landslide movements and acceptable to low movement risk Job No. 114 357A C-tech -3- for development. The previous Golder reports should be referred to for additional information regarding potential geologic impacts to the project site. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on August 27, 2014. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck -mounted CUE-45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative ofHepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch T.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. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 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 Figure 2. Below about 1 foot of organic topsoil, the subsoils consisted of stiff to very stiff, sandy to occasionally very sandy clay that was typically gravelly with cobbles and scattered boulders that extended down to the maximum depth drilled of 26 feet. The soils encountered in the borings are similar to the soils encountered at other nearby lots. The clay portions of these soils can possess an expansion potential when wetted. The rock fragments can include sandstone and shale blocks to several feet in diameter. Practical drilling refusal was encountered in Boring 2 at 16 feet depth, probably on a boulder. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included natural moisture content and density, and percent finer than sand size gradation analyses. Job No. 114 357A -4- Swell-consolidation testing was performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay subsoils. The swell -consolidation test results, presented on Figures 4 and 5 indicate low compressibility under light loading and natural moisture content with a nil to moderate swell potential when wetted. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. No free water was encountered in the borings at time of drilling. The subsoils were slightly moist below the moist topsoil layer. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS Spread footings bearing on the natural soils appear feasible at the site for foundation support of the residence with some risk of movement. The clay soils possess a nil to moderate expansion potential. Expansive clay soils would increase the risk of foundation movement and a minimum dead load pressure on the footings should be provided to reduce the risk of foundation heave and building distress. We should further evaluate the expansive potential of the foundation and floor slab bearing soils at the time of excavation. The risk of movement is primarily if the bearing soils become wetted and precautions should be taken to keep the bearing soils dry. Surface runoff, landscape irrigation, and utility leakage are possible sources of water which could cause wetting. A relatively deep foundation system such as drilled piers, micro -piles or "screw" type piles are a feasible foundation alternative for support of the residence and would likely provide a relatively low risk of foundation movement. Provided below are recommendations for a spread footing foundation system. If recommendations for a deep foundation are desired, we should be contacted. DESIGN RE'ECOIV MENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, our experience in the area and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the Job No. 114 357A GS(Ptech ME residence be founded with spread footings placed on undisturbed natural soils with some risk of movement. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed entirely on the undisturbed natural soils can be designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 3,500 psf and a minimum dead load pressure of 1,000 psf. 2) Based on experience, we expect initial settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be up to about 1 inch. There could be additional movement on the order of %z to 1 inch 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 heavily reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies and better withstand the effects of some differential movement such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 15 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 48 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this area of Eagle County. 6) Prior to the footing construction, the topsoil and loose disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils. The exposed subgrade should then be moistened and compacted. Voids created by boulder removal should be backfilled with compacted structural fill, such as road base, or concrete. 7) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions Job No. 114 357A G59tech M 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 at least 60 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 at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site soils. The backfill can consist of the on -site soils with oversized rocks greater than about 6 inches removed. 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 retaining walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density (SPD) at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95% SPD. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wail 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. Use of a select granular material such as road base and increasing compaction to 98% SPD could be done to reduce the settlement potential. 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 Job No. 114 357A �i. itPteCi'1 -7- backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 375 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 suitable granular material compacted to at least 95% SPD at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The clay 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. We should further evaluate the expansive potential of the subgrade soils at the time of excavation. Sub -excavation and replacement of a certain depth of the expansive soils (probably 3 feet) with imported granular soils is typically done in the area to mitigate expansion potential. Structural floors over crawlspace would provide a low risk of floor movement and are probably needed for the living area portions of the residence. 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 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 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. Required fill in slab areas can consist of the on -site soils, excluding topsoil and oversized rocks, or suitable granular material such as road base can be imported. The fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at or above optimum moisture content. Prior to the fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared Job No. 114 357A G&rtech by removing all fill and topsoil, adjusting the moisture content to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacting to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density. The above recommendations will not prevent slab heave if 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 the area and where clay soils are present that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also create a perched condition. Therefore, we recommend below -grade construction, such as basement and crawlspace areas, be protected from wetting by an underdrain system The drain should also act to prevent buildup ofhydrostatic 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 % feet deep and covered by filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or 160N. An impervious liner such as 20 or 30 mil PVC should be placed below the drain gravel and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent water flow below the building and wetting of the bearing soils. Job No. 114 357A C�tech W% SURFACE DRAINAGE Positive surface drainage is an important aspect of the project to prevent wetting of the bearing soils. 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. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at Ieast 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 soils and filter fabric to reduce surface water infiltration. 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. 5) Sprinkler heads and landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 5 feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to use of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the building 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 warranty either express 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 Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or Job No. 114 35?A �-Sfech - 10- other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice should be consulted. 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 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 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. Respectfully Submitted, HEPWORTH� CPjGEOTECHNICAL, INC. C�gQ Yoi David A. Young, P.E. ° 2 32.216 Reviewed by: 4` ®40 `�°�setl0 'Oi � 011Lg1.'� 4®e® Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DAY/1jg cc: Sunquist Design Group — Joe Sunquist (joe r sun uistdesi n coin) JOO 110. 111b 3D/A 7465 7460 7455 7450 aa) c 0 (0 wE7445 7440 7435 BORING 1 BORING 2 ELEV.= 7457' ELEV.= 7464' PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL F.F. = 747U 33/12 WC=6.8 DD=111 60/4 WC=12.8 -200=57 38/12 WC=12.9 DD=118 28/12 WC=12.7 DD=117 -200=65 25/12 WC=13.9 DD=117 57/12 20/12 WC=14.2 DD=112 61/12 26/12 WC=13.5 DD=117 15/0 7465 7460 7455 7450 a� ii 7445 _ 1 w 7440 7435 7430 7430 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. �I 114 357A U 09016.04011 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 2 Heowarth—Pnwink C.wn+wd,ninni LEGEND: ® TOPSOIL; organic sandy clay with scattered gravel, cobbles and boulders, moist, dark brown. CLAY (CL); sandy to occaisionally very sandy, typically gravelly with cobbles and scattered boulders, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, mixed brown, medium plasticity. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. California liner sample. 33/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 33 blows of a 140 pound hammer failing 30 inches were required to drive the California sampler 12 inches. TPractical drilling refusal. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on August 27, 2014 with 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. Proposed building corners were staked at the time of our field exploration. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours shown 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 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. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (°/6) DID = Dry Density (pcf) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 114 357A LEGEND AND NOTES I Figure 3 Moisture Content = 12.9 percent Dry Density = 118 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 1 at 10 Feet 1 0 0 c m 0 0 c 0 ;v Expansion 0- upon v2 wetting 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf Moisture Content = 13.9 percent Dry Density = 117 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 1 at 20 Feet a 1 o No movement CD a 2 upon wetting 0_ E 0 U 3 4 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf 114 357A 9&ech SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 4 He worEh—Pawiak Geotechnical u e z =3 S Q � U Z � S w w ~ t- } O 0 w (D Q Y n= g C) J m Q Q LL a O S } O Q c G a 2 W Z N i a � 0 O te U 00 U �ce a LU > m U U U U U U v� CO) C7 ti ri v� v� z 0 o�x_ LL u u u x � �z � a — l7 z w m r o X 0 w Z > Gi in1 w N 1 0 Z ao O tn H Q O I � J Q s cc z -- 00 r- r- N l� w z z a ;s 0 w M w 00 00 m t— 0� N to �' zv~i a' 0 �Ni .N� .N-� ,m-� Z ,n O kn a O F(d o .-i .-' u O w J a � � z `' N 0 m HCpW(u•dt-[`A%X1 . GrIur.hmc.11, hx. io-'T Count} l tmd 154 Ulcnu ood C l md, , a 1001 Phone: 970-94i'7k).q's F.3%; q7J.1)45•ti454 ri ua i I: It1�,ru Frh1,,r� •n•c h.�um SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED EWING RESIDENCE LOT 28, TRACT AA, RED SKY RANCH[ 90 JUNIPER TRAIL EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 114 357A SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 PREPARED FOR: HERMES MOUNTAIN CLASSICS, LLC ATTN: JEFF TOWNSEND P.O BOX 2633 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 itownsciid(a,liei•illesetlu.con;I Parker 303-841-7119 0 Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 0 Silverthorne 970- }68-1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ...................................... .................................. -1 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION............................................................................ - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION................................................................................. - 2- SITECONDITIONS................................................................................................... - 2- GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS....................................................................................... 2- FIELD EXPLORATION............................................................................................ 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.................................................................................. - 3- FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ............................................................... - 4- DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................. 4- FOUNDATIONS.................................................................................................... - 4- FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS......................................................... - 6- FLOORSLABS ................................... ................................................................... - 7 - UNDERDRAINSYSTEM...................................................................................... - 8- SURFACEDRAINAGE......................................................................................... - 9- LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................... - 9- FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 4 AND 5 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed Ewing residence to be located on Lot 28, Tract AA, Red Sky Ranch, 90 Juniper Trail, Eagle County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Hermes Group dated August 25, 2014. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the 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 proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. BACKGROUND INFORMATION We have been provided with previous geotechnical reports of Tract AA and Red Sky Ranch prepared by Golder Associates. These reports consist of: ® Geotechnical Infrastructure Report for Tract AA Property, Red Sky Ranch, Wolcott, Colorado, prepared for Vail Resorts Development Company, dated April 15, 2005, Project No. 97-2291-6.18. ® Expansive Soil Characterization Study for Tract AA Property, Red Sky Ranch, Wolcott, Colorado, prepared for Vail Resorts Development Company, dated December 4, 2003, Project No. 97-2291-6.18. ® Geotechnical Investigation for Red S4 Ranch West Golf Course Infrastructure, Wolcott, Colorado, prepared for Vail Resorts Development Company, dated December 27, 2000, Project No. 97-2291-6.18. Job No. 114 357A i C--�Nc�tech -2- Information from these reports has been reviewed and considered in the preparation of this report. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The residence will be a one story wood frame structure over a walk -out basement level with an attached garage at the main level and located on the lot as shown on Figure 1. The garage and lower level may be slab -on -grade depending on the findings of our study. Main floor and assumed basement floor elevations are shown on Figure 1. Grading for the structure is expected to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 to 10 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed 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 the ground surface appears mostly natural. The terrain is strongly sloping hillside below Juniper Trail down to the northeast. Slope grades range from about 12 to 15%. Elevation difference across the proposed building is about 12 to 13 feet and across the lot is about 25 feet. Vegetation consists of weeds and grass with sage brush and juniper trees. There are scattered cobbles and boulders exposed on the ground surface in areas of the lot. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Red Sky Ranch is located in a mapped landslide complex. Based on the Geotechnical Investigation for Red Sky Ranch West Golf Course Infrastructure (Golder Associates, 2000, Project No. 97-2291-6.18 ), particularly their Development Constraints Map (Figure 3), Tract AA is located in areas designated as Class 1 and 2, which are defined as having minimal to low risk of landslide movements and acceptable to low movement risk Job No. 114 357A tech -3- for development. The previous Golder reports should be referred to for additional information regarding potential geologic impacts to the project site. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on August 27, 2014. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck -mounted CMS-45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative ofHepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with I % 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. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 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 Figure 2. Below about 1 foot of organic topsoil, the subsoils consisted of stiff to very stiff, sandy to occasionally very sandy clay that was typically gravelly with cobbles and scattered boulders that extended down to the maximum depth drilled of 26 feet. The soils encountered in the borings are similar to the soils encountered at other nearby lots. The clay portions of these soils can possess an expansion potential when wetted. The rock fragments can include sandstone and shale blocks to several feet in diameter. Practical drilling refusal was encountered in Boring 2 at 16 feet depth, probably on a boulder. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included natural moisture content and density, and percent finer than sand size gradation analyses. Job No. 114 357A G&Dttedh Swell -consolidation testing was performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay subsoils. The swell -consolidation test results, presented on Figures 4 and 5 indicate low compressibility under light loading and natural moisture content with a nil to moderate swell potential when wetted. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. No free water was encountered in the borings at time of drilling. The subsoils were slightly moist below the moist topsoil layer. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS Spread footings bearing on the natural soils appear feasible at the site for foundation support of the residence with some risk of movement. The clay soils possess a nil to moderate expansion potential. Expansive clay soils would increase the risk of foundation movement and a minimum dead load pressure on the footings should be provided to reduce the risk of foundation heave and building distress. We should further evaluate the expansive potential of the foundation and floor slab bearing soils at the time of excavation. The risk of movement is primarily if the bearing soils become wetted and precautions should be taken to keep the bearing soils dry. Surface runoff, landscape irrigation, and utility leakage are possible sources of water which could cause wetting. A relatively deep foundation system such as drilled piers, micro -piles or "screw" type piles are a feasible foundation alternative for support of the residence and would likely provide a relatively low risk of foundation movement. Provided below are recommendations for a spread footing foundation system. If recommendations for a deep foundation are desired, we should be contacted. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, our experience in the area and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the Job No. 114 357A G&Stech -5- residence be founded with spread footings placed on undisturbed natural soils with some risk of movement. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system 1) Footings placed entirely on the undisturbed natural soils can be designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 3,500 psf and a minimum dead load pressure of 1,000 psf. 2) Based on experience, we expect initial settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be up to about 1 inch. There could be additional movement on the order of %z to 1 inch 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 heavily reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies and better withstand the effects of some differential movement such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 15 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 Ieast 48 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this area of Eagle County. 6) Prior to the footing construction, the topsoil and loose disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils. The exposed subgrade should then be moistened and compacted. Voids created by boulder removal should be backfilled with compacted structural fill, such as road base, or concrete. 7) A representative of the geoteclmical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions Job No. 114 357A ^ Mech 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 at least 60 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 at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site soils. The backfill can consist of the on -site soils with oversized rocks greater than about 6 inches removed. 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 retaining walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density (SPD) at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95% SPD. 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. Use of a select granular material such as road base and increasing compaction to 98% SPD could be done to reduce the settlement potential. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wail 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 JOb No. 114 357A Cat ortlech -7- backfiil against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 375 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 ofthe footings to resist lateral loads should be a suitable granular material compacted to at least 95% SPD at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The clay 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. We should further evaluate the expansive potential of the subgrade soils at the time of excavation. Sub -excavation and replacement of a certain depth of the expansive soils (probably 3 feet) with imported granular soils is typically done in the area to mitigate expansion potential. Structural floors over crawlspace would provide a low risk of floor movement and are probably needed for the living area portions of the residence. 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 should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements fox 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 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. Required fill in slab areas can consist of the on -site soils, excluding topsoil and oversized rocks, or suitable granular material such as road base can be imported. The fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at or above optimum moisture content. Prior to the fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared Job No. 114 357A GMech by removing all fill and topsoil, adjusting the moisture content to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacting to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density. The above recommendations will not prevent slab heave if 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 the area and where clay soils are present that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also create a perched condition. Therefore, we recommend below -grade construction, such as basement and crawlspace areas, be protected from wetting by an underdrain system. The drain should also act to prevent buildup ofhydrostatic 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 I % feet deep and covered by filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or 160N. An impervious liner such as 20 or 30 mil PVC should be placed below the drain gravel and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent water flow below the building and wetting of the bearing soils. JOO NO. 114 SS%A H9' tech &M SURFACE DRAINAGE Positive surface drainage is an important aspect of the project to prevent wetting of the bearing soils. 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. 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 soils and filter fabric to reduce surface water infiltration. 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. 5) Sprinkler heads and landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 5 feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to use ofxeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the building 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 warranty either express 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 Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or Job No. 114 357A � fah - 10- other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice should be consulted. 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 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 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. Respectfully Submitted, HEPWORTH,>�A GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ffjr YO David A. Young, P.E. � i 13 32-216 e� Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DAY/1jg cc: Sunquist Design Group — Joe Sunquist (jo ,sunauistdesi n coin) J00 NO. 114 .iS /A - 'gtech 7465 7460 7455 7450 m a� LL C O ca w 7445 7440 7435 BORING 1 BORING 2 ELEV.= 7457' ELEV.= 7464' PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL F.F. = MAY 33/12 WC=6.8 DD=111 60/4 WC=12.8 -200=57 38/12 WC=12.9 DD=118 28/12 WC=12.7 DD=117 -200=65 25/12 WC=13.9 DD=117 57/12 20/12 WC=14.2 DD=112 61/12 26/12 WC=13.5 DD=117 15/0 7465 7460 7455 7450 7445 w 7440 7435 7430 7430 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. H 114 357A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 2 Hee w�awlak Geoteehnical LEGEND: ® TOPSOIL; organic sandy clay with scattered gravel, cobbles and boulders, moist, dark brown. CLAY (CL); sandy to occaisionally very sandy, typically gravelly with cobbles and scattered boulders, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, mixed brown, medium plasticity. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. California liner sample. 33/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 33 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California sampler 12 inches. TPractical drilling refusal. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on August 27, 2014 with 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. Proposed building corners were staked at the time of our field exploration. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours shown 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 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. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (0/6) DD = Dry Density (pcf) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 114 357A LEGEND AND NOTES I Figure 3 Moisture Content = 12.9 percent Dry Density = 118 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 1 at 10 Feet 1 c 0 CD c co CL 0 0 -Tit y 1 I I Expansion Q- upon co 2 wetting 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf Moisture Content = 13.9 percent Dry Density = 117 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Boring 1 at 20 Feet 0 0 1 0 No movement 'Co a 2 upon 1 wetting 0 E 0 U 3 4 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf 114 357A SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 4 He worth—Pawlak Geotechnicat 9 in cn 14* z .n 0 goo J m °'moo } o a a � w Z Ln w a 0 te o a U '� m.� U U U U .� U U r ] C7 in Vi V) v1 z 0 o� F x_ LLyQ J U V yu Lu Z C. - L9 LU F_ m cr F 0 W z> w cc �p w Q. N d 0 z o a a L9 J lJ W ``oo V > 00 w 0 Q a Z K 3 W w as o0 CN r- 01% N to Zp rN-� .Na .N-r .M-i .4-t .M-t z N O c) N N Q W --1 � V W a � � 2 Ln o m Go 'ortech HEPWORl"H-PAWLAr GEOTcCHNICAI_ December 8, 2014 Hennes Mountain Classics, LLC Attn: Greg Sands P. O. Box 2633 Edwards, Colorado 81632 �,at�c1S(Clht'.CI1l�S_I'I).�'(�lll Job No. 114 357A Subject: Observation of Excavation, Proposed Ewing Residence, Lot 28, Tract AA, Red Sky Ranch, 90 Juniper Trail, Eagle County, Colorado Dear Greg: As requested, a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical observed the excavation at the subject site on December 1, 2014 to evaluate the soils exposed for foundation support. The findings of our observations and recommendations for the foundation design are presented in this report. We previously conducted a subsoil study for design of foundations at the site and presented our findings in a report dated September 17, 2014, Job No. 114 357A. The proposed construction is similar to that discussed in our previous report. The ground floors will be slab -on -grade floor. Our previous report recommended spread footings for support of the residence designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 psf and a minimum dead load pressure of 1,000 psf with a risk of movement. At the time of our site visit, the foundation excavation which was essentially complete had been cut in multiple levels from about 2 to 8 feet below the adjacent ground surface. The soils exposed in the bottom of the excavation consisted of very stiff, sandy clay with gravel and scattered cobbles. In the shallow cut in the northwest corner of the excavation, topsoil was exposed at subgrade. Based on the soils exposed in the cut face, the topsoil was estimated at from 1 to 2 feet deep, and we recommended the topsoil be removed. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on samples taken from the site, shown on Figure 1, indicate the clay soils are slightly compressible under conditions of loading and wetting with a low swell potential. No free water was encountered in the excavation and the soils were slightly moist. The soil conditions exposed in the excavation are consistent with those previously encountered on the site and suitable for support of spread footings designed for the recommended allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 psf and minimum dead load pressure of 1,000 psf. The risk of foundation movement is primarily if the bearing soils become wetted and precautions should be taken to prevent wetting. All topsoil and loose 111 cl ')0 ; ti41 , I I Q 0 l.: ,I ,r iJ Shrm,, 0 ;i I\ vrf Ili o-n `) , �.ahti Hennes Mountain Classics, LLC December 8, 2014 Page 2 disturbed soils should be removed in the footing areas to expose the undisturbed natural soils. We understand the topsoil below footing areas was removed. The bearing soils should be protected from frost and concrete should not be placed on frozen soils. Other recommendations presented in our previous report which are applicable should also be observed. The recommendations submitted in this letter are based on our observation of the soils exposed within the foundation excavation and the previous subsurface exploration at the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions below the excavation could increase the risk of foundation movement. We should be advised of any variations encountered in the excavation conditions for possible changes to recommendations contained in this letter. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH — PAWLAK G>:QTd)UJNJCAL. INC. m v e David A. Young, P.E. 0 32-2�6AT a DAY/ksw attachments Figure 1, Swell -Consolidation Test Results cc: Hermes Mountain Classics - Brian Deem (od1� qj ((licnjiesL,ru.ck)u1) Job No. 114 357A G99tech "a \ k - � � /( `£ (§ §c kk \( \ |§ 2 ( 2 G£« k§j } © §2E � \m\ m ,m k`m 0 Em ®127` !f/[A U m § (& £| ;k • ! ° ©MOS| B ` §/26A )`/3®\ 224® �gm> ]) /7( /)( £§ 7§@2) §§-H "A, §§k7i§ ® 9§ `� Z f§ 2 " «\§ ky! 0�/�6| . §R`\� ]Qn ¥ ram§ - �, §§ 2_� §E�zs =� ]mK®n %k k�f : 2 gl z §KK®5� 006 §3 - `M.§0 �oq�l; k\[ ) A2 G*� � G2%/2§ m®o�c2 so§ -_ )§ =*mt SO § /8. e! ¥)§ G/t 2Xd2 , m` eR)] [ _- k f@) (�\§k� 0§% m /m m EAGLECOUNiy Eagle County OWTS Systems Cleaners Reporting Form NOTE. Required to be submitted to Environmental Health within 10 days of cleaning an OWTS system Systems Cleaner Company_Plumbing Systems, Inc. License Number 0-16 Email Address_Aid/an@PSIVailjcom Phone _926-0500 Service Technician Vg{�ca Lr�il•P Phone 91.0 -"Ayo Tax Parcel# /It/12710 r002 II A1d1dress of Service !7 riq Person Requesting Service k'I yo�)L Phone / 70 Property Owner C- L. v; Phone nN j%)- Septic System Permit Number Tank Size iswo Date of service /I Tank Material 62 �InS;• Sewage Disposal Site L / R„- O— n,-6th. General Condition andFhnctionality of the System rL,4 d Recommended Repairs /i/ AL Site sketch showing location of the septic tank access lids measured from at least 2 fixed points (Photos Encouraged) Signed ? �0.D t