HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication - PermitI
Garfield County
Building & Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite #401 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Office:970·945·8212 Fax: 970·384-3470
Inspection Line: 910·384-5003
Building Permit No.
Parcel No: 2395-121-18-147 -----~--------= -------~-----
Locality: lronbridge PUD Ph1~_Lot 14? __
Job Address: --~-~--------'0"'0_2=-:6=-:R_::_iv'-'e_,r_ =cBe::_:_nc=-d_::_=~G'-'-W'--S==---------------
Use of Building: structural foundation ------------------~-~----------~-----------
c f " f e ; c.,""'
Owner:
~-------
14t>FReiet1, Kurt &_H_e'--le_n __ _
Contractor: Hansen Construction -----
Fees: Plan Check: 463.94 Septic:
Bldg Permit: 713.75 Other Fees: ------
Total Fees: $ 1,177.69
Clerck:
FRCI1 : ~<URT 4-LL
Jan.
GAI;::.rn::W cot:r.:rv BUlLD;"NC Pl?J~}--HT AE'H .. lCA Ttcn'-l
}t)0 3:t. %·ctt, Sl.!iic 4\H, G1er,'wc:>~ $;prh:;(;$, Co ~JGO!
}'hem!::; 070~945·2::!.12 r ?:U:: J.i/(i.}t4.34'JU l !n:pe;.:tlon Line: 9!0~)kt4-S003
~Y· .. 0!.K~?i~.::.~!:...B?Lll
.____,
i
1) A Dnal Electrical lnspccrion from the Colorado S't:tti! t:l.ectrkai ln.spcctcr,
2) Pel:'!llilnent add!"'= a.signed by Garf,dd County BuHdisrg Depa>1rnent and pu-;:.ed at the
structtll'e and where readily visible. from access road.
3) A finished ro·of; a Jock.able blJllding; .;C:lmpit:ted l!)~tcii0r siding; exterior doors and w~ndows
lnst~llcd; a C!>mple"~ .kitchen with cr..bjuetsJ sink with .hot & cold. running wa;er~ non~absorbent
ld1chen floor covering, counter tops and ITni&llcd wil!.ls, ready for stove and refdgcrator: all
ru:cessary plumbing,
4) lUI batbtaorns rr.mst 00 corn.~kt:e, with w~t>hbowf. t\Jb <tr shower~ toilet, hot and cold nrnning
waier. nou-absorbent floors~ waHs and prlvtwy door.
5) St.~:·~~ over three (3) risers, ou:hid~ or ;nsi-de must 'be· £~1$1 ha1:'C.hendralis. Balconies and deck~
over 3{P.1
· high must be tonsnucted to aU L13C and IRC requiretncnts indudi..11g gu.e.rdraHs.
6) Outside gmding =pleted ro that V;a!er s!opes l!Way fcom the building;
7) F....:x:{';eptions to t.}m outside stt!<ps? decks~ grading n.1t1y be ruade U?Qh tl::!e de.J"nOn&trl31-ion of
extenilllting circt.Jmstn .. '1ces,~ Le. wea:th<:-L Ui'Jdt.: !.rt..\eh d.r;;umsranC:e$ A Certiiicatc of
Occuprw.<:.y may be issu.e:d oo:tuHtion!illy.
g) A fir~ L'"tspectio!l sig~l oi'f by tl~e Garfield County Ro2d & Bddg€ Dep:u:t..'1tent for drive\\'lY
insmUatiot4 -..vb~e applicable; as well~~ :1ny tlru.! sign l.)tfby tti.z:c Fire District, a:ndlor Stata:
A2;.encles wtere applic®le.
A CERT!FICA'l'E OF OCCUl' ANCY (C.O,) WfLL NOT liE ISSUED UNtiL ALL THE
ABOVE IT.El\1.'1 H.<\ VE !I:EEN COMPLETED.
OWNER CANNOT OCCU?li' OR tis:£ )Y'w'ELUNG UNTIL A C.O. lS ISSUED.
OCClJl!'/L'IC\' OR US.!i: OF DWELLL'iG >VITHOUJ:' A C.O. 11\'lLL :tlrc CONSU!l!:RED AN
l.LLEGA.L OCCUP ANCV A.l'lD MAY ilil;; CiROlJNTlS FOR VACATING PREMISJ£S
CI\"TYL Ali'l'OVR CO.'<DITIONS AP..E l>u:r.
I u:ttderst-a.~d. and agree ·to abide: by rbe s_bzw~ ~ond1t.\t.\ns fo: vccupancy, use ~nd the issuanr~ of a
CO. for ihe bull ding idenrJfied in chi! Builiiing Permit.
VALUATION FEE DETERMINATION
Applicant
Address
Date
..;K"'o~rn;!!re~i;::;ch::..,.......,=-------Snbdlvision
0026 Riverbend Way Lot/Block ..;l~/3;::0~/2:?;0\;:08p=:...:.:.~------Contractor
Finished (Livable Area):
Main
Upper
Lower
Other
Total Square Feet
Valuation
Basement:
Unfinished
sf
sf
sf
sf X $74.68
0 sf
sf X $41.00
Conversion ofUnfinished to Finished sf X $33.68
Total Valuation
Garage:
Valuation
Crawl Space
Valuation
Decks/ Patios
Valuation
Covered
Open
Type of Construction:
Occupancy:
Valuation
Total Valuation
sf X $18.00
sf X $9.00
sf X $24.00
sf X $12.00
Commercial
Foundation repair use contractor valuation
I sf X #######
sf X
sf X
sf X
sf X
sf X
lronbridge
147
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
60,000.00
60,000.00
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING
970-945-8212
MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
For
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION
Including
NEW CONSTRUCTION
ADDITIONS
ALTERATIONS
And
MOVED BUILDINGS
In order to understand the scope of the work intended under a permit application and expedite the
issuance of a permit it is important that complete information be provided. When reviewing a plan
and it's discovered that required information has not been provided by the applicant, this will result
in the delay of the permit issuance and in proceeding with building construction. The owner or
contractor shall be required to provide this information before the plan review can proceed. Other
plans that are in line for review may be given attention before the new information may be reviewed
after it has been provided to the Building Department.
Please review this document to determine if you have enough information to design your
project and provide adequate information to facilitate a plan review. Also, please consider
using a design professional for assistance in your design and a construction professional for
construction of your project. Any project with more than ten (10) occupants requires the
plans to be sealed by a Colorado Registered Design Professional.
To provide for a more understandable plan in order to determine compliance with the building,
plumbing and mechanical codes, applicants are requested to review the following checklist prior to
and during design. Applicants are required to indicate appropriately and to submit the
. completed checklist at time of application for a permit.
Plans to be included for a Building Permit, must be on drafting paper at least 18"x24" and
drawn to scale.
Plans must include a floor plan, a concrete footing and foundation plan, elevations all sides with
decks, balcony, steps, hand rails and guard rails, windows and doors, including the finish grade line
and original grade. A section showing in detail, from the bottom of the footing to the top of the roof,
including re-bar, anchor bolts, pressure treated plates, floor joists, wall studs and spacing, insulation,
sheeting, house-rap, (which is required), siding or any approved building material. Engineered
foundations may be required.
A window schedule. A door schedule. A floor framing plan, a roof framing plan, roof must be
designed to withstand a40 pound per square foot up to 7,000 feet in elevation, a 90 M.P.H. wind
speed, wind exposure B or C, and a 36 inch frost depth.
All sheets to be identified by number and indexed. All of the above requirements must be met or
your plans will be returned.
All plans submitted must be incompliance with the 2003 IRC.
1. Is a site plan included that identifies the location of the proposed structure or addition and
distances to the property lines from each corner of the proposed structure(s) prepared by
a licensed surveyor and has the surveyors signature and professional stamp on the
drawing? Properties with slopes of30% or greater must be shown on the site plan.
(NOTE Section: 106.2) Any site plan for the placement of any portion of a structure
within 50 ft. of a property line and not within a previously surveyed building envelope on
a subdivision final plat shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor and have the surveyor's
signature and professional stamp on the drawing. Any structure to be built within a
building envelope of a lot shown on a recorded subdivision plat shall include a copy of
the building envelope as it is shown on the final plat with the proposed structure located
within the envel~lJh
Yes fV~
2. Does the site plan also include any other buildings on the property, setback easements and
utility easements? Please refer to Section 5.05.03 in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution
if the property you are applying for a building permit on is located on a corner lot. Special
setbacks do apply.
Yes ~~/}
3. Does the site plan include when applicable the location of the I.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage
Disposal System) and the distances to the property lines, wells (on subject property and
adjacent properties), streams or water courses?
Yes .. t///t
4. Does the site plan indicate the location and direction of the County or private road accessing
the property?
2
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13 ..
14.
Yes_;Vl!l
Are you aware that prior to submittal of a building permit application you are required to
show proof of a driveway access permit or obtain a statement from the Garfield County Road
& Bridge Department stating one is not necessary? You can contact the Road & Bridge
Department at 625-86~.J1 /)
Yes l'fl7
D~~plans include a foundation plan indicating the size, location and spacing of all
reinfo ing steel in accordance with the IRC or per stamped engineered design?
Yes .
Do the plans indicate the location and size of ventilation openings for under floor crawl
spaces and the clearances required between wood and earth?
Yes ~A
Do the plans indicate the size and location of ventilation openings for the attic, roof joist
i:sces and soffits? ~~A
Do the plans include design loads as required by Garfield County for roof snow loads, (a
minimum of 40 pounds per square foot up to & including 7,000 feet above sea level), floor
~::sand wind loads? N/flr
Does the plan include a building section drawing indicating foundation, wall, floor, and roof
~oe~struction? ;1//t ,....---------
Does the building section drawing include size and spacing of floor joists, wall studs, ceiling
~!~ts, roof rafters ~J'A..s or trusses?
Does the building section drawing or other detail include the method of positive connection
of all columns and bea/A-
Yes ;Y. .
Does the elevation plan .indicate the height of the building or proposed addition from the
undisturbed grade to the midpoint between the ridge and eave of a gable or shed roof or the
~~sofa flat roof? lrJ+ing height measurement usually not to exceed 25 feet)
Does the plan include any stove or zero clearance fireplace planned for installation including
3
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
make and model and Colorado Phase II certificat~·ons e phase II EPA certification?
Yes h . I No fi I . I d.. Jt l . . d' . d . Does t e plan me ude a masonry 1rep ace me u 1 g a rrep ace sectiOn m Icatmg es1gn to
comply with the IRC? 1:
Yes No (tff/t
Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that egress/rescue windows
from sleeping rooms and/or basements comply with the requirements of the IRC?
Yes No /V7A
Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that windows provide natural
light and ventilation for all habitable rooms? " //
Yes No ;v /A
Do the plans indicate the location of glazing subject to human impact such as glass doors,
glazing immediately adjacent to such doors; glazing adjacent to any surface nom1ally used as
a walking surface; sliding glass doors; fixed glass panels; shower doors and tub enclosures
and specifY safety glazing for these areas? . A.t, /~
Yes No ______________ ;r /II
Is the location of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnaces, boilers and water heaters
indicated on the plan? ;Vht}-.
Yes No ------
Do you understand that if you are building on a parcel of land created by the exemption
· process or the subdivision process, are building plans in compliance with all plat notes
~e~or covenants? No rV}/t-
Do you understand that if you belong to a Homeowners Association (HOA), it is your
responsibility to obtain written permission from the association, if required by that
association, prior to submitting an application for a building permit? The building
permit application will be accepted without it, but you run the risk or' the HOA bringing
action to enforce the covenants, which can result in revocation of permit issued.
Additionally, your Plan Review fee is not refundable if the plans have been reviewed by the
Building Department prior to any action by the HOA that requires either revocation or
substantial modification of the plans. A I/ Ll.
Yes No. _________ fV(fr
Will this be the only residential structure on the parcel?
Yes No ~fo Ifno-Explain:
Have two (2) complete sets of construction drawings been submitted with the application?
Yes ~~;tr
4
24. Do you understand that the minimum dimension a home can be on a lot is 20ft. wide and
20ft. long?: //,
Yes No 1"/(+
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
designed or had this plan designed while considering building a!ld other
n code requirements?
No ____ _
Do your plans comply with all zoning rules and regulations in the County related to your
~::erties zone district? No lift
Does the plan accurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will receive a final
inspection by the Garfield County Building D?;artment?
Yes · No . N)A ')p_o f~dY {_,.,c,1 ~ e._
Do you {i~erstand that approval for design and/or construction changes are required prior
to the a pi ation of these changes?
Yes No ·
Do you understand that the Building Department will collect a "Plan Review" fee from you
at the time of application submittal and that you will be required to pay the "Permit Fee" as
well" any "Road Impact" or "Septic System" fees required, at the time you pick up your
buildin ermit?
No ____ _
Are you aware that you must call in for an inspection by 3:30 the business day before
the te~ested inspection in order to.receive it the following business day? Inspections
will b m de from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30p.m. Monday through Friday. Inspections are to
be call n to 384-5003. ·
Yes No · .
. ' Are o ware that requesting inspections on work that is not ready or not accessible will
result in a $50.00 re-inspection fee?
Yes No -----'---
Are ou aware that you are required to call for all inspections required under the IRC
inclu in approval on a final inspection prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy and
of the building?
No ____ ~-
5
33. Are you aware that the Permit Application must be signed by the Owner or a written
authority e1 g given for an Agent and that the party responsible for the project must comply
with theIR ?
No _____ _
34. Do you understand that you will be required to hire a State of Colorado Licensed Electrician
aud Plumber to perform installations and hookups, unless you· as the homeowner are
performing the work? The license number of the person performing the work will be
required at time of applicable inspection. .fjA
Yes No __ ~----'-(V-' {(
35. Are you aware, that on the front of the Building Permit Application you will need to fill in
. the Parcel/Schedule Number for the lot you are applying for this permit on prior to submittal
of a building permit application? Yolir attention in this is aprreciated.
Yes · · fVj ~
36. . Do you know that the local fire district may require you to submit plans for their review of
fire safety issues? Yes . . · No . q (please check with the
building department about this requirement) I' (A-
3 7. Do you understand that if you are planning on doing any excavating or grading to the
property ' ior to issuance of a building permit that you will be required to obtain a grading
permit?
Yes --leN--
38. Are you aware that if you will be connecting to a public water and/or sewer system, that the
tap fees have to be paid and the connections inspected by the service provider prior to the
issuance of a Certificate st_ Occupancy?
Yes · • !V'jjt
~ lh~•b;;r,rknowlodg<> "'""'".read, understand and a.uswered these questions to the uf J~ lJI~/()7
Signamre of Owner Date ·
Phone: 404-7 qcJ-! (days); (evenings)
PmjoctN-I\[OQh,:t&~l?'o l Le:,± )'±7
Project Address: roab h!\l Bod w a.y ~ b
Notes: If you have answered "No" on any of the questions, you may be required to provide this
6
PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST
Applicant ~l) (?J\) rz e. 6 ~ Date I -3 0 4J8
Building
~ineered.Foundation
~Driveway Permit
4--surveyed Site Plan
J4z__septic Permit and Setbacks
4-orade/Topography 30%
*-Attach Residential Plan Review List
___tLMinimum Application Questionnaire
/subdivision Plat Notes
~Fire Department Review
-V-Valuation Determination/Fees
VRed Line Plans/Stamps/Sticker
_0ttach Conditions
::)?'pplication Signed
__ Plan Reviewer To Sign Application
\/"Parcel/Schedule No.
tNjt 40# Snowload Letter-Manf. Hms.
GENERAL NOTES:
Planning/Zoning
__ Property Line Set cks
tbacks
OjJDRC Approval
rade/Topography 40%
~£tech
HEPWORTH· PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
April 8, 2005
Ironbridge Homes, LLC
Attn: David Joseph
410 Ironbridge Drive
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Hepworth~Pawlak Geotechnical, inc.
50ZO County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone< 970-945-7988
Fruc 970-945·8454
email: hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
Job No. lOS 115-1
Subject: Subsurface Exploration for Evaluation of Subsidence Potential, Lot 147,
Ironbridge Development, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Joseph:
As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed subsurface exploration for
evaluation of potential subsidence at the subject site. The evaluation was conducted in
accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Ironbridge
Homes, LLC dated January 21, 2005. The data obtained and our current findings of
future subsidence potential are presented in this report.
Previous Geotechnical Stndy: Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical previously conducted
subsurface exploration for the subdivision development and the foundation bearing
conditions on Lot 147, and presented our findings in reports dated September 10, 1998,
Job No. 197 327, and October 11,2004, Job No. 101196-1. The exploration identified
the shallow subsurface conditions for foundation design in the area of Lot 14 7. The
current study was performed to evaluate the deeper subsurface materials for future
subsidence potential related to the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite.
Subsurface Conditions: One exploratory boring was drilled on the lot as shown on
Figure 1. The log of the boring is presented on Figure 2. The subsoils below about 62
feet of debris fan soils consist of dense, river gravel alluvium to a depth of 73 feet
overlying claystone/siltstone of the Eagle Valley Evaporite. The drilling conditions
indicate that the subsurface materials are competent for the residence support and no
voids were encountered to the drilled depth of 96 feet.
Future Subsidence Potential: Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Ironbridge
Development and is known to be associated with sinkholes and localized ground
subsidence in the Roaring Fork River valley. A sinkhole vyas identified during our
previous study for the subdivision development that is located within a fairway about 750
feet to the northeast of the subject lot. Indications of ground subsidence were not
identified prior to development in the area of the lot, and voids that could indicate a ris)c
of future ground subsidence were not encountered in the boring drilled on the lot. In our
opinion, the risk of future ground subsidence on Lot 147 tbroughout the service life of the
residence is low and similar to other areas of the Roaring Fork River valley where there
have not been indications of ground subsidence.
Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthorne 970-468-1989
-2-
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 submitted in this report are based
upon the data obtained from the subsurface exploration, the proposed type of
construction, and our experience in the area. Our fmdings include extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory boring and there could be variations in
the subsurface conditions. This report has been prepared for the use by our client for
subsidence potential evaluation. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by
others of our infonnati.on.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Steven L. Pawlak, P .E.
SLP!ksw
attachments Figure 1 -Location of Exploratory Borings
Figure 2-Log of Exploratory Boring
Job No.I 05 115-1
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1" = 30'
6045
' '\
'\
'\
\
\
\
\
RIVER BEND WAY
6050
\
\
\
\ ,_ 1\
O BORING 147
(101 196-1)
LOT 147
-\ -
\
\
6045
'\
\
\
\
'\
'\
\
\
'\
\
'\
'\
'\
'\ 6055
LOT 148
6050
105 115-1 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 1
0
10
20
30
-" ~
40
.<: +' a. 60 " Cl
70
80
90
100
105 115-1
BORING 1
LOT 147
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SlLTY SAND AND CLAY, GRAVELLY v.llli DEPlli (DEBRIS FAN)
GRAI.10L, COBBLES AND BOULDERS (RII.10R ALLUVIUM)
GROUNDWATER LEI.10L 2/7 /OS
EAGLE VALLEY EVAPORITE; MAINLY CLAYSTONE/SILlSTONE
v.llli GYPSUM, PARTLY II£AlliERED
BOTTOM OF BORING = 96 FEET
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
0
10
20
30
..
" L<..
40
.<: -60 0.
" Cl
70
80
90
100
Figure 2
SK PEIGHTAL ENGINEERS
S K PEIGHTAI. ENGINEERS T.td .
STRUCTURAL. CONSULTANTS
To: Tom Coyle
Ironbridge Homes
. 410 Ironbridge Dr
MEMORANDUM
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: . Stephen Peightal, PB
Date: November 27, 2007
Revised -December ·13, 2007
Re: h'onbridgeLots 147,148, &166
141002
On 11-27 ~07, JackAlbright and I met to review the foundatio~ Hftandstabilize plans .
for the above referenced .projects. These plans are as submitted 11-2()...07, byMike •
· Woelke of Ironbridge H:omes; For the original btillding design, Jack Albright is the .
project engixl.eer of record while. with S K Peightal Engineers, and continues as a .
consl.lltanlwhile with Albright & Associates. · · ·
Mr Albright has observed the signs ofdistresr> atLon4s, andfollo:wed with his letter ·
of 7-~1-07• I have visited Lot 147 & Lot 166 to observe signs of distress. Based on our
knowledge of these structures, we are both comfortable with the fix approach
indicated by these reviewed plans. ·
. Asrequested by you, we ~be on site to observe the lift artd stabilize work in place,
to become generally familiar with the ~ontractor' s work and to determine if the .
work is in general accordance with thereviewed plans; We will issue field reports
to document our findings, which can besubmitted to the Btillding Department. It is
my understll1lding that ypur soils engineer will also be on site to observe this work
as it pertains to the soil properties. ·
~~ey~·A.._
~crJ~
lo ~,a,;';)
~tt£,. VI'\ 'So~. \ '
~ V\Jf,)\
04079 M
SKPE • 76 Sunset Drive • Unit #4 • Basalt, CO • 81621 • (970) 927-9510 • Pax, (970) 927-0597
'<UR"T :.1\...L
'-~l\ ! (,i
Jar<> 11
Prr,joot-Per the cnglaeexeii drevr:ing:::, tNs Wc»k will L'fJm<isi of drilling holes from lh~
.,:;:terior through t':te :fou:ulatioo ~:ad do"-"'~ appro:;;im.'rtdy 75 ieet to a ~bt>Arook" bMe;
pumping" cement-based groUJ. under ~ompres;'ivrc inro the.se holes up to the foUlld:llion
to ~l.:ibilf~e the stn..tcw~ (some sHght rise m~y be s0hleved this action). If the
anticipated rise doe$ not substantially retu.:."'' the stnJC;ture m ctisinallevels~ then some
lifting points will be ~s!.ablishred. jar.::ks and !he s=X) points lifted to position..
Once JRG!Jicved the sw~ott.'re wiU b'" and backfill will be done. Fio!illy, the lrard
gra!.f.ng vvil.l be checked and ntodi ficd proper Oriin~ge c:f ~.E Site. Once the e~ierior
"~1Vork is cornp~ interior d:ryw~J! arJd pai.nting can be don0.
"
GENERAL: OWNER INFORMATION KEY DATES:
Legal Address: 0026 River Bend Way Name: Kurt & Helen Komreich Agreement Date: 3115/2005
Type: Sopris Series Address: 0098 Lewis Lane ProjectedCiose: 8/3/2005
Plan: 3101 Elev: B City: Basalt Closed: 8/3/2005
Color: 1 State: co Construction Start: 12/9/2004
Zip: 81621
Lender Info: Home 970-927-4847 Home Review:
Orientation: L Type: P/S Cell 760-836-0024 Walkthrough: 8/3/2005
Release: 1 Seq.: 2
Lot Size: 17,835
Home Size: 2,03 1
SIGNATURE DATES DS I: 10/25/2004 DS 2: 5/27/2005 DS 3: 9116/2005
Thursday, December 06, 2007 Page 1 of 4
07/07/2008 08:59 3034693581
HAYWARD
BAKER
Geotechnical Construction
HAYWARD BAKER DENVER PAGE 02/03
July 7, 2008
RE: Ironbridge Lot 147
To Whom It May Concern:
TI1e i11tet1t of this letter is to reflect the work perlbtmed by Hayward Baker Inc. on
the above mentioned property. Hayward Baker properly performed the lifting operations
nt the locations specified by Ironbridge Homes LLC, and under the direction of Tom
Coyle of CCS Enterprises, Inc. HBI successfully lifted the distressed areas back to as
near original elevation as possible.
Hayward Baker enjoyed working with all parties involved in this project, and we
were glad we could be of assistance. If there are any further questions please contact us
at (303)469. 1136. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jo Hattis
Vice President
Hayward Baker Inc.
To: Matt Provost Page 2 of 2 2008-07-18 20:18:44 (GMT) 18663351290 From: Thomas Coyle
07/18/2008 12:59 FAX 970 927 0597 SK PEIGHTAL ENGINEERS
S K PEIGHTAL ENGINEERS Ltd
STRUCTUML CONSULTANTS
mmp R!{PORT
To: Thomas Coyle
Ironbridge Homes
410 Jronbridge Dr.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
fax 866-335-1290
From: Stephen Peightal
Date: July 16 2008
Re: Ironbridge Lot 147
ldJ 001/001
At your request representatives of S K Peightal Engineers Ltd have been on site May
20th, 23rd, and 28th, 2008, to observe li£t and stabilize work in ptogress. Please refer to
my 11-27-07 Memo and the FoW1dation Lift & Stabilize Plans submitted by Mike
Woelke of Ironbridge Homes.
Concly,sion
By our site observations and discussions we have become generally famili.arwifh. the
contractor's work (Hayward Baker Inc). It is our dete:rmination that this work has
...... progressed l,n.accorda:,nce-:with the· reviewed Lift & Stabilize Plans indicated above.
We currently see no signs o£ concern for future structural buildl,ng performaflce. h\
finishing this project, it is recommended that all water impact mitigation steps· ·
presented by the soils enginee;t!.be.reviewed.and implemented.
The abm>e represent~ our report of event~ r:oted_an,d items d!soussed, and wpl be relied upon as
true and correct by all part1es unless notified w1thm 5 working days of recerpt.
04079 FR
SKPB • 76 Sunset Drive • 'Unit #4 • Basalt, CO • 81621 • (970) 927-9510 • Fox: (970) 927-0SS>7
To: Matt Provost Page 1 of2 2008-07~18 20:18:44 {GMT) 18663351290 From: Thomas Coyle
FAX COVER SHEET
TO Matt Provost
COMPANY Garfield County
FAXNUMBER 19703843470
FROM Thomas Coyle
DATE 2008-07-18 20:13:25 GMT
RE
COVER MESSAGE
Matt, here is the Stamped version of the structural
engineer's letter on Ironbridge Homes Lot 147.
The downspout correction should be done Monday.
Tom Coyle
970-355-9123
\NWW.efax.com
~tech
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
SUBSOIL STUDY
Hepworth~ Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone' 970-945-7988
Fax, 970-945-8454
email: hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 147, IRONBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT
RIVERBENDWAY
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 101196-1
OCTOBER 11, 2004
PREPARED FOR:
L.B. ROSE RANCH, LLC
ATTN: MIKE WOELKE
1007 WESTBANK ROAD
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthorne 970-468-1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............................................................................ - 1 -
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... -1-
SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ -2-
GEOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... -2-
FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................................................................. -3-
SUB SURF ACE COl\'DITIONS ...................................................................................... -3 -
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ................................................................... -4-
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. -5-
FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................................................... -5-
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ............................................................ -6-
FLOOR SLABS .......................................................................................................... -7 -
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM .......................................................................................... -8-
SURF ACE DRAINAGE ............................................................................................. -8 -
LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... -9-
FIGURE 1 -LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 2-LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 3 -LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4-SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1-SUl'vf.MARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located
on Lot 147, IronbridgeDevelopment, River Bend Way, Garfield County, Colorado. The
project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop
recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted as a supplement to
our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to L.B. Rose Ranch, LLC dated July
24, 2003. We previously conducted subsurface exploration to evaluate the collapse
potential for the non-irrigated debris fan areas within the development and presented our
findings in a report dated September 10, 1998, Job No. 197 327.
An exploratory boring was drilled on the lot to obtain information on the general
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, design recommendations
and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and
the subsurface conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The specific building plan for the lot had not been determined at the time of our study.
The proposed residence will generally be a one and two story wood fi-ame structure
between about 2,500 and 3,000 square feet in size. Ground floor will be slab-on-grade
and/or structural above crawlspace. A partial basement level may be provided. Grading
for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 to 6
feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of
construction.
Job No. 101 196-1 ~h
-2-
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described
above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recorrunendations contained in tllis report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The lot is located in the up !rill, southwestern part of the development and was vacant at
the time of our field exploration. The Jot location is shown on Figure 1. The roadway
and underground utility construction to the lot are complete. Shallow cuts and fill were
observed on the lot from overlot grading as part of the subdivision development. The
ground surface is relatively flat with a gentle slope down to the southeast with about 2
feet of elevation difference across the building area. The native vegetation had been
stripped during the previous overlot grading.
GEOLOGY
The geologic conditions were descn"bed in our previous report conducted for planning and
preliminary design of the subdivision development, dated October 29, 1997, Job No. 197
327. The southwest part of the subdivision is located above the historically irrigated area
on a relatively large debris fan that has been shown to be hydro compressive (settlement
potential when wetted). A boring drilled in tllis general area encountered ·
hydro compressive soils to a depth of about 75 feet where dense river gravels were
encountered.
The underlying bedrock consists of the Eagle Valley Evaporite which contains gypsum
and is generally associated with scattered sinkhole development in the Roaring Fork
River valley. The potential for subsidence due to dissolution of the evaporite throughout
the service life of the residence, in our opinion, is low. If further evaluation of the
sinkhole potential on the lot is desired, we should be contacted.
Job No. 10\ \96-\ ~tech
-3-
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on October 1, 2004. One exploratory
boring was drilled at the location shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface
conditions. The boring was advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers
powered by a truck-mounted CME-45B drill rig. The boring was logged by a
representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1 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 Log of Exploratory Boring, Figure
2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and
testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A graphic log ofthe subsurface conditions encountered at the site is shown on Figure 2.
The subsoils consist of about Yz foot of granular fill and 7 feet of medium stiff, sandy silt
and clay overlying medium dense/stiff to very stiff, clayey sand and silt with scattered
rock fragments to the boring depth of26 feet.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural
moisture content, density and finer than ·sand size gradation analyses. Results of swell-
consolidation testing perfonned on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of silt, presented
on Figure 4, indicate low compressibility under existing dry moisture conditions and light
loading and a minor collapse potential (settlement under const<l!lt load) when wetted. The
sample showed moderate compressibility upon increased loading after wetting. The
laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
Job No. JOJ l96-l
-4-
No :free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the subsoils were
slightly moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The collapse potential of the subsoils encountered at the site appears consistent with our
previous findings for the non-irrigated areas of the development. The subsurface
conditions and laboratory test result.~ indicate that the debris fan soils generally have lot to
moderate collapse potential. There is a risk of settlement and distress to the building,
driveway and utilities founded on the relatively dry debris fan deposits if the subsoils
were to become wetted. The magnitude of settlement will depend on the depth and extent
of wetting and structural loading. Lightly loaded spread footings placed on the natural
soils should be suitable for support of the residence with a risk of settlement and distress
if the bearing soils become wetted. Precautions to prevent wetting of the bearing soils
need to be taken. These include: l) proper placement and compaction of backfill;
2) positive backfill slopes next to foundations; 3) restricted landscape irrigation and/or
use ofxeriscape; and 4) gutters to prevent roofrunoffnearthe building.
Extensive wetting such as from water line leaks and heavy irrigation could result in
excessive settlements and distress. The settlement potential and risk of distress can be
reduced by supporting the building on a stiffened slab (mat) foundation, or ground
improvements, such as removal and replacement of native soils compacted to at least 95%
of standard Proctor density at a moisture content at to 2% above optimum. We expect
that ground modifications would be limited to the upper 5 to 10 feet. Recommendations
for spread footings are presented below. If other foundation types and subgrade treatment
methods are proposed, we should be contacted.
Job No. 101 196·1
-5-
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the
nature of the proposed construction, we believe the residence can be founded with spread
footings bearing on the natural subsoils with some risk of settlement and distress if the
bearing soils become welted.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread
footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural subsoils should be designed for
an allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf. Based on experience, we
expect initial settlement offootings designed and constructed as discussed
in tl:ris section will be less than 1 inch. Additional settlement of about 2
inches or more could occur if the subsoils become wetted.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 20 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection.
Placement of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is
typically used in this area.
4) The foundation should be constructed in a "box like" configuration rather
than isolated spread footings. The foundation walls should be heavily·
reinforced top and bottom and designed to span local anomalies such as by
assuming an unsupported length of at least 15 feet. Foundation walls
acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth
pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of
this report.
Job No.I OJ 196·1 ~tech
-6-
5) The existing fill and any loose disturbed soils should be removed and the
footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils. The
exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINJNG 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 55 pcf
for backf!ll consisting of tl1e 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 fue basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting of
the on-site soils.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and
equipment. The pressures 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 unifonn lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and
walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor
density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment
near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on tl1e wall. Some
Job No. !0\ \96-\
-7-
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 fiiction of.0.35. Passive pressure of compacted
backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit
weight of 300 pcf. The coefficient of fiiction 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 foot1ngs to resist lateral loads
should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a
moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-
on-grade construction. The soils are compressible when welted under load and there
could be some post-construction slab settlement and distress if the sub grade soils become
wet. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, non-structural 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
basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch
aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No.4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No.
200 sieve.
Job No. 101196-l
-8-
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can
consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy
precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched
condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls and
basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an
underdrain system. An underdrain should not be provided around shallow foundations
such as crawlspace and garage areas.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should
be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent :frnish
grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet or sump and pump. Free-
draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2%
passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum
size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1 Y, feet deep. An
i.mpervions membrane such as 20 mil PVC shonld be placed beneath the drain gravel in a
trough shape and attached to tlie foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting of the
bearing soils.
SURF ACE DRAINAGE
Developing and maintaining positive drainage throughout the life of the residence is
critical to limiting potential settlement and distress to the building. The following
drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times
after the residence has been completed:
Job No. 101196-1
-9-
I) Uncontrolled wetting of the foundation excavations and underslab areas
should be avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas.
Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on-
site, fine-grained soils to reduce smface water infiltration.
4) Roof gutters should be provided with downspouts that discharge well
beyond the limits of all backfill.
5) Irrigation sprinkler heads and landscaping which requires regular heavy
irrigation, such as sod, should be located at least 10 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
Tllis 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 boring drilled at the location 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
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 extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at
the exploratory boring and variations in the subsmface conditions may not become
JobNo.101l96·l
-10-
evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction
appear different :from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-
evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We
are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the
project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations
presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation
bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr., P.E.
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
JZA!djb
Job No. 101 196-l ~tech
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1" = 30'
RIVER BEND WAY
LOT 147
BORING 147
•
....
LOT--
BOUNDARIES
I
LOT 148
LOT 146
101 196-1 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL,· INC. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING Figure 1
0
5
10
~
" 15 Q)
"-
.<:
~
CL
" D
20
25
30
101 196-1
BORING 147
5/12
7/12
WC>=3.2
00=97
21/12
19/12
WC>=S.O
00=101
-200=82
12/12
24/12
WC>=2.2
00=116
-200=39
NOTE: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3.
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
0
5
10
~
15 " " "-
.£::
~
0.
" 0
20
25
30
Figure 2
LEGEND:
5/12
NOTES:
FILL; silty sandy gravel, loose, slightly moist, brown.
SILT AND CLAY (ML-CL); sandy, medium stiff, slightly moist, light brown to brown, slightly porous
and calcareous, low plasticity.
SAND AND SILT (SM-ML); slightly clayey, scattered grovel, stratified, medium dense/stiff to very
stiff, slightly moist, light brown to reddish brown, slightly porous and calcareous.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM-1586.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 5 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
1. The exploratory boring was drilled on October 1, 2004 with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power
auger.
2. The exploratory boring location was measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site
pion provided.
3. The exploratory boring elevation was not measured and the log of exploratory boring is drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory boring location should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring log represent the approximate boundaries
between material types and transitions may be graduaL
· 6. No free water was encountered in t_he boring at the time of drilling. Fluctuation in water level may occur
with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % )
DD = Dry Density ( pcf )
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
101 196-1 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LEGEND AND NOTES Figure · 3
Moisture Content = 3.2 percent
Dry Density = 97 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silt
From:Boring 147 at 5 Feet
0
!"!
1 ~ Compression ~ ·~ upon
" ""' wetting " 2 L
0. t"'-E
0 !'. 0
3
I
4
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
101 196-1 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 1 Job No. 1 01 196-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED
MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR BORING DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY N0.200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (%) (%) SIEVE
(ft) (%) (pel) (%) (%) (PSF)
147 5 3.2 97 Sandy silt
15 5.0 101 82 Sandy silt
'
25 2.2 116 39 Silty sand with gravel
No. --J_/..c::_._:O g-::::.._:3=--.:..( __ Asses$or's Parcel No.;L-3'75-/d-1-R-IY7 ·
Date cAf1/ozd'Dk
BUILDING PERMIT CARD ~ VlUO i {Jtt • {
Job Address ooalo R\veJC ~ w~ G,{e..t\,I.I)Q0&-"'5pN~V<?ffooJ Uftit-{Cfr']
OwnerKccnre.\c.h, Kw--+-..\-H·d~IA Address '1.? 6l~.t~ tuvu ])r. po;,Cd\\~~~1/A c, 11'~ tc
Contractor H-a.J:~ Gt\."0+ · . Address t.fC<> :c;,..,"'\o"'Jt...e ~~s~tt.e.phone # 3~~-39~
Setbacks: Front Rear RH LH Zoning -----
f=(>~ofr o V\ f'e_-f"'-' r INSPECTIONS
Soils Test-----------
Footing------------
Foundation _________ _
Grout ___________ _
Underground Plumbing _____ _
Rough Plumbing --------
Framing __________ _
Insulation-----------
Roofing-----------
Drywall -----------
Gas Piping----------
Weatherproofing __________ _
Mechanical--------------
Electrical Rough (State) ----;rc-------
Eiectrical Final (State)_-r''-------r--
~inal7-/9--o s? /Checklist Completed?---r'---
Certificate Occupancy # ------r---
. Date--.,-----------
Septic System # -~'P""-{I-!f4-'----------
Date ------------
Final Other~ - -o/9-_,.,.,.....,jf
NOTES
(continue on back)
INSPECTION Will NOT BE MADE UNlESS
THIS CARD IS POSTED ON THE JOB
24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS
BUILDING PERMIT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Date IssueJ.{tJ/f!k'.. ...• Zoned Area .....•••...••.••..•.•••...••... Permit No .... /..0..!.3{. ....... .
. AGREEMENT
In consideration ofthe issuance of this permit, the applicant hereby agrees to comply with all
laws and regulations related to the zoning, location; construction and erection of the proposed
structure for which this permit is granted, and further agrees that if the above said regulations
are not fully complied with in the zoning, location, erection and construction of the above
described structure,. the permit may then be revoked by notice from the County Building
Insp.ector and IMMEDIATELY BECOME NULL AND VOID.
~
Use ~BWtttl 'fi>~\[ IwY\\laliOII\
Address or Legal Description~ l<\\:Rr 'umt ~'! 1 r~
Owner ~D"\M\t'n1 X.m-11-M.,ffl Contractor Wl\J\'Zf'\'\ ~'l\o+•
Setbacks Front Side Side Rear
This Card Must Be Posted So It is Plainly Visible From The Street Until. Final Inspection .
.-6 .(!JV ~ .../A£ • (1 h-4-/6d:).ocNJ' I. s j<. tf?_.
INSPECTION RECORD
Footing vV/, .>/. Driveway
Z, -£. Foundation ~ ~-~ ..v,/,4
Undergrou~ Plumbing I Insulation ~~H
Rough Plumblll.!: / Drywall p/.4
Chimney & Vent" / Electric Final (by State Inspector)~
Gas Piping L\.. Final 7·jtj-tJ,f j';l'&:t!F.@O~="Tf-
Electric Rougjy(By State~spector) Septic Final ;V/#
Framing ~
(f o include Roof in place and Wi ows
and Doors installed). ·
Notes: X
',t
ALL LISTED ITEMS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEF_ORE COVERING •
WHETHER INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR, UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND.
THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE
For Inspections Call 384-5003 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado
APPROVED DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD
Dat~O'l By~ /~• 'A..._ ~. CE'
· IF PLACED 0 SIDE· COVE"':'liTH CLEAR PLASTIC
. . EXHIBIT LOT 147
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: LOT 147, ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED & RESTATED FINAL PLAT Of IRONBRIDGE P.U.D.
PHASE 1, RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 654210, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO;
KNOWN AS: 0026 RIVER BEND WAY
-
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
141NVERNESS DRIVE EAST, STE F-120, ENGLEWOOD, co 80112
PHONE (303) 92$0544 FAX (303) 9250547
f517 I:IL.AKEAVENUE, STI! 101, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, C081601
PHDNE (970) 94S<a676 PAX (970) 9~SSS
WWW.HCEMG,COM
IRONBR!DGE CLUB
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO
IRONBRIDGE
PLOT PLAN
LOT 147
ciScbtech
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
December 20, 2007
Ironbridge Homes, LLC
Attn: Dave Ockers
410 Ironbridge Drive
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Hepworth·Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 County Road !54
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945· 7988
Fax: .9.70-945-8454
email: hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
Job No.101196-l
Subject: Subsurface Exploration for Evaluation ofWettedDepth and Building
Settlement, Lots 147, 165 and 166, Ironbridge, River Bend Way, Garfield
County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Ockers:
As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed subsurfuce exploration at .
·· the subject site. The study was conducted as verbally authorized by Dave Ockers. The
data obtained and our findings based on the subsurface conditions encountered are
presented inthis report.
. .
Existing Construction: The residenc~.(show home and offices). on Lot 166 has
experienced settlement and distress mainly on the west side. Surface drauiage is
relatively poor in a flat graded swale and next to the garage where roof runoff has been
blocked by a sidewalk. The north part of the crawlspace ofthe residence on Lot 165 has
experienced recurring water buildup below the radon mell1brane. It has been speculated
that the water is from irrigation seepage through the sewer line trench but could also be
from roofdownspout pipe leakage. We understand that the residence on Lot 147 has
experienced settlement and distress in the north and west parts.
The west end of Lot 166 residence has apparently settled 3 to 4 inches and ground
stabilization with compaction grouting has been proposed. It is also required that surface
drainage be improved to effectively drain the perimeter slopes and drainage swale. The
residence on Lot 165 reportedly has not experienced excessive settlements. Remedial
repair plan for the residence on Lot 14 7 has not been developed.
Parker 303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthorne 970-468-1989 ·
-2-
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by drilling
five exploratory borings at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. The logs of the
borings are presented on Figure 2. The subsoils encountered, typically below about 5 to
I 0 feet ofbackfill, consist of sandy silt to silty sand with scattered gravel to depths of 67
and 68 feet on Lot 166 and 72 feet in the roadway, overlying dense river gravel alluvium.
Previous drilling encountered river gravel alluvium at a depth of about 60 feet on Lot 165
and 62 feet on Lot 147. Results of laboratory testiog performed on samples taken from
the borings are presented on Figure 2 and summarized in Table 1. No free water was
encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. The depth of wetting appeared to be on
the order of 35 to 40 feet at Boring 1, 15 to 20 feet at Boring 2, about I 0 feet at Boring 3,
:about 25 feet at Boring 4 and about 35 feet at Boring 5. The soils encountered at greater
depth were slightly moist and no free water was encountered.
Preliminary Findings: The soils encountered below the western part of the residence on
Lot 166 and at Lot 147 appear to have been deep wetted resulting inthe building
settlement. Compaction grouting to the full depth of the debris fan soils can be used to ·
mitigate the bmidirig ·settlement .. The grouting could be terminated at the botto~ of
current wettillg with a risk of :future settlement if the subsurface wetting continues. The
' drainage swale ~hOuld be sloped as steep as practical or lined with an impel."Vious
membrane to limit surface water infiltration. Surface grates that connect to a solid drain
pipe and a swale grade of5% are suggested fur the drainage improvements. Roof runoff
needs to be piped to the swale or into a separate drainage pipe sloped. to daylight.
•' . .
·Additional investigation of the water problem needs to be made at Lot 165 tci prevent
leakage into the crawlspace. This could require video taping and/or excavating the roof
· drain piping to verify it is water tight. Backfill sho~ld be compacted to at least 90% of
standard Proctor density and should be, a clayey fine-graded soil that will limit moisture
infiltration.
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 findings submitted in this report are based upon
the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure
1 and to the depths shown on Figure 2 and our experience in the area. Our services do not
Job No.lOl 196·1
-3-
include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological
contaminants (1vWBC) 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
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 fur the exclusive use by our client fur remedial 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
recqmmendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately
interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications
to the. recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of
excavations and testing of structural fill by a representative ofthe geotechnical engineer.
lfyou have any questions or if we may be of :further assistance, please let us !mow.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH-PA WLAKGEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Steven L. Pawlak, P .E.
SLP/vad
attachments Figure 1 -Location of Exploratory Borings
Figure 2-Logs ofExploratory Borings
Figure 3 -Legend and Notes
Table 1 -Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Job No.!Ol 196-1
6060
\
\
\
6055
\
\
\
\
\
6050
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
6045
I
\
\
\
\
I
\
\
6030
I
I
\
APPROXIMATE SCALE
i' = 80'
6025
.I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ 6065
\
\ \ \ \ I
\
\
I
I
\
BORII1/G 5
I
I .
I
I
I
I 6065
\
\
6060
NOTE: CONTOURS PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT.
101 196-1 ~ Ho worth-Powlak Geotechnlcar
\
I
I
I
\
\/ I
I(. \ ~\\ \
sdR'tN s 1
I• \\ .
LOTi65 \ \. \\\1/ 1/ \
I I
I
6030
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 1
BORINGi BORING2 BORING3 BORING4 BORINGS
LOTi66 LOT166 LOT 165 CENTERLINE LOT 147
INTERSECTION
0 0
2/12 8/12
9/12 10/12 9/12 9/12
wc~9.1
5/12 3/12 35/12 DD~95
10
wc~14.a wc~1a.s WC=10.5 5/12 ·200=40
DD=109 DD=103 DD=127 WC=11.7. 13/12 10
·200=61 -200=92 ·200=83 DD=106
3{12 12/12 ·200=66
WC=15.9 WC=2.6 8/12
DD=105 DD~95 WC=10.8
-200=74 8/12 -200=70 DD=95
6/12 WC=6.6 12/12 18112 ·200=53
20 DD=101 WC=4.9 5/12 20
-200=72 DD=99 WC=15.5
8/12 ·200=32 DD=104
WC=14.3 23/12
DD=109 WC=3.1 -200=58
·200=59 DD=115
4/12
-200=63
30 Wf12
WC=16.3 c~3.4 13/12 30
DD=100 DD~113 WC=12:s
·200=79 ·200=52 DD=113
·200=55
a; a;
8: 40/12 40 " 26/12 u..
WC=3.3 a DD=116 ll>.
-200=64 0
50 Wd~s.1 50/12 50
DD=123
·200=72
60 50/11 60
WC=3.3
DD=114
'200=79
70 70
80
Note: Explanation ·of symbols is shown on Figure 3.
101196-1 ~ech
H worth-Pawlak Geotechnlctd
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 2
.
LEGEND:
9/12
T
NOTES:
Fill; sandy silt with gravel, typically firm and moist to very moist, mixed brown.
Sand and Silt (SM-ML); slightly sandy to very sandy, scattered gravel to gravelly zones,
soft to medium stiff and moist to very moist to very stiff and slightly moist with depth, light
brown. (Debris Fan Deposits)
SAND (SM); silty, gravelly, loose to medium dense, very mois~ brown. (Debris fan Deposits).
Gravel, Cobbles and Boulders (GM-GP); dense, slightly moist, broWn, rounded rock. (River Alluvium)
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch LD. California liner sample.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 9 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California sampler 12 inches.
Caved depth following drilling.
Practical drilling refusal in dense gravel alluvium.
1. Borings 1,2 and 3 were drilled on October 31, 2007, Boring 4 was drilled on November 26, 2007, and Boring 5 was
drilled on December 12, 2007 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the subdivision plat
plan: · ·
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were not measured and the Jogs of exploratory borings are drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be conside(ed accurate only to the degree implied by the
method used.
5. The lines betweeri rriaterials 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 (%)
DD = Dry Density (pel)
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
101196-1 ~ HcDWorth-Powlok Geotechnlcof ,
LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 3
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE .1 Job No. 101196-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
-I Lots 147 165 & 166
SAMPLE LOCATION -NATIJRAL NATIJRAL ---GRADATION ·PERCENT AmRBERG UMITS UNCONFINED
~10!STIJRE DRY GRAVEL SAND _ PASSING _ UQUID -PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR BORING DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY NO. zoo UMIT -INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE (%) (%)
SIEVE •-
(ft) .C%1 -(pct') .J'I& (o/ol_ .J!'m_
1 9 14.8 109 -61 Sandy silt with gravel
14 15.9 105 74 __:_ Sandy silt with gravel
24 14.3 109 59 Very sandy silt with_gravel
29 16.3 100 79 Sandy silt
39 3.2 112 60 Very sandy silt
-
2 9 16.8 103 92 Slightly sandy silt
19 6.6 101 72 -Sandy silt with gravel
24 3.1 115 63 Sandy silt with gravel
3 9 10.5 127 83 Sandy silt fill
14 2.6 95 70 Sandy silt with gravel
-
4 9 11.7 106 66 Sandy silt with gravel fill
19 4.9 99 32 Silty sand and gravel -
29 3.4 113 52 Very sandy silt with gravel
49 5.1 123 72 Sandy silt
69 10.3 118 87 Sandy silt
5 5 9.1 95 40 -Silty sand and sbale_Ejeces
15 10.8 95 53 Sand and silt with shale pieces
20 15.5 104 58 Very sandy silt
30 12.8 113 55 Very sandy silt
40 3.3 116 64 Sandy silt
60 3.3 114 79 -Sandy silt
P-arcel Detail Page 1 of 4
Garfield County Assessor/Treasurer
Parcel Detail Information
Assessor/Treasurer Prope1:ty Search I Assessor Subset Q!lro I Assessor Sales Search
Clerk & Recorder Reception S_earch
Basic Building Characteristics I Tax Information
l:<Jx.cel Dg.rnil I Yalm~ .. llemil .S.<Jle.s ... D.elail I lksidenliallC9I1l.nJgn:.iaUmpmY.emenU2e1<Jil
Land Detail I Phot.QgJ:aphs
I TaxArea II Account Number II Parcel Number II Mill Levy I
I o9o II R041464 II 239512118147 II 67.224 I
Owner Name and Mailing Address
jKORNREICH, KURT & HELEN I
j73 BLUE RIVER DRIVE I
!PALM DESERT, CA 92211 I
Legal Description
jSECT,TWN,RNG: 12-7-89 SUB:IRONBRIDGE I
jPUD LOT:147 DESC: PHASE 1 I
jPRE:R006875 BK:1596 PG:871 BK:1565 I
jPG:600 BK:1560 PG:438 BK:l560 I
IPG:431 BK:1057 PG:0745 BK:!028 I
jPG:768 BK:1028 PG:597 BK:l006 I
IPG:743 BK:1783 PG:7 RECPT:694686 I
jBK:1747PG:1 RECPT:686745 BK:1715 I
IPG:317 RECPT:679875 BK: 1645 PG:828 I
jRECPT:664699 BK:1645 PG:805 I
IRECPT:664694 BK:12!8 PG:738 I
IRECPT:572583 BK:12!8 PG:715 I
IRECPT:572582 BK:1217 PG:266 I
IRECPT:572131 BK:1206 PG:852 I
jRECPT:569200 BK:1206 PG:780 I
jRECPT:569199 BK:1206 PG:768 I
http://www.garcoact.com/assessor/parcel.asp?Parce!Number=23951211814 7 12/19/2007
P:rrcel Detail Page 2 of4
jRECPT:569197 BK:1206 PG:734 I
jRECPT:569195 BK:l206 PG:662 I
jRECPT:569194 BK:l206 PG:637 I
jRECPT:569192 BK:1206 PG:629 I
jRECPT:569191 BK:l206 PG:574 I
jRECPT:569190 BK:l063 PG:0578 I
jBK:1063 PG:0571 I
Location
I Physical Address: \\26 RIVER BEND WAY GLENWOOD SPRINGS\
I Subdivision: jjiRONBRIDGE PUD I
I Land Acres: I 0.409
I Land Sq Ft: I 17,835
I Section II Township II Range I
I 12 II 7 II 89 I
Property Tax Valuation Information
II Actual Value II Assessed Value I
I Land: II 155,00011 12,340j
I Improvements: II 331,47011 26,390\1
I Total: II 486,470\l 38,730\1
Sale Date: 1/815/2005
Sale Price: 114 71 ,200
Basic Building Characteristics
Number of Residential 1 Buildings:
Number ofCommllnd 0 Buildings:
I Residential Building Occurrence 1 Characteristics I
I TOTAL HEATED AREA: \\2,119 I
I
ABSTRACT CODE·IISINGLE FAM.RES-
. IMPROVEMTS I
I ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: III-STORY I
http://www. garcoact.com/ assessor /parce !.asp ?P arcelN umber=23 9 51211814 7 12/19/2007
Parcel Detail
I EXTERIOR WALL: /IWD SIDING I
I ROOF COVER: /ICOMP SHNGL I
I ROOF STRUCTURE: 1/GABLE I
I INTERIOR WALL: //DRYWALL I
I FLOOR: //HARD TILE I
I FLOOR: 1/CARPET I
I FLOOR: 1/HARDWOOD I
I HEATING FUEL: 1/GAS I
I HEATING TYPE: 1/FORCED AIR I
I STORIES: 1/STORIES 1.0 I
BATHS: I 2.5
ROOMS: /7
UNITS: /1
BEDROOMS: /3
I YEAR BUILT: j/2005 I
Tax Information
.
I Tax Year II Transaction Type II Amount I
I 2006 II Tax Payment: Second Half II ($1,147.84)/
I 2006 II Tax Payment: First Half II ($1,147.84)1
I 2006 II Tax Amount II $2,295.681
I 2005 II Tax Payment: Second Half I ($411.19)/
I 2005 II Tax Payment: First Half ($411.19)/
I 2005 II Tax Amount $822.38/
I 2004 II Tax Payment: Whole ($1,026.24)/
I 2004 II Tax Amount II $1,026.24/
Top_ofPagt<
As.sessoLD<tt<tbC~cseSem:dlDPtions I Ire<tsm:eL!LC~ct<tbase.Se!lrch_Qptions
Clerk & Recorder Database Search Options
Page 3 of4
The Garfield County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain
accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Garfield County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices
are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained.
http://www.garcoact.com/assessor/parcel.asp?Parce1Numbet=23951211814 7 12/19/2007
-+-~=
'
~11 APPROVED
SUB.ffiCT TO NOTED
EXCEPTIONS & lNSPECflONS
GARF!EUJ COUNTY
~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT
~ Dm!-3>·01> By~
lJIELDCO Y
&~I NO I'NSI'ECfiON WITHOUT
'~:~!Fa PLANS ON SITE
I -of
-)l/<1
-+-
"'' pf2o.,,d.,_ \. .... ~
UFT/STAB POINT LIFT POINT STABILIZE POINT 0~ (l.e..v '<..~ -1-lljl~ll•vJ
0~ "'"\" Won.k (.,~11.1..
(3~ 4eo~a..L "-
~~~~
0 0 0
LOT 147
LIFT /STAB POINT LIFT POINT STABILIZE POINT
0 ----1-0---+-----------0
LOT 14 7
APPROVED
SUBJECT TO NOTED
EXCEfTkONS & tNSPECflONS
GARFIEIJJ COUNTY
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Dllil.l..i\tt ~~
MO INSPICTION WITHOUT
'l'JIB8I PLANS OPe SITE
pap of
pf2o" '~ \ .... ~4.n.l
0~ (te..v '~~ ""-~~#lou~
1--=-4--+--o ~ ~ \\. Wort.lt.. (c.>.,..~\~
(3 ~ ~ e.o ~ac-L cl
t;~~~