HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication- Permitt
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING, SANITATION
and PLANNING DEPARTMENT
109 8t6. Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601(970) 945-8212
No. 8289
Job Address () I IS s'/‘ a3
Nature of Work Building Pernit etL
Use of Buiidm `SY aw.C.t1yFf.1 �v c W
O U Com.{ jac�
J
Contractor -1 WeLtel
Amount of Permits .355. damDate (o
cr. -
Clerk
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
GARFIELD COUNTY Y ((IIF.NWOOD SPRINGS), COLORADO
TELEPHONE: (970) 943-8212
PERMIT NO.
7U U 1
a
INSPECTION LINE: (970)384-5003
PARCEL/SCHEDULE NO.
IOU ADDRESS: 0 / 1 6 61 I
QA[. I.-OU�D c'1k soot dC Q (q, � 1(0a 3 /.
1
41,
LOT NO. L1 1 BLOCK NO. ! SUBDIVISION/ ON -1 �eLE 1
��J 1► ]
2
Si.. 0.16 l�Ct�48 (
b6 PZ1»U)N
ADDRiL X 1- 7 D co Ft5v3.�
mqb Sf 3-67'
4IN y7A-�-'1 ��/�j�
�/,/
3
COH'TRACIa•
S Id
AD[111tYb
IH
3 _1 X3,7
[k. NO
4
AP e en( nor./ t tears
� L r c� cA(Aarsplen Cit 4 4
"'7(01334 ,
CNOE
5
IQ FT v auna:G(11,5"P,
sQ FT. Oi Im //2...- 7A�
Y
'4]°Ifl .7
L//7v]
NO Or 11.L .& / L
7
6
.
UM OF WILDING
S /N(nL6 FigwT L Lti's izte >},4.�' LJ fY
7
DEa(1AEMOLK.e
8
CLAY OF WOO Uf CADOMON DA1 MUM*: DIM14 .REMOVE
9
OARAu =NULL (I * CAVORT DONOR R MOLINA
10
= DIU%TW*T PER) T DOH MT !IMAM 0121:1[r1Al. omen ATE'' ,1A.
'
VA[L'AT[LJ(i MOR[. 1 / �Z. CW ADJ[47ED YAWA77I1.V.i
30 61 9 W(X, a . `` -' v
YEOAI. mammon*
r,Syy
LIJA..
rig*.NOTICE
A SEPARATE ELECTRIC -Al. PERMIT 15 REQUIRED AND MUST BE ISSUED BY THE. STATE OF
COLORADO
THIS PERMIT BECOMENULLS AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION
ALTHORI OJ) LS NOT COMMENCED WITTHIN Ii0 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR
WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 1t0 DAYS AT ANY TIME
AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE READ AND EXAMINED T11IS APPLICATION AND
KNOW THE SAME TO BF. TRUE AND CORRECT, ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS
GOVERNING HIS TYPE OF WOWIU. BE COMPLIED WITH WI:TiIFR SPECIFIED
HEREINOR • THE ($ OF A PERMIT DOES PRESUME TOGIVE
AUTHORITY 7'L VIOLATE OR •'CFI1'PROVISIONS UF ANY OTi4RSTATE OR
LOCAL ali REGULATDNG 1 ' UCTION OR THE PEARDRNIANCE OF
CONSTR
i-1✓d
1oig a . 4 b f .c‘1,.. q . 5D A
PLAN CHECK FEE:
r 6 Lit. ca,
PEILti1IT FEE: IV
.L� f. c 12 , z i
TOTAL FEE:h./ DATE PERMIT ISSUED.
S T , 2 r
OCC: CROUP: CONST: TYPE:
I J
! I
ZONING.
SETBACKS:
..'. •• T�
.'*! ofO•roa. Contractor or 4ixr7.7=„71
i.,„,v
LI .-{ Z ` A, //Fff, `�� !/,�t, .0 1.
�B!
_MAN.1. HOME:
1SDS NO. & FFE:
I7Af.!
!P
1d 1 • • • • t .. . ...
A(IitFFMENT
PERMISSION 1S HEREBY ULAN -TED TO THE APPLICANT AS OWNER, OONTRACIOR AND/OR THE AGENT OF THE. CONTRACTOR OR OWNER TO CONSTRUCT ' CONSTRUCT -rnE STRUCTURE AS
DETAILFD ON PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO AND REVIEWED BY THE BUILDLNG DEPARTMENT.
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT, THE SISTER HEREBY AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND LAND USE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY
GARFIELD COUNTY PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GIVEN LN 30.2i20i CRS AS AMENDED. THE SIGNER FURTHER AGREES THAT IF THE ABOVE SAID ORDINANCES ARE NOT FULLY
COMPLIED WTITi IN THF. LOCATION, ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STRUCTURE. THE PERMIT MAY THEN BE REVOKED BY NOTICE. FROM
THE COUNTY ANI) THAT THEN AND THERE R SHALT. BECOME NULL AND VOID.
THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BASED UPON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA SHALL NOT PREVENT THE BUIDENG OFFICIAL FROM THEREAFTER REQUIRING THE
CORRECTION OF ERRORS LN SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA OR FRO PREVENTING BUILDING OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON THEREUNDER WHEN IN
VIOLATION OF TI US CODE OK ANY OTHER ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THIS TURISDICTION.
THE REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED THEREAFTER DOES NOT CONSTTFU E AN ACCEPTANCE OF ANY
RESPONSIBILITIES OR LIABILITIES BY GARFIELD COUNTY FOR ERRORS. OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE ITEMS AND IMPLEMENTATTON
DURING CONSTRUCTION RESTS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ARCHITECT, DESIGNER. BUILDER AND OWNER COMMENTS ARE INTENDED TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND IN SUPPORT
OF THE OWNERS INTEREST.
GrfanLoo3 • � I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE AGREEMENT ABOVE. (=Au_
The following items are required by Garfield County for a final inspection:
1. A final Electrical Inspection from the Colorado State Electrical Inspector;
2. Permanent address assigned by Garfield County Building Department posted where readily
visible from access road;
3. A finished roof, a lockable house, complete exterior siding, exterior doors and windows
installed, a complete kitchen with cabinets, a sink with hot & cold running water, non-absorbent
kitchen floor coverings, counter tops and finished walls, ready for stove and refrigerator, all
necessary plumbing;
4. A complete bathroom, with washbowl, tub or shower, toilet stool, hot and cold running water,
non-absorbent floors and walls finished and a privacy door;
5. All steps outside or inside over three (3) steps must have handrails, guard rails on balconies or
decks over 30" high constructed to all 1994 UBC requirements;
G • R ?1
6. Outside grading done to where water will detour away from the building; •
7. Exceptions to the outside steps, decks and grading may be made upon the demonstration of
extenuating circumstances, i.e. weather, but a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until
all the required items are completed and a final inspection made.
A CERTIFICATE OF' OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL THE ABOVE
ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.
****CANNOT OCCUPY OR USE DWELLING UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
(C.O.) IS ISSUED. OCCUPANCY OR USE OF DWELLING WITHOUT A C.O. WILL BE
CONSIDERED AN ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR VACATING
PREMISES UNTIL ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE MET.
I understand and agree to abide by the above conditions for occupancy use d the issuance of a
Certifica e of Occup. y for the dwelling under building permit ti
Signature
bpcont
Date
Project valuation --
t Main level dwelling -
Lower level dwelling -
Basement unfinished -
Garace
Covered porch
Decks
Project valuation
Building Permit Fee -
Plan Check Fee
ro,f 1st -
-7-6-Eck I -Pee s
2616sq.ft.
768
1090
662
166
9C8
$ 1912.25
$ 1242.96 fi eY”.66 bug' R - Z (,IEcvp PCA
NAD NE'✓ SATS gTAmOE0
No cq kgGE to Sc). FT.
x $69.00 =$
x 69.00 =
x 41.00 =
x 18.00 =
x 24.00 =
x 12.00 =
r
180504.00
52992.00
44690.00
11916.00
3984.00
10896.00
$ 304982.00
a
i
TS
CADCODE
1229 Pitkin Ave
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Ph. 970-384-1515
BILL TO
•
Garfield County
109 8th Street
• Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
P.O. NO.
• QUANTITY 1 DESCRIPTION
Invoice
DATE INVOICE # 1
03/02/2002
477
TERMS PROJECT
2.5 Plan Review - review of corrections rection for Holmgren residence, Lot L17, Aspen Glen,
1 resort and staple plans - 1/28/02
2 Plan Review - meeting with Arno & phone conference w/ Shane Holmgren, review
soils reports and foundation plans - 2/28/02
1.5 PIan Review - review revised framing plans, revised foundation plan, pickup revised
citation plans plans -3/1/02
3.5 PIan Review - re sort and restaple plans, review revised citation plans, redo redlines
on new plans, revise and reprint permit conditions 3/2/02
Thank you for your business.
L
Due on receipt
RATE
42.00
42.00
42.00
42.00
Total
AMOUNT 7
105.00
84.00
63.00 i
147.00
S399.00
G&tech
January 29, 2002
Holmberg Homes
Atm: Shane Holmberg
P.Q. Box 1704
Dillon, Colorado 80435
Subject: Observation of Excavation, Proposed Residence, Lot 17, The Lakes at
Aspen Glen, Garfield County, Colorado.
CO 6( kn .+1-( Ce pies
H11pworth.Paw1ak Genual, inc.
S020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
h pgeo Cit bpgeotech.COm
Job No. 101 616
Dear Mr. Holmberg:
As requested, a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. observed the
excavation at the subject site on January 28 and 29, 2002 to evaluate the soils exposed
for foundation support. The Findings of our work 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 19, 2001, Job No. 101 616.
The proposed residence will be a three story wood frame structure over a fulSuperior l basement
level. The attached garage and basement floors will be slab -on -grade.
l
foundation system will be used for support of the residence. An allowable soil bearing
pressure of 3,000 psf was recommended in our previous report for bearing on the
gravels.
At the time of our initial visit to the site, the excavation was about 34 complete and had
been rough cut in three levels from 2 to 9 feet below the adjacent ground surface.
When observed on January 28, the foundation excavation was nearly complete and had
been cut in two levels from 2 to 12 feet below the adjacent ground surface. The soils
exposed in the bottom of the excavation consisted of slightly silty sandy gravel with
cobbles and boulders up to about 2 feet in size. We understand that a footing trench
will be excavated for frost protection of the garage footing in the northern shallow cut
area. 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 structure designed for the
recomntewled allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Loose and disturbed soils
should be removed in the footing areas to expose the undisturbed natural gravels.
voids created by the removal of large rocks should be backfilled with compacted sand
and gravel or with concrete. The excavation should be protected from frost and the
foundation should not be placed on frozen ground. Other recommendations presented
in our previous report which are applicable should also be observed.
u -�
Holmberg homes
January 29, 2002
Page 2
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 recoroanendatians contained hi this
letter.
If there are any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let u.s know.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Jordy Z. Adamson,
Rev. by: SLP
JZAfksw
H -P GEOTECH
FEB -27—e2 02:05 PM
MI CON/UI- H1UM. 7.0 0...00 007W
GRAND JUNCTION
I.INC'OL._N L) VORE, lrte.
GI t;WI '1I\f(":10 I !NI .0.1 r W% I if.OIIX;PON
If*Itt•�•��\1
. �rfi� : t��r. �i f 11
Fury 26, 2002
Superior Foundation of the Radios
1114 16 Rd.
Fruita. CO 11)521
Int: Open Excavation Observation
Rcsidencc Let 17, Tile Emla at Aspen O. Garfield County. CO
As ruguested, Grand !unction Lincoln De Vore personnel have completed a foundation cxc vstioo evaluation at the: above
referenced site on 2-22-02. The purpose of this observation and envaluation was to determines the type and condition of
acids un the site and to Mate t car engineering characteristics to foundation mimic/is of the proposed AM Thin
letter eosntaias general reecanme ndations far conaauctioo of a residential fau>odslien. but is not a foundation design end
they not be used as sack Our conclusion and rheum endatioeu far this site arc presented below.
r. r tv7,124:.*0$
INN. 1.#14_42.1411
Sal Classification: Tho soils at foundation level on this site visually elasettlr i as coarse gained
sandy gravels. cobbles and scone small boulders of link Ancient Rowing Fork Rivet Terrace, of shad =tiptoe/tie
properties. The soils on this site were found to bo vary similar to those dcscribe4 in the Subsoil Study for Foundation
Design, for this site, prepared by HP Geotech of Gleewood Sprig., CO, Job N 101 616, 9.14-01. This upper soli is
b $loved to be in excess of lel fax thick below the foundation u cavation, based cm the lir Gunnell bogies legs and the
E*gle Valley Evaporate Formation, of bw to moderate compressive and possibly severe wade het due to solution of
gypsum in the formation. Seto the l iP C3cotoch report for a discussion regarding a diecuslenictn of the subside= pct tit/
an this lot. The allowable bear:eg capecitiees of the upper soils an this site, alt placement of the inspected gravel fill
for die Superior Foundation Wall System, area 3000 to 4300 per/maim= and no minimum is required
fa=place soil density testing wail attempted in the building excavation an 2-22-02. Uuc to the faro size of the gravels,
4bks and small boulders. the site could not be plagued for direct traramiasson type testing The probing iadketed
die ratite mils arc reasonably compact and the matrix sands and silts appear to be re»sonably compacted. Our probing
on this sit.. combined with Information from the HP Chetah report indicates that these sails do not pnseras teresesive
compressible or possible coftapsibk propcxtien immediately beusosth the proposed footings. No soft areas %fere indicetead
byl a r probing nor ewe soil areas observed by personnel ((Grand Junction Lincoln DeVore an tint date.
U4101 5sorifiraally noted, dais site observation, any associated toting and the nsworkingkompactius of the soils at
foandation >nil, addresses oily the sols within 1 to 2 fat below the bottom of the building foundation a icavatim. 11
is possible: that soil conditions which may affect the performance delis foundation arum are pr sem Wow the depth
of sod c ornpnction by the COMMON and the toting performed by Grand Junction Lincoln DcVoru. The Brooding and
dr$uiaa ruuexnmcxadatiuesc apo eunsielerwd ray important tier the long term stability otitis foundation system and the
9br�tctute.
The Eagles Valid Formation is described as a "Alta to medium gray gypsum, with mica of halite and potash salts. Aho
asutcsciuead with the fannatinnel layers are slltstotic. sandstone and clarion. Vire the formatice keersots the wank
suiface, h is easily wcaeteaed and aged and is subject to undercutting and slumping. Tltc sulfates cordained in the
ke enation are oortoan to concrete and require deo use of sulfite robust cements. The fontotaenal bedrock out vial
wni tut encountered in the exp/oration baring' placed on this site nor was the r.rnaationsl bedrock mnteeiai observed
eolith site during Our site observations.
EB-2T—a2 05 : 17 PM h a aeon. weer z.......... •_.._ - - -
rc r u.f U31 ;Alp G J Lirooln-neVome Imo.
:LST COPT'
19701 Z4? -1561
wt■.1.4 1<tfutdalidtts utthi; Kucktt;tt
()corn r aavation UbelltvatiWl. Residence, Lit 17, The kakis at Aspen Ulan, G:urttdid C+auuty. W
Fr-:+rtl:uy 26.:002 Page; 2
• 1 cat -rt:* RI: Suite .wititut the original excavation appear to be tt:ttive v.► tit.? ;itc.
: Arlie t».in tely 2 nucltet to 10 inches of a 'gloated gravel' has bean imported to the tits and placid for use .is a bearing•
:',.:hosed ctaittlge lruxlrn for ow beneath the 'Supixiue procao Cistrnslotivnw:tllh. Thu. --A:mt.matttx:1.' \Liotti h,.• N.ltv+l , i.
and prwitoliOd immediately prior to the &canon of the prenatal panels.
5y;1 Moistgo CondiJirA3i The soils at foundation level in the cavotidtr iVere. ttx,rttl to tti Jry to
• damp. ka free water was rioted in dna astea+tsttoa.
.! I
r l.F.%tlati_aS; A 4c i$ed foundation system of ilia 'wall on, fora►!.' type,
uttlaZ'm It c Superior prxatl Concrete Parch. appinntly as opal the roaammcndstinns prtwidrd in tb•+ 11P Cook els
r.,h•:t for tuts sit. hits alien prn'pttrtui by Sulu' Huth Gilmore. C ukuado Ruvt-stur I+roli 4i.xtal l:ngig.'s`► ri i 1(,b'..i:11+'tl
• 44-4•Q 1 1)tis foundation dtri411 i4AS NOT been exten,ttvety rsv'rvwta4 by this offices but., %oleo rstltullttwm• ha wt: ?mat
. r;r r•: •?rto1;1tter llttk if rlprlh. cat the ixth!riOr wall loads do not cxcattd the maximum situ.. a1tls boa I[Ig r+lp,l",: :.-r 0 u.
supportin 4 soils. The foundation system must be constructed in stria compliance with tbcse: plant and vice tl lcut,.kti , mai
no a ter:dims car dcviatiotnl allowed iinket price approval Is fust obtained front the 1)eeiten Epginocr.
As tntraioitt:tl in the Svil Cb>s1ltwtiun snot Man -Mode Pill .nations, a thin (2" to 1 I)" thick ILI)4,:t c,i''..r.,r'►k.! i1:1Vel'
%.1'". beef' gtacM TO OW. excavati(wn, to be uk'd as a bevies metorhll For hsp'vcast panels. This growl ,. utiiuicl a.. 4
I:,..+ttn►; tkp►atlt the prveci.1 Noah. This gravel is acceptable esu feinting, a,u.nn in,{ the gravel Is %.titetini:l' Kti d,. Ia„trl
tni.4.! els irid wrtstruction. This grsve4 rrruyt not be ell wed to `roll' from under die precstat rine-t,. 't be soil bac till m<1 I.1
. tilt' coot r4? basonenl ilab will provide adequate oonlinentait huwmdl the tn+xu ir+u'ily it,adx1 ►+ulis ,ts.t.ut:,li; Gk • 1
Orinage and (lading and Blecitfdi r.cornmendati ser ars carefully followed. i t
1.1
1.i
•i�
it
•
,.t', • ; The foundation%hailSowatfcrcxxltwshuwttonthefowld:uiu,t.i.ap. NoJ:1t.tu61'ty>l�ll
be ,.►:,de tti this pi:wanant urf reinforcing without written approvel of tits dati$n engineer or ah:httt et.
F:a�t Nun-Struitlual fluor slabs on gamic, it any. rdttultl b4 lxtdil iv.1y scI> ,,.rtt,I t•r,,+:tl ;111
l;tvuctur'nl tats of this building and &Derived to float Seely. Frequent acorig% (contr)l,winib) of the slah4 N1,04114 be
ps .n idc t ,show' for possible strittksc cracking of tltc s#rb, '1'hcac control luiuts should b►: ptiu:4 to pion i+k t it.l\u nut::
.I ,b
:trees pi' approximately 200 to 360 square feel. Any mammade 1111 plaemi below floor siabs im kraits sh.xti.l be
• :.)11'.P.M34.4 :t►, a,ui,tiimuih ut90% tyl'Its maximum Modified Proctor dry &MASI), ASTM .). I5Si, ! fins •►c•t„
• pL• jai at a'mi.ttens civilise condueive to the requirod compaction (usually Proctor otttnnunt moisten** contcla
;ir.,a a,',• ryt~1 firrd•icll;' Atlsxluut+: vitt dratinttgt *kW be prov idol in the li w.tIi►tast .tt:.t 1+uti, .iu(tn1
.tl:cr w:nsirtuCtwn ki pNYLItt the ptiviJuig 0114et& and tlw vsiting 01 sattirlti(M1 of the auh;url;.,:t: stilt.- We
:.. ott,ttt.•i►d tAut tl,: grutowl;urfutti aruHtttl the tlttucturiz gram t icl that aUrtyr: '. t..' Nall b :urri .1.•ui:l:l) �.+.►v
ii.im the tinkling. fhe minimum gradient withio 10 foot of the' VW:4r% will dapyrltt au marftacc Lind;c:►pini. We
rtep.tvt,•.1 :trti:ts rnYinlaift u minimum gr.:idio n of 2%, and first ta1Kl.*;41+43d a►t.si 111aldt:l,n
Arcwit.•r;t (10 1% It is Maher recrrtnmended that roof drain downspouts bccalrried at least S ext beyond b;wLi(kd areas
t,rs l.ch.,1;gc.%1 rniniunum /0 luxe away from tura structure. Proper ditto ui c or rrwfdwin tlowaslwutN may..vgtliVQ
• the wit' of duluurfaeut piping le slant anus. Under no circumstances should a'dry well disctiarya' be waist on thi},bac.
ref c>a spaxiflc.slly shad by a Ooeumheical Engineer. PL S%ftl%. if any, should be, >i s aowitrutxet that In but: is, tat
elknvoi 10 lam into foundation !aims or betuoadt alibi OR pavements..
' 1h: v:: iati:4 Ora inat,N an the site moat oth`r bo irudesainod tarviully w improved. We rcei t,nuaid that ►.;tt: r Ftp V:.1 ia.J
iawa, trcfft;se seturai Iter rrpidly as possible and not be allowed to stand Or pond within 15 feel ot the hui4.hnr up
rtI,r;.4.1.111:1,ti.7t4•u: rccrxrT+ir.ii d that wester removal from one building, not bc dt ixttd onto the haet.tili ;ir.}..,I :t;Ji. 0..eti
I-lf —L /-174 b 107 yr,
NI 1.1.1641P,•••"yyrp..0 au 4.4 -
BEST COPY
aro 4.0.413,oe so r-rrr
c'4'
rI
'kb.' tro.4 f
•
rt
Should as automatic lawn irrigation 'pion biz used c sao
this site, we orae�cnd that the sprinkler bosds, imgatioa prol
and vatreabc innalled no kw than S flirt from the building. In adddian, turas heads should be adjusted so that quay them .17,I
lite system does not fail onto the walb tithe buikting and that such water does not saeoasfvely west the backlit{ suds.
It is recommended that lawn and landscaping irrigation be reasonably limited, so as to nmett underiYsbha sattastion df
'subsurface soils or bac.kfillad arrant. Several trtcthods of irrigation water control are passible, to inc hide, but nw Umitdf
Superior Foundations of the ltockne$
Open Excavation Obaartstioa Residence. Lot 17. The Lakes at Aapar Olen, Carficld CmaltN CO
f'abneary 26, 2002 Page 3
to:
•
y
Metering the irrigtttioct water.
Siting the irrigation distribution service piping to link era -iiia watts usage.
Encourage Aldred landscaping pendia*.
Eofareing rseaatable limits on the vim of high water usage landscaping within 3 feet of the bsi IL j
inndation.
Inoorpantiag `tceaiacaping' landscaping ad 'Motion welstd4ues.
/1 plagdc misnbrarse placed on any Crawbpacc pound surfaces may retainttrap atocssive amounts of water beneath
Membrane. If fitness moisture problems develop or ars anticipated, the Foundation Deslp Engbnerr or the Geote moil
Ensiosar may require that the membrane be partially cc cae'tpletdy snood from the crawlspaoe arse.
.Provided all n:eonvnandations t"oucd herein pertaining to site surface drainage, ming and soil compaction are closely
.y
ifollowed, as perils*, foundation drain would probably not be required. For fully finished besaneats, however, the owe :•
hof a perinret r foundation drain would slgr►ificantiy rectum potential moisture rotated problems width can arise teen
Isubeanuett ora development.
� I To reduce settlement and aid in keeping water from teaching beneath this bonding, all*
Ibackfdl around this building &ballet be mechanically compacted to a to inimutn of 90% uric* mailman Modified Praoadr'
'dry deity ASTM D-1557. The tidy auacption to this would be the components of the perimeter foundation debit, U ,
All baeldiil1 should be composed of the natio sails sad .hound not be placed by Seekiea. jetina or paddling.Ali;i
;placed in unity tamehei around this structure Cr below foundation walls should be mechanically compacted to :a.
iminimum of 90% of its maximum Modified Proctor dry density ASTM 1:1-1557. These seas should bo plead stn.
;moiisture content eoodswivc to the rsQuirsd companion (usually Proctor optimum convent ±2%).
canon Tvne: Typo H. Typc 1-1I or Typo Il -V ocrncuit is ruoumtnanded for all concrete elks is is
!comsat with tho sour an this ekes Calcium chkwide shout(' not Wadded to s Typc 11, Type 1.11 or Type WV oanmtt iaetefld�"
lacy circumstances.
We tteoramend that this bemom dal{ foundation components rash s minimum of 3 fuel`
blow finished gsck or as required by du local building codon. FeuedRtioe cornpocmts must not be phased oe frozen
lolls.
ISingic Bill 13 [CRS 6-6.54 01) Plscussiat; This particular rosldenve is being constructed OSE
!foundation soils which do sot possess a 'significant potential ftw crparuion". We reaamnard that the away receives
copy of :bis awumiry report oaf air eon analysis and site reootorltootiatians.
•
4
• r.
{+
y,v UZU urge r_aU
BEST COPY
Supsaier Foundativas of the Rockies
O¢sn Excavation Observation, Residence, Lae 17, The Lines et Aspen then, Garfield County, CO
Palms* 26, 2002 Page 4
'iris rcpcxl is istwcd with the understanding that it is this responsibility of the awrtor,
nr#tis ttpresen alive to ensure that the information end recommendation contained herein sr* brought tu the attention
of ht: architect and ul jineix fur t}w project, and arc itwocpotatuI into the plans. In addition, it is his rtsponsibility that
th4 necessary steps aro taken to see that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out theme FCCOgnmandiOarti during .
coMvuetion. Thu fundings of this report are valid as dee protein dew. However, changes in the conditions ofa proporpr
can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the wurka of man on this or adjacent
p�. In addition, changes in acceptable or appropriato standards may occur or may result from legislation or the
mg of engineering knowledge. Accordingly. thefundingµ of this report may be invalid, wholly or partially, by
changes outside out contra Therefore, this report is subject to review end shuuld not be relied upas allot a payed of
3 •airs.
T'I�c recommendadorts of this report pertain only to the site Investigated and arc basad on thw assumption that the soil
ooaditions do not davits liam those dessartbed in this report. I!any variations es undesirable coaditions aroencoummad
d 'u>ii construction or the proposed construction will differ from that ptara+od on the day of diet repent. Grand Jtmotion
Lincoln D,eVoa should be notified so that supplemental recoinnundatione can be provided, if appropriate.
Grzad Junction Lincoln DeVwns makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, as to the findings, r+exatune ndedoos,
specifications or professional advice, accept that they were prepared in accords's= with generally accepted ptothesimtnl .
meeting practice bt the field of =pouecltrtical et;gineeritg,
Iteepeetfully submitted,
Gi(AND JUNCTION
L1$ COLN•DiVORE. INC.
By: Edward M. Morrill, PE
Principal Engineer
GAD Job 40 0190 -GI
THE FOLLOWING
IMAGES ARE THE
BEST COPY
AVAILABLE AT
TIME OF SCANNING
rcn-L r-e0L nX :ea MM
MALU7i/i6UP .MAUK_MML LS- _ - -
7/q L310rrl tlb76
r
DAN? AGf ?MC
r dc'e ►w[ I.OI TW 0► rK 3[241,t CaC1 w1 Edo e w+ r
• 041{1 - 4r PMN Or TC? +* /u tir+r:
NaarOP1arfJ'cV r •'
1.0a rK►AAme0 A' ro e• Ott, rO Luit Art `! II ios LS[ *Arra. Tp% riar*T) ,.e/r- dC
+CMAAwo"
K! 1 POCA E irr tKn rr#C •CIA rJC411 ow+urlrACr. 20141. I'
Clh.14:V UM"
ACRVS: 1A0423CAPtliG r.-,• 4Y 1J41DSCAPPot
441)-4
?!rr NATIVE
iP 7. AI 0PA0140r Mot 10 U[
RI *awn A CORIPACrED rea
A ot:7r 02 arO[s
i_ OACR(s� 11.11111.111.1.11
SOrS Kw* Tri �, c�ounA[rEs •0 inrria7i �
arra OCt'PAC1r to I
1 rOWYOa low UN S •ry
• a.0 DRarwag 1,1r[
�'e r �+• �4L,
(rcAYAt 1rM• -•f~ .110%,1410L — ti
PCAlP*4Q Maw ...et .' N OYC 'r y'.
S1
AALLW N 1+« GiONC�JCA& O ((4
1.01'0eGAhat) - AS AfOlror+
G A!NAQ / LANDSCAPING CC3'JC7PT
'LOW WATLIR`At PERIME T;R DRAIN
C+n nC1J 0110401 ttrlr
lop/ 9.0 +001,4 Cr T)K ♦ IAi rl('AYANO% MO
( .A.S.+•y • 'M.MVV 9r : rrrr mail BMW
RQor aoireSPoir • •
!JS '+rf rM•7U I" NI* rC lA7kpiCAK
.At + OA AA 1[11 US(' 17•01 h w rf An4/r 0CA SCAP/e,p'
K'=+wOL C 3 rIr' r Crtr TrC& CfrAtigA lCl
GOOtzhi•fool
,CRCs: LANDfCAMG
re
^•r rr1Trrs fpL3 Kt 01 flC
[R nc4 L A;rOSC' five'
sf 10110[0 Jr CdrP46RD IrYi
• itiaeOluil Cr ry v.C►+r s
f h
� M
Ard1[Arr rapt[ or aac• r.. 1
CAA4i 4JtC1•r COKrr
1
SQL t<Ar}f.li
COO.AC+ro o ..*wn.-r - Jr .
`• RANI. M.,,AGt r0
, 1111 rp1,MAtrrN Mt%
f
t 16AYArrON U1117 +sa`
----- _ 1541,41Itele
a'Clr/►rar4 Oa* rr•1 A' M OK'
+arar•ur4 .. •.• CEOrICwipC ta+C1Arr1 +
PCGr+C/ has - A4 r+FA'M70
1,ANOSCAPICONCEPT
i_ .0 _11A TER ZQN P RiNIEjE-c DR4)
GRAND JUNCTION
LINCOLN--1)6/0HE, Inc.
•HNICAI. sPlaitII L'-OOO1+OUI5r5
drargiffmmr
EXTERIOR DRAIMAGE2 LANDSCAPING COPT
grip—
NONE
14
k'
3
rc
FEB --21-02 10:46 AM MICON'SUPERIOR.WALLS.... 970 858 0696
SUPERIOR FOUNDATIONS OF
THE ROCKIES
x�-i rasenF.c rxssw.�....ar-r...�.
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
O: A R NO I•,I I IJ RS
.1.k\ '4L'MBI:R:
r'OtiPAN1 :
3
IONC NLr\r11lI.R:
FROM: LAURIE
DATE; 2/21/02
TOT.4i. NO. OF PAGES IN[.1.UDjN'G L:C)s EK;
2
SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER:
YOUR REFERENC:1•. NUMBER;
0 1 N.1- El !•O1t RF' 1F.IC' 0PL.LASj COSMMI?N'1 0 PLEAS): 111.1.1 ti ❑ rr.e.A,N It1 Yc ! 1•
1 111-11,
Letter regarding Shane Holmberg's job in Aspen Glen.
;adv Powell will hand deliver the original copy Friday 2/22/02.
1114 16 ROAD • FRUITA, CO 81521
1'11ONE,: '70.858.9033 TOLL FREE IN CO rlu$-1 58-9255
FAX: 970-83E-0696
FEB -21-02 10:49 AM MICON.,SUPERIOR.WALLS.... 970 858 0696
- - • "• 111116•
GRAND JUNCTION
LINCOLN 13cVORI, Inc.
1.1 alI•t 1I\0 .11 1't.i...n:ij .s (;I:.t)• taf.lstti
J'.Ituhalatii-In1 Otte Roekiei
f • 4 :6 Rd.
r.:nae C'081isI
tyrLJi 242-1561
February 20, 2002
1
I lulnthrrg 1lcxnc:s, Propvsod Reside nee, Lot 17, The lakes at Aspen Okra, Garfield County, CO
P. 02
, . ,„
,
TS
,
:fit the rrt.itiv.t <tCK:v.a ttr Superior round:atiwa., Edward M. Monis. P.17. has re‘•ictvOrl the SubsurI.4c tiurcly for
'..,,il,i;l:itin loll n ;end the kt:u Of Obscrvstio n of Excavation for the above referenced prujcxt. 'Chess v04;011'0:31
cl ..r,.. µ.•rt: pr.p:rrixt by 1 IP Cwk:eh dt' Jklnwatod Sprinss, kph 0 101 616, 9. 19-0 1 and I-29.02. 1 he purlt.,•:e UI this
eta WW1:. to ar•terinoti lythe: Ibuatct;otittn r;OiIs on this Site, as rcportud by 111' (it•anto..11, is :ides uit: to support the ''saperior n -
Follnwinb rise our findings and conclusions.
.11K. .r t‘iti:tl subsoils Study by 1 -IP C;eoWc11, 9.19-01 and the letter of Ob•ATvatiun of Excavatitur. 1 29•U.;, incl,►ai tliC
u:1,1,'rlyin j silty musty gruvcl with cobb1v and boulders will be than, boring strata for the foundations in the living area
,,''t'ni:. structure. '1'hc allowable soil bearing prtaasure is reportuci to be 3000 psf. In oar opinion, unless soh :tra,a or
/on.. In these silty rarity graves and cobbler ort en:ounteml or anticipated. the 3000 psf is quite et rive. It is our
u,'h;n&n, based neon our prior experience in this summit arra and review of the 1i1' (iculech reprxts far this situ, the
sl.b.41ade sails expusaxl in the foundations beneath the living arts are probably .utlictent to support the proposed
':Irir:tc.r.•, founded un the Superior Pre -Cast Syvwm. Grand Junction 1.i,t,..s1rt Ue1,•orc hue not rwicwo.1 any .tiuvlure
p„n•:311(1 fa) not performed any calculations to determine probably building loading conditions.
Th. • Sula'rior Fnundation system, utilizing u pro -cast concrete panel either 9 or 10 inches wide, is to be pl.t c! r u, a titin
14 12 int.he;) of either x •Vert. ned gruvCl' ctr aggrgmtcbas,: coarse material for leveling and bedding pnrpo -, , 1ar thc
:,r;-;;a.t t:kilhi:a:ls. Our experience with the! Superior Walls systems and similar t.rultd:ition cVnligur:rtions ,rtclic:,les thin
ill: •, :,y,tern should he stable :and adequate for the soils conditions outlined in the 111' Gt'vtcx.:h ruport. In ua:r exp..' icna;t:, , . -
f!•..trlitirsn3l s0,1 bearing';apucily it required, slue to relatively building triads, cithor rosorking, wetting and etumpacu,trr q:
i'1 the suht;rade soils ur the installation of a granular structural till, usually provided .Ir!?;Ci rIt bearing citaa4. its As to • jj,
shutter such soil itnprover ent u rcxtuirod beneath this site, review of the prc,posmi building I x d.. irnprli.d uzxui thc :.E
foundation soils would be required ; s,.
n,
ft is `.'clieved r)I.tt all pertinent points have l i' n addressed. !limy furthtx question, ariic res.;arding this prttj.kr for if we
call 1tr Of :any further assistanoc, please do not htyitatc to contact this office at any time.
Respect fi
full) Submittal, p0 R}G:,
�• paei...44
ees. i •: .
1;RNID JUNCTION ,ce•..A"4t ` •
' ii'
JUNCTION
M.
LiN OLN 1)eV()ltr. enc 3 a ~ 1 .•
ti- -lei • e
30590 eiO.by: FAw'ard M. orris Pt.
Principul Engineer
,y
6.11,D U Io, No,. 89190 -GJ
MAR -05-02 03:00 PM MICON,SUPERIOR.WALLS.... 970 858 0696
SUPERIOR FOUNDATIONS OF
THE ROCKIES
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SH ET
id _ARNO EHLERS
, • _ .
I' ‘t
PI RINE NUMBER;
FROM; LAURIE
DATE: 3/5/01
TOTAL NO. OF PAe;
SENDER'S REFER/INC:I:. NUM-1;ER: •
. _
YOLTR REFERENCE. NUMBLR:
;1 I k 011.1 -ASE to!,IMENT J11 I.:\
s PVv.f-.,1/4
Letter regarding subfooter for Hohnherg residence.
1114 16 ROAD • FRUITA, CO 81521
PHONE; 970-858-9030 TOLL FREE IN GO 888.858-9255
FAX: 970.858-0696
MAR -05-02 03:01 PM MICON'SUPERIOR.WALLS.... 970 858 0696
• 1 • eie gi i
1114 Sixteen Road • Fruits. CO • 81521
Phone: (888) 85B-9255 or (970) 858-9030
Fax (970) 858-0696
A •)t) F
.7. iurIty Burkiing Department
SJ'te 303
6rint)s, CO 81001
P.02
S�.l.t1c,t Subfootor Requirements for the Holmberg Residence, located at Lot 17, The c;+kes.
'Aspen Glenn.
BEST COPY
U+� r P1• F I r5. March 5. 2002
t n1,, sgbiooters at the Holmberg Residence, Lot 17, The Lakes at Aspen Glenn r+aw, been
ch.;,-ik ,d for limper placement of the stone. The stone has been places; in accordance ;o int: plan
fSupernor Wails of the Rockies on 2/27/02. The stone meets all frost and Iniad conditions
ec `?y ti -4 structure.
dila ore, PE
Civit Ei:gineer
Sincerely,
I
tdminrstratiqe Offices: 25 Allegheny Square, Glaeapart, PA 15045`1849
Phone. (412) 884-7788 Fax: (412)884-7717
A 1-7 St61.y‘s_--
&,t,e,oL,0 912?),J
"itL ot_ Ccrio,t,L e)73/Lt
,),t4itA4
_T
AA+C, 0L-d-kret (a/
Cc/yie -T—Lt
teu_
t,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
Gtech
IIcp�,irrtll-I'a+%lal. (:cutechnical. lin.
511211 ('oL1r tRoad 1 '4
(;lcltaurid Sprim_ti. Colorado Sl60l
1'hu11E: 9711-945.7985
Fax: 970-945-8454
I11 .l (' hp cntrch.cum
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 17, THE LAKES AT ASPEN GLEN
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 101 616
SEPTEMBER 19, 2001
PREPARED FOR:
HOLMBERG HOMES
ATTN: SHANE HOLMBERG
P.O. BOX 1704
DILLON, COLORADO 80435
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
September 19, 2001
Holmberg Homes
Attn: Shane Holmberg
P.O. Box 1704
Dillon, Colorado 80435
Job No. 101 616
Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed
Residence, Lot 17, The Lakes at Aspen Glen, Garfield County,
Colorado.
Dear Mr. Holmberg:
As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the
subject site.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed
building area consist of about 1 foot of topsoil and 1 to 5 feet of stiff sandy clay
overlying relatively dense, slightly silty sandy gravel containing cobbles and boulders.
Groundwater was encountered in Boring 1 at a depth of about 13 feet. No free water
was encountered in Boring 2 to the refusal depth of 7 feet.
v The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural
n subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of l f. Footings bearing
entirely on the dense gravel soils can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of
3,000 psf.
The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and
presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during
design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation
of the geotechnical recommendations.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Jo dy Z/'A Iamson, Jr.,
Riv. by: SLP
JZA/ksw
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1
SITE CONDITIONS 2
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL 2
FIELD EXPLORATION 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 4
FOUNDATIONS 4
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS 5
FLOOR SLABS 6
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 7
SURFACE DRAINAGE 7
LIMITATIONS 8
REFERENCES 9
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
H -P GEOTECH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be
located on Lot 17, The Lakes at Aspen Glen in Garfield County, Colorado. The project
site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for
the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for
geotechnical engineering services to Shane Holmberg dated August 29, 2001. Chen -
Northern, Inc., previously conducted a preliminary geotechnical engineering study for
the development and another geotechnical engineering study for preliminary plat design
under their Job No. 4 112 92, dated December 20, 1991 and May 28, 1993,
respectively.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to
obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during
the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification,
compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field
exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for
foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation.
This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our
conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations
based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed residence will be a four story, split level structure with a full
basement level under a portion and garden level under the remainder. Ground floors
are proposed to be slab -in -grade. A Superior Wall foundation system is currently being
proposed fur support of the residence. Grading for the structure is assumed to be
relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 10 feet. We assume relatively light
foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction.
H -P GEOTECH
2
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those
described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in
this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site was vacant at the time of our field work. The ground surface is
relatively flat with a slight slope down to the north. There is about 2 feet of elevation
difference across the lot. Shallow cuts and fills could be located on the lot from overlot
grading as part of the subdivision development. A man-made stream is located along
the western property line. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds. Scattered cobbles
are exposed on the ground surface.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Aspen
Glen Development. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained
sandstone/siltstone and limestone with some massive beds of gypsum. There is a
possihility ssive gypsum deposits associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite
underlie portions of the lot. Dissolution of the gypsum under certain conditions can
cue sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of localized subsidence. During
previous work in the area, several broad subsidence areas and smaller size sinkhole
areas were observed scattered throughout the Aspen Glen Development (Chen -
Northern, Inc. 1993). These sinkholes appear similar to others associated with the
Eagle Valley Evaporite in areas of the Roaring Fork Valley.
Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. No
evidence of cavities was encountered in the subsurface materials, but the exploratory
borings were relatively shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our present
knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site. The risk of future ground subsidence
on Lot 17 throughout the service life of the proposed residence, in our opinion, is low.
H -P GEOTECH
-3
The owner should be made aware of the potential for future subsidence and sinkhole
development. If further investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site
is desired, we should be contacted.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on September 11, 2001.
Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous
flight augers powered by a truck -mounted Longyear BK-66HDX drill rig. The borings
were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/8 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, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review
by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 foot of topsoil and 1 to 5 feet of stiff sandy clay
overlying relatively dense, slightly silty sandy gravel containing cobbles and boulders.
Drilling in the dense gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and
boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included
natural moisture content, density and gradation analyses. Results of consolidation
testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the clay soils, presented
H -P GEOTECH
4
on Fig. 4, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and
wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples
(minus 11 inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Fig. 5. The
laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1.
Groundwater was encountered in Boring 1 at a depth of about 13 feet. No free
water was encountered in Boring 2 to the refusal depth of 7 feet. The subsoils were
slightly moist to moist.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and
the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with
)( spread footings bearing on the natural subsoils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
spread footing foundation system or the Superior Wall foundation systems.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural subsoils should be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Footings which bear
entirely on the underlying dense gravels can be designed to impose an
allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Based on experience, we
expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in
this section will be about 1 inch or less. Additional settlement could
occur for footings bearing on the clay soils particularly if they become
wetted. The settlement would be differential between footings bearing on
the clays and footings bearing on the gravels.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost
H -P GEOTECH
5
protection. Placement of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior
grade is typically used in this area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least
12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be
designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation
and Retaining Walls" section of this report.
5) The topsoil, any existing fill and loose or disturbed soils should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the natural soils.
If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered
before concrete placement.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can
be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a
lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pcf
for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are
separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the
full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure
computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on-site soils. Backfill should not contain vegetation, topsoil or oversized rock.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate
hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction
materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions
behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall
or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a
foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent
hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
H -P GEOTECH
6
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in
pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum
standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use
large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the
wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the
material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the
backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a
combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and
passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the
bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.35 for
the clay soils and 0.45 for the gravels. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against
the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350
pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume
ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to
limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of
passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads
should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a
moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly
loaded slab -on -grade construction. The clay soils in the area are generally known to be
compressible when wetted and could result in slab distress if they become wet. 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
H -P GEOTECH
7
4 inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to
facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least
50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95%
of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required
fill can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was encountered below expected excavation depths, it has
been our experience in the area and where clay soils are present that local perched
groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff.
Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend
below -grade construction, such as retaining walls and basement areas, be protected
from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The lower
level foundation should be kept at least 2 to 3 feet above the groundwater level.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain
should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent
finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet or to a 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 11/2 feet deep.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and
maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
H -P GEOTECH
I, . J
8
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 6 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 finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at
the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience
in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions
encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we
should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design
purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our
information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field
services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our
recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately
H -P GEOTECH
s
-9
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.
Sincerely,
WORTH - PAWLAK OTECHNICAL, INC.
Jo dy Z/ A,kiamson, Jr., P.
viewed by:
r• •
•
Steven L. Pawlak, P.1{. : 1 5 2 2 2 •
'27/2C/
JZA/kswi.
f; 1}\20
cc: Superior Walls
REFERENCES
Chen -Northern, Inc., 1991, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed
Aspen Glen Development, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared for Aspen Glen
Company, dated December 20, 1991, Job No. 4 112 92.
Chen -Northern, Inc., 1993, Geotechnical Engineering Study for Preliminary Plat
Design, Aspen Glen Development, Garfield County, Colorado, prepared for
Aspen Glen Company, dated May 28, 1993, Job No. 4 112 92.
H -P GEOTECH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,• J
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1.=301
95
Lot 16
94
BORING 1
•
PROPOSED
RESIDENCE
--
V
95
94 -- —
GORING 2/
/
LOT 17
THE LAKES AT
ASPEN GLEN
L- __----
LOT
BOUNDARIES
om• lam
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
(.111
BUILDING 1
ENVELOPE 1
94
94
1
l
Lot 18
94
MIDLAND LOOP
94
101 616
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 4`
Elevation — Feet
95
90
85
80
75
BORING 1
ELEV.e. 94.5'
0,1
1a/5,10/O
64/12
11x7.2
+4+66
—2D0�6
65/12
BORING 2
ELEV.= 95'
16/12
1Ma7.9
DD•1a7
Nota Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3.
95 tiMI
90�,
85
80
75
101 616
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4LEGENO:
-7
p
18/12
0,1
TOPSOIL; sandy clay, scattered gravel. organic, slightly moist, brown.
CLAY (CL); sandy, stiff, slightly moist, red.
GRAVEL (GP—GM); sandy, slightly silty, with cobbles and boulers, dense. slightly moist to wet below
water level, brown.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch 1.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample. ASTM D-1586.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 18 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
Free water level In boring and number of days following drilling measurement was token.
`--`► Depth at which boring had caved when checked on September 12. 2001.
T
Practical drilling refusal.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on September 11, 2001 with o 4—inch diameter continuous flight
power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site
plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree Implied
by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries
between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % )
DD = Dry Density ( pcf )
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve.
—200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve.
101 616
HEPWORTH—PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LEGEND AND NOTES
1
Fig. 3
-
E 2
3
4
101 616
Moisture Contents 7.9 percent
Dry Density = 107 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Clay
From: Boring 2 at 4 Feet
No movement
upon
wetting
•
0.1
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
HEPWORTH—PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
100
Fig. 4
.'i TR ` �'
Mg WACO=11701101E1E11 ANALYOS
24 Irl. 7 !M1
45 M1. 15 16R. BOWL TOME 4 101. 1 101.
10
20
30
40
50
10
70
00
110
alla
ala alai -
-
aaan
aa—
ala �•
a—aa—
�� aaa
alga awa
aaa arra
Oaraaal
as a.rr•
ataa�—
aaa�—
Maga w
arra.
aara�—
aaa aMa--
..w.ra.
150
. 01
SEW /MAO=
U.& STANDARD KRIM
1100 157 130 1K •
CLEAR SQUARE °P[ EMS
3/r 3/4- I r rr r ,00
Orr
aal anal —a—
=In MINN —a—
aaa la— Mia maga
aasOatSala
—a—
aas-0Ma--a-
a� aaaMa err
—Ora—
a� awa
g as
mania
alga
gar.1m0 1
aaa
-Maw—a raw—a—
aaa— arra tar —
a a
a Oar -Map a a
— as a a aaa• — a —
a a —a—
aMaal as—a—
Oar raa� —
a� arra
aaa
wtaa
a as al a ala all —
a
as _ —aaata — a —
--ra—a—
a a — -- aar a Baa.
—aa--aatw—a'
— r aa a
iawa—
aaa a—wa—
aar�—
��w
a�aaa—a—
aaaaa—
a— arra a—
ala aaa— w
arra
rallaa
-- all a—a
a as a as a— — a a
a a –a—raw—
Ma as as a as
a Masa all ra—asa—
—aaa a— a— a aar
--aaa—a—
—aaa--
aa— as
wya—
a—a�w
rraa i a—
aMa
Ionia
tat
as r a—ate—a—
Mawr • aaa a—awa
Mara P aa•saa-a—
a—$ aaa a— —a a
- a—a—
aaa aa—
away
aaaina
arra ani as
ala
Waal. an
ra—
aatra
—
aa a—aa
aaa ra— aaa a—a—
a— a a—
a —a_
all —i al a
a—• —aa—a
— • Mar r•raa — a —a
as aall ala a---
as a amt ala all a—
as arras a—a—a—
at Maaaa Waal a a
t a
as—a—
,— Ma a a
/ alla
aaaa_a—
1—alla araaw—a-
- — aaa aa— a —
a aaa—ate—arra
a t— aa— r —
a . as aa— ala — a —
a.aaa—awa—a—
tea—a—tam—a—
•t
Maas• aaa a a —
1 a as a— Mar — a —
as --as .a—a—
aa—
aaaaa—aaaaaaas
,.e-- amal as—.— a
aaaaaaa——aa-
-- aara—as—a—ra—
a as a—lama as—a—a—
a ri aa— aaa—
•aa a p ---
— w .arra tam— aaa—a—
a.tea•as —_ala arra ala --aa—
aaa ataaa w Ma a a— —aa — la =a—
ara Mar
aaalma aag ,algr a—
as— +a• Mar Mr .I aaaa! a— a IlIal a
gala Ma r— aaa a as r alai.Mar a a
a—arra—.aaa�aaartta ^aMa—
Ill
wMaa ...alai. ala Mar' Ma
aaa �— Ml.. Ala a—OI,a—a--ate
Mar— aMa.— --MaMaa MaMaaa— MaaMa allata a=
aaa �— a a— MaMaa aaa a rra a-- —a —
aaa alai.as ala — Man a— a a�� as a— _—
a—a�—
maa—Oil
a• tea— — a a—
a� aaMaa — —
aaa �— as a— a— a— a as rt— Mar— — a -
- r
—a
— ta—aaaa�aa—aaaaa—a—a ^a—
al a lama Maa Ma _
raraa a'a aa— ala Ina a Maas m aa—a
— •—
a—�a— a— a—a—Maraaaaaa — a—
ala--Maw—all a a a--ai 1. ra_Maa
al Ma al a
�--Maw—ria—arra+-a a maaa—
a.ww w
�r
aa—a�—la. mamal a./
Mala a = a—
aka as—P..aa
a— a --arra
,rta a raw as—aaa— ,s2 a
m n=Ma—r— a+aaa—a—a—a
—a m,— aaa a✓ arra—a—
�a as —a—
a—•aa w a+aaa--�--a—
aw_a— Maw—aa+Maa--aala
012.5 MO 37.5 71.2 12;22 703
.002 A00 ,006 .516 .7 .074 .160 .300 .600 1.16 231 475
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
b
60
i0
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CLAY 10 BLT
100445EF MOE CIVELCOM3E F
COWES
GRAVEL 66 R
LIQUID LIM1T
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Sandy Gravel
SAND 26 X
SILT AND CLAY 8 X
PLASTICITY INDEX
FROM: Boring 1 at 10 and 15 Feet Combined
101 616
HEPWORTH—PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 5
JOB NO. 101 616
1
U
l Z
J1—
Q D
O w
Z
2 1—
0 LU
cn
H }
O cc
W — O
I 0 Lu H
Y m <
Q
Q LL
O. p
CC - a
D
Iw ▪ N
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOIL OR
BEDROCK TYPE
slightly silty sandy gravel
sandy clay II
C z
a C
1 E.9 !
p
i g m r
X
0 I
?
r d
2
0
0
i
4 f
N
I .,
i =
F C
I KW
2
I
107 I
2 =
2 U
4
1
N
I,
�
07
0
0
W
5
N
_ F
G .
Li) 13cD
C
W l
0
U
N
1_110. ft
'
i
11
i•
;LL
:k •
1
•-"si `• I
1 il i l'Fir.1 ri .i ,i I iri 111-1 ; 1
I-,
II i • ; 11;11. 1! 11. h i 1
1! '1 r ; I ; . I • 1: 1! :i
1 . 1 I 1 ,- I
..-.,' ---",,;.—_,....,tz,, 1,--:-.._.7-:----i-,..--,., ,,--, - • 4'-' -: :' ' I - I I
1 1,7,,....,.....":.4-L,
A
..--7.21•A ,' ,: il : ;
S
.1
H
71711i .1 II ,7771,1 111.11.:1 11!1
1 .11 1111 111 11 1111- 1
I- • • ill: ' .
I II: pi1 1,1
• 111:‘,1: 1,11 •
1.111111.
, I VIII
I Ill 11
L11..1.1
111
.111:111111111
:11X
1..111111.[;\
11111111.1111111\i'l
i
I:1
I ,
! •I 11
I I
I !
•.%/
:Thr
212
1INSPECTfON MOOT OT BE M ' .' E UNLESS
THIS CRD IS POSTED ON ' ' E JOB
a` 24 HOTIS NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS
BUILDING PERMIT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Date Issued 314.Delis. Zoned Area Permit No3. ':33
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the 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
Inspector and IMMEDIATELY BECOME NULL AND VOID.
mettti�t I
iekvs-e. e C.N froreAN
Add o Legal Description DA � tM I4 � C �
�his+
r , rye Contractor Qt (t(
Iront Side Side Rear
Owner
Setbacks
This Card Must Be Posted So It is Plainly Visible From The Stmt Until Final Inspection.
INSPECTION RECORD
Footing 1/6,6p2, gr,\
((
r
Foundation
Underground Plumbing 3 1 �]p2 J9 -i,
iii
Insulation 7/2.57'0.A.014..\,
Rough Plumbing -, 62! py/k,
Drywall .1_3 i _ b'z- Ak&
Chimney & Vent 44J02.41V`/
Electric Final (by State Inspector133
Gas Piping 7 nzJ J
Final 3.5-: 0307, ---
Electric Rough ( tate Inspector).4o209
r
Septic Final
Framing 7-4-02_ •y
(To include Roof in place and Window
and Doors installed).
Notes:
ALL LISTED ITEMS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE COVERING -
WHETHER INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR, UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND.
THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE
Phone 384-5003 109 8th Street County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
APPROVED DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD
Date By [..
IF PLAC D, JTSIDE - OV -ER WITH CLEAR PLASTIC