HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication- PermitJob Address
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING, SANITATION
and PLANNING DEPARTMENT
109 8th. Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601(970) 945-8212
No. 6985
7gicy 4U-0
Nature of Work Building Permit !-)
\_2 + Ic U f
Use of Building
Owner
Contractor
Amount of Permit$
955? -.GS
Date
paythut � . 58'!, Eo
fe_6(4n 3-7-2.65-
Clerk
-x/159
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
GARFIELD COUNTY (GLENWOOD SPRINGS), COLORADO
TELE: HQ'.JE: (930)445-S242
Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. PERMIT NO.
cig(
INSPECTION LINE: (970) 945-9159
PARCEL/SCHEDULE NO.
LOB ADDRESS:
ed---
7 i') , 5?±C .-, �/e , Q yVrO CV
C] v
1
IAT NO. BLOCK NO, U SUBD ILS ON/EZfEMPTIONJ
2
orrNrx ` I
O , i) ;,‘ -,. J re.'C—1 ,-e,
�+ ` J
ADDi�s �f 9 r V s-� , -E = 1"'G um '',\9-.,R
!
.re ys• . fa 1. r
PH:
3
CONTRACTOR 1= I. r
ADDRESS
���
PH: I !
LIC. MD:
4
ARCHTIEC[IENC1N
1 >ry un.)5 0� 0
ADDRE85 G- L u 0,
PH`
Lac NO:
5
sq. ET. OF BUILDING .y rA 4
SQ, FT. OF LOT
IQ4aIff
NO. CF FLOORS
I
6
USE OF BUILDING
DESCRIBERRRLL
l: 1 L G) ].A r ®n> c.0 e'-rW S 1-,4 e .
O
O9
CLASS OF WORK: ❑ADDITION GALTERATION .MOVE DRHVOVN
GARAGE, GRINGLE DOLE CARPORT: o8INGLE rDOUBL
10
❑ DALVRWAY Palter GON RITE SEWAGE DIRPOSAL (swncI DSF.E PIAN
VALUATION OF WORE: S4 e.ADJUSTED VALUATJON:S
) -1-9 J
SPECIAL, CONDRWINB:
NOTICE
A SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED AND MUST BE ISSUED EY THE STATE OF
COLORADO.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR
WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 160 DAYS AT ANY TIME
AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED,
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND
KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS
GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED
HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO OWEi
AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE 011.
LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF
CONSTRUCTIe '.
`
(i
1 . - ate 1
PLAN CHECK FEE:
f377/ (
PERMIT
✓ s/�.� 8]7 a
f� V
_
TOTAL FEEDATE PERMIT ISSUED:
OCC: GROUP: / , CONST: TYPE:
I d _Y41
ZONING:
SETBACKS:
Signature of Owner, Coiiractur or authorimd age . having read I , „ . d . • "- alxrve.
i/1/y I
44D1,2 C/AtAttik i `f . ' '/ 11 r
D/ '
T. HOME:
ISDS NO. & FEE:
1fir '
Building Dep ApprwaVDate P1 ,.. _, .'r ept. , .. . I :
AGREEMENT
PERM/S SION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT AS OWNER CONTRACTOR AND/OR THE AGENT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR OWNER TO CONSTRUCT THE STRUCTURE AS
DETAILED ON PIANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO AND REVIEWED BY THE BUILDTNGDEPARTMENT
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT, THE SIGNER HEREBY AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND LAND USE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY
GARFIELD COUNTY PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GIVEN LN 30.28.201 cats AS AMENDED. THE SIGNER FURTHER AGREES THAT IF THE ABOVE SAID ORDLNANCES ARE NOT FULLY
COMPLIED WITH IN THE LOCATION, ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STRUCTURE, TILE PERMIT MAY THEN BE REVOKED BY NOTICE FROM
THE COUNTY AND THAT THEN AND THERE IT SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID.
THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BASED UPON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA SHALL NOT PREVENT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM THEREAFTER REQUIRING THE
CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA OR FRO PREVENTING BUILDING OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON THEREUNDER. WHEN IN
VIOLATION OF THIS CODE OR ANY OTHER ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THIS JURISDICTION.
THE REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED TTIEREAFTERNOT CONSTITUTE AN ACCEPTANCE OF AN '
RESPONSIBILITIES OR LIABILITIES 13Y GARFIELD COUNTY FOR ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE ITEMS AND IMPLEMENTATION
DURING CONSTRUCTION RESTS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ARCHITECT, DESIGNER, BUILDER AND OWNER. COMMENTS AREINTENDED TO BE CONS ATIVE ANT) IN SUPPOR";;
THE OWNERSINTEREST.
OFTEREST.
Ga�
rform.Do3 I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE AGREEMENT ABOVE. (INTTIALI
f (I
(DO g
Otki oy35o
The following items are required by Garfield County for a final inspection:
1. A final Electrical Inspection from the Colorado State Electrical Inspector.
2. A permanent address assigned by the Garfield County Building Department posted where
it is readily visible from an access road.
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, kitchen
floor coverings, counter tops and finished walls, ready for stove and refrigerator, all
necessary plumbing.
4. A complete bathroom, with wash bowl, tub or shower, toilet stool, hot & cold running
water, all floors and walls finished and a privacy door.
5. All steps inside or outside over three (3) steps must have handrails. All balconies or decks
over 30" high mush have guardrails constructed to meet all 1994 UBC requirements.
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 rr.r,FGAL OCCUPANCY AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR VACATION
PREMISES UNTIL ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE MET.
I understand and agree to abide by the above conditions for .occupancy, yse and a issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling under building permit #
Signature Date
c: lcbw/final. wpd
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. Adequate and complete
information will prevent delays in the plan review process. Reviewing a plan and the discovery that
required information has not been provided by the applicant may result in the delay of the permit
issuance and in proceeding with building construction. The owner or contractor may be required to
provide this information before the plan review may proceed. This causes delays because 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. If you do not, it may be
helpful to obtain a book titled "Dwelling Construction under the Uniform Building Code".
This book is available to you through this department at our cost. Also, please consider using
a design professional for assistance in your design and a construction professional for
construction of your project.
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 check list prior to
and during design. Applicants are required to indicate appropriately and to submit the completed
check list at time of application for a permit.
1
Is a site plan included that indicates the distances of the proposed building or addition to
property lines, other buildings, setback easements and utility easements?
Yes X
2. Does the site plan include the location of the I.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage Disposal System)
and the distances to property lines, wells (on subject property and adjacent properties),
streams or water courses?
Yes X
3. Does the site plan indicate the location and direction of the County or private road accessing
the property?
Yes >
4. Do the plans include a foundation plan indicating the size, location and spacing of all
reinforcing steel in accordance with the uniform building code or per stamped engineered
design?
Yes x,
5. 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 yJ ,
6, Do the plans indicate the size and location of ventilation openings for the attic, roofjoist
spacess and soffits?
Yes w A
7. Do the plans include design loads as required under the Uniform Building Code for roof
snow loads, (a minimum of 40 pounds per square foot in Garfield County), floor loads and
wind loads?
Yes Yc
8. Does the plan include a building section drawing indicating foundation, wall, floor and roof
construction?
Yes X.
9. Does the building section drawing include size and spacing of floor joists, wall studs, ceiling
joists, roof rafters or joists or trusses?
Yes!
10. Does the building section drawing or other detail include the method of positive connection
of all columns and beams?
Yes X
2
11. Does the plan indicate the height of the building or proposed addition from the highest point
of the building or addition measured at mid span between the ridge and the eave down to
existing grade contours?
Yes )
12. Does the plan include any stove or zero clearance fireplace planned for installation including
make and model and Colorado Phase II certifications or phase II EPA certification?
Yes No N
13. Does the plan include a masonry fireplace including a fireplace section indicating design to
comply with the Uniform Building Code Chapter 37?
Yes No
14. 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 Uniform Building
Code?
Yes No >
15. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that windows provide natural
light and ventilation for all habitable rooms?
Yes No X
16. 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 normally used as
a walking surface; sliding glass doors; fixed glass panels; shower doors and tub enclosures
and specify safety glazing for these areas?
Yes No
17. Is the location of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnaces, boilers and water heaters
indicated on the plan?
Yes No YC
18, 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 and/or
covenants?
Yes No
19. Do you understand that if you belong to a homeowners association, 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? If you do not have written permission from
the association, do you understand that the plan check fee will not be refunded should the
architectural committee deny or reject your building plans?
Yes y No
3
t T T
20. Will this be the only residential structure on the parcel?
Yes
No If no -Explain:
21. Have two (2) complete sets of construction drawings been submitted with the application?
Yes
22. Is this an application for the placement of a manufactured home?
Yes No
If yes, have you specified the size of the unit (min. 20ft. x 20ft.); live roof load (min. 40#);
wind design (min. wind speed of 80 mph & 15 lb. wind load); foundation design; method of
anchoring?
Yes
23. Have you designed or had this plan designed while considering building and other
construction code requirements?
Yes No
24. Does the plan accurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will receive a final
inspection by the Garfield County Building Department?
Yes X No
25. Do you understand that approval for design and/or construction changes are required prior
to the application of these changes?
Yes Y1 No
26. Do you understand that the Building Department will collect a "Plan Review" fee from you
at the time of application and that you will be required to pay the "Permit Fee" as well as any
"School Impact" or "Septic System" fees required, at the time you pick up your building
permit?
Yes Y.No
27. Are you aware that twenty four (24) hour notice is required for all inspections?
Inspections will be made from Battlement Mesa to West Glenwood in the mornings and
from Glenwood Springs to Carbondale in the afternoon. Morning inspections must be
called in by 12:00 p.m. the day before; afternoon inspections must be called in by 5:00
p.m. the day before. Failure to give twenty four (24) hour notice for inspections will
delay your inspection one (1) day. Inspections are to be called in to 945-9159.
Yes )< No
28. Are you aware that you are required to call for all inspections required under the Uniform
Building Code including approval on a final inspection prior to receiving a Certificate of
Occupancy and occupancy of the building?
Yes No
4
29.. Are you aware that the person signing the Permit Application, whether the
"Owner", "Agent of the Owner", "General Contractor", "Contractor", or
otherwise, is the party responsible for the project complying with the Uniform
Building Code?
Yes -, No
30. 3f you are accessing a county road and do not have an existing driveway you will
need to acquire a driveway permit from Garfield County Road and Bridge. Their
phone number is 945-6111. You will need to show proof prior to the issuance of
the building permit.
I hereby acknowledge that I have read, understand and answered these questions to
the best of my ability.
signature date
Phone'? (evenings)
Project Name:
eie 71,t
Project Address: 7 q 4 1,--t-r )41,01i
j
Notes:
If you have answered "No" on any of the questions, you may be required to provide this information at the
request of the Building Official prior to beginning the plan review process. Delays in issuing the permit
are to be expected.. Work may not proceed without the issuance of a permit. If it is determined by the
Building Official that additional information is necessary to review the application and plans to determine
minimum compliance with the adopted codes, the application may be placed behind more recent
applications for building permits in the review process and not reviewed until required information has
been provided and the application rotates again to first position for review, delay in issuance of the permit
or delay in proceeding with construction.
Per App 02.95 Effective August 15, 1995
5
County Road (Note the Road Number and Name)
Rci
w
CAEo.
131
.74
§
0 0.
Fi
/
crir
° goE
C'
C.•••
/
• \ "
F). 2
0- -
§_� \_
F.
cr/
§ a
■
2
maw twoN aJEuW!saG
HE)VWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945-8454
Phone 970 945-7988
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
HIGHWAY 82 AND CATTLE CREEK ROAD
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 197 116
FEBRUARY 18, 1997
PREPARED FOR:
WILLIAM STEELE
P.O. BOX 1507
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
February 18, 1997
William Steele
P.O. Box 1507
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Job No.197 116
Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed
Commercial Building, Highway 82 and Cattle Creek Road, Garfield
County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Steele:
As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed commercial building
at the subject site.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed
building area consist of intermixed and loose to medium dense silt, clay and sand with
gravel, cobbles and possible boulders to the maximum depth explored, 21 feet. Borings
1 and 5 encountered 8 to 10 feet of loose fill which may contain trash overlying the
natural soils. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
The proposed commercial building can be founded on spread footings placed on the
natural subsoils or compacted structural fill and designed for an allowable bearing
pressure of 1,500 psf. Precautions should be taken to prevent wetting of the bearing
soils which could cause settlement and building distress.
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.
Jor y Z Adamson Jr.,
Rev. By: SLP
JZA/kw
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1
SITE CONDITIONS 2
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL 2
FIELD EXPLORATION 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS 4
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 4
FOUNDATIONS 4
FLOOR SLABS 6
SITE GRADING 6
SURFACE DRAINAGE 6
LIMITATIONS 7
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 & 5 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 6 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
H -P GEOTECH
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed commercial
building to be located at Highway 82 and near Cattle Creek Road 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 William Steele
dated January 15, 1997. Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. previously observed
exploratory pits and conducted percolation testing on the property for Pacific Coast
Capitol and presented the findings in a report dated January 31, 1995, Job No. 195
111.
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 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 commercial building will be a high single story steel frame
structure part with an upper level of apartments. The northeastern side of the building
will be built into the southwest facing hillside. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade.
Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between
about 4 to 10 feet. We assume relatively light wall loadings and moderate column
Ioadings typical of the proposed type of construction. Another commercial building is
H -P GEOTECH
2
planned to be constructed in the future on the southwestern side of the property as
shown on Fig.1.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those
described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in
this report as shown on Fig. 1.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site was vacant and covered with about 1 foot of snow at the time of our
field work. Ground surface in the building areas is relatively flat with a slight slope
down to the southwest and about 15 feet of elevation difference. A southwest facing
hillside borders the eastern side of the property which encroaches the building area.
Cuts up to about 8 feet high had been made into the hillside and fill up to about 10 feet
deep appears to have been placed in the western part of the property. An old
foundation was present near the central part of the property adjacent the hillside. No
vegetation was observed on the site. Existing commercial warehouse and office type
buildings are located directly north of the property.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian -age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the
property. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained
sandstone/siltstone with some massive beds of gypsum and limestone. There is a
possibility that massive, heavily bedded gypsum deposits associated with the Eagle
Valley Evaporite underlie portions of the property. Dissolution of the gypsum under
certain conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of localized
subsidence.
Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. No
evidence of cavities was encountered in the subsurface materials, however, the
exploratory borings were relatively shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our
present knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain
that sinkholes will not develop. The risk of ground subsidence on the property
H -P GEOTECH
3
throughout the service life of the proposed building, in our opinion, is low, however,
the owner should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole development. If further
investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired, we should be
contacted.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on January 24, 1997. Five
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 truck -mounted Longyear BK-51HD 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 a mixture of loose to medium dense silt, clay and sand
with gravel, cobbles and possible small boulders. Borings 1 and 5 encountered 8 to 10
feet of loose man -placed fill above the natural soils. Trash was encountered in the
profile pit of the previous study located in the middle south part of the current proposed
building. Drilling with auger equipment was difficult in Borings 2 and 3 due to
cobbles and possible boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit.
Ff-P GEOTECH
4
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included
natural moisture content and density, liquid and plastic limits and gradation analyses.
Results of consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples,
presented on Figs. 4 and 5 indicate Iow to moderate compressibility under conditions of
loading and wetting. Two of the samples tested showed a relatively Iow collapse
potential when wetted. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter
drive samples (minus 11/2 inch fraction) of the upper fill soils are shown on Fig. 6. The
laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the
subsoils were slightly moist to moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The existing fill materials encountered within the building area are not suitable
for building support. These materials should be subexcavated to natural soils. The
trash and debris from the previous site improvements should be removed. Structural
fill can then be used to reestablish design grades.
The natural subsoils are hydrocompressive which could results in post
construction settlement and distress to the building. Precaution should be taken to
prevent wetting of the bearing soils by proper surface and subsurface drainage.
Sources of wetting include surface runoff, landscaped irrigation and utility line leaks.
Continuous foundation walls rather than isolated columns are theeferredfoundation
support to help reduce the effects of post construction differential settlement.
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 or compacted structural fill.
W -P GEOTECH
5
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
spread footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural subsoils or compacted
structural fill should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of
1,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect initial settlement of footings
designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch
or less. Additional settlements on the order of 1 inch or more could
occur after construction depending on the depth of any wetting.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 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) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom
to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at
least 14 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also
be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure corresponding to an
equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pcf.
5) The existing fill, debris and any loose or disturbed soils should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to firm natural
soils. Structural fill placed to reestablish design bearing level can consist
of the on-site soils and should be compacted to at Ieast 100% of standard
Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. The exposed
subgrade at design footing and slab grade should be moistened and
compacted to limit the settlement potential.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate compaction
of the structural fill and observe all footing excavations prior to concrete
placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
H -P GEOTECH
6
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on-site soils are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade
construction. The natural soils appear to be hydrocompressive and could settle if
wetted. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be
separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow
unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce
damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab
reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the
intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of sand and gravel (road base) should be
placed beneath floor slabs for subgrade support. This material should consist of minus
2 inch aggregate with at least 50 % retained on the No. 4 sieve and Tess than 12%
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, trash and oversized
rock.
SITE GRADING
Existing fill on the site could settle and cause distress to pavements and slabs.
Fill depths up to 8 feet were encountered in the southwest portion of the proposed
building but deeper areas of fill could be encountered due to previously existing
backfilled areas such as old foundations and basements. The existing fill should be
evaluated for condition, type and suitability as structural material to support pavements
and slabs. We expect that this could be accomplished by shallow pits at the time of
construction. Site preparation could consist of fill removal, scarifying and moistening
the subgrade and compaction to at least 95 % standard Proctor density.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and
maintained at all times after the building has been completed:
H -P GEOTECH
4 - T
7
1) Inundation 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 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.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at
Least 5 feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to use
of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the
foundation caused by irrigation.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
warranty either 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
H -P GEOTECH
r
-8
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.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Jor. Z. A mson, Jr. P.
Re iew- s y:
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
JZA/kw
cc: S.G. Thompson Construction - Attn: Steve Thompson
The Drawing Board - Attn: Rob Classon
H -P GEOTECH
95
1
\ PROPERTY
BOUNDARIES
c 1�
❑PIT 3
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1'50'
100 105 110 115 120 130 135 140
♦ ♦ \ \ '125'11/4
1
• 1\
ORING 4 11
1
1
140
PIT 2)
PROPOSED
BUILDING
L
1
130
BORING
\ 1
PROFThE 1
PIT \
BORING
•
\\
125
85 90
,95
LEGEND
• EXPLORATORY BORING FOR THIS STUDY
❑ EXPLORATORY PIT FOR JOB NO. 195 111, DATED 1/31/95
100 105 110
197 116
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 1
N
u.) al
011
z•
O -J
CO W
01
r•) a1
011
OJ
w
O
0
CST
0 11
z
EE
O J
Elevation — Feet
O
0 u) 0 0 II)
.^ rn as co I�
rir•••
N N
c a
a• 1.7
00 \
17 - 33 0 00
DOd 000<4. �: f� --:•:.4.:.45,:.:. •.
� 30
m 0
1A 1�
Ia. as
N
N
0010
0
O
N N N N r7
N
m N m
ri<><!&>&&
1
O
kr) 0)m acoo
111]1111111111111111111111
Elevation — Feet
Future Building
Proposed Building
Explanation of symbols Is shown on Fig. 3.
ice+
0
z
197 116
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 2
LEGENL:'
r.�
14/12 required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
FILL; clayey sand with gravel, silty, loose to medium dense, slightly moist. brown.
SAND (SC); clayey, silty, with scattered gravel layers and cobbles, loose to medium dense, slightly
moist to moist, brown, angular to subrounded rock.
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 D — 1586.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 14 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were
Practical rig refusal. Where shown above bottom of log indicates multiple attempts to advance
boring.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on January 24. 1997 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown
on the site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan
provided and were checked by instrument level.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied
by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries
between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( X )
DD = Dry Density ( pcf )
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve.
—200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve.
197 116 I HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
LL = Liquid Limit ( X )
PI = Plasticity Index ( % )
LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
c
0
m
0
E
0
tt
0
1
2
3
0
1
c
0
2
E
0
3
Moisture Content = 9.4 percent
Dry Density = 109 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay with Gravel
From: Boring 3 at 10 Feet
Compression
upon
wetting
0.1
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
100
Moisture Content =
Dry Density =
Sample of: Clayey Silty
From: Boring 4 at 10
10.5 percent
105 pcf
Sand with Gravel
Feet
Compression
upon
wetting
0.1
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE -- ksf
100
197 116
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
SWELL — CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
Fig. 4
4. it r i r . r
Compression
Moisture Content = 14.9 percent
Dry Unit Weight = 113 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay with
Gravel
From. Boring 5 at 15 Feet
J.
No movement
upon
wetting
•
•
•
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPUED PRESSURE — ksf
197 116
- -
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SWELL — CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
T
Fig. 5
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
p. o
J
Lu
CC
1—
(1)
LLJ
E"
CC
W
J
CO
H.< OM
CO
J
L.
0
CC
r
UNCONFINED
W
w
2
O
U
STRENGTH
LL
ATTERBERM3 LIMITS
5
z
CO
CN
N
N
zb
z 2 O m
V N n
WS N
LL d Z N
(0
V
CO
O
co
z
0
a
0
O
co
J
S
N
J }
H • 0 • Z v
4 0III
Z
cn
1
0)
O
co
O
co
O
1
117
O
co)
Cr)
z
2
i
U
O
{
Z-
N
M
O
O
Lc)
LO
LO
IINSPECTION WILL NOT BE MADE UNLESS
. THIS CARD IS POSTED ON THE JOB
24 HOURS REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS
24 HOURS NOTICE.REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS
Date Issued
BUILDING PERMIT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
1 OaneJ Area Permit No (09(Z5
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.
•
Use jam-
Address or Legal Description
Owner
Setbacks
ixt mu,
Contractor
0 w ton
Front Side
Side
Rear
This Card Must Be Posted So It is Plainly Visible From The Street Until Final Inspection.
INSPECTION RECORD
Footing 4j r i -42 --5'.1 ."-<-1,,
Foundation
Underground .Plumbing
Insulation
Rough Plumbing
Drywall
Chimney & Vent
Electric Final (by State Inspector)
Gas Piping
Final - _ 3 _qq A (-1._,..„ t'
Electric Rough (By State Inspector)
Septic Final
Framing 1--) —VI IN t--
(To include Roof in place and Windows
and Doors installed).
Notes:
ALL LISTED ITEMS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE COVERING -
W.HETHER INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR, UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND.
THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE
Phone 945-9159 109 8th Street County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
APP OVERDO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD
Date 1 VEly _ C
F PLACE OUTSIDE - C VER WITH CLEAR PLASTIC
24 NR. 7 HR
40 MN. 15 MN.
1013
10
60
70
10
50
40
30
20
10
0
111'DRONE1ER ANALYSIS
TIME READIFICS
60 IIN.19 MN. 4 YR1. 1 MN. FCC
/100
U.S. srANOARO SERFS
o t30 /16
SIEVE ANALYSE
ALAR SQUARE OPENINGS
fo /4 3/3-1/2-3/4- 1 1/2' 3' rr
11,
r
r
_
1
r
1
t
.001 .002 .005 .000 .019 .037 .074 .150
4-
.300 .600 1.16 2.36
4.75
0.512.5 19.0 37.5
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
r
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
BO
76.2127 152 203
CLAY m SLT
FINE
SANG
MEDIUM f 00AR5E FINE
COBBLES
197 116
GRAVEL 24 %
SAND 30 % SILT AND CLAY 46 7
UQU!D LIMIT i6 PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE OF: Fill — Sandy Silty Clay with FROM: Boring 1 at 5 and 7 Feet,
Gravel Combined
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC_
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
so
100
Fig. 6
114:01210i:1 1!I.I4i