Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication- PermitJob Address No. 5889 GARPIELD COUNTY BUILDING, SANITATION ION and PLANNING DEPARTMENT 109 Rrh Slrcct Sidle 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado R1601 (303) 945-A2I2 332 Battlement Creek Trail, Battlement Creek Village, Battlement Mesa NarurcofWork Building Permit usco[l3nlldin1 Single Family Dwelling w/Double Garage Owner Jim & Nancy Scott Contractor Fox Construction Company Amount oC Pcmil S 2.528.21 Permit: 1,532.25 Plan : 995.96 Paid $969.96 4-22-96 Utile May 8, 1996 S. Archuleta Clerk BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION OARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. PERMIT NO. Sgg / PARCEUSCHED NO. Joe ADUREss 33 Z. BJ(eMen4- Crete %s% &#/er.eni-- ines9i Cb g (s 1 LESAR. LOT 140. e, BLOCK aSUBDIVISION 84-41em cK ULrl Ict e. 2 OWNER Z.1.4,- Nanta Scat/ Nancy � 30 On ADDRESS �'*Q q 9+�emolt /Yksw, CO PH �S-(�s� WK. PH. 414 3 CONTRACTOR) X Q.A&. Co, eisities cr, Fmk' ADDRESS PO Bex A3Z1 Afisgde, co P 5-/369 LICENSE NO. 4 Siwd,e 3 v ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER (rio,,y I4^9 W n neine. ICI. ADDRESS ,� 11 .i Co c�3) 97Z- H. 0031 LICENSE NO. 5 ENGINEER Gan& GdS+' -Men Cronli ADDRESS ZH c + Cm nd 7aF, Cb 8/5aS PH.2SS 0 5'77 LICENSE NO. Gbh 7:337.2_. 6 33/9 sat FrC4'uin)/ S.F OF BUILDING ee0 .s FT (Gargle) S.E OF LOT y7, 419Z £L TI y7 HEIGHT/�j-a NO. OF FLOORS 7 USE OF BUILDING Res ,den ccJ (.5.14.9 /C. t04.,6/) 8 ClAss of worm: KNEW isADDITION oALTERATION °REPAIR ° MOVE ee REMOVE 9 DESCRIBE WORK: (1-415a1-0 M /-kmc. W✓� d-mr.}� ' �/ /e 3 3/ 7 °1© 9V(9r , 2 7 : e.2/e, 37/. c Catmint 690°e /?•2s: /1 ?102.56'/ 10 GARAGE SINGLE `DOUBLE) CARPORT SINGLE DOUBLE yo O Lt vj/(oartord,22? 273. DRIVEWAY PERMIT ON SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT SITE PLAN 11 ns94.994995 VALUATION oa wonrc'.$ �I 00 ADJUSTED VAL.$ PLAN CHECK FEE % 43'22.25 PERMIT FEE a SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 6� 0 G 3 %, SCHOOL IMPACT FEE NO. OF BUILDINGS ON PARCEL 7 USE OF BUILDINGS NOW ON PARCEL TOTAL FEE asax c2 r OCC. GR.R-3, -1 U CONST. TYPE—IL-fel NOTICE SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL PLUMBING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION DR WORK I5 SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER COMMENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL SE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE LOCALe •WEGU NG CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE LOCO ✓. I ,° 9( e S- WATER SUPPLY (J DATE PERMIT ISSUED .-• 76 n_ HEATING, SPECIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED RECEIVED NOT REQUIRED IS ZONING WORK IS HEALTH DEPT. KNOW FIRE DEPT. TO GIVE OR DF SOIL REPORT SETBACKS FLOOD HAZARD ignatureafOwner, Con rector or authorized agen a re. and nwotlae ..av •,. (( f-�MQ �r�yG - `par* MANUF. HOME BBuilding Department Approve/date 1 ! Planning Department A. .•: /d.: OTHER AGREEMENT PERMISSION 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 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO AND REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT 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 IN 30.28.201 CRS AS AMENDED. THE SIGNER FURTHER AGREES THAT IF THE ABOVE SAID ORDINANCES ARE NOT FULLY COMPLIED WITH IN THE LOCATION, ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STRUCTURE. THE 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 FROM 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 THEREAFTER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACCEPTANCE OF ANY RESPONSIBILITIES OR LIABILITIES BY 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 ARE INTENDED TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND IN SUPPORT OF THE OWNERS INTEREST. Garform.003 I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE AGREEMENT ABOVE 1' pd949.96 1-22-9G , MAY p7.t996 !Ii CONSTRUCTION CO. 285-1369 "Our reputation is building" Garfield County Building Department Attn: Mr. Don Owens 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re': Scott Residence in Battlement Mesa, CO (Kitchenette) Dear Mr. Owens: sell) C:CaON1 Y May 7, 1996 To clarify your concern on the "kitchenette" in the Scott Residence (332 Battlement Creek Trail, Battlement Mesa, CO) we have provided copies of the elevations for the "kitchenette" area. The "kitchenette" consists of a small refrigerator, a small kitchen sink, and a bank of drawers. Along with some upper cabinets. There are, absolutely no plans for a cooktop, oven or microwave. The "kitchenette" really is nothing more than a wet bar. I hope that this clarifies the situation. If there are any further questions, please feel free to call my office.Thank you. Attachments CJF/cab Sincerely, Charles J. Fox P.O. BOX 1321 • PALISADE, CO 81526 • FAX 970/245-4021 u u 01 m OD H 01 0. i irj U' 01 01 01 10 rJ ID 0 m n w 0 56 60 54 35 12 30 42 1— 25 F 34 1/2 24 1/2 F 24 1/2 L 1 11 =Al i, 23 11035y00 11 54 55 1/2 95 -12 __ - —I 1 I 30 1/2 -H F.__ 27 —I 0 �1 Q L I/ -,l W L II i G 9_ F.__ 27 —I GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS for SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION including NEW CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURED HOMES 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 niay 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 completed check list at time of application for a permit: 1. Is a site plan included that indicates the distance of the proposed building or addition to property lines, other buildings, set back ease lents and utility easements? Yes _ No .0) Not necessary for this project (2) 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 _A_ No n) Not necessary for this project (2) 3. Does the site plan indicate the location and direction of the County or private road accessing the property? Yes _x_ No n) Not necessary for this project (2) 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 No w Not necessary for this project (2) 5, Do the plans indicate the location and size of ventilation openings for under floor crawl spaces and the clearances required between wood and ea th? Yes _ _ No (1) Not necessary for this project (2) 6. Do the plans indicate the size an location of ventilation openings for the attic, roof joist spaces and soffits? Yes _X__ No ,)) Not necessary for this project (2) 7. Do the plans include design loads as required under the Uniform I3uilding code for roof snow loads, ( a minimum of 40 pounds per squa e foot in Garfield County) floor loads and wind loads? Yes _ _ No n) Not necessary for this project (2) 8. Does the plan include a building section drawing indicating foundation, wall, floor and roof construction? Yes _X._ No n) Not necessary for this project (2) 9. Does the building section drawing include size and spacing of floor joists wall scuds, ceiling joists, roof rafters or joists or trusses? Yes _ No u) Not necessary for this project (2) 2 10. Does the building section drawing or other detail include the method of positive connection of all columns and beams? Yes _X_ No m Not necessary for this project (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 _X__ No ()) Not necessary for this project (2) 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 _)_()) Not necessary for this project (2) 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 _X__()) Not necessary for this project (2) 14. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that egress/rescue windows from sleeping rooms and/or basements comRly with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code? Yes No (u Not necessary for this project (2) 15. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that wine ows provide natural light and ventilation for all habitable rooms? Yes _ _ No ___.__(u Not necessary for this project (2) 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 _X__ No (1) Not necessary for this project (2) 17. Is the location of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnaces, boilers and water heaters indicated on the plan? Yes _X__ No m Not necessary for this project (2) 18 Do you understand that if you belong to a homeowners association, it is your responsibility to obtain written permission from that association, if required by that association, prior to submitting an appli(ation for a building permit? Yes J( No (1) Not necessary for this project (2) 3 19. Have two (2) complete sets of constructions drawings been submitted with the application? Yes _.__ No 0) Not necessary for this project ;2) 20. Is this an application for the placement of a manufactured horne? Yes No _X_ 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 rnph & 15 lb. wind load); foundation design; method of anchoring? Yes No () Not necessary for this project (2) 21. Have you designed or had this plan designed while considering building and other construction code requirements? Yes _X__ No G„ 22. Does the plan accurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will receive a final inspection by the Garfield Building Department? Yes _X_ No c3, 23. Do you understand that approval for design and/or construction chanes are required prior to the application of these changes? Yes _A__ No (3) 24. 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 _X__ No (3} 25. 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 occuiHncy of the building? Yes _ No c:t) 26. Are you aware that the person signing the Permit Application whether the "Owner", "Agent of the Owner", "General Contractor", "Contractor" or otherwise, signing the application is the party responsible for the • project, complying with the Uniform Codes". Yes ,_ No (3) (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 4 I hereby acknowledge that I have read, understand and answered these questions accurately to the best of my ability. 7 41-0- 96 date Phone: Z55:136? (days); Zy5.-/369 (evenings) Project Name: Sco# teesiuence. Project Address: 333 & einen, dceee %ht,r// &Aneff A% CSO C q memenf Creel' (11I/je .Snb-cti,L;s,on) Notes: (1) ]f you have answered No on any of these questions you may be required to provide this information at the request of the Building Official prior to beginning die plan review process_ Delays in issuing the permit are to he expected. Work may not proceed without the issuance of the permit. (2) If you have answered 'Not necessary for this project' on any of the questions and it is determined by the Building Official that the information is necessary to review the application and plans Io determine minimum compliance with the adopted codes, please expect the following: A. 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. Delay in proceeding with construction. (3) If you answered 'No" to this question the circumstances described In the queslimt could result in a "Stop Work Order' being issued or a -Certificate of Occupancy" not being issued_ PerApp02.95 Effective August 15, 1995 5 I TEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 134 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED SCOTT RESIDENCE LOT 6, BLOCK 2, BATTLEMENT CREEK VILLAGE 332 BATTLEMENT CREEK TRAIL BATTLEMENT MESA, COLORADO JOB NO. 195 559 JANUARY 10, 1996 PREPARED FOR: FOX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ATTN: CHUCK FOX P.O. BOX 1321 PALISADE, COLORADO 81526 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. January 10, 1996 Fox Construction Company Attn: Chuck Fox P.O. Box 1321 Palisade, Colorado 81526 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Scott Residence, Lot 6, Block 2, Battlement Creek Village, 332 Battlement Creek Trail, Battlement Mesa, Colorado. Gentlemen: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring drilled in the proposed building area consist of 1/2 foot of topsoil overlying sandy silt and clay to a depth of 71/2 feet. Dense basalt fragments up to boulder size in a clayey sand matrix were encountered below the clay. Groundwater was not encountered in the boring at the time of drilling. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Precautions should be taken to prevent wetting of the bearing soils. The report which follows describes our investigation, 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. Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. Rev. By: SLP DEH/ro TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 FIELD EXPLORATION 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 3 FOUNDATIONS 3 FLOOR SLABS 4 SURFACE DRAINAGE 5 LIMITATIONS 5 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING FIGURE 2 - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING FIGURE 3 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 4 - GRADATION ANALYSES TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 6, Block 2, Battlement Creek Village, 332 Battlement Creek Trail, Battlement Mesa, 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 proposal for geotechnical engineering study to Fox Construction Company, dated December 18, 1995. An exploratory boring was drilled to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained from the boring were tested in the laboratory to determine compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics of the on-site soils. 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 single story wood frame structure with an attached two car garage. Ground floor will be structural over a crawl space in the residence and slab -on -grade in the garage. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 to 4 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. 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. -2 - SITE CONDITIONS The site was vacant at the time of our field work. Vegetation over the site consists of weeds and grass with scattered scrub oak. The site was relatively flat with a slight slope down to the north and about 5 feet of elevation difference across the lot. There was an existing wood frame house on nearby Lot 7. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 18, 1995. One exploratory boring was drilled at the location shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The boring was advanced with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck -mounted BK-51HD drill rig. The boring was logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1 3/8 -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 Log of Exploratory Boring, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A graphic log of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site is shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1/2 foot of topsoil overlying sandy silt and sandy clay to a depth of 7' feet. Below the clay, dense basalt fragments in a clayey sand matrix were encountered. Drilling in the basalt fragments with auger equipment was H -P GEOTECH -3 - difficult due to the rock size and hardness and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture content and density, liquid and plastic limit testing and gradation analyses. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the clay, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low to moderate compressibility under loading and wetting. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a small diameter drive sample (minus 11/2 -inch fraction) of the matrix portion of the coarse granular subsoils are shown on Fig. 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the subsoils were moist. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the residence be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural soils at a minimum depth of 2 feet below the existing ground surface. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or Less. There could be some additional differential movement if the silt and clay subsoils become wetted. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. H -P GEOTECH -4- 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 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 a lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf. 5) Loose and disturbed soils should be moistened and compacted or removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the firm or dense natural subsoils. 6) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FLOOR SLABS The upper natural soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. 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 can be placed beneath slabs as a leveling course. This material should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less 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, and oversized rock. H -P GEOTECH 5 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. 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. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscape irrigation should be controlled and kept at least 5 feet from the building to limit potential wetting of the bearing soils. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory boring drilled at the location indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory boring and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during H -P GEOTECH -6 - 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 soil engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GLIA HNICAL, INC. t*poREG,k E. k�iPp 9�4 syt Z • 24443 ; g f Daniel E. Hardin, SA //HOG Ate Reviewed By: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DEH/ro H -P GEOTECH APPROXIMATE SCALE 111 = 401 BATTLEMENT CREEK TRAIL LOT BOUNDARIES LOT 5 LOT 24 • BORING I PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 6 LOT 7 UTILITY EASEMENT _ 1 LOT 23 195 559 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig. 4 _ o — 19 NOTES: 3oring 131 LEGEND: TOPSOIL; silt, sandy, organic, stiff, moist, dark brown. - {4{11= 6.6_7 SILT (ML); sandy, slightly clayey, very 27/100= 102 / stiff, moist, light brown. -200=85 - R7 / 12 wc= 1 6 . - CLAY (CL CH); sandy, slightly gravelly, 27/12 DO=Q4 — ll ' , very stiff, moist, light brown, LL= -94- ▪ 4 --.calcareous. High plasticity. PI= 3n — iBASALT FRAGMENTS (GC); gravelly, — 4., sandy, clayey, cobble to boulder size Tr — basalt fragments, dense, moist, light 60/10 70— k brown, calcareous. we=a.6 — Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2- 1-4,18 — inch I.D. California liner sample. -200=0 IDrive sample: standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 -inch I.D. split spoon 5 sample, ASTM D-1586. 27/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 27 blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. Practical rig refusal. Where shown above bottom of log, indicates multiple attempts were made to advance the boring. 1. Exploratory boring was drilled on December 18, 1995 with a 4 -inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Location of exploratory boring was measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevation of exploratory boring was not measured and log of exploratory boring is drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring location should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring log represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling. Fluctuations 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 LL = Liquid Limit (%) PI=Plasticity Index (%) 195 559 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. Log of Exploratory Boring Fig. 2 hbiature Content = 16.5 Percent Dry Unit Weight r 94 Pc! Sample at Sandy Clay 1 I From: Boring 1 @ 4 Feet If l I No Movement Upon Wett ng II 1 I I 1 I 0.1 1.0 10 100 APP! IED PRESSURE — ksf 195 559 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK I SW E! L -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. Fg 3 { HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 24 HR 7 Ha_ 45MIN 15 MIN. 100 90 60 70 20 10 TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES 60 MIN, t9 MIN.4 MIN CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 1 MIN '200 '100 '50'40'30 -16 106 3" 5"6— 9' 0 1 t } 10 20 1 t 1 { 4 f � r 1 } 30 40 Z a 1- 50 z w 70 I : 1 „1 I 1 i I • 11 1 11 i : rr18 I 1 /1-• ET1 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .437 .074 ,149 .297 1 _590 1.19 2.18 436 .42 2.0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT 60 90 100 9.52 19.1 38.1 . 76/ 127 1 200 152 SAND GRAVEL FINE j MEDIUM 'COARSE I FINE 1 COARSE 'COBBLES GRAVEL 18 % SAND 52 % LIQUID LIMIT SILT AND CLAY 30 % °b. PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF Clayey Gravelly Sand (Matrix) FROM Baring, 1 @ 10 Feet HYDROMETER ANALYSIS TIME READINGS 24 HR 7 HR_ 45 MIN 15 MIF SIEVE ANALYSIS MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN '100 U.S. STANDARD SERIES '10 '50 '40'30 •4 CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS v.- 73 ICI azo ' t 70i 430 i I 60 r40 ' 50 ...II • ' 5C - Ir I 40" I I t 60 i 1 1 t{ 30 _ `70 I + f 20 ENO I 1 r 190 10. I I I i i I i r i I i 1 p 1 "11 ■ fr r:iT•r 1 i 1� T ,r 1 19 jr 1 10 001 007 f105 .009 019 1117 (174 149 747 1 500 1 19 f7 1R a 7F 41 14 1 IR 1 74 7 1.77 1 7 .42 2.0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 152 CLAY TO SILT FINE 1 GRAVEL MEDIUM !COARSEFINE 1 COARSE SAND COBBLES GRAVEL LIQUID LIMIT SAMPLE OF % SAND 'r6 96 SILT AND CLAY PLASTICITY INDEX FROM W 4 1- Z CC U G Q 195 559 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. i CD LC) LO LO a) 0 cc z 0 0 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. W — J m H H J D 0) w [c H w > H cc 0 H cc co W J LL 0 } cc 2 2 CO SOIL OR BEDROCK TYPE Sandy Clayey Silt Sandy Clay Clayey Gravelly Sand (Matrix) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (P59 ATTERBERG LIMITS PLASTIC INOEX (%) I 30 o i = an 1- 0 0 2 u w N > Lo'O y v y 2 ID CO 30 z 0 a 0 a 0 iN 1 — LO isa m 0 18 NATURAL DRY DENSITY !pc° 102 Tr CD w 1- a > w `a o o t 2 f 0 CO 0. Ln co CO cri SAMPLE LOCATION DEPTH (feet) N N Ol 0 z a 0 m 1- tyAseri.. SS UAL ikiiiSE 'UAL es MIS CI%RD IS POSTED ON THE Lip 1 RFIELD COUNT `;' COLORADO000, Zoned•Ac „ 4 reiinteitaii 4.64 In consideration of the issuaaace of this permit, the applicant Ye Agrees.:to,_comply with all laws and regulations reltr;;;4;i to the zoning, location; construction and erection of the proposed struejure fob which this'rermit is granted, and further agrees that if the above said regulations ?i zaa%_£ulty complied with in the zoning, location, erection and construction of the above 'described structure, „t► acpe�rmit may then be revoked by notice from the County Building Inspector nrr� .tTELY $)COME NULL A 1 VOID. JOB .SOURS NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS IT Date Issued'` Use Address or Legal Description. Owner ! Vf.- t� Setbacks Front Side Side Rear This Card Must Be Posted So It is Plainly Visible From The Street Until Final Inspection. ier l "- 4‹...aNSPECTION RECORD Footing r J_,isrp:I.< .4 -r»t y� .tfi-1--//.i, -fc r —r7-4 ./'--.--- Foundation jer i=l-n :;-.— 1.,,15'51 Li1'7; •;/2 A) ppY`'1-/r%I/J..bJ/-�Qi-bG�it i Underground Plumbing Insulations , Rough Plumbing z -12..-c,4 A_G„ Drywall ,f _ 17-` ; _. Chimney & Vent Electric Final (by State Inspector) /Z-tZ Gas Piping 7_ 3 , .,; e. Final 1 2 -9_ c (, �- Electric Rough (By State Inspector)? 305 _ Sgptic Final- ---^ r`--` ".= _ Framing 7- (4%/>f ._ .... o,snclude Roof in place and Windows -•d Doors installed). Notes: ALL LISTED ITEMS MUSTBE INSPECTED AND`APPROVED BEFORE COVERING - WHETHER INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR,UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND. THIS PERMIT IS NOT 'TRANSFERABLE Phone 945-8212 109 8th Street County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado. APPRQVEb`D0 NOT DESTROY THIS CARD Dated& _ By"` l /l "t*)