HomeMy WebLinkAbout03660l
1.~.
l
I
I
i
' ~ '
;
I
!~
I
'
I
j
;, ' . •( ~~~~ \
/• r ~ ,, ' ,.., , GARFIELD COUNTY BUILo'iNG ANb SANITATION DEPARTMENT
109 8th Street Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone (303) 945·8212
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT
PROPERTY S\
Permit N: 3660
Assessor's Parcel No.
This does not con~t.ltute
a building or use permit.
•
i
' '
I
' •, • owner's Name t'J\.1 ±chf \ \, ~n f--Present Addr:-; IS BDD-1'. l D sf.ew;S T1J~one314 -9'18 -.:?137~
r . I I I?-I · ---_,; l
system Locatio1~e t~• 1 '*9 LJ4e641~((f?lJ SfCi"tJ~t Ld .c:{ Sp1I03 J k'.. ff\e'Sc~
Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. c::b 39 \ I br'l -CX> -a DS ~
SYSTEM DESIGN
/~5'~0=-0~--Septic Tank Capacity (gallon)
' _____ Percolation Rate (minutes/inch)
Required Absorption Area -See Attached
Special Setback Requirements:
______ ,Other
~~,.,r··
Number of Bedrooms (or other) -L b ;.: \,} (:/
0 ' -/Cr i ,..-..(.)<..~...: L . 1: .... ~.~~ .. ~ t ,)Q ~ ,F ,
t !Al ( H c ·~•t>'d j) 1'."a ~ l> ~ () -t.'4 i:' l ill I
'' "DT1-0'7'l 2'•8'
1/ --/ Rfi.N(:Ht.~-S 3
lnspector _____ t""+-~t-P----------------------~·~' .... ,)>1,<,(.11,,
Date (p • 2,S~ 0::..
FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed)
Cali icir-fns~.ours notice) Before Covering Installation
System Installer ,51f tJll6t£· __ {;;;r ~· · ·· ·
J ~--00 Septic Tank Capacity _ _._ ____________________________________ _
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name -~~&'-7,tJA=~~--'---------------------------
Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements-';f<~'-------------Jf-_____ _
Other----------------------~---~..,,~---------------Date___c_/_~_·,,_/_-_· _D_Z. __ 'tf~· ____ Inspector 7;l,-!Z...dl!f7'
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE
•CONDITIONS:
1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter
25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984.
2. This permit is valid on1yfor connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con·
nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a
requirement of the permit and cause for b,oth legal action end revocation of the permit.
l .
3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs en indivic;tual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material r
variation from the terms or specifications contained In the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine -6 f,
months in jail or both).
White • APPLICANT Yellow. DEPARTMENT
,;
,
\ I 2
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
OWNER ADDRESS_!?!!Hj_~_K~~!_t'IJ.!~!t§~.,_ __ IS ~~~-~~--~r:-~~_l_~_Mo-~?>12.'\"
PHONE __ t\Pl:i~--~J~)-~~-~~!~~_?:-~~~-~-~~-{~l~J~~----------
CONTRACTOR ADDRESS_~~P~--~~~~~~.:.. __ ~:'-~~-~,1-~J.f#,_~. St <Pll
PHONE_~.:!.~-~~-~:_-~~.!".~----------------------------------------
PERMIT REQUEST FOR: KNEW INSTALLATION ()ALTERATION ()REPAIR
Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas,
topography of area, habitable building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation test
holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 4).
LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY:
Near what City or Town --~~.!l:.~E!-~~-----------------------------------
Size of Lot __ ~~-~~.!:~~------------------------------------------------
Legal Description or Address L..O T ~ 5 5ffl.IH ~ PAii-i< M~ PAILCEL. ~ 2.~'11 · /4>'2.· 00. 1ZDS
----M~-0<.tl~ -15"-kv~;:~"--;;:-"R&~-cg~xe--itL:J.3 ____ _
WASTES TYPE:
XDwelling ( ) Non-Domestic Wastes
( ) Transient Use ( ) Commercial Or Industrial
( ) Other: Describe: ____________________________________________________ _
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE:
Number of Bedrooms ___ §' ___________________________________ _
Numberof Persons ____ .i_ _____________ ~---~---------------
~Garbage Grinder XAutomatic Washer p(bishwasher
SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY:
p{WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: __________________ _
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM:
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? ( ) Yes ~ No
Too FA~
'
A site plan Is required to be submitted that Indicates the following MINIMUM distances:
Leach Field to Well: 100 feet
Septic Tank to Well:
Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course
Septic System to Property Lines:
50 feet
50 feet
10 feet
3
YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED
WITHOUT A SITE PLAN.
GROUND CONDITIONS:
Depth to first Ground Water:~~=.:;"&i~'S'g)~~~ft~!-J'...~EN ti>S
Table Percent Ground Slope:_~_,_...lf;? __ _aa~ __ _f.£_~_1_? __ ~~.z:, ________ _
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
')![Septic Tank
( ) Vault Privy
() Pit Privy
( ) Chemical Toilet
FINAL DISPOSAL BY:
( ) Aeration Plant () Vault
() Composting Toilet ( )Recycling/ Potable Use
() Incineration Toilet () Recycling/Other Use
( ) Other -Describe: ______________________________ _
){Absorption Trench, Bed Or Pit tNPIVfAA1111L PoMes () Evapotranspiration
( ) Underground Dispersal ( ) Sand Filter
()Above Ground Dispersal ()Wastewater Pond
( ) Other -Describe: __________________________________________________ _
WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE? N ° ·
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the
Engineer does the Percolation Test) s &G A Tffta-1 e p p.efO /2 T
Minutes __________ per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes __________ per inch in hole No. 3
Minutes __________ per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes __________ per inch in hole No. 4
4
RPE WHO MADE SOIL ABSORPTION TESTS:
Name: ____ ~-"t~,L'.J:.~1'~.f-~~~r~f-~---------------------------------------
Address:_"!-_"!~--'!:_~!.'_"f!:..f-:_Pe-.!.':!§_,__~~~~'!_-~.f~.H...~~,_~.!.-~!._~!'_! __________ _
Telephone:_(_~.:!!:) __ '!.1-~:-~-~~~---------------------------~-----------
RPE RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM:
Name: _____________________ ~--------------------------~---------------
Address: ________ ~--------------------------------------------------~--
Telephone: ________ ~----------------------------------------------------
Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such
further mandatory and additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health
department to be made and furnished by the applicant or by the local health department for
purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the permit is subject to such
terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations
made, information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant
are or will be represented to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are
designed to be relied on by the local department of health in evaluating the same for purposes
of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any falsification or
misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted
based upon said application and in legal action for perjury as provided by law.
Signed: ___ ~~-------------------
Date: ______ ¥.kf/-~~----
PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
.. S 9.42 •
... A; . .: 1.~ -i. 112s-,,,,, ~s 19 · . ::: Ao s.1= ., '5' . .
·-1
I 13~ .(°/'80 'I-·~ = llU 7 18.:75 '= """
i '
I . ' ~f£..1.1C..1t _. l't SO " , 'S :; 990 .:rt&-;TS z 'S 3 ...
·I
..
. .
. i
I ..
. ,
__ ,
..
. '
,
' I
..
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
LOTS
SEC 16, T7S, R87W
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared For:
SIERRA PACIFIC LLC
144 Lower River Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
Attention: Mr. John Olson
Job No. GS-3183
January 10, 2001
CTL/THOMPSON, INC.
CONSUL TING ENGINEERS
234 CENTER DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • (970) 945-2809 •'
'\
.,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
SITE CONDITIONS
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SLOPE STABILITY
SITE EARTHWORK
Site Grading
Sub-excavation
Excavations
FOUNDATION
FLOOR SYSTEM AND SLABS-ON-GRADE
BELOW-GRADE CONSTRUCTION
SURFACE DRAINAGE
PERCOLATION TESTING
LIMITATIONS
FIGURE 1 ·SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2 -APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURES 3 AND 4 ·SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURES 5 AND 6 ·SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RES UL TS
FIGURE 7 ·EXTERIOR FOUNDATION WALL DRAIN
FIGURES 8 AND 9 • PERCOLATION TEST RES UL TS
SIERRA PACIFIC. LLC
LOT 5. SEC 19, T7S, RB7W
CTLIT JOB NO. GS·3183
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
"
' . .,
SCOPE
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the
proposed single-family residence on Lot 5 located in Section 16, Township 7 South,
Range 87 West in Garfield County, Colorado. We conducted the investigation to
evaluate the subsurface conditions at two potential building envelope locations on
the property and provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed
construction. Our report was prepared from data developed during field exploration
and laboratory testing, engineering analysis and our experience with similar
conditions. The report includes a description of the subsurface conditions found in
our exploratory borings, our opinions and recommendations for design criteria for
recommended foundation and floor systems, and geotechnical and construction
criteria for details influenced by the subsoils. The recommendations contained in
the report were developed based on our assumptions regarding the planned
construction. If actual construction plans will differ significantly from the
descriptions contained herein, we should be contacted to adjust our
recommendations as necessary. A summary of our conclusions is presented below,
with detailed design criteria presented in the report.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1. Subsurface conditions In our exploratory borings generally consisted
of interbedded lenses of silty to clayey gravel, silty to clayey sand and
sandy clay with scattered cobbles and boulders. The sandy clays
exhibited moderate to high swell in laboratory tests. The silty to
clayey sand and gravels are relatively non-expansive. Free ground
water was not found in our exploratory borings during drilling
operations.
2. Variable subsoils are present below the potential building envelope
locations at this site. We recommend constructing the residence on
footing foundations supported by a minimum 3 feet thickness of
densely compacted, structural fill. Design and construction criteria for
structural fill and footing foundations are presented in the report.
SIERRA PACIFIC, LLC
LOT 5. SEC 19, T7S. R87W
CTL!T JOB NO. GS-3183 1
• t "
3. Slabs-on-grade supported directly by the native soils at this site will
possess moderate to high potential for differential movement. We
recommend slab-on-grade floors in the basement and garage be
supported by at least 2 feet of densely compacted, structural fill.
Structurally supported floors should be considered in finished living
areas.
4. Surface drainage should be designed to provide for rapid removal of
surface water away from the proposed building. A foundation drain
should be installed around below-grade areas.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site Is an approximately 41 acre parcel located northeast of the Town of
Carbondale and northwest of the Town of Basalt. The property is defined as the
SE1/4 NW1/4 of Section 16, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principle
Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). Ground surface on the parcel
generally "stair steps" down to the southwest as a series of gently sloping
topographic "benches" separated by moderately steep slopes. Higher ground
surfaces north and east of the site are relatively flat. The benches are incised by
several gentle, southwest trending swales. The property is nearly bisected by a
drainage that generally trends down to the southwest. Steep slopes on the order of
5 to 6 feet high, adjacent to the drainage showed evidence of active erosion with
sparse vegetation and exposed soils. Vegetation on most of the site consists of
sage and grasses.
Two potential building envelopes in the east part of the property are being
considered for construction of a single-family residence. An existing access drive
leads to the location of the lower building envelope. Ground surface slopes in the
vicinity of the lower building envelope are between 10 and 12 percent. The upper
building envelope is located on a natural, hillside bench. Ground surfaces on the
bench slope down to the southwest at grades on the order of 12 to 15 percent.
SIERRA PACIFIC. LLC
LOTS. SEC 19. T7S. R87W
C~UT JOB NO. GS-3183 2
~:.
., ' .
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We anticipate the residence will be a one or two-story, building with a walkout
basement and attached garage. Slab-on-grade floors will likely be constructed in
basement and garage areas. Foundation loads assumed for our analysis were
between 1,000 and 3,000 pounds per lineal foot of foundation wall with maximum
interior column loads of 30 kips. We expect maximum foundation excavation depths
on the order of 6 to 1 O feet will be required. A percolation field will be adjacent to the
building. We should be informed if actual construction plans will differ significantly
from the above descriptions so that we can review our recommendations and
provide revised recommendations and/or design criteria, if necessary.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions below the two potential building envelopes were
' investigated by drilling a total of six exploratory borings at the approximate locations
shown on Figure 2. We drilled three exploratory borings (TH-1 through TH-3) at the
lower building envelope location and three borings (TH-4 through TH-6) at the
location of the upper building envelope with an all-terrain drill rig. The building
envelopes were not staked at the time of drilling operations. Locations of our
exploratory borings were surveyed by Scarrow and Walker at a later date. Drilling
was directed by our engineering geologist who logged the soils encountered and
obtained samples. Samples obtained in the field were returned to our laboratory
where field classifications were checked and typical samples selected for testing.
Graphic logs of the soils encountered in our exploratory borings are shown on
Figures 3 and 4.
Subsurface conditions in our exploratory borings generally consisted of
interbedded lenses of silty to clayey gravel, silty to clayey sand and sandy clay with
scattered cobbles and boulders. Free ground water was notfound in our exploratory
borings during drilling operations. Field penetration resistance tests and
SIERRA PACIFIC, LLC
LOT 5. SEC 19. T7S, R87W
CTUT JOB NO. GS·3183 3 'I
'
- - - - - - - - ----- - ---- - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------
. ' .,
observations during drilling indicated the clay was very stiff, the sand was medium
dense to dense and the gravel was medium dense to very dense.
Two samples of the sandy clay selected for one-dimensional, swell-
consolidation testing exhibited 3.0 and 4.6 percent swell when wetted under an
applied pressure of 1,000 psf. The silty to clayey sand and gravels are relatively non-
expansive. Swell-consolidation test results are shown on Figures 5 and 6 and
laboratory test results are summarized on Table I.
SLOPE STABILITY
The property is in an area mapped as landslide deposits and a large landslide
headscarp is adjacent to the east border of the property. However, the southeast
trending drainage that crosses the site has incised the deposit to depths of 5 to 6
feet. Based on the limited precipitation in the local area of the site, this erosion is
evidence that the soil mass has been stable for at least hundreds of years.
Additionally, ground water which decreases slope stability, is located at depths well
below potential slope failure surfaces at this site. In our opinion, the landslide
deposit is ancient, dormant and stable. Construction of a single-family residence at
either of the proposed building envelope locations is feasible and appropriate.
SITE EARTHWORK
Site Grading
Grading and building plans were not developed at this writing. Areas which
will receive fill should be stripped of vegetation, organic soils and debris. The
resulting surface should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture
conditioned and compacted. The native soils free of organic matter, debris and
rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter can be used as fill for site grading. Fill should
be placed in loose lifts of 10 inches thick or less, moisture conditioned to within 2
S!:RRA PACIFIC, LLC
LOT 5. SEC 19, T7S, R87W
C~LIT JOB NO. GS·3183 4 I
... ..
i'
., . '
- - - - - - - - - -------
percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of
standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. Placement and compaction
of fill should be checked by a representative of our firm during construction.
Sub-excavation
Variable subsoils are present below the potential building envelope locations
at this site. Differential movement and associated damage to foundations and floor
slabs may occur If the building is constructed directly on the native soils. We
recommend sub-excavation of the native soils below foundations and floor slabs and
replacement with densely compacted, structural fill as discussed in the
FOUNDATION and FLOOR SYSTEMS AND SLABS-ON-GRADE sections.
The bottom of sub-excavated areas should be scarified to a depth of at least
8 inches, moisture treated and compacted. The excavated native soils free of
organic matter, debris and rocks larger than 3 inches in diameter can be re-used as
structural fill. The soils should be uniformly mixed and moisture treated before
placement. Structural fill should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of
optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 98 percent of standard Proctor
(ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. The actual thickness of a fill lift that can be
properly compacted will depend on the type of compaction equipment. In order for
the procedure to perform properly, close control of fill placement to specifications
is required. Our representative should observe placement and test compaction of
the structural fill.
Excavations
We anticipate the soils within anticipated excavation depths at this site can
be excavated using conventional, heavy-duty excavation equipment. Excavation
sides will need to be sloped or braced to meet local, state and federal safety
regulations. The soils will likely classify as Type B or Type C soils based on OSHA
SIERRA PACIFIC. LLC
LOTS. SEC 19. 77S, P.87W
CILiT JOB NO. GS-3183 5
.,
' '
standards governing excavations. Temporary slopes should be no steeper than 1
to 1 (horizontal to vertical) in Type B soils and 1 to 1.5 in Type C soils. Contractors
should identify the soils encountered in the excavation and refer to OSHA standards
to determine appropriate slopes.
Free ground water was not encountered in our exploratory borings during
drilling operations. We do not anticipate excavations for foundations or utilities will
penetrate ground water, however, excavations should be sloped to a positive gravity
discharge or a temporary sump where water can be removed by pumping. The
ground surrounding the excavations should be sloped to direct runoff away from the
excavations.
FOUNDATION
Subsurface information at the site indicates variable subsoils are present
below the potential building envelope locations. Differential movement and
associated damage to foundations and floor slabs may occur if the building is
constructed directly on the native soils. We recommend constructing the residence
on footing foundations supported by densely compacted, structural fill. We
recommend sub-excavation of the native soils below footings to a depth of at least
3 feet below bottom of footings and replacement with densely compacted, structural
fill. The sub-excavation process is discussed in the SITE EARTHWORK section.
Recommended design and construction criteria for footings are presented below.
These criteria were developed from analysis of field and laboratory data and our
experience.
1. Footing foundations supported on densely compacted structural fill
should be designed for a maximum soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf.
Soils loosened during the forming process for the footings should be
removed or re-compacted prior to placing concrete.
2.
S!ERRA PACIFIC. LLC
LOT 5, SEC 19, T7S, R87W
CTL/T JOB NO. GS-3183
Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of at least 16
inches. Foundations for isolated columns should have minimum
6
• .. ,
'
dimensions of 24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be required,
depending upon foundation loads.
3. Grade beams and foundation walls should be well reinforced, top and
bottom, to span undisclosed loose or soft soil pockets. We
recommend reinforcement sufficient to span an unsupported distance
of at least 10 feet. Reinforcement should be designed by the structural
engineer.
4. The soils under exterior footings should be protected from freezing.
We recommend the bottom of footings be constructed at a depth of at
least 42 inches below finished exterior grades. The Garfield County
building department should be consulted to verify the required frost
protection depth.
5. The sub-excavation process should be monitored by a representative
of our firm. Our representative should observe placement and test
compaction of structural fill.
FLOOR SYSTEM AND SLABS-ON-GRADE
We anticipate slab-on-grade floors will be constructed in basement and
garage areas. Our laboratory data and our experience indicate the sandy clays at
this site are moderate to high swelling. The silty to clayey sand and gravels are
relatively non-expansive. Slabs-on-grade supported directly by the native soils at
this site will possess moderate to high potential for differential movement and
associated damage. We recommend slab-on-grade floors in the basement and
garage be supported by at least 2 feet of densely compacted, structural fill. Sub-
excavation of the native soils to a depth of at least 2 feet below floor slabs and
replacement with densely compacted, structural fill is discussed in the SITE
EARTHWORK section. This process will reduce total slab movement and make
movement more uniform.
The most positive method to mitigate floor movement is the construction of
a structural floor with an air space between the floor and the subgrade soils. The
structural floor is supported by the foundation system and is an excellent choice
StERRA PACIFIC. LLC
LOTS, SEC 19, T7S, R87W
CTLIT JOB NO. GS-3183 7
I . • . ..
from a geotechnical viewpoint. Structurally supported floors should be considered
in finished living areas.
Where slabs-on-grade are constructed, we recommend the following
precautions at this site. These precautions will not prevent movement from
occurring, they tend to reduce damage if slab movement occurs.
1. Slabs should be placed directly on the structural fill. We recommend
against placing a free draining sand or gravel layer below slabs
because it increases the possibility of a single source of water wetting
the entire area supporting the slab.
2. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing
members with a slip joint which allows free vertical movement of the
slabs.
3. Underslab plumbing should be eliminated where feasible. Where such
plumbing is unavoidable, it should be pressure tested for leaks before
slabs are poured. Plumbing and utilities which pass through slabs
should be isolated from the slabs with sleeves and provided with with
flexible connections to slab-supported appliances.
4. Exterior patio and porch slabs should be isolated from the residence.
These slabs should be well-reinforced to function as independent
units. Movements of these slabs should not be transmitted to the
residence foundations.
5. Frequent control joints should be provided to reduce problems
associated with shrinkage and curling. Our experience indicates
panels which are approximately square generally perform better than
rectangular areas. We recommend use of an additional joint about 3
feet away from and parallel to foundation walls.
BELOW-GRADE CONSTRUCTION
Below-grade walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures. The design
lateral earth pressure is dependent upon the type of backfill. Assuming the on-site
soils are used as backfill, we recommend design of basement walls to resist an "at-
rest" lateral earth pressure calculated using an equivalent fluid density of at least 50
SIERRA PACIFIC, LLC
LOTS. SEC 19, T7S, R87W
CTUT ..:OB NO. GS-3183 8
.,
'.
'
l
.. . '
pcf for this site. This equivalent density does not include allowances for sloping
backfill, surcharges or hydrostatic pressures. The structural engineer should
consider the effects of site specific grading on the behavior of the walls. Backfill
placed adjacent to the exterior of foundation walls should be moisture conditioned
to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95
percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density.
Water from rain, snow melt and surface irrigation of lawns and landscaping
frequently flows through relatively permeable backfill placed adjacent to a building
and collects on the surface of relatively impermeable soils occurring at the bottom
of the excavation. This can cause wet or moist conditions in basements and crawl
spaces after construction. An exterior foundation drain should be installed around
below grade areas in the residence. The drain should consist of a 4-inch diameter,
slotted encased in free draining gravel. The gravel should extend up to within 2 feet
of finished exterior grades. The drain should lead to a positive gravity outfall or a
sump pit where water can be removed by pumping. The gravity outlet should not be
susceptible to clogging or freezing. A typical foundation drain detail is presented on
Figure 7. Crawl spaces under the main residence should be well ventilated.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, floor slabs and
concrete flatwork. We recommend the following precautions be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the buildings are completed:
1.
2.
SIERRA PACIFIC, LLC
LOT 5. SEC 19, T7S. R87W
CTUT JOB NO. GS-3183
Wetting or drying of the open foundation excavation should be
avoided.
The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the residence should
be sloped to drain away from the building in all directions. We
recommend providing a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet
around the residence.
9
' ••
3. Backfill around the exterior of foundation walls should be moisture
conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and
compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698)
maximum dry density.
4. The residence should be provided with gutters and downspouts. Roof
downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill. Splash blocks and downspout extensions should be provided
at all discharge points. We specifically recommend against burying
downspout discharge pipes because it increases the potential for
subsurface wetting near the foundation.
5. Landscaping should be carefully designed to mm1m1ze irrigation.
Plants used near foundation walls should be limited to those with low
moisture requirements; irrigated grass should not be located within 5
feet of the foundation. Sprinklers should not discharge within 5 feet
of the foundation and should be directed away from the building.
6. Impervious plastic membranes should not be used to cover the ground
surface immediately surrounding the building. These membranes tend
to trap moisture and prevent normal evaporation from occurring.
Geotextile fabrics can be used to control weed growth and allow some
evaporation to occur.
PERCOLATION TESTING
We drilled eight percolation borings (P-1 through P-8) and two profile borings
(Profile 1 and Profile 2) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. Graphic
logs of the soils encountered in our borings are shown on Figure 4. Percolation
tests are shown on Figures 8 and 9. Percolation test results indicate that a design
percolation rate will be about 20 to 30 minutes per inch. We recommend the
percolation field be designed by an engineer qualified in septic field design.
LIMITATIONS
Our exploratory borings were located to obtain a reasonably accurate picture
of subsurface conditions at the two potential building envelope locations at the site.
Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by our borings will occur.
SIERRA PACIFIC, LLC
LOTS. SEC 19. T7S, R87W
CTUT JOB NO. GS.J183 10 ; .
" ••
"
Our report was based on conditions disclosed by our exploratory borings,
laboratory testing, engineering analysis and our experience. The recommendations
contained in the report were developed based on our assumptions regarding the
proposed construction. We should be advised ifthe actual construction plans differ
significantly from descriptions in our report to permit us to re-evaluate our
conclusions and recommendations.
This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by geotechnical engineers currently practicing
under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No other warranty, express
or implied, is made. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this
report or in the analysis of the influence of the subsoil conditions on the design of
the structure, please call.
CTL/THOMPSON, INC.
~). VJl1~
s D. Kellogg
1
VV' 0(\
Geotechnical Engineer
/,
SIERRA PACIFIC. LLC
L015. SEC 19. ns, R87W
CTL!T JOB NO. GS-3183 11
l.
. ' ••
SATURATION AND PREPARATION
DATE: 11/02/00
TIME AT START OF SATURATION: 1:00 pm
HOLE DEPTH TIME AT
NUMBER (INCHES) START OF
INTERVAL
P-1 30.0 11:30
12:30
1:30
2:30
3:30
P-2 27.5 11:30
12:30
1:30
2:30
3:30
P-3 27.0 11:30
12:30
1:30
2:30
3:30
P-4 38.25 11:30
12:30
1:30
2:30
3:30
Job No. GS-3183
~IERCl>LA TION TEST
DATE: 11/03/00
WATER IN BORING AFTER 24 HOURS
YES X NO
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
DEPTH TO WATER
TIME INTERVAL
(MINUTES)
START OF END OF
INTERVAL INTERVAL
(INCHES) (INCHES)
60 17.25 24.0
60 24.0 26.0
60 12.0 19.0
60 19.0 22.0
60 22.0 25.0
60 17.0 22.5
60 22.5 24.5
60 11.75 18.75
60 18.75 22.25
60 22.25 25.25
60 15.75 21.75
60 21.75 23.25
60 10.5 13.0
60 13.0 16.0
60 16.0 19.0
60 18.0 21.25
60 21.25 22.5
60 10.5 15.5
60 15.5 18.5
60 18.5 21.5
CHANGE PER COLA·
IN WATER TION RATE
DEPTH (MIN/INCH)
(INCHES)
6.75 9
2.0 30
7.0 9
3.0 20 .. //
3.0 20
5.5 11
2.0 30
7.0 9
3.5 17 ~,...._
3.0 20
.v
6.0 10
1.5 40
2.5 24
3.0 20
3.0 20
3.25 18
1.25 48
5.0 12
3.0 20
3.0 20
Fig. 8
' \ ..
'~.~
. '
SATURATION AND PREPARATION
DATE: 11/02/00
TIME AT START OF SATURATION: 1:00 pm
HOLE DEPTH TIME AT
NUMBER (INCHES) START OF
INTERVAL
p.5 24.0 10:45
11:15
11:45
12'45
1:45
2:45
P-6 23.0 10:45
11'15
11:45
12:45
1:45
2'45
P-7 25.25 10:45
11:15
11:45
12:45
1:45
2:45
P-8 25.0 10:45
11:15
11:45
12:45
1:45
2:45
Job No. GS-3183
l'ERCOLATION TEST
DATE: 11/03100
WATER IN BORING AFTER 24 HOURS
YES X NO
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
DEPTH TO WATER
TIME INTERVAL
(MINUTES)
START OF END OF
INTERVAL INTERVAL
(INCHES) (INCHES)
30 16.0 17.0
30 17.0 18.25
60 18.25 19.75
60 9.75 14.25
60 14.25 16.75
60 16.75 19.25
30 11.5 13.25
30 13.25 14.75
60 14.75 17.5
60 9.0 13.0
60 13.0 16.0
60 16.0 18.75
30 14.5 17.5
30 17.5 20.0
60 20.0 22.75
60 12.0 18.0
60 18.0 21.5
60 21.5 25.25
30 13.25 14.5
30 14.5 15.25
60 15.25 16.75
60 8.5 12.0
60 12.0 13.75
60 13.75 15.25
CHANGE PER COLA·
IN WATER TION RATE
DEPTH (MIN/INCH)
(INCHES)
1.0 30
1.25 24
1.5 40
4.5 13
2.5 24
2.5 24
1.75 17
1.5 20
2.75 22
4.0 15
3.0 20
2.75 20
3.0 10
2.5 12
2.75 22
6.0 10
3.5 17
3.75 16
1.25 24
0.75 40
1.5 40
3.5 17
1.75 34
1.5 40
Fig. 9
' -
-.
JOB NO. GS-3183
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
NATURAL A TTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED SOLUBLE PASSING
BORING DEPTH NATURAL DRY SWELL• LIQUID PLASTICITY COMPRESSIVE SULFATES N0.200 SOIL CLASSIFICATION
MOISTURI DENSITY LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH SIEVE
(FEET) (%) (PCF) (%) (%) (%) (PSF) (%) (%)
TH-1 9 6.1 25 9 45 SAND. CLAVEY ISC\
TH-2 4 6.0 111 0.002 CLAY, SANDY ICL
TH-2 9 8.2 112 26 8 77 CLAY. SANDY ICL
TH-2 29 13.0 113 3.0 CLAY, SANDY ICL
TH-3 14 13.3 113 4.6 CLAY. SANDY ICL\
TH-4 4 10.2 114 38 7 52 CLAY, SANDY ICL\
TH-6 14 5.0 20 NP 25 GRAVEL, SIL TY IG"'
•
'
•Note: Swoll due lo welling al an applied load of 1,000 psf. Page 1 of 1
LOT 5
.. SEC 16, T7S, R87W
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO .
Bldg. Env.
Rod =100 ' WEl
Job No. GS-3183 APPROXIMATE LOCATION
Scale: 1·=100'
OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 2
--------------------" . TH-1 TH-2 TH-3 '.!
" .. '· EL=7589 EL=7579 EL=7583
"'t.
, . .. 0 " .~ . . ,
.~~~;
.:~
5 50/12 50/8
0
0
10 14/12 50/10
0
15 40/12 50/10
-ID
ID
lo.
.E 20 50/11
.c
1i.
ID
Q
25 50/2
0
30 50/9
35
40
SUMMARY LOGS OF
Job No. GS-3183
TH-4
EL=7642
24/12
50/7
EXPLORATORY BORINGS
TH-5
EL=7639
32/12
43/12
..
TH-6
EL=7634
50/10
40/12
50/11
0
5
10
15
c ..
"O .... :r
20 ;:J ..., .. .. ....
25
30
35
40
Fig. 3
:.-:
' -;
. ' "
0
-., ., ....
c 5
.c -Q. .,
Q
10
LEGEND:
Job No. GS-3183
Profile 1
EL=7568
P-1
EL=7570
P-2
EL=7570
Siity gravel "topsoil" with vegetation
and roots.
Gravel, silty to olayey, soattered
oobbles and boulders, medium dense
to very dense, moist, brown, rust.
(GC, GM, GC-GM)
Sand, olayey to silty, soattered
gravel and oobbles, medium dense
to dense, slightly moist to moist,
brawn, rust. (SC, SM, SC-SM)
Clay, sandy, scattered gravel, very
stiff, slightly moist to moist, brown,
rust. (CL)
P-3
EL=7571
P-4
EL=7565
Drive sample.
Indicates that 1
pound hammer
ware required t
O.D. sampler 1
Drive sample.
Indicates that 5
pound hammer
were required t
O.D. sampler 7
SUMMARY LOGS OF
Profile 2 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8
EL=7632 EL=7632 EL=7632 EL=7632 EL=7631
.~ ~ 0
5
10
NOTES:
he symbol 14/12
blows of a 140
alllng 30 Inches
drive a 2.5 Inch
Inches.
he symbol 50/7
blows of a 140
alllng 30 Inches
drive a 2.0 Inch
nohes.
XPLORATORY BORINGS
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on
October 17 and 18, 2000 with four
Inch diameter, continuous flight
auger and an all-terrain drill rig.
2. No free ground water was found In
our exploratory borings during drllltng
operations.
3. Locations of exploratory borings were
surveyed by Scarrow and Walker.
Locations of Profile and percolation
borings are approximate. Elevations of
all borings were Interpolated from
topographic mapping prepared by
Scarrow and Walker.
4. These exploratory borings are subject
to the explanations, limitation and
conclusions as contained In this report.
c
Cl
"'C -:r
5" ..,
Cl
!.
Fig. 4