HomeMy WebLinkAbout03233 ,
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO.198 116
Pale1of3
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE
(INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION
(MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL RATE
_ — (INCHES) (INCHES) _ (INCHES) (MIN. /INCH)
P•1A 20% 15 8% b' /. 3
water added 8 6% 1'k
1 6'h _ 5% _ 1
•
- -- water added - 7% 5 2% —
1 water added 9'% 8 1'%
-- 8 - 6' /. — 1y
1 6% _ 5% _ 1
water added 7% 6% 1 14
-_, P -1B 24 16 11% 7 4%
7 5 _ 2
w
water added
8 6 2
6 3% 2'%
9 --
water added 10% 8 y. 2
8% 6'% 2
6% 4% 1'%
_ water added 6% 5% 1 y 9
P -1C 51 15 10 8'% 1%
8% 8 %
8 7% %
7'% 6'/. ' '%
^ _____
6% 6 'A %
6A 5% %
^ water added 7'/. 7 '/. b
7 A 6'/. % 30 •
- NOTE: Percolation test holes were hand dug In the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and soaked on January 20, 1998. The
holes were protected from freezing overnight with rigid foam Insulation. Percolation test were conducted on
January 21, 1998. The average percolation rate Is determined from the last three readings.
. 1 I
• / 1 ''1 ri - ...... -.
1 1
tr 4 ,
) i
1 k
r ,,..•,, .
\ ,
., , , , ,
/ i'l , ■
I , \
F. .>.- ...
` -
--
, , ...
,,.. . .
, ..,
...
/ ..' ' /SD / p , - -•' " - - k // -- • ..,_
-_, -
/ ,...- :;I" h\ \
/
, r ,./
1
i
... ■..
--.
--,
11
.....
......
I 1» ,7<;pr,..,...,.. ..
.---,..._,. ...,,..
........,
,
... 1 k
;-''! '' \■ .
/ / ' .:V,•,7 ....- ..... . __ .
>C, ::-•
1 / i l i .( i ( ' ''' -,
. kr" ....., ...., .../ ''''..
.
/ ..
i: k \\\ -------_,..,
--. ..,.
...X- i
.....
, i' c'' -... 7 .>••••-.... , A ...) ..... _
/ / i / g , i , • .., „.„ ...
',.. -....... _ ,.
.
.., ...., ..
. %, • .
,..... ,..,
0 N.. . -..
.
,
•
....., _ .
.,
/ 1 :-.:. g/.
7 irf, ei/ ' ..
V . --.... , ._ _
... 41.
...
1 1".....‘'‘..1.X.111..":_ .....°°.:_"11.,:: 21-1-111.7111-1
...... -:..:::: ,.. :1-7
! -;::: \ 1.‘‘
, .....„
. .....
\ '''
III .. / 1C ' :
... ‘1 .
1111 ,
r,., ti
, • .. ".
tt.
,.. ,, \
i,; „ , ,..,..,/
... „
..._
7,.. 4, i..
i „, , ,,,,,x, /,__,
, ..., ...„,.... ,
.
, ...., .
..,.
, / . . .....,,... , •,,,
. f---- .. "0'6 _ ...••• _
_
, . , ‘
, T ARcEL.. i. H.
., ‘,32.,,,37. sl,ft.
1 .......„ - -- - .....
1/41/4- - - PC -.'-'- •I'l ‘.. . ....----,
-,.. ''' ..- \'''. 14.61 ticres'N,.
. ....
N li k
„.. '‘.. , •
• .
i+ ' i .-
_ , , „ ...
.
, .. %.,
\ ..
• ..,
•... • . \
,,
•• .., ,
. i
1 •
,.... . -,......„., -
,....., •
,....
\
\
• ,
• ,!
.
' •
.,
,
.. ',
. ' 1
. ., •
.... .
.... „ „._ .. ''' • \ \ , l' '
f --1 I, '------__,.. .
••.
,.. ,.... .•
••„.. „.
„. .
.....
.
,.
,.
.,
•.
.,
, .
•
-.,„... ..... ,.. . , . .
.... , ,
......_ i ....
,. ....
.,. . .
„ ,•..,
.
•
. , ,
, ,
, , ,
,
. •
., ,
.... , , , , , .
. ..
, , ,
• ..
ir-=-__:---9---'---\-8-85' ... .... .
.
1 0 , \ 1.
1
. V . '`....
\ .
.. I • ''' \ CP EDGE OU RIG&
, , x N .
‘ '
. '. 1
. ..,' ., ... . \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ A' s 25‘, OFFSET \FI
''-- ''''.. '''' .•:' - \ ` '', \ \ 'L. \ \OF\ COUNTY \RO‘A
,
,, \ . \ \ \ \ \
....., .. 1. \
.....
...
. , '''' \ \ ' . \
. • ''' '
.. 1
', \
,.. .. ' '' " i) \ N• . 1. '. 1 , ...
' (1 \ \ \ 1/2 '' .‘
0 ,
‘ , \ .,
. , \ \ \ \ \
,..
/ . . . .
.. --‘
..,..
. .. . ..
% --S - c ---1 C - t ---'.• .. X .„.._ ''' -1 -' - - - 7,7" - e-r.”` 7- - -.1- ' 77 - - ‘" ---7--t---- --... ----c
_.
- i
- _ - ---,- A: „_.j..c... ---‘ -.&---- -
/" ----- _ThC--=.-- --- --- 0
e,,,,dag ar -.47/6
— . .......r
— —Li _
55. 38'
- _a_ --- 0 i--/NC703—
___ __________ /fi ci--K 0 / 8 .
„ tit
___ ___N n \ 7<15,-1---P
TABLE OF CONTENT
1
SCOPE
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1 1
SITE CONDITIONS 2 3
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
SITE EXCAVATION AND GRADING 4 4 5
FOUNDATION 5
Southern Residence 6
Northern Residence 8
FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK
SURFACE DRAINAGE 8 8 9
LIMITATIONS
FIGURE 1 - APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
FIGURES 3 AND 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 5 - EXTERIOR FOUNDATION WALL DRAIN
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
MR. RALPH HUBBELL
CLINETOP RANCH
CTUf G &2470
L _
SCOPE
This report presents the results of our soils and foundation investigation for
two proposed residences at Clinetop Ranch adjacent to Main Elk Creek and 4.8 miles
along County Road 243 from the Buford Road turnoff in Garfield County, Colorado.
The purpose of this Investigation was to explore the subsurface conditions at the
site and provide geotechnlcal design and construction criteria for the proposed
residences.
This report includes descriptions of surface and subsurface conditions which
were Identified during our field work at the site, recommendations related to
foundations and support of lower level floors, and specific design and construction
criteria for site grading, foundations, lower floors, below grade construction and
surface drainage. The report was prepared from data developed during our field and
laboratory work, subsequent engineering analyses and our experience with similar
projects. The recommendations are based upon our understanding of the planned
construction. If plans change, or differ from the assumptions presented herein, we
should be contacted to review our recommendations and determine if any revisions
are needed. A summary of our findings and conclusion are presented below.
Detailed recommendations for design and construction are presented in subsequent
sections of this report.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1. Our exploratory test pits encountered topsoil, and stiff, slightly moist
to moist, silts and clays underlain by a sandy gravel with cobble and
boulder at the northern residence site. At the southern building
location, our exploratory test pits penetrated topsoil, underlain by
medium stiff to very soft, very moist to wet, silts and clays.
2. Ground water was not observed In the exploratory test pits as they
were dug. However, wet soils were encountered at depths below 4 to
4.5 feet in TP-4 and TP -3, respectively.
MR. RALPH HUBBELL
CUNETOP RANCH 1
CTL T GS-2470
J
level and graded to very soft and wet below a depth of 4 feet. Field measurements
of undrained shear strength were about 300 psf.
TP -1 and TP -2 were excavated in the northern building site. At TP -1, one foot
organic silt (topsoil) overlies 5 feet of stiff, slightly moist to moist, sandy clays and
silts. Below the 6 foot level, the soils grade to silty sand containing layers of clayey
silt and sandy gravels with cobbles and boulders. At TP -2, one foot of topsoil
overlies 1.5 feet of clayey silt. Below a depth of 2.5 feet the soils grade to sandy
gravels with cobbles and boulders Intermixed with some silty sand.
Accurate ground water data could not be obtained because the exploratory dg.
test pits were backfilled with the excavated soils very shortly after e
No free ground water was observed during the excavation operations.
SITE EXCAVATION AND GRADING
We understand that there will be little site grading around the proposed
residence except that needed for any debris flow diversion berms and related
swales. Some fill might be required to achieve subgrade elevation for exterior
concrete flatwork. Areas to receive fill or below slabs -on -grade should be stripped
of vegetation, organic soils, existing fill or other deleterious materials. The resulting
surface should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture
content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry
density (ASTM D 698). On site soils which are free of organic matter, rock larger
than 6 inches in diameter or other deleterious materials can be used as fill. All
should n m ma ximu um conditioned nchthick within 2
percent of
at least 95 percent of
placed in xim
the standard Proctor maximum dry density.
The soils exposed at the bottom of the footing excavations should also be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum standard Proctor dry y
MR. RALPH HUBBELL
CLINETOP RANCH
CTLIT GS-2470 4
•
(ASTM D 698). Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Class 6 aggregate
base course material could be placed and compacted in the footing excavations if
needed as a leveling course.
We anticipate maximum basement excavation depths of 5 to 8 feet. In our
opinion, excavations for the foundation and utilities can be accomplished with
medium to large, heavy earthmoving equipment. Excavation t rrnat d al will nee d to b
sloped or braced. We believe the on site soils are Type
the October, 1989 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard
governing excavations published should be no than 1.6:1 The publication
1.5 1(horizontal to
Indicates that temporary P
vertical) for Type C soils above the ground water level.
Soils removed from an excavation should not be stockpiled at the edge of the
excavation. We recommend to at least the depth soils
of placed at a the top
of the excavation equal
Free ground water was not encountered in our exploratory test pits
immediately after they were completed. Dependent upon excavation depths and time
of year ground water may be present. If free ground water is encountered, we
recommend the excavation be sloped to sumps where water can be removed by
pumping. We should be contacted immediately if ground water is found in the
excavation to allow review of the drain system recommended in this report and
foundation construction in general.
FOUNDATION
So •~ fence
The soils encountered at and below a depth of 4 feet were wet and very soft.
These soils are not suitable for support of building foundations in their present
5
MR. RALPH HUBBELL
CLINETO - RANCH
CTLJT OS -2470
condition. We therefore recommend selecting another site to build this residence,
or wait 6 to 12 months after irrigation is terminated astirlboadjasantimajwatilijaakis
assaiiredrand then re- evaluate the subsurface conditions at this location.
Northern Residence
In our opinion, the building can be supported on conventional spread footing
foundations which penetrate the upper silt and clay soils and bear on the underlying
silty sands or silty gravels. At TP -1, the predominately granular soils were
encountered below a depth of about 6 feet. TP -1 was located on the high end of the
building envelope. At TP -2, the gravelly soils were found below a depth of 2.5 feet.
We have assumed a light structure that is sufficiently flexible to withstand
some differential foundation movement will be built. The recommended maximum
soil bearing pressure presented below should result in total settlement on the order
of one inch. Maximum differential settlement may be up to 3/4 inch. The risk of
excessive differential or localized settlement can be reduced by careful attention to
drainage precautions discussed under SURFACE DRAINAGE.
Footings can be designed using the following criteria:
1. Footings bearing on the natural silty sands or silty gravels can be
designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure o■ 3,000 psf.
Material loosened during the excavation or forming process should be
removed from footing areas. If needed, a 4 to 6 inch thick layer of
densely compacted Class 6 road base can be placed below footings to
provide a flat surface for subsequent concrete placement. All soils
exposed in the footing excavations should be compacted as
recommended in SITE EXCAVATION AND GRADING;
2. Foundation walls for continuous footings should be reinforced top and
bottom to span undisclosed loose soil pockets. We ret.omrrend steel
reinforcement equivalent to that required for a simple span of 12 feet.
Reinforcement should be designed by a qualified structural engineer;
3. Minimum footing sizes are desirable. We recommend a minimum
width of 16 inches for continuous footings and at least 2 feet by 2 feet
MR. RALPH HUBBELL 6
CLINETOP RANCH
CTUT GS-2470
FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Living area floors could be structurally supported by the foundation with a
crawl space between the floor and ground or may be slabs -on- grade. Garage floors
will be slabs -on- grade. All floors should be kept at least 6 feet above the highest
level of the adjacent Main Elk Creek. Exterior concrete flat work is usually placed on
grade. Structurally supported floors are excellent from the geotechnical viewpoint.
Crawl spaces should be well ventilated and drained. We recommend the following
design and construction criteria for slab -on- grade:
1. Slabs -on -grade can bear on prepared subgrade or on structural fill
constructed as discussed above under SITE EXCAVATION AND
GRADING;
2. Six
he slabs-on-grade draining washed gravel should
break any capillary water rise; beneath
3. bearing n members. Vertical t movement of exterior
labs walls
hould not be
restricted;
4. Plumbing below the slabs should be pressure tested. Trench backfill
should be moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture
content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D 698);
5. Institute (ACI)trecommends maximum joint spac ng of 15 to 20 feet to
control cracking.
The above precautions will not prevent movement of slab -on -grade floors in the
event the soils become wet, but they will reduce damage when the movement
occurs.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The performance of foundations and concrete flatwork is influenced by the
moisture conditions in the subsoils. The risk of wetting foundation scl ?s can be
MR. RALPH HUBBELL $
CLINETOP RANCH
CTIJT 05 -2470
reduced by planned and maintained surface drainage. Wetting or drying of open
foundation excavations should be avoided. The ground surface surrounding the
residence should be sloped to drain away from the residence in all directions. We
recommend a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet. Roof downspouts and
drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill and shouh never be
connected to the subsurface perimeter drain. Splash blocks or extensions should
be provided at all downspout discharge locations.
LIMITATIONS
Our exploratory pits were spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate assessment
of the subsurface conditions. Variations in the subsurface conditions not Indicated
by our exploratory pits will occur. We should therefore observe the completed
foundation excavation to confirm the soils are as anticipated.
Our report was based on conditions disclosed by our exploratory pits,
engineering analysis and our experience. Criteria presented reflects the pr:)posed
building as we understand It. We should be advised if the final design differs from
our assumptions 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 or if you have questions
regarding this report, please call.
CTLITHOMPSON, INC. Rev' e> •
A 1.2
George Cggorno Jy- a c i ! •.E.
Project Manager o Manager' v
GC:JM:cd ' .,
(3 copies sent)
MR. RALPH HUBBELL
CLINETOP RANCH 9
CTUT GS-2170
LEGEND:
g m Silt, sandy, some organics and roots,
brown (Topsoil). (OL)
® Silt, clayey, sandy, medium stiff to
stiff, slightly moist to very moist,
brown. (ML, ML —CL)
® Silt, clayey, sandy, occasional thin layers
gravel and cobbles, very soft, very
mois t to wet, brown. (ML, ML —CL)
``'
Gravel, sandy, containing oobbles and
boulders, medium dense, slightly moist
to moist, brown. (GM, SM)
m
n Indicates bulk sample.
oo
s
•
1 S
Indicates hand drive.
NOTES:
1. These exploratory pits were excavated
with a baokhoe on June 22, 1998.
2. No free ground water was found
In our exploratory pit the day
of excavation.
3. These exploratory pits are subject
to the explanations, limitations
and conclusion as contained
In this report.
4. The surface elevation of TP -1 and
TP -2 were estimated by assuming
the top of the adjacent red well head
casing at elevation 100 feet. The
surface elevation of TP -3 and TP -4
were estimated by assuming the top
of the nearby and leaking well head
casing was elevation 100 feet. There—
fore the elevation of TP -1 and TP -2
VkTORY PITS TP 3 and relate 4 the elevations of
Fig. 2
C U
I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR. 7 HR. TIME READINGS V.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN 15 MIN. 60 MIN 19 MIN 4MIN. 1 MIN. •2 '100 '50'40'30 16 '10 '4 3I8' 34' 1W 3' 5"6' 6'
+I cc
to
gi p aI �
30
001 0002 .005 .008 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 1.18 2.02.38 4 .76 8.52 19.1 36.1 762 127.200
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON- PLASTIC) SANLS GRAVEL
FINE l MEDIUM l COARSE I FINE 1 COARSE: l COBBLES
Sample of GRAVEL SILTY (GM) _ GRAVEL 69 % SAND 15 %
From TP -2 - AT 7 FEET SILT & CLAY 16 % LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX -
1 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS I
25 HR. 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN 15 MIN. BONN 19 MU4, 4MIN. 1MIN. '200 '100 •50'40 16 '10 '4 3AP 3'4' 1$4• 3' 5'8' 8'
100 1 — r — — — 0
90 ____._ ___________. —___ -- ______ -____ _ _.___ - -__ —_ 10
1 60 1 777 .__ .. _ _ _ 1- _ - -; 40
.
80
_ - - -4 `.- - 00
0 .001 0002 .006 .009 .018 .037 .074 .148 .29] i]B 2.02.% 4.76 952 19.1 %.1 762 1 752
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
SANDS
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (JON - PLASTIC) GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE I COBBLES
Sample of GRAVEL __ __ % SAND %
From ---------------------------------- - - - - -- SILT & CLAY % LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX -__ -_%
Gradation
JOB NO 2470 Test FIG.4
1 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
25HR 7HR TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARDSERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN 15 MIN. 60 MIN 19 MIN. 4MIN. 1MIN. '200 100 '50'40'30 '16 '10'8 4 3/W 3/4• 1 %' 3' 5T 8'
_. — . _ I O
.- -_ - -- ..
T
I
I I ro
I.
0 .001 0.002 .005 .009 019 .037 074 .149 297042590 1. 19 2 0 2.38 4 78 9.52 191 361 782 127 7
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
•
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON- PLASTIC) 8NJ05 GRAVEL
I FINE 1 MEDIUM ( COARSE I FINE ( COARSE ( COBBLES
Sample of FINE SAND AND SILT (ML -SM) - GRAVEL 6 % SAND 40 %
From TP -1 - AT 7.5 FEET SILT & CLAY 54 % LIQUID LIMIT - %
- - - -- -- PLASTICITY INDEX - %
1 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 1 SIEVE ANALYSIS 1
25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPEIWIGS
45 MIN 15 MIN. 60 MIN 19 MIN. 4MIN . 1MIN. '200 100 '50'40'30 16 10'8 '4 3/8' 3/4' 1 %' 3 5'6'6'
_ F_,—_ T--- _
i 1 7 f
7Q
29
_ . —_ . 100
001 0.002 .005 009 019 .037 .074 .149 297042590 1 19 2 0 2.38 4 76 9.52 191 38.1 782 127 2
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON - PLASTIC) I SH E DS GRAVEL
FINE ) MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE COBBLES
Sample of GRAVEL SILTY_( GM)____ _ ______ GRAVEL 44 % SAND 25 %
From TP -1 - AT 11.5 FEET SILT & CLAY 31 % LIQUID LIMIT -
-- —
PLASTICITY INDEX _ __ -
Gradation
JOB NO. 2470 Test FIG .3
12" M1
CLAYEY BACKLIT I
1 0'
NOTE:
L( __ _ ___ DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST
--- --� --- -- -- -- --_ -- _ �_ ::2 6 INCHES BELOW BOTTOM
OF SLAB AT THE HIGHEST
- - - - __ o� • - POINT ANO SLOPE DOWNWARD
�_ 0
- _ 0 TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY
Q 0 f�
.Q`: or OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE • •
1 . e ' ' -? .,
°' � WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY
6•' 1 L ° ':. ::: .:.....: PUMPING.
)\ ... BACKFILL
COMPACTED nq:: "C 9 .EESC: f[ �f
�/'o :p:o -x1 +—
.BELOW -GRADE WALL
TO AT LEAST 95 % >.': .:6'6'4:h &e, ;.o • sCt: G ; i�
p, :;:;:i
ns : >';<:;
:. OF A S T M ' . .tia ' .
o'• •o . • .o :•. REINFOR STEEL
0 698 .e .:.:. ° f,J.' '`�
> }
(SEE REPORT :': .O Q e 1.:...r:;::..:.:::
17
FOR BACK FILL :O' o • O j:::,; / PROVIDE POSITIVE SLIP JOINT
RECOMMENDATIONS) .o .
•;o. :,:,..: if::;:.;'::: BETWEEN SLAB ANO WALL
.. o: O ; QO - ° :.;;::; FLOOR SLAB
e.•V.'p i
.'orOq-'.o. j 2,
(� o :. L
7 •
::,, • • -- PROVIDE PVC SHEETING GLUED
1 TO FOUNDATION WALL TO REDUCE
1 MOISTURE PENETRATION
MAX, , 12' MIN. .- ,
SLOPE
4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE.
-NCASE PIPE IN WASHED 3/4 INCH
TO NO. 4 GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN THE DRAIN LINE SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE
RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH
3 PERCENT PASSING THE NO. 200 SEIVE
DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN .
TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL
J08 NO. CS -2470 F10. 5
1, g8g:BrEka §grPi lig% 2 2 k % ' n
0 8S
h n • o o. E n s � °�, Yn r
I I I IJI n' W I P. o 1 5• o 4 r,� 111 c° � HO aG ° o0 0E��E
oao 4 c a gBo- RN,cf✓ o N . o s rn o Hc o° tr. - .5 ° Fes)
.,, s < 0 ° R o
t ili ui t i 6 v� Er ! � 0- .� 0 ran
y Fr
P 5,5T, . E 0 p Y t 0 R B fd G K e c
t h 6 p c ' n.
T -1 y
1 c
1 ? m
m I&/ o a D
\ —r, m
la o o � eo � J Z C)k j � I d - 1 f , i D 33 ' . , '� , '. n ' n o
� T
Id Xil
12m m
' , i} Z O
1 -40901141r
tv V 4, ,. i • 0
' S 4) 1 r � I AC � I '�r�1e Al r'.1 4 '+ } 4 �' j , • O a `�{ Cl,
i . .
, y t iv co,thva_
s-er-E
men Aigc
5 z-K tsT�nl4
N / C.o. -o, 243
N.L P I �/� ,i �A n
C_ I. /Ain /9,E' O k_ /vl� /t) SK 15,
pl
/ � i
T d 0 'c/. t/ /
A r ACAlef
0_ sl. 963 - 02 7Os
° fr' ( � 'v �� o23gs
,r° -T&o eo, ep, 249
'r "
LS)e-> A
«N--rc,,-f Ac (less" ; C n.E
-----------lik. .
| \/[Y | yD PW1
r�/�~/ ^.�" DlStriot: kl ��
, Road: 243
1 Permit #: 043-98 D
|---------------------------|
GARFIELD COUNTY
APPLICATI0N F 0 R DRIVEWAY PERMIT
Application Date 09^15-1998
I, HUBBELL. RALPH (herein called "Applicant"), hereby reoU*sts
normis'sioo and authority from the Board of County Commissioners to construct a
driveway approach(es) on the right-of-way of Garfield County Road Number 243 ^
adjacent to Applicant property located on the EAST side of the road a
distance of 0,0 mile(s) from 4800 CO RU 243 for the purpose of
obtaining access to PRIVATE RESIDENCE
Applicant submits herewith for the consideration and approval
of the Board of County Commissiooero^ a sketch of the proposed instal-
lation showing all necessary specification detail including (l) fr0nt-
ae* of lot along road. (2) distance from centerline of road to
property line, (3) number of driveways requested, (4) width of pro-
posed drlvewav(s) and angle of approach, (5) distance from driveway
to road intersection, if any, (6) size and shape of area separating
driveways if more than one approach. and (7) setback distance of
building(s) and other structures or lmproV*ments,
GENERAL PROVISIONS
FIRST: The Applicant represents all parties in interest, and affirms
that the driveway approach(es) is to be constructed bv him for the
bone fide purpose, of securing access to his property and not for the
nurpooe of doing business or servicing vehicles on the road right-of-way.
SECOND: The Applicant shall furnish all labor and materials, perform
al) work. and pay all costs in connection with the construction of the
driveway(s) and Its appurtenance* on the right-of-way, All work shall
be completed within 30 days of the Permit date.
THIRD: The typo n/ construction shall be as designated and/or approved
by the Board of County Commissioners or their representatjve, and all
materials used shall be of satisfactory quality and subiect to inso*o-
Lion and approval of the Board of County Commissioners or their
representative.
FOURTH: The traveling public shall be protected during the instal-
lation with prone, w*rojno signs and signals and the Board of county
Commissioners ard their duly annointed agents and employees shall be
hold harmless against any action for personal injury or property
damage sustained b; reason of the exercise of the Permit.
a IFTH: The Applicant shall assume responsibility for the removal or
clearance of snow. ice or sleet upon any portion of the driveway ap -
proach(es) even though deposited on the driveway(s) in the course of
the County snow removal operations.
SIXTH: In the event it becomes necessary to remove any right -of -way
' fence. the posts on either side of the entrance shall be securely
braced before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remain-
ing fence. and all posts and wire removed shall be turned over to the
District Road Supervisor of the Board of County Commissioners.
SEVENTH: No revisions or additions shall be made to the driveway(s)
or its appurtenances on the right - -of -way without the written permis-
sion of the Board of County Commissioners.
EIGHTH: Provisions and specifications outlined herein shall apply on
all roads under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners
of Garfield County. Colorado. and the Specifications, set forth on the
attached hereof and incorporated herein as conditions hereof.
S P E C I A L C O N D I T I O N S
RESPONSIBLE FOR TWO YEARS FROM DATE. OF COMPLETION
15" CULVERT REQUIRED MIN. PROVIDE HIDDEN DRIVEWAY SIGNS
nn GRAVEL LAST 50' OF DRIVEWAY WITH 3/4" ROAD BASE
lit) I Uf%f'T c P_Qui &e- GtwF Vat ?)€.1 r�om> Seris o2
do e- 4� ��0 ta t
In signing this application and upon receiving authorization and
permission to install the driveway approach(es) described herein the
Applicant. signifies that he has read. understands and accents the
foregoing provisions and conditions and agrees to construct the drive- -
way(s) in accordance with the accompanying specification plan reviewed
and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Witness: S:ignei : �u
(Signature of Applicant)
(Address)
(Telephone Number)
1
PERMIT GRANTED THIS DAY OF .__ _ - -- __19__ SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS. SPECIFICAT� S. AND CONDI ONS STIPULATED FEREIN.
For Board of County Commissioner of Garfield County. Colorado
•
■I
it •
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154
!i Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
- . January 27, 1998 Fax 970 945 -8454
Phone 970 945 -7988
al Ralph Hubbell
401 23rd Street, Suite 102
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 198 116
Subject: Percolation Testing, Proposed Clinetop Ranch Subdivision, 4800 County
Road 243, Main Elk Creek, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Hubbell:
As requested, we have conducted percolation testing at the subject site to evaluate the feasibility
of infiltration septic disposal systems. The results of our work are presented in this report. The
work was done in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to you
dated January 16, 1998.
Three proposed septic disposal areas were tested. A profile pit and three shallow backhoe pits
had been excavated in each of the areas shown on Fig. 1. The backhoe pits and test holes were
excavated by others prior to our arrival on site. The test holes were pre - soaked and covered with
• rigid foam insulation to protect against freezing overnight on January 20, 1998. The subsoils
• observed in the profile pit at Area 1 consisted of about 1 foot of topsoil and 6 feet of sandy clay
and clayey sand with scattered gravel. The subsoils at Area 2 and 3 consisted of 1V2 feet of
topsoil and 2 feet of sandy clay and clayey sand overlying clayey sandy gravel with cobbles. No
free water was encountered in the profile pits and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist.
Percolation test were performed in the test holes on January 21, 1998 by a representative of
Hdpworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The percolation test results are summarized on Table I.
The percolation test results indicate infiltration rates between 6 and 60 minutes per inch.
Average infiltration rates of 18 minutes per inch for Area 1, 43 inches per inch for Area 2 and 10
minutes per inch for Area 3 were indicated from the testing. The percolation rates were based on
the last three reading of the tests. The faster rates indicated for Area 3 were due to the gravels
being encountered at relatively shallow depths.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and percolation test results, the tested areas
should be suitable for conventional infiltration septic disposal systems.
If you have any questions or if we can of further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
1 WO ' TH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
: % ��� p �0 R Eo), 11
- `, 4, .N Apq .� 1
Jordy Z Adan .on Jr. P.E. , v o vdJ0 1 1
— Rev. • DE 1
° 29707 xi
i
JZA/ 'sin 1 1 1 O� . • Sa . � �/
attachments 11, ' ' ONA` € ._t
MI'
Mi C 7
11110 1
APPROXIMATE SCALE
s 1 "= 160'
7 930 POND
PARCEL 1 \ PARCEL 2
\
II
935 3A \ �P 38 : i. I ��-
PROFILE \ 925
PIT p 3C\ \ /
\ �/
940 \ AREA 3 \\ \ \\
_- AREA 2 \ N.
\
N. 1 945 PROFILE \\ \\ \\ \ �- 925
1111 PIT \ \ \
P 2A Ls P 2C \ - .-- --\---- \
950, \ \ \
...di 955 ` N. 28 \ \ \ \ 930 N. N.
iMil 960
N.
\ �N. \ \ \\ \ \ \
N.
N. N \ N. 1
965 \ \ \ \ PARCEL 3 \ 1
N. N.
\ \ 1 1
N. N\ \ '\ \ 1 1 1 \
■
\ \ \ \ 1 1 \
\♦ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I \ \
\ \\ \ \ ARE A \1 \ \ \ 1 - \ \. \
98' N. \\ 1A\ P 1C\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 935
\ '\ \ P\20FILE\ \\ \ \\\ 940
\ \ 1C\ \ 950 945 — _ —
ma 985 • p 18 PIT 965960 955 ` N.
Tin
II COUNTY ROAD 243
LEGEND:
• PROFILE PIT
M A PERCOLATION TEST HOLE
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
°( 198 116 LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST HOLES Fig. 1
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
I