Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5071 No. 5071 GARF ELD COUNTY BUILDING, SANITATION and PLANNING DEPARTMENT 109 8th Sheet Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303)945 -8212 Job Address 62 Rampart Place, Battlement Creek Village, Battlement Mesa Nature of Work Rnilding ermit UseofBuilding Single Family Dwelling wJDnnhle f;arag Owner EJ & Pat Clausen Contractor Fox Construction Company Amount of Permit$ 1,261.69 Date March 31. 1994 Permit: 764.66 Plan : 497.03 Plan Check Fee $452.08 paid 3 -14 -94 receipt #918 S. ARchuleta Clerk I ` ` ^ :. fl 1 dJ GARPILL]) COUNTY °" APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT y ,, t PERMIT NUMBER & 1 Assessor' Parcel if please print or type DATE 3 - 7- 99. ✓ - - y « / TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT PLOT PLAN ADDRESS 02 s eat, • - : � , _ ,, / , a t, NOTE: Show easements, property line dimension; a SUBDIVISION ,wNkn, K U, erd Ceee' //q r. Qe all other structures, specify north, and street 7 FILING N LOT it /1 BLOCK If 2. name. For odd shaped lots, or if space is PI TAX SCHEDULE CHEDULE II Ljer) - 73. /S2),a A'y too small, provide separate plot plan. LEGAL (SEC /TWN /RNG) _ 11 OF BUILDINGS NOW ON PARCEL Mona DI NAME ET Owspn USE OF BUILDINGS NOW ON PARCEL NA r MAILING ADDRESS Pr Box 32079 p CITY to - Verde, AZ 85710 P1! 0NIi 6Oz- 417/-7/y/ (�, /Ca . b 7 ct-L> 3—)1 / - G( -• 9/1 a: c 4 NAME Linde,/ Cedor /ievn zob) 7z5 -€390o / � J — - r4 z ADDRESS RS, ZYNZ , C ITY S ,9/ GM 9 /Z _ — , 1 � f ' 2 5 / 2, / 0,c_c),2 , , _ NAME vrles T. fox d64 5K Cac n+:n J T r ,r- � r /1 �: I.5 ADDRESS Po Box /331 CLIP? / i CITY ��i,5p C /SZ<'o _l / .7% i`: a PIJONE(343) zVS -/3G,9 LICENSE f! - �� = " �:� ' , _ E71Fk -'- tt /7n G :n GLASS of iioilz rs' »' O cw - !=.9.11 - b �/ 10 /• � - IEW ___ ALTERATION _ ADDITION , / 1 �' GI �'� ,!� IENOLISH REPAIR MOVE /J /f c!1 [ _ / 1OBILE HOME (make /model) - - - - -- / /�Iq .F. or BUILDING S.P. OF LOT - (s,ye "a - R '+',O.F FLOORS 'Z, HEIGHT ZS1 --0 t J OF FAMILY UNITS Pi. OF BEDROOMS 3 4 n INTENDED USE OF BUILDING ICPSldfence + ;IMAGE: SINGLE_ DEL X CARPORT: SINGLE DDL ye_ i FIREPLACE _ FRONT PROPERTY LINE. DOCUMENTS ATTAC]LED STREET NAME /ROAD NUMBER 4jp/+f PJgc I✓ATER SUPPLY Senlikynem ms , i ns, i CHECK IF CORNER LOT _ DRIVEWAY PERMIT (7 be de%mvii.d) 4 DESCRIPTION OF WORK PLANNED Pew nshkero. SITE PLAN e5 IC BUILDING PLANS Y y e5 _ SANITARY SEWER CLEARANCE . 0 I hereby acknowledge that 1 have read this ON SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT application and the above is correct and I r 1THER DOCUMENTS (specify) 6M s_.. _ ,,,, ,� ri - i agree to comply with all county ordinances S - .-- "& s CA - - N. = \ and et to -ws re ling building constructio GL'" °_1',5 - 5 " e /Lc; 0 7 c // .3 ".f 2 r, 2/ N SIGNATURE FOR OFF 'E USE ONLY VALUATION /D / 6 _ Y f Z ,f: _, FLOOD HAZARD I' IT FEE $ ' 6'4 CAPLAN CHECK FEE $ 2/5 v + 7 CERTIFIED BLDG ELEVATION TOTAL F • _ "67 , . or ';6CHOOL IMPACT FEE $ j/.7 SPECIAL CONDITIONS DATE PERMIT ISSLirrr ZONING DISTRICT _ PROBLEMS WITH PERMIT TYPE OF OCCUPANCY /C' 5 , r1-/ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION '14=./2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED S.F. OF BUILDING 56 70 S.F. OF LOT MAX. HEIGHT , g , / ' ROAD CLASS. CERTIFIED BY COLORADO REGISTERED LAND SURVEY01• SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY LINE: FRONT 1^," -7'22 ' OR ENGINEER REAR/2 72 ' RIGHT 5-•y/ / LEFT /ti/ _4 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED A1'PROVED �Cc�_19(2-2' � r `�J = /, /( "�, G ✓C ,J0 / 7 APPROVED: / C 3 ".(i/ ILDING UE'P /11 14E NT '' DA'Z'E - !TANNING UL'`C'ART'MEPIT DATE . 4 1 Ch en *Northern, Inc. Gonsu4m9 Engineers rcI Scientists • • 5080 Road 154 Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 3039457458 303 945-2363 Facsmne SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 11, BLOCK 2 62 RAMPART PLACE BATTLEMENT MESA VILLAGE BATTLEMENT MESA, COLORADO FEBRUARY 28, 1994 JOB NO. 4 186 94 PREPARED FOR BATTLEMENT MESA HOMES, INC. ATTN:JERRY GARDNER P. O. BOX 6000 BATTLEMENT MESA CO 81636 A mempe, o1 the ® group or oompames Ch eri @Northern, I nc. Consulting Engineers and Screraisls 5080 Road 154 Glenwood Springs Colorado81601 303945 -7458 303 945 2363 Facsimile February 28, 1994 Battlement Mesa Homes, Inc. Attn: Jerry Gardner P.O. Box 6000 Battlement Mesa CO 81636 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 11, Block 2, 62 Rampart Place, Battlement Mesa Village, Battlement Mesa, Colorado Job No. 4 186 94 Gentlemen: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study at the subject site, located east of the cul- de -sac on Rampart Place. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring drilled in the proposed building area consist of about 8 feet of sandy, silty clay overlying dense clayey gravel. The clay soils have a low expansion potential. 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 2000 psf. 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, CHEN - NORTHERN, INC. Thomas L. Allen, P. E. Rev. By: SRH cc: Tom Cronk - Structural Engineer Chuck Fox - Fox Construction A member of the ® group of compantes 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 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS 4 FLOOR SLABS 5 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 6 SURFACE DRAINAGE 6 LIMITATIONS 7 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING FIGURE 2 - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 11, Block 2, Battlement Creek Village, Battlement Mesa, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Battlement Mesa Homes, Inc, dated February 4, 1994. A field exploration program including one exploratory boring was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration 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. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing are presented in the report. This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this study and to present our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. Design parameters and a discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to construction of the proposed residence are included in the report. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed residence will be a single story wood frame structure with an attached garage. Ground floor will be structural over crawl space except in the garage where the ground floor will be slab -on- grade. 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 Lot 11 is currently vacant and vegetated with grass and sagebrush. The property is located east of Rampart Place and has a slight slope down toward the west. Total elevation change across the site is about 5 feet. No indications of previous site grading were observed. Rampart Place is paved and utilities have been installed to the lot boundaries. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on February 4, 1994. 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 CME -55 drill rig. The boring was logged by a representative of Chen - Northern, 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 The subsoil conditions encountered at the site are shown graphically on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1.5 feet of topsoil overlying relatively stiff, silty sandy clay. Dense clayey sandy gravel containing cobbles and boulders was encountered at a depth of 8 feet to the full depth of exploration, 13 feet. Drilling in the dense gravel with auger equipment • 3 was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture content, density and gradation analyses. Results of consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the silty sandy clay soil, presented on Fig. 4, indicate low expansion potential when wetted under light surcharge loading and low to moderate compressibility under additional loading. 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 slightly moist. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the undisturbed natural soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. The construction criteria should be considered when preparing project documents. Footings placed on the undisturbed natural silty clay soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically 'used in this area. -4- 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to undisturbed natural soils. If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 6) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site fine grained soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site fine grained soils. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near -5- the wall since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected even if the material is placed correctly and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.30. Passive pressure against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral Loads should be a nonexpansive material compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly to moderately 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 free - draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on -site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. _6- UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawl space and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free - draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free - draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 2 feet deep. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 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 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free - draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on -site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 10 feet - 7 - from foundation walls. 6) Utility lines should be pressure tested and leaks repaired prior to backfilling. 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 interpolation and 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 construction appear to be different from those described in this report, we should be notified at once so 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 exploratory information which has not been described or documented in this report. 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 of the recommendations presented herein. We • -8- recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. Sincerely, CHEN- NORTHE i. qr --#77 tr.- • in. t--- Thomas L. Allen, y �/ S /U�jl�p ,,,N7- Reviewed By r Stan Helenschmidt TLA /lr NOT TO SCALE ■ r-T-Tc PROPERTY EASEMENT BOUNDARIES / / • BORING 1 LOT 11 LOT 10 LOT 12 / / 1 WATER CAP B.M. EASEMENT ASSUMED ELEV. 100.0 / \ QA" FOR Pit 1 4 186 94 ChenONorthern,Inc. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fi 1 BORING 1 ELEV. = 107.0' — 110 110 — — 105 105 29/12 - WC =4 DD 100 — — 24/12 WC = - — 100 DD = 98 100 — — Y 95 4 95 30/6,50/5 w Z - Z - 0 F F jj — — Q 90 90 — J w - w — 85 85 — 80 80 — — 75 75 — NOTE: Explanation of symbols presented on Fig. 3. 4 186 94 ChenONorthern,Inc LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Fig. 2 LEGEND ® TOPSOIL, silt, sandy, firm, slightly moist, light brown. 7 i 7 CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, stiff, slightly moist, reddish —tan. 1 N GRAVEL (GC —GM); sandy, clayey, silty, with cobbles and possible boulders, dense, slightly moist, tan, occasional thin silt lenses. N Drive Sample, 2 —inch I.D. California liner sample. M Drive Sample, Standard Penetration Test, 1 3/8 —inch split spoon sample. Drive sample blow count. Indicates that 29 blows of a 140- 29/12 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California sampler 12 inches. i Practical Rig Refusal NOTES 1.The exploratory boring was drilled on February 4, 1994 with a 4 —inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. The location of the exploratory boring was measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. The elevation of the exploratory boring was measured by hand level and refers to the benchmark on Fig. 1. 4. The exploratory boring location and elevation 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 the transitions may be gradual. 6. Ground water was not encountered in the boring at the time of drilling. LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS WC =Water Content (7.) DD =Dry Density (pcf) 4 186 94 ChenONorthern,Inc. LEGEND AND NOTES pig. 3 Moisture Content = 4 percent • Dry Unit Weight = 98 pct Sample of. sandy silty clay From: Boring 1 at 5 feet c 0 0 c m n x w 1 as 0 c 0 0 1 0 U L \ n E 2 0 U Expansion under constant pressure due to wetting 0.1 1.0 m. toti APPLIED PRESSURE — kst 4 186 94 ChenONorthern,Inc SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 • • . Ate/ 9 * - \ { \ ! ! � � < � ¢� : \ c..; ) \ \ \» $ \ / / } ƒ - CO \ 0 a 2 \> d\ q «; \ • - - • � q - �� ° Chen•Northern, Inc. CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES • ® • ••e.... —• ASTM Designation: D 2487 - 83 i (Based on Unified Soil Classification System) • Soil Classification Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests' Group Symbol Name' Coarse - Grained Soils Gravels Clean Gravels Cu?4 and 15Cc GW Well graded gravel' More than 50% retained on More than 50% coarse Less Than 5% lines' No. 200 sieve fraction retained on Cu<4 and /or 1>Cc >3` GP Poorly graded gravel' No. 4 sieve • Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silly gravel' °" More than '12% lines' Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel' °" Sands Clean Sands Cu >6 and 1<Cc<_3` SW Well- graded sand' 50% or more of coarse Less than 5 %fines Traction passes No. Cu<6 and /or 1>Cc>3` SP Poorly graded sand' 4 sieve Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand' "' More than 12% lines° Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand"' Fine - Grained Soils Silts and Clays inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above CL Lean clay` `" 50% or more passes the Liquid limit less Than 50 "A" line' No. 200 sieve PI<4 or plots below "A" ML Silt" " line' organic Liquid limit - oven dried <0.75 OL Organic clay" "" Liquid limit - not dried Organic sill° `" ° Sills and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clay' `" Liquid limit 50 or more PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic sill `" organic Liquid limit - oven dried en 74 OH Organic clay" " Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt' ` - O Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color. and organic odor PT Peal 'Based on the material passing the Sin, 175 -m m) sieve. AO? 1I Anerbar9 limits plot in hatched area. soil is a CL •ML. •U field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, 'Cu = Osa /1),, CC = OA • 0 silty cloy. add "with cobbles or boulders. or bosh" to group name. 'II soil contains 1510 29% plus No. 200. add "with sand" or `Gravels with 510 12% lines require dual symbols: '11 soil contains 215% sand. all "with sand" to group 'with gravel whichever is predominant. GW -GM well-graded gravel with sill name' •11 soil contains 230% plus No. 200, predominantly sand. GW -GC well- graded greyer with clay 'II lines Classif y as CL -ML. use duel symbol GC -GM. or add - sandy group name. GP -GM poorly graded gravel with alt 5C -5M. - 'II soil Contains 230% plus No. 200, predominanlly gravel. GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay 9l lines are organic, add "with organic lines" to group add "gravelly 10 group name. *Sands wiM 510 12% lines require dual symbols: name. - P124 and plots on or above - A - line. SW -SM well-graded sand with sill 'I1 soil contains 215% gravel. add "with gravel" t0 group °PICA or glob below - A - line. SW -SC well-graded sand with clay name. '1 Mims on or above "A" line. - $P-SM poorly graded sand with silt °PI plois below W line. SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay SIEVE ANALYSIS 60 / 1 For claselfloepn of ane9nlrwd sok SCREEN Fo end IN I SIEVE NO. / 1110 32\11411 v. It 4 10 20 4060 140200 Ilne-grainwl traction of coarse-grained // 50 — — ' Equation of - A - -fine 4r 00 20 Fbriipnlal al P1 = 4 m LL =25.5 ` % men / ��1� a Pi = 0.73 (LL-201 • •V p x 40 — , a O =ismm W Equation 01 a 60 4 0 w Z Venice! al 0. 9 I L L 6) PI �• ,. 4 w n R = 01L -9) c 30 — G `oa =2. mm Q 0 It i \ k t i �� 0. =0.075 a p / MH « OH i D 00 10 — I 1 50 10 5 1.0 0.5 0 l0 7 — • , PARTICLE SIZE IN MILOMETERS 4 — % %�/��� ML i OL 0 1 1 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110 C = 0. = 05 = " 203 C I�rl 1351' =56 a 0.075 0..•00, 0025 .15 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) • y F _ WIL .,,. 4 _ k 1 � 1 CONSTRUCTION CO. ! APR 1 ',; 1994 r o 245 -1369 --- "Our reputation is building" April 18, 1994 Garfield County Building Department Attn: Mr. Art Hoagland 109 8th Street Suite #303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Hoagland: On March 31, 1994 a building permit ( #5071) was issued to Fox Construction for the Clausen Residence in Battlement Mesa, CO. At the time the permit was issued, a question concerning the square footage of the residence was raised. Your office figured some 2937 sq. ft. of living space and 753 sq. ft. of garage. It was late in the day (You had left earlier to pick up your dog) and I didn't want to start a discussion until I was certain that my sq. ft. numbers were correct. My final sq. ft. numbers were as follows: First Floor 1,879 (Counting Mech. & Powder Rooms in garage) Second Floor 506 ,25r C /2. ,Y = o t � 02;. go TOTAL 2,385 (Some 552 sq. ft less then your figures) Deck Area 895 5 _ Garage 745 @1J / 2( I hope you will please take some time out of your busy schedule to re- figure the e 1 / 4 / square footage of the residence and issue Fox Construction a check for the reduced r fee for the plan review check and building permit. I have included two letters 1i confirming my numbers from the two companies used to produce the documents and construction drawings. Both companies used a computer and CAD software to establish the square footage and both companies left out the Mechanical and Powder P.O. BOX 1321 • PALISADE, CO 81526 • 303/245 -1369 FOX CONSTRUCTION P.O. BOX 1321 PALISADE, CO 81526 . rooms in the garage, which explains why our square footage numbers are a little higher than the other two figures. If you have any questions please feel free to call my office at (303) 245 -1369 any time. Thank you. Sincerely, ellada—P Y drC Charles J. Fox CJF /cab T . 4300 South 104th Place PO. Box 24426 Seattle, Washington 98124 Phone: (206) 725 -0900 Fax (206) 725 -1615 Appril 1, 1994 Mr. Art Hoagland GARFIELD COUNTY BLDG. & PLANNING DEPT. 109 -8th Street, Ste. #303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Sq. Footage of the Single Family Residence for E.J. & Pat Clausen (Lindal Cedar Homes Order No. K- 32900) Dear Mr. Hoagland: Mr. Charles Fox, of Fox Construction Co., notified me about discrepancies in square footage calculations for the Clausen residence. I had a draftsman in our Drafting Department trace the exterior footprint of the residence, garage, and deck, by use of the VersaCad system, by which the plans were drawn. The square footage was calculated as follows: First floor 1,826 sq. ft. Loft floor 506 sq. ft. Total living area 2,332 sq. ft. Garage 800 sq. ft. Deck 904 sq. ft. (includes area of outside tub) I trust you will accept these square footage calculations as accurate, and will not delay any permit processing time for E.J. & Pat Clausen. S' re ely, C i , �� ` ti ona.d W. Skinner Engi. -ering Servic -s LWS:bb Hoagland Iwo Date: April 7, 1994 To: Mr. Art Hoagland Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 109 -8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 From: Greg Rait Computer Drafting Services 2110 Hawthorne Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81506 Phone / FAX (303)242 -2026 Subject: Square Footage of The Claussen Residence, Lot 11, Block 2, Battlement Creek Village, Battlement Creek Colorado. Dear Mr. Hoagland: I am an independent drafting contractor and do work for Charles Fox, owner of Fox Construction us using AutoCad. I have prepared the site plan drawings for this project and have subsequently been asked by Mr. Fox to submit to you my measurements of the area of the area of the house to you. They are as follows: First Floor 1822 sq. ft. Second Floor 506 sq. ft. Total living area 2328 sq. ft. Deck 892 sq. ft. Garage 800 sq. ft. �C / 2 Total non - living area 1692 sq. ft. J Total area 4020 sq. ft. I hope this information will help clear up questions as to the size of this residence. If you need additional figures regarding these numbers, please call. Sincerely, Greg Rait Owner INSPECTION WILL NOT BE MADE UNLESS THIS CARD IS POSTED ON THE JOB 24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS BUILDING PERMIT A FII / ELD CO�NTY, COLORADO SD r a Date Issue v / . /.Zoned Area M C' Permit No + AGREEMENT In consideration of the issuance of this permit, the applicant hereby agrees to comply will' all laws and regulations related to the zoning, location; construction and erection of the proposed structure for which this permit is granted, and further agrees that if the above said regulations are not fully complied with in the zoning, location, erection and construction of the above described structure, the perm ay then b•,revoked by notice f rom . • j.: LIMP , � cello +nd IM11(i rt. TEL% pl O \ tU .L AA'D VO ,D, ress or al Descri Lon ! YS t" . Ai p * � " ilik Contractor 0 0Ai 7 T. Setbacks Front Side Side Rear This Card Must Be Posted So It Is Plainly Visible From the Street Until Final Inspection. INSPECTION RECORD Zoning Roof Covering Electric -Final (by STATE inspector) Footing `___ /L'' 9,/, /l ;*_ // 3 <5 /'/ Foundation ,_ _ /Jp $ °% Plmnbing- Under ground ', _./4_,-/-44 /a Gas Piping /p -/9 - ! /-hv Heating Ventilation //_,E_ 9 ';. fr Frame / ---- ^"C"- - � Insulalionq'- _s- - -EJV- / -) P.,. F 1 : Plumbing-Rough f ,.- 44' /, Drywall 7_ . 4 4 w Electric -Rough ,�yyr r (by STA inspector) fl -2 -9 - ' Final /f - Qy / i p i 1 ' .w ALL LISTED ITEMS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE COVERING - 'i ., WHETHER INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR, UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND. THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE r. Phone 945 -8212 109 8th Street, County Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colo. APP R V ED DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD Date 113 4Bythtak444 IF PLACED OUTSIDE - COVER WITH CLEAR PLASTIC ad a) p la al to °A5 o o 0 w q ..1 c y o o I. {° 6 .x o o U I in ^ N U e_ 1.• ' L Q .r N H p p. b U O b O y o y a) u N U U z m b e b O o d ' u V to 1.1be � e ^ u .. wa -° PI-1 o w o c rn O Di tt "b OA N H _ +s y M p� L au 14 P \l n W o O o • o a o I. cs 1V E d Ca ^� o w w o ,.. 0 c. 0 Y-. y z p p cn cn CI liga � / > v Q o Q 4 '0n Clitlat cu 0 • 0 01 Q � M cd d � • 05 el ga = be U O 0 aa)i d U p 2" ` v, :� ^� 0 0 a yo 0 q \ C OD t.d la ,..., `�1l sa a+E Ca pq z. • g g o al " U bb -d 0 i N © tte C7 0. 9 4 C.) g3 _ • al O 'l q ai 0 y e y u )0 low 3 0 H q t " cd : o uE W W +-I 0 7 pp m m a U b . T o e o a� a 0 ti i o f ° V lo w in in Z 0 y -'y N u • 3 u - - U O ^ � K c+ = I. U . V • O I� a N W \U 4. ' O al a m y a � U .- p 0 b \ � c C ei °1 N O O 0r) ''' ° �'C ( - 1 it a O — ro ca, a le cu o O 0 ,. d z� H � 0 pa 0 o om ;.