HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPT-2010.pdf~tech IIFPWORTfI PAWLAK GEOTEC I II,IICAL June 9, 20 II Brett McKenzie 1870 Road 103 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 , , I I II Job No, III 123A Subject: Observation of Excavation A fter
Inundation, Proposed Barn/Storage Building, 1870 Road 103, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. McKenzie: As requested by Terry Davis, a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical,
Inc. observed the excavation at the subject site on June 6, 20 II to evaluate the excavation after inundation for foundation support. The services were performed in accordance with our
agreement for professional engineering services to you, dated May 17, 20 II . We previously observed the bearing conditions of the excavation and presented our findings in a report dated
May 25, 20 II , Job No. 111 123A. Based on our understanding of the inundation, the footings and outside stem wall forms were in place on Saturday, June 4th when water fi'om a neighboring
property up the slope to the north inundated the site. Water entered the excavation area near the northeast corner of the building and ponded in all of the footing trench excavations
with water depths 'up to 4 feet. On Saturday morning, after discovery of the water, a trench was dug at the southwest corner of the excavation to drain the water out. At the time of
our visit to the site on Monday evening, there was no water observed in the foundat ion excavation and the near surface so ils at footing grade elevation adjacent to the footings were
moist. No evidence of erosion of the so ils underlying the existing footings was observed. There was no apparent deflection or visual evidence of settlement of the footings. Upon probing,
the soi ls adjacent to the footings were firm below about It, inch ofthe surface. Based on our observations and understanding of the inundation, the footing subgrade appears to have
been little affected by the wetting. A level survey of the top of footing or wall forms could be performed to verify that no settlement has occurred. We recommend that the proposed surface
grading be reviewed and adjusted as needed so that, in the event ofa s imilar inundation event in the future, the surface runoff water will not flow aga inst the building. The conclusions
submitted in this letter are based on our observation of the soils exposed within the foundation excavation and our understanding of the inundation event and does
Brett McKenzie June 9, 2011 Page 2 not include subsurface exploration. The risk of foundation movement may be greater than indicated in this report because of poss ible variations in
the subsurface co nditions. We should be informed of variations encountered in the subgrade conditions which could change the recommendations co ntained in this letter. Our services
do not include determining the presence, prevention or poss ibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then
a professio nal in this special fi e ld of practice should be consulted. If you have any quest ions or need further assistance, please ca ll our office. Sincerely, cc: Teny Davis (tcrryd34.td@gmail.c
om) Theodore K. Guy Associates -Matt Monger (1l Ialtm@tkga.ll et) Job No. I II I 23A ~tech
~tech IIFPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTEC IIHICAt June 9, 20 11 Brett McKenzie 1870 Road 103 Carbondale, Colorado 8 1623 , , II I II Job No. III 123A Subject: Observation of Excavation After Inundation,
Proposed Barn/Storage Building, 1870 Road 103, Garfield Count y, Colorado Dear Ml'. McKenzie: As requested by Terry Davis, a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak GeoteciUlica l, Inc. observed
the excavation at the subject site on June 6, 20 I I to eva luate the excavation after inundation for foundation SUppOlt. The services were performed in accordance with our agreement
for professional engineering services to you, dated May 17, 2011. We previously observed the bearing conditions of the excavation and presented our findings in a report dated May 25,
20 I I, Job No. III 123A. Based on our understanding of the inundation, the tootings and outside stem wall forms were in place on Saturday, June 4'h when water fi'om a neighboring propelty
up the slope to the nOlth inundated the site. Water entered the excavation area near the northeast corner of the building and ponded in all of the footing trench excavations with water
depths 'Up to 4 feet. On Saturday morning, after discovery of the water, a trench was dug at the southwest corner of the excavation to drain the water out. At the time of our visit to
the site on Monday evening, there was no water observed in the foundation excavation and the near surface so ils at footing grade elevation adjacent to the footings were moist. No ev
idence of erosion of the so ils underl ying the existing footings was observed. There was no apparent deflection or visu al evidence of settlement of the footings. Upon probing, the
so ils adjacent to the footings were firm below about Y, inch of the surface. Based on our observations and understanding of the inundation, the footing subgrade appears to have been
little affected by the wetting. A level survey of the top of footing or wall forms could be performed to verify that no settlement has occurred. We recommend that the proposed surface
grading be reviewed and adjusted as needed so that, in the event ofa similar inundation event in the future, the surface runoff water will not flow aga inst the building. The conclu
sions submitted in this letter are based on our observation of the so ils exposed within the foundat ion excavation and our understanding of the inundation event and does o ! 1 I
Brett McKenzie June 9, 2011 Page 2 not include subsurface exploration. The risk of foundation movement may be greater than indicated in this repOli because of possible variations in
the subsurface conditions. We should be informed of variations encountered in the subgrade co ndit ions which could change the recommendations contained in this letter. Our services
do not include determining the presence, prevention or poss ibility of mold or other bio logical contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBe,
then a professional in this special field of practice should be consu lted. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please ca ll our office. Sincerely, cc: Terry Davis
(tcrryd34.td@gm3il. colll) Theodore K. Guy Associates -Matt Monger (Illaltm@tkga.nel) Job No. III 123A ~tech
Brett McKenzie 14860 Montford Drive, Suite 209 Dallas, TX 75254 c/o Terry Davis 816 White River Ave. Rifle, CO 81650 RECRIV~n FER 06 70 1? GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING February
2,20121 RE: As-Built OWS System, Mckenzie Bam, 1870 C.R. 103, Carbondale, Garfield County CO SE Job No. 11045.01, Parcel No. 239324400337 Dear Gentleman: Pursuant to County Regulations,
this letter provides documentation that the new Onsite Wastewater System (OWS) system recently installed is in general compliance with the permitted design. Sopris Engineering has performed
site visits to inspect and document the as built conditions of the constructed system. The system constructed on site was designed and built to serve the needs of a 2 bedroom ADUlbam
structure at 1870 C.R. 103, Carbondale, CO, situated on tract in Lot I of the Johnson Exemption, in Section 24, T 7 S, R 88 W of the 6th P.M. We have coordinated our efforts with the
contractor, Dirt Devil Construction, that constructed the system. The system was inspected prior to backfilling and after all installations were completed. The as-built conditions and
installation of the new OWS components is in compliance with the permitted design specifications for the system. The septic tank, distribution pipes, and absorption field installations
are in accordance with Garfield County Regulations and the design presented in the Sopris Engineering design drawing, dated March 31, 2011 . New 4" SDR-35 sewer pipe and cleanout was
installed from the internal waste line to the septic tank. A 1000 gallon dual compartment concrete septic tank was installed with 4" tee baffles and an effluent filter. The absorption
field was constructed with a total of26 Quick 4 leaching chambers in a trench configuration with (2) 54' long trenches containing 13 chambers each. The chambers were backfilled with
screened native material. Each trench was installed level. Inspection ports were installed on each end chamber. The chambers were installed in suitable soils consistent across the field.
The field has individual distribution lines from a tuf lite HOPE distribution box, connected to the head of each trench. The distribution box was installed level on compacted ground
and has risers with a lid at the surface. The minimum setback distances have been maintained. The 2 trench have a minimum separation distance of 11 feet and are installed approximately
2-3 feet deep relative to the existing site grades. Additional observations of the soils within the field were performed during construction indicating that the soils are consistent
with the geotechnical description in the design information on the OWS plan. Subsurface soil investigations and Percolation tests were performed by HP Geotechnical, Inc. Three percolation
test holes were prepared approximately 35 to 48 inches deep to calculate percolation rates and to confirm the onsite soils are suitable for conventional absorption systems. The average
rate was determined to be 20 MPI. 30 MPI was used for design. The fastest measured rate was 15 MPI and the slowest rate was 30 MPI. The soils below 112 foot of topsoil consist of sandy
clay with basalt gravel, cobbles and boulders to the 8 foot depth explored. No free water was encountered in the exploration pit. 1502 Main Street· Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 •
(970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 1 SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LlC civil consultants
GRA t--.J i .t '
Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-Phone: (970)945-8212 Fax: (970)384-3470 Project Address 1870 CR 103 CARBONDALE, CO
81623-Own or Info rma tI on Brett McKenzie Parcel No. 239324400337 Add ress 14860 Montford DR Dalias TX 75254 Subdivision Per~it NO. SEPT-4-11-201 0 Pel!nitType';~epticf>erl1lit .. .
Work C/~~sifif8ti?ri:New\ Permifstatus:.Active . Issue Date: 5/3/2011 Expires: 05102/2012 Section Township Range Ph one Ce II 970-901-5743 Contractor!s) Phone Primary Contractor Required
Inspections: Davis Custom Trim (970)379-5734 Proposed Construction I Details Septic system with gravel less leaching chamber absorption trenches. FEES DUE FEES PAID Fee Amount Inv Total
Yes Valuation: $ 0.00 Total Sq Feet: o Paytype Amt Paid Amt Due Percolation Test Septic Fee -New Total: $100.00 $73.00 $173.00 Inv # SEPT -4-11·20991 $ 173.00 Check # 5399 $173.00 $
0.00 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Fo, '",p"lio", "II, 1 (888)868-5306 Inspection IVR See Permit Record Building Department Copy 2
1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 t t t2 13 14 15 16 t7 108 8'h Slreel, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph:970-945-8212 Fx:970-384-3440 Inspection Line:888-868-5306 www.garfield-county.com SEPTIC
PERMlT APPLICATION parce~ ~~;' iIlfMnaliOil ~)a;l1a~~ lhe asses"", oIIice 970-945-9134) I Lot Size: Lot No: Block No: Subd.lExemption: 2. ~ ~'1q-O ~ ~.., n~1\c.IL ... J 'trr I oF' ;'°H<JSOoV
eXe.MPnOtV Job Address: (if an address has not been assigned, please provide CR, HWY or Street Nama & CiM or ami legal desaiption 1~'10 c./.. 1~'2. Owner: (propo1y owneJ) Mailing Address
I '/,~.;r. MDr.1Tl'OR.O 8fZ. Ph: All Ph: f!,«'~,", M,,_\t:aI"Z.I~ t.U. '-~ '1!:>":t5'" Contractor: Mailing Address S I'" "' ... ~ II.\\IU-Av~_ Ph: Alt Ph: ......... ~" 011.\11<; a,i",-"
LO t 1(.0<;0 q"TO <4> ..S QSs"l 9-70 :',4 5"n~ Engineer: Mailing Address 50 1. .... "'t" $\' $.>1'l"E. "'~ Ph: All Ph: ~ G.\So E.tJC),tJEIl.jt\ j\J c.. ,~. """'-"-Cb t\~ 't'10 "Too{
0'2, \ t PERMIT REQUEST FOR: ~ New Installation ( ) Alteration ( ) Repair • WASTE TYPE: ( )Dwelling ( )TranSie~?Se T" l~ t ()c.ommerci~~dustrial ( )Non-Domestic wastes ~O th er -Describe
~IJ u.I ,..;. ''IT'I'l'-5,""1<-BUiLDING OR SERVICE TYPE: Number of bedrooms IJ/'" Garbage Grinder ( )Yes (~No SOURCE & TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: P<)WELL ( )SPRING ( )STREAM OR CREEK ( )CISTERN
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? tJlA YOUR INDIVIDUAL
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITH OUT A SITE PLAN GROUND CONDITIONS: • Depth to 1"Ground Water Table '? 10 Percent Ground Slope I~~.;tol. TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE
DISPOSAL SYSTEM (ISDS) PROPOSED: ~SepticTank ( )Aeration Plant ( )Vaull ( )Vault Privy ( )Composting Toilet ( )Recyciing, Polable Use iIIiOther-Desoribe ( )Recycling, other use ( )Pit
Privy ( )Incineration Toilet ( )Chemical Toilet FINAL DISPOSAL BY: ",Absorption trench, Bed or Pit ( )Underground Dispers,a), ( )Above Ground Dispersal ( )Evapotranspiration (~::~filt~r~
( )Wastewater pond ~Othe r· Describe LF_<.<. I~" »,AI,. rJl,,';OU:.R .. , . ".,,' Will effluent be discharged directly Into waters of the state? ( )YES ( )NO PERCOLA nON TEST RESULT:
(10 be compleled by Reg_teTed Proiessonal Eng""", K Ihe Engineer does the Perro.lion TesQ Minutes "",,0 per inch in hole No, 1 Minutes "fBtl per inch in hole No,3 Minutes :U.O per inch
in hole No.2 Minutes per inch in hole No._ Name, address & telephone of RPE who made soli absorption test: '!b e.f. PE«.f6It.MW b':! !:Ie c.1'1'>Jl;,,:s Name, address & telephone of
RPE responsible for design olthe system: 'VAr.ll.'1 NiColi at. "Ii: !OPIl'<' , aJ" Applicant acknol'1edges that the completeness of the application is condilional upon such further mandatory
and additional test 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
submilted herewi~ and required to be submilted by Ihe applicant are or will be represented to be true and correct to the best of my knol'1edge and belief and are designed to be r ied
on by the local depariment of health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein, I further understand that any fals' leation or misrepresentation may
result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based upon said application a ' "0 ( n<!£iIl ry as provided by law -4;J'--/:s _ /1 If OWNERS-SIGNATCRE llATE
ll~ , STAFF USE ONLY Permit Fee: Perk Fee: CL) Total fees: Fees Paid: Balance due: .£l~CO $\0), [13. 00 "11~'OO C/> Building Permit: S~tic Permit: Issue Date: BLR-c., -z.t:D cr { ..A
xJI--Z.D, 0 BUitding&~ ~ 4 ~~ 5/2;//APPROAL ----DATE "
Theodore K Guy Associates PC common ~E'nsE' sol utlon~ ARCH ITECTURE PLANN ING STRU crURAL ENGINEERING Box 1640, Basal t, CO 81621 970.9 27.3167 I tkga@tkga.net To whom it may concern,
On August 17 of 2011 Matt Monger of Theodore I( Guy Associates PC visited the Mckenzie Barn to observe severa l bolder reta ining wa lls red flagged by the Garfield County Building Department
for being over the code maximum. Any retaining wall less than four feet is exempt from permit by the International Building Code. The bolder reta ining walls in question appeared to
be build sound ly. One to three large interlocking rooks were used to achieve the three to six feet wall heights (see attached photo). We feel that the rock retaining walls are sound
as is but recommend that grade be adj usted so that any of the wal ls do not exceed five feet. Please feel free to ca ll Ted or myself if you have any question or comments. It should
be noted that the above comments are based on visual observa tion s and there is no claim, either stated or implied, that all cond itions were observed. This letter does not address
any other portions of the stru ct ure other than t hose areas mentioned. No physical testing was performed and no calc ul at ions were done by TI(GA. Respec;Lubmitted ~~.-Matt Monger
Theodore I( Guy AlA, PE
Terry Davis, Theodore K Guy Associates PC common sense solutions ARCHITECTURE PLANNING STRUCTURAL ENG INE ER ING Box 1640, Basalt, CO 8162.1 970.927.3167 I tkga@tkgd.net I understand
that the building inspector would like me to comment on the upper floor framing for the Mcl<enzie Barn. Specifically the stairway header system. I did visit the site & approved the stair
landing swap from east to west. The 3 LVL's are intended to hang from the 2 LVL's on one side & 1 LVL on the other. If you have any concerns or additional questions please feel free
to give me a call. Respectfu Ily Submitted Matt Monger
Buiiders Statement \ ~1-0 1,1,'. ,,:, r ",ellil C(lrTlI),lIIY NiIIllC [NS Ji-VAI L 01'1 N ~.!l re APPLICIITION '~-r-'----~~~'-~"'.'~' ".--',--"-' -,.,-. __ .-.... _. MAXIMlJM N[-I" ~30
),1 i MINIMIJM WI')Cllf ,'"Hr-d,":'i'" ;ill.i (i;' rrn (lAG r;ovr:nM,r I POlJND!; pm SD r I (>lIll1'nh ('~ /\,lfl ! Wt 1I_li,1 1"'( -,'-I )' ,,)nliliul !;'JVr~1 '1I~,I.III(~d "I'."',i)!!;:"
:,!l, ' hi 1 i I q !J;.>() 1 Df I 5 '(., 'l IIIJI he I'~s:..; 111.11 ·,Ii' (; II;:! ():\HI (I \".1 IJ,'W) IllIRMAI PeRFORMANCE-ATTIC BLOWING APPLICATION 'dcr:cwiiIIHT with Ih(~ chart
tlIJOVf~, you illusl Hlslilllllw rninlfflllfn IIIJl[ll)()) II! h'ICj:: Ili" 'Ji'{t q V:J 111(; 11'·;tl~(j ,IIC Il',-;XII:1U:1111::.;i COVCri.lW~ must flOI uxcccri IIllll ~;pecifiod lor
(;ilc!l H·Vnlll!: ': !1~;)l.,!cllln'l n-:l.Isl rXJ Illsta!leciat Of" above the specilind iW;!illi(~d IIlickllC.';~; 101 ('dcli 11 \/1,111; 'i·I",'. l:t ':'l.'C Ii:' II-I~ijrd! lilt='
rcq!lIred Illilllnllllri WQlrJllt pel sq H. of 1I1';III;'ltIOIl fit (J) aIJ()VC' !rH' ,j'III:!1 !I ',r,j!', ! '''i( " '.!! :, :·~ .. :i H V;II:iC II 1',:,'.!I,i': ii" ';\1'1' ! I . __
.1 -.-_ .. _-,.,, ! I 1 i I I j IJr\i'~(~f 11 fH.CI:~;SFD LIGHT FlXTUHES TO PHEVENl OVEflHEATlf\lG, DO WH iN~;lJ! ;\1'(-" 1),'\1 Iii. {l:, ";" 1:11,\: I)i c'UCH D[VICf:S. THIS WARNING
flOES NOr APPlY HJ HI', Ie IIC,l! I 1'1)Cr :,'111': 'jll 1'1 I II, .'.' ," I 'IXTUHfS \1\11'1 H rtlERIVIALLY pnOT~CTU) Bfll.L I\!·;I S. 11'1, /I';;w,1 i.(,I\",'I"!!"I',>I';
Terry Davis-Davis Custom Trim 0816 Whiteriver Ave Rille Co 81650 VIA E-Mail: ten-yd34.td@gmaiLcom PROJECT: 1870 County Road 103 -Carbondale SPECIFICATIONS: R38 fiberglass loose fill
to truss exterior ceiling area s at upper level R30 unfaced fiberglass starter batts at bottom of vaulted ceiling at both sides Post Oalec I30x 2888 Vail, Colorado 81658 970-524-3000
Fax 970-524-300 I REVISED September 22, 20 II Perimeter baffles to truss exterior ceiling for proper attic venting IO'up every other bay R38 fiberglass loose fill to RV garage truss
exterior ceiling area at each side of storage area 2' strip of 6 mil poly to be installed at storage extcrior ceiling to keep storage items from insulation R25 unfaced fiberglass batts
under storage areas at RV garage 6 mil poly vapor balTier to upper level & RV garage exterior ceiling areas R2l unfaced fiberglass batts to upper level 2x6 exterior wall areas R2l unfaced
fibcrglass batts to exterior knee wall at upper level R21 un faced fiberglass batts to garage 2x6 exterior walls R25 unfaced fiberglass batts to RV garage 2x8 partition walls to garage
& upper level R25 unfaced fiberglass batts to 2x8 RV garage exterior walls 6 mil poly vapor barrier to garage & RV garage exterior walls & partition walls 6 mil fire rated poly vapor
ban-ier to upper level exterior walls & exterior ceilings R30 un faced fiberglass batts to garage ceiling area to conditioned space above R21 unfaced fiberglass batts to garage exterior
lim joist areas MemBrain smart vapor retarder to garage ceiling area to eliminate air flow R 11 & r 19 un faced fiberglass batts to mcchanical room & restroom interior walls Fire rated
foam to windows, doors and mechanical penetrations