The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOriginal Building Permit 20160riAv'¡"t pør,rit- 9fR +yfu. auua¡tafi-1e AÞMr^rø¿ Gørfield County t' ulR g$r$t Communíty Development Department 1og 8ü street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 816f11 (e701 94s-8212 wunr.Farfi eld-countv.com TYPE OF CONSTRUÇÍION EI CommerciailMulti-Fam¡ly E Demolition E Manufactured Home or Multi-Level) me)Jii neroof INVOTVED PAßNES Property Owner:-I-.tt". t Le^,^rr.lIfl\^u Phone:3t -3 MailinsAddress: 19 oL C Ê ?rt é] ll-,r-¿o I lLs Z Contractor:Sef- a.bor¡<-Phone: ( Mailing Address: Architect:Ja,,n¿[\c- t+*rt"t Phone: ¡1V4 | ht\ ' 7oa1 Mailing Address:t\B.4\ 21o1¡_ ñrc N\J &r vrCf i¡ov^r. tw\¡-r SÇA-1t , Engineer:Phone: tQru ¡QZr - Ll\pz Mailing Addre¡s:LÔ Ttø Manufactured Home lnstaller:Phone: { MailingAddress: PROJECT NAME AÍìID TOCATION Descrlbe Work:A)p,-, foa r4r,¡v$'|- i'¿ cJa.:,,rr ç,]\v-r^S\¡.^f la S. Ërr^+*- t Z v'J z7r-17tÐ t BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION tr Addition Job Address: Assesso/s Parcel Number: 2l]39ÊLs!oo 3-sub.Block I Owne/s Valuatíon of Work: 9- Propefi Size lSq. Ft. orAeresh I Sq. Ft. of Building:L,LTO Height:2s' f.t "ü of Floor¡L Class of Work ¡f New E Alteration EI Repair E Move/Relocation Garage:E Attached E Detached E òommunitySeptic:Erowrs Type of Heae E Natural Gas Electric Driveway Permit:E Exempt Propane E Permit f: B other iuoncr Aqthorlty,This application for a Building Permit must be signed by the Owner of the property, described above, or an authorizEd agent. lf the signature below is not that of the Owner, a separate letter of authority, signed by the Owner, must be provided wlth this Applícation. Leeal Access. A Buildlng Perm¡t cannot be issued without proof of legal and âdequâte accgss to the property lor purposes of inspectlons by the Éulldlng Þlvlslon. Other Permlts. Multiple separate perrn¡ts may be required: (1) State Electrical pêrm¡t, (2) County OWTS Permít, {3} another perrnit required for use on the property ldentífìed above, e,g.State or County Hlghway/ Road Access or a State Wastewater Discharge Permit, Vold Permlt. A Building Permit becomes null and vo¡d if th€ work authorized is not commenced within 180 days of the dâte ol issuance and if work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after commencement. CERTIHCANOil I hereby certify thðt I have read this Application and that the informatlon contained above is true and correct. I understand that the Eulldlng Þivlsfon äccepts the Application, along wìth the plans and specifications and other data submitted by me or on my behalf (submittals), based upon my certifìcation as to accuracy. Assuming completeness of the submittals and approval of this Âpplication, a Building Permit will be issued granting permission to me, as Owner, to construct the structure(s) and facilities detailed on the submittals reviewed by the Building Division. ln cons¡derðt¡on of the issuance of the Building Permit, I agree that I and my agents will comply with provisions of any federal, state or local law regulating the work and the Garfield County Building Code, OWTS regulations and applicable land use regulations {County Segulation{s}). I acknowledge that the Building Perrnit may be suspended or revoked, upon notice from the County, if the locatíon, construction or use of the structure{s) and facility(ies), described above, are not in compliance with County ñegulation{s) or any other applicable law. I hereby grant permission to the Building Division ts enter the property, described above, to ¡nspect the work. I further ackoowledge that the issuance of the Building Permit does not prevent the Building Official from: {1} requiring the correction of errors l¡ the submittals, if any, discovered after issu¡nce; or {21 stopping construct¡on o¡ use of the structure(s) or facility(ies! íf such is ln violation of €ounty Regulation(s| or any other applicable law. Ravlew of this Application, including submittals, and ínspections of the work by the Building Þivision do not constitute an acceptance of responsibility or liability by the County of errors. omisslons or discrepancies. As the Owner, I acknowledge that responsibility for compliance with federal, state and lscal laws and County Re6ulations rest wath me and my authorized agents, including without lim¡tation my architect designer, engineer andl or builder. I hereby acknowledge that I have read and understand the Notice and Cert¡ñcation above, âs well as, have provided the required information which cûrrert and accurâte to the b€st of my knowledge. I t Property Owner Print and Sign J*rro^^ tfu Lt-t t l. Date OFFlClrtt USE OlrltY *uuztnç, l-s I- P*il-** spÊc¡ðl Condit¡onsi Ad¡u¡têd Vrluatlod: llo À tç Plan Check Feer qeA 3à Perrïit Fee: ì?Rl .\5 Manu home Fee:MlscFeer&F, 2, t7l .Zo Totâl tÉês: ' L')-q61\ Fees Pald: f rftt.T{ Balance Due: \,ù 6.16 trpl-ttl?t Swr- +BK OWTS No¡ Setbacks: Fi4_ Conrt Type:occ ZonlnB: K BUILDING 1Pt-A¡¡NtNG DtVtStON : Oate 'l -wtç 8{rf- %,f*-\oL,tþ l €øøtlg-cP**: I Perrnit Numbqr:þ.ßE -84- (6^ 4/37 Sw,r*r¡ A!ildine Plan nine/Zonine Foundation Permit Surveyed Site Plan Septic Permit and Setbacks Ð. {'* ton. A Property [ine SetbacksI Stream Setbacks Plain _/\'' Grade/Topography 3o% _/ Attach Residential Plan Review List Height Sign-Off tmpactFees- 4131,b Grade/ Topography 4A% *...planning lssues Subdivísíon Plat General-Comments: )7Ð 7zz ÁrsionptatNotes d:::","-j-';;wwÀlq{ Á.d Une PlanslSrãmpsl srickerJ Conditïons Sþned Reviewer to Sign Application Parcef Schedule No. 4!# Snowload Letter - Manu. Hornes,/ V./ soits Report T&z- 7î tt: /7Ð,412 þ{ I.J Ë P!4IÛñTI.'-FAWLq( GTÕT[C$N ¡ ÇAI SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 3, DUTCH MAJOR EXEMPTION 997 COUNTY ROAD 229 GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. l14 s0sA NOVEMBER 26 2014 PREPARED FOR: TOM JURMU I9O2 COUNTY ROAD 2T4 SILT, COLORADO 81652 I u nr i u rnt q.¡J_unr:rí l,,pr¡ U! i l .. ,'.ì i i'',:i..: lÙj"51 ¡ *¡i(l r {-rr}crt.¡¡1,, \1:¡¡¡¡.* Jl.l r-ìì iitll r \rlrr, l"tl"¡.'r ¡:t. r}7û -iir¡ 1t;5.¡ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION....,. ...... I . FIELD EXPLORATION................. TABLD OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY................. SUBS URFACE CONDITIONS. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS........,... DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.................... FOUNDATIONS......... FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS, FLOOR SLABS I.JNDERDRAIN SYSTEM SURFACE DRAINAGE ................ -) _ ,.,,,,......" 4. ............- 5 - -?_ 3- 6- .,.,........: 6 - LIMTTATÍONS ............ .....- 7 - F¡CURE I . LOCATION OF EXPLOR.ATORY BORTNGS FIGURE 2 - LOCS OF EXPLORATORY BORÍNGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FlcuRES 4 and 5 - swELL-coNSoLIDATIoN TEST RESULTS TABLE I. SUMIUÁ.RY OF LABOTTATORY TEST RESULTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be loc¡ted on Lot 3, Dutch Major Exernption, 997 County Road 229, Garfreld Countyn Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure I . The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations fbr the foundatian design. The study was conducted in accordance rvith our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Tom Jurmu dated November 6,2014. A field exploration prograrn consisting of exploratory borings was conductecl to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classificatian, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allorvable pressures for the proposed building foundalion. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed residence will be a I and 2 story structure with a partial watkout lower level and located in the southern part of tlre lot as shown on Figure l. The gâråge will be located at the mairr level. Ground floors will be slab-on-grade. Grading for the structure is assurned to be relatively minor with cut depths betrveen about 2 to 6 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. lf building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those clescribed above, rve should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. Job No, I 14 5ü5Â cåStecl'r -2- SITE CONDITIONS The building site rvas vacant pasturc åt the timc of our fieltl exploration. A well had been drilled near the middle of the lot as shown on Figure l. The ground surface is gently rolling with a gentle slope down to the south and west. Field irrigation ditches cross the aren including ono in the middlc of the garage arcl. Vegetation conslsts of grass and weeds. FIELD EXPLOR.ATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on November I I, 2014. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure I to evaluate the subsurface conditions' The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous fliglrt augers porvered by a truck-mounted cME-458 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth,pawlak Ceotechnical, lnc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 2 inch LD. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falting 30 inches. This test is similar lo the standard penetration tcst describcd by ASTM Merhûd D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples rvere taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory f'or revierv by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACtr CONDTTIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2 The subsoils, below about I inches of topsoit, consist of 5 to I I feet of medium stift ru stiff, sandy silt and clay overlying meclium dense, silty to clayey sancl rvith scattered gravel to the boring depths of 2l feet. Joh No, I ¡4 505A cå&ecn -3- Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural rnoisture content and density, finer than sand size gradation analysis and unconfined compressive strengtlt. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples, presented on Figures 4 and 5, indicate lorv to moderate compressibility under loading, and a minor collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted. The unconfined compression test indicated the clay soil has stiff consistency. The laboratory testing is surnmarized in Table l. No free wÍ¡ter was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils rvere slightly moist to moist. FOUNDATION BEARJNG CONDITIONS The subsoils have relatively low bearing capacity and generally low settlement potential under light loading. Shallow spread footings placed on the natural soils should be suitable fbr foundation support with some settlement risk, mainly under wetted bearing conditions. Precautions should be taken to keep the bearing soirs dry. DESIGN RBCOM MENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nåture of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread lootings bearing on the natur¿il soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing floundation system. l) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils should be designed t'or an allorvable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect initial settlement of footings designed and constructecl as discussed in this Job No, I 14 5ü5Â cå6tectr 4 section will be about I inch or less. Thcre could be atlditional differential settlement of l'! to I inch if the bearing soils are wetted. 2) The footings should have a minimum wittth uf l8 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet fbr isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas shoutd be provided rvith odcquatc soil cover above tlreir bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at reast 36 inches below exterior gradc is typically used in rhis area. 4) Continuous fou¡tdation rvalls should be reinforced top and bottom to spân local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at teast l2 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral eârth pressures as discussed ín the ,'Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) The topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the firrn natural soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footirrg 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 r:nly a slight amount of deflection shoutd be clesigned for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivatent fluid unit rveight of at least 55 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soits. Cantilevered retaining structures whjch 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 at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of tlre on-site soils. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hyclrostatic and surcharge llressurr,}s suclt as adjacent footings, traiTic, construction materials and Job Nc. ¡ 14 5()54 eåFtreclr -5- equipment. The pressures retommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of rvater 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 lo prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standarcl Proctor density ät near optimurn moisture contenf . Bsckfill placed in pavernent and walkrvay areas shculd be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor dcnsity. Care should be taken rot to overoompact the backfill or use large equipment near 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 coeflicient of friction of 0.30. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calcuiated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 30 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultirnate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which rvill occur at lhe ultimate strength, particutarly in the case of passive resistance, Fill placed against the sides of the fbotings to resist lateral loads should be 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 tÐ support lightly loaded slab- on-grade construction. To reduce the eflects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated finnr all bearing rvalls and columns with expansion joints which allorv unrestrained vertical nrovetnent. Floor slab controtjoints sl'lould be used to reduce Jot¡ Nr¡. l14 5{)54 eåStectr -6- damage due to shrinkage cracking. .The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the clesigner based on experience and the intendcd slab u'se, A minimum 4 inch layer of fiee-draining gravel should be placed beneath the basetttcrrt slub to facllitate drainage. 'l'his materinl should consist of minus 2 inch aggregatc lvith at least 50% rctained r¡n the No. 4 sieve and less than Zyopassing the No. 200 sievc. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95-û.,å of maxi¡num standard Proctor density at a ¡noisture content near optimum. Required fìlt can consist of the on sito coilc do'oid of vcgctution und topsoit. LTNÞERÐRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience irr the area and where there are ctay soils that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runuff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can cre¡te a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls and basement areâs, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in rhe bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granutar material. The drain s¡ould be placed at each level of excavation and at least I fcot belorv lowest acljacent finish grade and sloped at a minirnum lYo to a suitable gravity outlet or i¡¡terior sump. Free- draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2o¡i¡ passing the No. 200 sieve, less th¿n 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and bave a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill shoukl be at least l'á feet deep. SURFACE DR,A,INACË The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and rnairrtaincd at all times after the resiclerrce has been completeri: Job Nc. I 14 5054 c&Btectr -7 - l) 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 areâs and to at least g0% 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 ail directions. we recommend a minimum slope of l2 inches in the first l0 feet in unpaved areas and a mini¡nutn slope of 3 inches in the first l0 feet in paved ¿reas. Free{raining wall backfill shor¡ld be capped with at least 2 feet of the on- site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge rvell beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be locaterl at least l0 feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to use of xeriscape to reduce the potential for rvetting of soils below the building caused by irrigation. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance rvith generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. Tlte conclusions and recom¡nendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings clrilled at the locations indicated on Figure l, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological co¡rtaminants (MOBC) developing in the f'uture. If the ctient is concemed about MOBC, then a professional in this special flreld of practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapotation of the subsurfaee conditions iclentified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface Joh No. I ¡4 505Â eåStectr -8 conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction åppear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our clíent for design purposes. We are not rcspottsible for technical interpretations by others of our infbrmation. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation ancl fietd services during construction to revierv and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. 'We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectful ly Submitted, HËPWORTH - PAWLAK CEOTECHNICAL, INC Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. Reviewed by: Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. SLP/ksrv x6r,23Itaa aa Joh No. I 14 sf)SA cå6tecrr APPHOXIIVIATË SCALE 1" = 120' IRHIGAÏON EASEMENT LOT I I I LOT 4 æ"t*n-g*t þ- ËXISTING WELL LOT 3 DUTCH MAJOR EXEMPTION BORING 1a BUILDING AHEA BORING 2I ïo couNTY RoAÐ 229 _+,_ NOTE: BORINGS WERE ÐRILLËÐ lN DESIGNATED BUILDING AFEA, 1 14 505A LOCAÏION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 1 BORING 1 BORING 2 0 0 'tot12 WC=8 I DD= 104 2Ail2 7112 5 a 6lt2 WC*12.9 DO=99 10 17112 WC*8 I DD* 113 t3it2 WC=ls l DD* 115 "?f,Q*73 UC-a.Bm 1CI ElÀ o.oÉl o)(¡¡ll- a.q,Êt5 14112 1517112 2A 27t12 2A16t12 25 26 Note: Explanâtion of symbols is shown CIn F¡gure g. 1'14 505A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure 2 LEGEND E TOPSOIL; organic sandy silt, brown SILTAND CLAY (ML.CL): sandy, medium stifl to stili, slighily moist to moist, lighr brown to brown, tow ptasticity, calcareous. ffi SAND (SM-SCi; silty to clayey, scattered gravel, medium dense, moist, brown. þ Relatívely undisturbed drive sarnple; 2-inch l.D. California tiner sample. 10/12 Ðrive sample blow c1 'n1; indicates that 1 0 blows of a '140 pound hamrner lalling 30 inches we¡e required to drive the California sampler 12 rnches, NOTES: 1. Exploralory borings were drilled on November 10, 2014 with 4-inch diameter conlinuous ffighl power auger. 2. The exploratory borings were located in lhe building area designated by the clíent. 3. Elevations of exptoratory borings were not measured and the logs of exploratory borings are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring locations should be consÍdered accurate only to lhe degree irnplied by the method used. 5, Ïhe lines between materials shown on the explorattry boring logs represünt the approximale boundaries between material types and lransilions may be gradual. 6. No kee waler was encounlered in lhe borings al the lime ol drilling. Flucluation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Tesl¡ng Resulls: WC = Waler Content {7d ÐD * Dry Density {pcfl -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve UC = Unconfined Compressive Strength {psf) 1 14 505A LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 3 0 òs 'ı U' o) o- Eoo 1 2 3 0.1 1,0 'to 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf 0 !oo\ L .o 1t, u1 û) o- Eo(J 1 2 3 10 APPLIÊD PFESSURE - ksf Moisture Content = 8.-f Dry Densily = 104 Sample ol: Sandy Silt and CLay From: Boring 1 at ZYzFeet percent pcf \ -Compressionupon wetling Moisture Contenl - S.g Ðry Ðensity = 1'¡3 Sample of: $ilty Clayey Sand From: Boring 1 at 10 Feel percent pcf Þt ;Compression upon wetting I l 0.1 't.0 100 1 14 505A SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST H ESU LTS Figure 4 percent pcf Moisture Conlent : 12.9 Dry Density * 99 Sample of : $¿¡gy Silt and Clay From: Boring 2 at 5 Feet )Compression .upon welting I ) 10 APPTIED PñESSUFË . KsI 0 \oo\ c .gu,U' 0) o- Eo(J 2 3 1 4 1001.00. 1 1 14 505A $WELL.CONSOLIDATI ON TEST RESU LTS Figure 5 H ÊPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECH NICAL, INC.TABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSJob No. 114 505450tt oFBEB.ROCK lYPãSandy Silt and ClaySilty Clayey SandSandy Silt and ClaySandy Siþ ClayUNCONFINEDcoMPRESS|vtSTREN6TH4,800AÎTTRBTRG IIMIlSp[.AsTclN06x{%lLIQUID UMIT{9olPERCËf..ITPASSING NÛ,200 $EVe73GEAOATIONsAÌ'¡Ol/"16RÂVGLly"lNÀTURAToRv oÉNstryfpcllt04il399115I'lÂTURAtM0rsTURrC0lilÏEHTl%tII8.8t2.915.1SAMPIE TOCATIONDIPTH{f¡¡) t/"l051ûBORþIGI2 i¡ËT!,VTRTH' PÂWLÀK GË*TËCHNICÃL May 9, ?016 !lc¡xcr:lr T:,¡*l :i. $-r:¡r<i¡l::e,:1. ir:. ilì* f.a:*:; li,' :J l5l CL¡:r,rrxl :i:¡:llj:, at:¡,:.iJ'¡ Slã*t lìi¡':nr 9?:3 ç.¡a :T.l = f;¡ ' 9?* ?;; ¡.1åS :l¡ :rl ll¡:,':rrlll:f;::11r.:t i: i:!;: Þ{ Tom Ju¡mu 1902 County Road 214 Silt, Colorado 81652 tomiurmu(Ðqmail.com Job No. I 14 5054 Subject:Observation of Excavation, Proposed Residcnce, Lot 3, Þutch Major Exemption,997 County Road 229, Garfield County, Colorado Dc¡r Mr. Jurmu: As requestedr ¡l represenlative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, lnc. observed the exc.rvûtion at tbe subjecl site on Muy 2, 2016 to evaluate the soils cxposed for foundation support. Thc findings of our observations and re€omnændations for the foundation design are prêsented in this repor" We previously conducted ¡i subsoil study for design of foundations at the site and presented our findings in a report dated November 26,2014, Job No. I 14 5054. We undcrstand that the proposed rvalkout basement wæ eliminated and the lorver level will be slab-on-grade. At the time of our visit to lhe site, the foundation e,(c¡rv¡rtion had been cut in one levcl frorn l7: to 3 feet below the adjacent ground surface. The soils exposed in the bo¡tom of the excavation consisted of medium stiff to stiff, sandy silt and clay. The exposed fcoting subgrade h¡d been compacted. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on o sample lnlien from the site, shown on Figure t, indicatc the soils have low to moderÂte compressibility under conditions of loading and rvelting with a minor collapse potential (settlement under constant load) rvhen wetted. No free tvaler was encounlered in the exc¡vation and the soils were slightly mo¡st to moist. The soil conditions exposed in the excavation are consistent with those prevlously encountered on the sitc and suitable for support of spread footings designed for the recommended allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. An underdrain system should not be needed for the proposed slab-on-grade lower floor level and we recommend that it nof be installed. Site grading around the house should drain away on all sides as described in the Snrface Grading sect¡on of our prev¡ous report. Other recommcndations presented in our previous report which are applicable should olso be observed. The recommendations submitted in this letter ore based on our observ¡tion of the soils exposed within the foundation excavalion and the previous subsurface exploration at the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions below the cxcavation could increûse the risk of foundation movemenl. We should be advised of any variations encountered in the excâvation conditions for possible changes lo recommendntions contained in this letter. l'¡rl:er 3t1"841"?li? . t*tçr¡rl,:Srring: ?1ç"å13":552 . 5¡lrertl¡{}r¡t *7û 46$-198* Tom Jurmu May9,2016 Page 2 Our services do not include detcrmining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminûnts (MOBC) dcveloping in the future" lf the client is concemed ¡bout MOBC, lhen u profess¡onâl in this special field of practice should bc consul¡çd. Ifyou have any questions or need further utsistancc, please call ouroffice. Sincerely, HEP\ryORTH _ PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, TNC. (- Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. Rev. by: SLP DEH/ltsw flttachment Figure I - Swell-Consolidution Test Rcsults cc:Albright & Associates - Jack Albright iach@illbriqht-r!$açiutes.com JobNo.114505À eå8tecrr Mo¡slure Content * 12.1 percenl Ory Densily - 106 pcl Sample of: Sandy Sitt and ttay From: Fool ng Grade Near Southeasl Corner ol House I (,Gompfesslon upon welt;ng \ \ 0 I \qô .e atçt E CLçoo 2 3 4 5 0l r.0 t0 t00 ÁPPLIEO FÊESSURË ' ksl 1 14 5CI54 <¡åEhEcrrH¡pr¡rth-Porlolr 0lotidYìltol SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 1