HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsoils Study for Foundation DesigntC ii'slfi'åinrcirniïiå*'"
An Employco Owned Compony
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone: (970) 945-7988
fax: (970) 945-8454
email: kaglenwood@kumarusa.com
wwwkumarusa.com
Ofifice Locations: Denver (HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fott Collins, Glenwood Springs, and Summit County, Colorado
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT F.19, ASPEN GLEN
DIAMOND A RANCH ROAD
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PROJECT NO.2l-7-232
APRrL 19,2021
PREPARED FOR:
\ryHITNEY WARI)
918 BROOKIE
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
woward@me.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED CONSTRL]CTION
SITE CONDITIONS
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ....................
FOUNDATIONS
FOLINDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
FLOOR SLABS
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ...........
SURFACE DRATNAGE................
LIMITATIONS
FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURES 5 and 6 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
-l _
I
1
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL ,\
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ^J
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS .................. ......- 3 -
-4
-4-
-5-
-6-
-6-
-7 -
-8-
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-232
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results ofa subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on
Lot F- 19, Aspen Glen, Diamond A Ranch Road, Garfield County, Colorado. The project site is
shown on Figure L The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the
foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical
engineering services to Whitney Ward dated March 2,2021.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain
information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field
exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or
swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory
testing were analyzed to develop reconìmendations for foundation types, depths and allowable
pressures for the proposed building foundation. 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
Design plans for the proposed residence were not available at the time of our study. The
proposed residence is assumed to be a one or two story wood frame structure with attached
garage possibly over a basement level. Ground floors could be slab-on-grade or structural over
crawlspace. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between
about 2 to l0 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type
of construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change signifìcantly from those described above,
we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site was vacant at the time of our field exploration. The ground surface is relatively
flat with about 1 to 2 feet of elevation difference across the building envelope. Vegetation
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No, 21-7-232
-2-
consists of grass, An artificial pond is located across the golf course to the northwest. A
subsidence area was previously mapped in the noftheast part of the lot just outside of the
building envelope as shown on Figure l. Site grading as part of the original subdivision
development placed fill material in the subsidence area to level the lot.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Aspen Glen Subdivision.
These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained sandstone and siltstone with some
massive beds of gypsum and limestone. 'l'here is a possibility that massive gypsum deposits
associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite underlie portions of the lot. Dissolution of the
gypsum under ceftain conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of
localized subsidence. During previous work in the area, several sinkholes were observed
scattered throughout the Aspen Glen Development. These sinkholes appear similar to others
associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite in areas of the lower Roaring Fork Valley.
A subsidence area was previously observed northeast of the subject lot. No evidence of cavities
was encountered in the subsurface materials; however, the exploratory borings were relatively
shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our present knowledge of the subsurface
conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not develop or ground will
not subside in the unstable soil area. The risk of future ground subsidence within the designated
building envelope area of Lot F-19 throughout the service life of the proposed residence, in our
opinion, is low; however, the owner should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole
development and future ground subsidence especially in the northern area of the lot, outside of
the building envelope. If further investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site
is desired, we should be contacted.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on March 23 and24,2021. Three
exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface
conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch dianreter continuous flight augers powered
by a truck mounted CME-458 drill rig. Thc borings \,vcrc loggcd by a rcprcscntativc of I(umar
& Associates, Inc.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-232
-3-
Samples of the subsoils were taken with l% 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 Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our
laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The
subsoils were variable and below about Yzfoot of topsoil consist of up to 6%feet of granular fill
overlying very stiff, sandy clay with scattered gravel down to a depth of 4Yz to 10 feet. Below
the clay, dense, silty sandy gravel with cobbles and probable boulders was encountered down to
the maximum explored depth of 14 feet. Drilling in the dense granular soils with auger
equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in
Borings 2 and 3.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained flrom the borings included natural moisture
content and density, gradation analyses and Atterberg limits. Results of swell-consolidation
testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the clay, presented on Figure 4,
indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of
gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus llr-inch fraction) of the
coarse granular subsoils are shown on Figures 5 and 6. The laboratory testing is summarizedin
Table l.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were
slightly moist to moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The upper fill and clay soils encountered in the borings down to depths of about 5 to l0 feet
possess a low bearing capacity and typically low to moderate settlement potential when under
loading. The dense gravel soils encountered in the borings below 5 to l0 feet possess moderate
bearing capacity and typically low settlement potential. Spread footings placed on the upper
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-232
4
soils will have a risk of foundation movement possibly resulting in distress to the proposed
residence. We recommend removal of the upper fill and natural clay soils and placing sprcad
footings or fill on the underl ying gravel soils for support of the proposed
residence.
The borings drilled on the site do not inclicate influence from the sinkhole and subsidence area
mappcd northeast of the building envelope. If deeper than anticipated clay soils or soft areas are
encountered during construction, we should be contacted to further evaluate the bearing
conditions. Future ground subsidence in the unstable soil area shown on Figure 1 could indicate
sinkhole reactivation and the need for mitigation such as deep compaction grouting.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of
the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings placed
on the natural dense gravel soils or compacted structural fill bearing on the natural granular soils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing
foundation system.
i) Footings placed entirely on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be
designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf Feotings placed on
compacted structural fill should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of
2,000 psf. Rased on experience? we expect settlement of footings designed and
-
constructecFas discussed in this section will be about I inch or less.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of l6 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
atea.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 feet.
Kumar & Ae sociates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-232
-5-
Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist
lateral eafth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls"
section of this report.
All existing fill, clay soils and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and
the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural granular
soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted.
Structural fillplaced to reestablish design bearing level should be compacted to at
least9SYo of standard Proctor density.
A representative of the geotechnical 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 at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and
can be expected to deflect suffrciently 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 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. Backfill should be a predominantly
granular soil devoid of organics, clay soils and rock large than 6 inches.
AII foundation and retaining sructures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and
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 and walkway
areas should be compacted to at least 95Yo of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care
should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this
s)
6)
Kumar & Associates, lnc. o Project No. 21-7-232
-6-
cottld cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall
backfill should bc cxpcctcd, even it'the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to
facilities constructed on thc backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall tbotings will be a combination of the
sliding resistance of the t'ooting on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against
tlie side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated
based on a coefficient of friction of 0.45. Passive pressure of compacted backfîll against the
sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 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 sftength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against
the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular 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 loaded slab-on-grade
construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be
separated tlom 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 trasemellt level slabs to lacilitate drainage. This
material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve
and less fhan2o/o passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill malerials f-or support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture contcnt ncar optimum. Rcquircd fill can consist of the on-
site granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil ancl oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encounterecl cluring our exploration, it has been our experience in
the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or
Kumar & Assocíates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-232
-7 -
seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We
recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace 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 I foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum lYoto
a suitable gravity outlet or drywell. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain
system should contain less than 2o/o passingthe No. 200 sieve, less than 50%o passing the No. 4
sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least l% 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 ofthe 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%o of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas
and to at least 90o/o 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 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of
3 inches in the first l0 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be
covered with filter fabric and capped with about 2 feú of the on-site finer graded
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 inigation should be located at least
5 feet from foundation walls.
Kumar & Associates, lnc. @ Project No. 21-7-232
-8-
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicatcd on Figure 1, the proposed type of
construction and our experience in the area. Our serices do not include detennining the
presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing
in the future. If the client is concemed about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of
practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface
conditions may not become evident until excavation is perftrrmed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different from those descrjbed 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 clie¡rt for design pu{poses. We are not
responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we
should provide continued consultation and field services during consfluction to review and
monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to veri$, that the recommendations
have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis
or modifications to the recommendations presentecl herein. We recommencl on-site observation
of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of
the geotechnical engineer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kr.lr¡rÍå!' & Ässociates, .ånc.
Vqt4"W. P.qtç,af
James H. Parsons, P.E
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak,
JHPlkac
Kumar & Associates, lnc.".Pro,iect No. 21-7-232
APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET
21 -7 -232 Kumar & Associates LOCAÏION OF EXPLORAÏORY BORINGS Fig. 1
fi
B
I6
r,.l
t
BORING 1
EL.=6062'
BORING 2
EL.=6061'
BORING 3
EL.=6061'
0 0
24/ 12 36/6, 50/2
56/ 12
WC=2.1
+4=51
-2QQ=17
31 /6, so/s
5
1o/6,18/6 16/ 12 5
t-
L¡l!l
LL
I-Fo-
t¡Jô
48/ 12
20/12
tNC=17.7
-200=90
LL=38
Pl=21
71/12
15/12
t--
L¡Jl¡lL-
I-FfL
LJo=1.9 tNC=17.4
DD=113
-200=9010
4=42
200= 1 5 1078/ 12 31 /6, 50/s
WC=5.9
+4=43
-200=1 I
15 15
21 /12
WC= 15.7
DD=110
21 -7 -232 Kumar & Associates LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2
t
E
:
t
LEGEND
TOPSOIL: SAND, SILTY, GRAVELLY, FIRM, ORGANICS, M0lST, BROWN
FILL: GRAVEL, CLAYEY TO VERY CLAYEY, SANDY, COBBLES, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN.
CLAY (CL): SANDY, SCATTERED GRAVEL, VERY STIFF, MolST, RED. LOW PLASTICITY.
GRAVEL
BROWN.
(GM): SANDY, SILTY, COBBLES PROBABLE BOULDERS, DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
ROUNDED ROCK.
DRIVE SAMPLE, 2_INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE.
i DRTVE SAMPLE, 1 3/9-INCH I.D. SPLTT SPOON STANDARD PENETRATTON TEST
j^/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES fHAr 24 BLOWS OF A 14O-POUND HAMMER-'f '- FALLING 50 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
f enacrrcAL AUGER REFUSAL.
NOTES
1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON MARCH 23 AND 24 WITH A 4_INCH DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS*FLIGHT POWER AUGER.
2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY TAPING
FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN
CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED.
4, THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE
ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED.
5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORAÏORY BORING LOGS REPRESENT THE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL.
6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.
7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS:
WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D2216);
DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D2216);
+4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON No. 4 SIEVE (ASTM 06913);
-Zao= PERCENTAGE PASSING N0. 200 SIEVE (ASTM Ð1140);
LL = LIQUID LIMIT (ASTM D431s);
PI = PLASTICITY INDEX (ISTV O¿¡IE);
21 -7 -232 Kumar & Associates LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
SAMPLE 0F: Sllghtly Sondy Cloy
FROM:BorlngS@6'
WC = 15.7 %, DD = 110 pcf
I
j
i
!
I
I
i,li:;
I
I
I
I
¡
NO MOVEMENT UPON
WETTING
I
I
!
I
¡
I
i
:
l
l,
¡!:
IJ
tii -1-
l;!l:t
l
I
l
I
I
l
'- 1.
I
i,
I
..i
i
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
i
i
:
I
ì
¡
1.-
i
t
i''l
I
;
í
liri
i1tiÌl
ir
,l
tl
li
ii1i
!iriii::
I
¡'.
I
I
:
I
I
i
t
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
!
I
1
j
I
I
I
I
1
i
I
ll
iìr-
li- - 1-
il
i,
I'j
r¡
IJ
I
l!
ii
il
' f-
il
jtlì r-
l
I
I
I
ì
I
i
I
I
I
¡
t-
I
¡
I
l
i
I
i
I
l
:
i
I f.0
1
0
àe
j-1
l¿J
=Ø
t_2
z.o
F-
ô
oIAzoQ_4
-R
-6
-7
21 -7 -232 Kumar & Associates SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TTST RESULTS Fig. 4
EI
Tx
I
R
J
.,,:
:l
;l
e
100
90
ao
70
ao
50
40
50
20
t0
o
to0
90
80
70
ao
50
1Õ
50
20
10
o
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
fIME READINCS
HRS
UIT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
U.S. STANÞARÞ SERIES CHR SQUARE OPENINOS
t+e, tlo
,t-,
j
o
10
20
50
=
2
I
I
I
É
508
60
z
tr
,
È
70
ao
90
,oot
tt Ir.
l
r. ¡ r I,aoo
Ì
ti. I
l
I
t.t II
+!9
i
i.lil I
34.1
l
,tloo
200
CLAY TO SILT
GRAVEL 42 % SAND
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE 0F: Silly Sond dnd Grovel
READINCS
.125 2,4OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
43%
PLASTICITY INDEX
U,S. SIÀNDARD SERIES
COBBLES
SILT AND CLAY 15 %
FROM: Borlng 1 Q 7' ond 10' Combined
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINOS
152
r r rLilr
.o75
fJ90
i
!
.150
rl¡ll
75 9.5 I
..lit
58.1
o
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
a0
t0
100
I
I
I
llIIlr,600 1.18 I 2.58 1,
2.OIN MILLIMETERS
127I
COBBLES
DIAMETER OF
CLAY TO SILT
GRAVEL 51 % SAND
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF: Silly Sond ond Grovel (Fill)
SILT AND CLAY
FROM: Borlng 2 cD 4'
17%
Th6se lo3l rosulls qpply only to lhs
somplos whlch woro l63lsd. Thol.sllng rcporl sholl not b. rcproducod,
€xcepl ln tull, wllhoul lho wrltten
opprovol of Kumor & Asroclol€s, lnc.
Sl.vo onolylls l6sllng l! prrform.d lñ
occordonc€ wlih ASTM D6913, ASTM 07928,
ASTM C156 ond,/or ASTM 01140.
32%
PLASTICITY ìNDEX
SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDTUM lCOanSe FINE COARSE
Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fis. 521 -7 -232
nf
tl
6{
Þ
p
'I O0
go
a0
70
ao
50
10
50
20
fo
o
HY['ROMElER ANALYSIS
ÌIME RilDINGS
Hñ5 7 HRS
YtN f5 MIN
SIEVE ÀNALYSIS
I
I
I
'--l
I
I
!
!
I
I
I
lr
I
I
f0
20
50
¡40
50
ô0
70
80
g0
too
F,
&
Ë
-600 l.ta
152
IN
CLAY TO SILT COBBLES
GRAVEL 13 % SAND
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE 0F: Sllly Sond ond crovol
39X
PLASTICITY INDEX
SILT AND CLAY 1A %
FROM:Borlng3O10'
Thcsc hll r.lulh opply only ls tho
rqmplo¡ whlch w.ro lesl€d, lh6lðrllng Ìdporl lhqll nol bs rðproducðd,
.xcoÞl ln lull, wlihoul lh! wrllfan
opprovol ol Kuñor rt Aüsoclôlâi, lhc.
Slcvr onolyrlr tclllnq l! Þrrformrd lnqccordoncå wlth ASÎil Ddgl5, ASTM 07928,
ASTM Ct56 ond/or ASTM Dll40.
SAND GRAVEL
FINE MEDTUM ICOARSE FINE COARSE
21 -7 -232 Kumar & Associates GRADAÏION TEST RËSULTS Fig. 6
l*rt*ffi'¡ffisi*'Yn;**'TABLE 1SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTSect No. 2'1.7-232aJ2IBORING107%6747 &.t0combined(ftìDEPTHSAMPLE LOCATION3.917.415.717.72.11.9IololNATURALMOISTURECONTENT113110NATURALDRYDENSITYlocf)5l42(%)GRAVEL4343(%)SANDGRADATION3932189090t715PERCENTPASSING NO.200 srEVE382IUNCONFINEDCOMPRESSIVESTRENGTHATTERBËRG LIMITSLIQUID LIMITPLASTICINDEXSlightly Sandy ClaySlightly Sandy ClaySilty Sand and Gravel (Fill)Silty Sand and GravelSOIL TYPESilty Sand and GravelSlightly Sandy Clay
^0',..-*,r*Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen, Inc.
November 13,20z,2
William Jackson
34o4 Molly Lane
Broomfíeld, CO 8ooz3
via emaíl : wflpqs@gnsiL com
Re: Summary of Final Review for Lot Ftg,57 W. Diamond Ranch Road
Dear Mr. Jackson,
The Desígn Review Committee (DRC) completed final review of your submitted plan set for lot Ft9, at their
regular meeting held October 25,2c22.
The g5orooa builder's completion deposit, $4,Soo SAF and $5,5oo CRAF have not been receíved yet at this
tíme and wíll need to be receíved príor to setting up d pre-constructíon meeting. As stated ín the
preliminary approval letter, the DRC fee of $8,ooo was paid at the preliminary meeting. Please be aware
that this basic fee covers prelimínary application processíng, neighbor notificatíon, preliminary review, final
application processíng, final revíew, the pre-constructíon meeting, dry-in inspection, grading inspection,
final ínspection, project oversight, and project closeout.
The DRC has condítíonally approved the final set of plans based upon the following:
i. lrrigation removed from cart path.
2. Entry post size to be BxB mínimum.
3. Signed lndemnification Agreement is received.
4. Fees are paid which were due to at the time of final submittal.
An on-site pre-constructíon meeting is requíred before construction may commence, Also, a rough-in, dry-
in and a gradíng ínspection are requíred duríng the construction phase of the resídence. Please contact the
DRC Administrator to arrange for these inspections per the Design Cuidelínes and for a final site inspection
by the DRC.
Síte Materials Mock-up - A materíals color mock-up wall must be built on-site within 3o days of the start of
construction and installed on the outside of the construction fence. The DRC wíll make a final decision on
color and materials at this tíme.
Plantíngs - Must be installed as approved on the landscape plan with type and size specified
0080 Bald Eagle Ll/ay, Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (970) 963-3362
E mai l : kford e@asp e n gl e n h o a. c om
Building Height Verlfieation-survey - to be completed prior to the rough framíng ínspection (rough-in)
ínspectiorr and perfonrred by a Colorado professional land surveyor and shall include a statement by the
surveyor statíng whether the building ís or is not in compliance with Garfield County building height rules.
The owner or owlrer's represenLatíve shall submit a completed height verifícatíon survey to the Aspen CIen
DRC. The standard form (and other forms and informatíon) that shall be used ís found on our website
aspenglenhoa.com.
Príor to closíng the fíle and returníng the buílder's completion deposit, copies of the Certificate of
OccupancyandanlrlprovettretrlLocatiurrCertific¿tc¡nustbeprovidedtotheDRC. TheDRCmayelectto
withhold a portion of the Builder's Completion Deposit to ensure that final landscaping is completed, and
growth is ¿ssurecl.
Detaíls of
these procedures are contained in the Design Review application packet.
A copy of your approved plans will be kept on file for periodic review by the Design Review Committee to
assure complíance with your approved plans, Any anticipated changes from your approved plans must be
submitted to, reviewed by, and receive approval from the Design Review Commíttee prior to making any
changes.
lmportant dates and deadlínes:
Final approval date: rc.25.22
Completion deadlíne: 4.19.24
Final plan expiration date: 4.t9.24 (if house is not starte dby 419.24 the final approval expires).
Sincerely,
Ker*dl?a
Kendra Ford
Aspen Clen DRC Administrator
Cc:
Bruce Bart, Architect
/VOTE; It is understood by the applicant that all projects gaíng forward are aware of the ínherent risks
associated with construction costs and material delays at thís tíme. If you chose to move forward with
construction, the DRC will not grant a vartance to the t9-month construction deadlíne due to escalating
proiect costs. Construction delays will only be considered if the applícant can prove that a particular
materiai(s) ts unavaíiabie. rhis wouici rcquire appiying io thc DRC ior a varnnce request. The variance request
shall inr.hñe the f ollowing:
. f ílling out aVariance Request form (www.aspenglenhoa.com)
¡ ?rovidí¡¡g q leiter irom the manufacturer stating ihat a particuiar materiai is not avaiiabie and when
they a ntí cip ate av aí I abi I íty.
¡ A statement declarîngthat a substítute material(s) was consídered.. AIt updated cortstruction schedule reflecting the adjusted completion date.
Variance requests shall be emailed to the DRC Admínistrator in a.clvnnce_ o! any proiect delays, The varionce
request will be placed on the next avaílable DRC Agenda for review
0080 Bald Eagle Wa.y, Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (970.) 963-3362
Ema i I : kforde(Q)aspen gle nhoa.c o m