Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02471 / * 0 Y � Y GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N= 2 4 7 1 i ' 9 ~ 109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. a1 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 . , Phone (303) 945 -8212 $ 4 This does not constitute INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit. PROPERTY '' Owner's Name Bucky & Jan Buchholrer Address Glenwood Springs, CO Phone_ 945 -5539 t System Location 0017 Native Lane, West Bank Mese, Lot 23, Glenwood Springs Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. SYSTEM DESIGN !' e,. Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other 1' Percolation Rate (minutes /inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) 4 • f Required Absorption Area - See Attached !I Special Setback Requirements: /A i Date Inspector ¢ � FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) ? Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation 'SS System Installer_ .1) IC ) \) S • 6 f; c • # dt nnSC t Septic Tank Capacity / !�' 11 Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name 1:ighnJ P S `. Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface 9 e-- S i w Absorption Area ) 1.3 ? . 4 ER Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name ) . - . . °... _ . 2 ) , T,.;.. I 74; r C Adequate compliance with County and State regulations /requirements ', t f H Other 17 • t F Date 4 /' i} S Inspector . _ : • �n' - 1- 1 � I RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS A CONSTRUCTION SITE it •CONDITIONS: { 1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the ColoradoState Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter . 25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984 2. This permit is valid only for connection to s which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con- nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a 1 requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. 3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material .•a 6 ,. variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine — 6 � "f months in jail or both). C� Applicant: Green Copy Department: Pink Copy rf : INDIVIDUAL SEWACi .1)ISPOSA L_SYSTENLAPPLI_CATION (1wNIiik RUC,E' N gt�lc�f/ot- /- A lmiti ss 1LS A Ck/oo[f_ _i ,_ u P1 ION O70 9� - r37 ('ONI'RACTOR __OWA/.6.2 /2.6 y1 — ADDRESS PHONE PERMIT It. EQl11S'I'FOlt I W INSTALLATION (� N IS ` - -- ". � ( ALTERATION ( REPAIR Attach separnlc sheets or report showing entire urea with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation lest holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 41). LOCA'I'ION:OF PROI'OSE1),I7.ACI I.TTY: ( I N'I'Y V'h -A Nuuir what (City or Town _ 6 - /jq . S4 4f6S T e g nl nosed pl ion . WASTES S'C1'PI:' (v14) veiling ( ) 'I)ansient Ilse ( ) Commercial or Industrial ( ) Non - domestic Wastes ( ) Other - Dcscrihc - I11II1.1)INC; OR SERVICE 'I'YPI!: _eiS /- At✓rio?c ---- - - - - -- Numhcr of bedrooms: Nhimber of persons ( ) Garbage (;inder ( ) Automatic Washer ) I I (' y- ( ) Dishwasher SO R AND'I'1'pli OF WATER SUPPLY.: ( ) WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STRFAM OR CREEK Give depth of all wells within Mtn feel of system: Il supplied by conununtiy water, give name of supplier: Veit 3, k /'MESA GRO I CONDITIONS: � ilr31 � /Jlys /c LNI) Depth (0 bedrock: eplh lo first Ground Wales Table. Percent C;rdiuul Slope:- - I)IS'I'A NCI: 'I'O NEAR I:STCOMMIJNTI'1' SHWNIt SYS'I'13M: —_ Was an eliorl made (0 connect to community system7 - - - - -- TYPE OF INI WAGE' DISPOSAL SYS'TINI PROpOS1 :D: (v<Seplic Tank ( ) Aeration Plant ( ) Vault ( ) Vault Privy ( ) Composting Toilet ( ) Recycling„ potable use ( ) Pig Privy ( ) Incineration Toilet ( ) Recycling, other use ( ) Chemical Toilet ( ) Other- Describe: 1lNA1- I))ISIOSA1. 11Y: (V/ Absorption 'Trench, Iled or Pit ( Itvnpolroospiralion ( ) Underground Dispersal ( Sand Filter ( ) Above Ground Dispersal ( Wastewater Pond () Oilier - Describe: __ \VII.I. Er.T.FI.IJI ?NT HE DISCI TAR(;1;! Dlit INCI'[Y INTO WAI'I:Its OF STATE? PER (1.)I,A"17>' N: ;1'5: (To he completed by Registered Professional Engineer) Minutes ______ per inch in hole No. I M Minutes — Mules per inch in Mole No. 3 __ per inch in hole Nn. 2 Minules per inch in Mole No. N; midi and telephone of RI'I: who mode soil absorption Icsls: Tg,ij • (-r T� ../ trek - . ��� Name, address and telephone of It 11 responsible for design of the system: Applicant acknowledges that Ihecompleteness oldie ;infliction is conditional upon such further mandatory and additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applica or by IIIC local health dcparliIienI for purposes of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of t he permit is sii hjecl to such terms and conditions as deemed necess to inllsre compliance with rifles and regulations adopted under Article 10, Title 25, (,.12.5. 1973, as amended. The undersigned hereby cerlilies heat all statements make, inform and reportssubmitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will he represented to he True and correct to the hest of my knowledge and belief and are designed to pre relied on by the local department of health in evluating the same fro purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I furl her understand that any falsification or misrepresentation may result in tlse denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based upon said application and in legal action Mr pe as provided by law. Signed a / �� bar Dale ' (1 -7 S pf.l:ns : )RAW AN nf_t_l 12n rf: Mn1 &/cW &crf%tta& - - I { -I OPERJY 4 • C Q j 7 5 i t 'r 4 3 2 r i 0 R. ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION AT CONSTANT PRESSUE DUE TO WETTING 2 Li' 3 1i. I'. 4 Z ' Q • 5 �!! L; be 6 0 1 d it 0 O a Il ` Iir 0.1 1 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF ■• Sample of SANDY , CLAYEY (Sc) NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 90 PCf From 1 OT ?3 AT 4 FFFT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT= 11.7 % Swell Consolidation f , JOB NO. GS -1276 Test Results FIG. 8 SCOPE This report presents the results of our soils and foundation investigation for thirteen (13) residential lots at the Westbank Mesa Development In Garfield County, Colorado. We explored the subsurface conditions at the lots to provide foundation recommendations for single family buildings. This report includes a description of the subsurface conditions found in our test holes, recommended foundation systems and geotechnical and construction criteria for details influenced by the subsoils. Our report was prepared from data developed during our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and our experience with similar conditions. A summary of our conclusions is presented below. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. We found approximately 6 inches of organic, sandy clays on lots 1, 3, 19, 23, 24, 36, 40 and 46. Below organic soils we founded stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, sandy clays to depths of 15 to 20 feet In borings drilled on lots 3, 9, 19, 45 and 46. The clays were underlain by medium dense to very dense, slightly moist to moist, silty to clayey sands to as deep as 25 feet on lots 1, 8, 23, 26, 36, 40 and 44. On lot 24 we found 12 feet of silty to clayey sands underlain by sandy clays. No free groundwater was found in our test holes the day of drilling. 2. We recommend founding the buildings with footings bearing on the native clays and sands. A maximum soil bearing pressure is presented in the "Foundations" section. 3. Slabs -on -grade floor subgrade will be the native, undisturbed sands and clays. The native soils are appropriate for slabs -on -grade if significant moisture increase In bearing soils does not occur. 4. A ground surface slope away from the buildings should be maintained at all times to reduce the risk of wetting soils below foundations. Native vegetation is recommend near the buildings. SITE CONDITIONS Westbank Mesa is located in southeast Garfield County, south of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The site Is located on an alluvial terrace in the southwest portions of the Roaring Fork River Valley approximately 1 to 2 miles south of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Access to the site Is via Highway 82 to County Road 109 located to the east of the site. Ground surfaces slope to the northeast from high points along a southeast to northwest trending ridge down to and across a relatively flat upper benched area. Steep northeast facing slopes descend from the upper benched area to a lower benched area. The existing Westbank Ranch Development is located adjacent to the site to the northeast with the Roaring Fork River beyond. Drainage at the site Is controlled by numerous channels on the upper slopes. Several ravines dominate drainage across the upper benched area down to the lower benched area where water and sediment are dissipated along small coalescing alluvial • fans. Off site drainage is controlled by infiltration and small gullies. In the extreme southeast portion of the site, drainage Is controlled by a moderate size southwest to northeast trending ravine which terminates in an alluvial fan along the eastern portions of the site. A gully on the southeast portion of the alluvial fan directs drainage off site. Building lots are on the comparatively flat to moderately sloped upper benched surface. Vegetation on benched areas generally consists of open grasslands with some scattered trees and brush. Northeast facing slopes and ravines are moderately to heavily vegetated with scrub oaks and pinon and juniper trees. Most of the site is in a natural condition with the benched areas being used for pasture and haying operations. Roads and utilities have recently been completed within the subdivision. Description of the Tots 2 • T we investigated are below. Lot 1 Lot 1 is adjacent to and west of Delores Circle. Ground surface slopes were measured and visually estimated at 10 to 30 percent from the northeast down to the southwest. Vegetation is native grasses and sage. Lot 3 The lot is adjacent to and north of Delores Circle. Ground surface slopes were measured and visually estimated at 5 to 15 percent from the southeast down to the northwest. Vegetation is native grasses and sage. Lots 8 and 9 Lots 8 and 9 are adjacent to and east of Delores Circle. The west two - thirds of the lots ground surface slopes are at grades measured and visually estimated at 10 percent from east to west. The west one -third of the lots ground surface slopes are at grades as steep as 50 percent from the west down to the east. Vegetation is native • grasses and sage. Lot 19 This lot is adjacent and south of Huebinger Drive. The ground surface slopes at an average of about 22 percent from the south down to the north. Vegetation is native grasses and sage with several oak and pine trees on steeper areas. Lots 23 and 24 These lots are adjacent and west of Native Lane. Ground surface slopes were estimated at 5 to 15 percent from the north down to the south. Vegetation is native grasses and sage on the lots and scrub oak and pine trees on the slopes at the ravine to the west. 3 1 • Lot 26 Lot 26 is located between Native Lane and Huebinger Drive. The ground surface slopes at 5 to 15 percent from the south down to the north. The lot ground surface is covered with native grasses and sage. Lot 36 This lot is adjacent and north of Huebinger Drive. Ground surface slopes were measured and visually estimated at 5 to 15 percent from south down to the north with steeper slopes on the northwest part of the lot. Lot 40 Lot 40 is adjacent and northeast of Huebinger Drive. The ground surface slopes at 5 to 20 percent with slopes from the south down to the north. Vegetation is native grasses and sage with pine trees and scrub oak on sides of the ravine to the east. Lots 44 through 46 These lots are northeast of Huebinger Drive near the west end of the development. The ground slopes at the building areas on the south two - thirds of the lots is near 15 percent from the south down to the north. Steeper grades occur on the north one -third of the lots. Vegetation is native grasses, sage, scrub oak and small pine trees. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Single family residential buildings will be built. At this writing plans had not been developed for the residences which will be built on the subject lots. Our understanding is that the buildings will be wood framed, one or two stories tall. Some of the buildings will have walk -out or full basements. Garages will be attached for some buildings and detached for other residential structures. Foundation loads we assumed for our analysis • 4 were between 1000 and 3500 pounds per lineal foot on continuous footings and maximum interior column loads of 15 kips. We should be informed of actual construction to judge if what is to be built is different than described above. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS We drilled one test hole per lot for a total of thirteen (13) lots as part of our field investigation for foundation recommendations. Our manager of field services observed drilling operations and obtained soil samples for laboratory testing. We found approximately 6 inches of organic, sandy clays on lots 1, 3, 19, 23, 24, 36, 40 and 46. Below organic soils we founded stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, sandy clays to depths of 15 to 20 feet in borings drilled on lots 3, 9, 19, 45 and 46. The clays were underlain by medium dense to very dense, slightly moist to moist, silty to clayey sands to as deep as 25 feet on lots 1, 8, 23, 26, 36, 40 and 44. On lot 24 we founded 12 feet of silty to sandy clays underlain by sandy clays. No free groundwater was found in our test holes the day of drilling. Summary logs of our test holes are shown on Figures 2 and 3. We performed laboratory testing to judge swell /consolidation characteristics and verify field classifications. Generally, the clay soils exhibited a low swell potential and the sands a low to moderate consolidation potential. Swell /consolidation test results are presented on Figures 4 through 13 and laboratory test results summarized on Table 1. FOUNDATIONS In our opinion, the buildings can be founded with footings bearing on the native clays or sands. The footings should be designed and constructed with the following 5 • criteria. 1. The footings should bear on the native clays or sands and be designed for a maximum soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Materials loosened during the excavation or forming process should be removed from the footing areas prior to placing concrete; 2. Foundation walls for continuous footings should be reinforced top and bottom, to span loose soil pockets. We recommend reinforcing steel equivalent to that required for a simple span of 12 feet. Reinforcement should be designed by a qualified structural engineer; 3. Minimum footing sizes are desirable. We suggest a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous footings and a size of at least 2 feet by 2 feet for isolated column pads. Larger sizes may be required based on the structural loads; 4. The soils under exterior footings should be protected from freezing. The depth normally assumed for frost protection In Garfield County is 36 Inches. We recommend contacting the local planning department to verify the depth of protection required; 5. We should be requested to inspect the completed foundation excavations to confirm subsurface conditions exposed are as anticipated from our test holes. FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR CONCRETE Plans for the structures which will be built on the lots were not available at the time of this writing. We understand that the majority of homes may have walkout basements or full basements. Basement floors are normally slab -on- grade. Garage floors, patios and sidewalks will be slabs -on- grade. Native sands and clays free of organics are suitable to support slabs -on -grade floors. If moisture content increases significantly in the soils below the slab cracking should be expected in the slabs. Recommendations presented in "Site Grading" should be followed to lower the probability of significant moisture increases in the soils below the slabs. We understand that some of the buildings ground floors will structurally supported by the foundation with a space between the floor and the 6 gro und below. Floors with a crawlspace below are excellent from a geotechnical viewpoint. We suggest the owner consider the use of structural floors on lots were the • swell potential of the near surface soils are greater than 2 percent (lots 1, 45, and 46). We recommend the following design and construction details for slabs -on- grade: 1. Slabs should be constructed directly on the soils. Provision of a sand or gravel layer increases the possibility of a single source of water wetting the entire area supporting the slab. 2. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members with a joint which allows free vertical movement of the slab. 3. Slab- bearing partitions should be minimized. Where such partitions are required, a slip joint should be constructed to allow free vertical movement of the slab. 4. Doorjambs, sheet rock on partitions, and other construction details should be constructed to allow vertical movement of the slab -on -grade floor. 5. Eliminate underslab plumbing as much as possible. Where such plumbing is unavoidable, it should be pressure tested before the slab is constructed. 6. Plumbing and utilities should be constructed with a joint which allows the slab to move freely. 7. All connections between the furnaces and the duct work should be provided with a flexible connection to allow free movement in the event of slab heave. The above precautions will not prevent movement of the slab -on -grade floors in the event the soils become wet, but they will reduce the potential damage when movement occurs. BASEMENT AND CRAWLSPACE CONSTRUCTION Foundation walls will be subject to lateral earth pressure. These walls are restrained and cannot move and should be designed for an "at rest" lateral earth pressure. Assuming on -site soils will be used as backf ill, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 50 pcf to calculate lateral earth pressure. The above equivalent fluid density 7 does not include allowances for sloping backfill, hydrostatic pressures, live loads or loads from adjacent structures. Water from surface run -off (e.g. precipitation, snow melt, irrigation) frequently flows through the backfill adjacent to foundation walls and collects on the surface of the undisturbed soils occurring at the bottom of the foundation excavation. This can cause damp or wet conditions in basements and crawlspaces. Ventilation should be provided for in crawlspace areas. To reduce the risk of accumulation of water we recommend a foundation drain. The drain should consist of a 4 inch diameter open joint or slotted P.V.C. pipe encased in free draining gravel. The drain should lead to a positive gravity outlet. Typical foundation drain details are shown on Figures 14 and 15. Backfill placed adjacent to the foundation walls should be moisture treated and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). SURFACE DRAINAGE The performance of foundations and concrete flatwork is Influenced by the moisture conditions in the subsoils. Wetting of below foundation soils can be reduced by planned and maintained surface drainage. Wetting or drying of the open foundation excavations should be avoided. The ground surfaces surrounding the buildings should be sloped to provide rapid run -off of water away from the buildings in all directions. We recommend a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet. We recommend that landscaping be with native vegetation which requires little or no irrigation water. If sod and landscaping shrubbery is to be part of the landscaping scheme near the building we recommend no irrigation sprinkler heads be within 5 feet of the building and they should 8 be directed away from the building. We recommend sod not be placed within 10 feet of the home. Where irrigation is required within 5 feet of the home irrigation should be by hand watering. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. Splash blocks or downspout extensions should be provided at all discharge locations. PERCOLATION TESTS We performed percolation tests on each of the subject lots. Based on our test results standard percolation fields are appropriate on the subject lots. The table below list the lot and recommend design percolation rate. Appendix A presents data obtained during the tests. Lot No. Recommended Design Percolation Rate (min /inch) 1 20 3 15 8 20 9 20 19 40 23 40 24 40 26 • 60 36 40 40 50 44 30 45 30 46 50 9 LIMITATIONS Our test holes were spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of the subsurface. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by our test holes will occur. We should observe the completed excavations to confirm the soils are as anticipated from our test holes. Our report was based on conditions disclosed by our test holes, results of laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and our experience. Criteria presented reflects the proposed building as we understand it. We should be advised if the final design differs from our assumptions to permit us to re- evaluate our conclusions. This Investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No other warranty, express or implied, Is made. If we can be of further service or if you have questions regarding this report, please call. Very truly yours, CTLJT % ` P %'l t l ot Jo �� =ch ing, P � ' g B , c Manager c, : , ". , "JM:cd ' (5 copies sent) 10 • LOT 1 LOT 3 LOT 8 . LOT 9 Elev.=-6200 Elev. =6230 Elev.= Elev. =6270 0 �.e -/ _ ✓ / / // / / 35/12 ✓ / / 22/12 re re / / /] 3 6/ 1 2 ' • IN 43/12 U 30/12 �]0 / • " —15 i. N 38/12 / i 31/12 // • / / • • / • j.. ✓ 71 37/12 • 38/12 .- 20 '. % - • •;:' %• . /. - • •• 50/ • —25 .;•••• 28/12 LEGEND: ® Clay, sandy, organic, soft, moist, brown. (0L) ® Clay, sandy, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist to moist, brown. (CL) El Sand, clayey to silty, medium sense to very dense, slightly moist to moist, brown. (511, SC) Drive sample. The symbol 35/12 indicates that 35 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive a 2.5 inch 0.D. sampler 12 inches. SUMMARY Lc Job No. GS -1276 LOT 19 . . LOT 23 LOT 2 LOT 26 Elev.-=6240 Elec. - 6210 Elev. = 6190 Elev. =6 180 o ti 0 ✓ / j • ✓ / • ✓ •..� 8/12 \ �• ✓� 16 / ./ ✓ 5 • /' J20/12 30/12 • i•� 18/12 ✓/ 10 a / / !:4 // / / .e + 30/12 15 a // e // e . "1 30/12 1 /1 50/12 20 25 NOTES: 1. Test holes were drilled on June 1, 2 and 6 1994 with a 4 inch diameter power auger. 2. These test holes are subject to the explanations. limitations and conclusions as contained in this report. 3. No free groundwater was found in our test holes during drilling. • ACS OF TEST HOLES Fig. 2 T be directed away from the building. We recommend sod not be placed within 10 feet of the home. Where irrigation is required within 5 feet of the home irrigation should be by hand watering. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. Splash blocks or downspout extensions should be provided at all discharge locations. • I PERCOLATION TESTS We performed percolation tests on each of the subject lots. Based on our test results standard percolation fields are appropriate on the subject lots. The table below list the lot and recommend design percolation rate. Appendix A presents data obtained t during the tests. Lot No. Recommended Design f' Percolation Rate !ti: (min /inch) 13 1 20 F' 3 15 8 20 {�t 1. 9 20 19 40 23 40 24 40 26 60 36 40 40 50 44 30 45 30 46 50 . 9 1 _ _ .h +'f I . t I LIMITATIONS Our test holes were spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of the subsurface. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by our test holes will ;a . r occur. We should observe the completed excavations to confirm the soils are as ,- anticipated from our test holes. i l Our report was based on conditions disclosed by our test holes, results of laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and our experience. Criteria presented reflects the proposed building as we understand ft. We should be advised if the final design i differs from our assumptions to permit us to re- evaluate our conclusions. , This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. + 1 t: If we can be of further service or if you have questions regarding this report, N !!;' please call. 1 i} I Very truly yours, , CTUT %IP • 1 / I ` Jo � ch in g , P E �Q I J / " i , B : fc Manager I i f, JM.cd (5 copies sent) 1 I . 1 I :` I t I I , i 1 10 iI I' PERCOLATION TEST SATURATION AND PREPARATION DATE: 6/06/94 DATE: 6/07/94 WATER IN BORINGS AFTER 24 HOURS TIME AT START OF S 9:OOAM I )YES El PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB ND. GS -1276 LOT & TIME AT TIME DEPTH TO WATER CHANGE PERCOLA HOLE DEPTH START OF END OF NUMBER (INCHES) START OF INTERVAL IN WATER TION RATE INTERVAL (MINUTES) INTERVAL INTERVAL DEPTH (MIN /INCH) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) 23 -3 34 9:50 30 17.5 21.0 3.5 8.6 10:20 30 21.0 22.5 1.5 20.0 10:50 30 16.0 19.0 3.0 10.0 11:20 30 19.0 21.0 2.0 15.0 11:50 30 21.0 23. 25 2.25 13.3 12:20 30 23.25 24.5 1.25 24.0 12:50 30 16.0 18.5 2.5 12.5 1:20 30 18.5 20.5 2.0 15.0 1:50 30 20.5 22.0 1.5 20.0 I : PERCOLATION TEST SATURATION AND PREPARATION DATE: 6/07/94 DATE: 6/06/94 • WATER IN BORINGS AFTER 24 HOURS TIME AT START OF SATURATION: 9:00AM FIVES ©N O PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. GS -1276 LOT & TIME AT TIME DEPTH TO WATER CHANGE PERGOLA- HOLE DEPTH START OF END OF NUMBER (INCHES) START OF INTERVAL INTERVAL INTERVAL IN WATER TION RATE INTERVAL (MINUTES) DEPTH (MIN /INCH) (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) 0 23 -1 28 9 :50 30 11.5 17.0 5.5 5.4 10:20 30 17.0 19.0 2.0 15.0 10:50 30 13.0 16.0 3.0 10.0 11:20 30 16.0 18.0 2.0 15.0 11:50 30 18.0 19.75 1.75 17.0 12:20 30 19.75 21.0 1.25 24.0 12:50 30 16.0 17.5 1.5 17.0 1:20 30 17.5 19.0 1.5 17.0 1:50 30 19.0 20.5 1.5 20.0 I : • PERCOLATION TEST i SATURATION AND PREPARATION DATE: 6/07/94 DATE: 6/06/94 . WATER IN BORINGS AFTER 24 HOURS TIME AT START OF SATURATION: 9:OOAM [ IYES © NO PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. GS -1276 LOT & TIME AT TIME DEPTH TO WATER CHARGE PERCOLA HOLE DEPTH START OF END OF START OF INTERVAL IN WATER TION RATE NUMBER (INCHES) INTERVAL (MINUTES) INTERVAL INTERVAL DEPTH (MIN /INCH) 1 (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) 23 -2 27 9:50 30 12.0 14.5 2.5 12.5 10:20 30 14.5 16.0 1.5 20.0 10:50 30 13.0 15.0 2.0 15.0 I 1 11:20 30 15.0 16.0 1.0 30.0 11:50 30 16.0 17.0 1.0 30.0 12:20 30 17.0 18.0 1.0 30.0 12:50 30 16.0 17.0 1.0 30.0 1:20 30 17.0 17.5 0.5 60.0 1:50 30 17.5 18.5 1.0 30.0 • N./ CTL /THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS June 21, 1994 Mr. John Huebinger 1620 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Subject: Soils and Foundation Summary Report Lot 23 Westbank Mesa Development Garfield County, Colorado Job No. GS -1276 Gentlemen: This letter presents a brief summary of our foundation recommendations for the above referenced lot. This summary is provided for information and is not intended for foundation engineering purposes. Field and laboratory data and specific criteria developed for foundation recommendations are presented in our report dated June 14, 1994 The soils encountered in the test hole on this lot consisted 0.5 feet of organic, sandy clays underlain by 14.5 feet of silty to clayey sands. No free groundwater was encountered. We recommend construction of the proposed residence on a spread footing foundation. Footings should be designed for a maximum allowable soil pressure of 3000 psf and be at least 16 inches in width. Isolated pads should be at least 24 inches square. Exterior footings should be protected from frost action with at least 3 feet of cover. The soils encountered exhibited no swell potential. Slab -on -grade construction involves a low risk of heave and cracking. We recommend the following precautions for slab -on -g radeconstruction: 1. Slabs should be constructed directly on the soils. Provision of a sand or gravel layer increases the possibility of a single source of water wetting the entire area supporting the slab. 2. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members with a joint which allows free vertical movement of the slab. 3. Slab- bearing partitions should be minimized. Where such partitions are required, a slip joint should be constructed to allow free vertical movement of the slab. i . 234 CENTER DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • (303)945 -2809 • • `. 4. Door jambs, sheet rock on partitions, and other construction details should be constructed to allow vertical movement of the slab -on -grade floor. 5. Eliminate underslab plumbing as much as possible. Where such plumbing is unavoidable, it should be pressure tested before the slab is constructed. 6. Plumbing and utilities should be constructed with a joint which allows the slab to move freely. 7. All connections between the furnaces and the duct work should be provided with a collapsible connection to allow free movement in the event of slab heave. The above precautions will not keep slabs -on -grade from movement, however, the risk of damage can be reduced if these precautions are followed. A subsurface drain Is recommended for this residence. The drain should lead to a positive gravity outlet or to a sump where water can be removed with a pump. The ground surface around the residence should be sloped to provide a positive drainage away from the foundation. We recommend a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet surrounding the residence. We recommend no irrigation system sprinkler heads within 5 feet of the building and the head should direct water away from the residence. Irrigation should be hand watered within 5 feet of the residence. In our opinion landscaping with native vegetation is best. Roof downspouts should discharge beyond the limits of backfill. We recommend providing splash blocks and downspout extenders. Landscaping details should be carefully designed to avoid collecting surface water near foundations causing wetting of the supporting soils. We recommend against the use of plastic membranes below landscaped areas surrounding the foundation. Use of a non - woven, geotextile fabric will control weed growth, yet allow evaporation. Very truly yours, CTL/T •N C � /( er \V I '