Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.eh.264320407001 (1987)y" ASPEN*PITKIN 1 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT NO. M03 TYPE OF PERMIT: InitialConstruction ( )Emergency Use ( )Repair Work,(Pievioua Permit I .) ( )Alteration of an existing system, or installation (Previous Permit i ) ( )Use Permit as a result of Sale ( )Othort p ISSUED TO: DATE OF ISSUE • _ t� Owner �J�%�j TY ATHO-AP—T" Home PhoneiZL Business Ma i. l_ in g '9 Address oX 9,37 APFhI ( ei-e ADO 12- Phone Agent�J/fi Phone Address OF Pexpa ig42-�UAI PCP KILL NyE Sewage Disposal System Work to be performed bye/-fS�G�CI This permit valid only for premises location by the following legal descriptions LIE 25 LK Z &&62 0546W tr7t SIZE �� 0 A6,h WATER SUPPLY (�!'= LL AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATF..,'30MF'r PECC064 D(� This Individual Sewage Disposal Permit is granted with regard to the following user M 4-C iLy R SiDE,'Je°i%' N:r.iL r oft Dodreoms + Lofts Garbage Disposals_L_ Dishwashers Clothes Washers l r CALCULATED AVERAGE DAILY WASTE LOAD ;,',(.0 GALLONS. THE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM INCLUDED UNDER THIS PERMIT: Typa of Tank or Treatment Units qcT-r._e_ IA' _ Tank Capacity ( C� _Gallon Minim= I!athnd of Final Dis 3ali f / Absorptica Area 1 O Square Feet Ml inutn i" ScE�AGE� �RF�IcF+E5 1.409 WlTN DosgiG Sl rHOP ocacription (including brand name, if any) of other equipment or,appurtnancest $8(9 �ulTfi fgt OrjQ(/EL�E/1)�UA� Aar— RE/�Ttfo0 P0LX&T1Jy1_C1(1C PC)SvJC' �dQlla� — �E/�(JCE,ZD� �oF� I�oS� Other Conditions or S c ificationat Od G1/ L S10C OF 8ED � AR) ��lFoRMIAJ4k (�NPUM AGNS 7-0 B6 P40 V106, �fi/ L "-f o GC-AJ6 �� i✓ SPEC=tF � SAT/oN� 64 r'AC.i'$OF 0-14 Ai4ASS,0aiATTES . nICS I�EP�: STAGES REQUIRING INSPECTION BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT: ( )Before Excavation M Upon completion of excavation and prior to plafement of gravelHefore covering distribution Y� �� System of absorption fi..ad !prior to backfill of any component ( !Other, Specifyt Plans and specifications of the proposed sewage disposal system have been reviewed and r.rr_ ecnsidcred satisfactory. Pcrmisslon is hereby granted to tho owner or his anent to perform the work indicated above in a_cordance with the Pitkin County Individual Sawa,e Disposal Rcvulations in effect on the date of issue. In addition to general provisions set .'ort: on the ?worse heizof, this Permit is subject to the following additional terms and conditions: APPROVED FOR ISSUE BY Z� )'C.. (title) Qjti Thr• abovein:iividunl scita.lo disposal syetem inatallcd by i h.ts becfi in.:pertcd tur use by a rcprnscncacivc t.f the Asl: rt 1'it.an L'nvironr�•_ntaT-kcal[-acP•trtm<,nt. Th,!uw•nor asiu.;.on��l responsibility in case of failure or inadequacy of thin se age d sposal �systtem. Completa as -built drawing attached. DATE OF FINAL INSPECT ON z1z y TiTLE 130 So th Galen r et Aspen, Colorado 81619 303/925-2020 i 1 °ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL•PERMIT Name of OWNER �Gt :Ar� PHONE n � Address of OWNER Name of APPLICANT r PHONE / PF-R.NIT TO BE: ( )Picked Up ( )Hailed toe TYPE OF PERMIT: ( )New Installation ( )Repair ( jOwner ( )Applicant ( )Emergency Use ( )Alteration NOT due to failure LOCATION OF PROPOSED SYSTEMt Legal Description Lot ;=�) �_ Block ,� Filing Subdivision Size of Lot of z& acres TYPE OF STRUCTURE: (Single Family Dwelling ( )Othert Do you plan any further additions to the residence? ( )YES 0-0 NO No. of bedrooms LI No. of Lolta L' No. of Garbage Disposals � No. of Automatic Dishwashers No. of Automatic Clothes Washers 1 WATER SUPPLY: (-4 Private Well, Depth �y ( `0 � or ( )Public, Name of System ( )Spring ( )Stream or Creek TYPES OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSEDt - (>QSeptie Tank/Absorption Field ( )Aeration Plant/Absorption Field ( )Composting Toilet ( )Incineration Toilet ( )Mound ( )Recycling, potable use ( )Recycling, other use ( )Vault Privy ( )Other: The initial site inspection must be arranged with the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental health Department (925-2020, 8:30-9:30 a.m.) before a permit can be issued. The individual sewage disposal permit must be issued before a building permit can be obtained. rINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL MUST BE GIVEN BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO BACKFILLING ANY PORTION OF THE SYSTEM. Application for an individ al sewage disposalp rmit is hereby submitted. The undersigned acknowledges that the above 1,nformation is true and that false inf rmati will i(tval t�te h 7pplication and any subsequent permit. Signature of Applicant DATE C� (This application becomes. invalid 12 months from the above date.) NOTE: PLOT PLAN must be filed with this application. Please locate the following items by measured distances: 1. Property lines and dimensions. 2. Proposed and existing water wells on subject property and adjacent property. 3. Domestic water service lines. <. Proposed and existing buildings, driveways, and other structures. S. Streams, lakes, ponds, irrigation ditches, and other water courses. 6. Proposed and existing individual sewage systems on subject property. SUBMIT A REVISED PLOT PLAN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION IF INSTALLATION IS TO BE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL PLAN. The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of this individual sewage disposal permit app ication and a per mli�,�1e'/in the amount of $ �� , Receipt Number Date , Date Fee Received 3 by n/ /y Administrative officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/S25-2020 Nouse *' E 12S0 CA"O J o'CoPEt^W" Co1icAETC StPT1C_TgnIK (; Dos r►JG SleHaA A /L DISC BVP04 BN PROPE,t,TY 44E I 2,2 D '--F D !c �cozj)k, TRMCH W/ Ttt 1 V 4F �F IDE 1400+ Chen mAssociates Glen Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 303/945-7458 Job No. 4 107 87 J SUBSOIL STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 25, BLOCK 2, FILING 2 BRUSH CREEK SUBDIVISION PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared For: Scotty Cathcart 0106 Glen Dee Road Aspen, CO 81611 Casper Colorado Springs Denver Fort Collins Rock Springs Salt Lake City San Antonio January 30, 1987 Aak TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCLUSIONS 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2 SITE CONDITIONS 2 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS 3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 4 FLOOR SLABS 6 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 8 SITE GRADING 9 SURFACE DRAINAGE 9 PERCOLATION TESTS 10 LIMITATIONS 11 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE II - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS IChen &Associates ( w Q CONCLUSIONS The subsoils encountered at the site consist of topsoil and stiff to very stiff clays overlying clay - stone bedrock. Laboratory testing indicates the clays and bedrock possess a low to moderate swell potential. Spread footings can be used to support the structure with provisions to limit potential foundation movement due to expansive soil conditions. Design and construc- tion criteria related to geotechnical aspects of the site are presented in the report. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a i proposed residence to be located on Lot 25, Block 2, Brush Creek Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado. The subsoil study was ii conducted for the purpose of developing foundation recommenda- tions for the building. The work was performed in accordance with the Agreement for Professional Engineering Services letter to Mr. Cathcart dated January 17, 1987. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface condi- itions. Percolation tests were also performed in exploratory borings for septic disposal design. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine I compressibility or swell characteristics and classification of the materials encountered. The results of the field exploration Iand laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the Chen & Associates 0 -2- Al proposed building foundation. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing are presented herein. This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this study and to present our conclusions and recommen- dations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. Design parameters and a discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to construction of the proposed residence are included in the report. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION At the time of our study, the building plans were concep- tual. A site plan of the building and lot layout was not avail- able to us. We understand the building will generally be two stories of wood frame construction over a basement level. A cut depth between about 4 to 8 feet is planned. We assume the build- ing will have relatively light foundation loadings. When the building location and design information are better developed, we should review the recommendations presented in this J report with respect to the proposed project. SITE CONDITIONS The site consists of relatively undisturbed property located on the uphill side of Juniper Hill Road. The terrain is hilly and generally moderately sloping down to the east. Typical grade in the building area is 15% to 20% and grade in the leach field area is about 10% (refer to Fig. 1). The site is vegetated with grass, weeds, brush and scrub oak and was covered with about 1 to IChen &Associates 2 feet of snow at the time of our field work. There is a narrow access road constructed by shallow cutting and filling located I just west of the proposed residence site. The near surface bedrock at the site is the Mancos Shale. The bedrock does not outcrop in the immediate area of the site, but does outcrop in nearby areas. The subsoils at the site probably consist of colluvial deposits derived from the Mancos Shale. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Two exploratory borings were drilled in the area of the designated residence to evaluate the subsoil profile. A profile hole and three percolation holes were drilled in the designated leach field area. The boring locations are shown on Fig. 1. ISamples of the subsoils were taken by relatively undisturbed and t disturbed sampling methods. The borings were logged by a repre- sentative of Chen & Associates, Inc. Graphic logs of the subsoil profiles encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. Below about 1 to 2 112 feet of organic topsoil, medium plastic, stiff to very stiff clays were encoun- tered. The clays at the transition with the topsoil are porous. The clays contain sandy and gravelly zones. At a depth between about 8 to 13 feet, hard to very hard claystone bedrock was encountered. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings consisted of in-situ moisture content and dry density, gradation analysis and liquid and plastic limit values. Addi- IChen &Associates -4- tionally, two relatively undisturbed drive samples were subjected to swell -consolidation testing with the results shown on Fig. 4. The results of the swell -consolidation tests indicate a low to moderate swell potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge load. The laboratory testing is summarized on Table I. No free water was encountered in the exploratory borings at the time of drilling or when checked two days later. The sub- soils were generally slightly moist. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the explor- atory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we believe the residence can be founded with spread footings placed on the natural soils below the topsoil. The clays and claystone possess a swell potential and there is some risk of foundation movement with an increase in subsoil moisture. Different bearing materials, clay and claystone, could also tend to increase differential settlements. To reduce the risk of movement due to swelling materials, we recommend the foundation load be concen- trated to resist the potential uplift force. A lower risk foundation alternative is drilled piers that are based in a zone of stable moisture condition. The piers would be founded in the bedrock formation. If this foundation type is selected, we should be notified to provide design recommendations. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. The con - IChen & Associates I . r -5- struction criteria should be considered when preparing project documents. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils can be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 4000 psf. The footings should also be designed to impose a minimum dead load pressure of 1000 psf. In order to satisfy the minimum dead load pressure, it may be necessary to concentrate loads by using a grade beam and pad or similar foundation system. If this system is used, a void should be provided beneath the grade beams between pads. Wall -on -grade construction is not recommended to achieve the minimum dead load. 2) We expect initial settlement for footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 112 inch. Additional settlement or heave of about 1 inch is indicated if the bearing soils become wet. Recommendations to help prevent wetting of the bearing soils are presented in the "Surface Drainage" section of this report. 3) Spread footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches for continuous footings and 18 inches for isolated pads. 4) 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 42 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this area. 5) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced to span an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls IChen &Associates .0 -6- acting as retaining structures (basement walls) should also be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pcf. Surcharge pressures such as from traffic loadings or an upward sloping backfill should be added to the lateral pressure value. An underdrain should be provided at the base of the wall to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures which would increase the lateral pressure on the wall. 6) Prior to the footing construction all topsoil and any areas of loose, disturbed or highly porous soils encountered :within the foundation excavation should be removed and the footings extended to adequate natural bearing materials. 7) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FLOOR SLABS Floor slabs present a problem where expansive materials are present near floor slab elevation because sufficient dead load cannot be imposed on them to resist the uplift pressure generated when the materials are wetted and expand. Based on the moisture- Ivolume change characteristics of the materials encountered, we believe slab -on -grade construction may be used, provided the risk of distress resulting from slab movement is accepted by the owner. A positive way to reduce floor slab distress is to construct the floors over crawl space area. IChen &Associates -7 - The following measures should be taken for slab -on -grade construction to reduce damage which could result from movement should the underslab materials be subjected to moisture changes. 1) Floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. 2) Interior nonbearing partitions resting on floor slabs should be provided with slip joints so that, if the slabs move, the movement cannot be transmitted to the upper structure. This detail is also important for wallboards, stairways and door frames. Slip joints which allow at least 2 inches of ver- tical movement are recommended. 3) Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. We suggest joints be provided on the order of 15 feet on center. The requirements for slab rein- forcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. 4) A minimum 4 -inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed immediately beneath basement level slabs. This mate- rial should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve. 5) All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be placed and compacted according to the criteria presented in "Site Grading". 6) All plumbing lines should be tested before operation. Where plumbing lines enter through the floor, a positive bond break Chen &Associates should be provided. Flexible connections should be provided for slab bearing mechanical equipment. The precautions and recommendations itemized above will not prevent the movement of slab -on -grade floors if the underlying expansive materials are subjected to alternate wetting and drying cycles. However, the precautions will reduce the damage if such movement occurs. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although groundwater was not encountered during our investi- gation, it has been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy I precipitation or seasonal runoff. Therefore, each level of the building cut into the hillside should be protected from wetting by an underdrain system. The underdrain system should also act Jto prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind retaining walls. j The underdrain system should consist of a layer of free - draining granular material beneath basement level slabs and perimeter drains. The perimeter drains should consist of a perforated drain tile placed at the base of foundation walls, including steps in grade, and surrounded with free -draining Igranular material. The drain lines should be placed at least 1 foot below the lowest adjacent finish grade and graded to suitable gravity outlet at a minimum slope of 1%. The perimeter drains should be lower in elevation than the underslab gravel to Iachieve a positive flow condition. Free -draining granular Chen &Associates t -9- material used in the drain system should contain less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. SITE GRADING The risk of construction induced slope instability at the i site appears low based on the moderately sloping terrain, the relatively dry slope conditions and the proposed shallow cut depths. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes at the site should be constructed no steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical Iand revegetated to prevent erosion. Areas of the site to receive fill should be prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil, and compacting the subgrade to 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density (ASTM D-698). The on-site soils encountered during this study may be expansive when placed in a compacted condition which could cause some heave of Jfloor slab and pavement sections. Fill placed beneath floor slabs and pavement sections should be compacted to 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content at or above optimum. Non-structural fill should be compacted to 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not Ito overcompact wall backfill or use large equipment which could damage the wall. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the building has been completed. IChen &Associates PERCOLATION TESTS The feasibility of a leach field septic disposal system was evaluated by subsurface exploration and percolation testing in the designated disposal area. A profile hole and three perco- lation holes were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 and a Ilog of the profile encountered is shown on Fig. 2. The results of percolation tests are presented in Table II. Based on the soil profile and percolation test results, a conventional infiltration bed system appears feasible. Because of the shallow depth to bedrock, we recommend the system be IChen &Associates -10- i 1) Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building i 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 i 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. The on-site Iclay soils are recommended as wall backfill to help reduce i surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the Ilimits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires typical irrigation and lawn sprinkler heads should be located at least 10 feet from foun- ' dation walls. Wetting of the bearing soils such as from irrigation water could increase the risk of foundation movement. PERCOLATION TESTS The feasibility of a leach field septic disposal system was evaluated by subsurface exploration and percolation testing in the designated disposal area. A profile hole and three perco- lation holes were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 and a Ilog of the profile encountered is shown on Fig. 2. The results of percolation tests are presented in Table II. Based on the soil profile and percolation test results, a conventional infiltration bed system appears feasible. Because of the shallow depth to bedrock, we recommend the system be IChen &Associates constructed as near the ground surface as practical and mounded if needed. We also recommend oversizing the system due to the tight clayey nature of the soil. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in thi3 report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations Iindicated on the exploratory boring plan, and the proposed type of construction. The nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until excavation is per- formed. If during construction, fill, soil, rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, this office should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata by a representative of the soil engineer. P'4 L�1' �-Lt� � Ztea• Very truly yours, �� CHEN & ASSOCIATES INC. ^ i _ 2 ' , B y Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. SLP/ec 1 Chen &Associates APPROXIMATE SCALE I"= 40' 10' EASEMENT LOT 24 46 \ \ \ \ 4 JUNIPER HILL ROAD / �75 SE BA K LIME , \� 1 j�► 4 ip ?SPERC HJROF LE 2 J / i� ' 1 O PERC I VE r0 FERC OLE I 1 I I\ �o HOLE 6PE C H � l � � 0% OL 2 \ 100 ETBCK\LI E \\\ \ - EXIS\\ \ \ T Nd D\ \ \ R \ \ \ z \ TB�1CK INE\ \� 58 54 Sp 50 48 \ 4yt A2 PROPERTY LI NE 10' EASEMENT 410787 C H E N and ASSOCIATES. inc. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS if i g. I Vw Hole 1 11010 2 Profile Hole Elev. = 3-.7' [:lev. = 42.5' Elev. = 29.9' 45 v �Z) 20 15 10 40/6 IVC=16. 6 DD= 122.0 50/1 60/6 45 40 35 30- 25 0 25 --i o 55/12 20 15 1 410787 CHEN and ASSOCIATES, in C, Loos of Exploratory Borings =fig 40 15/12 IVC=12.2 Assumed -200=76 ol Basement Floor Level 11112 35 7 IVC=9. 7 50/5 DD=85.9 -200=71 WC=9.8 DD=124.5 ol 29/12 IVC=11.5 DD=124. 1 -200=68 c 30 lo LL=28 PI=12 50/3 c 0 +'ol fl 31/12 v �Z) 20 15 10 40/6 IVC=16. 6 DD= 122.0 50/1 60/6 45 40 35 30- 25 0 25 --i o 55/12 20 15 1 410787 CHEN and ASSOCIATES, in C, Loos of Exploratory Borings =fig J i LEGEND: N"Topsoil; soft, organic, dark brown. ©Clay (CL): sandy, medium plastic, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, brown and gray, ,ravelly and sandy layers. Claystone Bedrock; hard to very hard, slightly moist, gray, medium plastic (Mancos Shale). Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2 -inch I.D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 -inch I.D. split spoon sample. 11/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 11 blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on .January 13 and 14, 1987 with a 4 -inch diameter continuous flight power auger. The percolation holes were drilled with 6 -inch diameter auger. 2. The exploratory borings were field located based on the proposed building and leach field areas designated by the client. 3. The as -drilled exploratory boring locations and surface elevations were provided by Scarrow and Walker, Inc., on their topographic plan, Job No. 86-273, dated January 16, 1987. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. S. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material tvpes and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked two days later. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: 19C = Water Content ( o) DD = Dry Density (pcf) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve LL = Liquid Limit (%) P[ = Plasticity Index (o) 1 14107871 CHEN and ASSOCIATES, inc. I Legend and Notes if ig. 3 CA -1-79 G O 2 N m o. X w 0 0 1 N N a> 0 2 U I; 0 .H N c� � 1 w o� 0 1 0 •, 1 N N a) a. 0 U chen and associates, F - M I.0 v APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf Moisture Content = 11. S percent Dry Unit Weight = 124.1 pcf Sample of: sandy clay From: Hole 1 at 6 feet 4 pansi In-unlej c nftaP essur due tc w E iznsion qndei ccnslapl _sure due tc M I.0 v APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 0.1 I.0 iv APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 4 107 87 SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig 4 Moisture Content = 16.6 percent Dry Unit Weight = 122.0 pcf Sample of: claystone From: Hole 1 at 17 feet E iznsion qndei ccnslapl _sure due tc wE tt n 0.1 I.0 iv APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 4 107 87 SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig 4 600 C H E N A N D A S S O C I A T E S T A B L E I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 4 107 87 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%) NATURAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) GRADATION PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSF) SOIL OR BEDROCK TYPE HOLE DEPTH (FEET) GRAVEL (o/i) SAND (%) LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 1 2 9.7 85.9 71 topsoil/clay, porOLIS 6 11.5 124.1 68 28 12 sandy clay 17 16.6 122.0 claystone 2 3 12.2 76 1 sandy clay 8 9.8 124.5 claystone 0 Cl E TABLE II 4 107 87 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS 2 66 30 33 1/2 WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH 2 1/2 15 31 HOLE HOLE LENGTH OF AT START AT END DROP IN AVERAGE NO. DEPTH INTERVAL OF INTERVAL OF INTERVAL WATER LEVEL PERCOLATION RATE (In.) (Min.) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (Min./Inch.) 1 60 30 30 22 1/4 7 3/4 2 15 35 15 22 1/4 21 1 1/4 34 1/2 34 21 19 1/2 1 1/2 33 1/2 19 1/2 19 1/2 33 1/2 30 19 18 1 30 2 66 30 33 1/2 31 2 1/2 15 31 30 1/2 1/2 30 1/2 30 1/2 30 29 1/2 1/2 29 1/2 29 1/2 30 3 66 30 37 35 2 15 35 34 1/2 1/2 34 1/2 34 1/2 34 33 1/2 1/2 33 1/2 33 1/2 30 0 I C U 4 I ay( CIO rn '�6IIb e 4V tri via C5 t: r, _T' ISTING.. SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET FOUND MAR dt GAP LS. NO. 7972--, (BASIS OF SURVEY) NOTES: 1.) Elevations as shown are based on an elevation of 979.06 feet at the southwest corner of Lot 25. 2.) This survey is based on the rebar & cap, L.S. No.7972 at the southwest corner of Lot 25 and the rebar & cap, L.S. No. 7972 at the A.P. on the south line of Lot 21 (which bears S.55047127"E. 120.00 feet from the southeast corner of Lot 25. 3.) Contour interval equals 2 feet. 4.) The 75.00' setback line as shown is according to the subdivision plat of Brush Creek Village, Filing No. 2. 5.) The 300.00' & 30.00' setback lines as shown are based on data provided by the client. 6.) At the time of the topographic survey, January 13, 1987, there was approximately 1 to 2 feet of snow on the ground. 7.) This property is subject to easements and rights -of -ray of record. 8.) Topography as of the date of this Improvement Location Survey (February 28, 1989) has not been updated to reflect changes due to construction. ICi: According to Colorado law you moat count& any 14941 action Dated upon eny defectin this survey within six years after you firut discover each de tact. In no event aay any settop booed upon any defect in this survey he commenced mora than tan years from the data of the certijication shown hereon. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF LOT 25, BLOCK 2 BRUSH CA J 4ILI,AGE, FILING .NO. 2 PITKIN COUNTS', COLORADO IMMVM' MP LOCATION CERTIFICATE I herby certify that this Improvement locatiarl certificate was prepared by Scarz.jw and Walker, Inc. for Scotty William Cathcart and Pamela Dianne Catku trt, that it is not a land survey plat or improvement survey plat, and that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building, or other future improvement lines. I further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on ttils date, February 27, 1989, except utility connections, are entirely within the bounrl3ries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the cascribed premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except as indicated, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted. This ;property is subject to easements and rights -of -fray of record as shored in the title commitment prepared by Pitkin County Title, Inc. (commitment no. PCT - 3098) . Topoc:raphy shown on this map is original and does not reflect as P REGIS cond1tions. t� o ,I,p,RR 0" C) By:� ,J.•.. V :► G•, Job. Pio. 88.320 Frank W. Harr � g Scarf --w & Walker Inc AND i do G L. S. NO. 972 2.48' SOU RLY � �1' 811 rilorado Avenue. ° Gler:: god Springs, Colorado 81601 /%, •......-�':; Mardi 6, 1989 1� �►�.± r � ! :���? � ~ t � BRUSH CREE FILING NO. X 00' SETBACK UNE K VLLAC+'E .$ auN� N ISYS FOUND RE61AR do CAP L. S. NO. 2376 LOT 21 130' r, o CIO rn C v � O0 71E�� 7!1 Lo ;o L Q U otDo o a 0)c m o O L) M W o w ao 0 ;0 3 C L III 130' r, o CIO rn UOQ v � O0 L Q Q 130' r, CIO rn Q Z III at .t at FOUND RESAR do L. S. NO. 9018 /?� 00• ��- 3.2' SOUTHERLY FOUND REBAR & CAP) L.S. NO. 7972 � $heat Mffnber (BASIS OF SURVEY) I OF ia SCALE.- 1 INCH - 20 FEET FOUND REBAR & GIP LS. NO. 7972 -- (BASIS OF SURVEY) NC�TLL 3 : 1.) Elevat-iA-is as shown are based on an elevation of 979.06 feet at the scnA cl west corner of Lot 25. 2.) This sui,voy is based on the rebar & cap, L.S. No.7972 at the southw=_t corner of L,ot 25 and the rebar & cap, L.S. No. 7972 at the A.P. on the south line of Lot 21 (which bears S.55°47127"E. 120.00 r:et from the southeast corner of Lot 25. 3.) Contouz interval equals 2 feet. 4.) The 75.OJI setback line as shown is according to the subdivision plat of Inrush Creek Village, Filing No. 2. 5.) The 1CO.00' & 30.00' setback lines as shown are based on data providad by the client. 6.) At the time of the topographic survey, January 13, 1987, there was ap rcvdmately 1 to 2 feet of snow an the ground. 7.) This pL.,.)erty is subject to easements and rights-of-way of record. 8.) Topogrr:.i.,�ay as of the date of this Improvement Location Survey (February 28, 1989) has not been updated to reflect change.x due to construction. ICZ, .__ording to Colorao, :s++ you asst eoassence any ieeai action basad upon any defe- this survey within six years after you f9ret discover each .,:.ct. In no event uay any action Eased any detect in c; survey be eosenced more than tan years crow the data of ihw :tt$icatioo shown hereon. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OP -1 LOT 25, BLOCK 2 BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE, FILING N0. 2 PITKIN COUNTY) COLORADO LACATION CERTIFICATE I he::•eby certify that this improvement location certificate was prepared by Scar.,ow and Walker, Inc. for Scotty William Cathcart and Pamela Diant-e Cath;art, that it is not a land survey plat or improvement survey plat, and that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building, or othefuture improvement lines. I further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on tris date, February 27, 1989, except utility connections, are entirely within the bouniaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the Described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except as indimted, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted. This property is subject to easements and rights -of --way of record as shown in the title comitmeent prepared by Pitkin County Title, Inc. (caimitment no. PCT - 3096). Topography shown on this map is original and does not reflect a?'*RFCIS conditions. � ..'6 r � v' By: Job. No. 88.320 Frank W. Harr Scarrow & Walker, Inc. y '. d 811 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 March 6, 1989 rC SET szt .rn 100.00' SETBACK UNE 30.0Y SETBACK UN f ,rt BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE FILING No. 1 __ ° Q O oo io � 001 FOUND REBAR do CAP L.S. NO. 2376 O Q U a U ^v �► no °a w C LOT 21 FOUND REBAR & C.4P . J L. S. NO. 9018 f 3.2' SOUTHERLY FOUND REBAR A U L. S. NO. 7972 (BASIS OF SURV, i �-- -r- 11 1 �Ea ia SCALE.- 1 INCH - 20 FEET FOUND REBAR & GIP LS. NO. 7972 -- (BASIS OF SURVEY) NC�TLL 3 : 1.) Elevat-iA-is as shown are based on an elevation of 979.06 feet at the scnA cl west corner of Lot 25. 2.) This sui,voy is based on the rebar & cap, L.S. No.7972 at the southw=_t corner of L,ot 25 and the rebar & cap, L.S. No. 7972 at the A.P. on the south line of Lot 21 (which bears S.55°47127"E. 120.00 r:et from the southeast corner of Lot 25. 3.) Contouz interval equals 2 feet. 4.) The 75.OJI setback line as shown is according to the subdivision plat of Inrush Creek Village, Filing No. 2. 5.) The 1CO.00' & 30.00' setback lines as shown are based on data providad by the client. 6.) At the time of the topographic survey, January 13, 1987, there was ap rcvdmately 1 to 2 feet of snow an the ground. 7.) This pL.,.)erty is subject to easements and rights-of-way of record. 8.) Topogrr:.i.,�ay as of the date of this Improvement Location Survey (February 28, 1989) has not been updated to reflect change.x due to construction. ICZ, .__ording to Colorao, :s++ you asst eoassence any ieeai action basad upon any defe- this survey within six years after you f9ret discover each .,:.ct. In no event uay any action Eased any detect in c; survey be eosenced more than tan years crow the data of ihw :tt$icatioo shown hereon. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OP -1 LOT 25, BLOCK 2 BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE, FILING N0. 2 PITKIN COUNTY) COLORADO LACATION CERTIFICATE I he::•eby certify that this improvement location certificate was prepared by Scar.,ow and Walker, Inc. for Scotty William Cathcart and Pamela Diant-e Cath;art, that it is not a land survey plat or improvement survey plat, and that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building, or othefuture improvement lines. I further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on tris date, February 27, 1989, except utility connections, are entirely within the bouniaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the Described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except as indimted, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted. This property is subject to easements and rights -of --way of record as shown in the title comitmeent prepared by Pitkin County Title, Inc. (caimitment no. PCT - 3096). Topography shown on this map is original and does not reflect a?'*RFCIS conditions. � ..'6 r � v' By: Job. No. 88.320 Frank W. Harr Scarrow & Walker, Inc. y '. d 811 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 March 6, 1989 rC SET szt .rn 100.00' SETBACK UNE 30.0Y SETBACK UN f ,rt BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE FILING No. 1 __ ° Q O oo io � 001 FOUND REBAR do CAP L.S. NO. 2376 O Q U a U ^v �► no °a w C LOT 21 FOUND REBAR & C.4P . J L. S. NO. 9018 f 3.2' SOUTHERLY FOUND REBAR A U L. S. NO. 7972 (BASIS OF SURV, i �-- -r- 11 7 i N N CC Q Cl - t nunew 1 OF 11 7 i N N 0 r o gN t nunew 1 OF x t nunew 1 OF