Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
pitkin.eh.264320407002 (2001)
Pitkin County Environmental Health Department Permit for an Individual Sewage Disposal System 0405 Castle Ck Rd, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 970-920-5070 / FAX 970-920-5077 Permit # 01081 Parcel ID # 2643-204-07-002 Type of permit New( ) Repair(X ) Addition to House() Name of Owner Lawson & Sheila Wills Street Address 1800 Medicine Bow Rd Property legal description Lot 2, Blk 8 Brush Creek Size of lot 2.091 acres Total square footage of the house Water source Brush Creek Metro # of bedrooms in house Caretaker unit # of bedrooms in caretaker unit 2900 4 # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in house Total square footage of the caretaker unit # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in caretaker unit Designed for what # rooms (list) 4 bedrooms Permit information Designed by Owner, H.L. Wills Colorado PE # 23129 Mailing Address 1800 Medicine Bow Rd, Aspen, CO 81611 Perc rate 40 Profile hole depth 8 ft Depth to groundwater or bedrock +8 ft Septic tank capacity Existing 2,000 gallon Absorption area 1770 sq ft / 30% infiltrator reduct=1240 Comments Septic permit approved per compliance with the engineer/owner design dated November 12, 2001. Any changes must be approved by this department and the design engineer rior to them being made. This repair permit is being issued since the existing infiltrator bed was leaching at a very slow rate, almost to the point of complete failure, after only 2 years of use by a 3 -person household. New perc data confirmed the 40 mpi used for the original sizing. The assumption is that there is an unknown soil condition which caused the failure. A second identical 69 unit infiltrator bed will be installed at a shallow depth. A diverter valve will be installed to select between the new bed and the existing bed. It is expected that the old field can be used once it dries out. This department does not endorse any brand of products. The engineer must do a final inspection of the installation and submit an as -built letter to this department. This department must also be called for an inspection with a minimum of 48 hours advanced notice. Permit approved by: -- Date: Plans and specifications of the prop o d individual sewage disposal system have been reviewed and are considered satisfactory. Permission is hereby granted to the owner or the agent to perform the work indicated in accordance with the Pitkin County ISDS Regulation in effect at the time of issue. This permit becomes invalid 6 months from the date that the permit was issued unless system construction has commenced or an extension has been approved in writing by the Department. As -built drawings must be included with this permit before the final approval will be issued. Installer:f' al, Inspection Approval: Date: %� ASPEN/PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH L' zPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSA,_ SYSTEM 130 S. Galena St., Aspen Colorado 81611 f� Phone 970-920-5070/Fax 970-920-5039 tD 7 3 ^ dw Li o� c Permit # �`/ Parcel ID # _ Permit For: New Installation (ya Repair( Remodel( Emergency Use( ) NameofOWNER Street Address I.— wE c3o u.J t��• Owners Mailing .Address &"Z tf�rt« hvF— Imo- e ltd r� � f , 00 Business Phone: '5't 113- 4S _2> Home Phone: Legal Description: Lot Z Block Z Subdivision E3Q<)"'r Ciggi r -g — Size of lot: ? .()q 1 acres Type of proposed structure: J} -i Size of bldg. envelope: Total area/livinq space (sq. ft): Z0� OC -a i�-. I # of Bedrooms, offices and similar size rooms: �} Caretaker Unit : ( )Attached ( )Detached ( 1 Total areailivinq space of caretaker unit(sq ft.) ( ) # of Bedrooms. offices and similar size rooms Primary Contact Person t t-f� w L� Contact Mailing Address C6 Z _1Z Pe{ t ,Jr„Z �L P111 C i�b1$ �C(CL l a Business Phone : 9 63 - li�-JZy Cell Phone: Fax: , Water.( )Private well ( )Spring ( )Stream (Y- Comm unityiPublic (Name of t5t7.JStk eKiF-' tL Is Proof of Adequate Water Attached( Required) ? (X) Yes ( ) No (A water quality test and well pump test or approval letter from community system) Has this project been approved by Pitkin County ? oeYes ( ) No Is a copy of the floor plan attached ( Required ) ? ()� Yes ( ) No Is a copy of the site plan attached (Required) ? (Kc Yes ( ) No Application for an individual sewage disposal system is hereby submitted. I hereby certify that the above information is true and accurate and that I have provided true and accurate information on locations of all existing and proposed wells, contour intervals, buildings. property lines, ditches, slopes, waterlines, springs, suction or irrigation lines, drinking water cisterns, drain tiles, irrigation ditches, lakes, water courses, streams, floodplains, dry gulches, and existing septic systems. I acknowledge that any false or incomplete information will invalidate the application and any subsequent permit. Issuance of the permit does not imply the approval of any other permit required for construction pursuant to Pitkin County codes. No construction may be and a it all approvals and permits have been obtained. The owner assumes all responsibilities in case of failure or inadequacy of this system. Signature of applicant Date - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 6nrJgarJrnSrIJ7JS9betaw------------------------------------------------ PERMIT FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Design Criteria of system to be Installed ( Any changes must be submitted and approved in writing) / Perc Rate 'Z [; min per inch . Profile Hole Depth f feet Septic tank capacity: gallons Absorption area: , -7 7 sq. ft. J An inspection is required prior to backfill of any component of the distribution system. Design by Engineer Required ? ( ) Yes ( ) No All plans and specifications of the engineer must be followed. Any changes must be approved by the Aspen/Pitkin Envirommntal Health Department in writin and the engineer must certify the final installation to the Environmental Health Department in writing.L Permit approval by: �' Date / Y' ! 7 Plans and specifications if the proposed individual sea disposal system have be reviewed and are considered satisfactory. Permission is hereby granted to the owner or the agent to perform the w,rl< indicated in accordance h the Pitkin County ISDS Regulation in effect at the time of issue. This permit becomes invalid 6 months from the date that the permit was issued unless system construction has commenced or an extension has been approved in writing by the Department. As -Built drawings must be nclu d w' this permit before the final approval will be issued. = Installer: � 'J 3 Receipt # 1 Site Plan Well Permit and Soils Test ate received Floor Plan �-----��-- Water Quality Test or / Date Info Complete Received by Comm ev Approval 7 /i5S"/4] Nater System Letter Final Insp Requested Final Inspection Approval: Date: — APEHD 70/96 000 cc -7 aspen / Pitkin Environmental Health Department Contact Log Sheet ,Parcel ID#: Address: ;► WE �■�l_w Wil- • �� ) ' 1.��� I 0 `i ��. �� a til I is'1 irk 1. s- t�itl'�111.� � I � � J �If ' ► • _ 'AFA i�/�1►-lif i�IfiN \ �1 t/_i'.7♦�.'(i.��1 ►. -I M _ wor "All MIN f FIRRI, 119 111 "11109 wo IM WOM M, WE EIa1C� SYsi �i n �:t�'_ i ►'!U�lM��, Zo©1 . 411 IMLET j=�01ti1 200 fjgt, StNTiC =p,p'� �C`PELpNa� �E%15iiNf�� J_ NLW S Mc TANK Q(1i�T Fl�iS1C (gj OWNCyZ> I I il ��Fk. Biz I�i%w 4" PIW Jo_ z,, VALVC'PVC by NDSB To Exis" P"eT'tS9`? L ACh FIEtP Kew FiEw y 12" ro Z8''tov�z, L2M ZOTTOK s 111,4,SUN lig ®Ovew- (566-,,Of 23lzf FL"EDINt pIS; di,t3iiT�r� n1Aµ;r�W y"f'VG 10 RCws OF I INALritong. rpiae►s �o UNTs IN 6Eb com;, otmm L^ FGVR(11) Eats+ Obse+w vjq PIPES W t x�'h 1. W/ CF -Ps iN I Asr INFll fgAill Z RVK MANIIvi.0 UNIT OF y ROIu& ; ?? t& dVT- ` 0' PYC PIPE TO F-mm7 fos„61E„ ®ND*DIVERTER AND Ba WATER VALVES". . 1 4 i. } �+.. } Diverter Valve--,- :" .k -i 't *IAPMO Listed I Here's the simplest, strongest, and most economical diverter valve ever invented for septic tank leach fields. It is made of tough molded plastic that will not shatter, bend, rust or corrode. It is lighter in weight, easier to handle and less expensive to ship. Functional The diverter valve stem flow may be controlled to individual or multiple fields (up to three) in any combination. With a three-way valve stem, flow may be diverted to any two outlets. To allow flow through all outlets, the valve stem may be removed from the assembly. Easy To Install Connect 4" plastic sewer and drain pipe to inlets and outlets on the four way distribution box. (Unwanted outlets 4.125" O may be sealed -by installing caps). The Diverter shield which houses the diverter stem may be cut to desired length. r fthw 1" 6" CLOSED 2 3 0 TANK TANK TANK 4 5 6 O \°�0 O TURN TO tt2 OR x4 REMOVE CAP c P TANK TANK INNER STEM TANK Part Number Description oty. Material 575* 4" Diverter Valve ' 4 ABS 575P 4" Diverter Valve 4 PVC 'FR M : Dorals Excavating Inc - PHONE NO. : +963 2670 Sep. 09 1997 11:23AM P2 0 r g� -v 0 >> W � v Sep. 09 1997 11:23AM P2 0 Independence Wes`ern Environmental & Slope ServicesTapp !ng Kelly J. Gessele 970-927-4343 / 970-963-9128 voice pager 970-945-3150 PO BOAC 464 Snowmass, CO 81654 June 18.1997 TO -.Aspen -Pitkin County Environmental Health RE:Brush Creek Metro District availability: Dear Karen: Sheila and Lawson Wells property at Lot 2-Block8-Filing 2 or 1800 Medicine Bow Road in Brush Creek Village Subdivision, are requesting a building permit for a single family home.Your Department has asked the District if we have the water capacity to serve the Wills property. Please consider this letter as acceptance to supply water to this Iot.Presently the District :supplies 96 single family residences w/a possible buildout of 120 homes. Thank You, Kelly Gessele BCMD Water Operator 927.4343 T0'd L6TSOE6 Ol NOIldlINdS 1-1dSda WOdd Wd9S:90 L66T-8T-90 NOV-12-01 TUE 9:43 AM PITKIN COUNTY DIST ATTY FAX NO. 9709205344 P. 1 0 0 November 12, 2001 Ms. Nancy MacKenzie Pitkin County Envoirmental Health Aspen, Colo. Re: Septic System Repairs 1800 Medicine Bow Road Brush Creek Village Nancy, Thank you for your help on our recent leach field problems. As you know, our existing 69 unit infiltrator bed system was discovered on Nov. 1, 2001 to be leaching at a very slow rate, almost to the point of complete failure. What is upsetting is that this failure occurs after only two years of occupancy and at minimum daily usage. Attached please find the results of my Nov. 10, 2001 percolation tests, a design on a second infiltrator bed, a plot plan showing the location of the proposed new bed, a a sheet reflecting some design calculations. In short, I plan to construct a second and identical 69 unit infiltrator bed over percolation test hole ##5. Test hole #5 had a very good percolation rate, one that was visible to the eye. A diverter valve will be installed to select between the new proposed bed and the existing field (which I am told may regenerate itself over time if allowed to dry out). I do plan to construct the new bed relatively shallow with 12" to 24" of cover to take advantage of plant absorption, etc. i would request your help in expediting my permit application. I do have Bill porais available to do the work beginning late. this week. I would also request that all permit application fees be waived given the extraordinary costs that Sheila and I will be facing on a relatively new system. Please call me if you have any questions or if I am missing anything. The 8' observation hole remains open for your inspection. Respe Ily, �gtiUo,✓/111 H. Lawson Wills (h) 923-4762 (w) 920-5341 O 618-1543 NOV-12-01 TUE 9:43 AM PITKIN COUNTY DIST ATTY FAX NO. 9709205344 P.0 i y o Al ice-, 0 2 As. f ? IA y y ��'y U �l a � � i �+� �► . Cf N1T� 3p °/o RcvVtl/r,v lag �6 4�-o v�1 4ca°c f aw Fte foo -A !0-'m J (3rZ) Ij.°(©lx or �+ "h `31 3fJ t Z4t�� L= �ec�xf�nl cry c{rlrf jo, �� � Al b � R tiC -311,"fr, 9sftkf NOV-12-01 TUE 9:44 AM /1S7f PITKIN COUNTY DIST ATTY 0 000 OLT AT A'I, WS, *"A( aA' //-/o-Cl Al 94'4r ( ail Axajs pvj rfzsr 2' o u It-?, held Cc�od rl Ovc, Jki Nj voex-enl b'4 Al l Vrli 5&/,7 W/ Sv,,,t cls A S Dr Z j 5-,0-5-C tt;'Xrkrc .v/lY C"xY t1^0 JoA>rsAsk p AT 2� FAX NO. 9709205344 P. 4 © 117 al,r eCx fur r/i, !'o(c //,/ ©-,oj ��e'Rrrli� r�rlcatirj 7 STR�x/� �e Ar ScYAu fe f1l a bre, hale Pldy 1�6 /s -fvo'prfswlr lic a�r,c►�`, 0v i, Ar 2 P"' /1-V -0 bq fi a IJ m,,)wmurn t A( -fa W �- A// df9nJ�IY Orl)l�/,4,G /( Cpl se )1 IS /na?C clA yq, No QxffvA1vtj pokf 1 �Y lfage4 0p /° U' �t�sr►aRl%PrrnS,A�►� cRyAli' iS -5-14k,Q/t, S fJqillPl�C,?d�% � �lCCc� SM�� y , �J/ (',f, /I � vj r/ FAMIY 0 p f NOV-I2-01 TUE 9:44 AM PITKIN COUNTY DIST ATTY FAX NO, 9709205344 P. 5 �� fJ ti � nh i= r a 4 �c ck j i� L E, 1 � _x 4 ck j r E, NOV-12-01 TUE 9:43 AM PITKIN COUNTY DIST ATTY 0 FAX NO. 9709205344 v1 ties P -&rj CJ P ~ I RIG 3 BQRINC, l r 1 O BORING 4 • +�` �. a P 2 yea E xrst/N6 �� p� APPROXIMATE LIMIT, '� 1�, OP 1984 LANDSUD£' � ' d EXISTING DIRT DRIVEWAY m r W �O T 2 V / s LOT BOUNDARIES V APPROXIMATE SCALE t F• Nu, L�srlb6 ro&AipI'v 1ti�1��O1 Ii' = 50' 1 �2rve5/�a /�?"cl*q ItP,u'j� ThnJ t'G��S� r' • BORINGS LOCATION OP HALES EXPLARATORY Fig. I HEpWORT1I - PAWLAK AN PERCOL-ATION TEST - (96 569 GEOTECHNICAL, INC- ` - SES 1' ZCP� ��%itit►cA� P' , V APPROXIMATE SCALE t F• Nu, L�srlb6 ro&AipI'v 1ti�1��O1 Ii' = 50' 1 �2rve5/�a /�?"cl*q ItP,u'j� ThnJ t'G��S� r' • BORINGS LOCATION OP HALES EXPLARATORY Fig. I HEpWORT1I - PAWLAK AN PERCOL-ATION TEST - (96 569 GEOTECHNICAL, INC- ` - 'r 0 ASPEN/PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT ISDS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Permit # Name Wills Parcel ID # House SIZE 2900 (75 gpd, 100 gpd, or 130 gpd) 100 Number of Bedrooms, Lofts, Offices, Similar Rooms, Main House 4 Number of Bedrooms, Lofts, Offices, Similar Rooms, Caretaker unit 0 Average Daily Waste Flow 600 # bedrooms X 2 people/br X 75 State Review Required? no Perc Rate 40 (T) Design Flo w (Q) _ # bedrooms X 2 people/bedroom X gpd X 1.75 Q= 1400 Absorption Area (A= Q/5 X SQRT) r A = 1770.875 sq. ft. of absorption area required 98 infiltrator units without reduction f" A maximum 30% reduction is allowed for use of deep gravel or gravelless chambere stem. 1239.613 sq.ft. with reduction ;69))nfiltrator units with reduction Type of system: []Absorption trenches []Absorption bed [] Gravelless chambers []Dry well []Seepage Pit []Pumping Chamber Is an Engineer -Designed System required? no yes _ reason: Minimum tank capacity SETBACK FROM WELL # of feet = 132 1750 gallons Remember: 8 feet of additional distance for each 100 gallons/day of design flow over 1,000 gallons/day should be added unless an RPE can verify that it is not necessary to prevent contamination. APPROVED FOR ISSUE BY: SYSTEM INSTALLED BY: DATE OF FINAL INSPECTION REQUEST: FINAL INSPECTION BY: Printed on Recycled Paper DATE: DATE: 0 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 0 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 GEOTECHNICAL STUDY AND PERCOLATION TESTING PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 2, BLOCK 8, FILING 1, BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 196 569 NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PREPARED FOR: LAWSON AND SHEILA WILLS P.O. BOX 10091 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 I o 0 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ' November 26, 1996 Lawson and Sheila Wills ' P.O. Box 10091 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Job No. 196 569 ' Subject: Report Transmittal, Geotechnical Study and Percolation Testing, Proposed Residence, Lot 2, Block 8, Filing 1, Brush Creek Village, Pitkin County, Colorado. ' Dear Mr. and Mrs.Wills: ' As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical study for development of a residence in the western part of the subject site. The eastern part has been identified as an active landslide. ' Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the general proposed building area consist of relatively dense sandstone and shale fragments in a sandy clay matrix. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 7 days later. Development in the western part of the lot should be feasible based on geotechnical considerations but the owners should be aware that there will be some level of risk due to the potentially unstable slopes in the area. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural subsoils. Some of the clay matrix soils are expansive when wetted and a minimum dead load pressure should be used to mitigate potential heave of the footings. The residence and other improvements sensitive to ., differential movements should be setback from the active landslide area at least 25 feet. The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. ' If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, .. EPWORTH-P WL GEOTECHNICAL, INC. `t Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. Rev. By: DEH SLP/ro TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY .............................. 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .................................. 1 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................... 2 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................... 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... 3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................ 4 nF_4TC,,N RRC'OMMENDATTONS................................ 4 FOUNDATIONS ....................................... 4 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..................... 5 FLOOR SLABS ........................................ 7 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ................................. 8 SITEGRADING ....................................... 9 SURFACE DRAINAGE .................................. 9 PERCOLATION TESTING ............................... 10 LIMITATIONS ............................................ 10 REFERENCES ............................................ 12 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - GRADATION ANALYSES TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE II - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS iJ I I I I PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a geotechnical study and percolation testing for a proposed residence to be located in the western part of Lot 2, Block 8, Filing 1, Brush Creek Village, Pitkin County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to assess the subsurface conditions and to develop recommendations for possible building improvements in the designated building area. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Lawson and Sheila Wills, dated November 8, 1996. Previous studies by Lampiris (1990) and MTI Geo (1995) were considered in preparation of this report. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings and percolation testing was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils and bedrock obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their compressibility or swell characteristics, classification and other engineering properties. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for preliminary design of the building foundation, grading and septic disposal system. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the assumed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION At the time of our study, design plans for the residence had not been developed. The building is proposed in the western part of the lot as recommended by Lampiris (1990). The general building area, where the exploratory borings were drilled, is shown on Fig. 1. We assume the building will be 2 stories of wood frame construction and have a maximum cut depth of one level, about 10 feet below the existing ground surface. For the purpose of our analysis, foundation loadings for the structure were assumed to be relatively light and typical of the proposed type of construction. �I I I I I -2 - When building location, grading and loading information have been developed, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The lot is located below (north of) Medicine Bow Road and a few hundred feet east of Juniper Hill Drive in the upper part of the Brush Creek Village subdivision. The terrain of the area and across the lot is hilly and very irregular. A driveway cut has been made from the southeast corner of the lot and crosses a steep sided, northeast trending ridge. The western part of the lot, in the building area, is bowl shaped and strongly sloping down to the northeast and is flanked on the uphill sides by very steep slopes. A linear feature, corresponding to the eastern limit of the bowl shaped area and extending uphill through Medicine Bow Road (recently patched) and downhill in a drainage swale, is apparently the lateral shear crack of the " 1984 Landslide". The designated building area is vegetated mostly with sagebrush, grass and weeds and the surrounding hilly terrain is covered with scrub oak. The steep slope directly above the designated building area appears to be a fill embankment probably constructed for Medicine Bow Road. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on November 13, 1996. Four exploratory borings were drilled, three in the building area and one in the septic disposal area, at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck -mounted CME -55 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The percolation testing was conducted on November 14, 1996. H -P GEOTECH -3- Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 2 -inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depth 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, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface profiles encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. Below about one foot of organic topsoil, the subsoils consist of relatively dense sandstone and shale fragments in a sandy clay matrix. The rock fragments appeared to be gravel, cobble and boulder size. At depths of about 9 to 17 feet, hard shale bedrock was encountered. We expect that the rocky soil consists of older landslide deposits. The clay fraction is generally medium plastic and it has been our experience that the clay soils in this area can posses an expansion potential when wetted. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained during the field exploration included natural moisture content and density and grain size analyses. Swell -consolidation testing was performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the clay matrix. The swell -consolidation test results, presented on Fig. 4, indicate low compressibility under light surcharge loading and a high expansion potential when wetted. Swell -consolidation testing was generally not practical on the rocky soils but they would be expected to exhibit low to no expansion potential due to the rock content. Gradation analyses performed on the minus 1 1/2 -inch fraction of the subsoils are presented on Fig. 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. I I H -P GEOTECH i 40 M i No free water was encountered in the borings at time of drilling or when w* checked 7 days later. The subsoils were slightly moist to moist and the shale bedrock was slightly moist. i 40 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS The bearing soils at shallow excavation depth appear to consist of mostly rock fragments. The expansion potential of the clay matrix can probably be mitigated by load concentration to reduce swelling in the event of wetting below footing bearing level. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils below the topsoil can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 psf. The footings should H -P GEOTECH Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and our review of the site conditions, development in the western part of the lot should be feasible based on geotechnical considerations. Due to the potentially unstable slopes that adjoin the designated building area, the owners should be aware that there is some risk of future movement of the building site. The recommendations presented below should help limit the risks resulting from the site development but if there is an enlargement of the active landslide area, the building site could be affected. The ' residence and other improvements sensitive to differential movements, such► DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS The bearing soils at shallow excavation depth appear to consist of mostly rock fragments. The expansion potential of the clay matrix can probably be mitigated by load concentration to reduce swelling in the event of wetting below footing bearing level. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils below the topsoil can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 psf. The footings should H -P GEOTECH -5- also be designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 1,000 psf. In order to satisfy the minimum dead load pressure under lightly loaded areas, it may be necessary to concentrate loads by using a grade beam and pad system. Wall -on - grade construction is not recommended at this site to achieve the minimum dead load. 2) Based on experience, we expect settlement or heave of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch. There could be some additional movement if the clay soils were to become wet. 3) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for isolated pads. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies and limit the risk of differential movement. One method of analysis is to design the foundation walls to span an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) 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. 6) Prior to the footing construction, the topsoil and loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to competent bearing soils. The subgrade should be evaluated for expansive clay layers or pockets which may need to be removed. 7) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. H -P GEOTECH I I I I I I 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 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site predominantly granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site predominantly granular soils. Backfill should not contain topsoil, vegetation, predominantly clay soils or rock larger than about 6 inches in size. All foundation and retaining structures 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 to slightly above optimum. Backfill in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected even if the material is placed correctly and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and I I H -P GEOTECH passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.40. Passive pressure of backfill placed against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 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 strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The on-site soils possess an expansion potential and slab heave could occur if the clay subgrade soils were to become wet. A positive way to reduce the risk of slab movement, which is commonly used in the area, is to .sty The subgrade should be observed at the time of construction to evaluate the expansion potential. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Interior non-bearing partitions resting on floor slabs should be provided with a slip joint at the bottom of the wall so that, if the slab moves, the movement cannot be transmitted to the upper structure. This detail is also important for wallboards, stairways and door frames. Slip joints which will allow at least 1 1/2 inches of vertical movement are recommended. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. Slab reinforcement and control joints should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. H -P GEOTECH A minimum 4 -inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed immediately beneath basement level slabs -on -grade. This material should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. The free -draining gravel will aid in drainage below the slabs and should be connected to the perimeter underdrain system. Required fill beneath slabs can consist of the on-site rocky soils excluding topsoil and oversized rocks, or a suitable imported granular material (such as roadbase). The fill should be spread in thin horizontal lifts, adjusted to at or above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. All vegetation, topsoil and loose or disturbed soil should be removed prior to fill placement. The above recommendations will not prevent slab heave if the expansive clay soils underlying slabs -on -grade become wet. However, the recommendations will reduce the effects if slab heave occurs. All plumbing lines should be pressure tested before backfilling to help reduce the potential for wetting. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although groundwater was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas and where bedrock is shallow, that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. Therefore, be The drain should also act to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind foundation walls. The underdrain system should consist of a drainpipe surrounded by free -draining granular material placed at the bottom of the wall backfill. The drain lines should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade, and sloped at a minimum 1 % grade to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular I' H -P GEOTECH r: M material used in the drain system should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. The drain gravel should be at least 1 1/2 feet deep. SITE GRADING The risk of construction induced slope instability at the site should be relatively low provided the building is located below the steep slopes as planned and cut and fill depths are limited. The cut depth for any below grade level should not exceed one level, about 10 feet. Cuts into the perimeter hillsides should be about 4 feet or less and retained with structural walls. Fills should be limited to about 8 feet deep and used as a balance of earthwork on the lot. Structural fills should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to 95 % standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: 1) Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion potential of the clay soils. I H -P GEOTECH _10- 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to ' at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. Free- draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 to 3 feet of the on-site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. ' 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 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. ' 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation, such as sod, should be kept to a minimum. Consideration should be given to the use of xeriscape to ' help limit the potential for subsurface wetting. ' PERCOLATION TESTING ' A profile hole (Boring 4) and three percolation holes (P-1, P-2 and P-3) were drilled in the general designated septic disposal area see Fig. 1. The percolation test results are presented in Table II. Based on the subsurface profile and percolation test results, the site should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. ' The property is located in a moderately sloping area and the stability could be adversely impacted by subsurface wetting. A civil engineer should design the disposal system so ' that the grading and disturbance limits adverse impact on potential slope instability. ' LIMITATIONS ' This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no 1 ' H-P GEOTECH -11 - other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the assumed type of construction and our experience in the area. 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 performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear to be different from those described in this report, we should be notified at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. 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 construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications of the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK G ?� Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. Re iewed By: c Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. SLP/ro I H -P GEOTECH INC. .. • e ���SY At` -9� ss � e 1 5 2 2 e !!��J'l••ms10NAt -12 - REFERENCES Lampiris, Nicholas, 1990, Lot 2, Brush Creek Village, prepared for Landman and Giacinto Construction, dated May 18, 1990. MTI Geo, 1995, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 2, Block 8, Filing 1, Brush Creek Subdivision, prepared for Summit Development Corporation, dated September 1, 1995, Job No. G95 151. H -P GEOTECH quo quo 80 : � 1 � � � i i BONG 3 BORING 4 • I0 P n P 2 ` BORING 2 9;0 n P 3' APPROXIMATE LIMIT` OF 1984 LANDSUDE ��._� EXISTING DIRT DRIVEWAY LOT 2 APPROXIMATE SCALE I" = 50' HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. I 196 569 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES j BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 BORING 4 ELEV. = 991' ELEV. = 986' ELEV. = 980' ELEV. = 975' 995 995 M 25/0 /3 970 ��: [rte 50 .w M 985 M 15/5,15/0 a> 985 °oo 50/6 tL 30/6,20/0 °�•_ 975 WC = 7.5 51/12 DD = 110 WC = 12.4 .00 ° ° DD = 120 co +4 = 19 60/6 44/12 980 -200 = 38 ° WC = 8.7 w DD = 127 JW�=8.7 50B 970 :�; DD = 122 50/9 N WC = 6.9 LL DD=120 70/9 965 502 c 975 o; co 25/0 /3 970 ��: [rte 50 .w M 985 M 50/4 M 955 955 .J Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. 196 569 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. a> 50/6 tL J 975 WC = 7.5 DD = 110 .00 co +4 = 19 °° N -200 = 38 ° w JW�=8.7 50B 970 :�; DD = 122 1 50/8 70/9 965 50/4 M 955 955 .J Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. 196 569 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LEGEND: PTOPSOIL; silty sandy clay, organic, black. SHALE AND SANDSTONE PIECES IN SANDY CLAY MATRIX (GC -SC); gravel to boulder size rock, medium ° dense to dense, slightly moist to moist, mixed brown. MANCOS SHALE; hard to very hard, slightly moist, dark gray to black. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2 -inch I.D. California liner sample. 51/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 51 blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California sampler 12 inches. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on November 13,1996 with a flinch diameter continuous flight power auger. The percolation holes (P-1, P-2 and P-3) were drilled with 6 inch diameter auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of 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 exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 7 days later. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (%) DD = Dry Density (pcf) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve. -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. 196 569 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK I LEGEND AND NOTES I Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 11' Moisture Content = 12.4 percent Dry Unit Weight = 120 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay with Shale Pieces From: Boring 2 at 3 Feet 4 3 2 0 c 0 c o a x w 0 0 N m 1 CL E 0 U 2 Expansion upon wettin 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf 196 569 HEPWORTH - PAWL -AK SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. rn LO CD r O Z m O U Z J Q U_ Z 2 U w O W Q Q aT. i 2O F— a. W J LU W CC _0 LU J m Q < QOM W Q U- 0 Q D U) (i w Q) (1) CD U U U cn (n U L N N N 0- a 0- U U W O C N C CL) C Q. Q O O O W Q) N (n (n (n > o r (0 (0 C C C J (Y) (� (� (n U) O O C O U U U U U U) > > � ? >- C (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 U c) co U) cn cn o W W > _ r W Z LL z O a ¢ a U C) r Z O w U L: U X r — h p o a Z � a C7 w s W � � r W Z N J N M W s h a y W a Z a a M p z M N 2 O r a a ('J J a _ Q}- O O n O N N U r p Z a N N N N z p r C v LO r - F N Z o ao o N M rl- M z2 U zr o v W M M LLQ d O 0e) E a p o OU W a � a z 0 m HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 196 569 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P-1 47 15 17 1/4 16 1 1/4 30 16 15 1 15 14 1 14 13 1 13 12 1 12 11 1 11 10 1/2 1/2 10 1/2 10 1/2 P-2 41 1/2 30 refill 6 1/2 6 1/4 1/4 60 6 1/4 6 1/4 6 5 1/2 1/2 9 8 1/2 1/2 P-3 37 15 refill 8 1/2 8 1/4 1/4 30 8 1/4 73/4 1/2 73/4 7 3/4 10 1/2 9 3/4 3/4 93/4 9 1/4 1/2 9 1/4 8 1/2 3/4 8 1/2 8 1/2 8 1 7 1/2 1 1/2 Note: Test holes were drilled with 6 inch diameter auger and soaked on November 13, 1 996, and covered to protect them from frost. The tests were conducted on November 14, 1996. 14 � \• �::� �.•' � '% , - '�i� sic. ,;� I slb T s fAe `� M 'T ,aai�4 �+�•� 4d .d . ry • �' !. 51 FL w SITE PLAN SCALE T'- 10.0" n GENERAL NOTES: AM CONSTRICTION WALL E N CONFORMANCE WITH THE LATESTEOITION OF THE UaFO N SULOSq COM AID ANY AODSgNAL. REQUIRE BR$ OF TM LOM OURDW DEVANTNEM TIE CONTRACTOR WALL BE RE PONBBLE FOR SAFETY AND PROTECTION WmET A DADJACENT TO THEJOSSRE. MMATIDNVWR M7MJMWM5VOWNMIEPEFOMM W WJ. NEOIER E OONBTRUF.DAS INSPECTION NOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRIICTIOK ALL WORK WW1.. E APPROVED BY TIE OWNW DO NOTBCALE DRAWNDS.IF DIiB/B10R8 ARE N OUESTIOH, OBTAN CLARIFICATION FlDM80AE80DY BEFORE OCONTNIM 0MCONBRNICTION. AU OWN" ARE TO FACE OF SRDS. FACE OF CONCRETE OR CENTIMNEOF =UNNS MESIS OTHERNIM NOTED. DETAILS OF CONBTRICIIDK NOTBPECIPICNLY SHOWN ON PIAW SHALL E CONSTIWCTEO N ACCORDANCE WITH OETAES SHOWN FOR sm" CONDITIONS AND AAT EF"M VERIFY I M COOIOPNTE ALL MECHANICAL AM ULECIPoCAL faIBOUl6ENIS PRIOR TO SISTALJATION. PROVIDE HECFSBARY SUPPORTS AND URGING N WALLS TO SUPPORT WOM ATTACHED TO TBA FOR SUCH 90Aa AS WALL FIXTURES. EM PNENT. CASEWOR(, TOILET ACCO ANO MIRRORS, SHELVN4aNIB,ETC. ALL AEFLMW TO E PER U.BC. ALL MOM, FUMNIES, AP0.MNCE8, HARDWARE, COLORS ANO WALT. NSTO E AMROVED SYOWNER. ALL DOM 70 E T. QTALL (UMSB ROTmOTHERWISE) WITH SMS, WAMATE, AND FINISH TO E APPROVED BY OWNER. REFER TO ATTACHED SURVEY. VERIFY URRY LOUATIONS PRIOR TO ESCAVATION. B ILDIRETO E LOCATED BY A 110ENSEDSURVEYOR. ALLWOCOTHIATCOMES N CONTACT WITH MASONRY OR CONCRETE TO EEE, PRESSURE OR M WITHIN OF OF FINISH GRADE. ALL 8011.870 E COMPACTED TO 00% OF SEARING CAPACITY. COOROFIAYEJOIST TLVCEAENT VWPLUN006 LAYOUT. HOLD ALL PLUAlFIGTRAPS AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE OOOFK ATEVW CANHETACCESSORIES, THE P18FOSEOFTHE ORAWNSB 0ONLY TOORAPRCALLY SOWr THE WAIN TO E DOLE THE OOHTRACTOR s RESPONBELE FORCOR#IAWq OBEWHOM. ANDSELW R OF FRABRICATION PROCBBE AND TEdMBOU® OF CONSIRA:IIOK `300 = loo _ oA DRAWING LIST: Al SITE PLAN A2 LOWER LEVEL PLAN A3 UPPER LEVEL PLAN A4 ROOF PLAN AS NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS A6 EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS A7 BUILDING SECTIONS Sl GENERAL NOTES & DETAILS S2 FOUNDATION PLAN S3 LOWER FLOOR FRAMING S4 UPPER FLOOR FRAMING S5 ROOF FRAMING S6 STRUCTURAL DETAILS C7 �7m • C� O LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PROJECC NORTH 1 VP'CONOBETE FLOOp Ofl TOP OF I'CONCREfE BUB. i o O UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN �`°'�`T NORTH A3 vVU 1kl w16x 12 EDD. n RAFTER BRO EMS- 10 iR' T11. . EL tOr-10 1ir T.O.C. EL or- 8 NORTH EXTERIORIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE 114" - 1'- 0" THRE8 PRE -FAB ZERO SEM MASTIC 94 SH .RAL BED OF MAS/IC N 9HT. NIL PAH CLEARANCE FLUE EXU. OOOR� SLOPED SHEET OL 1. DERE METAL CAP WRAP MEMS. ff I ) I TO TO I 12'WY: r TAPERED CONC. WELDED WIRE FABRIC RESFORCM Ly i UNDER ( /2' DRAINAGE MATS LWf. C011C. I I 1AFMBINNE WATERPROOFING ON I 3N' COX PLYWOOD I a FINISH A-ODOM FLASHING \ STEPPED SHT. MTL FLASHING STONE VENEER SUPPORT BY STEEL ANGLE YIELDED ,J r\ TO STEEL FRAME Q DECK R TRESHOLD II m.oEacASBereLY'. r TAPERED To 1 IrO K;. WELDED WIRE FABRIC REYIPORCM t? ORAWAGE MATS 6TdE VENF#R I MEMBRANE WATEAPROOFM ON W COX PLYWOOD FINISH - - - -FLOOR SiTItE 4MNlEL i ,S a SUPPORT 1� - SM. MTL CNTR R 1. EL IXBTRM 1 -- 2X BTRIM I HEATXATOR • Ta20D` \`_ -- RAST. SOFFIT h 2-7 WOOOBURM FIREPLACE .. — ALUM VENT CONT. t — Q DECK @ HANDRAIL � z -r 'rm. DECK ASSEMBLY: HANDRAIL TAPERED TO I I?'CONC. • WELDED VIM FABRIC REINFORCING 312 X 13 CUT 12'DRAWAGEMATS STONE CAP MEMBRANE WATERPROOFINGON 3M'COX PLYWOOD $HT. MTL CAP R.ASM NG WRAP MEMSRANE UP BET IN MASTIC OVER CURS �.. _- _ - b _ ISI NOTE: FT -GOR ALL STONE TO BE SUPPORTED ON A ///���///�����' 0.1. SCUPPER STEEL BAA- 011. TO R38 (, I r ^ V BEYOND STRUCTURE. MUL ISI tr ` t j j 1 Sm TYP. X GW7 • �WW�I���lll STONE VENEER GARAGE /-3—'\ DECK 0 STONEWALL 11n"- r- o• SECTION @ FIREPLACE EAST EXTERIORIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE 1 /4" =1'- U- RAFTER SRO. EL 115'•10 tiff TAL '04 T D_C. EL 10T-10 1Ar :STUCCO T D.C. -r NG TO NCE NY LEGAL ED ECT IN THIS MAt�T�HRINITHREE YEARSAFTERwYODUFIRST DISCOVER S" DEFECT. Ni NO EVENT. MAY MAYYANYFACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOW HEREON. LOT 3, BLOCK 9 al AJ 09 0 CPO . � o cc 00 o\ �j } rn LOT 25. .B'LOCX 2 F I L ING 2 CIO Q' d ti (51. s.S �n moo? s S s Q 0 LOT 21, BI -001f 2 Q FIL ING 2 -9 6 - � ET REBAR BENCH MARK EVATION ASSUMED \� 9 TO BE 972.00' F' rPa, s 40- �o 8 Grp ss , �s lei �� LOT 2 &� . 0 w - 2. 091 AC. �/- �' 4,WENDED L 0 T 2. 028 / ,4 CRSS ¢ / - o � i9 s a `r �9 9 1p 1010111- 984 980 g�8 Ty�s 986 • 9 BER'✓F , �9 � F� Ric � 'Y4y _ ._ G R��ED 1-14�� V ! E W 990 �� a b� 0a 0 WILL MTS ��. �• O ov 5 � 0 FF ti vj LOT 1 BL 001f S L INE ®EARINO DISTANCE L I S 26' /B 'S/ 'N' 27. 0,7' O L 2 N 21'/6'44'E 2?.80' L 4 N 26' 18 '5/ "E 27. 07' CUR YE DEL TA AN& E RAD I US ARC 7AN6£N7 CHORD CHORD BEAR I N6 C I I8°06'57" 120.00' 37.94 /9. /,3. 37.78° N 48'17'44'Y ELEVATION ASSUMED TO BE 1000.00 NES IN SPACE 4sA ti9< LAND SURVEYS T o TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF LOT 2, BLOCK 8, BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE, FILING 1, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. CERTIFICATE I. SYDNEY LINCICOME. SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER BELIEF. FIELD WORK PERFORMED HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY MY SUPERVISION AND IS CORRECT ON 9-6-96 AND 5-13-97. WAS TO PLOTTED FROM FIELD NOTES OF A THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DATED THIS 6TH. DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1996, SYDNEY LINCICOME P.L.S. 14111 LEGEND AND NOTES • FOUND REBAR 6 CAP L.S. 7972 Ak SET SPIKE ............ EDGE OF DRIVEWAY CUT 0 POWER POLE G FOUND REBAR & CAP L.S. 9018 -#— OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE SLANTED /NFORA/AT/ON /S FRO# Th'E 6,4RR£7 FREY CHESTER / LARSON SUBDIVISION fXEA/RT/ON LOT L INE AD,JUSTA/£NT-4AffNDED RLAT LOT 25, BL OCA' 2. FIL IN6 NO. 2 L OT2. BL OCA' B. F/L IN6 NO. I AND LOT 2/, BL OCA' 2. F/L IN6 NO. 2. BRUSH CREEA' Y/LLA6£ SUBOIPIS /ON, R/TA'/N COUNTY, COL ORASO. THERE IS A 10 FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT ADJACENT TO ALL BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE LOT LIVES THIS SURVEY REPLACES & SUPERCEDES THE PREVIOUS LINES IN SPACE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DATED 9-06-96 BASIS OF BEARING IS BETWEEN FOUND REBARS WITH CAPS L.S. 7972 ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 2 BLOCK SAID BEARING IS S 21°16'44- W AS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY. N W E S 0 10' 20' 30 40' SCALE: 1"=20' CONTOT.JR INTERVAL = 2' TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF 1800 MEDICINE BOW RD. SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO. By -LINES IN SPACE S YDNEY LINCICOME ( L. S. 14 BOX V1 CARBOACALE, COLO 303-963-3852 DA TE.- 5-5-97 SCALE i - 20' JOB MO.: 9605/