HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.eh.264329200006 (1997)ASPEN/PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
h ~
APPLI� "TiON FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
ai 130 S. Galena St., Aspen Colorado 816' 1
r Phone 970-920-5070/Fax 970-920-5039
Permit # '3_311 Parcel ID #
Permit For: New Installatio Repair ( ) Remodel () Emergency Use( )
Name of OWN
Street Address
Owners Mailing Address
,20/--9 — 70
Legal Description: Lot —3 Block nn Subdivision 0 N C'
Size of lot: '71i 5 acres Type of proposed structure: P .5 / /' tYIG�/ Size of bldg. envelope:
Total area/livinq space (sq. ft): # of Bedrooms, offices and similar size rooms:
Caretaker Unit : ( )Attached ( )Detached ( ) Total area/living space of caretaker unit(sq ft.) ( ) # of Bedrooms, offices and similar size rooms
Primary Contact Person r n Q
Contact Mailing Address t✓ °
Business Phone : 0 Cell Phone : >__� -3 7C Fax
Water.( )Private well ( )Sprinq ( )Stream
Is Proof of Adequate Water Attached ( Required ? () Yes ( 4,
Has this project been approved by Pitkin County ? V -//Yes ( ) No
Is a copy of the floor plan attached ( Required ) ? (, es( ) No
Is a copy of the site plan attached (Re uired ? ., Yes ( ) No
lic (Name of
( A water quality test and well pump test or approval letter from community system)
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.Fs�drpyeg�lches, and existing septic systems. I acknowledge that any false or
incomplete information will invalidate the ap and any subsequent perm ssua e ites not imply the approval of any other permit required r construction
pursuant to Pitkin County codes. No co coon y be undertaken until a aennits have been obtained. The owner assumes all res sibilitie case of failure
or inadequacy of this system.
Signature of applicant Date
------------------- –---------------------
--------------------------- ardenartmertYusr=below----------------------
Design Criteria of system to be Installed ( Any chances must be submitted and approved in writing) G
Pero Rate / � min per inch Profile Hole Depth p feet
Septic tank capacity: 1[-jl? G�i' gallons Absorption area: 13 sq. ft.
r-adkced o /bio S� T��s:�v� 3v fe �roTiG�v�. S�Tha r -r
L,i,ve s aNd feza7"iar s Ore d e 4z vc d iA-J _W d 7X
,LEAS I-PjyrltiTivlus_
An inspection is required prior to backfill of any component of the distribution system.
Design by Engineer Required ? ( ) Yes (k< All plans and specifications of the engineer must be followed. Any changes must be approved by the
AspeniPitkin Envirommntal Health Depart en t in writing and the engineer must certify the final installation to the Environmental Health Department in
writing. i
Permit approval by: Date % l�
Plans and specifications of the proposed 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: t� q
Receipt # Site Plan Well Permit and Soils Test
Date received — Floor Plan Water Quality Test ordDate Info Complete
Received by � Comm Dev Approval �— Water System LetterF3 2 4-4' Final Insp Requested
Final Inspection Approval: Date: L21-17 APEHD 10/96
�ynn�s z�y�- a9a- 00-QOCo I
a9iLa
2000
94.1
l ods
2 rows 6
-1,4-'l4y*_ fr.r Lt n i i'S;
g k.n1'}5 to Pa.cL- rocJ
4-&,( a+ qto U-ni t) .
Told -Id101
1.t
Independence Western
Environmental & Slope
Services Tapping
Kelly J. Gessele 970-927-4343 / 970-963-9128 voice pager 970-945-3150
PO BOX 464 Snowmass, CO 81654
July 12,1997
TO -Aspen -Pitkin County Environmental Health
RE:Brush Creek Metro District availability:
14
Dear Karen: -��
Rq t e�
The Nancy and Doug Bai+y ;property at Deroste Sub./ Pioneer Springs Lot3-adjacent to the
Brush Creek Village Subdivision, are requesting a building permit for a single family home.Ybur
Department has asked the District if we have the water capacity to serve the limy - property.
Please consider this letter as acceptance to supply water to this lot Presently e District
supplies 96 single family residences w/a possible buildout of 120 homes.
Thank You,
Kelly Gessele
BCMD Water Operator
927-4343
TO'd 6TTSBZ6 Ol NOIldlINUS i7USUE WON_d WdZT:90
n 'NJL r G
L66T-ST-La
May
Legal Description: Lot -3 ,Stock ,Subdivision
Size of (oC "015 acres Type of proposed structure: ,_ > I - 'C jr r S¢e of bi0q. envelope:
Total areaflivinq space (sq. ft): � % of Bedrooms, offices and similar size rooms:
Caretaker unit : f ?Attached f )Detached ( ) Total areatlivino space of Caretaker undisq O ( ) n of Bedrooms ufftces anti similar size moms
Primary Contact Person �_ / T L CGS
Contact Ma" Address ri r •7_ �v ����i�/J
Business Phone: Z?, 3 iZ607 Cell Phone �!�i - i �f� Fax
r
Water.( )Private well ( )Spring ( )Stream
Is Proof of Adequate Water Attached (~Re [iced ? ( ) Yes ( 4,
Has this protect been approved by Pitkin County ? ((,("Yes ( ) No
Is a copy of the Ituur plan attached ( Required) a ( fes ( ) No
Is a coov, at the site plan attached (Required) ? Yes (1 No
(Name of
r
(A water quality test and well pump test or approval lelterfrom Community system)
Application for an individual sewage disposal system is hereby submitted. I herPby cemty that the above information .s true and accurate and mal I have provided true and
accurate information on Iocalons of all existing and proposed wells, contour intervals, buildings, property tines, ditches, slopes. waterlines, springs. suction or irrigation lines.
drinking water rislems, drain tiles, irrigation ditd+es, takes, water courses, streams, ry gtildras. and emitrg "te systems. I acknowledge that any false or
incomprote v,twmation will tntrariaete lite ap _ aid any subsequent p ssuan v a partmt does not imply the approval of any other perrnl required construction
pursuant to Pilkin County codes. No co action y be undertaken ?11 emuls nave been obtained. The owner assumAllres sihlitie case a failure
or inadequacy o! this system.
Signature of applicant C� ��
Date
11
-- ------------------ - - - - -- '------------------- or anmerntisebetaw----------------- ---- -------------------
PERMIT FOR 1 DIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Pere Rate &._ min per inch Protile Hole De in G
J feet
Septic tank capacity: oto DC gaNans Absorption area: _2_ I? ; sq, It,
7-0 i- 5"1,-eLl,'SS C`jG e., -y G/e 44jecii� -,?,La 46so1-rr1OjvQ/ev CGL -AJ 1) C
(—i,ves a�tid �rihe:^ f�u�..�s aft' do>3-lived /•tJ �i5rr�r[ ver %he /�/�iiv ��r
L��S /'e'�1114%%tlfuS_
An inspection is regalred prior to backfill of any component at the distribution system.
.: deposition
Case i
Dale
Design by Engineer Required ? ( ) Yes (y"tvo AN plans and specifications of the engineer must be followed. Any changes must be approved by the
AspeniPilkin Envirommntaf Health Depart nt in writing and the engineer must certity the final installation to the Envtrunmental Health Department in
writing, �� 7,&A7_ ��
Permit approval by: �J Date
Plans and sued6cations of the proposed individual sewage disposal system have been reviewed and are considered salisfactory. Permission is hereby granted to It's owner or
the agent to perform the work indicated in accordance with the Pilton County ISDS Regulation in erred at the time of issue. This permit becomes invalid ti marehs from the date
that the oefrrit was issued unless system construction has commenced or an extension has been approved tit writing try the Department
As -Built drawings must be included with this permit before the final approval will be issued,
Installer 13 11 '.-1
Receipt H Site Plan Well Permit and Soils Test
Date received ��T Floor Plan — neater Quality Test or /A' 70ate Into Complete
o{ Ruceived by � Commf��Dev Approval a-�`— Water System Letter 9 - t if -4 7 Fnal Insp Requested
Final Insaectlon ADoroval: __ _ vCL,t'�1 — Date;1 _.? �' `.�1_ AFrlmtaaa
Ma -d 06 02 02:15p p'6
40
ASPEN/PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ISDS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Permit #
Name Doug Paley Parcel ID # 2643 -292 -Ute
House Size 6076 (75 gpd, 100 gpd, or 130 gpd) 130
Number of Bedrooms, Lofts, Offices, Similar Rooms, Main House 7
Number of Bedrooms, Lofts, Offices, Similar Rooms, Caretaker unit
Average Daily Waste Flow 1050 # bedrooms X 2 people/br X 75
State Review Required? no
Perc Rate 14mpi (T)
Design Flo w (Q) = # bedrooms X 2 people/bedroom X gpd X 1.75
Q= 3185
Absorption Area (A= 0/5 X SORT)
A = 2383 sq. ft. of absorption area required
132 infiltrator units without reduction
A maximum 30% reduction is allowed for use of deep gravel or gravelless chambered system.
1668.1 sq.ft. with reduction
93 infiltrator units with reduction
Type of system: DAbsorption trenches DAbsorption bed fl Gravelless chambers
UDry well QSeepage Pit OPumping Chamber
Is an Engineer -Designed System required? no XX
yes reason:
Minimum tank capacity 3981.25 gallons
SETBACK FROM WELL
# of feet = 274.8
Remember: 8 feet of addition tl distance for each 100 gallons/day of design flow over 1,000 gallons/day
should be added unless an RPE can verity that it is not necessary to prevent contamination.
APPROVED FOR ISSUE 13Y:
DATE:
SYSTEM INSTALLED BY:
DATE OF FINAL INSPECTION REQUEST:
FINAL INSPECTION BY:
Printed on Recycled Paper
DATE:
May 06 02 02:15p
Ra le
p,4nCC / n rrq 5
J
2G y3- ,.Zqd - OC-ao�
aodo
2oaa
9ai
b-r>.X
0
p.5
r
1 2 row
`S k-^'
May 06 02 02:14p p'2
independence Western
Environmental & Slope
Services Tapping
Kelly J. Gesssle 970-927-4343 1970-963-9123 voice pager 970-94S-3150
PO BOX 464 Snowmass, CO 8154
July 12,1997
TO:Aspen-Pitkin County Environmental Health
RE:Brush Creek Metro District availability= 0/
1
Dear Karen:
P�Leyi
The Nancy and Doug Ra4yproperty at Deroste Sub./ Pioneer Springs Lot3-adjacent to the;
Brush Creek Village Subdivision, are requesting a building permit for a single family home.Ybur
Department has asked the District if we have the water capacity to serve the 6a4y—property.
Please consider this letter as acceptance to supply water to this lot.Presentlye District
—oplies 96 single family residences w/a possible buildout of 120 homes.
Thank You,
Kelly Gessele
BCMD Water Operator
927-4343
May 06 02 02:14p
)en / Pitkin Fnvironmental Health Department
Contact Log Sheet
p.3
Name:
Parcel ID#: 164" 3 -- 2,7Z —oe6, Address: L o7-
-'Date Person Spoken To Comments 1 Action to be Taken . `� Initials
10 s T�?: e G pias-
cr 14 &c,rCe
Q-rl �dr Q nii�YSf1Z tf� .�
O w
AW,�
ci
-
--
_I
aspen / Pitkin Environmental Health Depar `nt
�O✓ Contact Log Sheet `° 1
M
•510%
�,
-ri
Cg
�
I tam L - /
� L� •
r.__VP
-__
• _ moi. _- ` ��
� i
� I,
�_
J v -
.moi, „✓ �_�_ �_., �
/
-
-
_�
' ASPEN/PITTKIrN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ISDS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Permit #
Name Doug Paley Parcel ID # 2643-292-6)4U -
House Size 6076 (75 gpd, 100 gpd, or 130 gpd) 130
Number of Bedrooms, Lofts, Offices, Similar Rooms, Main House 7
Number of Bedrooms, Lofts, Offices, Similar Rooms, Caretaker unit
Average Daily Waste Flow 1050 # bedrooms X 2 people/br X 75
State Review Required? no
Perc Rate 14mpi (T)
Design Flo w (Q) _ # bedrooms X 2 people/bedroom X gpd X 1.75
Q= 3185
Absorption Area (A= Q/5 X SQRT)
A = 2383 sq. ft. of absorption area required
132 infiltrator units without reduction
A maximum 30% reduction is allowed for use of deep gravel or gravelless chambered system.
1668.1 sq.ft. with reduction
93 infiltrator units with reduction
Type of system: DAbsorption trenches DAbsorption bed [] Gravelless chambers
[]Dry well DSeepage Pit []Pumping Chamber
Is an Engineer -Designed System required? no XX
yes reason:
Minimum tank capacity 3981.25 gallons
SETBACK FROM WELL
# of feet = 274.8
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: 2. DATE:
SYSTEM INSTALLED BY:
DATE OF FINAL INSPECTION REQUEST:
FINAL INSPECTION BY:
Printed on Recycled Paper
DATE:
iir � T S
1 ,
•
•
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
CAW
JR
CONS'I'RU ION C X
LJ -1, -- _ - - --_ -- - - -
P.O. BOX 10688 ASPEN, CO 81612
(970) 923-2607
5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945-8454
Phone 970 945-7988
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN AND PERCOLATION TESTING
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOT 3, DROSTE/PIONEER SPRINGS RANCH,
NORTH OF BRUSH CREEK ROAD,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 196 624
JANUARY 16, 1997
PREPARED FOR:
DOUG AND NANCY PALEY
c/o THE TEYWIPE COMPANY
650 E. CRESCENT AVENUE
UPPER SADDLE RIVER, NEW JERSEY 07458
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
January 16, 1997
• Doug and Nancy Paley
c/o The Texwipe Company
650 E. Crescent Avenue
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 Job No. 196 624
Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation
Testing, Proposed Residence, Lot 3, Droste/Pioneer Springs Ranch,
North of Brush Creek Road, Pitkin County, Colorado
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Paley:
As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the
subject site.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed
building area consist of 1 to 1'/z feet of topsoil overlying very stiff sandy clay with
claystone rock fragments. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time
of drilling. Percolation testing was performed in shallow backhoe pits in the proposed
leachfield area.
Construction of the residence should be feasible based on geotechnical considerations.
The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural
subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf.
The report which follows describes our exploration, 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,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
Rev. By: SLP
DEH/kw
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ........................ . ...... 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .................................. 1
SITE CONDITIONS ......................................... 2
FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................... 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... 3
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ........................... 3
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................
4
FOUNDATIONS.......................................
4
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
..................... 5
FLOOR SLABS ........................................
6
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM .................................
6
SITEGRADING .......................................
7
SURFACE DRAINAGE..................................8
PERCOLATION TESTING ................................
8
LIMITATIONS.............................................
9
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 & 5 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE H - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
0
H -P GEOTECH
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
•
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be
I *
located on Lot 3, Droste/Pioneer Springs Ranch, Pitkin County, Colorado. The project
site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for
the foundation design and to provide percolation rates for the septic disposal design.
The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical
engineering services to Doug and Nancy Paley dated December 26, 1996. Additional
percolation testing was also performed.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to
obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during
the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification,
compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field
exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for
foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation.
Percolation testing was performed in the leach field area. This report summarizes the
data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations
and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction
and the subsoil conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
This study was performed as part of the client's due diligence for purchase of
the property. Design plans for the residence were incomplete. We assume the
proposed residence will be a two story wood frame structure over a walkout basement
level. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be
relatively minor with cut depths between about 6 to 10 feet. We assume relatively light
foundation loadings, typical of the assumed type of construction.
H -P GEOTECH
-2-
0 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 site was covered with '/a to 2 feet of snow at the time of our field work.
The building area slopes moderately to steeply down to the south at grades of 15% to
25 %. There is about 10 feet of elevation difference across the proposed building
footprint. Above the building area the lot slope steepens to about 50%. The site is
vegetated with grass, sage brush and scrub oak.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on January 2, 1997. Three
exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous
flight augers powered by a track -mounted CME -45 drill rig. The borings were logged
by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 2 inch I.D. spoon sampler. The
sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound
hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described
by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the
relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken
and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings,
Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer
and testing.
Percolation testing was performed on January 3, 1997 in shallow auger holes.
Due to low percolation rates, additional percolation testing was performed in shallow
0 backhoe pits on January 8, 1997.
H -P GEOTECH
C
I]"
-3-
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 to 1'/2 feet of topsoil overlying very stiff sandy
clay with claystone rock fragments from sand to boulder size.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included
natural moisture content, density and percent finer than sand size gradation analyses.
Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive
samples, presented on Figs. 4 & 5, indicate low to moderate compressibility under
conditions of loading and wetting. Two of the shallower samples showed a low
collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted and a deeper sample
showed a minor swell potential when wetted. The laboratory testing is summarized in
Table I.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when
checked the next day and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist.
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
Construction of a residence at the site should be feasible based on geotechnical
considerations. The subsoils at the site are suitable to support lightly loaded residential
construction typical of the area. The minor swell potential indicated in one of the
tested samples is, in our opinion, atypical of the general subsoil conditions and
minimum dead loads to resist expansive soil uplift on spread footings are not needed.
Parameters for design of foundation are given below.
H -P GEOTECH
•
FOUNDATIONS
M
M
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and
the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with
spread footings bearing on the natural subsoils below all topsoil.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
spread footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural clay soils should be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Based on
experience, we expect settlement/heave of footings designed and
constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
• with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost
protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior
grade is typically used in this area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least
12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be
designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation
and Retaining Walls" section of this report.
5) All existing topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed
and the footing bearing level extended down to the firm natural soils. If
water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered
before concrete placement.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
0
H -P GEOTECH
-5 -
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 55 pcf
for backfill consisting of the on-site fine-grained 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 fine-grained soils.
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
is imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided
to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in
pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 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
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 0.35.
Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be
H -P GEOTECH
calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 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 natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly
loaded slab -on -grade construction. There could be some settlement or heave if the clay
subgrade becomes wet. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor
slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints
which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used
to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and
® slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the
intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed
beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of
minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50 % retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2 %
passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 %
of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required
fill can consist of the on-site soils or imported granular material devoid of vegetation,
topsoil and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater may develop during
times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff
is can create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as
H -P GEOTECH
44,
L
-7-
retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and
hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdram system.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain
should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent
finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining
granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2 % passing the
No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of
2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1'/2 feet deep.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction induced slope instability at the site appears low
provided the building is located in the lower part of the building envelope as planned
and cut and fill depths are limited. We assume the cut depths for the basement level
will not exceed one level, about 10 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 to 10 feet
deep. Embankment 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.
H -P GEOTECH
-8 -
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and
maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 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.
Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the
on-site soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
PERCOLATION TESTING
Percolation testing was performed on January 3, 1997 in shallow 6 -inch
diameter borings that were drilled and soaked on January 2, 1997. The percolation test
results showed no percolation rate as the water level in the test holes remained constant
throughout the test. The test holes were insulated overnight and were not frozen.
Occasionally, percolation tests performed in auger holes where clay soils are present
can have very slow percolation rates due to smearing of the clay on the sides of the
auger holes.
We recommended to the client that additional testing be performed in hand dug
holes at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits. The pits were excavated on January 7,
1997. Hand dug test holes, 1 foot deep by 1 foot in diameter were excavated and
H -P GEorECH
-9 -
soaked with water the same day and covered with rigid insulation. Percolation testing
was performed on January 8, 1997. Ground temperatures in the percolation test holes
taken at the time of testing were about 32°F. The air temperature at the time of testing
was about 30°F. The temperature overnight was about 0°F. The test results are
presented on Table II. The test results ranged from 11 to 16 minutes per inch with an
average rate of about 14 minutes per inch.
The subsoil profile shown in the profile boring on Fig. 2 consists of 11/2 feet of
topsoil over sandy clay with shale fragments to the hole depth of 8 feet. The site
appears suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
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 proposed 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 different from those described in this
report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be
made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our 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
H -P GEOTECH
10 -
to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of
excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a
representative of the geotechnical engineer.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
\a��lUU1HIULry;/y{�
0 REGI.,
\, .•• •. �, Vii.
_ • y.
•24443
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. E
•
7%97
Reviewed By: ;4
/"o
'�i,, S/0 h4A' z •;� ``
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
• DEH/kw
cc: Cottle Graybeal Yaw, Architects - Attn: Doug Graybeal
Kaufman & Peterson - Attn: Brooke Peterson
•
H -P GEOTECH
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1"=50'
LEGENG:
• EXPLORATORY BORING.
0
■
1160
PERCOLATION TEST IN AUGER HOLE.
PERCOLATION TEST IN BACKHOE PIT.
� I
1160
1160�� ��� � �
1150
1150
` I
1140 1140 ���— �
11301130
— —f LOT 3 _ — ` `
_I 1120
11201-----�������
1110
I /
1110-------�� '�� 11100
I � �
IBORING 1 / I
0 / / 1090
_ � I
PROPOSED BORING 2 / i 11080
RESIDENCE '
I /
J � BUILDING �
_ ENVELOPE
1100
L
/ 1080
1090
P03 P(?■ P 'op 1
PROFILE BORING
®TP 2
® TP 3
LOT I
BOUNDARIES
TP 4
ACCESS EASEMENT
V-
196 62 HE - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
BORING 1 BORING
2
BORING 3
ELEV. = 1101' El
FV.
= 1094'
El FV. = 1083'
0
0
22/12
ol
ol 26/12 01
18/12
01
5
5
ol olWC
= 6.3
'01
DD = 113
ol
—200 = 32
ol
ol 25/12
10
01 29/12 ol
28/12
10
10
WC= 6.3
WC= 6.1
DD=126
DD -113
1
y
—200 = 47
Li
I
I
lo
C
28/12
38/12
15oe
0
0
0
15
WC = 7.5
DD=121 ol
ol
01
31/12 01
50/11
20
20
36/12
ol
25
25
oe
30
01
ol
30
35
35
Note: Explanation of symbols
is shown
on Fig. 3.
196 624
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
LOGS OF
EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig. 2
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; clay, sandy with claystone fragments, organic, roots, soft, moist,(upper part frozen)
dark brown.
CLAY (CL); sandy with claystone fragments from sand to boulder size, very stiff,slightly
moist, gray—brown.
�j Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch I.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 26 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were
26/12 required to drive the California sampler 12 inches.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on January 2, 1997 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power 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 based on contours shown on the site plan and
checked by instrument level. Boring logs are drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered 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.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked the following day.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % )
DD = Dry Density ( pcf )
—200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve.
196 6241 HE WO HNIGALA, �iNC LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
M
4
5
T
c
o_
Cl) 0
c
0
o_
X
W
1 1
c
0
Cn
2
n.
E
0
U
Moisture Content = 6.3 percent
Dry Density = 126 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Clay with Shale
Fragments
From: Boring 1 at 9 Feet
Compression
upon
wetting
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
Expansion
upon
wetting
Moisture Content = 7.5 percent
Dry Density = 121 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Clay with Shale
Fragments
From: Boring 1 at 14 Feet
0.1 1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
196 624THEPWORTH — PAWLAK SWELL — CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
100
Fig. 4
M
x 2
C
0
n.
E
0 4
5
M
Moisture Content = 6.3 percent
Dry Density = 113 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Clay with Shale
Fragments
From: Boring 2 at 4 Feet
Compression
upon
wetting
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
Cm
x 1
C
0
a 2
CL
E
0
0 3
Moisture Content = 6.1 percent
Dry Density = 113 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Clay with Shale
Fragments
From: Boring 2 at 9 Feet
No movement
upon
wetting
0.1 1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
196 624 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK SWELL — CONSOLIDATION RESULTS
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
100
Fig. 5
•N
m
Q
i
U
Z
(n
F—
J
J
D
a
w
U_
o�
Z
_
(n
U
W
LU
0_
ccW
0
LLI
J Q
c
L
CD
Q 0
J
~ m
m
L
Q
Q
aLL
1
0
O
Q
CL
LU
D
2
0
m
Qi
ai
Qi
c
L
L
cc
L
m
L
U)
V)
(1)
W
L
L
L
L
h m
� iN+
c
m
C
C
cV
cmC
J LL
V) LL
V J LL
V) LL
W
W7 _
Z 7A r
z W Z LL
a 2 a
U � r
z O N
� U
U X
r
Fy-
Q O o
c7
W
C
W
G
� r
W N >
N
w a o y
M
a a z
o_
Z;
Q
H
2
O
Q
O
Q
(�
J
W
a
M
M
O e N U
z g
N
N
r
r
a o
z O
W r
5 7 w—
N
M
M
M
r"
Q O O
z U
O
�
U
W
Q
c—
O
a
�
c�
z
N
�
CLI
•
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
JOB NO. 196 624
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
(MINJINCH)
TP -1
491/2
15
water added
water added
10
2
8
14
6'/4
43/4
2'/2
9'/4
7'/2
13/4
71,12
63/4
3/4
63/4
5'/2
1 '/4
5'/2
4
1 1/2
4
3'/2
/2
TP -2
50
15
water added
12'/4
6'/2
5'/4
16
6'/2
4'/4
2'/4
8
7
1
7
'
//4
6
3/4
6'/4
5
1
5
4'/4
3/4
4'/4
3'/2
'/4
TP -3
493/4
15
water added
73/4
1 '/2
61/4
13
7'/4
43/4
2'/2
43/4
3'/4
1 '/2
31/4
1 '/4
1 '/2
1 3/4
1 '/4
1/2
TP -4
47'/4
15
water added
10'/4
2
8'/4
41/2
1'/4
1 '/4
'h 1 1
9'/4
51/4
51/4
31/2
3'/2
1 '/4
13 4
1 '/4
NOTE: Pits were excavated and percolation holes dug and soaked on January 7, 1997. Percolation tests were performed on
January 8, 1997.