HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.eh.264315400009 (2013)1TKiIC
TSoU
ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (OWTS)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
76 Service Center Rd- Aspen, CO - 81611
Phone: 970.920.5070 Fax: 970.920.5374
Permit #: 0021.2013 POWT Parcel ID #:
2643-154-00-009
Permit Issued: ®NEW CDU ❑REPAIR ❑REMODEL/ADDITION []TANK ONLY ❑FIELD ONLY ❑AMENDMENT
Owner(s): MAM Aspen A K& 5
Property Address: TBD Woody Creek Rd 525 p=i �2Sq
Legal Description: Parcel 7 Craig Ranch
Size of Lot: 83.3
Size of Building: 7500 ft'
Acres
Sq. Ft.
Detached Accessory Unit
Size of Accessory Unit: _
This system is des'gned to serve 8 bedrooms.
Designed By: SGM
Phone #: 970-384-9052
Fax #: 970-945-5948
Project #.-
Permit
:
®YES ❑NO
Sq. Ft.
2012-371.002 Dated: 6/3/13
Mailing Address: 118W6 th Ave #200 Glenwood Springs, CO
Email Address:
Perc Rate: Sand .95 LTAR Profile Hole Depth
Depth to Groundwater or Bedrock
Minimum Tank Capacity: 3000 gallons Minimum Absorption Area: 2020 ft'
Permit Conditions:
This OWTS Construction Permit is approved on the condition of compliance with the engineer design as submitted with the application and the specifications
cited above. Changes must be approved by this Department and the engineer prior to construction.
This system will consist of 3-1500 gallon single compartment tanks in series with a 3 Advantex AX20 units for secondary
treatment. After treatment the effluent will flow into a 500 gallon pump tank with an 18" Biotube pump which will dose to an
Automatic Distributing Valve which must be accessible from grade. The ADV must be at the high point of the system and will
pressure dose 4 separate mound areas. Each mound will be 505 ft2 , A, B, and C mounds will be 12'x42' and D will be
18'x28'. A minimum 2.5' of sand will be a bottom of each mound, the bottom and edges of the excavation must be scarified.
The 1.25" laterals will have have 5/32" holes at 1' intervals, with 3' separation between laterals and 1.5' of space between the
edge of the mound and the last lateral. Flushing assemblies will be at the end of each lateral and must be accessible from
grade. A minimum setback of 162' from the absorption area to the irrigation ditch and 212' to any well.
This Permit must be kept on-site during installation. The engineer must do a final inspection of the installation and submit an "as -built" letter to this
Department within 30 days of the final inspection, unless a longer period of time has been agreed upon, in writing. This Department must also be called for
the final inspection with a minimum of 48 hours notice.
Minimum horizontal distances between components of the system and physical features shall conform to the requirements of the Pitkin County OWTS
Regulation.
This Permit is conditioned upon the property owner(s) providing for regular inspection, cleaning, and maintenance of the system by qualified personnel, in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and the requirements of the Pitkin County OWTS Regulation. Issuance of this OWTS Construction
Permit does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or representation by the Department that the system will operate properly or will not fail. Issuance of this
permit does not imply compliance with Pitkin County building and/or land use regulations, nor guarantee issuance of building and/or land use permits.
THIS PERMIT IS EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED UPON COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PITKIN
COUNTY OWTS REGULATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED ABOVE.
Plans and specifications for the proposed OWTS have been reviewed and are considered satisfactory. Permission is hereby
given to the property owner(s) to perform the work indicated in accordance with the Pitkin County OWTS Regulation. This
Permit will expire 1 year from the date of issuance unless construction on the system has commenced. An "as -built" drawing
must be submitted and approved by EH before final approval of the system will be issued.
Issued By: &,Jr� Oe L I ` Date:: I Expires: r+a
Installer: License #: % -
Reactivation Authorized by:
Final Approval Issued By:. -Date: � e
New Expiration Date: Fee Rad
Jul 01 13
Parcel lD# {available from the Pitkin County Assessor's Office
970-920-5160 or at ,.w pitki.nossessor.oro): '2, / 15 L/ - d Q OO 0i
Purpose of Permit: I
[S NEW Q REPAIR DUE TO "FAILURE ❑ REMODELIADDT710N ❑ TANK ONLY ❑ FIELD ONLY
Cost of System Repair or RemOdellAdCdlon faparoximate?: 530000
Property Address- TBD, PARCEL ID 7-16431,541100009
Lot PARCEL 7 Hloca: Filing: Subdivision: CRAIG RANCH
Properly Owners)*:`tAM ASPEN LLC Email Address:
man hams t2,a: yah oo. co m
Owner's Maiiing Address: 600 WASHINGTON AVE. City, State, Zip: GLENCOE, fL 60022
Home Phone' 847-81)4171 Business Phone:
`Cc'ntaCt rrf0J;-M1,b r anus; u*e Prcvrded for fhe owner signing this appircal".
Primary Contac: PerscnfApp4canl (if not owner):
OWNER
Company
*+1 " 9
Conta:VApplicant Ma ling Address: I
iD00 vw of -w
City, Stale, Tip:
Avz b t e rj GO e JL-� �ZZ
L
Cell P.tone
q111+- ZSR-�i�-f
q`'I+-
Business Phone:
Fax Number:
�- -Li 8cLi
Email Address:
✓ ).�v�f
Building Permit # (if applirabie):
r
TBD
Lot Size In acres): 83.3 ACRES
Size of Building tscuwe feet):
7,500
Number of Potentia) B, ---rooms $
Detached Accessory Unit? El YES NO
Size of Accessory Unit (square feet)
NA
Number of Potential Bedreoms In or Fixture Llst lot the Accessory Urns
NA
'.N'a;er Source: _
a
I-- Ell LJ SURFACE WATER
❑SPRING QCOMMUNfTY;PUBLICWATER SYSTEM
Name of Corr muni,y/Public Water System (If applicable):
NA
Erglneering Firm: SGM Jab Number: Phone Number: Fax Number.
201:-371.002 470-364-9052 9;0-945-5948
Mailing Address: 1 IES W 6TH AVE. 41,00 Cdy. State. Zip G1-ENW0ODSPRINGS,C081601
PLEASE READ BEFORE SIGNING:
I certify that the above information Is complete and accurate and that 1 have provided complete and accurate information in all of the documents
included in myapplicatlon package- i acknowledge that EH/NR may revoke any permit I am Issued if my application is found to contain any
Inaccurate, false, or misleading information, i understand that no construction may be undertaken on an OWTS until an OWTS Construction Permit
is issued.
Owner Signalure (Ret )red): C'31
tAAA—
Appllcarl Signature: Dat '
6 G
butt vrrlC,t U5E �'7NLY
j RP:.eived ey EN,HR Start Fee & Receipt #: Date:
OWTS DESIGN CALCULATIONS - for Pitkin
USING LTAR
Owner's Name Parcel ID #
House Size (sq. ft.) �iV� (75 gpd or 100 gpd)
Number of Bedrooms in Main House
Number of Offices, Libraries, Studies, Similar -sized Rooms in Main House
Number of Bedrooms in Detached Caretaker unit
Number of Offices, Studies, Similar -sized Rooms in Caretaker Unit
(If the caretaker unit is ATTACHED, treat as if part of main house.)
Average Daily Waste Flow 1600
State Review Required? no
LTAR (T)
Design Flow (Q) = # potential bedrooms X 2 people/bedroom X gpd X 1.5
Q= 2400
Minimum tank capacity 3000 gallons
Absorption Area (=B20 X 1.0/B17) A = Q x 1.0 loading/LTAR
A = 2,526 sq. ft. of absorption area required
Absorption Ayea (—Q/5 X SQRT pere rate) WITH SECQNDAPY TREATMENT (no leading faEter)
A= 3LU4 t4. ft. of absorption area required
Abs. Area w/ loading factor (B25)
Trench
Bed
Quick4 Trench
Pipe and Gravel
2274
2526
230
Dosing
1
2021
205
Chambers
1768
2274
179
Max Allowable
1263
1768
128
Secondary Treatment
Abs Area w/ out loading factor (B28)
Trench
Bed
Pipe and Gravel
2274
2526
230
Dosing
2021
2021
205
Chambers
1768
2274
179
Max Allowable
1263
1768
128
212
SETBACK FROM WELL
# of feet =
162
SETBACK FROM POND, STREAM OR IRRIGATION DITCH
# of feet =
137
SETBACK FROM DRY GULCH
# of feet =
Quick4 Bed
256
205
230
179
256
205
230
179
!BSGM
www.sgm-inc.com
December 11, 2015
PITKIN COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: OWTS Certification Letter
525 Paradise Mesa Lane
Pitkin County CO, 81611
Parcel ID #2643-154-00-009, OWTS Permit 0021.2013.POWT
The intent of this letter is to provide adequate information that the installation of the OWTS
improvements for the residence at 525 Paradise Mesa Lane were completed pursuant to Pitkin
County OWTS Construction Permit 0021.2013.POWT and the approved design prepared by SGM.
SGM conducted a site visit at 2 pm on 07/1/2014 to observe the installation of the OWTS system.
Pitkin County Environmental Health staff was also present at this observation. The OWTS
construction was underway and components all were observed to be installed per plan. SGM
continued to coordinate closely with the contractor during the OWTS construction process. The
final as built layout for the new OWTS is shown on the attached as built drawing and is within
established setbacks. All OWTS components and associated site improvements have generally
been installed per plan and adjusted as necessary to fit field conditions. The as built field data was
collected and provided by Sopris Engineering ON 12-7-15.
Prior to beginning construction SGM reviewed and approved a submittal provided by the general
contractor for the OWTS components. The system was installed under the supervision of the permit
holder by a licensed OWTS installer and will be operated by a licensed OWTS Operation and
Maintenance Company. The general contractor, OWTS installer, and OWTS operation and
Maintenance Company have tested the system and the system is currently operating as designed.
Please feel free to contact me if I may provide further information or provide you with copies of any
of the photographs that were taken during the site visits by SGM for Pitkin County records.
Andrew Rapiejko, PE 40308
For and on Behalf of SGM Inc.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 970.945.1004
fn f paN N
�L
���48�
����$��8
8
� �"��e a
.�
3
�� -`�
����
� a
g "rf
s 1 I
S
..............
s 1 I
S
..............
:w+lTTx_n.f.lo.
My Amos - or s.'rr�
NCL
Q
Q
w,
3 Qg>
CD
5=n
zx<$
as
ash
q =`
m
° 2
IF
Q
O
sa
CD
_
o
I
I
t l It I l
t
A
• y
^`
CD
�
II
RZ
II C
2 0
t✓titi yA a � yE
o a a
o cn
•
V
P. 2t�tmnn
3
G.
�a
,gym bZ w m
�ti a�
_
16 l?
A O4
y
n
A
�N
3
a
4
3
4 �
�
D
n
II
A
r
O
�
'
i'
:
N
U
qq
w
4
v 1
O
W
SSGM
www.sgm-inc.com
June 10, 2013
MAM Aspen, LLC
600 Washington Ave.
Glencoe, IL, 6122
SUBJECT: Pitkin County Parcel ID # 264315400009
MAM Ranch OWTS Design Letter
SGM Job No. 2012-371.002
As requested, SGM has prepared an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) design
for the subject site. The design was prepared for an OWTS construction permit submittal to
Pitkin County Environmental Health Department.
SITE CONDITIONS
The MAM Ranch is located at Craig Ranch, Parcel 7 in Pitkin County. The property sits on
top of a hill at approximately 8000 feet in elevation. The existing vegetation consists
primarily of native grasses, oak brush, aspen trees, and cottonwood groves lining ditches
and irrigation facilities.
The site generally slopes to the west and holds snow through the winter months. The site is
generally exposed to a great deal of sun and wind as it sits along a ridge line rather than in a
valley bottom.
There are also many setback restraints associated with this site that has led to the system
design. These include an onsite well, steep slopes, the Salvation Ditch, the Paradise Ditch,
local irrigation ditches, and a proposed pond facility.
OWTS CALCULATIONS
The residence will act primarily as a vacation home only being occupied on a part time
basis. The residence is designed to have 8 bedrooms. Bedroom numbers will be used as
the design criteria for the systems. Due to the square footage of the house being over 6000
square feet, one hundred gallons a day per person will be used instead of seventy five
gallons a clay per person. The average wastewater flow calculations for the house are as
follows:
Two people per bedroom, at one hundred gallons per day per person, for a total of
two hundred gallons per day per bedroom, with 8 bedrooms gives an average daily
waste flow of 800 gallons per day. Applying a 1.5 loading factor yields a design flow
of 2400 gallons per day. Due to the slow percolation rates of the native soils, a sand
filter mound system will be used as the absorption bed, minimum area required is
2526 sq. ft. found by a loading rate of 0.95gal./sq.ft./day. A Pitkin County OWTS
calculation sheet is attached.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suitta 200 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 970.945.1004
L-1
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
0
GSGM
www.sgm-inc.com
The geotechnical investigation and soil testing for the site was completed by CTL
Thompson in October of 2012 (Project NO. GS05691-125). Percolation rates have been
determined to be 240 MPI. Subsurface conditions found throughout the site consisted of a
layer of topsoil underlain by clayey sand which is underlain by clay. Groundwater was not
encountered during the geotechnical boring and soil testing procedures, although moisture
content generally increased with depth.
Throughout the project planning process, the site plan was revised and the OWTS system is
located in an area where drilling and soil testing did not take place. The site consists of a
homogeneous soil structure and conditions are anticipated to be similar to the other areas
where subsurface investigation was completed.
During construction, the soil structure at the proposed absorption bed location shall be
exposed and inspected for consistency with the assumed subsurface conditions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are the recommendations for the OWTS as shown in the design of each
system. The septic tanks, advanced treatment, and absorption bed are designed to be
located west of the main residence, between setbacks from local irrigation ditches and
pipes. In general, the native soil will act as a natural barrier between the adjacent ditch
facilities and the 50' required setback will be met.
Because of the slow percolation rates, secondary or advanced treatment is recommended in
order to reduce the potential of a biomat forming in the pressurized sand mound system,
limiting the amount of treatment being provided in the soil structure of the absorption bed.
Sewage from the residence will flow to a series of septic tanks where it will be pumped to an
Advantex treatment system through a recirculating splitter valve, through the septic tanks,
eventually to pump and automatic distributing valve which will dose a sand filter type
absorption field.
Building Sewer: Sewer pipes shall be 4 -inch C900 DR 14 PVC pipe installed with a
minimum slope of 2% to the septic tank. Cleanouts are required at the stub out from the
building within 5 -feet of the face of the structure, and as called out on plans. Bends in the
sewer pipe are not to exceed 45 degrees. The pipe should be properly bedded per the
typical trench detail presented on the design drawings.
Absorption Beds: Because of the slow perc rates, traditional bed and trench sizes are not
feasible for this site. 4 sand filter type absorption beds are planned with the project, in
addition to the advanced treatment system described below. Sewage will be dosed to each
bed based on demand. The beds will be 12" of gravel underlain by 2.5' of sand, underlain
by undisturbed native material. The cover material shall be separated from the gravel bed
using a geotextile fabric and consist of uncompacted Class 6 road base and shall not be
native soil. Using native solid would cap the bed and eliminate any benefits of
evapotranspiration. The beds shall be covered be a maximum of 2' of material.
Septic Tanks: The septic tank will consist of three 1500 gallon tanks and one 500 gallon
tank, Each of the 1500 gallon tank will be single compartment but may be two-compartment.
Pump Selection for a Pressurized System - Single Family Residence Project
MAM RANCH LLC / CRAIG RANCH PARCEL 7
Parameters
Discharge Assembly Size
1.25
inches
Transport Length Before Valve
30
feet
Transport Pipe Class
40
gpm
Transport Line Size
1.25
inches
Distributing Valve Model
6404
Transport Velocity Before Valve
Transport Length After Valve
30
feet
Transport Pipe Class
40
Frictional Head Losses
Transpprt Pipe Size
1.25
inches
Max Elevation Lift
5
feet
Manifold Length
9
feet
Manifold Pipe Class
40
Loss in Transport after Valve
Manifold Pipe Size
1.25
inches
Number of Laterals per Cell
4
Loss in Laterals
Lateral Length
36
feet
Lateral Pipe Class
40
'Add-on' Friction Losses
Lateral Pipe Size
1.25
inches
Orifice Size
5/32
inches
Orifice Spacing
1
feet
Residual Head
5
feet
Flow Meter
None
inches
'Add-on' Friction Losses
0
feet
Calculations
Minimum Flow Rate per Orifice
0.68
gpm
Number of Orifices perZone
37
Vol of Manifold
Total Flow Rate per Zone
25.7
gpm
Number of Laterals per Zone
1
Total Vol Before Valve
% Flow Differential 1st/Last Orifice 9.7
%
Transport Velocity Before Valve
5.5
fps
Transport Velocity After Valve
5.5
fps
Frictional Head Losses
gpm
Total Dynamic Head
Loss through Discharge
4.6
feet
Loss in Transport Before Valve
2.5
feet
Loss through Valve
5.7
feet
Loss in Transport after Valve
2.5
feet
Loss in Manifold
0.2
feet
Loss in Laterals
1.1
feet
Loss through Flowmeter
0.0
feet
'Add-on' Friction Losses
0.0
feet
Pioe Volumes
Vol of Transport Line Before Valve 2.3
gals
Vol of Transport Line After Valve
2.3
gals
Vol of Manifold
0.7
gals
Vol of Laterals per Zone
2.8
gals
Total Vol Before Valve
2.3
gals
Total Vol Alta Valve
5.8
gals
Minimum Pump Requirements
Design Flow Rate
25.7
gpm
Total Dynamic Head
26.6
feet
Orono SystemN
Incorporated
(7.W.x dA itch
W'.Ufj— au -.."
cm
250
/eej
a�
d
LL_
2
H
M
ro
i 150
U_
E
to
C
T
0
F
100
50
00
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Net Discharge (gpm)
Pump Data
PF3005 High Head Effluent Pump
30 GPM, 1/2HP
115/230V 10 60Hz, 200V 30 60Hz
icy cr.0
System Curve:
Pump Curve:
Pump Optimal Range
Operating Point
Design Point
:1
CTLITHOMPSON
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
METZ RESIDENCE
CRAIG RANCH, PARCEL 7
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared For:
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE
894 Green Bay Road, #8
Winnetka, IL 60093
Attention: Ms. Celeste Robbins
Project No. GS05691-125
October 9, 2012
234 Center Drive I Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Telephone: 970-945-2809 Fax: 970-945-7411
C
C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE............................................................................................................................................1
SITECONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................1
PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION...................................................................................................... 2
SUBSURFACECONDITIONS........................................................................................................ 2
SITEGEOLOGY.............................................................................................................................. 4
GEOLOGICHAZARDS................................................................................................................... 4
SITEEARTHWORK........................................................................................................................6
Excavations................................................................................................................................
6
ExcavationRetainage................................................................................................................6
Backfilled Foundation Wall.....................................................................................................16
GroundWater.............................................................................................................................
8
SiteGrading Fill..........................................................................................................................
9
Foundation Wall Backfill........................................................................................................... 9
StructuralFill............................................................................................................................
10
PONDS..........................................................................................................................................11
PermanentSlopes.................................................................................................................... 11
Swell/Shrinkage Factors.......................................................................................................... 11
Embankments........................................................................................................................... 12
PondLiner................................................................................................................................. 12
PondOutfalls............................................................................................................................ 12
FOUNDATIONS............................................................................................................................. 12
DrilledPiers.............................................................................................................................. 13
FootingFoundations............................................................................................................... 14
LOWER LEVEL FLOORS.............................................................................................................15
EXTERIORFLATWORK...............................................................................................................
15
FOUNDATION WALLS.................................................................................................................16
Backfilled Foundation Wall.....................................................................................................16
Permanent Excavation Retention and Backfilled Foundation Wall ....................................
17
SUBSURFACEDRAINAGE..........................................................................................................
17
PoolDrain.................................................................................................................................
18
SURFACE DRAINAGE..................................................................................................................18
EARTH RETAINING WALLS........................................................................................................
19
MSEStructures.........................................................................................................................
19
ReinforcedConcrete Walls.....................................................................................................
20
CONCRETE...................................................................................................................................
20
PERCOLATION TESTING............................................................................................................
21
FINAL DESIGN CONSULTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ...........................
21
GEOTECHNICALRISK.................................................................................................................
22
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.................................................................................................
22
LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................
23
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.000\125\2. Reperls\GS05691 120 R1.doc
mug
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 - LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURES 3 AND 4 - SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 5 - CONCEPTUAL EAST -WEST SECTION
FIGURES 6 - INTERIOR FOUNDATION WALL DRAIN
FIGURE 7 - EXTERIOR FOUNDATION WALL DRAIN
FIGURE 8 - RECOMMENDED POOL DRAIN DETAIL
FIGURE q - TYPICAL EARTH RETAINING WALL DRAIN
APPENDIX A- LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX B - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691.125
S:\GS05691.000\125\2. ReportMGS05691 120 Rt.doc
SCOPE
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the Metz
Residence on Parcel 7 of Craig Ranch in Pitkin County, Colorado. We conducted the
investigation to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed construction. Our report was prepared from data
developed during our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and
our experience with similar conditions. This report includes a description of the
subsurface conditions found in our exploratory borings and presents our opinions
and recommendations for design criteria for recommended foundations, floor
systems„ retaining walls, subsurface drainage and geotechnical and construction
criteria for details influenced by the subsoils. The recommendations contained in this
report were developed based on the currently planned construction. If plans will
differ significantly from the descriptions contained herein, we should be informed so
that we can check that our recommendations and design criteria remain appropriate.
SITE CONDITIONS
The Metz Residence, barn, and tennis court are planned on the northern
portion of Parcel 7 of Craig Ranch in Pitkin County, Colorado. The parcel is accessed
by a gravel road off of Woody Creek Road. A vicinity map is shown on Figure 1. The
parcel is located on a west facing slope with grades of between about 10 percent at
the residence up to about 20 percent east of the residence. Slopes become more
gradual to the north and west and are about 5 percent in the areas of the planned barn
and tennis court.
A ditch that was flowing at the time of our site visit is located up slope of the
planned residence. Another flowing ditch crosses the site below the planned
residence above the planned tennis court. The residence and tennis court are
planned in open fields that appear to have been flood irrigated. The area of the
planned barn appears to have received less irrigation. Groves of Aspen trees are
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
S:\GS05691.000\125\2. Reports\GS05691 120 Rt.doc
present in areas of the parcel. The driveway crosses a small ravine north of the
residence. The pond is planned about 500 feet south of the residence.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We were provided with a site plan and schematic design plans by Robbins
Architecture dated August 24, 2012 and a cross-section dated September 7, 2012. The
site plan is shown on Figure 2. A new residence, barn, tennis court and pond are
planned. We understand the main level floor is planned at elevations of 7719 and
7716 feet. Living area floors are planned as structurally supported with a crawl space
below the floor. A pool and hot tub are planned. A barn is planned to the north of the
residence. A pond is planned about 400 feet south of the residence. The pond is
planned with a depth of about 8 feet. We expect an embankment will not be
constructed. A tennis court is planned northwest of the residence. A small bridge or
culvert may be constructed where the access drive crosses the ravine. We can
provide recommendations for the culvert or bridge and access drive pavements, if
requested. Additional investigation may be appropriate.
The section provided shows maximum foundation excavation depths will be
about 17.5 feet. Site retaining walls are planned up and down slope of the residence.
Foundation loads are expected to vary between 1,000 and 3,000 pounds per linear
foot of foundation wall with maximum interior column loads of about 30 kips.
Construction of the barn and tennis court may require fill placement of up to 5 feet in
some areas. If construction will differ significantly from the descriptions above, we
should be informed so that we can adjust our recommendations and design criteria, if
necessary.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
To investigate subsurface conditions we directed the drilling of nine
exploratory borings (TH-1 through TH-9), two profile borings and six percolation
holes. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. TH-1
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 2
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691.125
S:\GS05691.000\125\2. Reports\G$05691 120 Rt.doc
through TH-5 were located at the planned residence. TH-6 was located at the location
of the planned tennis court. TH-7 and TH-8 were located in the area of the planned
pond. TH-9 was located at the planned barn. Profile 1 and percolation test holes P-1
through P-3 were in the planned percolation field north of the residence. Profile 2 and
P-4 through P-6 were in planned percolation field south of the barn. Drilling
operations were directed by our laboratory/field manager who logged the soils
encountered in the borings and obtained samples. Samples obtained in the field were
returned to our laboratory where field classifications were checked and typical
samples were selected for laboratory testing. Graphic logs of the soils encountered in
our exploratory borings are shown on Figures 3 and 4.
Subsurface conditions found in the areas of the residence, pond and tennis
court consisted of 6 inches of clay "topsoil" over nil to about 2.5 feet of clayey sand
underlain by clay. In the area of the barn, subsurface conditions consisted of about 6
inches of clay "topsoil" over clay to a depth of about 14 feet underlain by silty gravel
with cobbles and boulders. Our observations during drilling and results of
penetration resistance testing indicate the silty gravel was very dense, the clayey
sands were medium dense, and the clay was medium stiff to very stiff.
dwat eras not encou in our borings at the time of drilling
was piped to allow future c ec cs for ground water. Ground water was not present in
TH-2 when checked the day after drilling and when checked 15 days after drilling.
Moisture content of the clay generally increased with depth. The irrigation ditch
above the planned residence was flowing at the time of our ground water checks.
Ground water may rise during snowmelt.
Samples obtained in the field were returned to our laboratory where field
classifications were checked and typical samples selected for laboratory testing.
Seven samples of the clay were selected for one dimensional swell consolidation
testing. The samples were wetted under an applied load of 200, 500 or 1,000 psf and
the resulting volume change measured. Clay samples from borings in the area of the
residence exhibited 4.2 percent compression to 3.1 percent swell. A sample of the
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 3
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.000\125\2. Reports\GS05691 120 R1.doc
clay from boring TH-9 in the area of the barn exhibited 5.9 percent swell. These
results indicate the clay soils have the potential for moderate compression and
moderate swell. Samples of the clay contained 77 to 90 percent silt and clay sized
particles (passing the No. 200 sieve) and exhibited liquid limits of 28 to 40 and
plasticity indices of 12 to 22. Unconfined compression tests of two samples of the
clay for unconfined compressive strength gave results of 1,200 and 10,000 psf.
Laboratory test results are included in Appendix A.
SITE GEOLOGY
We evaluated the geology of the site using geologic maps (Geologic Map of the
Ruedi Quadrangle, Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado by Freeman, 1972). We
interpret the surficial soils of the site as alluvial fan deposits over gravel deposits of
glaciofluvial origin. We did not encounter bedrock in our borings. Mapping indicates
bedrock below the gravel is likely Mancos Shale. The subsurface conditions
observed in our borings are consistent with the mapping we reviewed.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Colorado is a challenging location to practice geotechnical engineering. The
climate is relatively dry and the near -surface soils are typically dry and relatively stiff.
These soils and related sedimentary bedrock formations tend to react to changes in
moisture conditions. Some of the soils swell as they increase in moisture and are
called expansive soils. Other soils can settle significantly upon wetting and are
referred to as collapsing soils. The soils that exhibit collapse potential are more
common west of the continental divide; however, both types of soils occur all over
the state.
li appears that portions of this site have been flood irrigated. Covering the
ground with houses, streets, driveways, patios, etc., coupled with lawn irrigation and
changing drainage patterns, leads to changes in subsurface moisture conditions.
Flood irrigation can result in soil moisture that varies significantly over short
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 4
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
S:\GS05691.000\125\2. Reports\GS05691 120 R1.doc
k
Li
distances. As a result, some additional wetting and soil movement is inevitable. It is
critical that all recommendations in this report are followed to increase the chances
that the foundations and slabs -on -grade will perform satisfactorily. After construction,
owners must assume responsibility for maintaining the structure and use appropriate
practices regarding drainage and landscaping.
Our interpretation of the site geology is that the surficial soils on the lot
consist of alluvial fan deposits. Alluvial fan deposits can have potential for
compression or collapse upon wetting. Some increase in subsurface moisture must
be assumed due to the effects of site development. We compared moisture content
and dry density verses collapse potential based on a rating system described in
"Engineering Geology 14, Collapsible Soils in Colorado" (see Figure A-8). Based on
the rating system, the majority of soils exhibit low collapse potential. Variability
exists and one sample indicated moderate to high collapse potential. Samples tested
in our laboratory exhibited moderate collapse to moderate to high swell when wetted.
Based on our experience in the area, laboratory testing and published data, we
consider the clay soils at this site to have a moderate collapse potential as well as
moderate swell potential. Engineered design of foundations, slabs -on -grade,
pavements and surface drainage can mitigate, but not eliminate potential affects of
collapse -prone and expansive soils.
We did not observe obvious visual evidence of sinkhole/subsidence
formations in the immediate area surrounding the lot; however, there is some risk of a
small sinkhole formation or collapse of the soils due to wetting after construction.
We judge that other geologic hazards, such as debris flow and avalanche will not
affect the site.
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
S:\GS05691.000\125\2. Reports\GS05691 120 R1.dot
0 0
SITE EARTHWORK
Excavations
Cross-sections of the planned excavation show depths of 17.5 feet below
existing grade at the uphill side of the residence. Excavations for the barn and tennis
court will likely be less than 5 feet. Excavations for the pond may be 8 feet. Our
borings indicate that clay occurs at planned excavation depths. Excavation can be
accomplished using conventional, heavy-duty excavation equipment. Sides of
excavations need to be sloped or braced to meet local, state and federal safety
regulations. We expect the clay will classify as a Type B based on OSHA standards
governing excavations. Temporary slopes should be no steeper than 1 to 1
(horizontal to vertical) in Type B soils. Contractors are responsible for proper site
excavation and the maintenance and safety of the excavations and overall site safety.
The cross-section provided to us indicates a maximum excavation depth of
17.5 feet along the east foundation wall. It may be advantageous to use a soil nail
earth retention system for foundation walls in this area. Laid back excavation slopes
will likely require a large volume of soil removal and disturbance area. An excavation
retention system that utilize helical piers is an option. Excavation retention systems
can be designed as temporary or permanent.
Excavation Retainage
Earth pressures used for design of retention systems are a function of wall
deformation. The deformation is a function of many factors, including soil shear
strength, type of earth retention system installed and stiffness of the shoring facing.
Common retention systems include soil nailed walls, post -tensioned soil anchors
with soldier -beams and lagging or cantilevered systems consisting of drilled shafts or
micropiles (no nails or anchors). Cantilevered sections using drilled shafts are
practical to about 23 to 25 feet deep. Cantilevered micropiles with a cap beam are
normally limited to less than 15 feet tall.
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 6
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
S:\GS05691.000\12512. Reports\GS05691 120 R1.doc
I..
A soil nail retention system may be used for portions of the excavation. Some
movement and deflection inward towards the excavation is necessary to mobilize the
soil nails. Vertical deformation also occurs during installation of tall soil nail walls. We
anticipate that long term deflections of soil nailed walls will be about 1 percent of the
wall height. Our experience is that the maximum horizontal deflection of a soil nailed
excavation will be near the top of the wall. Vertical and horizontal displacement is
typically similar.
Soil nail walls are normally designed using conventional methods and
procedures such as those presented in "Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7, Soil
Nail Walls, FHWAO-IF-03-017' or "Manual for Design and Construction Monitoring of
Soil Nail Walls, FHWA-SA-96-069" (revised 1998) and computer modeling. Anchored
walls are normally designed using conventional methods such as the procedures
presented in "Design Manual for Permanent Ground Anchor Walls FHWA-RD-97-130"
or similar documents and computer modeling. Walls can be designed strictly to
support lateral loads or they can support both earth loads and building loads. If the
walls support both building and earth loads, the analysis is complex and requires
interaction between the earth retention design engineer, the earth retention contractor
and the building structural engineer. Shoring systems are normally designed based
on apparent earth pressure diagrams. CTL I Thompson, Inc. can provide design of
earth retention systems from our Glenwood Springs office.
Drainage of the retention systems is assumed. Seepage may occur during
spring melt and runoff periods. It is common to install a combination water proofing
and drainage board product between the earth retention facing and the back of a
building foundation wall or earth retaining wall. Global stability of the design must be
addressed. Temporary designs should have a global FOS of at least 1.3. Long term
designs should have a global FOS of at least 1.5. Design submittals should identify
both internal and global FOS values. Recommended preliminary design parameters
for the retained soils are presented in Table A, below.
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT N0. GS05691-125
S:\GS05691.000\12512. Reports\GS05691 120 R1.doc
L01
Li
TABLE A
Design Parameters for Soil Nail or Soil Anchor Design
Soil Types Unit Weight, y
Friction Angle,
Cohesion, c
cf
de rees
(psf
Clay 125
24
100
Pier or piles for a cantilevered retaining wall need to be designed to resist
lateral loads from earth pressures and surcharge loads. Lateral load analysis can be
performed with the software analysis package, LPILE by Ensoft, Inc. We expect
lateral load analysis will not be applicable. We will provide criteria for lateral load
analysis, if requested.
There are two general concepts for excavation retention: 1) permanent
retention systems (with integrated foundation walls or with separate foundation walls
that are designed for the lifespan of the building; or 2) temporary retention systems
(usually with separate foundation walls) that provide a safe and stable excavation
during construction. Permanent excavation retention systems can reduce lateral
earth pressures on foundation walls and thus reduce the required reinforcement in
and the thickness of the walls. Furthermore, permanent excavation retention systems
with integrated building foundation walls typically require less excavation outside the
perimeter of buildings. Temporary retention systems generally involve lower
construction costs of the retainage system; however, there is no reduction of lateral
earth pressures applied to building foundation walls. Lateral earth pressures on
foundation walls is addressed in the FOUNDATION WALLS section.
Ground Water
Ground water was not encountered in our exploratory borings or in TH-2 one
day and 15 days after drilling. The irrigation ditch above the residence location
contained flowing water at the time of our investigation. The clay soils generally
increased in moisture content with depth. Ground water may rise during snowmelt or
in years with more rainfall. Recommendations for below -grade areas are in the
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 8
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691.125
SAGS05691.000112512. Reports\GS05691 120 Rt.doc
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE section. One approach to mitigate wet conditions in the
building footprint would be to line the irrigation ditch with a man-made synthetic liner
or to pipe the ditches above the footprint. Excavations should be sloped such that
water from precipitation can drain to a positive gravity outfall or to a temporary sump
where water can be removed by pumping, if necessary.
Site Gradinq Fill
Areas which will receive fill should be stripped of vegetation, organic soils and
debris. The on-site soils free of organic matter, debris and rocks larger than 4 inches
in diameter can be used as site grading fill. Fill should be placed in loose lifts of 10
inches thick or less and moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum
moisture content. Fill placed outside the building footprint and for road construction
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698)
maximum dry density. If heated slabs or patio areas are planned, the fill should be
placed as a structural fill to limit future settlement. Moisture content and density of
fill and structural fill should be checked by a representative of our firm during
placement.
Foundation Wall Backfill
Proper placement and compaction of foundation backfill is important to reduce
infiltration of surface water and settlement of backfill. Depending on the excavation
retention/foundation wall concepts chosen, backfill may be required between
foundation walls and excavation retention facing. Ground surface settlement of more
than 1 percent of the backfill thickness is common adjacent to foundation walls.
Structures or flatwork placed over backfill zones will need to be designed to
accommodate differential movement with respect to the building.
Backfill adjacent to foundation walls may be placed in deep narrow zones
between the new concrete foundation walls and the face of excavations. The use of
lean -mix concrete (flowable fill) or expanded polystyrene (EPS) of deep narrow zones
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 9
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECTNO. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.000\125\2. ReporWG505691 120 R1.doc
or below exterior flatwork should be considered. Deep narrow zones of backfill can
be very difficult areas to properly place and compact backfill. Backfill required in
difficult and confined areas may settle as much as 2 to 3 percent of the thickness of
the backfill because of the difficulty in achieving compaction. We have observed
settlements approaching 10 percent of the thickness of the backfill in some narrow
zones. A CDOT Class 6 aggregate base course or clean granular material (less than
12 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) should be used for foundation wall backfill. The
top 2 to 3 feet of backfill should consist of the on site clay soils. Placement of a clay
layer at the top of the of the backfill will likely limit infiltration.
The natural soils can be used as backfill, provided they are free of rocks larger
than 3 -inches in diameter, organics, and debris. Backfill should be placed in loose
lifts of approximately 10 -inch thickness or less, moisture conditioned to within 2
percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted. Thickness of lifts will likely
need to be about 6 inches if there are small confined areas of backfill, which limit the
size and weight of compaction equipment. The backfill should be compacted to at
least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698). Moisture
content and density of the backfill should be checked during placement by a
representative of our firm. Observation of the compaction procedure is necessary.
Testing without observation can lead to undesirable performance.
Structural Fill
Placement of fill below the tennis court or exterior flatwork around the
residential building may be planned to raise grades. Fill below exterior flatwork, the
tennis court or retaining wall foundations should be placed as structural fill. If footing
foundations are used, a minimum thickness of 5 feet of structural fill should be placed
below the footings. Areas which will receive fill should be stripped of vegetation,
organic soils and debris. Our experience is that structural fill consisting of a CDOT
Class 6 aggregate base course or similar soil provides better future performance than
use of natural clay soil. A sample of import soils should be submitted to our
laboratory for testing prior to hauling. If the on-site clay soils are used as structural
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 10
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691.125
S:\GS05691.000\125\2. Reports\GS05691 120 R1.doc
fill, we anticipate the contractor will need to put significant effort into moisture
conditioning and compaction. The structural fill should consist of all import material
or all on-site clay soils. Structural fill should not be placed on slopes. Benches
should be constructed so that fill is placed in level lifts. Benches will need to be at
least 12 feet wide to accommodate large equipment capable of providing sufficient
compactive effort over the entire fill surface.
Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts of 10 inches thick or less, moisture
conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and be compacted to at
least 98 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density. Moisture
content and density of structural fill should be checked by a representative of ourfirm
during placement. Our experience is that properly placed structural fill may settle
approximately 0.5 to 1 percent of the fill thickness. The potential for more settlement
is greater for clay structural fill versus granular structural fill. We suggest that this
potential settlement be considered during the development of building plans. The
differential movement between areas supported on fill and adjacent area not
supported on fill needs to be considered.
1061N, _11.9
Permanent Slopes
We recommend that the slopes of the pond be constructed no steeper than 3
to 1 (horizontal to vertical). We can evaluate slopes if steeper than a 3 to 1 slope is
desired. If liners are installed the limiting factor of the cut slopes may be the liner
manufactures installation recommendations.
Swell/Shrinkage Factors
Based on our laboratory data and our experience, we estimate the in-situ soil
in the proposed pond area will have a shrinkage factor about 10 percent when used
as compacted fill.
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 11
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691.125
SAGS05691.0=12512. Reports1GS05691 120 R1.doc
U
Embankments
We expect embankments are not planned and that the pond will be
constructed by excavating below existing grades. If embankment slopes are
designed to be 10 feet or higher above the natural grades, the embankment will likely
become a jurisdictional dam and require review by the office of the State Engineer.
Additional field investigations, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis would be
required.
Pond Liner
Our subsurface information indicates comparatively low seepage rates will
occur if the pond is constructed without a liner. The natural clay soil on the site will
have a relatively low permeability when properly compacted. The pond could be lined
with a man-made synthetic liner to reduce seepage. Various alternatives for liner
systems and materials are available. We expect a soil covered liner system would be
appropriate. A specialty contractor, such as Colorado Lining International, could be
contacted for more information.
Pond Outfalls
Culverts or an outlet structure may be installed. Fill should be placed as
described in the Fill and Backfill section. If planned, retaining walls or wing walls can
be constructed following the recommendations in the EARTH RETAINING WALL
section. We should be provided with plans for outfall structures. Additional
geotechnical investigation or recommendations may be appropriate.
FOUNDATIONS
Comparatively soft and moist clay and moderately expansive drier clay were
encountered at foundation depths of the planned residence. Expansive clay was
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 12
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691.125
S:\GS05691.000\125\2. ReparIMGS05691 120 R1.doc
encountered in the area of the planned barn. We recommend the residence be
constructed on a deep foundation system such as drilled piers. The barn could also
be constructed on drilled piers, if less building movement is desired. The proposed
residential building and barn could be constructed on footing foundations that are
supported by a uniform thickness of 5 feet of densely compacted structural fill.
Settlement and/or heave of about 0.5 to 1 percent of the thickness of structural fill
should be anticipated. Some differential movement of footings would likely occur.
The total settlement will include the new fill settlement and the settlement of the
natural soil from the weight of the fill and the structure.
We expect drilled piers would need to be installed to depths of 15 feet or
deeper to achieve the desired capacity. Our representative should observe and test
placement of structural fill. Our representative should be called to observe conditions
exposed in the completed foundation excavations to confirm that the exposed soils
are as anticipated and suitable for support of the footings as designed. Structural fill
should be placed as described in the Structural Fill section. Helical pier or micropile
foundation systems are also deep foundation alternatives. We will provide criteria for
helical piers or micropiles, if desired. Recommended design and construction criteria
for footings and helical piers are presented below.
Drilled Piers
Piers should be designed for a maximum allowable end bearing
pressure of 10,000 psf and an allowable skin friction value of 1,000 psf.
Skin friction should be neglected for the portion of the pier within 5 feet
of the bottom of the foundation walls and grade beams.
4. The foundation system should be designed to distribute deadload as
evenly as feasible between piers.
3, Piers should have a minimum length of 15 feet. The pier length should
not exceed about 30 times the pier diameter.
Piers should be reinforced the full length of the pier. Reinforcement
should extend into grade beams and foundation walls.
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 13
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAG505691.000\125\2. Reports\GS05691 120 R1.doc
112
5. Foundation walls and grade beams should be well reinforced; the
reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer.
6. Piers should be carefully cleaned prior to placement of concrete. To
reduce potential for problems during pier installation, we recommend
that a "drill and pour" construction procedure be used, in which
concrete is placed in the pier holes immediately after the holes are
drilled, cleaned and inspected by our representative. Concrete should
not be placed by free fall in pier holes containing more than 3 inches of
water.
7. Formation of mushrooms or enlargements at the top of piers should be,
avoided during pier drilling and subsequent construction operations.
8. Installation of drilled piers should be observed by a representative of
our firm to identify the proper bearing strata.
Footing Foundations
Footing foundations should be supported on a uniform thickness of at
least 5 feet of densely compacted structural fill. Soils loosened during
the forming process for the footings should be removed or re -
compacted prior to placing concrete.
2. Footings for the residence and barn supported by the 5 foot thickness
of structural fill should be designed for a maximum allowable soil
bearing pressure of 3,000 psf with a minimum dead load of 1,000 psf. A
friction factor of 0.4 may be used to calculate resistance to sliding.
3. Void forms can be used to achieve minimum dead loads. Continuous
wall footings should have a minimum width of at least 16 inches.
Foundations for isolated columns should have minimum dimensions of
24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be required, depending upon
foundation loads.
4. Grade beams and foundation walls should be well reinforced, top and
bottom, to span undisclosed loose or soft soil pockets. We
recommend reinforcement sufficient to span an unsupported distance
of at least 12 feet. Reinforcement should be designed by the structural
engineer.
5. The soils beneath exterior footings should be protected from freezing.
We recommend the bottom of footings be constructed at a depth of at
least 42 inches below finished exterior grades for frost protection. The
Pitkin County building department should be consulted regarding
required frost protection depths.
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 14
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691.125
S:\GS05691 0001125\2. Reports\GS05691 120 Rt.doc
LOWER LEVEL FLOORS
We understand that living areas floors will be constructed as structural floors.
Structural floors are supported by the foundation system and a crawl space is below
the floor. From a geotechnical perspective structural floors are preferable to slabs -
on -grade. The barn floor may be a slab -on -grade or exposed soil. Based on our field
and laboratory data and our experience, we judge that floor slabs can be supported
by the undisturbed, natural clay at this site with have a moderate to high risk of
differential movement and associated damage. Sub -excavation and placement of at
least 3 feet of structural fill below slabs will improve performance of slabs -on -grade,
but not completely mitigate potential heave and settlement. Structural fill below slabs
should be placed and compacted as described in the Structural Fill section.
EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Slabs -on -grade are anticipated in the pool area. We recommend the following
precautions for slab -on -grade construction at this site. Slabs should be separated
from exterior walls and bearing members with slip joints which allow free vertical
movement of the slabs. Underslab plumbing should be pressure tested for leaks
before the slabs are constructed. Plumbing and utilities which pass through slabs
should be isolated from the slabs with sleeves and provided with flexible couplings to
slab supported appliances. Exterior patio and porch slabs should be isolated from
the residence. Fill placed below flatwork should be placed as described in the
Structural Fill section. These slabs should be well -reinforced to function as
independent units. Frequent control joints should be provided, in accordance with
American Concrete Institute (ACI) recommendations, to reduce problems associated
with shrinkage and curling. Our experience indicates panels which are approximately
square generally perform better than rectangular areas.
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 15
MER RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.000\125 2. RepoAs\GS05691 120 Rl.doc
FOUNDATION WALLS
Earth pressures applied to foundation walls will depend on if the excavation is
laid back or an excavation retention/foundation wall system is chosen. If foundation
walls are integrated with a permanent excavation retention system, the lateral loads
will be resisted by the excavation retention system. Earth pressures on foundation
walls for, several other conditions where lateral loads are resisted by the building are
discussed in the following sections.
Backfilled Foundation Wall
Foundation walls which extend below -grade should be designed for lateral
earth pressures where backfill is not present to about the same extent on both sides
of the wall. Many factors affect the values of the design lateral earth pressure. These
factors include, but are not limited to, the type, compaction, slope and drainage of the
backfill, and the rigidity of the wall against rotation and deflection. For a very rigid
wall where negligible or very little deflection will occur, an "at -rest' lateral earth
pressure should be used in design. For walls that can deflect or rotate 0.5 to 1
percent of wall height (depending upon the backfill types), lower "active" lateral earth
pressures are appropriate. Our experience indicates typical basement walls in
residences deflect or rotate slightly under normal design loads, and that this
deflection results in satisfactory wall performance. Thus, the earth pressures on the
walls will likely be between the "active" and "at -rest' conditions.
If slopes are laid back and foundation wall backfill placed or a temporary
excavation retention system is constructed, backfill may or may not be required
between foundation walls and the excavation retention facing. In either case,
foundation walls must be designed to accommodate earth pressures from the full
height of backfill. No reduction in earth pressures should be made to accommodate
for temporary excavation retention systems.
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 1 6
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
S:\GS05691.000\125\2. Reports\GS05691 120 Rl.doc
C�k
Where the building frame does not result in a braced condition the foundation
walls should be designed for a 50 pcf equivalent fluid pressure. We can provide
criteria if a braced condition is designed. This equivalent fluid pressure does not
include allowances for loading from compaction of backfill, surcharge loads, or
sloping backfill. The structural engineer should consider the need for temporary
bracing during backfill.
Permanent Excavation Retention and Backfilled Foundation Wall
Permanent excavation retention systems are designed to retain the soils and
minimize horizontal and vertical movement of adjacent structures for the life of the
structure. In some instances where permanent shoring is constructed, however,
foundation walls are constructed a small distance from the excavation retention
system. This is a hybrid condition where pressure on foundation walls is controlled
by the width, thickness, and type of backfill between the retainage facing and the
foundation wall. Vertical stresses are reduced from friction on both sides of the
backfill, which can result in a reduction of lateral forces exerted on the foundation
wall. This is referred to as an arching effect. The pressure on foundation walls can
generally be approximated as a uniform pressure of 500 psf for walls up to 25 feet
high with backfill width of 3 feet or less.
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE
Our experience indicates that the upper soils at this site may become saturated
during spring snow melt. Additionally, water from rain, snowmelt and surface
irrigation of landscaping frequently flows through relatively permeable backfill placed
adjacent to a residence and collects on the surface of relatively impermeable soils
occurring at the bottom of the excavation. This can cause wet or moist conditions in
below -grade areas after construction. We recommend installation of an exterior
foundation drain around the residence and below -grade areas. The foundation drain
should consist of 4 inch diameter, slotted PVC pipe encased in free draining gravel.
We recommend provision of a prefabricated drainage composite adjacent to
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 17
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691.125
S:\GS05691.000\125\2. Reports\GS05691 120 RI.doc
M
foundation walls. The drain should lead to a positive gravity outlet, or to a sump pit
where water can be removed by pumping. An underslab drain system should be
considered for slabs -on -grade constructed below -grade. Construction of the new
pond, especially if unlined, may raise the ground water table. Typical foundation
drain details are shown on Figures 6 and 7.
Ventilation is important to maintain acceptable humidity levels in crawl spaces.
The mechanical systems designer should consider the humidity and temperature of
air, and air flow volumes, during design of crawl space ventilation systems. We
believe it is appropriate to install an active ventilation system that is controlled by a
humidistat.
Pool Drain
We recommend a subsurface drain be provided below the pool. Atypical pool
drain detail is shown on Figure 8.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundations, slabs and
exterior flatwork. We recommend the following precautions be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the residence is completed:
1 The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the residence should
be sloped to drain away from the residence in all directions. We
recommend providing a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet
around the residence, where possible. In no case should the slope be
less than 6 inches in the first 5 feet.
Backfill around the exterior of foundation walls should be placed and
compacted as described in the Fill and Backfill section.
I The residence should be provided with roof gutters and downspouts.
Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 18
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECTNO. GS05691-125
S:\GS05691.000\12512. Reports\GS05691 120 R1.doc
C:
L
of all backfill. Splash blocks and downspout extensions should be
provided at all discharge points.
4. Landscaping should be carefully designed to minimize irrigation.
Plants used near foundation walls should be limited to those with low
moisture requirements; irrigated grass should not be located within 5
feet of the foundation. Sprinklers should not discharge within 5 feet of
the foundation and should be directed away from the building.
5. Impervious plastic membranes should not be used to cover the ground
surface immediately surrounding the residence. These membranes
tend to trap moisture and prevent normal evaporation from occurring.
Geotextile fabrics can be used to control weed growth and allow some
evaporation to occur.
EARTH RETAINING WALLS
Earth retaining walls are planned up and down slope from the residence and
may be constructed at the tennis court area. We consider boulder walls to be
landscaping features with little capacity to resist lateral earth loads and movements.
We recommend other types of earth retaining systems, such as mechanically
stabilized earth (MSE) structures or reinforced concrete retaining walls, at this site.
MSE Structures
MSE structures consist of a reinforced soil zone comprised of horizontal layers
of backfill and geogrid reinforcement. The reinforced zone of the structure then
essentially acts like a gravity wall structure to retain soils behind the reinforced zone.
This type of system is well-suited for the construction of fill embankments and MSE
structures are appropriate for the driveway pullouts. CTL I Thompson, Inc. can
provide designs for MSE systems. Designs are dependent on specific material
properties of the geogrid reinforcement and wall facing. Some design details and
actual construction costs would need to be determined by a specialty contractor.
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 19
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
S:%GS05691.000112512. ReportMG505691 120 Rt.doc
L: J
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Reinforced concrete retaining walls that are attached to buildings should be
constructed on the same foundation system that is used for the building. Retaining
wall foundations should be designed using the criteria presented in the
FOUNDATIONS section.
Retaining walls which can rotate should be designed to resist "active" lateral
earth pressure calculated using an equivalent fluid density of at least 40 pcf.
Retaining walls with reinforcement that is tied into building foundation walls, that are
not free to rotate, should be designed to resist "at rest' lateral earth pressure using
an equivalent fluid density of at least 50 pcf. These pressures do not include
allowances for surcharge loads, sloping backfill or hydrostatic pressures. Backfill
behind retaining walls and in front of retaining wall footings should be placed and
compacted as outlined in the Backfill section.
Drains are required to control hydrostatic pressures behind retaining walls. A
typical earth retaining wall drain detail is shown on Figure 9. The drains should lead
to positive gravity outlets or be provided with weep holes.
CONCRETE
Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. We measured
water-soluble sulfate concentrations in two samples from this site. Concentrations
were measured of 0.02 and 0.03 percent. Sulfate concentrations less than 0.1 percent
indicate Class 0 exposure to sulfate attack for concrete in contact with the subsoils,
according to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Guide To Durable Concrete (ACI
201.2R-01). For this level of sulfate concentration, ACI indicates any type of cement
can be used for concrete in contact with the subsoils. In our experience, superficial
damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete, even
though sulfate levels are relatively low. To control this risk and to resist freeze -thaw
deterioration, the water-to-cementitious material ratio should not exceed 0.50 for
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 20
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
S:\GS05691.000\125\2. Reports\GS05691 120 Rt.doc
concrete in contact with soils that are likely to stay moist due to surface drainage or
high water tables. Concrete exposed to freezing and thawing should have a total air
content of 6% + 1.5%. We recommend all walls and grade beams in contact with the
subsoils be damp -proofed.
PERCOLATION TESTING
CTL I Thompson, Inc. performed percolation testing in the proposed areas of
the individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) for the residence and barn. Our field
representative directed drilling of two profile borings (Profile 1 and Profile 2) and
percolation borings (P-1 through P-6) at locations shown on Figure 2. Graphic logs of
the soils encountered in the profile and percolation borings are shown on Figure 4.
Our field representative prepared the pits for percolation testing on September,
2012 and performed the tests the following day. Test results are presented in
Appendix B. Our percolation test results indicate that a design percolation rate of
about 240 min/inch is appropriate. Percolation rates measured were relatively slow.
FINAL DESIGN CONSULTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Robbins Architecture
and the design team for the purpose of providing geotechnical criteria for the
proposed project. The information, conclusions and recommendations presented
herein are based upon the considerations of many factors including, but not limited
to, the type of structures proposed, the configuration of the structures, the geologic
setting, and the subsurface conditions encountered. The conclusions and
recommendations contained in the report are not valid for use by others.
CTL I Thompson, Inc. should be retained to provide general review of the
construction plans and provide geotechnical engineering and material testing during
construction. The purpose is to observe the construction with respect to the
geotechnical design concepts, specifications or recommendations, and to facilitate
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE 21
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
S:IGS05691.000\12512. ReporIMGS05691 120 R1.doc
design changes in areas where the subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated. If others perform the observation and testing, they must accept
responsibility to judge whether the recommendations in this report remain
appropriate.
GEOTECHNICAL RISK
The concept of risk is an important aspect of any geotechnical investigation.
The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop
geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical
tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be tempered
by engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions or
recommendations presented in any geotechnical investigation should not be
considered risk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction
between the soils and the proposed structure will perform as desired or intended.
What the engineering recommendations presented in the preceding sections do
constitute is our estimate, based on the information generated during this and
previous investigations and ourexperience in working with these conditions, of those
measures that are necessary to help the development perform satisfactorily. The
owner, builder, and future owners must understand this concept of risk, as it is they
who must decide what is an acceptable level of risk for the proposed development of
the site.
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
This project will involve many activities which should be monitored during the
construction phase by our firm. Installation of excavation retention systems and
underpinning should be observed. Construction observation and testing will also be
required for concrete, steel and masonry construction. When building plans are
further developed and the construction schedule and quantities are defined, we can
work with the design team and contractor to develop an appropriate scope of
services and budget for construction observation and testing.
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE ZZ
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAG505591.000\12512 Reports1GS05691 120 R1.doe
LIMITATIONS
Our exploratory borings were located to obtain a reasonably accurate picture
of subsurface conditions. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by
our borings will occur. A representative of our firm should be called to observe the
installation of helical piers or subexcavation and placement of structural fill and
backfill. Testing without observation can have undesirable results.
This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care
and skill ordinarily exercised by geotechnical engineers currently practicing under
similar conditions in the locality of this project. No warranty, express or implied, is
made. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report, please
call.
CTL I THOMPSON, INC.
Craig Burger, P.E.
Proje 14anager,o.k '4
CAB:JM:
cc: via email to celeste@robbins-architecture.com
ly:
ling, P.E.
lager
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE
METZ RESIDENCE 23
PROJECTN0. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.000�12512. ReporWG505691 120 R1.doe
0
SCALE: 1'= 5,000
Robbins ArchltwWre
Metz Reelnce
Project No. GS05691-120
Vicinity
Map
Flg. 1
r
j � m
L
A
Depth In Feet
0� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1�
O M M M
O N N N
N
N
N
M
M
O\i
O
O
M
N
h
N
N,
N
N
N
M
M
N
.N
n
\
N
m
N
\ \ \ \
p�
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
N
\ \ \
N
N
�
C
C
N
�
N
r
a
N
\
N
co
N
N
N
N
V
N
N
N
_O
N
N,
N
N
N
M
M
N
N
N
n
N
N
N
�
N
co
N
N
N
O
N
\
N
e
V
V
N
N
N
\
n
N
N N
W O
N N
In
C.7
Z
cr
O
m
r
O
F—
a
Ir
O
J
a-
x
W
tp
0
4983 uI 44ded
a
fil
JIIIm
1
N
Depth In Feet
a
al
r
c
c
° L
o
o
O N
o o
m
N
a
�v
_
e
IN e
�
Q
a
°�*a
o3ov
O
x
�°
M-00
aa
°
;
a
o
3co
0 f
-
Q
vOt c
O •
a c
C�
do
E
c
E
c ° c
ED
I
0
E E
r.''�
Z ocQ
�N c°
:a
oo
M
=Qz^
oc a
E=0
O
•v
cy
Q
2 Do
>
v
0 0 c
a°
-.R
o
c
n c
x° o
v
o
!E-2'
c a
O a
• +°
o
• X n
°
of
1
�
o� o
ae•0 a
c
v:
wo
p
com•n
o o c
CL
Wtn`v o'
tea°
z° 0
°
a
N
ro
M
e'
co
E
W
W
w
I--
0 O
Z
CL
°
v .:
e -
o
v
„ E
a
a
`n
00
N
� 1
Do
o 0
o:
0.0U>
'u-0 E
N
U�
O h
N
7
o�
�
I I
I I
o. c
•
.
ado
\roc
I I J
°
0
N
N
N°o=
}eej uI y}ded
7
0Zi
E�
3 O
O
U
a
aoc0
Ix
E
'o
a
F=-CDMC•
°
N
CM C
0=N
O
awo°N
o
a
on
o O
oc
a
°
al
°Eta
e>� Ev E
v
v
1
N
al
..
o
�
Q
a
°
;
>
E
E
E
v
I
0
E E
r.''�
CL
n
>
o
v
o
o
a
>
o c
;
E
E
d
o�
o„
°
a
N
ro
M
e'
co
E
W
a°
CL
°
v .:
e -
o
v
„ E
a
i c
o`
`n
00
N
� 1
Do
o 0
o:
0.0U>
N
U�
O h
N
I I
I I
WZ
I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I J
}eej uI y}ded
Z
cr
O
m
i
O
Q
0
CL
X
W
Li
O
C9
0
D✓
!Q
cf
f
(n
o
O
,It
LO
C_9
O
M
O
Cl)
O
N
M
O
O
M
Oa
m
cw
A►
V/
O
CD
N
V /
N
O
•�
N
N
+�
4)
o
N
U
c
y.+
A+
W
�yCL
/
�/�t
L
O
co
C
O
C)
I _
r
O
O
CN
a
W
uj
o
T
�
C)
O
N
r
CO
CD
N
O'^
,v,n/
I� O t17 M N O+ CO I�
ti n ti h n � h n CD CD CO
O
O
d�+
(000 [ X) (1991) UOIIBA919 veld
o
a
�— BACKFILL
VOID
HELICAL PIER -
4 -INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED -
RIGID DRAIN PIPE. THE PIPE
SHOULD BE PLACED IN A TRENCH
WITH A SLOPE OF AT LEAST
1/8 -INCH DROP PER FOOT OF
DRAIN.
U
BELOW -GRADE WALL
STRUCTURAL FLOOR
CRAWL
SPACE
SEE NOTE 2
To
DR+W to
4" MINN-!" / )
ENCASE PIPE IN 1/2' TO 1 -1/2 -
WASHED GRAVEL FILL ENTIRE
TRENCH WITH GRAVEL
NOTES:
1.) THE BOTTOM OF THE DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 4 INCHES BELOW BOTTOM OF
VOID AT THE HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY
OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING.
2.) TO HELP CONTROL THE HUMIDITY IN THE CRAWL SPACE. A MINIMUM 10 -MIL
POLYETHYLENE VAPOR RETARDER MAY BE PLACED OVER THE CRAWL SPACE
SOILS, AT THE BUILDER'S OPTION. THE RETARDER SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO
CONCRETE FOUNDATION ELEMENTS AND EXTEND UP FOUNDATION WALLS AT
LEAST 8 INCHES ABOVE TOP OF PIER. OVERLAP JOINTS 3 FEET AND SEAL.
Robbins Architecture
Metz Residence
Project No. GS05691-120
Interior
Foundation
Wall Drain
Fig. 6
L
SLOPE
PER
OSHA
COVER ENTIRE WIDTH OF -
GRAVEL WITH NON -WOVEN
GEOTDMLE FABRIC (MIRAFI
140N OR EQUIVALENT).
ROOFING FELT IS AN
ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE.
STRUCTURAL FLOOR
SLOPE
BELOW -GRADE WALL
BACKFILL
ATTACH PVC SHEETING
TO FOUNDATION WALL
CRAWL SPACE
VOID
2" MINIMUM
8' MINIMUM
OR BEYOND
1:1 SLOPE FROM
BOTTOM OF FOOTING
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
4 -INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED RIGID DRAIN PIPE.
THE PIPE SHOULD BE PLACED IN A TRENCH WITH
A SLOPE OF AT LEAST 1/8 -INCH DROP PER
FOOT OF DRAIN.
ENCASE PIPE IN 1/2' TO 1-1/2' WASHED GRAVEL
EXTEND GRAVEL TO AT LEAST 1/2 HEIGHT OF
FOOTING. FILL ENTIRE TRENCH WITH GRAVEL
FOOTING OR PAD
NOTE:
THE BOTTOM OF THE DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 2 INCHES BELOW BOTTOM OF
FOOTING AT THE HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY
OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING.
Robbins Architecture
Metz Residence
Project No. GS05691-120
Exterior
Foundation
Wall Drain
Fig. 7
X' COMPACTED
GRANULAR FILL..
(SEE REPORT FOR
SPECIFICATIONS)
(10
NOT TO SCALE
POOL SLABS
400
POOL DECK
Z -I I (•-I I �I I I -III -III -III -III-) I I-)
III�IIIII�IIIII1IIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIII1IIIII�1-1
4 TO 6 INCHES OF WASHED 3/4—INCH TO NO. 4 CONCRETE
AGGREGATE WITH A MAXIMUM OF 3 PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE.
(SLOPE TO SUMP)
— IMPERVIOUS PLASTIC MOISTURE BARRIER INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY
AFTER EXCAVATION (20 MIL PVC SHEETING GLUED AT SEAMS).
Robbins Architecture
Matz Residence
Project No. GS05691-120
X' COMPACTED
GRANULAR FILL.
(SEE REPORT FOR
SPECIFICATIONS)
Recommended
Pool Drain
Detail
Fig. 8
SLOPE VARIES
12"
BACKFILL WITH
SILTY OR CLAYEY
SLOPE
PER
OSHA
GALVANIZED SCREEN
OR COARSE GRAVEL
BEHIND WEEP HOLES
BACKFILL
(COMPOSITION AND
COMPACTION PER R13 O \
Robbins Architecture
Metz Residence
Project No. GS05691-120
FOOTING
FOUNDATION
2'
LJ
RETAINING WALL
PROVIDE GRAVEL LAYER
BEHIND WALL, WASHED
CONCRETE AGGREGATE
(ASTM C33, NO. 57 OR 67).
WEEP HOLE
REINFORCING STEEL
PER STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS
4 -INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED DRAIN
PIPE. THE PIPE SHOULD BE PLACED
IN A TRENCH WITH A SLOPE RANGING
BETWEEN 1/16 -INCH AND 1/8 -INCH
DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN.
Typical Earth
Retaining
Wall Drain
Fig. 9
40
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.000U25\2. Reports\GS05691 120 Ri.doc
Li
in 1
z
a
a
x
w 0
z
0
F) -1
U)
W
tr
CL
2 -2
O
U
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-6
0.1 1. i
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY (CL)
From TH-1 AT 19 FEET
Robbins Architecture
Metz Residence
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.000112516. CaIcs%GS05691.125SWELL.xIs
a]
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
10 100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 103 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 24.7 %
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A - 1
7
6
5
4
3
2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8 '
0.1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY (CL)
From TH-2 AT 4 FEET
Robbins Architecture
Metz Residence
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAG505691.000112%. CaIcs1GS05691.125SWELL.As
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 96 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 25.3
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-2
C
7
s
z
z
O
( 1
z
Q
IL
x
LU 0
0
z
0
rn -1
LU
IL
O z
L)
—3
-4
-5
_7
_g
0.1 1 i
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY (CL)
From TH-2 AT 14 FEET
Robbins Architecture
Metz Residence
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.000M 16. CalesIGS05691-125SWELL.zis
E
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
10 100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 104 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 20.5 %
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A — 3
L
-2
-3
-4
5
z
O
N -6
z
Q
IL
x
W -7
0
z
O_
N -8
N
W
IX
IL
2 -9
O
U
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-1
0.1 1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY (CL)
From TH-3 AT 9 FEET
Robbins Architecture
Metz Residence
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.000112516. CaIc51GS05691.1255WELL.XIs
10 100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 85 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 10.3 %
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-4
6
5
4
3
2
z
_O
U) 1
z
Q
a
x
W 0
0
z
O
V) -1
U)
w
IL
2 -2
O
U
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
1-1
0.1 1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY (CL)
From TH-4 AT 4 FEET
Robbins Architecture
Metz Residence
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.000112516. Ca1cs1GS05691.1255WELL.%1s
10 100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 107 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 19.3
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A - 5
7
6
5
4
3
Z
2
0
F5 i
z
(L
x
W 0
z
0
V5 -1
Cn
W
x
(L
2 -2
0
L)
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-81
0.1 1
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSIF
Sample of CLAY (CL)
From TH-5 AT 4 FEET
Robbins Architecture
Metz Residence
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.0=125%. CaicsIGS05691-125SWELL.As
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
J
10 100
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 103 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 12.9 %
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A - 6
r1#
8
4
z
O
N 1
z
Q
I1
X
W
0
z
0
C
W
W
a
O
U
_4
0.1 1;
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
Sample of CLAY (CL)
From TH-9 AT 4 FEET
Robbins Architecture
Metz Residence
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
SAGS05691.000112516. Calcs'.GS05691-125SWELL.xis
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
,
Iii
DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 122 PCF
MOISTURE CONTENT= 10.5
Swell Consolidation
Test Results
FIG. A-7
N
�L
O
m
Q.
CD
u
N
CL
O
N
d
N
m
0
'a
m
N
O
Q.
L-
0.
O
R
0
0
y-.
O
r
O
ri7
O
6
\'M /
6
CL
O
0
EO
O (`0
O
O O
f6U
E o
O
N�
O
N
.0
cu
v.
♦
C:
7
++
m co
M -
O
In(� rn
V
N 7 LL
6.
O
AW,
y..
C6
im 0
oN
o
O
O c )
CL
O
U
OCD
CL rn
caa
O
_ o
0 c
o c °
w m
ZCF
F�
0
��
OO
M c
tv a
a)
J
Q
L-
N N0
:
CL
EQ
N
� ca
a o
CL
� c
0 0
N
O
OLO
rn
N �
C'7 N
O m 00
ti
O
L
r
o
v aci Z
Q y H -
N
(pd) � psuea Ajao
o
(if7-a-
v
Q av
W IO0
co O
gLL u
Ow
}n
�0
Q �
� a
rn
►-
*40
z
0
a
U
U)
W
J
U
J
U
J
U
J
U_
J
U_
J
U
J
U
J
U
J
U
J
U
_
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
W
>
CD
WZcU)
Z
OaFd
0
o
N
j O U)
U
W
W
CO
Z) Q c
ch
O
N
O
O J
O
O
N
N
� O
�NWo
eco
<z
Z
CL
oLLI
J(1)U)
O
O
O
OO
CL W�
O
N
O
O
N
N
Qz
J
LLJ
c7
N
N
N
O
_
O
O
O
Cl)
cn }
(Y
d
(L
m
o
k2aJ
N
co
c) LL V
N
O
(O
m
o
co
O
r-
0
c
N
LZ
W
x
D w
rl-
r-
c ,
u')
co
Ln
co
m
n
Zo
N
N
N
O
O
N
Q1
N
V
Qj
OC
2
a w
0)
o "-
F— J
N
N
M
ch
V
U7
(C1
(D
W O
S
=
2
S
2
2
2
2
S
S
F- S
F-
F-
F-
F-
F-
H
F-
F-
F-
F-
cm
coa
W
Of
D
M
Lu
aZ
00
LL, F15
J U)
UJ
IL
a�
¢d
LL
O
CL L)
ow
Q
U
Z
LU O W
�Q
cn >
a
ww
J Q
LU (D
2� W
Z
D
W
J
m
H
0
Z
H
In
W N
H r
oLO
[Y �
N
0
c� O
gz
LL U
Ow
�0
�O
a�
�a
a
N
4
z
0
a
�
U
c
W
J
U
U
U
W
U
U
U
U
U
C7
U
U
w
W � 2
W Z u'
z CO
OaIa
=:��
zO�
U
W In
JUJ
CL1 ^
o
LL
O�
In
N > ^
W o
m
�
rn
00
co
Q Z
0 of
w::) E�
J N (n
awa
O
Q Ir
IL
J
J
wa �„�
01
�:—
In
cn �
f —X
U
F Q o
N
(D
Z
�0gZ`".
N
N
IY IL
W
IY 0 F -
x U
r
N
N
pWa
cv
W
D wm
o
LO
n
m
m
U) Z
m
O0
tl W
R
V
0 LL
J
I�
c0
m
Cr
N
N
tli
F- O
F-
(L
�
mo
LU W
CY
co
co
U)
W
w
a
z
W
0
IY
Z)
m
Of
w
O
U)
G
w
to
U)
W
tY
El.00z
W
J
aw
a�
¢a-
LLm
m O
av
o �
ow
x¢
F- U
Z
OW W
� J
Q
fn >
Q
W W
J Q
LLJ (D
Lu
w
mz
0
APPENDIX B
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
S:\GS05691.000112512. Reports1GS05691 120 Rl.doc
Ew
SATURATION AND PREPARATION
DATE: 9/16112
TIME AT START OF SATURATION: 2:00 pm
A0644
Nwo
PERCOLATION TEST
DATE: 9117/12
WATER IN BORING AFTER 24 HOURS
X YES -NO
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
HOLE
NUMBER
DEPTH
(INCHES)
I
.
TIME AT
START OF
INTERVAL
.. . ... ......
TIME
INTERVAL
(MINUTES)
I I
DEPTH TO WATER
CHANGE
IN WATER
DEPTH
(INCHES)
PERCOLA-1
TION RATE
(MIN/INCH)
START OF END OF
INTERVAL INTERVAL
(INCHES) (INCHES)
P-1
53.0
10:16
60
28.6
28.75
0.25
240
11:15
60
28.75
28.75
0
12:15
60
28.75
29.0
0.26
240
115
60
29.0
29.25
0.26
240
P-2
65.6
10:15
60
33.76
34.0
0.25
240
11:15
60
34.0
34.0
0
12:15
60
34.0
34.25
0.25
240
1:16
60
34.25
34.6
0.25
240
P-3
55.0
10:15
60
33.25
35.60
2.26
27
11:15
60
35.5
35.50
0
12:16
60
35.5
35.75
0.26
240
1:15
60
36.75
36.0
0.26
240
- -
- -- - __ ------- - - - ---- -------
. .......... .
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE Fig. B-1
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-126
SAGS05691.000MMS. Caics%GS06691 125 Percolation Results.doc
SATURATION AND PREPARATION
DATE: 9116112
TIME AT START OF SATURATION: 2:00 pm
m
PERCOLATION TEST
DATE: 9117112
WATER IN BORING AFTER 24 HOURS
X YES _ NO
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
HOLE
NUMBER
DEPTH
(INCHES)
TIME AT
START OF
INTERVAL
TIME
INTERVAL
(MINUTES)
DEPTH TO WATER
CHANGE
IN WATER
DEPTH
(INCHES)
PERCOLA-
TION RATE
(MIN/INCH)
START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
P-4
53.0
10:15
60
36.0
36.25
0.25
240
11:15
60
36.25
37.25
1.0
60
12:15
60
37.25
37.75
0.5
120
1:15
60
37.75
38.75
1.0
60
P-5
51.25
10:15
60
36.0
36.26
0.25
240
11:15
60
36.25
36.25
0
12:15
60
36.25
36.25
0
1:15
60
36.25
36.5
0.25
240
P-6
51.0
10:15
60
31.5
31.5
0
11:15
60
31.5
31.75
0.25
240
12:15
60
31.75
31.75
0
1:15
60
31.75
32.0
0.25
240
ROBBINS ARCHITECTURE Fig. B-2
METZ RESIDENCE
PROJECT NO. GS05691-125
S:\GS05691.0001126\6. CalcslGSC6691 125 Percolation Results.doc
. W,
k I
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone 1303) 866-3581
FAX (303) 866-3589
January 7, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORLYN BELL, DMSION ENGINEER
FROM: JEFF DEATHERAGE, ENGINEER
SUBJECT: FIELD INSPECTION REQUEST,
WELL PERMIT NO. 118146-- UTE CITY, LTD.
Roy Romer
Governor
Ken Salazar
Executive Director
Hal D. Simpson
State Engineer
Please field inspect this well site in order to determine the current well owner's name
and address, and to verify the correct legal description for this parcel. Our records indicate this
permit was issued on February 9, 1981 as the only well on a 40 acre parcel described as the SW
1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 15. The application claimed a parcel size of 70 acres, but a legal
description of this area was not submitted. Information recently provided to this office indicates
that a portion of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 15 has been a separate parcel since prior to
1972 (see enclosed documentation). If the existence of this well can be verified, and the current
owners identified, then we can hopefully identify the correct legal description of this parcel. Please
submit your response as time allows.
Thank you for your assistance. Let me know if you need additional information.
j N,,jI.,4 -# 1594415
I
W 410
of . Cpm
ROY ROMER �� JERIS A. DANIELSON
Governor * * State Engineer
1876 "
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street -Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3561
TO: KIM CARPENTER FROM: GLENN GRAHAM
RECEIPT NO.: 88792 DATE: 6 JUNE 1989
Your application for a permit to construct a well is being returned for the
reasons indicated below. The information and/or additional documentation
requested is required before we can proceed further with the evaluation of
your application.
All corrections you make to the application must be typed or printed in BLACK
INK. Please initial and date _all changes and additions you make to the
application form.
Return the original application form with all attached documentation to this
office.
Review of our files finds that this office approved an application for a
permit to construct a well submitted by Ute City Limited. Permit No. 118146
(copy enclosed) was approved on 9 February 1981 for a well which was to be the
only well on a tract of land of 40 acres described as the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
of Section 15, T9S, R85W. A completion report in our files indicates that the
well was constructed on 31 November 1981.
As this well was approved on the condition that it be the only well on the 40
acre tract described above, and your application is for the construction of a
well to be located within that 40 acre tract, please be advised that this
office cannot approve an application for a permit which would conflict with
the conditions of approval of an existing permit.
It may be that the location of record for the existing Ute City Ltd. well is
not correct. I would recommend that you take this memorandum and the copies
of your application and the Ute City permit to the office of the Division of
Water Resources in Glenwood Springs. It may be necessary to inspect your 4+
acre parcel to determine the circumstances surrounding the Ute City well and
your application.
Make sure to initial and date all corrections and/or additions You make to the
aaplication form.
Feel free to contact this office if you have any questions.
(5) THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED WELL and the area on
which the water will be used must be indicated on the diagram below.
Use the CENTER SECTION 0 section, 640 acres) for the well location.
i�--- 1 MILE, 5280 FEET------�
f -!- + + + +
NOR�TH+ r
4-
4- 4--
1
4-- f
NORTH SECTION
LINE
Z
D
J
�
o
m
�
n
CJ
i
W
to I
4 °z
li-
H
I
f
SOUTH SECTION LINE
4-t j I j
-+-
The scalE' of the diagram is 2 inches = I mile
Each small square represeolt 40 acres.
WATER EQUIVALENTS TABLE (Rounded Figures)
An acre-foot covers I acre of land 1 foot deep
1 cubic foot per second (cfs) ... 449 gallons per minute (gpm)
A family of 5 will require approximately 1 acre-foot of water per year.
I acre-foot. . 43.560 cubic feet ... 325,900 gallons.
1,000 gpm pumped continuously for one day produces 4.42 acre-feet
(10) LAND Or
Owner (sl: __,
Legal description:
(11) DETAIL
system to be use-
(12)
se
(6) THE WELL MUST BE MATED BEL�f►i `
LOC '
by distances from section lines.
5T �' ft, from Sou _sec. line
(north or south)
ft. from Wo s T sec. line
(east or west)
LOT BLOCK FILING
SUBDI VISION
(7) TRACT ON WHICH WELL
LOCATED Owner: �'Cr . 111)Lic,
No. of acres %Q . Will this be
the only well on this tract?_ Ze's
(8) PROPOSED CASING PROGRAM
Plain Casing ���i,
�_ in. from __1�_V ft. to ��ft.
in. from ft, to ft.
Perforated casing
a in. from ft. to ft,
in. from ft. to ft.
(9) FOR REPLACEMENT WELLS give distance
and direction from old well and plans for plugging
it:
(12) OTHER WATER -RIGHTS used on this land, including wells. Give Registration and Water Court Case Numbers.
Type or right Used for (purpose) Description of land on which used
(13) THE APPLICANT(S) STATES) THAT THE INFORMATION SET FORTH HEREON IS�
TRUFriTO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE, nn
(�' n J �`t �.� r -t— 'YL,+ 11
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT(S)
Use a 'ditional sheets of paper if more space is required.
1Gc:w_S
Rrp�_5.Rev. 76 COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
816 Centennial Bldg., 1373 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203
PERMIT APPLICATION FORM_
Application must
be complete where { ) A PERMIT TO USE GROUND WATER
applicable. Type or L -L) A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL
print in BLACK FOR: (}C) A PERMIT TO INSTALL A PUMP
INK. No overstrikes
or erasures unless { } REPLACEMENT FOR NO.
initialed. ( } OTHER
WATER COURT CASE NO.
(1) APPLICANT • mailing address
NAME C ,
STREET��`�x
CITY +tet 1 orX
(State) (Zip)
TELEPHONE NO. -������
(2) LOCATION OF PROPOSED WELL
County Pi t k i n
.S W V. of the S E %, Section [ 6
Twp. ___9 _`5, Rng. B$ _W , G r P.M.
1 N, SI 1 E.W)
(3) WATER USE AND WELL DATA I/
Proposed maximum pumping rate (gprn)
Average annual amount of ground water
to be appropriated (acre-feet):
Number of acres to be irrigated: j
Proposed total depth (feet):
Aquifer ground water is to be obtained from:
Owner's well designation
GROUND WATER TO BE USED FOR:
(j{) HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY
( ) DOMESTIC (1)
( I LIVESTOCK (2)
( ) COMMERCIAL (4)
( I OTHER (9)
no irrigation (0)
I ) INDUSTRIAL (5)
( ) IRRIGATION (6)
( ) MUNICIPAL (8)
DETAIL THE USE ON BACK IN (t 1)
(4) DRILLER
Name e-_1 ZA//11.1 Dz-c'/
Street &X
cicv
451ate) (zip)
Telephone No. Lic. No.
FIR1i
f3cGjJ;;'
J'
&ATER RExuRgs
KATE ENCENjg#
_ CAHp,
Ri
JAN i » at
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: DO NPT WR?
Receipt No, p7ac /
Basin
Dist
CONQITIONS OF APPROVAL
This well shall be used in such a way as to cause
no materia( injury to existing water rights. The
issuance of the permit does not assurer the applicant
that no injury will occur to another vested water
right or preclude another owner of a vested water
right from seeking relief in a civil court action.
APPROVED PURSUANT TO UPS 7.9`75, 37-92-60Z
(03) (b) (I1) AS THE O.VLY WELL ON A TRW
OF 35 ACRES OR VOM' DESIGNATED AS
ACRES IN� 54I Vo 56?V 5 -FC:
9 $ . 7, 8 4v , 6 P, M.
APPROM F'OR DOMESTIC USE, INCLUDING THF
IRRIGATION OF' HOT OVER ONE, ACRE OF HOME
GAZWO AND LAWNS.
APPLICATION APPROVED
PERMIT NUMBER 118146
DATE ISSUED FEB 0 9 1981
EXP$RA� DATE
(ST TENGI�""
BY _
I.D. __ COUNTYµ_
pr
PUMP INSTALLATION REPORT
Pump Make
Type
Powered by
Pump Serial No. _
Motor Serial No. _
Date Installeo _—
Pump Intake Depth
Remarks
HP
WEtL'*EST DATA WITH PERMANENT PUMP
Date Tested
Static Water Level Prior to Test
Length of Test _-—_ Hours
Sustained yield (Metered) GPM
Pumping Water Level
Remarks
•:;ce
WATER
J
W
'.
� w
J
H
a
�s
O
t -
J
Z
O
/
•:;ce
WATER
J
W
� W TABLE
� w
J
�s
CL
/
If.
CONE OF
DEPRESStON
CONTRACTORSSTATEMENT
The undersigned, being duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says that he is the contractor of the well or
pump installation described hereon; that he has read the statement made hereon; knows the content
thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge.
Signature--��`�^^I License No.
State of Colorado, County of—?1tG-` G SS
Subscribed and sworn to before me this pday of �7 19 .
My Commission expires: ?y / `/ , 19 S7:�'A.
Notary Public f~ J-_ -� f4ra-•,
FORM TO BE MADE OUT IN QUADRUPLICATE: WHITE FORM must be an original copy on both sides and signed.
WHITE AND GREEN copies must be filed with the State Engineer. PINK COPY is for the Owner and YELLOW COPY is for the Driller.
WJR-4-77
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
TMS. FGFt%— SUST BE SUBMITTED 1313 Sherman Street - Room 818
WITHIN 60 DAYS OF COMPLETION Denver, Colorado 84203
OF THE WORK DESCRIBED HERE-
ON. TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK WELL COMPLETION AND PUMP INS A ATION REPORT
INK PERMIT NUMBER
WELLOWNER `0. C1_r�i L --D.
ADDRESS _hn boS w&�ol>, . , cc)
LO
DATE COMPLETED l _ , 19 T
WELL LOG
From
To
Type and Color of Material
Water
Loc.
Igd
AC4c7
1kno 0.v10Cy-P_Qt).Z_L
I
TOTAL DEPTH 240 `
Use additional
pages necessary to complete log,
I
RECEIVED
AUG i � X982
WATIJI
099 WGINEER
=a,
S V '/. of the S 4= '/. of Sec. —, is
T. _q___ —5—, R...'g 5 W , _ _ P.M.
HOLE DIAMETER
—'I—in. from —0—to --s.h ft.
__4 in. from _3_0 to _oft.
in. from _ to ft.
DRILLING METHOD..aQllr1 _
CASING RECORD: Plain Casing
�i
Size & kind `r&- Lfrom 0 to ;jZ ft,
Size„� &kind. from +20 to ft,
Size & kind from to _ ft.
Perforated Casing
Size 5 /!�&kind ��Lfrom _LeAP to _�� ft.
Size & kind from to ft.
Size _ & kind from to ft,
GROUTING RECORD
Material
1
I ntervals In "rb
Placement Method1�-
ff
GRAVEL PACK: Size _ 4'
Intervals
TEST DATA
Date Tested 11-31 1 19 $1
Static Water Level Prior to Test _ ft.
Type of Test Pump ttWyy 1 �' (G IM P Qic,s S Op _
Length of Test
Sustained Yield (Metered) 7 CSP
i
Final Pumping Water Level (3
RECEPTI091600108, 06/05/2013 at
12:56:55 PM,
1 OF 4, R $0.00 Doc Code ADMIN
DECISION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMMTY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF
PITIQN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE MAM ASPEN LLC MINOR
AMENDMENTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION NO. 25-2013
Administrative Decision No. RZ-2013
RECITALS
1. Pursuant to Section 2-20-150(b) of the Land Use Code, MAM Aspen LLC ("Applicant") has applied
to the Community Development Director of Pitkin County, Colorado ("Director") to amend the Site
Plan approved pursuant to Administrative Decision No. 25-2013 as follows. All changes will occur
within the approved Activity Envelopes.
A. The proposed residence and driveway have been shifted to the east approximately 50'. The
driveway alignment has been modified and a turnaround area with a fire hydrant has been
established in the auto court.
B. The pond has been moved from the irrigated meadow south of the residence to an area near the
entry to the property along the Craig Ranch Road on the west side of the ditch.
C. The horse barn has been broken into two smaller barn buildings and has been shifted from the
south side of Craig Ranch Road to the north side of the road.
D. The absorption field for the on-site wastewater treatment system has been relocated to an area to
the south of the tennis court.
E. The location of the tennis court has been shifted slightly, but is in the same general location as
previously proposed:
2. The property is located off of Woody Creek Road and is more specifically described as Parcel 7, Craig
Ranch Subdivision Exemption.
3. The parcel contains 83.301 acres and is a conforming size parcel in the RS -20 zone district.
4. The Craig Ranch was divided into eight parcels, pursuant to the State's 35 acre subdivision exemption.
The Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") rezoned Parcel 1 to Rural/Remote, pursuant to
Ordinance No. 44-2004, and granted 1041 hazard review and GMQS exemptions to the other seven
parcels, pursuant to Resolution No. 144-2004. The Subdivision Exemption Plat was recorded in Plat
Book 79 at Page 81. The Development Agreement was recorded as Reception #525493. The 1041
hazard review site plan for Parcel 7, which depicts the building envelope, was recorded in Plat Book 79
at Page 89. The BOCC granted vested rights until October 13, 2019. Parcels 2 and 3 were
subsequently merged into one parcel, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 043-2007, and the amended
plat was recorded in Plat Book 88 at Page 87.
5. Resolution No. 144-2004 establishes that Parcel 7 is exempt from growth management up to 5,750
square feet of floor area and can develop an additional 1,750 square feet of floor area up to a maximum
of 7,500 square feet of floor area through the use of one TDR (which TDR may be shared with Parcels
4, 5 or 8).
tao 111110
Administrative Decision No -2011
Page 2
6. The Community Development Director granted approval of the Site Plan and Activity Envelope
Amendment, subject to Administrative Decision No, 25-2013. The Site Plan has not been recorded.
7. The Director finds that the proposed amendments comply with the applicable provisions of the Land
Use Code, will not change the use of the proposed development or the basic character of the land, are
consistent with action taken during the original review, do not increase off-site impacts or the allowable
floor area, and will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare.
8. The Director further finds that all of the proposed changes will occur within the previously approved
Activity Envelopes.
THE DIRECTOR DOES HEREBY APPROVE the MAM Aspen LLC Minor Amendments,
subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in
interest:
1. All conditions of Administrative Decision No. 25-2013 shall remain in full force and effect, except as
amended herein.
2. Prior to submission of any future building permit applications for the property, the Applicant shall be
required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development a Site Plan
with an Activity Envelope in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2-30-20(g) and Application
Manual Section 2.1.12. The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization
and recordation of them.
3. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application and shall consider
those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. The footprint
of the buildings shall be substantially consistent with the site plan attached as Exhibit A, and the
elevations shall be substantially consistent with the graphic representations attached as Exhibit B.
APPROVED by the: Director, this 4J -day of , 2013.
4Cy ouben, Community Development Director
P042-13
PID #264315400009
n _
W W i ,���
t I r •' i I I� t l I t 1 t ` �
oQL
�aw
�Na
a�
�❑
Z
Q�o
Qirm
z a LL
LL m 0
N
CD
a
O
I
PV�I
i
s
4
Q
RECEPTION#: 600107, 06/05/26 _ at
12:56:54 PM,
1 OF 7, R $0.00 Doc Code ADMIN
DECISION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
RECEPTION#: 599163, 05/01/20,Qt
01:35:08 PM,
1 OF 5, R $0.00 Doc Code ADMIN
DECISION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COM31 TTY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE MAM ASPEN LLC ACTIVITY ENVELOPE
AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
Administrative Decision N-2013
RECITALS
1. MAM Aspen LLC ("Applicant") has applied to the Pitkin County Community Development Director
("Director") to construct a single family residence and accessory uses. The Applicant proposes to
change the location of the building envelope for the residence and to establish a larger activity envelope
to accommodate accessory structures including two barns and a tennis court, the driveway, a pond,
QQ landscaping, on-site wastewater treatment system and buried water storage and propane tanks.
Q 2. The property is located off of Woody Creek Road and is more specifically described as Parcel 7, Craig
Ranch Subdivision Exemption.
T
_Q 3. The parcel contains 83.301 acres and is a conforming size parcel in the RS -20 zone district_
4. The Craig Ranch was divided into eight parcels, pursuant to the State's 35 acre subdivision exemption.
t } The Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") rezoned Parcel 1 to Rural/Remote, pursuant to
Ordinance No. 44-2004, and granted 1041 hazard review and GMQS exemptions to the other seven
parcels, pursuant to Resolution No. 144-2004. The Subdivision Exemption Plat was recorded in Plat
Book 79 at Page 81. The Development Agreement was recorded as Reception 4525493. The 3041
hazard review site plan for Parcel 7, which depicts the building envelope, was recorded in Plat Book 79
at Page 89. The BOCC granted vested rights until October 13, 2019. Parcels 2 and 3 were
subsequently merged into one parcel, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 043-2007, and the amended
plat was recorded in Plat Book 88 at Page 87.
5. Resolution No. 144-2004 establishes that Parcel 7 is exempt from growth management up to 5,750
square feet of floor area and can develop an additional 1,750 square feet of floor area up to a maximum
of 7,500 square feet of floor area through the use of one TDR (which TDR may be shared with Parcels
4, 5 or 8)_
6. The Director finds that the relocation of the building envelope for the primary residence
approximately 200' to the south is consistent with the prior approval, as it is located in the same
general area on the parcel, will have the same basic shape and size, and does not create any
additional impacts on constrained areas.
7. The Director further finds the proposed Activity Envelope to accommodate accessory structures
including two barns and a tennis court, the driveway, a pond, landscaping, well, on-site wastewater
treatment system and buried water storage and propane tanks complies with the applicable provisions of
the Land Use Code ("Code") as follows:
A. The Activity Envelope primarily contains slopes of less than 30%. Slopes in excess of 30% within
the envelope are found in linear areas along the irrigation ditches and are man-made anomalies in
an otherwise continuous slope of less than 30%. The Code permits development in these areas of
slopes in excess of 30%, pursuant to Sec. 70-20-20(c)(3).
Administrative Decision No&S-2013
Page 2
B. The wildfire hazard is low, and will be mitigated as required in Resolution No. 144-2004.
C. The Activity Envelope avoids wildlife habitat areas. There is mapped mule deer winter range in
the southeastern corner of the parcel, and mapped elk winter to the southeast of the parcel.
Mitigation of impacts on wildlife is included in Resolution No. 144-2004,
8. The Director further finds that the Applicant has satisfied the standards of Sec. 7-20-120(d) and (e) of
the Code, the Standards for Development Within Scenic View Protection Areas and the Rural Character
Guidelines, as follows:
A. Any development within the building and activity envelopes will be visible from certain points
along Highway 82 and McLain Flats Road, but at a substantial distance (in excess of one mile from
Highway 82 and 4,000 linear feet from McLain Flats Road). The property sits in the visual
backdrop adjacent to existing development in White Star Ranch and is not in the scenic foreground
as viewed from these roads, and the development will not significantly alter the scenic quality or
rural character of these corridors.
B. The visibility of the buildings is minimized by utilizing existing vegetation to provide screening,
utilizing low building forms, staggering rooflines and breaking down the mass of the residence into
smaller forms.
C. The proposed residence and barns will not penetrate a ridgeline or silhouette against the sky as
viewed from McLain Flats Road or Highway 82.
D. The structures will be located at the edge of a meadow or pasture.
9. The Director further finds that the proposed ground mounted solar energy collection devices comply
with Sec. 4-30-50(h) of the Code as follows: the devices are accessory to the residential use and shall
be used primarily for on-site purposes; the devices will have a matte finish or be of a non -reflective
color; will not exceed 12' in height; are located within the Activity Envelope; and will be screened from
view from adjacent properties by existing vegetation along the ditch.
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DOES HEREBY APPROVE the MAM
Aspen LLC Activity Envelope Amendment and Site Plan Review, subject to the following conditions,
which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest:
1. The conditions of BOCC Resolution No. 144-2004 shall remain in full force and effect, except as
amended herein.
2. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application and shall consider
those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. The footprint
of the buildings shall be substantially consistent with the site plan attached as Exhibit A, and the
elevations shall be substantially consistent with the graphic representations attached as Exhibit B.
Parcel 7 is exempt from growth management up to 5,750 square feet of floor area and can develop an
additional 1,750 square feet of floor area up to a maximum of 7,500 square feet of floor area through the
use of one TDR (which TDR may be shared with Parcels 4, 5 or 8). At building permit application for
the residence, the Applicant shall surrender an executed Irrevocable Certificate of TDRs to allow the
additional floor area up to 7,500 square feet, and a copy of the deed evidencing conveyance of the
Certificate to the Applicant (if applicable). Agricultural buildings are subject to the floor area
Administrative Decision NoQ -2013
Page 3
exemptions provided in Sec. 5-20-70(i) of the Code. The Applicant is proposing to build two barns of
approximately 4,480 square feet, which are exempt from floor area.
4. Prior to submission of any further development permit applications for the property, the Applicant
shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development a Site
Plan in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2-30-20(g) and Application Manual Section 2.1.12
The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation of
them.
5. Concurrent with submission of a building permit application for the residence, the Applicant shall:
A. Provide proof of an adequate water supply (in terms of quantity and availability) for domestic and
fire protection purposes, and for irrigation purposes, if applicable. A well was installed on the
parcel in 1981 pursuant to Colorado Division of Water Resources permit 4118146; this is a
domestic well permit that allows up to one acre of irrigation. Irrigation water will also be supplied
from the Salvation and Paradise ditches.
B. Submit an On -Site Wastewater Treatment System construction permit to Environmental Health.
C. Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by Planning/Zoning, As the
total development disturbs one (1) acre or more, the Applicant shall apply for and obtain a State
Stormwa.ter Permit. All historic and natural drainage patterns shall be maintained. Stonnwater
shall be detained onsite and allow infiltration of runoff prior to discharge.
D. Submit a construction management plan for review and approval by Planning/Zoning.
E. Complete a fireplace/woodstove registration form with the Community Development
Department, if necessary.
F. Submit a. detailed revegetation plan for disturbed areas with appropriate seed mixes. The plan shall
specify the native seed mix to be used, the rate at which it will be applied and the method of
cover.
G. Submit a tree mitigation plan for the removal of any trees larger than 6 inch DBH.
H. Submit a detailed landscaping plan, which shall be generally consistent with the landscaping shown
on the Site Plan
1. Submit a detailed exterior lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the County's lighting
regulations. Exterior lighting on the west and south facades of the residence shall be limited to the
minimurn required to comply with the building code. Lighting of the tennis court is prohibited.
6. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the residence, the Applicant shall:
A. Pay the applicable road and employee housing impact fees.
B. Obtain a. County access/driveway permit for improvements to the existing ranch road that crosses
the LaCroix parcel and Parcel 4 of the Craig Ranch to access Parcel 7, and for the new driveway
on Parcel 7, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Aspen Fire Protection District
("AFPD") and Planning/Zoning.
1) The permit application shall address improvement or replacement of the existing bridge
across Woody Creek to meet County load requirements. If the existing bridge is improved
for use during construction, the Applicant shall submit a letter from an engineer verifying
that the bridge is structurally sound. A replacement bridge that avoids the 100 year
o
Administrative Decision Nm�T-2013
Page 4
floodplain shall then be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
residence.
2) The width of the ranch road may be varied to less than 16' with adequate pullouts and the
grade may exceed 12% in certain areas, if approved by AFPD and Planning/Zoning.
3) The owners of the Paradise Ditch shall be notified of any improvements that affect the ditch.
4) The ranch road that continues across Parcel 7 beyond the residence and up to the pond may
be minimally improved — the surface may be improved (but not paved), but the width shall
not be increased. Beyond the pond, the ranch road shall be unimproved.
C. Obtain a County Right -of -Way Permit for improvements to the intersection of the driveway with
Woody Creek Road,
D. Obtain an Earthmoving, Clearing and Grubbing Permit for all earthwork, landscaping, utility burial,
pond, tennis court and other land disturbance not associated with the construction of the residence
and other buildings.
E. Obtain a permit for the ground mounted solar energy collectors. The collectors and other ancillary
development shall have a matte finish or be of a non -reflective material/color and shall not exceed
12' in height.
7. Prior to issuance of building permits for the two agricultural buildings, the Applicant shall submit a
covenant to the Community Development Department for approval and recordation. The covenant
shall specify that the exempt floor area for the agricultural buildings may only be used in association
with the raising, producing or keeping of plants or livestock, or cultivation and management of other
crops or farm products, and that any area not consistent with those uses would count as floor area,
The covenant shall allow the County to inspect the agricultural buildings at any time for compliance
with the specified use limitations, subject to the provision of reasonable notice to the property owner.
8. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the main residence, the Applicant shall submit for
recording a covenant acceptable to the Community Development Department and County Attorney
prohibiting commercial agricultural activities on the parcel.
9. The exterior of the residence and barns shall be built or painted with indigenous earth tone materials or
colors. All roofs shall have a non -reflective color or composition, with the exception of materials
associated with solar or photovoltaic equipment.
10. The Applicant shall comply with all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District,
including but not: limited to access, turning around of fire apparatus, installation of approved fire
sprinkler systems in all structures, and a minimum 20,000 gallon water supply for fire -fighting.
11. No development shall occur outside of the approved Activity Envelopes, with the exception of
vegetation removal necessary to comply with the wildfire mitigation measures described in
Resolution No. 344-2004.
12. All new utilities shall be installed in locations and through procedures that minimize visual impacts to
the maximum extent practicable. All utilities shall be installed or extended underground within the
approved Activity Envelopes or along the driveway.
Administrative Decision No-�-20]3
Page S
13. The Applicant shall provide adequate engineering of any retaining walls over 4' in height and/or any
improvements to retaining walls over 4' in height. All retaining walls shall be a maximum of 7' in
height.
14. No development in excess of 30" above or below natural grade shall occur within the setbacks of the
parcel, with the exception of driveways and associated retaining walls of up to 6' above or below
natural grade; and fencing, Landscaping in the form of berms shall not exceed four feet from the
most restrictive grade. Any development located within setbacks mandated by County zoning
regulations that does not comply with these restrictions shall require a variance from the Board of
Adjustment. Approval of an activity envelope within such setbacks does not assure approval of a
variance.
15. No calculations for height, bulk, setback, size, floor area, or any other building and zoning requirements
have been conducted. These requirements will be considered at the time of building permit, Any
structures represented in the application might not be permitted under building and zoning regulations.
16. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in revocation of this permit or any
subsequent permits related to this property or vested rights associated with this property.
17. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County
Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use
Code, § 4-140 and C.R.S., § 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on
l ZQ , 201,4
NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the I I 1 day of October, 2012.
APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR this J114 day of Ar, , 2011,3
PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the
Aspen Times Weekly on the q_ day of"3
, 201/.:Z
CC
CiMy Aouben,
Community Development Director
P091-12
P1D#264315400009