HomeMy WebLinkAboutB10-0037CASH DEPOSIT FORMAT
Receipt funds to: Legal Description: Lot � ,Block �
Name: '�J �A 1�. Subdivision: V'A-IL., \i I �...R.. : d=� F I L�,1 Cf(�- /3
Mailing Address: QJ)Address:
/ % Developer: L
Permit Number: I — Q _
Project Number:
Improvement Completion Date: —�5�— �
DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this a3 day of ��Gir_t`'� l3�,L.. 20�
by and among (the "Developer"), and the Town of
Vail (the "Town").
WHEREAS, the Developer, as a condition of approval of the Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy for _�� �31"!�. �,4rL�S t�,Q,�-f�
(address, legal description, and project number) wishes to enter into a Developer Improvement
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, t D elop is obligated provide ecuri colla eral sufficient in the
judgement of the To to �ce nable prov' i� for provements set
forth in the attached ated ( in accord ce with specifications
filed in the office of the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail; and
E , e eveloper w to i late o guarantee performance of this
Agreeme t, ' I i� co letion of th i�pro ent �ef d to in this Agreement, by means
of the foll g:
The Developer agrees to establish a cash deposit account with the Town of Vail, as
escrow agent, in the amount of $'].y $ 7�� O as collateral for the
completion of all improvements referred to in this Agreement, in the event there is a
default under this Agreement by the Developer.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants and agreements,
the Developer and the Town agree as follows:
1. The Developer agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to furnish all equipment and
materials necessary to perform and complete all improvements referred to in this Agreement. The
Developer agrees to complete all improvements referred to in this Agreement on or before the
day of 3U/�E� 1� , 20 1. The Developer shall complete, in a good workmanlike
manner, all improvements referred to in this Agreement, in accordance with all approved plans
and specifications filed in the office of the Community Development Department of the Town of
Vail, and to do all work incidental thereto according to and in compliance with the following:
a. All said work shall be done under the inspection of, and to
the satisfaction of, the Town Planner, the Town Engineer, the Town Building
Official, or other official from the Town of Vail, as affected by special districts or
service districts, as their respective interest may appear, and shall not be deemed
F:\cdeNFORMS\Permits\PlanningWdministrative Actions�DlA cash format_5-16-2007.doc Page 1 of 5
SCANNED
-� ,�z-(Z�C�o
complete until approved and accepted as completed by the Community
Development Department and Public Works Department of the Town of Vail.
2. To secure and guarantee performance of the obligations as set forth herein, the
Developer agrees to provide collateral as follows:
A cash de,,p_osit account with the Town of Vail, as escrow agent, in the amount of
$ a..�i g[,� as collateral for the completion of all improvements
referred to in this Agreement, in the event there is a default under this Agreement
by the Developer.
3. The Developer may at any time substitute the collateral originally set forth above
for another form of security or collateral acceptable to the Town to guarantee the faithful
completion of those improvements referred to herein in this Agreement and the performance of
the terms of this Agreement. Such acceptance by the Town of alternative security or collateral
shall be at the Town's sole discretion.
4. The Town shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or
responsible for any accident, loss or damage happening or occurring to the work specified in this
Agreement prior to the completion and acceptance of the same, nor shall the Town, nor any
officer or employee thereof, be liable for any persons or property injured by reason of the nature
of said work, but all of said liabilities shall be and are hereby assumed by the Developer.
The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town, and any of its
officers, agents and employees against any losses, claims, damages, or liabilities to which the
Town or any of its officers, agents or employees may become subject to, insofar as any such
losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereofl arise out of or are based upon
any performance by the Developer hereunder; and the Developer shall reimburse the Town for
any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by the Town in connection with
investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liability or action. This indemnity
provision shall be in addition to any other liability which the Developer my have.
5. It is mutually agreed that the Developer may apply for and the Town may
authorize a partial release of the collateral deposited with the Town for each category of
improvement after the subject improvement is constructed in compliance with all plans and
specifications as referenced hereunder and accepted by the Town. Under no condition shall the
dollar amount of the collateral that is being held by the Town be reduced below the dollar amount
necessary to complete all uncompleted improvements referred to in this Agreement.
6. If the Town determines, at its sole discretion, that any of the improvements
referred to in this Agreement are not constructed in compliance with the approved plans and
specifications filed in the office of the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail or
not accepted by the Town as complete on or before the date set forth in Paragraph 1 of this
Agreement, the Town may, but shall not be required to, draw upon the security referred to in this
Agreement and complete the uncompleted improvements referred to in this Agreement. Pursuant
to Section 12-11-8, Vail Town Code, the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy referred to in this
Agreement may be revoked until all improvements referred to herein are completed by the
Developer or the Town in accordance with this Agreement.
F:\cdev�FORMS\Permits\PlanningWdministrative Actions\DIA cash format 5-16-2007.doc Page 2 of 5
If the costs of completing the uncompleted improvements referred to in this Agreement
exceed the dollar amount of the deposit, the excess, together with interest at twelve percent
(12%) per annum, shall be a lien against the property and may be collected by civil suit or may be
certified to the treasurer of Eagle County to be collected in the same manner as delinquent ad
valorem taxes levied against such property. If the Developer fails or refuses to complete the
improvements referred to in this Agreement, such failure or refusal shall be considered a violation
of Title 12 (Zoning Regulations), of the Vail Town Code, and the Developer shall be subject to
penalties pursuant to Section 12-3-10 (Violations: Penalties) and Chapter 1-4 (General Penalty),
of the Vail Town Code.
7. The Developer shall warranty the work and materials of all improvements referred
to in this Agreement located on Town property or within a Town right-of-way, pursuant to Chapter
8-3, of the Vail Town Code, for a period of finro years after the Town's acceptance of said
improvements.
8. The parties hereto mutually agree that this Agreement may be amended from time
to time, provided that such amendments be in writing and executed by all parties hereto.
F:\cdev�FORMS\Permits\PlanningWdministrative_Actions\DIA cash format 5-16-2007.doc Page 3 of 5
i
Dated the day and year first above written.
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
��
Deve op
)
) ss.
)
The foregoing Developer Improvement Agreement as acknowl d ed before me this
��Day of �e� ��� , 20� by � �i � � �� � �
Witness my hand and official seat.
My commission expires–� , Y � .
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
��
Notary Public
�, Z�j l 1
!�..s��l.��
Town Planner
)
)ss.
)
,``��.��NE G�1`yA�� ���
t,,�
�v�N O 1',q''•6'�,
, R 'r
� : ---.-.�,.�_ r;
�;,� v � �.. � c:POv
���-.,o�';��;; o�:���`��
,�Xr���,s
The foregoing veloper Improvement Agreement was aFknowledged efore me this
?-�Day of �QV+.�afr— , 20� by �� � � � !%� S�c
Witness my hand and official seal.
c
My commission expires: /4 �� ��' � �
�l�
Nota Public
F:\cdev�FORMS\Permits\PlanningWdministrative Actions\DIA cash format_5-16-2007.doc
�*o'�`�NE �Aq�.4 ; ,
1: .�'%
.
�:'N O ?` q R Yr
r�
�' p� :
:
�O
�►' �LIC;Q.
F• ;
� P�
�;•'���;� 6: � i,�.�`�i`'�
Page 4 of 5
, `
�� LANDMARK
�� ENVtRONMENTS inc.
P.O. Box 1024 Eagl� Colorado 81631
Phone # 970-376-6798 / 970-376-6799
Name/Address
Gary Hill
Cell #: 390-3413
Fax #: 328-2201
e-mail: garyhill@centurytel.net
DESCRIPTION
Landscape and Inigation Proposal for the Adair Residence, 3035
Booth Falls, Town of Vail.
Redo and fix irrigation damaged from excavation, parts and labor
Final grade for native seed, labor
Native seed (seed, fertilizer and mulch), material and labor
Estimate
DATE ESTIMATE NO.
12/23/2010 413
Qn' COST
I 750.00
24 35.00
I I 400.00
TOTAL
PROJECT
TOTAL
750.00
840.OQ
400,00
$1,990.00
ATTACHED COPIES OF THE ESTIMATED BID(S)
F:\cdev�FORMS\Permits�PlanningWdministrative_Actions\DIA cash format_5-16-2007.doc Page 5 of 5
i
�n
� '
� lutions .inc
ENGINEERIN�G
Letter of Record
June 16th, 2010
����8•0�� o
Proiect: 0201-10 Adair Remodel : 3035 Booth Falls Rd. Vail CO
��A�G- LGr4�(�-(�� P.O. BOX 2494
AVON.CO 81620
PM 9IO.949.71 OO
Fan970.949.3377
Pertaining to the micro-pile installation and testing at the above referenced project, we have reviewed the
load test report by Yeh & Associates (Project No. 210-059 dated June 10t'', 2010) prepared by Richard D.
Johnson, P.E., as well as the subsequent report by Michael W. West and Associates (Project No. 09906)
prepared by Francis E. Harrison, P.E. and Julia Frazier in which they review load test report noted above.
We did not observe the installation of the mic� a-piles, however, we concur with Michael W. West and
Associates that the load test procedures followed and the results obtained from the verification test and
proof test are in conformance with the foundation design recommendations as well as the FHWA guidelines
If you have questions about these observations or recommendations, please do not hesitate to call.
Tyler Aldrich
�-%��1
� �;-
Vice President
Jeffrey P. Leonardo, P. E.
���LI V �
D
�� �I� 1 � 201D
TOWt� OF VAiL
PREPARED 8/31/11, 13:29:49 DEPOSIT REFUND REPORT-UPDATE PAGE 1
PROGRAM MR415U �
Town of Vail
-------------------- ------------ ---- ------------- — --------------------------------------- — ----- — — -- ----------------- — ------
CUST-ZD CUSTOMER NAME TYPE
CHARGE DEPOSIT DEPOSIT-ADJ ADJUSTMENT AFTER-REFUND
CODE DESCRIPTION TX-DATE AJ-DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2965 JOHN ADAIR D2
DEP10 Dep-Developer Imp Agrmts 12/28/10 6/31/11 2487.50 2487.50 2487.50- .00
------------- - — ---------- ------------- ----- — ------
TOTAL FOR CUSTOMER TYPE: D2 2487.50 2487.50 2487.50- .00
GRAND TOTAL:
DEPOSIT COUNT: 1
G/L BATCH CREATED: BATCH-02627
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
2487.50 2487.50 2487.50- .00
2011/08 USERID-JLOVATO AP HELD
COUNT- .00 AMOUNT- 2,487.50
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
.�
�owxo�vnQ; '
Town of Vail, Community Development, 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
p. 970.479.2139, f. 970.479.2452, inpsections 970.479.2149
ADD/ALT SFR BUILD PERMIT Permit #: B10-0037
Job Address:
Location......:
Parcel No....:
3035 BOOTH FALLS RD VAIL
210102303001
OWNER ADAIR, KATHERINE D. & JOHN
3035 BOOTH FALLS RD
VAIL
CO 81657
APPLICANT HILL CONSTRUCTION INC
PO Box 1735
Edwards
CO 81632
License: 267-A
CONTRACTOR HILL CONSTRUCTION INC
PO Box 1735
Edwards
CO 81632
License: 267-A
Description:
REMODEL: DEMO GARAGE
SPACE
Occupancy: IRC
Type Construction:IRC
03/30/2010
03/30/2010 Phone:328-2200
03/30/2010 Phone: 328-2200
CONSTRUCT NEW GARAGE, BEDROOM, LIVING
Project #:
Valuation:
Total Sq Ft Added:
Status . . :
Applied . . :
Issued . .. :
Expires . ..:
PRJ08-0010
ISSUED
03/30/2010
05/25/2010
11/21/2010
$600,000.00
2181
fi!lilrLNtf#trtkY`kRftltrAf4144Y`#MrtFY'�RYI+Fftr+�f4RltiftikiFY'iRiRYrfYfwfVl4i44t�#YYYYtfx�fff«!R FEE SUMMARY •••••••••,,•_•••••,•,•••••,•••••_•••••"••••••,••••••••,•••••••>••,•••••••••••••
Building Permit Fee------> $3,708.75 Wiil Cal Fee--------------------> $4.00 Totai Calculated Fees-------------> $18,250.59
Plan Check-------------------> $2,410.69 Use Tax Fee--------------------> $11,800.00 Additional Fees-----------------------> $0.00
Add'I Plan Check Hours-> $0.00 Restuarant Plan Review-----> $0.00 TOTAL PERMIT FEES-------------> $18,250.59
Investigation-----------------> $0.00 Recreation Fee-----------------> $327.15
Payments------------------------------> 518,250.59
Total Calculated Fees--------> $18,250.59 BALANCE DUE--------------------> 30.00
:w»�w��Rt�x�+tw�vr�•,rwxRt:����+�e,r��:�er+::����i+ww,+ww��wr.r:�ttrrwy�:rr��+x:+.����w�wnxxwww�w,txrrr,r,r�x:rix:�:xk++�++�x�w�x�xwwx���x�rr���w�x��x�+.x���+.�,+wwwiwi.w��++ww�,rexre+�f��wrw,ex
DECLARATIONS
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application, filled out in full the information required, completed an accurate plot plan, and state that all the information
as required is correct. I agree to comply with the information and plot plan, to comply with all Town ordinances and state laws, and to build this structure
according to the towns zoning and subdivision codes, design review approved, International Building and Residential Codes and other ordinances of the Town
applicable thereto.
REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION SHALL BE MADE TWENTY-FOUR HOURS IN ADVANCE BY TELEPHONE AT 970.479.2149 OR AT OUR OFFICE FROM
8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
,:�-�G� � - ���-�G�
Signature of Owner or Contractor Oate
Cr-.Z� lZ,Y � 1 LL,
Print Name
bld_alt_construction_perm it_041908
rt�tr�k+�r��iiee��w3�++�rxtt�+xwri:�w�w�r�+t+r�::w��xRx�rer�rr�x�it:3:��w�w��tw:rr:;w�x����wyrr+��w�wwix�xr«x�rrrrt���k+w���xxixxw�we���at��+r�r�i:��x�w:w�ww��www�����i��*�rr�t�irr:
APPROVALS
Permit #: 610-0037 as of 05-25-2010 Status: ISSUED
xx�is.r,er:vrx�i���x►��xw�ww�wr��,r����xxwxx,r,rrx,e��rwkwx��:::s.ii�i,r��w�rw�x�►:w:ixiii:r,rxrerrwt:�kx�:::►xr::e�w,vv,�:�+.x::wwwrx�xv.v.+�r+x�►:wwrnxxxrwrw+.xrwr�:::�:r»rirww,r,rr,rv.+airi���n�Mn.i
Item: 05100 BUILDING DEPARTMENT
04/05/2010 cg Action: CR SEE LASERFISCHE
05/13/2010 cg Action: CR SECOND CHECK
REVIEW COMMENTS SENT. COPY IN LASERFISCHE
05/24/2010 cg Action: AP
Item: 05400 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
04/16/2010 bgibson Action: AP plans routed to C-5
Item: 05600 FIRE DEPARTMENT
04/01/2010 drhoades Action: AP See conditions.
Item: 05500 PUBLIC WORKS
04/05/2010 csalli Action: DN contractor must
submit staging plan and erosion/sediment control plan for
approval. notified contractor 4/5/10
04/08/2010 cdelles Action: AP Contractor
provided additional erosion and staging information
tff4fftrlffYfttRy'ft*k1e�wlrx�tR1'ttkY�1`4Iii4#MRR1'f'iRiRV4YLfL*RAd##RfrfRRYYYy'y'#44t}if4f}frf'frRfR4YlikYeYAitltl4f*#1�V 1r4tfry'rtYM#iYfRx�fNf�RRYik4f�kirl/#*#+YffH'MRYYtfk�*�1ff*f4#x4�fYfrfihYr*Y.'iF1f�}4ffti#*�Zfft#
See the Conditions section of this Document for any that may apply.
bld_alt_construction_perm it_041908
Rf�ftxtrt*w*�ffRff4Nw�Ywti#*k�wY**fii��ffl�fKrt**f#Yff#fwwff#fY**k4f���fYRRkrt#Wii4��Aif�fkR1lrt�ww4wik�f�+4rt�*wf#iif�Rfrtefif�*4t�RRfek��ttw*��4tf�fiRl�f�ffww*tti44�4**Rx*kftWf�wY#14*#f
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Permit #: B10-0037 as of 05-25-2010 Status: ISSUED
•'k}�kAf*f�L14YikfiPrtrtfr/i4lrfrffnk�Fii#ii4Rff4fittfYYtt4f4ffR4frfrYTYfi�I#Ot4itlV�� V ffrtYrM14Mi1/1f'4kfN�Ytfy'�t/f�#!!#4if4RYWfF#/f/Yt�Yt*Y'y'fkffif�tt4/fYrYrtttfYtltfriffrff'f'�fr144Y�MYfft*frf`#1tRYlYttkft►*/*fiRlf
Cond: 12
(BLDG.): FIELD INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO CHECK FOR CODE
COMPLIANCE.
Cond: 42
(BLDG 2009) CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS REQUIRED TO BE
INSTALLED PER 2009 IRC R315
Cond: CON0011340
(FIRE 2007): MONITORED FIRE ALARM SYSTEM REQUIRED AND SHALL
COMPLY WITH NFPA 72(2007) AND VFES STANDARDS. SYSTEM MUST
INCLUDE ALL PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND ALSO ANY
OF THE NEW STRUCTURE.
Cond: CON0011443
SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIRED PER iBC CH. 17
bld_a It_co n stru ct i o n_pe rm it_041908
)
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
Separate permits are required for electricai, plumbing, mechanical, fireplace, etc.
I Project Street Address:
! �3� _��"1a► 'FthL�L..� R�A.t�
�' (Number) (Street) (Suite #)
Buitding/Complex Name:
O�ce tlse:
Pro�ect #: FR�' �.��� � (�
DRB #:' 0���_q
Suilding Permit #: _ �� � '� �
Contractor information• �~������w��FwP- Lot #: l� Block # � Subdivision: l�+�u.. li I�.L..�(i-fG
' ���,,�G- �3
Company: i-► ILL C.C,CL �'��U(:'i'1 it Ai J�1 �,..
�
Company Address: p'Q gQX �7 3S f Detailed Scope and Location of Woric:
City: State: Zip: ��jF,j'�L,i SH L�c RJi� G F,�.
Contact Name: ���_� I�r
Contact Phone: �—IQ � 3y, �3
E-Mail ,[T�c�.1_N'i. � 1 � �Q�", a��
Town of Vail Contractor istration No.: �,��
X �
Contractor Signature (required)
au �,� ,�c1��.�.�.� s�.�fiz�
G�aA.�Al,� �.t h C��[lu�.,�tf��
(use additional sheet if necessary}
Work Class:
New ( ) Addifion ( ) Remodel (�J' Repair ( ) Other ( )
Work 7ype
Interior ( ) Exterior ( ) Both (�f
Property Information � Type of Buiiding: l_��—R.��T�_.._.
Parcel #: a.�� ( • p �.'3 • Q 3 •• Q[� � � Singie-Family (�}�@upiex ( ) Multi-Family ( )
(For parcel #, contact Eagie County Assessars Office at 970.328-8640 or
visit www.eaglecounty.us/patie) �Commercial ( ) Other ( )
€
Tenant Name: �"5YJ1�L c!. �i'hl�►�( ,D,p,�l�? Does a Fire Alarm Exist?
Owner Name: 'Spu1�(�`t' ,I�rj„b� � Monitored Alarm?
Valuatians (Labor & Materials)
Building: $ y� O Q Q�
Plumbing: $ �0 (�Q �__
�
Electrical:
Mechanical: (including fireplace)
Total:
�
� AA �
• • ��
, �.� f! �► �
Yes (�j No ( )
Yes (�f No ( )
Does a Sprinkler System Exist? Yes () n tVo (� � Y i
#� Type of Existing Fireplaces: Gas Appliances I
Gas Log �. Wood/Pellet � Wood Burning �� �
i
#& 7ype of Proposed Fireplaces: Gas Appliances ___ �
Gas l_og � 1Noad/Pellet W� ��m���
__ ._ ._.._.___ ___..._._ _._ .. _.----._._..._._�.__ _ �
I date Received ��� n� n�
' D �J ���
i
i
_ � MAR 2 9 2010
TOWN OF VAIL I�I- '
%
*******s***+*****************+******************************************************++******
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADOCopy Reprinted on 01-22-2013 at 09:50:32 O1/22/2013
Statement
***********************************************************+*+******+***********************
Statement Number: R100000599 Amount: $15,839.9005/25/201002:56 PM
Payment Method: Check Init: JRM
Notation:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit No: B10-0037 Type: ADD/ALT SFR BUILD PERMIT
Parcel No: 2101-023-0300-1
Site Address: 3035 BOOTH FALLS RD VAIL
Location:
Total Fees: $18,251.59
This Payment: $15,839.90 Total ALL Pmts: $18,250.59
Balance: $1.00
�********�*******a**************************************************************************
ACCOUNT ITEM LIST:
Account Code
--------------------
BP 00100003111100
RF 11100003112700
UT 11000003106000
WC 00100003112800
Description Current Pmts
------------------------------ ------------
BUILDING PERMIT FEES 3,708.75
RECREATION FEES 327.15
USE TAX 4% 11,800.00
WILL CALL INSPECTION FEE 4.00
. •
✓ 1� ���
Asbestos Inspection and Sampling Report
3t73513c�c1th Fc�Ils Rc�, Vcxil, Cc�Cc�ruc�c� f3.16�7
Presen ted to:
Mr. Gary Hill
Hill Construction Inc
431 Golden Eagle
Eagle, CO 81631
Performed & Prepared by:
Mr. Steve Shurtliff
DS Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 6864
Avon, CO 81620
(303) 378-1544
Project Details:
� ���oM�
APR C 1 2010
TOW(V OF VAIL
DSC Project #: 2122
Conducted: March 29, 2010
Homeowner: Mr. John and Cathy Adair
� ,, � � �
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 29, 2010, Mr. Steve Shurtliff of DS Consulting, Inc. (DSC) performed a limited inspection and
asbestos sampling at 3035 Booth Falls Rd, Vail, Colorado, in order to identify potentially hazardous
friable and non-friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) within the garage of the above-referenced,
single-family residence recently scheduled for a renovation. The Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment's (CDPHE) Regulation 8, Part B defines an asbestos-containing material (ACM) as a
material containing more than 1% asbestos.
Mr. Shurtliff performed asbestos bulk-sampling of drywall (surfacing materials) in a total of three (3)
locations within the garage (see Appendix A for sample locations). All three (3) bulk-samples were
analyzed by Aerobiology Laboratory Associates, Inc. (NVLAP #200860-0) with all three (3) laboratory
results being positive for asbestos at 3% and 4% Chrysotile (see Appendix C for laboratory results).
The following sampled materials were found to contain asbestosgreater than 1%(ACM):
*Quantities are approximations and subject to field verification.
�
PROJECT OVERVIEW
I. Introduction
A limited inspection and bulk-sampling for ACM was conducted at 3035 Booth Falls Rd, Vail, Colorado, by
Mr. Shurtliff on March 29, 2010, at the request of Mr. Gary Hill with Hill Constructions Inc. Mr. Shurtliff is
a Colorado State Certified Building Inspector; having EPA Accreditation #15413 (see Appendix B for
certificate). The purpose of the inspection was to identify, sample and assess potentially hazardous
friable and non-friable ACM within the garage of the residence.
II. Structural Design
The structure is a wood-framed, single-family residence with attached garage.
III. Sampling and Analytical Procedures
The inspection, assessment and sampling were conducted by an EPA and AHERA accredited Building
Inspector qualified by experience, education and training in the recognition of potential ACM and
approved bulk-sampling techniques. The asbestos bulk-sampling was conducted on suspect ACM with a
limited number of bulk-samples being collected within the residence.
The inspection, assessment and sampling were performed in accordance with Environmental Protection
Agency/AHERA recommended procedures. These procedures call for the visual inspection of the area of
concern and the collection and analysis of representative bulk-samples of suspect material.
Some minor destructive sampling was conducted. Walls, columns and perimeter pipe chases were not
broken into in order to locate and quantify suspect ACM. It should be noted that additional ACM might be
located in these and other inaccessible areas.
Random bulk-samples, representative of the suspect asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM) of
each homogeneous area (HA), were collected according to the guidelines published as Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Final Rule: Title II of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 USC, Sections
2641 through 2654 and in compliance with 40 CFR, Part 763. Representative sampling is based on the
following criteria:
1. The distribution of the suspect material throughout the HA.
2. The suspect material's physical characteristics and application.
3. Random sampling patterns determined for each HA.
Suspect materials sampled and analyzed should be considered to be representative of materials in each
HA if they exhibit similar physical characteristics and the application of the sampled material can be
correlated to the application of un-sampled material. Bulk-samples collected were analyzed utilizing the
EPA's Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials (EPA 600/R/116, July, 1993)
and the McCrone Research Institute's The Asbestos Particle Atlas as methods references. Analysis of the
bulk-samples was performed on the "date reported," as listed in the bulk-sample analysis report.
IV. Notes on Report Format
Suspect materials alike in appearance and application were sampled as HAs. Suspect materials were
divided into three classifications:
1. Surfacing Material: sprayed or troweled onto structural building member.
2. Thermal System Insulation (TSI): any type of pipe, boiler, tank, or duct insulation.
3. Miscellaneous Material: other suspect materials, floor tile, sheet vinyl/linoleum, ceiling tiles,
insulation, and finishing materials.
Condition assessments were performed by the accredited inspector at the time of inspection. Condition
assessments are listed in the following section. Ratings of "good," "damaged," and "significantly
damaged" are meant to indicate the overall condition of the material.
A material in "good" condition has no visible damage or deterioration, or showing only very limited
damage or deterioration.
A material in "damaged" condition has the following characteristics: The surface is crumbling, blistered,
water-stained, gouged, marred or otherwise abraded over less than one-tenth of the surface if the
damage is evenly distributed (one-quarter if the damage is localized). Accumulation of powder, dust or
debris similar in appearance to the suspect material on surfaces beneath the material can be used as
confirmatory evidence. A material in "significantly damaged" condition has one or more of the following
characteristics:
• The surface is crumbling or blistered over at least one-tenth of the surface if the damage is evenly
distributed (one-quarter if the damage is localized).
• One-tenth (one-quarter, if localized) of the material is hanging from the surface, deteriorated, or
showing adhesive failure.
• Water stains, gouges, or mars are over at least one-tenth of the surface if the damage is evenly
distributed (one-quarter if the damage is localized). Accumulation of powder, dust or debris
similar in appearance to the suspect material on surfaces beneath the material can be used as
confirmatory evidence.
Response-action recommendations for asbestos-containing HAs are listed in the section VII.
Recommendations may be for more than one HA, if materials are alike. Recommendations are either
"general" or "immediate." An immediate recommendation indicates the presence of asbestos greater
than 1% within the bulk-sample, or a bulk-sample in the same HA, and should be addressed accordingly.
A general recommendation indicates asbestos does not exist greater than 1% within the bulk-sample, or
a bulk-sample in the same HA, and no further abatement activities are required for removal of the
material. Any sample reporting a"TRACE" amount of asbestos must be considered to be positive for
asbestos greater than 1% unless it is analyzed by the point-count method to be less than 1%.
V. Inspector Comments
Asbestos was identified during the bulk-sampling conducted at 3035 Booth Falls Rd, Vail, Colorado. A
total of three (3) bulk-samples were collected from the garage of the above-referenced residence. Three
(3) bulk-samples tested positive greater than 1% for asbestos.
■ Asbestos was identified in the garage wall drywall (surfacing material) sample DW01-01 at 4%
Chrysotile
4
Asbestos was identified in the garage wall drywall (surfacing material) sample DW01-02 at 3%
Chrysotile
Asbestos was identified in the garage wall drywall (surfacing material) sample DW01-03 at 3%
Chrysotile
VI. Homogeneous Area Descriptions
The following section contains sampled HA descriptions and sample locations. Percent-asbestos content
for each sample indicated can vary depending on sample locations, homogeneity of the materials, and
type of application. The following samples were collected from the single family residence at 3035 Booth
Falls Rd, Vail, Colorado, on March 29, 2010. The quantities are approximations and are subject to field
verification:
� ��. .� � i � ��. .� , �
Sample #: DW01-01 Sample #: DW01-02
Sample Description: Drywall Sample Description: Drywall
Sample Location: Garage Sample Location: Garage
Material Classification: Surfacing Material Material Classification: Surfacing Material
Material Quantiry: +/- 700ftz Material Quantity: +/- 700ftz
Material Condition: Good Material Condition: Good
Physical Description (layers): White tape; White Physical Description (layers): White paint; White
paint; White joint compound; White texture; tape; White texture; White joint compound;
White tan dr all White tan dr all
Asbestos Content (layers): Negative; Negative; 4% Asbestos Content (layers): Negative; Negative; 3%
Ch sotile; 4% Chr sotile; Ne ative Ch sotile; Ne ative; Ne ative
Recommendations: IMMEDIATE - See Section VII Recommendations: IMMEDIATE - See Section VII
� i�. .� , �
Sample #: DW01-03
Sample Description: Drywall
Sample Location: Garage
Material Classification: Surfacing Material
Material Quantity: +/- 700ftz
Material Condition: Good
Physical Description (layers): White paint; White
tape; White texture; White joint compound;
White tan dr all
Asbestos Content (layers): Negative; Negative; 3%
Ch sotile; 3% Chr sotile; Ne ative
Recommendations: IMMEDIATE - See Section VII
VII. Recommendations
IMMEDIAT�:
The laboratory results of the potential ACM sampled at 3035 Booth Falls Rd, Vail, Colorado, on March 29,
2010, indicate that all three (3) bulk-samples of drywall collected from the garage were reported as
positive for asbestos at 3% and 4% Chrysotile.
If the above-referenced ACM is to be removed from the residence and the total quantity exceeds any of
the regulatory trigger levels of 50 linear feet on pipes, 32 square feet on other surfaces, or the volume
equivalent of a 55-gallon drum, a Colorado-licensed asbestos abatement contractor is required to
perform the removal, including formal notification to the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment prior to the abatement of the ACM.
C�
G ' ' D \ _I . _�_
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
*irnage approx,aoc to scale
APPENDIX B
CERTIFICATION
STATE t�F C(7L(�RADC}
A,SBE�T4S
CF,RT:IFI+CATIE3N'�
Colnratia peparnn��3t nf F'ublic i{c�tth
s�n�l Fsnvirntlmem
Air T'oilvtion GanCrot Divisitzn
'Cliis certilics that
�i@VC ��11II'Llt�
C:erkiiicatia�t N'p: ('a4t3
has �m�at tlie rec�uire��ents af 25-7-50�, C.RS. and Ait Qualicy Cc�ritrot
C",oannii�ssi��n Ite�ul�tion Na. 8, Part FS, und is hereby certifaad tiy die
statr afC'nipt�ada i» thc� fallowit�g�disoipline:
Building inspector*
is$���: s,�i�rz��y
Exgires nn: 6112r1010 E '
� / f �
�,,i, 4,�: - a
�.�.� %.'t.c��`f„,.G:?r{...:.-Et
I�-
Au£tatYrs4 f.YGU Na;mnw!r�iwe `
* Tkis cerr(Jirete i� �w7id aaty wLk rkr paxsuviox afo w.rrewrtllvi.eloawptxo d taaiwixeg �ourse
ccxfificrflon ti tFe dB.ripliwe speeF/7z�P ubosr.
APPENUIX C
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
8
�A�r�ob�olc��y Lpbc�aaTOr�y
--.,,,,�--•` ASSOGIATES, INCORP4i�ATED
�� C4NSULT[NG lA8QI2ATOf2Y
Certificate of Analysis
Client Name DS Co�isulting, Iric. ,� Date Collected:
Street address �2�37 S. Indiana St. ��/ �Q� Date Received:
City, State ZIP Lake�vood, (:O 80223 Date Analyzed:
Atm: Stevc Shurtlifl' #200860-0 Date Reported:
Client Project Name: 303� Booth Pa(Is Kd. tiail, CO Project ID:
Job ID:
Test Requested: 3002, Asbestos in Bulk Samples
Method: Polarized Light Microscopy / Dispersion Staining (PLM), Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials. EPA-600/R-93/116, July 1993.
13949 W. Colfaac Ave _
Suite 205
Lakewood, CO 80401
303.2323746
www.aerobioloav.net •
03/29/10
03/30/10
03/30/10
03/31/10
101844
Homo- Number Asbestos Detected Non-Asbestos Non-Fibrous Matrix
Sam le Identification Physical Description of Sample; geneous of Fibers Material Material
Client Lab Sam le Number Additional Comments es/no La ers % (area %) area % (com osition
98%
101844-1A White Tape N 5,5% Negative CELL 2
101844-1B White Paint N 5,�% Negative 100
POSITIVE
DWO1-01 101844-1C White Joint Compound N 5,20°/a 4% CHRY 96 C
POSITIVE
101844-1D White Texture N 5,35% 4% CHRY 96 C
15%
101844-IE White/Tan Drywall N 5,35% Negative CELL 85 G
101844-2A White Paint � N 5,3% Negative 100
98%
101844-2B White Tape N 5,5% Negative CELL 2
POSITIVE
DWO1-02 101844-2C White Texture N 5,15% 3% CHRY 97 C
101844-2D White Joint Compound N 5,37% Negative 100 G
15%
101844-2E White/Tan Drywall N 5,40% Negative CELL 85 G
/ "'"`..-��t��.��'..
au nappe
Laboratory Analyst
� ' %% .. ........ _
;%� ,� � _
� � _.
Adam Humphreys
Asbestos Laboratory Supervisor
A = Amosite
AC = Actinolite
AN = Anthophyllite
CHRY=Chrysotile
CR = Crocidolite
TR = Tremolite
Trace=Less Than l°/a
Page 1 of 3 13949 W. Colfax Ave. Suite 205, Lakewood CO 80401, 3032323746
CELL = Cellulose
MW = Mineral Wool
FBG = Fiberglass
SYN = Synthetic
WO = Wollastonite
NTR = Non-Asbestiform TR
NAC = Non-Asbestiform AC
FT = Fibrous Talc
AH = Animal Hair
11 = 11uartz
C = Carbonates
V = Vermiculite
G = Gypsum
M = Mica
T=Tar
P = Perlite
O = Organic
B = Binder
OP = Opaques
D = Diatoms
�A��obiolo+�y Labor��►TOr�y
--.,�„-1, ASS�GIATES, INC(�RPORATED
�` CONSl1tT[NG l/1�RATQRY
Certificate of Analysis
Client Name DS Consulting, Inc ��n � +; Date Collected:
Street address �247 S. Indiana St. �( t1 Date Received:
Ciry, Staie ZIP Lake.rood, CO 80228 � Date Analyzed:
Atfi: Steve Shurtlifl' #200860-0 Date Reported:
Client Project Name: 303� f3ooth Patls Rd. Vail, CO Projec[ ID:
Job ID:
Test Requested: 3002, Asbestos in Bulk Samples
Method: Polarized Light Microscopy / Dispersion Staining (PLM), Method for the De[ermination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials. EPA-600/R-93/116, July 1993.
13949 W. Colfax Ave „
Suite 205
Lakewood,CO 80401
3032323746
www.aerobioloav.net •
03/29/10
03/30/10
03/30/10
03/31/10
101844
Homo- Number Asbestos Detected Non-Asbestos Non-Fibrous Matrix
Sam le Identification Physical Description of Sample; geneous of Fibers Material Material
Client Lab Sam le Number Additional Comments es/no La ers % area % area % com osition
101844-3A White Paint N 5,2% Negative 100
98%
101844-3B White Tape N 5,4% Negative CELL 2
POSITIVE
DWO1-03 101844-3C White Texture N 5,6°/a 3% CHRY 97 C
POSITIVE
101844-3D White Joint Compound N 5,6% 3% CHRY 97 C
15%
101844-3E White/Tan Drywall N 5,62% Negative CELL 85 G
;: ���'+�,/�'�'—'�s�,'.i'"-�_
Paul Knappe
Laboratory Analyst
Page 2 of 3
> �'
� -, ,� __..._ .
.,. ...,.,. -
< ;-✓
�,.,,
am ump reys
Asbestos Laboratory Supervisor
A = Amosite
AC = Actiuolite
AN = Anthophyllite
CHRY=Chrysotile
CR = Crocidolite
TR = Tremolite
Trace=Less Than 1 %
13949 W. Colfax Ave. Suite 205, Lakewood CO 80401, 303.232.3746
CELL = Cellulose
MW = Mineral Wool
FBG = Fiberglass
SYN = Synthetic
WO = Wollastonite
NTR = Non-Asbestiform TR
NAC = Non-Asbestiform AC
FT = Fibrous Talc
AH = Animal Hair
Q = Quartz
C = Carbonates
V = Vermiculite
G = Gypsum
M = Mica
T=Tar
P = Perlite
O = Organic
B = Binder
OP = Opaques
D = Diatoms
� �Er�obioit��y I�bo�a�rc�Ry
-.,�„�--` ASSOCtATES, INC(JRF'ORATED
����
C;(3NSUkiit�G 1,1[34?R�lIQI2Y Certificate of Analysis
DS Consulting, Inc. �
3247 S. Indiana St. ���a�
Lakewood, CO 80228
Steve Shurtliff #200860-0
Client Project Name: *(� i� Booth Falls Rd. Vail, CC)
General Notes
♦ Negative indicates no asbestos was detected; the method detection limit is 1%.
♦ Trace or "<1" indicates asbestos was identified in the sample, but the concentration is less than the method detection limit of 1%.
13949 W. Colfax Ave
Suite 205
Lakewood, CO 80401
3032323746
www.aero6ioloav.net
Date Collected: 03/29/10
Date Received: 03/30/10
Date Analyzed: 03/30/10
Date Reported: 03/31/l0
Project ID: ]01844
Job ID:
♦ All regulated asbestos minerals (i.e. chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite) were sought in every layer of each sample, but only those asbestos
minerals detected are listed. Amosite is the common name for the asbestiform variety of the minerals cummingtonite and grunterite. Crocidolite is the common name used for the
asbestiform variety ofthe mineral reibekite.
♦ Tile, vinyl, foam, plastic, and fine powder samples may contain asbestos fibers of such small diameter (< 025 microns in diameter) that these 56ers cannot be detected by PLM.
For such samples, more sensitive analytical methods (e.g. TEM, SEM, and XRD) are recommended if greater certainty about asbestos content is required. Semi-quantitative bulk 1'EM
floor tile analysis is accepted under the NESHAPS regulations.
♦ These results are submitted pursuant to Aerobiology Laboratory Associates, Inc.'s current terms and conditions of sale, induding the company's standard warranty and limitation
of liability provisions. No responsibility or liability is assumed for the manner in which the results are used or interpreted.
♦ Unless notified in writing to retum the samples covered by this report, Aerobiology Laboratory Associates, Inc. will store the samples for a minimum period of thirty (30) days
before discarding. A shipping and handling charge will be assessed for the retum of any samples.
Notes Reauired bv NVLAP
♦ This report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST, or any agency of the Federal Government.
♦ This test report relates only to the items tested or calibrated.
♦ This report is not valid unless it bears the name of a NVLAP-approved signatory.
♦ Any reproduction of this document must include the entire document in order for the report to be valid.
13949 W. Colfax Ave. Sui[e 205, Lakewood CO 80401, 303232.3746
,'.
��
k�
�.
��������c ��ft�va�� Rf�rsi�� 4.3.fl �J�� �G� 3�
Compliance Certifica�e
Project Title: Adair Residence Addition TOA�/� pf �/81�
Energy Code: 2003 lECC o��� �
Location: Vaii, Colorado �� �
Construction Type: Si ogie Family oP�
Glazing Area Percentage: 23 /,
Heating Degree Days: 9248
Construction Site:
3035 Booth Falls Road
Vail, CO 81655
Owner/Agent:
Designer Millie Aldrich
Pure Design Studio
PO Box 527
Wolcott, CO 81655
970-470-1222
millie@puredesign-studio.com
.
Compliance: Maximum UA: 1299 Your UA: 1108
Ip ���o��
MAY o 7 2010
TOWfV OF VAIL
Designer/Contractor:
Contractor Gary Hill
Hiil Construction Inc.
PO Box 1735
Edwards, CO 81632
970-390-3413�
garyhill@centu rytel . net
m
Ceiling 1: Cathedral Ceiling (no attic)
Wall 1: Wood Frame, 16" o.c.
Window fix: Wood Frame:Double Pane with Low-E
Window case: Wood Frame:Double Pane with Law-E
Window glass block: Wood Frame:Double Pane with Low-E
Door 1: Glass
Door garage: Solid
Floor 1: All-Wood JoistlTruss:Over Outside Air
Floor 2: Slab-On-Grade:Heated
Insulation depth: 4.0'
Floor upper level: AI{-Wood Joist/Truss:Over Unconditioned Space
Boiler 1: Other (Except Gas-Fired Steam) 90 AFUE
1508
2007
s
132
127
55
144
144
461
1185
38.0 Y2.0
23.0 0.0
0.290
0.330
0.520
0.300
0.120
48.0 0.0
14.0
757 0.0 14.0
30
77
38
42
29
43
17
10
780
42
Compliance Statement: The proposed building design described here is consistent with the building plans, specifications, and other
calculations submitted with the permit application. The proposed building has been designed to meei the 2003 IECC requirements in
REScheck Version 4.3.0 and to comply with the mandatory requirements listed in the REScheck Inspection Checklist. f
�
��� �-- ,��'�u� ��faet �.� ��'� r' �';�%, :,� l `
Name - Titte Signature�� � �p Z7T'— �at j
Project Title: Adair Residence Addition Reppit date: 03/18l10
Data filename: C:lPure Design StudiolProjectslAdair RemodeRSpecsSA-rescheck.rck Page 1 of 4
0
�
REScheck Software Version 4.3.0
Inspection Checklist
Ceilings:
❑ Ceiling 1: Cathedral Ceiling (no attic), R-38.0 cavity + R-12.0 continuous insulation
Comments:
Above-Grade Walls:
❑ Wali 1: Wood Frame, 16" o.c., R-23.0 cavity insulation
Comments:
Windows:
❑ Window fix: Wood Frame:Double Pane with Low-E, U-factor: 0.290
For windows without labeled U-factors, describe features:
#Panes Frame Type Thermal Break? Yes No
Comments:
❑ Window case: Wood Frame:Double Pane with Low-E, U-factor: 0.330
For windows without labeled U-factors, describe features:
#Panes Frame Type Thermal Break? Yes No
Comments:
❑ Window glass block: Wood Frame:Double Pane with Low-E, U-factor: 0.520
For windows without labeled U-factors, describe features:
#Panes Frame Type Thermal Break? Yes No
Comments:
Doors:
❑ Door 1: Glass, U-factor: 0.300
Comments:
❑ Door garage: Solid, U-factor: 0.120
Comments:
Floors:
❑ Floor 1: All-Wood JoisUTruss:Over Outside Air, R-48.0 cavity insulation
Comments:
❑ Floor 2: Slab-On-Grade:Heated, 4.0' insula6on depth, R-14.0 continuous insulation
Comments:
Slab insulation extends down from the top of the slab to at least 4.0 ft. OR down to at least the bottom of the slab then horizontally for a
total distance of 4.0 ft.
Exterior insuta6on has a rigid, opaque, weather-resistant protective covering that covers the exposed (above-grade) insulation and extends
at least 6 in. below grade.
❑ Floor upper level: Ail-Wood JoisUTruss:Over Unconditioned Space, R-14.0 continuous insulation
Comments:
Heating and Cooling Equipment:
❑ Baler 1: Other (Except Gas-Fired Steam): 90 AFUE or higher
Make and Model Number:
Air Leakage:
0 Joints, penetrations, and all other such openings in the building envelope that are sources of air leakage are sealed.
� Recessed lights are 1) Type IC rated, or 2) installed inside an appropriate air-tight assembly with a 0.5" clearance from combustible
materials. If non-IC rated, fixtures are installed with a 3" clearance from insulation.
Project Title: A�eir Residence Addi6on
Data filename: C:\Pure Design Studio\ProjectsWdair Remodel\SpecslA-rescheck.rck
Report dalc� 03/18/10
Page 2 of 4
6kylights:
� Minimum insulation requirement for skylight shafts equal to or greater than 12 inches is R-19.
Vapor Retarder:
0 Installed on the warm-in-winter side of all non-vented framed ceilings, walls, and floors.
Materials Identification and Installation:
� Materials and equipment are installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions.
� Insulation is installed in substantial contact with the surface being insulated and in a manner that achieves the rated R-value.
� Materials and equipment are identified so that compliance can be determined.
� Manufadurer manuals for all installed heating and cooling equipment and service water heating equipment have been provided.
� Insulation R-values, glazing U-factors, and heating equipment efficiency are clearly marked on the building plans or specifications.
Duct Insulation:
� Supply ducts in unconditioned attics or outside the building are insulated to at least R-11.
� Retum ducts in unconditioned attics or outside the building are insulated to at least R-6.
� Supply ducts in unconditioned spaces are insulated to at teast R-11.
� Return ducts in uncondifioned spaces (except basements) are insulated to R-2. Insulation is not required on return ducts in basements.
� Where exterior walls are used as plenums, the wall is insulated to at least R-11.
Duct Construction:
� Duct connections to flanges of air distribution system equipment are sealed and mechanically fastened_
� All joints, seams, and connections are securely fastened with welds, gaskets, mastics (adhesives), mastic-plus-embedded-fabric, or
tapes. Tapes and mastics are rated UL 181A or UL 181 B.
Exceptions:
Continuously welded and locking-type longitudinal joints and seams on ducts operating at less than 2 in. w.g. (500 Pa).
� The HVAC system provides a means for balancing air and water systems.
Temperature Controls:
� Thermostats exist for each separate HVAC system. A manual or automatic means to partially restrict or shut off the heating and/or
cooling input to each zone or floor is provided.
Service Water Heating:
� Water heaters with vertical pipe risers have a heat trap on both the inlet and outlet unless the water heater has an integral heat Vap or
is part of a circulating system.
Circulating Hot Water Systems:
� Circulating hot water pipes are insulated to the levels in Table 1.
Heating and Cooling Piping Insulation:
� HVAC piping conveying Fluids above 105 degrees F or chilled fluids below 55 degrees F are insulated to the levels in Table 2.
Swimming Pools:
� All heated swimming pools have an onloff heater switch and a cover unless over 20% of the heating energy is from non-depletable
sources. Pool pumps have a time clock.
Project Title: Adair Residence Addition Report date: 031181t0
Dafa fiename: C:1Pure Design Studio\ProjectsWdair Remodel\Specs�A-rescheck.rck Page 3 of 4
Table 1: Minimum insulation Thickness for Circulating Hot Water Pipes
� Insulation Thickness in Inches by Pipe Sizes
Non-Circulating Runouts Circulating Mains and Runouts
Heated Water Up to 7" Up to 1.25" 1.5" to 2.0" Over 2"
Temperature (°F)
170-180 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
140-169 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5
100-139 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0
Table 2: Minimum Insulation Thickness for HVAC Pipes
Insulation Thickness in Inches by Pipe Sizes
Fluid Temp.
Piping System Types 2" Runouts 1" and Less 1.25" to 2.0" 2.5" to 4"
Range( F)
Heating Systems
Low Pressure/Temperature 201-250
Low Temperature 106-200
Steam Condensate (for feed water) Any
Cooling Systems
Chilled Water, Refrigerant and 40-55
Brine Below 40
NOTES TO FIELD: (Building Department Use Only)
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1_0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
0.75
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
Project Title: Adair Residence Addition Report date: 03/18/10
Data filename: C:\Pure Design Studio\ProjectsWdair Remodel\Specs\A-rescheck.rck Page 4 of 4
I�f�
Micl�acl W. West
S( ASSOC%alNS, Il1C.
Consutcinu En�;in��rti
and Geolo�;ists
November 13, 2009
Gc�>lu�'tc:tl. C:�•�rtcrhrlfcal. :intl
M�iuntairuni.'I'err.un F.n�;i�xenn�
Mr. and Mrs. John Adair
c/o Mr. Tom Braun
Braun Associates, Inc.
225 Main Street, Suite G-2
fidwards, CU 81632
$lG -o���
a �„� nr�c �c, s�+c� io�
Enbl�nvupti, CQ 801 ] 2-550t3
(720) 5?9-5300
Fax: (720) 5z9-5335
rou Free: (s77} 3l&2�99
EMai1: �Csm�rt�.a'°'
tV �yN,tl7•yyCgt•aSSOC,C(3R1
� � � 0 V �
D
MaY o� zo�o
TOWf� OF �f�41 L
SUSJECT: Debris Fiow Hazard Assessment and Mitigation, Adair Residence,
Vail, Colorado.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Adair:
As requested by Mr. Tom Sraun of Braun Associates, we are pleased to
present this repc�rt describing aur assessment of debris flow hazards retated to the
proposed addition to tl�e Adair residence in Vail. Mr. Braun has provided r.c�pies �f
the proposed plans prepared by Pure Design Studia, as weli as a topographic �nap
of the lot and the surrounding area (Figure 1), prepared by Peak L�d Gonsultants.
We also have in our fites hazard mapping from the Town of Vail.
Tl�e Adair Residence is located on Lot i2, Block 12, VaiI Village,
Thirteenth Filing. According co the Official Debris Fiow Hazard Map adagted by
the Town af Vail, an area mapped as "high/moderate hazard dehris flaw area"
extends onto the property. This debris flow hazard map is based on the Debris
Flow and Debris Avalanche Hazard Anaaysis Map by Arthwr I. Mears (November,
1984). The Adair residence is not located in any other hazard zanes, accarding to
the other Town of Vail hazard maps for flood, rockfa!} and avalanche.
The pmposed addition involves generally "cantilever", but also standaedlon-
grade construction of a new bedroorn wing out over the ma�ped hazarci area, with
supporting foundations constructed in the hazard area. Mr. Braun has asked that
we address two questions:
1. Will construction of the proposed addition have any negative imgact an
tlie debris flow hazard condition that nearby praperties are expased to7
2. Can the drag forces exerted on the proposed foundations installed in the
hazard area by predictable debris flow events be reasanably predicted so
that the addition can be reasonably engineered tq function in sucl� a
d�bris flow event7
We condueted n site visit oa� the afternaon of October 25, 2009. The
parpose of this visit was to assess the l�azard conditian, including eonditiaczs
upstream and downsh'eam of the property, along the debris flow clianne! and
mapped hazard area. We also met with members of the desigi team, to a�cure that
�O�Wf1 Of �/8��
O���C
COPY
�
�
Mr. and Mrs. John Adair
March 10, 2010
Page 2
Thus, in part, this new report is intended to address the above paragraph.
We visited the site on the afternoon of October 15, 2009, but have
conducted no subsurface investigation (geotechnical drilling and testing) of the site
ourselves. We understand that the backyazd of the residence is currently nat
accessible for investigation.
HP Geotech Findings and Recommendal3ons
HP drilled a boring in the existing driveway in October 2007 using 4 inch
diameter augers. They report 3 feet of topsoit over loose to medium dense silty
sand with gravel and cobbles. They record 4 blows per foot at a depth of 4 feet.
Higher blow counts were recorded at regulaz intervals through the remaindez of the
boring. They report a denser material containing bou(ders at 14 feet, with avger
refusal at I S feet. Appazently, they also experienced refusal at 11 feet, but were
able to advance the boring past this location to ultimate refusa! at 15 feet.
Groundwater was encountered at 2 feet. HP performed laboratory testing that
included a swell consolidation test on one sample, and natural moisture content, dry
density, and percent passing the Number 200 standard sieve on two samples.
HP discussed foundation bearing canditions, including the difficulties
presented by loose wet sands likely to be encounterai in excavatians. They
recommenderi a mat foundation for the garage, and indica.ted that dewatering would
be required. They made reference to a trench drain they recornmended in an
October 7, 1998 report; we do not have a copy of this report and the location or
status of this drain is unknown. They also indicate a deep foundation system such
as drilled or helical piers would provide lower risk for movement and distress.
They do not provide recommendations for such systems, but offer to provide
additional recommendations if such systems aze considered. HP provided design
recommendations for a mat foundation, as well as surface drainage
recommendations. They do not mention or recommend a perimeter dra.in.
Ground Conditions and Fowndation Alteraatives
The conditions encountered by HP are, in our opinion, consistent with
alluvial soils and/or debris flow deposits associated with flaws in aeazby Booth
Creek. We note that HP drilled with augers in granular material below the water
tabte, thus a"quick" condition could have caused the low blow count (4 blows per
foot) they recorded at 4 feet. Nevertheless, we agree with their characterizataon of
the alluvium as loose to medium dense.
Although they do not log the presence of boulders above 14 feet, the
apparent refusal HP encountered at 11 feet suggeSts tb.at boulders may be present
closer to the surface; our experience and site observations aIso suggest that
boulders (or related difficult drilling conditions) can be present at any deptlz
throughout such deposits. The refusal conditions HP encountered at 1 l and 15 feet,
along with loose caving soils and shallow groundwater, als� indica#e that
Mr. and Mrs. John Adair
March 10, 2010
Page 3
conventional drilled pier installation, as well as helical pier instaliatian at this site
could be problematic.
The mat foundation recommendation is not compatible with the "cantilever"
concept for construction of the addition out over the current backyard area, behind
the existing garage. Construcrion of a mat foundation in the cuirent backyard area
could inerease disruption of large debris flow events; a foundadon systero that
allowed "underflow" for this part of the structure would be more consistent with
our November 2009 report regarding debris flow hazards and mitigation.
Ground conditions in the backyard area have not been investigated, In front
of the residence, they have not been investigated below 15 feet. The foundation
system employed must be flexible enough so that its design and installation details
can be adjusted if differing ground conditions aze encountered. Given the
uncertainty of ground conditions, a foundation system where performance can be
demonstrated in conjunction with installation is very desirable.
We believe a micropile foundation system, installed with a drilling sys#em
capable of installing casing and penetrating hazd boulders, is a viable alternative for
the proposed addition, for the following reasons:
• With the appropriate rock drill, the micropiles can penelrate boulders;
where boulders are contacted and penetrated, bond siress (and thus
micropile capacity) is usually enhanc�i, not diminished.
• With the appmpriate drilling system, the micropile holes can be cased,
so groundwater and caving soils do not preclude their installatian.
• Micropiles present thin profiles to flow events; if debris flow or other
flood events contact exposed micropiles, lateral loads imposed should
be relatively small compazed to most other foundation systems. The
"superstructure" oi the residence can be constructed at an elevation
where its potendal exposure to flow events is reduced, and the
possibility that the proposed addition changes flow paths is also
reduced.
• Micropile depths (as well as drilling and grouting techniques} can be' �
adjusted if ground conditions change, thus potentially achieving design
capacities without adding new micropiles.
• Micropiles aze routinely proof tested in conjunction with installation.
This is especially desirable for varying or unknown ground conditions.
Thus, we recommend micropile foundations for the Adair addition. We
recommend that they be installed by an experienced specialty contractor. We can
provide a list of qualified contractors if desired. We also recommend tliat the final
design of the micropile foundation system (sometimes called "shop drawings'� be
performed by the installer. .
Because micropiles are slender foundation eIements, they have limited
capacity to resist lateral loads (and the bending stresses that result). However,
flexural capacity can be increased by providing permanent steel casing for the
Mr. and Mrs. John Adair
March 10, 2010
Page 4
portion of the micropile subject to flexure. Gener�l recommend�tions for
micropiles specific to the Adair site and analyses related to lateral laads are
provided in the following secrions.
General Micropile Recommendations
The recommendations that follow have been developed to be generally
compatible with the "Micropile Design and Constivvction Reference Manual"
(FHWA, 2005).
Micropiles installed at the Adair site should be designed as friction
elements. Unlike what is usually assumed for other deep founda:tions, soil to grout
bond stress for micropiles is not purely a"soil property," but can be affecteci by
many other variables such as:
• the type of drill used,
• the way the driller operates the drill,
• how the hole is cleaned,
• how the hole is grouteri,
� grout properties, and
• whether second stage gouting is performed.
Based on these variables, bond stresses can vary by a factor of 3 or more, in
the same or similar ground condirions. Below we reproduce a portian of Tab1e 5-3
from the above referenced manual. We estimate that the mws (for soil types) of the
table reproduced below are likely to be compatible with ground canditions on this
site (as described by HP, 2008). It is passible that at greater depths, ather ground
conditions (including bedrock) could be encountered; however, based on our
understanding of site geology, we do not expect any changes in ground condition at
depth to lead to lower bond stresses than generalty indicated below. The micrapile
contractor should assume a bond stress compatible with reported ground
conditions, this table, his seiected installation technique, and his experience. The
values provided in this table are ultimate values; a factor of safety of 2.0 is
typically applied to compute allowable bond stress. Based on the shuctural plans,
we do not believe that group effects need to be considered.
Mr. and Mrs. John Adair
Mazch 10, 2010
Page 5
Summary of Typical Grout to Graund Ultimate Bond Values for Selected
Soil Conditions
Soil / Rock Description
Sand (some silt)
(fine, loose-medium dense)
Sand (some silt, gravel)
fin�-coarse, med. — very dense
Grout to Ground Bond illtimate Strengihs, kpa (psi)
Type A Type B
70-145 '70-190
(10-21) 10-27.5'
95-215 120-36Q
(14-3I 17.5-52
Type C Type D
95-190 95-240
'1427.5 14-35
145-360 I 45-385
21-52 2I-56
Gravel (some sand) 95-265 120-360 I45-360 145-385
medium- dense (14-38.5 17.5-52 21-52 21-56)
Type A: Gravity grvut oniy
Type B: Pressure grouted through the casing during casing withdrawal.
Type C: Primary grout piaced under gravity head, then one phase of secondary "global" pressure grouting.
Type D: Primary grout ptaced under gravity head, then one or more phases of secondary "glabaC' pressure
gr°ntin8
(from Table 5-3, "Micropile Design and Construction Reference Manual," FHWA (2005))
The structural plans indicate required micropile capacities. The micropile
contractor should determine the micropile length based an the required capacity
and his expected bond slress. Based on our expectation of the ne;ed for cased holes,
we have assumed a micropile diameter of 5.5 inches. If a cantractor considers �
different diameter, he should contact us regarding the lateral load considerations in
the following section.
We recommend that micropiles be proof tested in accordance with
pxocedures outlined by FHWA (2Q05), at a rate of not less than 5% (one per 20
micropiles) for each ground condition enc�untered and for each instailation
technique used. Currently, the structurai plans indicate 28 micropiles. Thus, if
ground conditions do not vary excessively, techniques are not varied, and FHWA's
Proc�dures are rigorously followed, two proof tests will be required. We
recommend that the micropile contractor assume that two tests will be conducted,
with a"deduct" provided if only one is ultimately needed. He should also provide
pricing for additional proof tests if required. Tension proof tests are acceptable.
Proof tested micropiles can be used as production micropiles if they do not fail. At
his discretion, the contractor may . elect to install one or mare sacrificial
"verification" micropiles at the beginning of the project as recommended by
FHWA.
We acknowledge that there are cost implications to the project associated
with proof and verification testing. However, given the uneertainties "i,lth g�.o�d
conditions discussed above, we regard proof testi.ng as essential to the foundation
approach recommended. We do not recommend a micropile foundatian system for
this site without proof testing as outlined herein.
The contractor's micropile design and caleulations should be provided to
our off•tce and the structural engineer for review and comment at least 2 weeks prior
Mr. and Mrs. John Adair
March 10, 2010
Page 6
to mobilization. For the micropiles along the west side of the proposed addition,
Mr. Aldrich will need to check buckling for the exposed portion.
The contractor should keep a record of all mxcropile installations that
includes the pile designation and/or location, design capacity, design bond stress,
design depth, actual depth, drilling tectuuque, ground conditions encountered, time
and date drilled, time and date grouted, grouting technique, grout volume for each
micropile, and any irregutarities noted. He should also keep a record of all
micropile testing. These records should be provided to aur office on an
approximate weekly basis during installation.
A representative of our office should be on site for at least one day of
micropile drilling. The purpose of this observation is to check for indications of
differing ground conditions or other irregularities occurring in the installation, as
well as to review the contractor's record keeping and testing procedures.
Additiona] site observations could be required in the event of irregularities, variable
conditions, or failing proaf tests.
Lateral Loading
The following discussion and analyses apply to the single row of micropiles
along the westem edge of the proposed addition to the Adair residence, closest to
Booth Creek. As indicated in our November 2009 report, we believe it prudent to
consider lateral loads from debris flows on exposed portions of the micropiles in
this area. We do not believe it is reasonable to consider debris flow loading an the
superstructure. As explained in more detail in our November 2009 report, we
believe that only an exfireme debris flow event wauld be large enougb to unpact the
superstructure of the residence; it is arguable whether such an event is reasonable to
anticipate. Furthermore, it seems unreasonable to design the addition
superstructure to a standard that was not used for the older parts of the residence.
We checked lateral loading on the micropiles based on pracedures outlined
in AASHTO's Standazd Specification for Highway Bridges (AASHTO, 2002).
These procedures were developed for highway bridge piers eaposed to cleaz water
flow. For this analysis, we assumed a typica.l exposed portion of the micropiie �f 3
feet (vertieally), in general accordance witb our understanding of the arehitechzral
and structtu�al plans. We assumed a micropile diameter of 5.5 inches, based on the
assumption that micropile holes wili be cased. We assumed an average flow
velocity of 15 feet per second, based on reported velocities of other debris flow
events ia Colorado (since evaluation of flow velociNes specific to this site was
beyond our scope of work for this project). We doubled the ealculated lateral load
to conservatively account for higher specific gravity in a debris flow compared to
clear water.
Based on these assumptions, we calculated a lateral thnist of about 900 lbs.
We recommend that this load be assumed to act at 2 feet above gade on each of thc
micropiles along the western edge of the addition.
Mr. and Mrs. John Adair
March 10, 2010
Page 7
We expect that this calculated lateral thrust can be accommodated by
vertical micropiles, particularly if they are pravided with a steel casing above
grade, and extending below grade as necessary. We recommend a casing thickness
of 0.361 inches, and that this casing be extended at least 10 feet below �isting
grade. The casing detail should be designed by the specialty contractor. As
indicated above, we recommend that the structural engineer, Mr, Aldrich, check
buckling for the exposed portion of these micropiles,
It may be desirable (architectwally) to cover the exposed portions of the
micropiles to change their appeazance. Coverings that would be expected to "tear
away" during significant flood or debris flow events should not affect the predicted
lateral loading. Permanent coverings that increase the effective diameter of the `�
micropiles would be expected to have a proportional effect on lateral laading (that
is, doubling the diameter would double the lateral load). Please conta.ct our of�ice
for additional analyses or recommendations if such changes are c�nsidered.
Other Geotechnical Recommendations
HP provided other comments and recommendations related to dewatering of
excavations, surface drainage, and backfill compaction. We agree with tl�ese
recommendations:
1. Avoid inundation of excavations or slab subgrades during construction.
Dewatering should be anticipated for any excavation.
2. Compact backfill to 95% of Standazd Proctor density in pavement or
slab areas, and 90% of Standard Proctor density in landscaped areas.
3. Provide a positive slope away from the struchue of at least 12 inches in
the first 10 feet in unpaved areas, and at least 3 inches in the first 10 feet
in paved azeas.
4. Discharge roof drains and downspouts beyond the limits of backfill.
HP did not include evaluation of mold or biological contaminants in their
scope of work; neither do we. Recommendations for observation of micropile
installation aze provided above. We are available to provide this service, as well as
other geotechnical observation of construcrion if required.
� Mr. and Mrs. John Adair
Mazch 10, 2010
Page 8
We appreciate being of service in this matter. 'This report has been prepared
to be consistent with that level of care and ef�ort exercised by other members of our
profession working in this area at this time. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Michael W. West & Associates, Inc.
.. --�- , �` �v :� �. N
� i
.
i' , �f/E _--��'�)���'�,
Francis E. Harrison, Jr ? ��� � �,��
Principal Geotechnical _�
�
Michae( W. West
& Assaciates, Inc.
Consulting CnKineers
and Geologists
M��h ia, Zo�o
Mr. and Mrs. John Adair
c/o Ms. Millie Aldrich
Pure Design Studio
PO Box 527
Wolcott, Colorado 81655
GeoloKical, Geotech�ical. :lnci
Mouni.�inoi�s Temain En�;incrring
2 hrveinrss Drn�e Fasti, Su�e 1W
F.ngjewood, CO f3011'1-5508
(720) 529-5300
Far�: (720) 529-5335
Totl T•rre: (877) 31$�2499
E,�i: rr�,t�i,'m-westassoc.mm
www.m�vesi�ssoc.com
SUBJECT: Foundation System Recommendation, Adair Residence, � Vail,
Colorado.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Adair:
As requested by Ms. Aldrich of Pure Design Studio, we are pleased to
present this repc�rt describing ow recommendations for foundation systems for the
proposed addition to the Adair residence in Vail. We previously assessed the
debris flow hazard for your proposed addition, and provided mitigation
recommendations in a November 13, 2409 re�ort. We have copies of azchitech�ral
plans for the addition prepared by Pure Design Studio, as well as structural
drawings by Stxuctural Design Solutions. We have discussed the proposed addition
and fowndation needs with Mr. Tyler Aldrich, the Slructural Engineez�.
The proposed addition involves "cantilever" construction of a new bedroom
wing in the backyard area. This construction extends into the debris flow hazard
area, and thus was the subject of our report mentioned above. Our November 2009
report concluded that debris impacts were reasonably mitigated by features already
in piace in the azea, and that the Adair's proposed addition was unlikely to
significantly affeet the debris flow hazard for neighboring properties.
Purpose
Mr. Aldrich has asked that we address alternative foundation systems for
the proposed addition. We discussed the potential advantages of using a micropile
foundaiion for the proposed addition, as well as our experience with such syste�ts
for the ground conditions believed to be present at the Adair site. Mr. Aldrich
asked that we develop micropile recommendadons for the proposed addition. HP
Geotech previously investigated the Adair site and made foundat�an
recommendations for the proposed addition in a report dated January 9, 2008. Thus
the purpose of this (new) report is to provide recomnnendations for amicropiles. Qur
Novennber 2009 report included the following paragraph:
"Despite the mitigation in place, it would be reasonable and prudent to design the
supporting foundation piers for the Adair's propcised addition for debris flow loading. 7`his
can be done using reasonably adjusted relationships developed and understood for design
of bridge piers for flood flows. We will be pleased to provide this information to your
designers when required."
. ,..
, . , •.,
�
�r, tarcn ,r�ar ��'�; "-� , �
�...Q' � � �r
.�:,. �:�,�°^.�...�.. �..�.a,. /: '� � _ _ —' �1nc. 4f , flu� al � � \, ,����,`'��,
: ��..� .,..w m ...� .m..�, .,. , «..+ 1 J j 1 � �-� �" / `''� �' -
� f ) 1
1 �MitlOirw��i11O�Ar���pp��p� � / •Ah� / / � � ;• /' ' `
a t� 4l���: fln04 • � Ys / rro .'� � � /, � J
�� a srr� om'�.fOiiian��+s .�r.� � `.`� � . ` � r � t
' ��e'as�ti."SS'.P�°°" '" • � '�e' �' / ' �� -`/ / �
1
�.�w� �tass�iiN �' � 1
� .ia ae�. +"a��R un+w a w �w� {� \ _ , � � / �`---�
y/ l �
nm.nr:aww.onss .�sw.�sr j„ ��• Ji % � ' /• / `�
� Rmrnlw'e��e.�aaOw�Ylry�aq.aa �.✓ ' i � / 1
..�.�....�a.aaa....�.m�.,. � � � 1.:1rge f 9wti frF� j j f"�� L���r / �
�p plOf 41! A/1 �lf 1! 1f�11�W q.M,O �\
�. O�OIF Ir R1A N�' w OWA1� �FR 1� W
��:.watmn.ab.'w"�. s�a� � °�s`.$�"waw'� ` \\ \ ` :1��U�lH� }Jtih� ��/ ;.. �� / .
.wr.�nu�mwo.'�°a+`"iw�'u:e��� / �w - i / �
t k'
' � �' °'� �"�°�-:'�� ",° ` � �� r . � � � ' `
�,���,._> - � �� � � - � � .
�wsw.�enn : /1 �
. �.an .aemwrscw�.v.�+eosrw� p `i �// v'� r. ro �i'�O1 /
�,�.�.��.,..m.�....�..�_.,am. , ,1 � �.' ,�. � � �
� �.ma� � m .m . �sneo v r a arw� � � � � � � � / TOWN 0� YML �'... � ' %
r � ` / �' � _ /� �4
�> �usrw� wee�iii:""naa°°w+w� � \ 1� / \
�..�e.':.`T�:Ma. \ ��'C /. ./ ----��(' y %, •"'-' ,�' � `'°�
a m.e�a�:�a ww rqw '
u mc"A°a. w, aww+v`H`ww.. mw...�.n 1+c �wera n..ar ! � /T � t/ / � �",D � ,.l- + ° -• % .. � � � : � �� �
i� /_�/� � / — / .`CC r- �y � �.., �� r�
/ �' �
�/ / . Ci^' /-' � y�: ' � i /'- ..� �.- � • ', ;-a;:.n.s
� `��,.�o` 1 � i % / � 1 . �. - yZ � � .. �� � � ._. _ �
� 'RSS � .Y � / �^'_+� A � , �a'j /� '/ � �' ~ � � �- �� � 1
' `
�",�,m r',�[3� � ":`Y��'a�"'d`�" � i x �. f V � ,�-� / � .� / .--- - - ' ' � l ' :', " "� r ` � ' � - -- - . w,. _ .�..s ,
Y�b rz w � i , . j/�9 r �. R�_�� ,�.4 i' ' � � \� 1
an !r ��- -- i ` ' ., r�
----- ��,,,��, / � i yay� � � ,� ' � i �' J}!- , '..".�� .:� i
:ia.',Pa' ::1.; . r � ��� - ._ I ! � n.K � , /�� � ; N sp � ' 3 1 �. � ; � Y� � • i t, � % n„�o.ai '"��.,.:,o;.,� �,
" sR�CT„�, �' o�'� / � �c<.�..,. ��}!r, I �. + I �t.R ... E,•� `�
. !�m.w �n ✓ '\ :_eo...� i y� �
,.,, / j-°� � � �� ,� �", 1 , 1
,� � f --`�..r%�, �l / �"`° � �c ', � r _y , . 1 �� .,
° �' � . % , i , • �`� . �r
g <'.a, �. ,� ; ; �-... 4
� �� � .
���� � ,' _ ��- ' �- � � p �
� •' M � 3' E-- �� �—.. I � -� , ' ,�'�.s'r�
,a, ' `� \.a— -s:�'.� , � � . 1
� � '� l
Y�j ! 11 ; � 1`� � Y� 1`�• 1
� �� � ' � �, `� �j - ��' �
. '! �� i� � ' /'! �,�, �`��`�,(�. j. .� � �`t �� �ti• 4� `
I '� l
Figure 1 �.���_� � i�„z 4 .,,, i��� � �;1 1
�r� -� - . �� . - �� ; , ; � �
�- � , :��a �> - h _� :_ # ; � ,
�Y rp A�Eair .� ' K y'_. �� � 1
, �.
'e �� _ � '�,�4�;' �{� �, `• Rest eri - �W'' !D � �
e ,�1� � � • � '� � � '� � • t
, I,l t��.�unw�.0 ti•"°°, ��~� ' ' !
:
� �, J" � 7-� �
• a �� � � � / • �'� ..� . � � •. � j •� �j , �--'-� �
i _tl "�• '.�..� ' ae� 1 f'; � l � � � ' !` � ..
g �._, `°"' � _ ;d�� �..� ,q .m�J t
{ T�
i3 \ YqRhs� y�� � M}+ 1 t�� "`�� ��/ � � 1
� 5� � � _�-+ \ �'1 � .' � ' ... � � •
/ i11K � 1
' // �, _ ,,,, �-� =--'� ! �� • 1 = � 1 �' ' h'.,.�:I ..�.. � �.�,..,. ,.,m- -
�»�.
• ;,,,,�; � �^wj� � � Il _�- =�� °'..���..~--++KK '°° � p�, "� �+� `'� �^„„,,;, � 1-. ^�^ ro�oaP,nr�nc �rAr
� � - ' �� �� � \, � � r� �� JAT Sz. 810CA f.
C.
f<6APb?C 3G'AIS ni:v <n'K°i �� � � � --t-, , �
��i..--��� , ' f� .- ''�� `� ,\ .�-�._'. �'i CAL. W.iAGE. THOiI'ES1�ffkl f'111NG
' ���� - - � � `"-.. -- � � '2t t W �- t8C8�.: ' : �... r. ea. � T81!N 6P VAI7.
� a r� � / � � �- :� LLGLa C4iA�iTf. COLOItACO
� mm-un ���,, l `
� .+.......« t `� %'/:I�.��\ �ar�s _ I ` . � i� '.�� . � , 1 •. o..nr...�n. nrne.�w y� �ori
r • -
- �. �a �• John Adair
V Novembei 13� 2009
3
�
Page to averwh�ln� the
event would be Tequir� asonable
debris �ow er such an event is re
p� extreme �Ule as to wh� ten the Adair' S
lace. It is argu Wptticl Y� aair's
tion that is in p vent of tttis si�e
rnitiga acts of th� A
to anticipate. If foreseeable, �► � However, advetse imp fi��,t for
r�id��� aS well as others dowt�strea�• nei bors would b��Sl� addition
roposed addition on the risk foz do�S�T� n tUat t�e pga�''s p 170� r��$Qnable
P
such an extreme event. Thus, it is our pP �es pr s�r���.�� �thin
will not increase the h��'� tO °�� P� nable and pn3denk to
degree of engineering certainty.
Despite the mirigation in place, it would be rea � ad���on for debris
the supporting �pundation piera for the Adair's p�p
design sted relation � ibe �' leased �
This can be done using reasonably adN
flow loading. of bridge piers fnr flood �lows. �� W, p
and understood for design re �ed
provide this information to your designers when raquired. ort h�s been P�
We appreciate being of service in this matter. This rep
other members of aur
to be consistent with tl�at lcvel of care and effart ex�r�aS� by ,
professian. Please call if you have any questtonS abOttt theSe qbS�CVB�IODS•
Sincerely,
MICHAEL W. WEST & ASS�CIATES, INC.
�--__ 1 ``�
� 11 �'. '�, . ,--�-,..�.--
./ ' ;�
.� � ( ` ;
u7-lia M. Frazier ��
Engineering Geologist
Principal Geotechnic�t
� ' M
�
Mr. and Mrs. John Adair
November 13, 2Q09
Page ?
we carrectly undersioud the coticept of the proposed addition, in terms af hoth
design and construction, to che extent required ta understand the hazard issue and
develop mitigation recommendations.
During our site visit we observed evidence of the existing debris flo«
hazard: the large inass of elluvial fan debris deposited at closest appraach
approximately SO feet norchwest of the Adair residence auring an event in 19$4
(Greg Hatl, Town of Vail Public Works Depariment, personal cnmmunication�.
This debris fa�i mass is elongate, approxinnately 400 feet by 70 feet, and is located
east-adjacent to the we11-incised, north-south trending Booth Creek. We also
observed mitigation/earth-berm features in place, as weti as adjacent and
downskream properties. We recognized 2 mitigating earth berms, one located north
of the residence near the apex af the alluvial fan and anather imu�eciiately
northwest of the residence in the form of an elev�ted service road. These features
aze labeled on Figure l of diis report,
Based an our site visit we generally agree with the Town of Vsil l�azard
mapping. We agree that a debris flow hazard exists for the Adair's lot, and far
other lots in the area tl�at `'back up" to IIooih Creek. However, the boundaiy
between "moderate" and "13igh" hazard as indicated on d�e Adair Int site plan
provided by Peak (which we understand is based on Tawn mapping) does ni�t
appear to be associated with any terrain or morphalogical feature. We believe,
based on our on-site observations, diat the togical location f�r this boundary is
either the service road berm further to the northwest, or the targe remnant of debris
further north and west than the service road. Thus, we believe the Adair's
proposed addition lies in a"moderate" ��azard area, based on use of that term in tt�e
Town of Vait rnapping.
Therefore, we believe tliat significant mitigation is alresdy in place for the
Adair's existing residence and the proposed addition, cunsisting of:
• The lazge mass of alluvial fan debris in place between the existing
Bootl� Creek charuiel and the Adair residence,
• The weil-incised Booth Creek channel north and west af the Adair
residence,
• An earth berm near the upstream end or apex of the alluvial fan, tbat we
believe, along with the exisring debris, will effectively keep alt bui an
extreme debris flaw event within the existing 13aath Creek channel,
• The exisring service road berm, that offers secondary protecdon for
events that are tazge enaugh to overwhelm the apex berm and/or t�e
exisring creek channei described abov�.
This mitigatian may liave been put in place en response to fhe previous t 9$4
debris flow event, or may have been put in piace at other dmes or for other
purpases. In any event, we believe that the hazard has be6n reasan8bly mitigafed
for the Adair's lot.
V I'll l 1J LVCJV 11 � Ji 1 1 Y�II � 1 Y V�V ���.� • ... � v� .....�. v.
i J
H
HEPW�RTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNlCAI
E�l"'�{4•i(III I�.INI�Ii, t�ttil��Iill�a.t�, j�i�
'i��, i� l��w,� s t;, ,.a i 1��
l ��� ilt��■k� tii�l It'�!�'�. ( ��tni�p�i� '.•ICK�I
t�hr���. �l;c� a�}5 ;U�n
F:=. '.?:i� t�3i �c35{
��rt:nl h���*i��ril����i��i:�..li��.�n
SUBSOIL STUDY �
FOR FUUNDATION DESIGN
PRdPOSED ADDITION
LOT 12, BLUCK �, VAII, VILLAGE
3035 BUOTH FALLS R4AD
VAIL, COLORADO 8l b3?
JUB NU. 107 d744
JAlY CJARY 9, 2008
PRF PARED FOR:
KATH.Y ApAIR
c�o PURE DESTGN STUD[O
ATTN: MILLIE ALDRICA
P.O. BOX 5Z7
VAIL, C�UL4RAD0 S1657
I':�ri�rr 31�3-�`�4t-il l�) • C:�ilc�ra�l�� �+�r�n�, ll�)-fi3i 7Sf►? •�,�1���r�1u�r�ir �ait� �h,�-l�7t�y
� .
, .. ., W ,...�.. , ��. .
TAI3LE UF CUN'TEN'!'S
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STtJDY ........................................................................ - 1-
PR4POSED CONSTR.UC1'ION ..................
....... ....................................................... - i -
SITE C4NDITJQNS ............. .
................................................................................... 2
FIELDEXPLORATION ............................................................................. ... .. ..... , - 2 -
SUBSLJItFACE CONDITIONS ...................... �
............................................................ - 2 -
FQiJNDATIOAT BEARiNG CUNDITtpIdS ....................... _
........................ ........>._... - 3
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ - 4 -
FOLINDATIONS ............................................................ ...:.................................. 4
SURFACEDRAII�AGE....-• .................................. ............................. .................. 5
LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................... - 5 -
PTGURE 1- LQCATJON �F EXPL4RATORY BORING
FIGURE 2- LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 3- LEGEN.D AND NOTES
FIGURE 4- SWELL-CONSpLiDATION TEST R�SULTS
TABLE 1- SUMMARY QF LABORATORY TEST REStJ�,TS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the resalts ofa subsoil study for a ptapased additicm ta the existing
c�esidence bcatod on Lat 12, Bbck 1, Vail Village, 3035 Booth Falls Road, Vail,
Cotorado. The project site is shown an Fi,gure l, The pt�rpose of the study was tu
develop reoommendations for the f�w�dation design. The study was conducted in
accordance with our agree�nent fnr geotechnical engineering services t� Kathy Adair
dated September 27, 2Qp7, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechaiical,lnc. previously evahuated
water seepage o�nditians at the subjoct site and presented our findings in a letter dated
Qctober 7, 1998, Job No. 198 672,
An exploratory baring was drilted �n the lot to obtain in€ormation c►n the general
subsurface condit�ns. Samptes of the subsoils at�tained during the field expIoration were
tested in the iatroratory to d�ermine their classification, compressibility or �well and
other engiaeering charactoristics. The results ofthe fietd exploration �nd laboratory
testing were analyzed to devabp recommendations £ar Sounclation types, depths and
allowable pressures for the propc�sed building faundation. This report summarizes the
data obtained during this study and present� our vonclus�ns, design recommendations
and other geotechnica] enginc�ering considerations based on the ptnposed constructian and
the sUbsuriace conditions encounteced.
PRQPpSED CUNSTRUCT[ON
The pro�msed addition will wnsist of removing the existing �arage and repl�cing �rith a
larger single stary wood frame garage. Thete may be a second story of living area abave
the.garage. Grvund floor will be slab-an-grade. Gr�ding for the structure will l�e
relatively minor with cut depths of abaut 3 ta 4 feet. We assume relativeiy light
foundstion lo�iin�, typical of the p�posed type af construdion.
lf building luadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those deseribed
above, we shonld be �otified ta re-ev�luate the recommendations contained in this repclrt.
Job No. t (T7 0744 — w�_ _._
�c�Ql
'J I'"1� ■ 1J L.ICIr.AV 11 . JL 1 1 VIII� � 11 �V � ��...� � r. vy ",,,v .,,,, .
-2�
SITE COND1T10NS
The srte is occupied by an existing residence consisting ofa two story wood frame
structure over a partial walkout basement level. The site is located an a. south facing
hillside with a stmng to moderately sieep slope at gredes up to about 22°l0. Therc is abaut
10 fieet of elevatio� difference across the area flf the residenc� There is a small creek ta
the east of the residence and wetlands and pond to the west. Vegetation consists ofasp�n
and evergreen trees, grass and weods. Several bnulders were observed on the site,
FIELD EXPLORATiQN
Tho field exptoration fvr the project was conducted an Octaber 25, 20�7. One
etcploretory baring was drilied at the locatioi� shown on Figure l to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. The lacation of the 6oring was limirod to the � ctrillec! due to
the existing development snd site conditions. The horing was advanced with 4 inch
diameter continuous tJight augers powered by a tracic-mount�d CME SSLC/3Q0 drill rig.
The boring wes logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawiak Cieotechnical, Inc.
Sample,s nf the subsoils were takcn with a 2 inch I.D. spoon sampler. The samplec was
driven into the subsoils at various depths with biows from e.140 pound hammer f�.tling 30
inches• 'I'his test is similar ta the standard penexration test descnbed by ASTM MetEmd
D-1586. The penetration resistance values ure an fndication aFthe celative density or
consistency of the subsoits. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetrati�on
resistance values are shown on the Log of Expioratary Boring, Fi�;ttre 2. The gamptes
were r�tum�d to our �aboratory far review by the project engineer and t�ting.
SUBSURFACE COATDITIQNS
E1 graphic bg of the subsurface coruiitions encounter�ad at the site is shuwn on Figure 2.
T1ie sttb9oils consist of a6out 3 feet of topsoil overl�+ing toQSe to medium dense, s�'tty sand
�,.�.,
..,.,,,v. �.,. u��vq
-3-
with gravel and scattered oobbles. Relatively dense, silty sandy gravel with cobbles and
boulders was envount�ed beaeath the sand at a depth ot 14 feet. Drilling in the d�se
$ranular soils with auger equipment was diffiicult due to the cobbles and boulders and
drilling refusa� was encoemtered in the depasit.
�1�OratQrY testyng perf�rmed on samples obtained frotn the 6orings included natwal
rrmisture content, density and finer than sard si2e gradation analyses. Resuhs of swell-
consolidation testing perfarmed an a relativety undisturbed drive sample ofthe saad s�ils,
presented on Figure 4, indicate moderate aimpressibility under conditions of loading an+d
wetting• The laborstory testing is sumrnarized in Tabie 1.
Groundwater was encountered in the boring at a depth of 2 feet at the time of drilling and
the subsoils were very maist to wet.
FUUNDATION BCARING CUNDITIUNS
The loose and wet sands at the expected excavation depths will create construcc;tion
dif�'tculties. We recammend the praposed garage be sapparted on a mat foundation to
reduee the risk ofsettlement. Fill piaced ubove the existing graund surf�ce will apply a
surcharge loading and should be limited Eo reriuce the dif%xential settlement potential.
Exc;avated material should be removed from adjacent the addition atea as the dsgging
advances. Dewatering such as with s�umps and pumps wili probab}y be re+quired to ke�p
the excavation dry during construction. A trench drain along the northem property line
vaas recammended in our October 7, 1998 report, A deeper foundation system, such as
drilled or helical piers, that extend into the under�ying gravel soils could alsa be used for
support �tnd would provide a iawer risk alternative with regard to poteatial buildin�
movements and distress. If a deeper foundation system is �>01192(�Cf @d, we should be
cantacted for additional recommendatans.
Job Na I U7 0744
G�Ch
�, , ... �...�..� ..� �.., , . ,.,.. .. ..�..,�.... _.__ ._� ._ . - - --------- . . . _ .
-4-
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATI4NS
Considering the sub9wface conditions encc�untered in the exploratory barings and the
nature of the prnposed oanstruction, we recomrnend the bUilding addition be Eaunded
with a mat fotundation or a r�nolithic t�or slab.
The design and oonstrudion criteria presented bebw shouid be observed tor a mat
foundation system.
1) The f+�undatian shou[ci be designed far ati aHowable bearing pressure of
1,040 psfor a madulus ofsubgrade reaction of 1IX} tc£ Basad on
experience, we expect settlement of foundations designed anci canstracted
as discusseci in this section wiil be about 1 inch or less. Where the bottom
of the mat/sl$h is less than 48 ir►ches below extw-�r grade, the fnund�n
can be protected fivm frost by placirig 2 inch thick rigid foam insul�tian
(blue board) aut 2 feet from the bottom of the concrete. The bottom of the
mat on the thick ends should he at least 1$ inches below exterior �;rade.
z) A11 existing fill, f+�nndations and debris fram prior site development,
topsoil an�i any loose or disturbed sails should 6e removed and the
foundation bearing levei extended down to the untlisturbed natural soils.
Voids created from removing targe rocks or unsuitsble soils should be
backf'illed with compacted sand arid �ravel or conerete. If water se�pa�;e is
ancountered, dewstering such as with sumps and pumps should be
provided co ke�p the excavatiQn dry.
3) Struc�ural fill for support of the mat or thickened slab should be com�acted
to at least 95% of the maximum star�dard Proctor density at a moisture
corrte�nt near optimum. Struetural fiil shoutd consist ofa suitable irnported
gtanular material such as 3/4" inch seteened rock.
Job No. 107 A744 -' w�P _._
c�c7flB4T'1
-5-
4) A representative af the geotec}tnical engineer should observe all
foundation excavatios�s prior to concrete placement to further evatuate
bearing conditions.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The fiallowing drainage precautions shauld be observed during canstn�ctiQn and
maintained �t a!1 times after the addiEion has been completed:
1) inundation ofthe fnundation excavations and undecslab a.reas shouki be
avoided during construction.
2} Exterior backfill should be acljusted to near optimum �isture and
compacted to at teast 95% of the maximum sta�xlard Proctor density in
paveme�t and slab areas and to at le�.st 90% o�the maximum standard
Practor d�nsity in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the buikiing should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in anpaved
areas and s minimum slope of3 inches in the first 10 f�et in paved areas.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond ttee limits of a11
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted in accordance with gdneratiy accepted geotechnical
engineering principtes and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either
express or impliec�. 'Ifie canclusions and recommendakions submitted in this c�e�art are
bas�d upon the data obtained from the exploratory boring drilled at the location indicated
on Figure 1, the propased type ofoonstruction and our experience in the are� Our
services do not inciude determming the presence, pre�,errt;on or pas�b"siity of mokt or
other biological cantamiaants (MQHG'� developing in the tirture. tf the alient is
voncemed ebout MOBC, then a pmfessional in this special field of practice siwuld be
�onsuRed. Our findings include extr�olatian ofthe subsurface eonditions identifiad at
�ob r�. i o� o��
�
-G-
the exploratory t�oring and variations in the subsurface conditic�ns may not became
evident until excavatian is performed. If conditians encountered dttri�rg cnnstructi4n
appear dif%rerrt fram those desccibed 'm this report, we shoutd be notified so that re-
evaluarioa of the recommendations may be made.
This regort has been prepared f�r the exclusive use by our cli�tt for de�ign ���s, We
are not responsible for tecl�ical interpretations by athers of our inf�rn�ation. As the
praject evolves, we shauld provide vontitrued consultatian and field services during
construction to review and monitor the impiemt�ntation of our recommendatians, and to
verify that the re�mmendationS have been �p�ro�iate�y interpreted. Si�nificank design
changes may require additional analysis or modifications t� the recornmendations
present�l hecein We recommend on-site observation of excavativns and foundatinn
bearing strata end te,�ting �f structural fi{i hy a representative of the geoteci�nical
engin�er.
Respectfully Submittecl,
HEPWQRTN - PAWLAK GE�'I'ECNNICAL, INC.
Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr., P.E.
Reviewed by:
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
JZAncsw
�ob Na t m o�aa
0
CblRY 11 : J'i r f' UO�. 1'tI' -l7CU � c�.n � � v.�r-r...v-r�� ... ��. a.,.`....... .`. .
JPIIY 1J LPJCIf� 11 . J'T 1 1 V1�1.1 U �IL1J 1 Lt.l t �� �� �v ey . y_ y.�r�`V—_ I v
LEG�ND:
� TaPSOIL: sandy silt, orpanics, roats. loose. wet, dark lxown.
� SANO {SM}; �i�y. yvith gravel and scatter� oobbles, loose to medium dense. wet, brown.
� GRAVEL AND CQBBLEg GM ; silt , s
F ) Y�dY. with boulders, dense, wet, brown to ysllowish brown.
�Relatively undisturbed drive sampie; 2-inch i.D. Califomia liner sample.
r���
1�12 Drive sample blow caur�t; indicates that 16 blows of a 140 pound harruner faiifng 30 inches were
� required to drive the Califorria sempler 12 (nches.
'-- Free water �ev�t in boring encou�ered at the Nme af drNling.
--� Depth at which boring ceved when meastned on November 29, 2007.
� Practical rig refusai. Where �pWn above bottom of log, rnuttipie attempis wsre made to advence tha �oring.
NOTES:
1. The exploratory bodng was drllled on Odober 25, 2�7 � a 4-inch diameter cantinuous fligllt ppwgr auger.
2. me exPforatorY boRng locatian was meesured approximatefy by p�ng from fe�atures shown on #he site pian
provided.
3. The explo►atory boring elevation was obtained by interpdation beMreen contours on the site plen pro�Aded.
4. ihe exploratory boring bcatior► and elevati�on shouid be consider�ci accurate o,�ly to the degree implied by the
method used.
5. The lines between maierials sho►nm on the expioratorY borinA �09 rePreser►t the appraximate boundaries between
materlal types and tr�bpns �y �jg g��al.
6. Water levet readings showri on the log were made at the time and under the canditi�ons incGcated. Fluctuatian in
��r' levei may accur with tlme.
7. Laboratory Testing Resutts:
WC = Watet Conterrt {%}
DO = Dry Density iP�
-200 = F'ercent psssing No. 20v sleve
�07 a�aa `� -
_ H.,,�,a,�, ��n� LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 3
�
�
0
.y
Q?
�
�
�
�-��'V�.7 11 • J.J 1 1 UIII � 1 n �U 1 a�L,l � .� � �.� rv�. •v • � „ � � ���_ � �
• • • '
� � ' � � �
� � � �
• i � • : i �
+
�_'�
' „
'
'''.� _�����v�
'�i/'�" � . . - _
. i�: �� .
.
: .
"i
►,
,
,�
, ,
.
, ,,
107 fl744 ����•� � SyyELL_�ONS�UDATl�N TEST RESULTS Figure 4
_ �,
,�
HEPW4RTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. , .,
TABLE 1 Job Na. 1U7 074�4 �
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESUITS
� . -
... . - - -
. � . .
:.� . ,.
. , � . . ..
. .�
. �► .�
: .•. -
��
��� " _� c ► _ : ,..
� ' � ,, _ -
v��r���r � .,.
���������
��� �
��r��r �
������_r�
�� �
��r���� r
������r��
r� �
s������ �
����+��ts���
�s��r �
������ �
���r��r��
�� �
�rsr��r��r �
���+���r���
�� ��
�rr���� �
�e�r�rt���rrrr�
�� �
�r�r��� �
rr�r�er���rrr� �
�� ■
_ r�rr�r�r��� �
t1�Y.12.2�i@ 8�3�A�1 NI�LL �OtfS?r�U�TI�i�i €��.35� P..�.���3
�
i' 1 ' • i
Jab Name: ( ►�
Jr�b Address:
P��� No.: __� i o-003 �-
- .�. �
SPECiA� INSP�CTlON AND TESTI�IG AGRE�IVIENT
(To �ppiicants of projeCts requirir�g Special it�peetion or Testirrg per SeCtior� 17�1 0# the !BC}
The tiwn�r or his/her repr�sent�tive, vn the advice o� the de�ign profession�( ir� r�spc�nsible charge, shail
complete, seaf, sign and su�mit � ct�py of the Speaaf lnsp�ctiart Agreern�nt and Structurai T�sts
Scheduled to th� Town af Vai! for tevi�t �nd approv�l. Signatuces are re�uir+e� on bc�th pages;
photacopied or faued signatt�res are act�ptable.
The owner and hisJh�r gen�ra� cantractar, where �pp�icable, shall aisa adcnowiedge tt�e fo!lowing
condi�ons appiit�ble t� �pecial lr►spe�#i�n Tes�ing:
�. Contractor is resp�nsib(e for pr�iper notificafion to tt►e Inspection �r Testin� �gert�y fo� items
�isted.{Page 1j (�8C 1704)
2. Only the testing f�bc+ratory �hc�utd #�ke samples and tr�nspott them tr� th�ir labCrratory.
3. Co�ie� o# al! iabaratory reports and irrSpeCtions are t� be set�# direCtiy ta ih� Town nf Vaif by the Testing
agency on a w�ekly basis.
�. 1nsp�CCfiOn a�gency to submit names �nd qt��li�icatiorts of c�n-site speci�l insp�ctor5 to the Town of Vai!
for review an� aDprov�l.( page 2)
5, The speci�f inspector is r�sponsib(e to imm�ii�teEy natify tt�e 7"awn of Vail Building Of�cia► in writing �f
�nY ����� andlc�r prob(em� encotat�fered.
6. !t is the responsibilii�r of the contr�ct4r t� review the T�wn af Vail 8ppr�oued p�ans far additionai
fnsp�ction or test��rg requirem�►ts thst may be noted. A pre=constnrc�ion ccrrrFerenc� at tt,e 1ob st#� is
recommended ta revi�w spe�iat inspec#ion procedures.
7. The speCia( inspeCtor �fiall uss oniy the Tawn �# Vai( approv�d dtawings.
8. All s�eqal ir�specticn fieid teports trt�st be teft on site for r�vi�r by the 'iown af Vail staff priot' fo
required inspe�tio�s or re-inspet�ions.
BEFt�R� QCGUPAhiCY WILL BE GRANTED: The sp�i�i irtspection aget3cy st�all submit � sigrt�d and
s�aled siatemerrt that �1) items tequiring te�ting and inspe+ctian u� fulfrtleci and r�part�d. Thos� items not
tes#�d a�tdlor inspec.ied Sh�ii be noted in fhis statement. A ccSpy ofi the sta#t�ment sha!► be maintained at the
job site far the Bu��ding ln�pecta�'s review prior t� frnat inspectian.
Acknowledgem�r�t:
1 ,
t�wner: �.. _ .__���
a s�gna ure
-��� A-���� � �8 ro
print Name � p
Speciaf Inspection r _,
, ,
. �� ,,- .. � , � :
F � ,_
g'��1CY- � —�:°'��„''`��` :�'--.°m"'. : a .,� : ; `s�, �, . ' , s�� �, <,,,,.. _ ; �
�;` �
F�raject
`�^1 Arint N�tTtS � L}8te
�.—�� _ �i��F.��y i'��o�.��o �s �i
Signature PriM Name Ci te
Contractor: � ." �'�Q.`� � � �, ' !�,��
�rgnawre Pr�nt Name
aat�
MAY.12. 2010 S� c3AM HiLL CONSTI�UCTIC�N t�. �59 P. S.�'13
�
I" 1�'!
�P�CtAL tNSPECTOR Ai�PE1CATI�N F#DRM
1. Appti�r�t Inform�tion
x N✓ � Y°9'�`'.3<i.� �"` tK.Mid^Y"C£ I.r°
Name: -°�
Lsst First M.i.
Addi�s: 3' "��` � 1'1 � � k'. ,� «�
�ity: ��� �.,'� � �. ,.. ,,,� � St�te: �' c' Zip: `�' � C, � t
`:� ��` a .��,�{ ` x � c'�' Fax f�a: `� �� .� �' � - � } �: r
Ph�ne No: '
E-�11ai{: r� ����=i�����;-, t�`� �� �.� ��� �°,, �, � �N-� Age: ..�
Ag�neylEmpl�yer. � � .� ��- � � `� � �c��.. t _ � , _
Emp{ayer Locatian: t `7�� t �� � t �' t�':� � � rR: � �= ., �w � ` _��. � : � � �
Addt� A�ity �
� �` �`� f t� ! !, "i 'i c* � �; :� _ r �G �' Ei 7 � " ,.s'�" ;� . � � � f
� Zip Phone Number F�x hiumber
2. Type(s) Qf Wt�Ck fct� Which A�}�iica�t is Seeking Registra#iun
Inspectars rnay l�ome registereti far �ny one or more of � numlaer af typ�s t�f v�urk (t��ing
and ins�ectio�}. Check �a�#t tiype t'�i` work #ie inspectc�r is �pplying for below:
Reinforc�d GOn�rete
�, Pr�tension Ter��ons
Past-iEnstan 5tabs
High Skrengfh Baltirrg
Smoke Control
Sfix�urai Masatry
�:�. . : . ,� • . •
Yeflfication ofi Soils
� Wekling
� Stee! Ft�mes
_ S�ismic Res�stanc�
Sprayed Fire Resistant
Mate�ial
Retr�ining W�IIs
Pr�-Csst CBncrete
Erect�ion
Non-Destrr�#ive T�sting
ExtenOr Et�sutatioti atK!
Finish System
� Special C��es
�,, ? t�;�._.� �; �,.��f
�t"i. c �.�e,��, t�,-�a �� a
, ,
,,• � , . ��,; , �... � �:. P` � �t
'"".».'`° ."-��*t'�'`' ; r ..s,�,.•,._- s, a 1 t
Sl�T18�G�' � ��� ' � � �,��, ��E
_ 4. �
�;
��
MAY.22.201@ $��2�M NILL �ONS"fRLICTIOh f�#0.359 P.7�1?
�
1�� � '�
R�P�RT C� SPECEI�� lN�P�CTId�iS
�g .�
Projc�#: , 1��:���� - �°� �� �����}t �:. Petrnit Number,
Project �ocatiarr: �O � LL �l'ta 1 L.
• - �,,.� - J� ■ � l
Addt�ss ��y: �ip:
Registered Qt�l�n F�rtsf�s.siortai ' � `, � � '� �: �� „� � �
in Responsibl� Gh�rg�: � { � �° �-�€ �
.� �
Address i 7�! f r"1�I �`�� ���� .
Gity; � � �.� � , �-.� = Sta#�: �''cs �ip� �'�t�� r Phone: r �'� . a�`4r - � a�� c,
��X: �' 7 �, . � � �� • � ��" c� r E-m8i{: � ��, r� r �, �.., � �� .-�
u
This Repa�t of Spe�cia( Irtspeetians attacheci is submitted �� a ctandit�t3t� from p�tmit issu�nCe in
�ccotdanc� with Sedivn 17t�t Intem2�tional8uiidin� Code. It irtctudes a Sch�du{e of �peaai inspectian
S�rv{ces applicabie to #he above r+�f�`enced proje�t �s wetl �s the idtntt#y c�f the in�ividuals, agencies,
ar fltms inten�ed to �i� t�etairte� far conducting the� i�specti�ns, The Sp�ciai lnspectot(s} shall kearp
records ot ail insp�ctions and shall fumish inte�im inspection reports t� the fegister�d desi�n
prafessional in respc�sible �arge at a ir�quency agr�f upay by the permit �pplic�nt and buil�i�ng
officia! pria� to the �art of wor{c. C�iscr�pancies shat! be brought to the imme�liai� attenti�n of Che
contractor and design prof�ssiana� in respans�bte c�atge f+x cvrrection. If t�te discr��anc�es are not
corrected, the dis�repanci�� sha�l! be 6reugl�t #� the �tterrtion ot the buil�ing o�ciai by the �ister�ti
design pro��ionai in respansible char�e prior to the comp{eti�n of th�t ph2�sa of vsr�tk. A Frnal Report
of Spec'ca! irtspec�ons sha(� b� subm�ted by the desfgn prof�ssional �n respansible charge to the
building o€fic�a4 �t t�e c�nciusic�n of the praject and b�fac� a c�rtificate af occupancy vv�l� b� is�u�d.
Pr�p�red by.
,
'�;�i���,� ,�° r;; ro���,.�,.�.�,b ,
Type at PrinY hiame
>
w °'� �.
� �: � � . ,, �"�G._�,...�..�.. .
t''" Signature
.
`'�"j�`� � �` t C'
Oa�e
To be fifled out by th� jttrisdiction a�d retumed ta applEcar�t
8uiiding t7�ciat's Accept�nce of Special Inspectians
� ., x� � _
.. 7
„�~ ° ' ,,�..�„...- �
.�" �
��� ,
���_
Preparer's Seal ac►d Si�nature Requ�red
Fr�uency c�i Interim repurts: M�ntht}r Bi-Monthly Upon Compietiart
Ret Attached Schedule
Signature Date Perm+k Nurttb�r
MpY.11.�01� 6�47AP1 HILL �ONSTRU�TIJN
�
f
,
�D�N�YA�L � SS�ECIAL IMSPECYIC}N AND TESTING SCHE�ULE
r�c 1�0�
N�.35� F'.�.r`�
Pro ect Name; A►� Si ���'. �� Pe€rnit �� O �� J�
1 �� �..'� �,1
Uwne�'� Name: �
� Testing lnspecfion Sign�ture Print t�ame [rate
� _ ,�
j i
Ag�ncy� ;;i;�°� "=��""��- 1='�� t�. , ��,1���. �. � . � _ �� h , � �- °, _ � � � , ,,�.
Testing Inspe�tion �s�n�n�e �r;r,� �v�me as�
Nereby c�ertifies Uiat the TestinglE�sp�ctic�n Agency nam�d above h�s beert �t►gagec! to per#orm structurai tests and
inspect�ons duting construction as checked belaw, to satisiy all appliC�bl� portiorts of the 8uiltfiqg �o�ie.
Priar to finat inspection, tlte Insp�Cii4n �ger�cy shall submit a statement that afl iEems of designafed woric psrfarmed
were neported. Any items �hecke�i but not tested at ins�e�ted �riil b�e nated and expia'tned. When�v�r �ny designafed
items on the Gst are r�dy for sarnp�ing, testing, or ins�iicsn, it shall be the r�sponsibility af the contractor #o give
timeiy notice to th�e lnspection a�ency so that the reqcrired senrices may be p��F�rmed.
RE1PiF{7R+CiNG ST�EI.:
Tensil� & Bend, one set per heat p�f tons
fnspecUon vf Plac�t'n�rt#
inspec�i�n of W�id+ng
EPoxY
MA50F1RY:
Pretim. Accep�nce Tesis (t�as�nry Units, Wa� F'rEsmsj
Subseque�t Teats (Mortar, Cr�ut, F�e1� W�11 Rnsms)
inspsction of Placemertt and Grou�n�g
R�infarc�tg 7'ests
InspeCtion o# Reinforcing Pia�ment
Tendon Tssts
__ Inspsction of Tendon Placement
lnsp�d�an of Concr�te Flac�ment
tnspect�n of Cartc�+� Bat�h�ng
ins�ion of Pane( AttachmeRf & Inserts
Compress�on Tests
lnspec�ron o€ Str�ssi�gftr�nst�r
RIU , GA��S50N5, CAFS. TiES:
Inspection nf R�inforcing Placement
inspec:tiarr af Concrete Plsc,�ment
fnsP�s�n of Concxet� 8atchin�
Spscrly cth�r fes�ts, inspedfQns or speeiat insiructioas repuited.
UNQ�RFINNING:
?empotarytPerman�rt
{nspeckion of Steei Febricat�n
In�p�n of Reirr�n�ng & Furms
inspection of Cor�crete i'lacement
inspectxin af Tiet�cics
S01L fdA1LS:
Temporary Shoting
_ Penri�nent W�t!
STRUCTURAL STEE�:
Sampl,� 8 Test {List speaf'�c membeis belawj
Shap Identiflca�on 8 Welding inspedior�
Shc� Llitr�sonic tn�p�ccfi�n
St�op Ra�iography
FieCd Vitelding inspe#ion
�'ieE� BofNng ins�CtiCn
Fis}d iJlEca�nic tnspedi+��
Fieid Radia,�rap#ty
M�#a1 [�c�c Weldirtg IrispeGtion
FiREREtQOFlNG:
lnspectbn & PRacemertt
��
Acaep#ar�L� T�stS
Mo9stus�-Ciens�ty C?�rmina�an
Field D�rtsit�r
Rrilled PderS
I�eep Foundstion
STRUCTUiiAL Wt}OD:
lnspet�ian o# F�b�ic�n
Insp�aion af Truss Jant Fabricatan
5am�le & Tgst Componenis
lnspet�ican af Glu L�m Fabt�cation
SMQKE CONiTTROL:
SPECIAL CASES:
SP��lAL It+ISPECTION:
Se�rnic Resistance
W�nd R�r}uiterri8t�t5
1.0 Micropile Foundakion Moter+r�is
1.f MieroplM ban — CroN 73 aN—Utnad Ear or puivnMnt cn accwdane� ritfi ASTM A615 or 1MUNa�w MJ�etion bon mM
qahronizM in acesrdaip witN A5TM A1S7.
ty�75,006 �I
L2 C�out — Craut maY bs rrol—pmH+t or wkh wnd. wiqi Typ� q e�rtNnt in oeeorda�c� Wth IST4 Ct54, MfvtK—wm�nt
mtio ahouW W EKwMn O.i and Q.6.
f c�S,000 pd mMtmum
1.3 ErM hardW» (# �aY? " NW .ncM w M o��artiw,ce .�cn mawracu,rx's n�axrrcr�waiona. eeorsny awta sna�
w in aacoraanc• wkh ASfu It36. Gnaa� 3a.
1.4 Goncrab — P�r St.�cturW Enq&�r
2.4 Micropile tnat�lintion
2.1 MkrapNr to conWtt ot wiid or tallo. k�jsctbn bw. For inj�eNon �aw. imta� bw prr rta��facWrar rscommsndalians
u�in9 9rout to 1M»h eu!lirpr. Por suRd bar, d� hai� to d�pth 6�dlcatW an pMns.
2,2 k+tGall twr do deP�tif � Mntn. fot trotki dxr. 4rtnrt MaN W tromis i�r6 ct iM b9ttcm ot #hs FwN dhRb���9
qro�ndwater uPwnrd a e�c.vwary. GA bor to elwoGan a r�aqry,
3.0 Micrcpile F'oundokiQn Design Parnmeters
3.1 tM mkrvpNw wwr� dwiqerd in q�n��aA oecordvnw +�ith CroeWurp coMoinM In tM FWFiA 'MieropiN OMiqn and
C,pntVuetio� QuWWnei . Rport No. fiM�M14-NFM—C3-039.
3.2 'Rt� 1c7bwelrW ftrut9th P"nt�amKat walfi wsn a�taamW fnr the iuWnNt ba�ed ort tM "Su� ^study ttx Fo�mdatkn
D�si9n. Pro�wrW AddRWn. lat /2. Bbek 1. Vo� Yllleqa, J033 9adth Foh RaH. VoH. Cobtnda' thr !tP Gaotufi. inc..
.ae rb. ,o� o�++. a�c.e ,w� g. zoae.
tM /dMwinq bo+W vaM»s wa� auumed far tM wH d+� porom�ffa� bns+d on ths adb ims►itge4Wn:
�
i,�ei
Ezistrtp SuWoila 25
An .xp..»aeea y,oe�cta,ica� enqhwq. N,ww wr+?y th. aDovs aeslym parameter• aa�inq ea�atrvcaon.
X.J CrouM�rata rw owwemd tn M�rhhu+ 5 fwf d 4M ground rxiac..
3.4 VerUad MAkctb� S 0.25 Meha�
Haitentai D+MMcMon S 0.50 inche�
��Yeh and Associates, Inc. °"" M..y�°
Cansuldng Cruwtcchnical Faagine�s
170 Mo! Itay [�oad Gicnwaod Springs> CO 816Q S
Phoac: (970) 3$4-1504 Fs�x: (974) 3$A-ISOi
C'�C...U�f .�-n/'i�^c`i,���.mz"1 �CY�d1.�e.c.�i.._
4,0 Verificotion and Proof Tes{ing
i.t At i�f orn pe��produetian add wlRoatbn twt MaN M p�AormW W`.wNY tM cantroetsn �e�toibtidn mNfwd
aM eorM ttcsse ki occorAo�ec� ,ekh MWk—NtN-05—OSD. OecemEer 24qS.
s2 ihn4+ eadL+y .taN ea pworrewa on ot �awc a psrcent or u» product+a� w msriPKiw p�.0 in accordanc+ ,rnn
f'tIWA—MihQ5—W9. Dsaanbsr 2UO3.
4.3 Thr mieroP�+ moy W r�iy�wA ct thr d�senfWn of Ydr und AaocWGs bv�W on tat naWfa.
5.0 5pecioi Provisions
5.t This ds�iqn a vaNd a+ly� tor thh dG and fs to M c�rntntctM by B�Y �rNenq. kne, onEy.
5.2 YeA auuf Maoeictrs. N rw{ rarponsA�N far daiqn M pNa cnp cuM pib cop niMomma+t,
5.3 tltnsra aw ra.pondbtr tor field kcoRlnq d! marby utltltNn. CooAkt7ng utONi» maY r'�4uk� rWe�ipn� ot Yah ond
At�otfet�s +Ascrttion,
5,{ YM ard �sroeiatss i� eWt �eapbnribia tot yua1KF ��. 9�tY �sw�ancs. ehan4+si eAn�tions a' prabismt
nwfting Iran Mnprop�r ca+Mtruction Uchnt9uw�•
S.S V� and Nwciotw it not rppon�bt� for oarqin�ct7ot� att� Moly.
5.6 Y� wW Msxiotw ir not rwp�w���k }o� fowvdotion aW mieropA� ipyotk.
Dni�oaJ Fir:
H&Y OtiiNaQ„ Iam
����
210-O±S4
� bs; � �; �:
c�x�a � � np.t� ��, �aae
�[1CTa1 I�4iCS
� �:
Xddx iipidence kswwiel 2� 4
� �:, r
�r�°c�uc��i
tx g .=-tF
r� � �S�
�'°# � "��
� � � t�. .
"� \ � , ; ,,.... �
Record
October 8, 2010,
� � V �
ocT � 1 zo�o
TOWN OF VAIL
Proiect: Adair Remodel, Wiidridqe, Avon, CO #4201-10
P.O. BpX 24P5
AVON.�p Bi620
w;B70.9A9.7tOC
rexg70 g43.3377
This letter of Recard is regarding the header change at the high windows along the north facing wall of the new
Master Bathroom to the west of the new garage. The headers specified at these locations on the CD set dated
05.07.10 were (2)-1 '/. x 9 1/4 LVL's. During framing we revised these headers to be canstructed with (3)-1 �/ x
7!4 LVL's. This is an adequate structural salution for these headers.
If you have questions about this recard, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely;
Tyler Aldrich
Vice President
� �� v 90 �7
�
Reviewed
��
�' /
l, � f�i � {r� �,r•�f",
//'��f : / �_�y �—�—��..
..,/' � /: � 5E l: / .,/ _
,;,r f ; ,r'
, G�, �.
Jeffrey P. Leonardo, P.E.
President
��„T�^,bV "���ff�4
�-. ao�.A`[� ("e
- "_, � �`�'�c�3
� ,''� E
....�� Va R �x'� ��
j „ 3:�i;l, , � i � �1
;�.,._ _ �
�
.
08-26-2011 Inspection Request Reporting Page 1
7:50 am Vail, S� Gitv �f
Requested Inspect Date: Friday, August 26, 2071
Inspection Area: CG
Site Address: 3035 BOOTH FALLS RD VAIL
A/P/D Information
Activity: B10-0037 Type: A-BUILD Sub Type: ASFR Status: APPROVED
Const Type: Occupanc�y: Use: IRC Insp Area: CG
Owner: ADAIR, KATHERINE D. 8� JOHN
Contractor: HILL CONSTRUCTION INC Phone: 328-2200
Description: REMODEL: DEMO GARAGE, CONSTRUCT NEW GARAGE, BEDROOM, LIVING SPACE
Reauested Ins�ection(s)
Item: 542 PLAN-FINAL
Requestor: HILL CONSTRUCTION INC
Comments: 390-3413
Assigned To: BGIBSON
Action: Time
Comment: an scapmg complet�d, but vei
' '
�
,
�
I
Insaection Historv
Item: 10 BLDG-FOOTING *" Approved *"
10/21 /10 Inspector: Is
Comment:
Item: 20 BLDG-Foundation/Steel "* Approved **
06/17/10 Inspector: Martin
Comment:
07/13/10 Inspector: Martin
Comment: Garage slab area
Item: 21 PLAN-ILC Foundation Plan ** Approved ""
07/26/10 Inspector: bgibson
Comment:
Item: 410 Speciallnspect-progressr�ept""Approved'*
06/17/10 Inspector: Martin
Comment: A�pp�roved footing and soils
Item: 22 PLAN-ILC FRAMING "* Approved "*
09/22/10 Inspector: bgibson
Comment:
Item: 30 BLDG-Framing ** Approved `*
09/29/10 Inspector: JRM
Requested Time: 08:00 AM
Phone: 328-2200
Entered By: JMONDRAGON K
of garage must be painted
Action: AP APPROVED
Action: AP APPROVED
Action: AP APPROVED
Action: AP APPROVED
Action: AP APPROVED
Action: AP APPROVED
Action: AP APPROVED
Item: 50 BLDG-lnsulation "" Approved **
10/01/10 Inspector: Martin Action: DN DENIED
Comment: 1. Areas not blown indo not reflect R25 as indicated on plans
2. No insulation at electrical panel
10/07/10 Inspector: JRM Action: AP APPROVED
Comment: APPROVED 1 HR WALL REQUIRED AT ELECTRICAL PANEL
Item: 60 BLDG-Sheetrock Nail ** Approved '*
Item
Item:
Item:
Item:
10/11/10 Inspector: JRM Action: AP APPROVED
Comment: ALL APPROVED EXCEPT FOR UNDER STAIR AREA,.
70 BLDG-Misc. ** App roved "*
09/29/10 Insp ector: JRM Action: AP APPROVED
Comment: LATHE
535 DIA - 30 DAY REMINDER
536 DIA - SITE/LANDSCAPING
533 PLAN-TEMP. C/O ** Approved *"
12/22/10 Insp ector: bg ibson Action: DN DENIED
Comment: DIR required for unfinished landscaping & unpainted vent on north elevation.
REPT131 Run Id: 13444
0
08-26-2011 Inspection Request Reporting Page 2
��4 am vail,�p - Citv of
12/23/10 Insner.fnr hnihcnn Actinn GP GPPRr1VFn
--- - -- ---
omment: DI received 2/23/10
Item: 503 PW-Final Driveway Grade
Item: 542 PLAN-FINAL
08/22/11 Inspector: bgibson Action: DN DENIED
Comment: landscapin� completed, but vent louver on north side of garage must be painted
Item: 90 BLDG-Final * Approved '*
12/22/10 Inspector: sgremmer Action: AP APPROVED
Comment: All building elements are completed no other inspections are required.
REPT131 Run Id: 13444