Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DRB140021
70M ........................................ Project Name: NEW CONSTRUCTION Project Description: Participants: Design IReview IEB a rd AC'T'T' N F' RM Department of Community IDevelopment 7'5 South Frontage Road, Vail, Collorado 81657 tell: 976.47 "9.2139 faxu :976,479.2452 web: ww +.vaiil�6ov.corni DRB Number: DRB140021 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OWNER 1740 SIERRA TRAIL LLC PO BOX 3222 AVON, CO 81620 APPLICANT NOVA GROUP, THE DAVID IRWIN PO BOX 3342 VAIL CO 81657 License: C000003558 CONTRACTOR NOVA GROUP, THE DAVID IRWIN PO BOX 3342 VAIL CO 81657 License: C000003558 01/27/2014 01/27/2014 Phone: 970-390-0931 01/27/2014 Phone: 970-390-0931 Project Address: 1740 SIERRA TR VAIL Location: Legal Description: Lot: 22 Block: Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE WEST FIL 1 Parcel Number: 2103 - 123 - 1201 -7 Comments: See Conditions Motion By: Kjesbo Second By: Gillette Vote: 5 -0 -0 Conditions: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Action: PLAN CK Date of Approval: 09/17/2014 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 0 (PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction activities. Cond: 201 (PLAN): DRB approval shall not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval, pursuant to the Vail Town Code, Chapter 12 -3 -3: APPEALS. Cond:202 (PLAN): Approval of this project shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the date of final approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and is diligently pursued toward completion. Cond: CON0013925 Prior to submitting a building permit application, the applicant shall provide a revised grading plan bearing the stamp of a Colorado professional engineer, per 14 -6 -1, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code Cond: CON0013926 Prior to submitting a building permit application, the applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan that demonstrates a greater degree of plant diversity. Cond: CON0013927 Prior to submitting a building permit application, the applicant shall provide a revised site plan that clearly demonstrates the location of the garage to be within the front setback, allowing for wall heights up to six feet; or, revise wall heights to be three feet or less, per Section 14- 10 -9E, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code. Cond: CON0013928 Prior to submitting a building permit application, the applicant shall provide documentation of the materials palette. Planner: Joe Batcheller DRB Fee Paid: $650.00 ************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement ************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Statement Number: R140000042 Amount: $650.00 01/27/201411:09 AM Payment Method:Credit Crd Init: SAB Notation: MC -DAVID IRWIN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit No: DRB140021 Type: DRB - New Construction Parcel No: 2103 - 123 - 1201 -7 Site Address: 2180 ALPINE DR VAIL Location: Total Fees: $650.00 This Payment: $650.00 Total ALL Pmts: $650.00 Balance: $0.00 ************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Account Code Description Current Pmts -------------- - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- DR 00100003112200 DESIGN REVIEW FEES 650.00 TOWN OF VAIL JAN 2 i 2014 TOWN OF VAIL Department of Community Devetopment 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Tel: 970.479 -2128 www.vallgov.com Development Review Coordinator Application for Design review New Construction General Information: This application is for all new construction. Applicable Vail Town Code sections can be found at www.vailgov.com under Vail Information - Town Code Online. All projects reauirinct design review must receive approv- al prior to submitting a building permit application. An application for Design Review cannot be aocepted unfil -If re- quired information is received by the Community Development Department, as outlined In the submittal requirements. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Planning and Environmental Commission. Design review approval expires one year from the date of approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction commences. Fee-- Single Family F Duplex f7 Multi - Family f-, Commercial Description of the Request: Ak w V/ fjr,' M o g r Physical Address: 1'IA'16 A'� �Oeat Vb A 6 C -W ' 4'� o ;7,'CAr 'k w' Parcel Number: 210 3/2 IFo -7 (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970 -328 -8640 for parcel no.) Property Owner: ' .i -r" t r s r Mai►ing Add remfts' i b 1'x12 ; L li I t 3 t— +. t r� C 6 Phone: Owner's Signature: Primary Contact/ OwneeRepresentative: Moiling Address: _ s Phone::'? c 0 ; €a E -Mail: N rr � " 111 �r . �'. �E Fax: For Office use Only: Cash_ CC: Visa/ r IC Last 4 CC # ffi4Ok Exp. Date: Auth # T Check # Fee Paid: I a — Received From: 1 w, Meeting Date: dilgliq DRB No.: Planner: Project No: Zoning: - - ... . ...... __ Land Ilse: _.. L ...... oauor Subdivision: rm9 & _ . V, Ilasc i.► 5{� Nov 2013 Frooerty information Property Address 2-1 pio ,_ ( . a "t "r" lik Parcel # 21 D � I e 6 11110 i "7 Legal Description J/ 4.... 7 : ! r C, ,'j 'A t f Development Site Area sq ft acres h mabie sq it Zone District / SOD #, 3, 706 Secondary sq ft Hazard Zones Sections 12 -21 & 14-7 Snow Avalanche High Severity V Moderate Severity[- N/A Debris Flow '-.,High Flow F Moderate Flow I—, High Avalanche j N/A Rock fall 7, High Severity Medium Severity N/A 101 At -. q tt i Floodplain } .- 100 year ttoodpiain j" Floodway Wetlands EVA Creeks, Streams Section 12 -14-17 DGore Creek on site - adjacent to site X N/A er tributary: r- on site r adjacent to site WA Project Information i o,oj ,^e rfpd lloUlC,"6- V IAYWAJ6E Development Standards Allowed Existing Proposed Gross Residential Floor Area (maximum) Chapter 12 -15 i Primary sq ft -4 f-57 7 3, 706 Secondary sq ft AU sq ft 101 At -. q tt i 0 250 Addition Interior Conversion Credits: Setbacks (minimum) Section 14 -10.4 Front It o t s ,_ " Side ft t Side n Rear It Watercourse It Site Coverage (maximum) see definition Section 12-2-2 i Sullding Height (may-Im m.) see definition Section 12 -2 -2 Flat ft Landscaping See definition Section 14 -2 -1 Section 14 -10-8 Softscape sq ft Soo V,= Hardscape sq It 2 CCU f TOTAL sq ft / iii +v6wi iiy Sections 14 -3-1 & 14-3 -2 i. £YiiiC viii ii•a.:i1w t � I b 1 1 Max Grade C cen- terline : Min Width Heated drive? Yes No Yes - No Parking Sections 12-10 & 14 -5 #Enclosed Spaces #Unenciosed TOTAL ! .. Outdoor Lighting (maximum) ger_linn 14 -1{>_7 i # fixtures f t 1 i 1 1 D u�v UTHAT APPROVAL A vt I FEB 10 2014 TNo ftm.aerves.w,�eri�► -#* ttn pmp�d dents vA r�0t r r {xopasaa u i,, a oees, Mw 10 aerobe atr AMA ara bcallon for new oon*uc ion era Y uft plan and adre Mng butdalAm A she plena lr>dudng grating am emv=QM to the faHawkg U M SS 1br and veriNoraan. P1 PAM ALLOW UP TO 2 VVEM FOR APPROVAL OR COM- MENU FROM THE UTMIJTY C�O�A�iP =m w%* w*M that iirmfrarrrs visas Tim Town Of Vd. i.. _zi ft__ _.s__ p�1���_ -_- !t i flfl�: �+l�atf tf a _> 9 a _� iiYjtl4 \7'i V�7W \y AYLi tlOOi� h liM! /�.e!l ►ry /.7 ze 4-614-1 \- �+:,C�t DtILSalYimu"; Yiin Primary 1OwwacRepr ntadlve: /�Ad1� T' Phorra: 970- 0*-Tg3r e Pima Dated• /�Afli4 Prkmry Co Owaar Rsprastrndrpv�s Sigralrrn 1aGi7 l 1. 6WW bCa UM !Wrist be obtained babes dfaing. 2. A Rgvocabie ftht-of -Way Pm* nvy be req*W 1br any lnnprovemenb w ttdn a street do*of -ware. Contact the PubNc Waft DgmrbTW* fnr wlrlAcatbn 970.479.2198. 3. R I the responstft of the u tMty comPanY and the appkwt to reWve probiems Wen died abow- 4. The Prbrra:y Contact/Owner wive is required to x6mit any rimed disM to the abase agenda: #or re 4ppraW a M- Vedfkmtion V the mftnlftd plans are ait,ared I any voy alar 0* su&0tied s%M&t me.date. 970.8288288 (tea 9T0.828A282 • Bob Davis XCIL MM PNBMk= OAS M.!08.4784 {lea 970.408.9401 M4 Coda& Runiow Baker Y mOr 1 970.947.6428 (tom 970.946.40810 Cotnact Jefr %kmm 970.Z02AOM (fax �� � A e , �fi r conbdi: PtWn AtOOuire E�itii a tEiVM WATER a 8M I ATION Dl$1 RIOTi:tl / �CL.�j rm Rms,.7411 (tea rm 4 4s T272411 /- a m � :astect Tug Birk JOYCAST C#" iitii.ay.ii i !03.803.9004 (raxj Nwdaat: Mkimd Johrnon MOT (filly h COOT RRh4of*" r1o.m.sm t18a ;ontsci: Dan Roussin 1aGi7 l 1. 6WW bCa UM !Wrist be obtained babes dfaing. 2. A Rgvocabie ftht-of -Way Pm* nvy be req*W 1br any lnnprovemenb w ttdn a street do*of -ware. Contact the PubNc Waft DgmrbTW* fnr wlrlAcatbn 970.479.2198. 3. R I the responstft of the u tMty comPanY and the appkwt to reWve probiems Wen died abow- 4. The Prbrra:y Contact/Owner wive is required to x6mit any rimed disM to the abase agenda: #or re 4ppraW a M- Vedfkmtion V the mftnlftd plans are ait,ared I any voy alar 0* su&0tied s%M&t me.date. D) L-. k�g`E�U` UTILITY APPROVAL a VERiFICATiO FEB 1 This form serves to verify that the proposed improvements will riot impact any or proposed �ti 5�rvi d also to verify service avallability and location for new construction and should be in conjunction with our utility plan and scheduling installations. A site plan, including grading plan, floor ,"� 1 fled to the folbwing utilities for approval and verification. PLEASE ALLOW UP TO 2 C MENTS FROM THE UTILITY COMPANIES. If you are unable to obtain comments within aunt timeframb please contact The Town of Vail. /7,f 1) 1A09 7ZAtfl Subject Pr Address: 2180 9 1,4106 49 iyG �'i I r.1� bj operty Lot 22 Blecit I Subdivision: I//lI/ (/i /GJy'G lUe3' r Primary C pMa�Q�presentetive: /✓Ad //✓ Tc.WW/N Plume: ?70-51v-0f5/ /J Plana Dated: i. utility iocaaons must be obtained before digging. 2. A Revocable Right- of-Way Permit may be required Public Works Departrnent for verification 970.479.2198, for any improvements within a street right -of -way. Contact the 3. It is the responsibility of the utility company and the applicant to resolve problems identified above. 4. The Primary Contactlowner Representative is required to submit any revised drawings to the above agencies for re- approval & re- verification If the submitted plans are altered in any way after the authorized signature date. Authorized Sianatwe Comments Date CENTURY LINK 970.328.8288 (teQ - 970.328.8282 (fax) Contacts: Barb Davis barb.davisdilcenturvIink.corn XCEL HIGH PRESSURE GAS 970.406.1784 (teQ 970.468.1401 (fax) Contact Remington Baker remin9Lon,c.bakeyGzWeneW,co 140(Y CROM43 PWROY 970.947.5425 (tel) 970.945.4081 (fax) Contact Jeff Vroom o ss.com XCEL Energy 970262.4039 (teQ 970262.4038 (fax) Contacts: Pam McGuire EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT 970.477.5449 (teQ 97n 711a Irsy� o n1o� y ntto� �° b� addrrssc.t GiS ,�v /I o.5 a W; (� V rrigAh ol8 Contact Tug Birk 155vc arov�d o� , tbirkdberwacLorg COMCAST CABLE 970.930.4713 (teQ 303.603.1004 (fax) Contact Michael Johnson Michael iohnsonCftable.corricast.com COOT (Only in CDOT Right -of -way) 970.683.5284 (teQ Contact Dan Roussin Daniel.roussin t.state.co.us i. utility iocaaons must be obtained before digging. 2. A Revocable Right- of-Way Permit may be required Public Works Departrnent for verification 970.479.2198, for any improvements within a street right -of -way. Contact the 3. It is the responsibility of the utility company and the applicant to resolve problems identified above. 4. The Primary Contactlowner Representative is required to submit any revised drawings to the above agencies for re- approval & re- verification If the submitted plans are altered in any way after the authorized signature date. �DdL Kn' uT IuTY APPROVAL a vEm�i�.Aiior� � FEB 10 2014 This form serves to verity ttit the proposed knproverr w is vA not knpac arty Proposed Wft servi , --_ diov lii 'viiis y baivi� dYai7aiiilify ati�i icn.sitivi -i i� iww vullsi�tw'liu�t di�x7 3(tVUci Y Y plan and $&*& li V ittiMalliftions. A sttd plan, inchAn9 9a&g flan. floor ed to the WMIng uti'IINN for MPWM and vrirMeadort. PLEASE ALLOW UP TO Z WEEKS FOR APPROVAL OR COW MEMT$ FROM THE U7111M COMPANIES. B you ar is trouble to obtain oarurterrlls within 1W timeaw. omm corftd 7be Town Of VON. ! 7 -Vo See rrAn �Pde l Pt It &qea Property Address: 2 / 80/�i 4,we. 13Ame. Lot E. a .Bradt i &rddmaim: V.4,1 Z e We s r Prlmary J Owner RepnsenWtlw: ��1M v�/J T�'QwlN Phone: Q70- 340 - d #r 37 C Plans We& i. L0ty WC800hS must be Miffed bd bre dk,)gkV. 2. A Revocable Right-of-Way Permt may be required for any improvements within a sb ed rigs -of -way. CAr W ft Pubk Works Department for verlflcaiiion 970.479.2198. 3. it is the responsibility of the utility company and the applicant to resolve problems .WwffW above. 4. The Primary ContadJOwner Representative Is requk ed to subrnit arty revised drawings to the above agencies for re Wproval S re- verlCicatim N the submitted plans are aRered In any way after the au#ttorized signature date. CENTURY LINK 970.328.8282 CM) Confacb: Barb Davis XC§L � - _ GM 970.406.1784 (*Q 970.468.1401 (fat) Contact RwT*Vton Baker Ht V S Y Colorado Revised Statutes Title 4, 970.947.5425 (to 970,845,4061('�t1 ,�,�,`� _ Y114, ' � ' _ Article 2.5, rohibits an unguarded _ P Y g mata.at 377 Contec t Jeff Woarn % activity within 1() feet of energized 13:35:47 -07'00` overhead power lines. xcmm Einsryy 970.282.4039 (isQ 970.262.4038 (fax) j } cmftc s: Pam McGuire EAttLE RIVET: WAM A sMWTA-U—M DISTRICT 970.477.5449 (teQ 971M A45 791 R ( *-A, ContK t Tug M s WAS GABLE _ ..__.... 970.930.4713 0" 3063.603.1004 (fax) C tact Walm 1 Johroon .com COOT (Orly in COAT ftV of way) J- memm"(Wo �Corrtack Ow Roussin Da M,mussir►Qdot$to .co.us i. L0ty WC800hS must be Miffed bd bre dk,)gkV. 2. A Revocable Right-of-Way Permt may be required for any improvements within a sb ed rigs -of -way. CAr W ft Pubk Works Department for verlflcaiiion 970.479.2198. 3. it is the responsibility of the utility company and the applicant to resolve problems .WwffW above. 4. The Primary ContadJOwner Representative Is requk ed to subrnit arty revised drawings to the above agencies for re Wproval S re- verlCicatim N the submitted plans are aRered In any way after the au#ttorized signature date. D tcIE0WE FEB 10 2014 IMLITY APPROVAL A VERIFiCATIO This form serves to verity that ft proposed kWovemerft *4 trot impact any s1in9" ® � also tow* service availabNity and location for new construc uon and should be use uHNty Pm eruct sc#redr /ing otis. A site Pig, MdudkV Wading plan, floor Plan, and dwaftw. shag be m tkiilted to Me fdlkr*t g UUMI s for approval and verifical ion_ PLEASE ALLOW UP TO 2 WEEKS FOR APPROVAL OR COM- MENTS FROM THE UTILM COMPANIES. N you ors unabis to obtain oorrartems within that *n4wm pisses Contact The TOW Of Veit. / X40 ,(e.1Y -,A *7X4, Subject PropertyAddrimm: 2180AlG We. F�lr.r piv � Lot 8� Ji:leedt i 8ubiBvtston: i/ v lA G illeS T Primary iI Owner Re wenntattve: l�Ad7/d T�'wwl;y Phone: 970-IM-0#51 , a,f 1 ' 1_ty =' °!gins l3 ~wtl:. __ _____a�___.u-- _a____ 1970,328-M Auti lbed 814MO rre Cogninents CENTURY LINK tteii 970.328.8282 (rax) Coraetls: Nerb Davis barb XCEI. "W", MOSURE GAS 970.406.1784 (kq 970.486.1401 &DO t W*Kt ft*om Baker � n.cbaice .com s H(k Y CROSS Q`t 970.947.5425 (te0 970.945.4081 (fox) Contact Jeff Vroom cm XCELKInerw 010.1 s Wife (tef) 970.262.4038 (rax) Contacts: Pam McGuire EAGLE RIME! WATER A SANITATION DISTRICT 970.477.5449 {bij Jk`A1 KVS ifP ih t"") - s - Contact Tug ift CONCAST CABLE 970.830.4713 (teQ 303.603.1004 (fax) Contact: midoal Johnson CDOT {only in COOT RBI -4490 970.883.6284 (Wl) Contact Dan Roussin Denial roussin tstafie co. s i. may Wadoh3 WAW be a6tei w t etbte digging. I A Revocable Right-of-Way PeMlt Maybe requited for airy knprovements wMn a street right-of -way. Contact the Public Works Deparbnerrt for veftation 970.479.2198. 3. R is the responsibility of the LdRy company and the applicant to resolve problems tde fmd above. 4. The Primary Cantact/Owner Representative is requtned too submit any revised drawings do the above agencies for re- approve & re- verfkWon V the submWad plans are altered in any way inter the autta zed signature date. UTIUTY APPROVAL & VERIFWATI FEB 10 2014 This form serves to verify #M9 the proposed improverneft will not knead any or proposed ufi ty and cffizv iv wi ly ba- vile avidil"lity :anti locjur4 fcr view cor'rS -" -burr arm Szruuicl u� i" conjunction with your uti�ty Plan and sdtedcdu�g instat#aTions. A site plan, indudatg grading Pte. . be ed to the W10WIng ublifea for approval and verification. PLEASE ALLOW UP TO 2 WELDCB FOR MEWS FROM THE UTHM COMPAME& if you are wobie b obtin oarwrm* withfirl that tirrratrM* Dhease contact The Town of Vail. 67 -f 4r S ,e rrR y oF.W Subjad Property Address: 2 18#4 1. wd )QL We. ,. tat 22 ,iiHectc t SuIxIlvialon• V &l Z.1 l )es r Printery Owner Raprrsonlatiws: /�iI d //� 3�'Qw�N Phone: q7D- 3f47 OQ3 l Mans Dated: $Af plinlam "W ajfdffiffimft� of—A.— NGM- 1. tiltV ioratfans must be obtakWd bdbte dggkV. 2. A Revocable Right -af Way Permit may be required for any improves within a street right- of-wait. Conted the Pubk Works DepaftW t for vedf'[cation 970.479.2198. 3. It is the responsibik of the utility awnpany and the applicant to resolve problems iderrtified above. 4. The Primary Cortt mVOwner Rep es ntatl Is required tD submit any revised drawings W the above agencies for re approval & re- verification If the wb nftd plans are altered in any way after the authorized signature date. Jlutlror�ed Siam Comments CENTURY LINK 970.328.8288 (lei) 970.328.8282 (feat) Conies: Barb Davis XCI L. HHM PffiliSIFURE GAB 970.406.1784 (teq 970.468.1401 (fax) Contact: Remington Baker lf�14 Y 4' -R4lSS Y 970.947.5425 (too 970.940.401(fsl COMMct: Jeff Vroom .corn XCEL Energy 9702824039 (telj 970.262.4038 (fax) Cmdads: Pam MoOture EAGLE RIVER WATER d SANITATION DISTRICT 970.477.5449 (tap a?n as T?, (*•. Cornact Tog Birk Lclia CAST CABLE 970.930.4713 (lath 303.608.1004 (fa") COMM= tiles JohnsoA IWChaeG u70`lllf Oh 1 -28 -2014 Kwhaft :X1rrlCaEt.c om CDOT (ONy in CDOT Right kv") 970.883.8284 (" Contact Dan Roussin t. to co.us NGM- 1. tiltV ioratfans must be obtakWd bdbte dggkV. 2. A Revocable Right -af Way Permit may be required for any improves within a street right- of-wait. Conted the Pubk Works DepaftW t for vedf'[cation 970.479.2198. 3. It is the responsibik of the utility awnpany and the applicant to resolve problems iderrtified above. 4. The Primary Cortt mVOwner Rep es ntatl Is required tD submit any revised drawings W the above agencies for re approval & re- verification If the wb nftd plans are altered in any way after the authorized signature date. A7TOWN OF VA Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Tel: 970.479.2128 www.vailgov.com Development Review Coordinator TRANSMITTAL FORM Use this form when submitting additional information for planning applications or building permits. This form is also used for requesting a revision to building permits. A two hour minimum building review fee of $110 will be charged upon reissuance of the permit. Application /Permit #(s) information applies to: Attention: () Revisions � ()Response to Correction Letter attached copy of correction letter ) Deferred Submittal ( Other Project Street Address: I71-D I/e1 -X 'i4W (Number) (Street) (Suite #) �Building /Complex Name: / V40t)lCk ie 5L* yC e Description of Transmittal/ List of Changes, Items Attached: Applicant. Information (architect, contractor owner /owner's rep) Contact Name: l%! Gti!!li Address: / � ,2: Z / City 1/4 State: (Co Zip: P/6 /r Contact Name: Contact Phone: LAO "- 10 J� -,jl� Contact E -Mail: cS/U✓%�01) 70T/ Y 2 0� OU ), COX 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 town's zoning and subdivision codes, design review ap- proved, International Building and Residential Codes and other ordin } /s of the wn plicable thereto. Owner /Owner's Representative Signature (Required) For Office Use Only: Fee Paid: Received From: Cash CC: Visa / MC Last 4 CC # Authorization # Check # exp. date: s'iz/ A (use additional sheet if necessary) Building Permits: Revised ADDITIONAL Valuations (Labor & Materials) (DO NOT include original valuation) Building: Plumbing: Electrical: Mechanical Total: Date Received: rE6 10 2014 TOWN OF VAIL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road TOWN OF VAIL Vail, CO 81657 Tel: 970.479.2128 www.vailgov.com Development Review Coordinator TRANSMITTAL FORM Use this form when submitting additional information for planning applications or building permits. This form is also used for requesting a revision to building permits fee of $110 will be charged upon reissuance of the permit. Application /Permit #(s) information applies to: Attention: -1 - ) C) Project Street Address: i � �0 ��� -72A L- (Number) (Street) (Suite #) Building /Complex Name: Applicant, Information (architect, contractor, owner /owner's rep) Contact Name: Address: A two hour minimum building review () Revisions () Response to Correction Letter _attached copy of correction letter ( ) Deferred Submittal ( ther Description of Transmittal/ List of Changes, Items Attached: i City State: Zip: Contact Name: (use additional sheet if necessary) �� — 6 _ . Contact Phone: 13 : Building Permits: Contact E -Mail: cj/U/tPGTr-Cf-7/ -'d2 iiPmsNt C01'1, Revised ADDITIONAL Valuations (Labor & Materials) (DO NOT include original valuation) I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application, filled out Building: $ — in full the information required, completed an accurate plot plan, and state that all the information as required is correct. I agree to Plumbing: $ comply with the information and plot plan, to comply with all Town ordinances and state laws, and to build this structure according Electrical: $ to the town's zoning and subdivision codes, design review ap- proved, International Building and Residential Codes and other . Mechanical: $ ordinances of the Town applicable thereto. X Total: Owner /Owner's Representative Signature (Required) For Office Use Only: Fee Paid: Received From: Cash CC: Visa / MC Last 4 CC # Authorization # Check # exp. date: Date Received: D R IE �MCE D JUL 0 9 2014 TOWN OF VAIL TOWN OF VAIL� Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Tel: 970.479.2128 www.vailgov.com Development Review Coordinator TRANSMITTAL FORM Use this form when submitting additional information for planning applications or building permits. This form is also used for requesting a revision to building permits. A two hour minimum building review fee of $110 will be charged upon reissuance of the permit. Application /Permit #(s) information applies to: nn n pg,7� ) q Project Street Address: 1-7L-(C)- Slew `7/-do Attention: ,Revisions ,jCr<espons Fattached Q Deferred IQ Other _ (Number) (Street) II .. (Suite #) Building /Complex Name: Applicant Information (architect, contracto owner /owner's rep) Contact Name:� %_ Address: / i/OX ;5 4Z City b�4, / State: Co,_ Zip:/ , Contact Name: e to Correction Letter copy of correction letter Submittal Description of Transmittal/ List of Changes, Items Attached: �J; _doe, AlZdAl O eS (use additional sheet if necessary) Contact Phone: �3�U '� Building Permits: r /Jai` -� 2 Revised ADDITIONAL Valuations (Labor & Materials) Contact E -Mail: 17A rf (DO NOT include original valuation) I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application, filled out Building: in full the information required, completed an accurate plot plan, and state that all the information as required is correct. I agree to Plumbing: comply with the information and plot plan, to comply with all Town ordinances and state laws, and to build this structure according Electrical: to the town's zoning and subdivision codes, design review ap- proved, International Building and Residential Codes and other Mechanical: ordinanc f the To a��licable thereto. X I r IVIL /�I Total: Owner /Owner's Representative Signature (Required) For Office Use Only Fee Paid: Received From: Cash Check # CC: Visa / MC Last 4 CC # exp, date: Authorization # Date Received: $0 AUG 25 2014 ' O L 1; TOWN OF VAIL 1830 BZ 1830 BZ -GU24 1830 BZ -LED amber glass detail clear glass detail 1830 TT 1830 TT -GU24 1830 TT -LED - I 1834 TT 1834 TT -GU24 C A S C A D E Bronze (BZ), Satin Black (SK), Titanium (TT) WIDTH/ ECO- OPTIONS TOP TO i rM4 DIA. I 1830 TT 1830 TT -GU24 1830 TT -LED - I 1834 TT 1834 TT -GU24 C A S C A D E Bronze (BZ), Satin Black (SK), Titanium (TT) 1834 TT -LED 1830 SK 1830 SK -GU24 1830 SK -LED 1834 SK 1834 SK -GU24 1834 SK -LED WIDTH/ ECO- OPTIONS TOP TO rM4 DIA. HEIGHT I=. OUTLET RACK PLATE /CANOPY 1830 BZ 8' W 14W 4- 4314' 8' W, MY H Back Plate 1830 SK 8"W 14W 4' 4314' 8"W. 14W H Back Plate 1830 TT 8' W 1414" 4- 4314' 8' W, 14W H Back Plate 1834 BZ 8' W 18' 4- 4314' 8' W. 18' H Back Plate 1834 TT -LED 1830 SK 1830 SK -GU24 1830 SK -LED 1834 SK 1834 SK -GU24 1834 SK -LED 10 w sr, is w 18' 4- 43.' 8' W, 18' H Back Plate 1 -100w Med. 1834 SK -GU24 1834 SK -LED UNI -100 BZ, SK, TT 1834 TT 8'W 18' 4' 4314' 8'W, 18' H Back Plate 1 -100w Med. 1834 TT -GU24 1834 TT -LED UNI -100 BZ, SK, TT Cascade comes standard Dark Sky compliant. For Fluorescent/GU24 lamps and LED specifications, see pages 412 -413. For Eco Details, see pages 412 -413. For an explanation of icons, see page 8. ©2013 Hinkley Lighting, Inc. I hinkleylighting.com I OUTDOOR 1 433 ECO- OPTIONS GU24 LED Energy efficient socket accepts LED. Includes integrated LED Dark Skyand high efficiency LED LIGHT AVAILABLE BULBS Fluorescent lamps. light source. ENGINE FINISHES ADA 1 -100w Med. 1830 BZ -GU24 1830 BZ -LED UNI -100 BZ, SK, TT 1 -100w Med. 1830 SK -GU24 1830 SK -LED UN1-100 BZ, SK, TT 1 -100w Med. 1830 TT -GU24 1830 TT- -LED UNI -100 BZ, SK, TT 1 -100w Med. 1834 BZ -GU24 1834 BZ -LED UNI -10� R7 SK TT 10 w sr, is w 18' 4- 43.' 8' W, 18' H Back Plate 1 -100w Med. 1834 SK -GU24 1834 SK -LED UNI -100 BZ, SK, TT 1834 TT 8'W 18' 4' 4314' 8'W, 18' H Back Plate 1 -100w Med. 1834 TT -GU24 1834 TT -LED UNI -100 BZ, SK, TT Cascade comes standard Dark Sky compliant. For Fluorescent/GU24 lamps and LED specifications, see pages 412 -413. For Eco Details, see pages 412 -413. For an explanation of icons, see page 8. ©2013 Hinkley Lighting, Inc. I hinkleylighting.com I OUTDOOR 1 433 fees 'suoal }o uolieueldxa ue 103 - £I3-ZU sa6ed aas'slieiaQ o03 I03 a31-Z8 17£81 17Zfl J-Z8 17681 Z8 17£81 kds �Nvu IalsegejV `uTe-d JTQEBID pai;Jl31aquiv'uieU oTueB10 pai Dl3leajZ) SStl1LZ) uintuei!j.'jzmjgutles'azuolg HSIN13 Tnoo-BupyBTldamuly uooalflo i zs;� •lusijduioa.Ujs Iilecl plepuels st apeosez) •asn ioualxa Io loualul IaTilia Io} laepad arils Aieloduialuoo a suit But�jeul'dl ?jpeslan s uBlsap aijl of sppe uopmllsuoo tununlinje 4aajs aTA.L '13ajja Bul4gf5Tj loaltpul J J ITM015 a BuilealJ ajiT m ssejB utel to Ialsegeje vpp affil luaivajdwoJ apeoseZ) ;o sautj ulapotu'ueajo aljy -� CTL I THE)MPSBN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTATIQN LOT 22, VAIL VILLAGE WEST, FlLING N4. 1 1740 SIERRA TRAIL VAlL, COLORADO Prepared For: KEITH NOVICK P. O. Box 3222 5685 Wildridge Road East � � �� � � � Avon, CO 81620 D AUG252014 Project Na. GS05840-145 TpWN OF VAIL April 7, 2014 �� 234 Center D��Glenwood Springs, Cc�forado 816€}1 Telephan�: 970-945-2£3C19 Fax: �70-945-741# !�t t�r� =_�� TABLE QF CONTENTS SCOPE.............................................................................................................................................1 H15TORICALPERSPECTIVE.........................................................................................................1 EXISTING SUBSURFACE DRAIN AND FOUNDATION WALL......................................................3 SITECONDITIONS .........................................................................................................................4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.......................................................................................................5 SITE EVALtJATION .........................................................................................................................6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................8 Fill.................................................................................................................................................8 Gravel.........................................................................................................................................10 UpperGravel...........................................................................................................................10 LowerGravel...........................................................................................................................11 Clay.............................................................................................................................................11 SandstoneBedrock....................................................................................................................11 GROUNDWATER..........................................................................................................................12 SLOPESTABILITY........................................................................................................................12 SlopeGeometry..........................................................................................................................13 SoilProfile..................................................................................................................................13 Groundwater...............................................................................................................................13 StrengthParameters..................................................................................................................14 SlopeStability Analyses .............................................................................................................15 ExcavationRetainage.................................................................................................................16 Excavations................................................................................................................................17 Backfilland Fill............................................................................................................................18 FOUNDATiON...............................................................................................................................19 Micropiles...................................................................................................................................20 FLOOR SYSTEM AND SLABS-ON-GRADE.................................................................................21 FOUNDATION WALLS..................................................................................................................23 Permanent Excavation Retention...............................................................................................23 Temparary Excavation Retention...............................................................................................24 NoExcavation Retention............................................................................................................24 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE...........................................................................................................25 EARTH RETAINING WALLS.........................................................................................................26 SURFACEDRAINAGE..................................................................................................................27 ADDITIONAI CONSULTATION, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND MONITORING......27 GEOTECHNICALRiSK.................................................................................................................28 LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................................................29 FIGURE 1 — APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND INCLINOMETER BORINGS FIGURE 2—APPROXfMATE EXCAVATIUN DEPTH APPENDIX A-PROJECT GS05050-125 FIGURES,PREVIOUS EXPLORATORY BORING DRfLLING, LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES KEITH NOVICK LOT 22,VAIL VILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.G505840•145 S:1GS05840.064N4542.ReportslGS058dD 145 Rt.doc �_� SCOPE This report presents resuits of our geotechnical consultation for the planned residence at 1740 Sierra Trail in Vail, Colarado. We conducted a previous ge- otechnical investigation (Geotechnical Investigation, Solis Residence, Project No. GS05050-125, dated March 13, 2008) to investigate and evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for a previously planned residence. We have utilized research and data from our previaus field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering ana(ysis to develop this report. Information from aur previous investigation is provided in Appendix A of this repart. Unless otherwise identified, figures referred to in this report can be found in Appendix A. This report includes a description of the subsurface condi- tions encountered in our exploratory borings and geotechnical engineering rec- ommendations for design and construction of earth retention, subsurface drains system, foundations, floor systems, befow-grade walls and for de#ails influenced by the subsoils for the currently planned residence. The scope of services was described in a Service Agreement, dated March 20, 2Q14. Our recommendations are based on our understanding of the planned construction. If building plans will differ significantly from the descriptions contained herein, we should be informed so #hat we can determine if changes to our design criteria are merited. A sum- mary of our findings and conclusions is presented below. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Construction of a single-family home began on the lot in 1979. Extensive excava#ions were made into the hillside on the lower part of the lot. Recards indi- cate that at least one groundwater spring was expased during the excavation pro- cess and that several sfumps occurred. Evidence of larger mass ground move- ment, expressed as undermining of Alpine Drive, were reported. Canstruction on the site was stopped while several field investigations and engineering analyses were undertaken to evaluate the slope movement and the risk of continued hame KEITH NOVICK 1 LOT 22,YAIL VILLAGE WEST,FILING NQ.1 PROJECT NO.GS0584Q-145 S:tGS05840.0 0 011 4 512.Reports1GS65840 145 Rt.doc _ _=� building on the lot during 1980 and 1981. A significant scarp developed on the upper part of the lot in 1980. Recommendations for slope stabilization were pro- vided to the lot owner and contractor. We understand that very little, i#any, seri- ous shoring or anchored earth retention was impfemented during the first con- struction attempt. Some slope stabilization was started in March of 1982. On March 8, 1982, a large landslide occurred. The slide mass resulted in the loss of the downhill part of Alpine Drive and portions of a Town water line. The slide mass also pushed the partially completed home off its foundatian. Claycomb Engineering Associates, Inc. was hired by the Town to develop a site stabilization and monitoring plan for reconstructian of Alpine Drive and the lot. A requirement of the reconstruction plan was to re-establish the slope geometry that existed prior ta excavations for home construction at the site. Implementation of the recommendations provided in the stabilization and reconstruction plan be- gan in May, 1983 and were substantially completed the last week of November, 1983. The plan by Claycomb called for removal of all material abave the landslide failure plane, installation of a stepped subsurface drain system and placement of granular structural fifl to re-estabiish grades. We understand that well compacted granular soils were placed from the top of the subsurface drain system to pre- excavation elevations. Figure C-1 shows graund surface profiles before the first construction, #he approximate extent of remedial construction and the current sur- face. Daily observation reports by C(aycomb and field compaction testing reports by Lincoln DeVore were obtained from Town of Vail files. There were some re- ports missing; this is nat surprising considering the problem occurred nearly 25 years ago. KEITH NdVICK � LOT 22,VAIL VILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.t PROJECT NO.GSa5840-145 S:1GS05848.060114512.RepaRS1GS058dD 145 Rt.doc -�� EXISTING SUBSURFACE DRAIN AND FOUNDATIC?N WALL A critical element of the 1983 slope stabilization and reconstruction effort was the installation of a subsurface drain placed on the natural soils below the slide plane. We understand the drain extends from Alpine Drive to the foundation wal! buried befow the lower slopes of the lot and daylights below Sierra Trail. We believe, the drain consists of a PVC pipe and 1-1/2 inch minus washed rock wrapped in geotextile fabric. It is critical that the operation of the drain be checked. We recommend the drain system be evaEuated by using a camera in- serted in the drain to allow observation of the condition. The drain system may need to be "wet tested". Wet testing involves placing water inta a high point of the drain and checking that the water discharges as designed. Water volume should be fimited to anly that required to check the flow. We believe the slape has been generally stable subsequent to completion of the stabilization and reconstruction project. We also believe that the subsur- face drain is functioning as planned and contributes significantly ta the existing stable condition. The buried faundation wall also provides resistance to ground movements. Disturbance to the foundation wall and contamination of the subsur- face drain could adversely affect the existing slope stabili#y. Some disturbance related to home building on the lot will accur, however, new construction shauld consider the need to minimize disturbance to the foundation wall and drain sys- tem. The drain discharge location needs to be identified and the voEume of water being collected and discharged needs to be documented prior to the start of earthwork on the lot. We believe Mr. Bruce L.ewis, the engineer who observed fill piacement during the rernediation, can help locate the discharge locatian. Mr Lewis is currently a partner in the firm Boundaries Unlimited in Glenwood Springs. Manitoring of the water volume discharged shoufd occur during construction activi- KEETH NOYICK � l0T 22,VAIL VILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-145 s:tcsosaao.aoat�astiz.Rspartgtcsoseaa�as R�.do� ==� ty on the lot to check that canstruction activities do not adversely affect the per- formance of the drain. If the drain becomes contaminated with grout during the installation of earth retention, it may become necessary to install horizontal drains and provide an ad- ditional outlet for water currently controlled by the 1983 remedial construction. The construction technique and the required length of each drain will vary depend- ing on the location on the site. SITE CONDITIONS l.ot 22 is an approximately one-quarter acre site bounded to the south (up- hill) by Afpine Drive and to the narth by a cul-de-sac at the end of Sierra Trail. Residential buildings, estimated at 20 to 25 ar more years old, are lacated to the east and west. A small surface drainage is also located along the west property line. Mature aspen trees are along the east and west praperty lines. At the time of our site visit to prepare this report, about 3 feet of snow cov- ered the lot. The following description is based an previaus site visits. We do not beiieve significant changes have been macle to the lot. Existing site conditions are a result of slope reconstruction performed in 1983. The upper slopes of the lot drop steeply down from the narth shou(der of Alpine Drive. These steep slapes transition to less steep slopes fram near the center af the lot to the top of a 6-foot high boulder wall adjacent to Sierra Trail. Slopes occurring on the upper part of the lot below Alpine Drive are between 1.4 and 1.5 to 1(horizontal to vertical) and the lower s[opes from the center of the lot to Sierra Trail are between 2 and 4 to 1. Elevations along the shoulder of Alpine Drive are 8197 to 8201 feet; the elevation at the toe of the boulder stacked wall adjacent to Sierra Trail is about 813q feet. The ground surface is vegetated with a dense ground caver of grass. A 6-inch di- ameter PVC pipe with cap is located near elevation 8160 feet in the central part of KEITH NOYICK �, LOT 22,YAIL YILLAGE WEST.FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-�45 5:\GS05840.0 0 011 4 512.Reports1GS05840 145 R1.doc __�� the lot. We believe this pipe was installed as part of a monitoring system to check for ground movement over time. We were unable to locate and identify the discharge pipe for the installed subsurFace drain system. This discharge may be apparent after snowmelt occurs. It is important that the location of the discharge pipe be found. We anticipate in- creased flow from the discharge in the spring and early summer related to snow- melt. PRf�POSED CONSTRUCTION We were provided conceptual plans by the Nova Group shawing floor ele- vations and buifding sections. The plans provide sufficient information to provide design-level geatechnical information; however, refinement of the recommenda- tions in this repo�t will be required when building loads and more details of the planned construction are provided. The buifding will be three levels. The lower level will be completely below- grade on three sides and open to Sierra Trail to the north. The main level will be below-grade to the south and above-grade to the north. The upper level will be partially below-grade to the south and above-grade to the north. Figure 1 of this report shows the extent of the lower level and main level. The lower level floor is shown at elevation 8132.5 feet. The main level floor elevation will be at 8143.5 feet. Excavations will extend an additional 1 to 2 feet to allow foundation and subsurface drain installation. To allow main level construc- tion, a retained "upper" excavation of+/- 20 feet will be required. This excavation will likely be made across the slope at about the location of the existing 8162 foat contour iine. Belaw the retained upper excavation, an excavation af +/- 20 ta 25 feet below the existing ground surface will be required to step between the lower KEiTH NOYICK � LOT 22,VAIL VILLAGE WEST,FIUNG NO.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-145 S:tGS05840.400114512.ReportsVG505840�45 R1.doc �=� and upper excava#ions. This excavatian step will be about 12 feet tall, from about 8142 feet ta 8130 feet. We anticipate maximum foundation loads of about 4,000 pounds per finear foot af foundation wall and maximum interior column loads of about 100 kips. We should be informed of actua! foundation loads when the information is available. We anticipate that several retaining walCs will be canstructed as part of landscaping. Comparatively large retaining wafls will be needed between Sierra Trail and the garage an the lower level. SITE EVALUATION The initial part of our previous site evaluation consisted of a review of pub- lished geotechnical engineering studies, topographic mapping and an interview with Mr. Lewis, who was on-site during remedial grading. We also viewed #he plans developed by Claycomb fflr the slope stabilization and reconstruction sub- sequent to the large slope failure an the site. When developing the soil profile for this study, we considered information from our borings and information from pre- vious studies. Appendix A provides previaus exploratory boring drilling infor- mation. We drilled exploratory borings between November 20 and 27, 20�7. An inc(inometer(!-1) was installed an the lot adjacent to Alpine Drive on December 17, 2007. Approximate baring locations are shown on Figure 1. Drilling opera- tions were directed by our staff engineer who logged subsurface conditions en- countered in our borings and obtained samples for laboratory testing. We drilled four exploratory borings to explore subsurface conditions. Borings TH-1, TH-2 and TH-3 were drilled in the previously planned building footprint. Boring TH-4 was drilled above tha lot adjacent to Alpine Drive. We also installed inclinometer cas- ing in a separate baring nexf to TH-4 ta monitor patential slope movement. Ex- KEITH NOVICK � LOT 22,VAIL YILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.GSQ584�-145 5:1GS05840.00Ot1d512.ReportslGS0584Q 145 Rt.doc __� ploratory barings were drilled with a track-mounted CME 55 drill rig. Borings TH-1, TH-3 and TH-4 were drilled with solid-stem auger. Boring TH-2 was drilled with hollow-stem augers. A sail anchor drill rig with a downhole air hammer capable of penetrating large cobbles and boulders was used to advance the deeper boring for installation of inclinometer casing. The casing was grouted per the suppliers recommendations. Exploratory borings TH-1, TH-2 and TH-4 were generally sampled at 5 to 10 feet intervals to about 5 feet below the groundwater table. Most of the soil sampfes from these exploratory borings were obtained with 1-3/8 inch and 2-inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were advanced with blows from a 140-pound hammer falfing 30 inches. Samples in boring TH-3 were obtained by pushing 3- inch diameter Shelby tubes to obtain comparatively undisturbed samples of the fill soils. Shelby tubes were also used to obtain samples of the natural "upper" gravel soils in TH-2. The tips af several Shelby tubes were badfy damaged, indicating the presence of significant quantities of gravel and cobbles. Caving soils from the lower part of the fill soils and at the groundwater elevation made sampling not practical deeper than about 5 feet below the groundwater surFace. Soil samples were returned to our Glenwood Springs laboratory for visual classification and se- lection of samples for testing. We transported soil samples to our Denver laborata- ry where testing was performed. Inclinometer casing was installed in a boring (I-1) above the building site to monitor potential lateral movements of the existing slope. We installed Slope In- dicator Quick-Lock casing into the boring. The casing has a 2.75-inch outside di- ameter(�.D.} and a 2.32-inch inside diameter(I.D.). The casing has factory slot- ted grooves positioned at 90 degrees to each other. 4ne set of grooves are posi- tioned along the fall line of the slope (A axis). The perpendicular set of grooves is defined as the B axis. An inclinometer probe is lowered to the bottom of the hole and then drawn upwards in two foot increments to take a reading. The prabe KEITH NOYICK � LOT 22,VAIL VILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.GSOS$40-145 S:tGS05840.000114512.Reports1GS05840 1d5 R1.doc __� rneasures horizontal tilt af the casing in two directions. We recommend the incli- norneter be located and checked to determine if usable. We instal{ed piezometers in borings TH-1 and TH-4 to monitor the water table. The piezometers consisted of instaHing factory slotted PVC pipe into the bo�ings. We also observed the depth to groundwater in a utility trench excavated in Sierra Trail at the time of our field investigation. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions found in our exploratory borings were fill placed to stabilize and reconstruct the s(ope underlain by natural soils. The upper 10 to 30 feet of the natural soils were remaved or dispfaced as a result of the large slope failure in 1982. Remedial construction as designed by Claycomb consisted of 2 types of granular fill and a stepped gravel drain system. Below the remedial fill and drain system, we found silty to clayey gravels with some cabbles and sandy clay with silty to clayey sand lenses underlain by gravel, cobbles and boulders. Sand- stone bedrock was penetrated below the gravel, cobbie and boulders at 72 feet in the boring driiled for inclinometer casing installation. Bedrock below the site is lo- cated at depths #hat will not affect the construction as currently planned. Sum- mary logs of the borings from our earlier investigation are shown on Figures 3 and 4 of Appendix A. The follawing paragraphs describe the soils found in our borings and a portion of our labaratory test results. Laboratory test results are provided in Appendix A. Fill Fiil was placed as part of the site stabilizatian and reconstruction plan de- veloped by Claycomb Engineering Associates (CEA). Estimated thickness of fiil is shown on Figure 5 of Appendix A. Based on our review of field reparts prepared during fill placement and an interview with Mr. Bruce Lewis, the engineer who ob- KEITH NOVICK � l0T 22,YAII VtLLAGE WEST,FIUNG NO.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-145 S:1G505B40.000114512.ReportslGS05840 145 Rt.dac =_� served fi(I placement, we befieve the fill genera{ly consisted of well compacted granular soils. We further understand that a stepped blanket drain was installed below the fill and that the existing uphill foundation waEl of the destroyed residence was ieft in p(ace. The drain is reported to be clean, gravel approximately 1 to 2 feet in thickness. A collector pipe system was provided. Fill thickness found in our borings varied from 5 feet at the top of the lot (TH-4) adjacent to Alpine Drive to 16 to 22 feet in our barings TH-1, TH-2 and TH- 3 drilled in the building envelope. We faund finro types of fill soils. The majority of the fill was a clayey gravel with scattered cobbles. This soi{ is similar to the fili ma- teria! described in field reports and as described by Mr. Lewis. The lower 5 to 6 feet of the fill was sandy clay with gravel. Below the fill soils, we found grave{ that we believe is part of the subsurface bianket drain over natural wet clay. We be- lieve the drain thickness was about 1 foot thick. We encountered same caving of soils into the borings near the drain elevation. Based on penetratian resistance tests and our observations, the fill was medium dense or medium stiff to stiff. Fill soils were moist to very moist. Atterbarg limit testing on samples af fill frorn our boring TH-2 indicated liquid limits of 24 to 27 percent and plastic indices of 9 to 11 percent. These results are simi- lar to results found by Chen & Associates during an investigation in 1980 on the natural soils on this (ot. Two samples of the upper part of the fill selected for gra- dation testing contained 3Q and 34 percent gravel, 41 and 42 percent sand and 25 and 28 percent silt and clay size particles (passing the No. 20Q sieve). A grada- tion test on a sample from the lower part of the fill contained 6 percent gravel, 52 percent sand and 42 percent silt and clay size particles. We believe the lower fill will exhibit characteristics that are more like a clay than a gravel. Based on subsurface information from our borings, the site stabilization and reconstruction plan, and planned building elevations, we believe that the planned excavatian will remove the majority of the fill belaw the building footprint. Fill KEITH NOVICK 9 LOT 22,VAIL VILLAGE WEST,FIIING NO.1 PROJECT NO.G505840•145 S:\GS05840.000114512.RepoRs1GS05840 145 R1.doc ��� thicknesses of up to 5 to 10 feet thick should be anticipated in some areas below the bottom of the planned excavations. The majority of the retained excavation will be in the fill soils. Gravel We found two distinct types of natural gravel in our exploratary borings. The "upper gravel" contained a significantly larger amount of silt and clay#han the "lower gravel". The lower gravel contained significantly less fines (silt and clay) and had a larger percentage of cobbles and boulders. Our deep boring (I-1) to in- stall inclinameter casing was advanced through the lower gravel to bedrock using a soil anchor dri(1 rig with a downhole air hammer. Upper Gravel Clayey gravels with scattered cobbles were found below the fill soils in all our borings that penetrated the fill layer. Our borings TH-'i, TH-2, TH-4 and I-1 penetrated 11 to 24 feet of these gravels. These upper gravels were medium dense to dense and moist to wet. Atterberg limit testing on selected samples of the upper gravels exhibited liquid limits of 25 to 27 percent and plastic indices of 7 to 10 percent. These soils contained 24 ta 45 percent gravel, 28 ta 42 percent sand and 27 to 34 percent silt and clay sized particles. !n the planned building area, the gravel was found between elevations 8'(37 and 8121 feet. Below the upper part of the {ot, adjacent to Alpine Drive, these gravels were at elevations 8194 and 8183 feet. The lower pa�t of this clayey gravel layer caved into borings drilled with solid-stem augers. KEITM NOYICK �Q LOT 22,YAIL YILLAGE WE5T,FILING N0.1 PROJECT NQ.GS05840-1d5 S:tGS05844.900114512.Reports1G505840145 R1.doc __� Lower Gravel The lower gravel contains a considerable amount af cobbles and boulders. The lower gravei surface was found near elevation 8102 at the planned building envelope. The gravel was found at elevation 8160 feet in our boring TH-4. These gravels were medium dense to dense based on results of fisld penetration re- sistance tests. Clay Sandy clay was found between the "upper" and "lower" gravels in borings TH-1 and TH-4. The clay sail layer was 24 feet thick in our boring TH-1 and 22 feet thick in aur boring TH-4. Clay was penetrated below the upper gravels in our boring TH-2. The surface of the clay layer was found at elevatians 8126 and 8125 feet in borings TH-1 and TH-2, respectively. Samples of clay from our borings TH- 2 and TH-4 were selected for strength testing. A direct shear test was performed on a clay sample from a Shelby tube pushed from 29 to 31 feet. The results of the direct shear test are shown on Figure B-5 in Appendix A. Uncon�ned compres- sion strengths of 2900 psf and 1100 psf were measured on samples af the clay. The clay soils will likely be found near the bottom of the excavation for the lower level. We believe that the faundation support characteristics of the clay is relatively poar and support of the residence foundations on these soils involves a comparatively high degree of risk of foundation movements that may result in damage to the building. Based on penetration resistance tests, the clays are me- dium stiff to stiff and mois#to wet. Sandstone Bedrock We encountered sandstone bedrock at a depth of 72 feet in our baring drilled to install fnclinometer 1-1. The bedrock surface is located a significan# KEITH NOYICK 11 LOT 22,VAIL V(LLAGE WEST,FIUNG N0.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-145 S:1G5058d�.00011d512.ReportslGS05840145 Rt.doc =Y�� depth below the planned building foundation elevation. We do not anticipate bed- rock will be encountered in the planned foundation excavatian. GROUNDWATER We encountered groundwater at depths of about 20 ta 26 feet (elevations 8133 to 8327) during driliing of barings in the building envelope. Groundwater was found approximately 27 feet deep (elevation 8171) in our boring TH-4. We also observed water entering a utility trench at 6 feet below the road surface in Si- erra Trail. Two distinct groundwater zones may develop at this site during spring snow melt. Shallow, perched groundwater tables will {ikely develop on (ayers of clayey fill soils and/or on frozen soils. The large volume of water avai(able from snow melt may result in water perched at several elevations. Water on frozen soil will likely nat be found below depths of approximately 10 to 12 feet belaw the ground sur- face. A deeper groundwater table appears to occur at about 20 feet below the ground surFace in the bui(ding envelope. The surface of the deeper groundwater table will likely rise during snowmelt. SLQPE STABILITY ln order to evaluate relative slope stability, it is necessary to de�ne the slope geometry, including the general profile of soil and bedrock, estimate the strength of the materials that make up different zones within the soil prafile, and determine groundwater conditions. The geologic conditions at a site inffuence the soil strength and groundwater canditians. The chosen shear strength components and graundwater elevations are majar influences on the computed theoretical fac- tors of safety. Our slope stability analyses considered the global stability of the existing slape and the impact of planned excavatians to allow constructian of the planned building. KEITH NOYICK �2 LOT 22,VAIL VII.LAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-t45 S:1GS05840.000\145t2.ReportslG505840 145 Rt.doc =_� No amount of analysis will camplete)y eliminate the risk of some sfope movement during construction. We recommend that the client have a contingency in the budget to address additional retention or drainage measures on an "as nec- essary" basis as construction proceeds. Slope Geometry The slope geometry was modeled from 2006 topographic mapping by AI- pine Surveying, Inc. The topographic mapping is considered accurate to plus or rninus one contour interval. The existing site topography is described in detail in SITE CONDITIONS and is shown on Figures 2 and C-1 in Appendix A. The topog- raphy is from maps at a scale of 1 inch = 20 feet with a contour interval of 2 feet. Generally, the ground surface in the vicinity of the proposed building footprint slopes at grades af 2:1 to 4:1. Steeper slopes of 1.4 to 1.5:1 based on the topog- raphy that occurs above the building faotprint below Alpine Drive. Soii Profile We modeled the subsurface conditions based upon information from our expEoratory borings and considering infarmation from borings drilled by others. Subsurface conditions modeled were a 13 to 22 feet #hick (ayer of fil( above a sub- surface drain, 13 to 22 feet of natura( clayey gravel with scattered cobbles, and 20 to 21 feet of sandy clay above gravel, cobbles and boulders underfain by sand- stone bedrock. The profile used in our analysis is shown graphically on Figure C- 2 in Appendix A. Groundwater Groundwater was madeled for the anticipated high groundwater conditian during spring snow melt and runaff. The groundwater found in our explaratory KEITH NOYICK 13 LOT 22,YAIL VILLAGE WEST,FILING N0.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-145 S:{GSQ584t1.000N4512.RepartsVG505840 145 Rt.dna __� borings and a utility trench excava#ion in Sierra Trail were discussed in the GROUNDWATER section. Strenqth Parameters Selection of appropriate strength parameters far stability analysis requires knowledge of the method and difficulty of exploratory boring drilling, review of la- boratory test data and the application of know(edge from previous experience with the soils and groundwater conditions in the area of the subject site. There are published values based on classification testing and testing for research ar case histories. This type of data was considered when selecting the recommended de- sign values. The majarity of the fill material and natural gravels include coarse sand, gravel and some cobbles. Laboratory strength testing in these granular soils ex- cludes particles largerthan '/ inch. The field soils contain considerable portions larger than '/ inch. Effectively, the laboratory test results on those granular soils reflect the characteristics of the matrix materiafs for the soi! profiles found at this site. This#ends to not account for the frictional strength provided by the gravel and cobbles in the soils. Classification testing results on the fill sails and the natural gravels were compared with published correlations that relate soil properties and shear strength to strength parameters. (�ur experience was heavily weighted in determining the appropriate strength values to use in the analysis. We performed a direct shear test and unconfined compression tests to evaluate shear strength values for samples of clay obtained from our exploratory barings. Shear strength is typically de�ned by two parameters; friction angle and cohesion. The direct shear test evaluates these parameters at both low strain (peak) and high strain (softened). The results were compared with published val- ues and correlated with index properties for the soil type tested to judge the rea- KEITH NOYICK �4 l0T 22,VAIL YILLAGE WEST,FILING N�.1 PROJEC7 NO.GS05640.145 S:IGS05840.QOU11d512.Reports1G5U5840145 R1.doc -_� sonableness of the laboratory strength results. Shear strength parameters cho- sen for our analyses are shown on the table below. SELECTED STRENGTH PARAMETERS Unit Cohesian, c Friction Soil Description Weight, r �P�� Angle, � {pcf} (ciegrees) Fill, gravel clayey 130 100 34 Filf, clay, gravelly 130 150 32 Gravel, clayey 130 100 35 Clay, sandy 120 300 27 Gravel, clean to silty 130 0 38 Slope Stability Analvses CTL � Thompson, inc. performed stability analyses of the existing slope us- ing the computer program SLOPElW, develaped and distributed by GeaSlope In- ternational. CTL � Thampson's stability analyses included the existing slope with- out any excavation and the slope with excavations required to cons#ruct the pro- posed building. In discussions that follow, the term "factor of safety" (FOS) is used. This term describes the ratio of the strength available to resist sliding campared to forces tending to cause sliding. A factor of safety of 2.0 means the resisting forc- es exceeds the driving forces by 2.0 times. We believe the slope at the site currently exists at a factor of safety of 1.2 ta 1.5. The lower factor af safety represents the steep slopes between Alpine Drive and the back af the building envelape at anticipated high groundwater level. When the upper slape drains and dries through the summer, we believe the fac- KEITH NOYICK 15 LOT 22,VAIL YfLLAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-1d5 S:1GS05840.000114512.Reports1GS05940145 Rt.doc _�� tor of safety (F�S) is near 1.4 based on the results of the computer analyses. Because the existing slape is near the angle of internal friction, surface raveling and potentially shallow surFace slumps must be expected in response to intense precipitation events. Excavation Retainage Maximum excavation depths of about 20 feet (main level excavation) and 20 to 25 feet (lower level excavation) will be required adjacent tv the uphill side of the planned residence to attain planned foundation efevations. Safe sloping of excavation sides is not practical. Global stability and internal stability of retention systems for excavations must be considered. The location of the discharge pipe from the previously installed subsurface drain system needs to be located to allow monitoring of flows. A "top-dawn" constructed excavation retention system utiliz- ing soldier beams and post-tensioned soil anchors or a soil nailed system will be required to maintain excavation stability. A soil nailed system is less cos#ly than soldier beams and post-tensioned soil anchors; however, deflection and move- ments required to mobilize soil nails may not be considered acceptabfe. Soldier beams and post-tensioned anchors may be required to safely provide Iateral re- straint and support to uphill excavations and limit potential movements. Installation of closely spaced grout columns between soldier beams would reduce the likeli- hood of caving of soils in open excavations and ground loss above the excava- tions. The installation of horizontal drains may be required to remove water fram behind the upper and lower excavations. The need for drains should be consid- ered prior to the start of excavations. The need for horizontal drains is mare likely if excavations are made in spring or early summer. We recommend excavations not be made before elevated groundwater levels from snowme(t recede. If site ex- cavatians result in noticeable ground movement in Alpine Drive, a row of micropiles may need to be installed to protect the road. CTL should provide earth retention design services to evaluate potential earth retentian systems and devel- op earth retention plans for site developmen#. The discharge of the existing sub- KEITH NOVICK '(� LOT 22,VAIL YILLAGE WEST,FILfNG NO.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-145 S:VGSD5840.000114512.Reports1GS058401d5 Rt.doc __� surface drainage system must be monitored during construction at the site. New constructian must avoid adversely affecting the performance of the existing drain system. The existing drain system must remain operable during new construction. There are two general concepts for excavation retention: 1) permanent re- tention systems {with integrated foundation walls or with separate foundation walls} that are designed far the life of the building; or 2) temporary retention sys- tems {usually with separate foundation walls) that provide a safe and stable exca- vatian during building construction. When temporary retention is installed, the foundation wall is located in front of the retained face and must be designed for full lateral earth pressure. Permanent excavation retention systems can reduce lateral earth pressures on foundation walls, and thus reduce the required rein- forcement and thickness of the walls. Permanent retentian systems with integrat- ed building foundation walls also typically require less excavation outside the pe- rimeter of a building. Temporary systems generally invalve lower construction costs af the retainage system; however, there is no reduction of lateral earth pres- sures applied to building faundation walls. In the FOUNDATION WALLS section, we provide recommended earth pressure laadings for design of foundation walls depending on the excavation re- tention/founda#ion wall concept chosen. Excavations It may be possible to layback some excavations of limited depth to the east and west of the building. Sides o# excavatians will need to be sloped or braced to meet local, state and federal safety regulations. Generally, the �II soils at this site will classify as Type C soils based on t�SHA standards goveming excavations. In general, temparary slopes deeper than 4 feet shauld be no steeper than 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) in Type C soils. The natural slape is about 1.5 to 1; there- fore, retainage is required. In our opinion, vertical or near vertical excavations for KEITH NOVICK �'T LQT 22,VAIL VILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.'! PROJECT NO.GS05840-145 S:IGS05840.00ON4512.Reports1G50S840 145 Rt.doc =_� retainage installation should not exceed 6 to 7 feet. Where excavations encounter groundwater seepage, the soils will tend to slough off ta flatter slopes than de- scribed above. Contractars should identify the soils and groundwater encountered in the excavations and refer to OSHA standards to determine appropriate slopes. Contractors are responsible for praviding and maintaining safe and stable excava- tions. Backfill and Fi[f Depending on the excavation retention/foundation wall concept chosen, backfill may be required between foundation walls and the excavation retention facing. Proper compaction of backfill adjacent to foundation wall exteriors, behind retaining wa{Is and in utility trenches is irnportant to reduce subsequent settlement and infiltration of surface water. We believe the excavated soils can generally be used as backfill, provided they are free of rocks larger than 3-inches in diameter, arganics, and debris. A CDOT Class 6 aggregate base course would be an appropriate backfli import that may expedite fill placement. Backfill should be placed in loose lifts of approxi- mately 8-inch thickness or less, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of opti- mum moisture content, and compacted. Thickness of lifts wi11 likely need to be 4 to 6 inches if there are small confined areas of backfi(I, which limit the size and weight of compaction equipment. The backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density {ASTM D 698). Moisture content and density of the backfill should be checked during placement by a representa- tive of our firm. Observatian of the compaction procedure is necessary. Testing without observation can lead to undesirab(e performance. Deep narrow zones of backfil( between excavation shoring and foundation walls can be very difficuit areas to properly place and compact backfill. Where backfill is required in difficuit and confined areas, settlement of 2 to 3 percent of KEITH NOVICK �g LpT 22,VAIL VILLAGE WEST,FILfNG NO.1 PROJECT NO.GSd5840-145 S:IGS05840.6D6t14512.ReportslGS05840 145 Ri.doc __� the thickness of the backfi(I may occur because of the difficulty in achieving com- paction. We have abserved settlements approaching 10 percent of the thickness of the backfill in some narrow zones. We recommend specification af a clean granular material (less than 3 percent passing of the #200 sieve) be used in these zones. The material should be compacted to approximately 70 percent maximum relative density (ASTM D 4253 and 4254). This fill can be densified and settled by moisture conditioning and applying compactive effort with vibratory compactian equipment. Properly placed granular backfill may experience settlement af about 1 percent of the fill thickness. Potential settlement should be considered if struc- tures, such as slabs-on-grade, are planned above deep, narrow zones of backfill. We recommend faundation wall backfi{l be placed and compacted to re- duce settlement. However, compaction of the backfill soils adjacent to concrete walls may result in cracking of the wall. The potential for cracking can vary widely based on many factors including the degree of compactian achieved, the weight and type of compaction equipment utilized, the struc#urai design of the wafl, the strength of the concrete at the time of backfill compaction, and the presence of temporary or permanent bracing. FOUNDATIC/N We recommend constructing the residence on micropile foundations. Micropiles essentially eliminate the risk of unanticipated settlement caused by loose pockets in the existing fill. Micropiles are considered attractive because of the ability af the drilling equipment to drill thraugh cobbles and boulders and to ac- cess tight, restricted access without the need for wide work platforms (roads). Micropiles may be single elements or designed as groups. Pile caps (footings) will need to be provided unless a single pile is used. The micropiles should extend thraugh existing fill and ciay soils and penetrate at least 5 feet into the "iower" gravels. To reduce lateral loads applied from the foundation to the excavation shoring, it may be advantageous ta incline alternating micropifes to increase lat- KEITH NOVICtC �g LOT 22,VAfL VILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJEGT NO.GS05840-145 S:�GS05840.00ON4512.RepoRslGS05840 745 R1.doc __� eral load capacity. A distance of about 3 feet is required for installation between the excavation face and the casing of the micropile. Our experience indicates that maximum total settlements will be about 1 inch for foundations supported on micropiles penetrating the fower gravel. Recommended design and construction criteria for micropiles and are presented below. Micropiles Micropiles should be designed and detailed in accordance with Section 1810.3.10 of the 2009 International Bui(ding Code. Further, canstruction techniques and procedures contained in the FHWA "Micropile Design and Construction Guide- lines Manual", Report No. FHWA-SA-97-Q70 dated June 2000 should be implement- ed. We can design the micropiles or be available to assist in the designs and specifi- cations develaped by others. General recommendations for micropiles are pravided below. 1. Four distinct classifications of micropiles have been standardized based on various drilling and grouting techniques. A description of the various micropile types (A, B, C, and D) is provided in the previously referenced FHWA manual. The selection of micropile type should be left to the discretion af the designer and/or contractor. Based on the soil types encountered in aur expEoration, we anticipate a "Type B" micropile will be utilized. This type of micrapile would be temporarily cased full length at the time of drilling. Neat cement grout is placed into the hole under pressure(typically 100 to 200 psi}as the temporary cas- ing is withdrawn. We recommend a minimum micrapile hale of 5.25 inches and a total length of at least 3Q feet. The reinforcement bar in the micrapile should extend full length. 2. Values for the grout-to-ground nominal bond strength are commonly based on experience af local contractors and geotechnica! engineers. Table 5-2 on page 5-16 of the "Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines Manual" presents ranges of typical values forvarious instal- lation methods and ground conditions. For initial design calcufations and to allow development of foundation plans,we suggest assuming a grout to ground ultimate bond stress of 30 psi far the grave[and cobble. 3. One tension verificatian load test to two times the design laad should be perfarmed on a pre-production micropile at or near the production K�irH r�avicK 2p LOT 22,VAIL YILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.GS05846-145 S:1GS05840.00ON4512.ReportstGS05&10145 Rt.doc _ -_� pi(e locations. This testing is usually performed as the first order of work under the constructian contract. The purpose is to verify whether de- sign assumptions concerning bond zone strength are appropriate and the adequacy of the contractor's installation method. Production micropiles are approved anly after the design assumptions and the ad- equacy of the contractor's installation method have been verified. 4. We recommend, as a minimum, the upper 5 feet of the micropife con- tain permanent casing to provide a saund connection from the micropile to pile cap. The upper section of permanent casing may also be required for lateral load consideration. 5. The top of micropiles should be capped with an anchor plate designed by the structural engineer ta provide an adequate connection between #he micrapile and pile cap. The structural engineer, contractor, and our firm should collaborate on this design to ensure all efements of the connection are considered. 6. The ability of the foundation to span between micropiles should be checked by the structural engineer. 7. Grout sock and/or grout admixtures that lessen the effect of grout loss during grouting operations may need to be utilized. If grout sack and/or grout admixtures are utilized, additional tension verification tests should be perFormed to verify design bond stress. FLOOR SYSTEM AND SLABS-ON-GRA�E We anticipate slab-on-grade flaors are preferred in the garage and the low- er and main levels. S1ab thickness and amount of reinforcement narmally useci for residential slab-on-grade floors will nat provide sufficient strength to protect against unanticipated settlement of the exis#ing fill below slabs. We recommend a heavily reinforced stiff floor slab be designed for fower level slabs-on-grade placed on the existing fill soils. An alternative would be the provision of a structural floor supported by the foundation. The building plan dimension is relatively small, which may make the cost of structural floors attractive. A washed rock layer with an embedded PVC drain pipe netwark shauld be provided underneath below- grade, slab-on-grade floors and on the floors af crawl spaces ta mitigate potential problems resulting from ground water and is discussed in the SUBSURFACE KElTH NOYICK 21 LOT 22,VAIL VIILAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-145 S:1GS05840.00Ott4512.ReportslGSO5B40 145 Rt.doc _�� DRAINAGE section. The drain system befow the slabs wiil likely carry water dur- ing spring and eariy summer months. The slabs will be subject to damp condi- tions. The effects af the dampness on the chosen floor cavering shauld be con- sidered. The slabs wiil be subjected to street salts brought in from vehicfes. Con- crete ad mixtures or surface coating should be considered to protect the concrete slab surfaces. We recammend the following precautions for slab-on-grade construction at this site. 1. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members with slip joints which allow free vertical movement of the slabs. 2. Underslab plumbing should be pressure tested for leaks before the slabs are constructed. Plumbing and utilities which pass through slabs should be isolated from the siabs with sleeves and provided with flexible couplings to slab supported appliances. 3. Exterior patio and porch slabs should be isolated from the residence. These slabs shauld be well-reinforced ta function as independen# units. 4. Frequent control joints should be provided, in accordance with Amer- ican Concrete Institute (ACI} recommendations, to reduce problems associated with shrinkage and curling. 5. The 2003 International Bui[ding Code (IBC) or 2003 Internatianal Residential Code (1RG) may require a vapor retarder be placed be- tween the base caurse or subgrade soils and the concrete slab-on- grade floors. The merits af installation of a vapar retarder below floar sEabs and PT slabs depend on the sensitivity of floor coverings and building ta maisture. A properly installed vapor retarder{10 mil mini- mum) is more beneficial below concrete slab-on-grade floors where floor coverings, painted floor surfaces or products stored on the floor will be sensitive to moisture. The vapor retarder is most effective when concrete is placed directly an top of it. A sand ar gravel level- ing course should not be placed between the vapor retarder and the floor slab. The placement of concrete on the vapor retarder may in- crease the risk of shrinkage cracking and curling. Use of concrete with reduced shrinkage characteristics incfuding minimized water content, maximized caarse aggregate content, and reasonably low KEITH NOYICK 22 LOT 22,YAIL VILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-145 S:1GS05846.000114512.Reports1GS65640 145 Rt.doc _=� slump will reduce the risk of shrinkage cracking and curling. Consid- erations and recommendations far the installation of vapor retarders below concrete slabs are outlined in Section 3.2.3 of the 2003 repart of American Concrete lnsti#ute (ACI) Committee 3Q2, "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction {ACl 302.R-96)". The most positive method to mitigate potential f{oor movement is to con- struct structural floors. If the owner wishes to reduce the potential for floor move- ment, we recommend structural floors in living areas. Structural floors are sup- ported by the foundation system. There are design and construction issues asso- ciated with structurally supported floors, such as deeper excavation depths, venti- lation and increased latera! loads which must be considered. FOUNDATION WALLS Earkh pressures applied to foundatian walls will depend on the excavation retention/foundation wall system chasen. If foundation walls are integrated with a permanent excavation retention system, the lateral loads will be resisted by the excavation retention system (see Excavation Retention). Earth pressures on foundatian walls for several other conditions are discussed in the following sec- tions. Permanent Excavation Retention Some permanent excavation retention systems allow one-sided concrete pours to construct foundation walls, and placement of backfil! is not required. In some instances where permanent shoring is constructed, however, foundation walEs are constructed some distance from the excavation retention system. This is a hybrid condition where pressure on foundation walls is cantrolled by the width and thickness af back�ll between the retainage facing and the foundation wall. Vertical stresses are reduced from friction on both sides of the backfill which can result in a reduction of lateral forces exerted on the foundation wall. This is re- KEITH NOVICK 23 LQT 22,VAI�VILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.G505840-145 S:tG5058A8.000114512.Rsports\GS05840 145 Rt.doc _ __� ferred to as an arching effect. This condition can be approximated for walls up to 25 feet high and backfill width of 3 feet as a uniform pressure af 500 psf for the full height af the wall. Consideration must be made for drainage and surcharge pres- sures. Temporarv Excavation Retention lf a temporary excavation retention system is canstructed, backfill may or may nat be required between foundation walls and the excavation retentian facing. ln either case, foundation walls must be designed to accommodate earth pres- sures from the full height of backfill. No reduction in earth pressures should be made to accommodate for temporary excavation retention systems. The founda- tion wall should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure af at least 50 pcf. The design value does not include allowance for surcharge loads or hydrostatic pres- sure. Surcharge loads from Alpine Drive above the site will need to be consid- ered. No Excavation Retention Some shorter foundatian walls along the east and west sides of the buifding may be cons#ructed without shoring. Excavations wauld need to be laid back to safe and stable configurations. This condition assumes use of granular soil back- fill with slight slapes away from the building. The faundation wall is assumed to be restrained from rotation and drained. The design value daes not include allow- ance for traffic, surcharge loads from traffic or adjacent structures or hydrostatic pressure. An equivalent fluid density of 50 pounds per cubic foat is recommended to calculate lateral earth pressure on the wall. Figure 8 in Appendix A shows this condition. If slab-on-grade and structural fill is placed behind foundation walls, we recommend an increased equivalent fluid density be used to accommodate the KEITH NQVICK 24, LOT 22,VAIL VILLAGE WEST,FiLING NO.1 PROJECT NO.GSQ584Q-145 S:tGS05$40.000114512.RepoRS1GS05840 145 Rt.dot __� compactive effort required to place structura! fill. The constructian sequence should be analyzed to assure that proper bracing exists during placement of struc- tural fill behind foundation walls. The recommended equivalent density assumes deflection; same minor cracking of walls may occur. lf very littfe wall deflection is desired, a higher equivalent fluid density may be appropriate for design. Backfill placed adjacent to foundation wall exteriors should be placed and campacted as outlined in the SITE EARTHWORK section. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE We anticipate that subsurface water will flow towards the site at elevations above the planned lower level floor. The water will need to be collected in perma- nent dewatering systems (drains). We are providing recommendations for a per- manent drainage system. We have observed occasional incidents of water in basement window wells after construction. We recommend considering a drain pipe to connect the bottom of window wells to the foundation drain. Section R310.2.2 of the 2012 IRC re- quires a drain in the windaw wells. We recommend an exterior foundation drain be installed around the perim- eter and adjacent to belaw-grade interior foundatian walls where the foundation steps down the slope (if any). A washed rack layer with an embedded PVC drain pipe network should be provided under below-grade floor slabs and in crawl space areas. The e�cterior foundation drains should consist of 4 inch diameter, rigid, slot- ted PVC pipe encased in free draining gravel. A prefabricated drainage compa- site should be placed adjacent to foundatian walls. Care should be taken during backfill aperations to prevent damage to drainage composites. The drain should lead to a gravity outlet or a sump pit where water can be removed by pumping. KEfTH NOYICK 2rj LOT 22,VAIL VILLAGE WEST,FILING Nd.1 PROJECT NO.GS0584Q-145 S:tGS6584D.0601145{2.ReportslG505840 145 R1.doc __� Gravity outlets should be protected from clogging and freezing. The drain outlets should be checked at least twice each year to verify they are not blocked. Instafla- tion af clean outs along the drain pipes is recommended. Slab-on-grade flaors should be protected from wetting by installation of an under slab blanket drain. We recommend constructing underslab drains consist- ing of 2-inch diameter slotted PVC pipe installed on 10 to 12 foot centers and em- bedded in at least 6 inches of washed gravel. The pipes should convey water to perimeter drain collector pipes. Placement of a moisture retarder above the washed rack layer is required in the International Residential Cade to mitigate the potential for water vapor transmissian through floor slabs. Typical foundation and blanket drain detaiis are shown on Figures 5 and 6 in Appendix A. EARTH RETAINING WALLS Reinforced concrete retaining walls may be constructed. Reinforced con- crete retaining walls can be supported on the natural gravel soils. Design criteria for retaining walls can be provided once the actual locations and bottom of wall locations are known. Retaining walls which can ratate should be designed to resist "active" lat- eral earth pressures caiculated using an equivalent fluid density of at least 40 pcf. Retaining walls with reinforcement that is tied into building foundation walls that are not free to rotate should be designed to resist "at rest" lateral earth pressures using an equivalent fluid density of at least 55 pcf. A passive earth pressure of 300 pcf can be used to calculate resistance from sliding for permanent embed- ment depths. These pressures da not include allawances for sloping backfill or hydrostatic pressures. Backfill behind retaining walls and in front of retaining walf footings should be placed and compacted as outlined in the Backfill and Fill sec- tion. KEITH NOVICK 26 Ld7 22,VA1L YILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT N4.GS058d0-145 S:1G505840.0004145{2.Raports{GS05640145 R1.doc _�� SURFACE DRAINAGE Surface drainage is critical to the performance of foundatians, slabs and exterior flatwork. We recommend the following precautions be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence is completed: 1. The ground surFace surrounding the exterior of the residence shauld be slaped to drain away from the residence in all directions. We recommend providing a slape of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet around the residence, where possible. In no case should the slope be less than 6 inches in the first 5 feet. 2. Backfill around the exteriar of foundation walls should be placed and compacted as described in the Backfill and Fil( section. 3. The residence should be provided with raof gutters and dawnspouts. Roof downspouts and drains shoufd discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. Splash blocks and downspout extensions should be provided at all discharge points. 4. Landscaping should be carefully designed to minimize irrigation. Plants used near foundation walls should be limited ta thase with low moisture requirements; irrigated grass should not be located within 5 feet of the foundation. Sprinklers should nat discharge within 5 feet of the foundation and should be directed away from the residence. 5. impervious plastic membranes should not be used to cover the ground surface immediately surrounding the residence. These membranes tend to trap moisture and prevent normal evaporation from occurring. Geotextile fabrics can be used to control weed growkh and allow same evaparation to occur. ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND MONITORING This report has been prepared for the exclusive use af Keith Novick and the design team for the purpose af providing geotechnical design and construction cri- teria for the proposed project. The informatian, conclusions, and recommenda- tions presented herein are based upan consideration af many factors including, KEITH NOVICK 27 LOT 22,VAIL VILLAGE WEST,FIIING NO.1 PROJECT Nd.GS05840-145 S:1G505840.00ON4512.ReportslGS05840 145 R1.doc _�� but not limited to, the type of structures propased, the geologic setting, and the subsurface conditions encountered. The conclusions and recammendations con- tained in the report are not valid for use by others. Standards of practice evolve in geotechnical engineering. The recommendations provided are appropriate for about three years. If the proposed project is not constructed within about three years, we should be contacted to determine if we shauld update this report. We recommend that CTL � Thompson, Inc. provide construction observa- tion services to allow us the opportunity ta verify whether sail conditions are con- sistent with those found during this investigation. lf others perform these observa- tians, they must accept respansibility to judge whether the recammendations in this report remain appropriate. Some vertical and horizantal movements of adjacent ground accur when deep excavations are made. The amount of movement depends on the subsur- face conditions, depth of excavations, type of earth retention installsd and nature of the adjacent properties. We recommend that a manitor program be developed to check movement during the building construction process. Monitor programs for similar projects consist of survey prisms on adjacent buildings and on ground adjacent to the site. The survey manitar program is normally developed by the project civil engineer. GEOTECHNICAL RISK The concept of risk is an important aspect with any geotechnical evaluation primarily because the methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. We never have complete knowledge of subsur- face conditions. Our analysis must be tempered with engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the recommendations presented in any geotechnical eval- uation should nat be considered risk-free. We cannot provide a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and a proposed structure wifl be as desired or in- KEITH NOVICK 2� LO7 22,VAIL VIILAGE WEST,F[LING N0.1 PROJECT NO.GS05840-145 S:1GS05840.00Ot14512.ReportstGS05840 145 R1.doc �_� tended. Our recommendatians represent our judgment of those measures that are necessary to increase the chances that the structures will pertorm satisfactarily. It is critical that all recommendations in this repart are followed during construction. Home owners must assume responsibility far maintaining the structure and use apprapriate practices regarding drainage and landscaping. LIMITATIONS Our exploratory borings were located #o obtain a reasonably accurate pic- ture of subsurface conditions. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicat- ed by our borings will occur. A representative of our firm should be called to ob- serve and test fill placement and observe the completed foundation excavation to confirm that the exposed soils are suitable for support of the foundations as de- signed. This investigation was canducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by geotechnical engineers currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No warranty, express or im- plied, is made. If we can be of further service in discussing the con#en#s af this report, please call. CTL � TH�M �r:,, N.,,_ : y�°p €� H yA 0� �f._. � � , -. ��� 4 p,. . S F R � / /�,m�� ' ,��"0^�w"'�rn'��..... as � � y . ,.......... E � �; €� � � J � �;�,� � � � � � � �.� nc ager�- � � � � ���� ����� JM:cd ������P������ �..,..��,� cc: Via email to kanovickCa��mail.com KEITH NOYIGK 2g LOT 22,VAtL YiLLAGE WEST,FiLING NQ.1 PROJECT N0.G505840-145 S:tGS05840.QOQ1145t2.ReportstGS05840 145 Rt.doc a � � ; 0 a � O � � V sc,�: �•= 2a APPROXIMATE LOCATION QF PROP�SED RESIDENCE - ....-- __--- � , \ � \ n � LOT 14 HIGHLAMD NEADONS F{LlNti N0. 2 ���� KEfTH N01/ICK tnt 22t vau vn�s�s ProJect No. GS05840-145 EIIfiE ASRHAL?8128.6f R0�0 ( ;'�/ S; 8128,9 { ei2ea � � �,...�--�' _=� 3, • FOUND PIN t �'"'-- ..,,�,,,, �� - ° Approximate RED F'LASTIC CAP +�,�_�� LS 26626 �^ �-"'"" / ' Locations of ELEV.8191.19 +�,�_. � LOLATED S06'32'2�V 410' –��r X UT1�Y ��ST CRql1 PLATTEO CORHER B196� � 8599.0 �'� �� TH-4 �..----.. �" ���� �� Exploratory and ;� . — ----_•_ -- --.--. _ _ . � --- --- Inclinometer ,- �.� �0�.3 _— 8199A" ---��—— _�.6 ,��AG LE 8t�'i!�iLPIAIE DRIVE (5{�'�81999 _..... _� �,8201� e�.9 /^'flU���_ _ . Borings EDGE ASPV4ALT RpAO `j ~ '����'^ Fig. 1 a � � 0 0 �, 0 m � U SCALE: �•= aa -_� \ � avea�c•n aovEr�.tr+� � LAT 14 HIGHLAND YEADOWS FILJNG N0. Z: -� KEITH NOVICK �ot 22,va�i vx�e Pro]ect No. GS�5840-145 � APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE �•--- --� �� �tJ �... -�? � � / EASEM r �---.._,��N�... __ _ 8128 6 EDGE ASPHALT R0�0 ,� ±� S 0128.9 � � TCP/HACK 8129.3 � cuRa � ; a��, f,,, a,za.or ��.a F o *etze.z ,�� _ , BWL�R V RLl. �., � �I�•Y•� I • �� LEGEND: i 16 � EXCAYATION DEPTH FROM EXISTING GROUND SURFACE MAIN EXCAVATION/IOWER EXCAVATION SEYER llNifiOLC .....-.�-•--- . ��� _.. �— .� �M��_ .._ H�!,!��►nc w�oaws �uNC.��. 7 _ _ ��- .. �° - ,.� '...�_.,, .... '-�^�_ ��_. �.,,,'.,,.�",,. ___.....� _....... z����:3.._ _... LS 26626 ELEV..B191.19 LOCATED S06•32'24V LSG' FROM Vt.ATTED CORNER .,,, .._€� :"t�, .....�. . ......... �' � .�r.�- � � PIPE __� __ _ s�9�— —— 8399A^----- B—,—=...:��_ ��AG LE � , ,���.3 I�LPINE DRIVE (50') � —� .�zo'.z 8200.6 �+.. EDGE ASPHALT R6A0�9 CO���e_� ""'r.��I ���r / 8199A _�� � � R�CK� fdMRIXtAII VAI.L �'``�" --- Approximate Excavation Qepth Flg. 2 _=� APPENDfX A PROJECT GS05Q50-125 FIGURES, PREVIOUS EXPLORATORY BORING DRILLING, LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES KEiTH NOVICK l.dT 22,YAlL VILLAGE WEST,FILING NO.1 PROJECT NO.GS05846-145 S:1G505840.00U1145ti2.Reports{GS05840145 R1.doc � a w � � �. � � � 0 � scn�F: y�=sa Luls Solis wc zz.vaa wi� Project No. GS05050-125 r • � � i . f ' � � r�� 1%%�f :/��=�! APFROXIMATE LOCA710N OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE - LOT 23 __..----� \ .� ��I� _�.� � �,�f...��. Z ...�... rae�_______-_....—� °d���M� ��ivE (so�}J ` �° —�-- �:, �AC�� ��, �.�,�. courv�r�-- --- — .�- � � � �, .�.�.... ..."'.�� Approxima#e Locatic�ns of Exploratory and lnclinomeier 8orings Fig. 1 � ♦ � . . �, : 1 : - . . . ,� �-. 8.17 O �-�j 8.'i6 r �X 8.15 � o a.�� � c� � 8.13 W 8.12 : a : � : � • � m . � P'roject No. GS�5050-��5 60 Buiiding location _ 3 ��,���:�,�...��.;�� �»,,.w�.�:-, �;� ,� 80 100 120 140 16Q Distance P'lanned Buildin� �,o�cat�on �xisting groun� surface �ierra Tr�il �g� 200 220 Fig. � 0 10 Zo ; 30 � c � St? TH-1 EL=8153 TH-2 EL=8153 TH-3 EL=8153 i9/12 25%7 14/12 30/12 6/12 23/12 $�s' v 7�s. »/i 2 00 — s/s, o 0 �j� �° Planned Lowei l.evst Floor — 13/12 (EL=8134) 34/12 21/12 20/12 Planned Lowa� Lavel Floor {EL=8134) TH-4 EL=8198 11/12 27/12 38/12 T3/f2 6/�2 9/i2 I—i EL=8198 0 12/6, 12 f 6� 20%4 10 20 30 ° s � � s � � s 0 4C1 " 50 so 60 �� �' Env'elops � ( Aiptne ( Driva 70 SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORAT4RY B�RINGS Prolect tdo. G505050-125 � i Ftg. 3 LEGEND: Fill, Qravst� ciayey, saotterad cobbies, � msdium dense, maist. brown and clay, sandy, medium stiff to vary stiff. moist. bfack, brown. // �► r,�.�� �1�: � ;:� � Fill, cicy, sandy, scattered grovela. medium atiff to sttff, moist to very moist, brown . Gravel� clayey� aome cobbies, cicy. sondy, msdium atiff, mutst, black. brown. (GC) Ciay, sandy, soft to stiff, moist to wet, brown. tCL) Gravel, cobbles and boulders. very denae, wet� brown. (GP) Sands#ane bedrock. hard, wet, brown or black. Proj�ct Na. GS050�t?-125 ►�� 11 v Drive sampls. 7ha symbol 19/12 indlcates that 19 blawa of a 140 pound hammsr fciling 30 inches were required to drtvs a 2.5 inch O.D. Caltfarnia sampler 12 inchea. Drive sompls. The symbal 8jfi inddaatea that 8 b{aws of a 140 pound hammer failing 30 inchea wera roquirsd to drive a 2.0 inch O.D. atandard samplsr 6 inahss. Indicats� c Shelby tubs somple. Indicatea bulk aample from au�sr cutiings. Indicates froe ground water isvsl measured an the day of driliin�. SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY B�RINGS NOTES: 1. Explorotary bo�ing� were drilisd on November 2Q. 21 and 27, 2007. Barings TH-1, TH-3 ond TH-4 we�e drilted with 4—lnch diomater. sotid—stem ouger ond o track—mounted d�ill rig. 8oring TH-2 woa dNlled with holiaw—stem auger. Explorotory boringa we�e backfilled lrrimediotely after drllling operationa were comptetad. The inalinometer was dNllad Decsmber i 7, 2007 with duoi—walied percusatan driittng squipment. 2. Lacation� and slsvations af explora#ory borings and incfinometsr ars approximcte. The etevation ropreaent fee abava msan asa lava�l. 3. These exptorotory boringa and tncitnometer ars subJect #o the expianations� Ilmitafitons cnd conclustona es aontatnsd 1n this report. � Ffg. 4 m a , � ; n �, �, a n 0 � 4C/LL.G: 1�s �/ ���S Lot rl,ven vi�e,pa Project No. GS05050-125 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED , RESIDENCE - ...� L07 23 1�.� ---"' : i3 � �. � _ � 1Q �� � ��� - � " ��.�� - / � � . f, , . I�'f 4 ./�': s' i :,�z .-;i'�.��. � .i;�-�.�� � —� `i�LPlNE DRIVE {50���/`_ �_ �'" ,�,,, -.__ -'—, �•• — EAGLE r..�- �.�,� COUIV'iY�� -- -- -,r� �, NOTE: Estimafied contours of fill thicknsss are approximate and the actual thtckness wlll vary. _____. ---- Estimated Contours of Fill Thickness �_� Fg. 5 � �;� Note: Does not include surcharge loading from ad jacent structures, traffic, or hydrastatic pressure. Anchor H Anchor � -;� � � � � � = � !� , . 3�H Varies Per able RECOMMENDED APPARENT EARTH PRESSURE FaR MULTI—LEVEL ANCHORS OR SOiL NAILS e�c�a.� (H.� o�c�t e� �t. a�c;�.a� � a;� � x, ,a� Apparent ,�,, ,� Earth �res�ur� Dia�ram ProJect No. GS05050-125 Fig. 6 __� F P, = 50H, H, ��� P, H HZ PZ P2 = 30Hz (MINIMUM RECOMMENDED VALU E) MULTI-LEVEL WALL BACKFIL.L Recommended Earth Pressure �Uluttiple Levet Baser�ent Wall ProJect No. GS05050-125 �9• 7 ±_� .��,,, 4+` _ _ ; H P � � ... 3 �.,�...� ..__ _-.' ( ,-. i 3 � : .�� _ :m.._...___: € =- � __ �_�._� � ���_�; � � __� ; � , P = StJH psf FOUNDATiON WALL {LEVEL BACKFILL) SINGLE LEVEL Note: Does not include surcharge loading from ad jacent structures, traffic, hydrostotic L�teral pressure or sioping Ear�h Pressure backfill. Single Level Basement Wal[ ProJect No. GS05050-125 F9• 8 �_� � i x � � . � � • z —Q'h WHERE: H m = x/H n = Z/H WALL Qh = PRESSURE AT DEPTH Z DUE TQ �INE LOAD, q q R LINE LOAD {g/t} FOR X1H GREATER THAN 0.4: ..,t. .{ . i mt n � ffh=,��.- { m + n r (a) DUE TQ LINE L.OAD FOR XIH LESS THAN 4.4: g 0.203 n � � = H 0.16 + n = 4° __„�. , �. .. . .. � K z wHE�E: q = UNIFORRf STRIP LOAfl (psf) ff'fi = PRESSURE AT DEPTN Z �h QUE TO UNIFORFd STRIP L4AD, q WALL � IN RAQiANS �'- ' � (�'sin � co: 2a� l (b) DUE T� UNI�ORM STRiP LOAD � SURCHARGE PRESSURES �N A RIGID WALL DUE TQ UMIFORM Lt}ADS � �., ProJec# No. GSQ5050-125 �9• 9 __� NOTE: SLOPE DRAIN SNOUID BE AT LEAST 2 INCHES BELOW BOTTOM C1F FOO�ING AT TIiE �� HIGIiEST POINT AND SLdPE DQWNWARD TQ A POSITNE GRAViTY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE � 2-3' REMOYED BY PUMPING. BACKFlLL (c�osmorr u�ro c��no� �t REao PROVIDE PVC 5HEETING GLUED TO FOUNDATION WALL TO REDUCE PREFABRICATED I�OISTURE PENEfRATION DRAINAGE � COMPOSfTE BELOW GRADE WAIl SLOPE (MIRADRAIN 600Q PE� OR EQUNALENT� REINFORCING STEEL ............. .. OSHA :::::::::::: :: ............ ... ........... .... PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS .:;.�•::::•::: PROVIDE POS(T1VE SLIP JOtM' ;::::::: BEl'WEEN SLAB AhiQ WALL. COVER GRAVEL W(TH �Fl-OOR SLAB FlLTER FASRiC ::: r: :::;::::" :} l •..�•�••� ^.�.:.��,••,•� •-�'- .�. •-•;, •..ti •:'• :' e i •r ♦ �..� �, •. q, . • b.w �.:� •rs �i,��•�f;�i:er�'�•• ' 1• .��.... •:� •'�r �, �.�.:r• .,, �yti •t• •4, •~ •`•y+f� � � '•ti� :.,'``'= Fl/C DFtA1N NEIWORK � IMBEDDED IN WASHED CONCREfE AGGREGATE 2' MiNIMUM 8� MINIMUM A�ICROPILE AND P{LE CAP OR BEYOND 1:1 SLOPE FROM BOTTOM aF FOOIING. (WWIGNEVER IS GREATER) 4-INCH DIAMEfER PERFORATED DRAiN PIPE. THE PIPE SHOUID BE UUO IN A TRENCN WITH A SLOPE RANGfNG BEiWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. ENCASE PIPE IN WASHED CONCRETE AGGREGATE (ASTM C33. N0. 57 OR NO. 67). EXTEND GRAVEL TO AT LEAST 1/2 HEIGHT OF FaOTING. Exterior Four�da�ic�n� Wall Drain Project No. GS05�50-125 Fig. 10 . _ _ __� NOlE: SLOPE DRAIN SHOUl.D BE AT LFAST 2 INCHES BELOW @O1TOt� OF ft?OT1NG AT TNE �� HIGHEST POINT AlJD SLOPE DQWNWARD TO A POSfi1VE GRAVfTY OUTLEf QR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE � 2-3' REMOVED BY PUMPING. BACKFILL (a�to� � � t��crtor� � a�h STRUCTURALLY SUPPORTED PREFABRtCA'fED� FLOOR DRAINAGE —�: SLOPE COMPOSfTE �'�' (MIFtADRAIN 6000 ;;`�;. PER pR EQUiYALEN'T') OSNA REiNFORCING STEEL ER STRUCTURAL PROVIDE PVC SHEETING QRAWIhlGS � GLUED TO FOUNQATION WALL TO REDUCE �GRAWL SPACE MOISTURE PE ETRATION COVER GRAVEL WITH :::�;};�..�e�.� 't�UD SLAB" OR FlLTER FABRIC VAPOR BARRIER .:,: • •:::::.�::•:::::: .4 :•�i• '•!r y� :.:�..�t.^..^....�:.:t:l rt .i �..�•A'•;•��:!1i• ,+. •� '. ~ ��!�.i� .��'�' • �•• • •• t•• �+ �'t�•:.Je�� �4 ,y �./. +i•4 ����� ���' 3 -..�-- ' a�cR to O�w 2" MINIMUM 8' MINfMUM OR BEYOND 1:1 MICROPILE AND PILE CAP SL�PE FROM BOTfOM �F FOOTING. PVC DRAIN NETWORK (WHICNEYER IS GREATER) IMBEDDEQ IN WASHED CONGREfE AGGREGATE 4-INCH DIAMETER PERFt3RATED DRAIN PIPE. THE PIPE SHOULU BE LAID IN A TRENCH WiTH A SLOPE RANGING BEiWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAlN. ENCASE PIPE IN WASHED CONCRETE AGGREGATE (ASTM C33, N0. 57 OR N0. 67). EXTEND GRAVEL TO A7 LEAST 1/2 HEIGHT OF FOOTiNG. Exterior �oundation - Wall Drain Pro]ect No. GSQ5050-125 Fig. 11 � � _ � D ; w, 0 � � SCALE: 1'a 30' . � � . �� .i� �f'•`:� ����� _ J •�;rit��. �s��� �;Et�;�r+.' APPROXtMA7E LOCATIt3N OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE - LOT 23 .•--=. \ ��\ waaao �Fa'a �w. i Luls Solis t.,�22,vsn vu�e Project No. GS05050-125 ..--- TOWN OF VAI L '���'EAGLE �,•-.� .,1�LPINE DRiVE (50').��, -- °.. ��-- �OUNfiY-� — — -� LEGEND: BORINGS DRILLED BY CHEN AND CHEN-1 ASSOCIAiE5 !N SPRING OF 819�} 1980 WITH ELEYATION AT TIME { OF DRILLING. � BORiNGS DRILLED BY LINCOLN LD-i DE1/ORE IN JULY, 1982 WITH �81�o� ELEVATION AT TIME 0�' DR�LLING. _.,��. ."'"►� �l1� Si#e Plan and Appraximate L�cations c�f Exploratory Bori ngs by C)therS Fig. A-1 �, �'; i; ;=� �i TH-1 TH-2 TH-3 TH-4 LD-1 LD-2 C-1 C-2 C-3 El=8153 EL=8153 EL=8153 EL=8198 EL=8140 EL=8190 EL=819t} EL=8138 E1=8142 i : � 0 � � �s/t2 zs/� o >>/�2 .: 8/�2 : �s/�2 zo/12 s/�2 5/s2 '' I `Q �o/sz �0 14/i2 ao/�a ° ° 2�/t2 �� 7/�2 � �0/�2 20/�2 �a/�z o fo �Q o �° � � o °� � 6f12 23/12 Q° o 38/12 � 3&/12 � 14/12 � �° 0 14/12 � � 0 8`�' 4 0� oQ o ` °o o �° fi j6. 17/12 13 f 12 � 21/12 v •. , g�12 23 15�g — 0 0� o �° 30/3 20 20 00 ��s — o0 — o ° s/s, o °� s/�2 � ��/�2 ° ° Zo/�2 0 0 8/s o0 0 0 � 30 — 13/12 .,_ 9/12 20/i2 25/12 30 0 � _ a 34/12 � � � 21/12 ° � 25/12 _ � Q 20j12 0 ° 44 °�° 51J j11 32/12 40 �O 0 4a �o �� °o �2/s, i 2/s, 00o Zo�� :.. a 0 0 . 50 � � °a � 50j9 8� 45/12 50 0 6� NOTES: fi0 Borings TH-1 throu�h TH-4 d�il{ad by CTL � Thampson, Ina. Novsrnber 2t}� 2t and 27, 2007 (subaequent to fcilure). Borings LD-1 ond LD-2 drilied by Uncoln DsVars summer of 1982 (subaequsn# to failure). �� Borings C-1 through C-3 drtiled by Chen and Aasociates May 29 and Juns 14, 1980 (prior #a falluro}. �Q SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPL4RATORY BORINGS Prajscfi No. GS0505tJ—t25 �tg, A-2 8200 ei8o 8160 m 8140 LL C � d �l+� � $120 i:s $too soaa eoso Project No. GSi3505C1-125 TN-4 ��-2 C-1 EL=8198 E1=8190 EL=8190 ifi2 pji2 x5ff2 20/t2 sajf z ��Ij� zo/�z ���ar,z ,.�,s s/,2 r 9f�� 2� 15/9 �/�z — 4 s�/ix � 7�1�� ° zs/�z ,�r�, ,�i�, ��r,� ��n �fl�t, 32i,2 �r� .5i,z TH-1 TN-Z TH-3 EL=8353 EL=8153 EL=8153 ,9�,2 25�T 14/12 30/12 6/12 23/i2 e/a, o v e/e, »/iz — 7/6 — 6/6, � . B/8 _ - 13f12 34ft2 27fi2 20/1T C-3 EL=8id2 � � � ar.r :� �as-, c-z EL=814� E1=6t39 8/72 s/iz 7/�z 13ji2 36/12 7 ilji2 21%12 — - 0 ' — zai,z �o��s: 8orings TH–t through TH-4 drilled by CTL � Thompson, Inc. November 20, 21 and 27, 2007 (subsequent to failure). Sorings LD-1 and LD-2 drilled by Lincoln DeVore summer of 1982 (subsequent to iailure). Barings C-1 through C-3 drilled 6y Chen and Associates May 29 and June 14, 1980 (prior to failure). SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY B�RINGS �2�� $��0 $�60 8140 0 � D � � � 3 81�0 � f a�oo gaso $0�0 =;� Fig. A-3 � LEGEND: Fill� gravel, c{ayey, sccttered cabbles, � medlurr� denae, moist, brown and alay. sandy, medium stiff to very stif#, rnoist, biack, brown. �i /� r,r� � '� �.� Q'� C fitl, clay. sandy. scatFerod gravaia, medtum stiff ta stlff. maist to very rt�oist, brown . Gravet, clayey, aoms cabblea, ciay� aandy. medtum attff, motat, black, brown. (GC) Clay, sandy, soft to stiff, moist to wet, brown. (CL} Gravel, cobbles ond boufders. very dense, wet, brown. {GP) Sandstans bedroak, hard, wet, brown or b#ock, ►�� 11. Drtve sample. i'he symbo! i 9/12 indicatea thoi 19 blows af 4 140 pound hammer falting 30 inches wsre required to driva o 2.5 inch O,D. Colifornia sampler 12 inahes. Drivs sompie. The symbol 8j6 tndtcctes thct 8 blows of a i 40 pound hammsr falling 30 inahea wara requirad to drive a 2.0 inch O.D. standard sampler 6 inchss. tr�dicatea a Shelby tube sampie. Indicctas bulk scmple from auger cutfings. SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS � � N4TES; Indicatas froe ground water levei meosured on the day of drtlling. indicates practicai ouger rs#usai. �. Lacc�tions ond elevctions of exploratary borings and inalinometer are approximats. The elsvation ropreaent fse above mevn asa Isvel. ��� Project Na. GS�50S0-125 Ftg. A-4 i HYD��METER ANA�YSiS SIcVE ANALYSIb 25 NR. 7 HR. TIME READlNGS U.S.STANDARQ SERIES CIEAR S�UARE C}PENINGS 45 MtiN.. 15 MIN. 60 MiV+I.19 MIN, a Mlt+t. 1 MW, '200 `100 'S6 '44 "30 `tfi '10•6 `4 3B' 3/R" P;i" 3" 5"8• S" 14C . d — _ _ . .... ..:. _ 9Q __ _�.�_..w:m._ 74 �. ...._.. ti_�_._ --- _..... � . L�_�.._ ...................�,..,...,............ ..._......... ...... .... fi0 � . . . � . .::. ... ��. _. _26 _ , _ ._. ... . ...__. ...._ 4 _. c� �p -___.,.___.:,. .,, 30 W z � .v _ Z _ � � _ . _ E t�iy i . .'; ' � _,,. - .�_�_______ � ¢ 80 ...._._ ✓. _.._ ...,.____— ..,. ..__,_. 40 w _ � E- _ . _ . F- _. u 50 __ _ 56 � V _ .,.._._. � �,� - :.:.- ---- � SampEe fram Shelby tube. ._... �4 � _� .:: Sample does not include 30 ... _ _ _.. _... _.._ . _ -_- particles with diameters _ To _ _._ . _ _.. z° k_ - _ _ . , larger than 3 inches. a4 . . �. o �— __:� .. _. _ . �. .�::�eo __ o p - , . . ; , . . _ ,ioo .4�t 0.062 005 .049 019 .037 074 1A9 29i .590 1.14 2.0 2.38 476 8.52 19.1 36.5 762 327 240 0.42 152 DIAME7ER OF PAR7ICLE IN MILLIME7ERS CLAY(PLASTIC}TO SEIT(NQN-PLASTIC} SRNDS GRAVEL FINE MEDlUM COARSE fINE COARSE CO68LE5 Samp{e of SAND, CLAYEY(SC) GRAVEL 3p °to SRr�a 42 % From TH- 1 AT 24 FEET _ _ _ sI�T�CLAY __2$ °lo LIQU}D LIMIT � 26 % – --- P�ASTEGITY INDEX $ % _ _. __ HYDRCJh1ETER ANAIYSIS SIEUE ANALYSIS 25 HR. �Hft. TIME RcADihkGS U.S.STANOARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE dPENINGS 45 Miht. 15 MlN. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MiN '20C '100 'S6 '4�'30 '16 'tQ'$ '4 3:B" 3?a^ t h" 3" 5"6" 8"0 t00 ,... �_� �._�.,,,,,», _ _.._ _...� �,.._.��...... ,,, .._.. ......___._... . � _ _._._ _ _ . _� »,__,... _� . _ w. ._ _ .,,�,�,,,,. _,,._..�.�.__� ... . .�_.�.�.�_.....V_.,. _.�_ _. .___._.__..... ,.__�____.,._.. w.�. __�.v._:"j . . _ _,._. . ._.... . .. . _.,_� _ -_ _. __.�_ _ < 9C a___ _ _ _ . :..:... _.. -_ �•—,...� � _..._�. _.���..... _ ..._ �-'10 � �___..� .__ < c...._ .:.:.....,..:... . ,.,_.__...........�......,_......._._..._ . _,.,__.,._....,._„�..�_ _........_. _.......__.__ ___....�.....�..._.... ..._._�. _.........._ ._. .......______v_......� y.�.,...._r....,_.� _..„, . .... _.. ,. _.m ...�. .,_ ......_ . } ._. ._ .. ._.,.,,,.,.�.. ....� - � __.._ � __ ....._.. ., ` 8� €- ._._.. .�_.�__._..�� � _:�..._��._,.�:____ __..... .___�___._„w.. _..... .. ,.,,,��_.. . 20 �`M" __ _. _..._ _.�.� .__ _ _._„_� 6 2 7p r ,_._._..�.. ' .__,..._ _.: . . ___�__�� . ._ _«3Q W ...�. ... . . v _ _... . _.. . _.� _ ...__ � _....� z � �_ . �.__ _ .._- ------- - - ___ _ _ ._. . .._ — #,_��...__. _ ���.. _ _ _ _ _ . _ �.. ____ _ ;_ : tn . . . ._ . _ . _.... . . :4 ¢ �6u .,_ _ � __ ""V"". .. '_" O W _. �.. . _ s .. _..__ _.��..� _.�_,,,__ �„ ._ . �.__.,,,___ _ �_._ _.�.r.. ._____ ,,, � �- .. .. _ _ �... _.. „ � ��r q,_...�.m�.__. _ . _ _,.�. , ...._.... ._ _._...�. .M„�.:z 50 � - _:. _.__ _____ �., w � V _.. ,.,,...... ... ..�..,. . ...._.-. { .... .. ...,.,.,,. ...-.. ._ ... _..._ ,,..._. ., ._. . , __ �v �yt 4R _ _. ... .:.,.._ _� __. _.::�__,,_..._.....,, _ , _?6Q � « ,...�_.._.......� _........_�...,_..__, _ .. . ........,�. a __ .. _... .._. �._.. .... ......._ , _... ..._, .__.. .... }___._.:::�......�...�_. .... . .._. ...._..,. _.___,,,.. _.._,,, _......._ _ __�._._______ _:::. ._..........._.._...._. ._ .._._.... .µ____....... ........: �........ .__.. „,,._�. ......._.�.�__ .__...........__ .................. ...... .._w__�.....,.._...._..__._._._ __.._.... ..,,,..,,.,,.... ...._.._._.__..... ,... � ... ,. . ._.___., ,. ... ..... . ._. _ _ __ ...._.. _..:w:: .__�.,.. _:�a �r� __.e_ _. .�._..__..__ .._, ..M _ _ _. _ _., _._ _..�. . _.� �,. _ . ._ __ ._-______ . ..... . _._�_._.N N .,� _ _.., ... _.__ _�__ �...; �c :- _�._.... �....... ...�._. _. _ �;80 �_, � , __. _ __._ �..._ ..._ ._.,,_.,,;,, __ .. tt� . _...� _ �_..�.. �„_.._�_.�:.�....,_ .�._._.::. " ,.,..._.._..,,,„.._.�.. ,......._�,,,_,,, ... ;BO " _ _ _ __. _.. __ _ ....... � .� _.__::�_�.._... _�_�_.V,� �_..:..,__ �_ _ ... .._.�._.. �__ ..,__ _ ....___ _..�..�,,_. _:_..�.. _.���ioa �f £�.t}02 Q45 L�'i9 419 .Q37 .674 149 297d42590 119 20238 A.76 352 19.t 36t 762 t21�2200 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MlLLlMETERS CLAY(PtASTiC;TO SILT{NON-PLASTtCj SANRS GRAVEI FtNc M�DIUM Ct3ARSc FINE C6ARSE C0664E9 Sampfe of GRAVEL, CLAYEY{GC) ��vE� 45 °10 saNa 2g % � ....___ _� _o 0 From Tf-�-2 AT 2Q.5-22 FEET SBLT&CLAY �7 la L(QUID LfMIT Z7 lo _. _....____�_���.... �., _ ._ _ , ..... PLASTICITY INDEX �Q % �I"ad3�lOtl Lat 22 Solis Residence p Pf20JECi'NC}.GS0508Q-125 �eS� [�.GSU��S S:4GS69p50.000i425t6,Ca1cs15050Gradation.xis FiG.&i HYDftOMET�R ANALYSIS SIEVE ANA�YSIS 25 Hft. 7 NR. T7NlE RcADINGS U.5 STANDARp ScRIES CLEAR SOUARE OPcNlNGS 45 MikN.. 15 M[N. 6C�MiN,1�MIN. a MIN.. S MIN, '263 '10� `5� '4C '3G 'to "10'8 `4 3?8' 3t4` 1>4` 3` 5"6° B" �aa o 90 r—�- _ ___ _ __ 14 -- — - ., _.._� �.... � . ... .._ .�...... �20 EO � _ : ... .... ,...._._. .:.... .__.. _. . _... p z7� _ — _____._.�.. .. ._„.. ._ ..__. ._, ._______30 Z in ....._...._... ........... .....__.�,_... . ..._... _..._...._..,...r.... ._...,......, „ ... ._... ._.._ ._. .....__ .__._.. ,. . .... .0 tn t"'...- Y.__� _..,....... ..... ,..,,...:.. .._._. _..._.,_.._.._�...:._.. ... F � &0 ---�. _...... �._.._, _ ._ ` _ .�qp C F- __ . _ _ _ __ :;:.. ..: . � _ w 56 _._. _ _ _ _ _ 50 w c ao � :;��. .. :�" �"�m. Sample from Shelby tube. _��fl 0. __ Sample daes not include �Q .. � �.....� �:_ ` • _ :. 7� _ .._.,. _ .. _ -- p�rticles with diameters z° _ : larger than 3 inches, 80 t0 �: ^90 fl .. .._: . ...., .. : . : . . . ,: . . ..... . . , ., . ....,.... ........ . ... . . _.t0� 001 6.002 005 609 019 .037 074 149 -�°r 0.42�90 1.19 ..0 2.38 4.T6 8.52 14.1 30.5 762 52152200 DIAMETcR Or PARTICLE IN MILI(ti1cTERS CIAY(PLASTiC)TO SiIT(NON•PLASTICJ SANDS GRAVEL FINE MEQIUM COARSE FINE CQARSE COBBLES $C�fT1K?I° �f SA�lC},CLAYEY C7R SILTY(SC-SM� Gr�AVEL 24 °lo SANQ 42 °la �COf71 TH-2 AT 25 FEET SILT$�CLAY 3t� °la LIQUID UMIT 25 °lo PLASTIClTY INDEX _7 o1a __ ___ _ _ HYOftOMcTER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANA�Y51S 25 HR. 7 HR. TtME READING6 U.5.STRNDARD SER1E5 CLEAR SQUARE QPENINGS 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60 MIN t9 MIN. 4 MIN. t MIN. '200 '100 'S0 '40 '30 `1fi `10"8 '�3 3:8" 3-4' t',5' 3' 5"6" 8"0 �ao _.. _ ____ � _ _ _______ _ _ -- _.m _. -- . � � - , _ _ __ _ . _ __._. . : _ . _ �^ - 94 .._____-. __ ... _.... ...._ . .._ ..._. _ .... ��° __ _�__ .--- ----�-'--�10 t _---__,......�.......___-__._.. . .._...._......__ _ . �.,___.__ ..... _._._... ._._ _ . . ........ .._....__. __ : . ...._; .. . _ ___ . . __ ... __W____. .. .. .. _ p� -::::: _..._ __ _ ... __._ ... ___ __ ___.._ - �� t ._ _ ___m:�m. _..::. _..: --- _ ; 0 _ _ _ _. ____.__ _ ....._ .�_....._____.___. .. __._---.- -.. ___ _ ., _ ..�... . ._.�_..., 2 _.. _ _. ----_ __��._-- —� �... � __. . _ _______ ___.._�.......—_.__.. _ ._.._.. __, - _ _ _. _.._ .__ __ _.._.__ -- - _ � _ , ' ___� _..... _____ �:::�::._. _.__ ..._ _ __..�: _ ��____.,..__.._ �...._ _._ �:.._.._=3Q w - � ..... _.. �_._ __. __ ___... _ _ .. ..:._ ___ ----- _ _ z x _..... ��..__. _��_.._.._ �....... __ . _ __ ___. . _ _. vr >.:.. ._._... ___ _.: .._.__ _ _. �..___. ____ ___._._______.__._�__vv____....._.. _..__ .__ .. _._._�:_� d v; .. . _. _ .. , ... ,__ . .._ . . . s4� �t.�.� ......__..:..._.. ". ..__ _. �_---" ..._ ��... _ _ � c ,_ .._____ ....._ ___..._.__�.___ ... ._. _._ __ ... � - c- _. _ __ _ ...__ _ _ __ _ -_____, __� ... _ - --- -- � _ _"' _. ___ ___ � ._.._.. _ _ e:.i���i: _..__ _.__ _��._. �, . �.___. .___�__.. _ �_ _ _��_. �- ____�- � ��`' r _._ a _.;s �, _ _ _ _ __ ; � - _ __. __ --� � .�-------_._.._ _.... �� _..�_ ��_______ �_� _ ____ ____----- �___._.__.- --_ __.__ -._.. ___ __..; w � . W � w ...w�; _:_ �..��. __��_ __ _ ` � a �_ _. _.... __-_ _. _ _.. �. _ i .: , ,. + _._..r.__ ______:...._..__�__ � .. �..�..._ _....�_ _:__._� ---- - _.._:. . ______.�. _�_�..V.,70 Fu .. __ ___ __. _.___��...,.... . ...._ _. .... ._. .... _. .. . _��. ___.. . .._ . . . ._" _ _._ . .. _ _ . _r .._. ...__........ ... . ... .. . ... �__..._. . .....,. .__.�.� ._"__ "' "_"_ � _ �8 �,, �_..__ _._ _ . _____ ____ _ _ _. _W �_ _ .. _ _. - - _ .. __. ___ _.._ __ _ . ____ _ _. --- �� ., _ _ _... _ ___ � . � _ ___._! ________.� ._.__ _ _ __. __ ...�,90 _ __._ _ -- _ _._. _ � _ _ - ;t f; _. _.� ,. � __ . _. . .—_. � � Ob 0, .,�:�i3. .;0. .,:,4 019�.037 �Ar �=9 �5 y�f��. �9. 9M2.0 Z.38 4.78 9.52 191 � �35.1 76.2 t2752200 G:�t!cTu>GF?ARTIC:�iP4,�r1t;..LIM£TERS CLAY(PLASTICi TO SlLT(NON-PtASTIC) SANDS GRAVEL FINE ME6lUM COARSE FiNE COARSE CQBBLES Sample of CLAY SANDY�,GL1 ���_ GRAVEL 8 °lo s,arvD __ 3p °!a � ._ FfOC71 TH-2 AT 25-27.5 F'EET SI!T&CLAY' 62 °/a LIQUID�IMIT 2$ °/a �....... ___ P�ASTIGETY INDEX 9 °/a _._ __ Gradation �Ot 22�l7EiS�ESifj2TlG@ ��to��c�r n�o.csasa�o-�2s TG'Sf R�SU{�S S:tGSQ9050.440i22556.CaIcs45650Gradation.xis FIG.B-2 -�� HYDROM�T=_R ANALYSiS SiEVE ANALYSCS 25 HR. 7'rlR. TIt�!c REApitJL'iS U.S.STF3�DARD SERiES CLEAR 54UARE OPENINGS 4S MIN. 15 MIN. 6Q#�41N.14 MRN. 4 MIN. t MiN. °200 '140 'S0 '4� °30 '1b 'tp`B '4 3:8' 3;4" L'�:4' 3' S"6` 8" to� �� � . .. .. . ___�0 {_ _.____"__'___ ... __._ �...�... ,_.. . ...._. . ._ ... .. .._.. . 90 �--- _..__.. __ v 10 ' �� � � " ... �.w.,20 80 � . _''_ _ ,_✓_ _.. _::.—----- _ . . _ ' ° 2 �d �--. _.... .._ _. �.. .........:..�_ . ... .._ ..._.... .. ..�...,.,.,,3a Z <A t____ _....... ..._..._.._.... _......................._...___.,. ...,._.,.._.. q _.._—�...._— N __ ., ._.._____.......�........._... ._.....:.... ,__......._..__...v..,..,:..d� U�_f ¢ 69 -- o- _.__...____ _ ._� �� _ c __ .__ ._ .... _ _._ � _..____._�—__�� . __ � . _._ _. ... __ _ __... F _.,_ � ...... . � ___ __ �. _ _ z U $a �W______�__ .-- _ _�. _.,,,.,..._ �� Sampie from Sheiby tube. _i Q � a4G �_ -- - � - : : Sample dc�es nc�t include __ - — -- 3G -��— _ �_. _ _ _ 7D �. .. .. _ _.__ particles with diameters Zp __, . .. _ ----�,�-'� _� {ar er than 3 inches. �° �^ �...;,,•._... 9 _ io : _��.�.�.���.. _.... ._.._..�......_ --_ ____ . _.__...�___ _,...__...._.._.,sa _...._ . __ _ . ;ioo OQt Q.OQ2 045 044 .619 037 .075 444 297�42590 '1.t4 2.0238 4.76 8.52 59.1 36t 76,2 12t522� DIAMETER C?F PART1ClE IN MILUAkETERS CLAY{PLASTBC)70 51LT(NON-P(�iS71C) SANDS GR:IVEL F3t3E ME61UM COARSE FINE CQARSE COB9i.ES Sc�mple of SAND,CLAYEY{SC:: GRAVE� 34 °% SAND 41 % __ ....... _� Frt�m TH-3 AT 9 FEET _ SI�T&C�AY _W���lo Lmc�u�D�iMET 24 °la � PLASTlCiTY INDEK__ 9 °lo HYDROMETER ANAlY51S SIEV�Al�ALYSIS 25 HR. 7 HR. TIME READINGS U.S.STAN4ARD SERiES GLEAR SQUARE OPEN6NGS 45 Ml3�. t5 MIN. 6D Fu!iN.19 MIN 4 MIN. S MIN. '200 '106 'S0 •ao •so '16 `1Q`9 "4 318" 31R" t," 3" 5"6" 8"0 100 _,.__ __ _�. _ _ __ , ._ . __ . _.V.� �� _._ _ ._..._. _ _..._ ., �._��_. ...V �............._.___,. ...._...� _____ _ . _ ., ._...__� ___ .. .,.�..._.�.__...,_�.. ....�_ __..... � _. � _ _< �0 � __"'".��."� ._ . �`._ �.� _..: �--��SD ._... __ r,,.___. _ __ ��_ __ _.. ..�...... ._�..._..� Sc'�. �_..��..:...... _ _....�.._�._�_�._._._..�.,r�;.._.�.,.,�»__. _�:;_.,.. _....._ .�.._.24 �, �, � _ . _,,,, _�_ __ _ _._. __ _„. _ __ __._. ; (9?p �— :... _'� __�� :::._ �_._...... _ V _ ,.. .... , _. _.;30 a � _.. � . . ._ ._: z � � ..,,_.._.., _ _ _. _�..�... _.� _ _ � ___. . _ , _. ._. . . ___ _. _ _ a 6� � ...��.�...:::_.,._ . ......... . ..._.. _:_ _ ...__ �.V.:..._____..,..:,,, `', w 40 p: . .... ., .. ... . _ . ....� ,_ .... ___._._.... � _.,,,_ ,_.....,:..w�..,._, .._,..._...._ � -::`. ..._::::...: K y __ _ w 5i� � . ,�._.�..� __�..�:. � �� �._ �. � � � } _.�. _V �.. : �.::...,,_,_ µ: tz . _.. .�' ::. .� ....... ----- ._ .._ _ - ._.. . ,. �� .._ �...._. ...�_1 � . - � �qp w-,. .:��_.....__..�_ . _..., .,.. � �__ ._ �._ _..____ __— __ .60 0. �.. .._.m�;�_�_�� `,:. _� :::_" _....r ....� W: :::�_�..�.. _ ,. _ _ ___.� - : _ _ e. _�.�,w - __.._ _ _� ?p t ..,,�„_,__ ' �._ .._ _..__�_. ::_...�_::m�:..._�_��V V:,,,,�_��:.:.�...,.,,_._ _,�70 ,,,,,,,,,� .. y+���.r..� _. .. �� ........ ,�; :. ... .. .... ..: ,:: ... �. .._ .. ... _ -._ ... �...._. _.. .`"�.:.._:"t .........._. �: ._. �,�,,,,�^ ._. ._...._. _ . ..._�,.�.�.. . 2�7 -- Ir..-... --- � _.._�._.�......_....._„__.. _,._.,;,�,... __ _ __�,. - _�.BO ,,—_ _ _ ._; _____—__._ _v ._ _ ._ _ _� �:.: ...,,,, _. .: 5.^. _,.,..__ ._,,._�_� ..,_�. _,:.�.,____.;.. � .,�..�,,_.. ..�_..._ ,:_�, _�..._.._ � _.__._.,..�.�_. .._.� 90 ..� �.V... -:-. ...,,,._ __ .�...... _.. .; ;. '°" ;; _:� ' ' :..� _ :.""' _�. �R7 ,,.. .,., .,�. .,.,..,µ .,. ......«-. __..___,..� _.._.....a ...,.. _........: . ..:�,._,,., ,... - �,,,,,,.,.._ ,.: ..::..!e..... ..„_: � 0 ��3�1 0€Far2 CCS _tKi9 074 .037 474 149 247 0.42590 L79 2.0 2.38 4J6 8.52 19.1 35� 76.2 i2152200 QEAMETER OF PARS(CLE W MILE.IMETERS CLAY{PLASTtC?TQ SILT(NCSN-PtASTIC} SANDS GRAVEL EVNE MEDtUM COARSE �lNE COARSE COSB�ES SC1C11�71�' U� SAND, CLAYEY�SC} GRAVEL 3p °lo SANd 42 % F!"om TN-3 AT 32 FEET_ . SILT 8 CLAY 28 °fo LIQUlD L1MIT 27 °!o _._ _..... ._ .�_._ . _ . . _ PLASTICITY INDEX 11 °lo Gradatton �ot 22 Solis Residence PROJECT NO.G545054-125 TeS� �1�SE.l��S 8`GS05D54.44 411 2 518.Calcs45054Gradatic�n.xis F!G.R-3 � sl HYpROM�TER RNALYSI5 SiEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR. 7 HR. T4h�!E READtNGS U.S.STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SpUARE OPENtNGS 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60 P.11N.39 MIN. 4 b11N. 1 F.�IN. '20a '100 'S6 '�74 '30 'i6 '10'8 '4 3i8" 3�4" t'.-;" 3" 5"6' 8" �pp 0 ---- ____..__ ,�.r,,,.__ _.. ...... _...._... ..._.....___ -- _ ...... _ . . _ 9C _ ° � ._ ...._. v.� _._��10 ��_____ _ _. .... ._ _____. _..... 86 - .... _.._.� . . . .........._ ...._ .___ ..._..... ...._.:V.:..24 µ...... .: . . � � _.._. .. ...,....._ .._._. �- . .... . .. ` C _. . ..._... ___ .. . ... Z 7� _ �._..��.s _ _, __._ __.._. __.30 Z co _._— ....... .................. ...,.. _.., .,_._.._.. ........�. _. . ._._._.._. ¢ � � .. ...... �._...,._ . .._ ... ,,,.,....,.....�_._ _. .. ...... � ................ ¢ BC _ .,_.�..� _ _. .�... _........ ._.�... __40 w a . c � � v., ::.: . � _ __ __ . ' � > , . _ __..._ _ u`� 5p ,`, _ 50 � a aa �- _ .�_.::: Sample from Shelby tube �60 � _._ _�_.� _. : - _ __ : _ , Sample does nat include 3D _ -70 �. - . �: w�:.�. .... _-.: . particfes with diameters �. ZQ � _.�...._. .._�_�.._ _ _. _ _. _��.._�____m. larger than 3 inches. ��80 ,� � - -: _- . _ _- - __. � a . ,,., _ , ,ao .00t 6.002 .005 .OQ9 .019 .037 .0T4 .149 2B7 Q42S90 1,18 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 3&.1 70.2 1215z200 DIAMETER 6F PARTICLE IN MIILiME7ERS CLAY(PLASTIG)TO Sf�T(NON-PLAS7IC} SANdS GRAVEL FWE MEaIUM CQARSE FINE CQARSE COBB�ES Sam�le af SAND, GLAYEY{SC� GRAVEL 6 % SAND 52 % FCOt7t TN-3 AT 18 FEET � SILT&CLAY 42 % UQUBD LIMIT 26 °lo _ _ —�__ PLASTICCTY INDEX �a olo HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SlEVE At�lALYSlS 2�{��{, 7 HR, TIME READINGS U S.5TANDARd SERIES CIEAR SQUARE 4PENINGS 45 MIN. 15 MIN, 60 MIN.19 MlN. 4 M!N S M6N. '200 "f00 `50 '46'3Q 't& '14'8 '4 3/8" 3?4" t% 3" 5'6" 8"Q _.......__ ._...,... ._ -__.__..._.._�_ ____ _- - . _.�.... ...._._.�.__. ., ___, �___.__ _ .,.__. �_ . _ _... �_.� �-1 :,,....._,..4.�._.............__ , ,_....._... .. __"___ ....._ . __. .._..... ._..._..___�. ....... .......... ._�_�......,.....__._ _____'. ......... .........j ��,.._ _.. .. __. _.___ _....... ___.. ___...._... . ..._._ __. ___ ...... ......._. . _ _____ ...._._....... 90 , ....:-._. _..__ �...V:.:.�.�._.��� ��_.:W_____. ... �- ________ ......._�_ __.. ':::: __ :.:_:.: . _-�.. __�._�..__W__:_�10 ___ _......�.. � ..____ ......__.. _... .... ---._ _ ... .__ __ -- — ---__. ,. .. __ . ._.._ x;� . _____�.__. ._ _.___ . .. _.._... � _m:m..__ , _ �__�� _ _._.. �...::;20 - _. _ _ � _ . _ '�F _____ ._ _ . .._ ..: .. _: :. �: w � ; ;30 :- _ _ _ _ __ _.. _.._ _ . __ _ , . ..._.......__� � � ...... ..__________....�..._....._.._.._..._--�--..... ...__.__ .� _____._ ...... ___...�._.. 2 .. __. _ .... _ _. . .. _..... _ ..._ _ . .. _�_._ _ _....__. .�. . ..._ __. ' ' Q _._ . .:"6:^ , . _-__ _ _:: ..__�V �._ _ ^.::.: ` '40 w � ; _. _...... _ _ _._ _ � '- - "_ �v �„_______�__. .__ __ " _ ;_y:� ... .. :: � _::. __ � x„ _ _ __ _ . W ,�v . _ _ _.! __. .� - _. _. � „ ._ ._.._._________ _.�_ ___:.._. .�...__., _� _ _. _._____ ! c� .. .� .�_______.__._ ,., ��._____..^____ _.�__ .___----._.. ._ _..._ - - _ _ ---..�...__... ; a - , . .. .. .. ........ . .. . ,6 ... _ . . _............��.._.� _.. ..._..._ __ _......_� ......._......_ _ _.< p a ..::� . .. _._. ._. _.._ ... __. --- __. .._. ..__ ....._ ... . .__ _.._.... _...... ___. ......_. ___ ......... . ......_.... .... ....::.� �. _._._ ._.�. .______ ._. . _... .... ,�__ ... ..... _.. ---_. __ . ... __.... ... �. _.. _.. .. .._ _.. --- - ... .._��.. �..F , __'_ .... _, i a� , _ ,._. ..... __� _ _� � _ W_ __ : ..... ........... ' _'_-. _ ,_. 7� _. . . _. _... ..�_W �__-_-__ . . _ ___ _.... ��; __ _ __ _..__ _... __ __ , _._ ._.... ._,___.__ ____:..'"';80 __ _W____ _.____... _� __ __.. . . _ _ ____ __ _. �_..___. — _______ _ ., t:t _ � - __ ��__.� _ �. ,__ _._ _.:.. ___.__..._. '_46 _� __W___ ___ _ _.. _ _. _��. ___ _ ...._ _. _ �._ �_ ��... _ . _.__ _.__ _ ___�_ _ _ _,_ . __;: .. . _. :::::. _ �. ;700 r�� ._ ....:.. _....... _. _ ._��..._.�.___ ._._.�___�__ - ..�..,.. � ,, , ,:�,9 .019 037 074 149 297�42590 1.19 2.0 2.38 476 9.52 18.1 361 762 1215220Q DIAMETEF2 OF PARTIGE.E IN MI�LIMEFERS CLAY;PLASTIC�Tp SILT{NON-PLASTlC) SANDS GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM COARSE FtNE COARSE CQBBLES $GEl1��ES Ofi GRAVE�. % SANE7 % FCOtTi _ _ SlLT$�CLAY _ _°lo LlQUID...�IM(T .__ % �_ � _..... _ ..._........ __ PLAST(CITY INDEX.. _ . % __ _ _ GradatEC�r� Lof 22 Salis Resid�nce °T p t P�20JECT NO.G5f15054-125 1 ��� R�S�t�S S:(GS05QSQ.OQ0432546.Caics6505�Gradationxl5 FIG.B-4 � 5.(T a.o . _.__- __� _......_ � ��� ry��VV Moisture Dry j � s ' Sample', Soring ! Depth ' Content(%) ;Density' � 3.0 - __._.. ��__ ____�_ � ______ _�. , No. No. (FT) Before After � (PCF) ; � _ a � 1 � TH-2 ;29-31.5' 19.1 " 25.4 - 102.4 °. � ...; _ �.. . _... , _ ,...2.0 ___ ' _.. ____ �---____.____. _ 2 � TM-2 ;29-31.5' 19.i 22.7 106.4 ;. �y„ ' ...... ... ..._......... ..._._..... ...._.. .._. ...... . ��.: Y � ', 3 � TH-2 29 31.5' 19 1 19.0 104.4 ' � . _ ___ . ...��__ __ __ _ ._ . ._.. . � � w t�1.0 -______ ..........._�-___ _r-_�___- _. _.__ _ F- , N � �a W Z vsOA 0 0.� 0.2 �.� LL, %: Pi, °!a: -200: HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION(!N.) `" Thickness (in): 1.0 Diameter(in): 2.873 Strain Rate (inlmin): 0.0095 �_.._ , Peak Softened : 7•4 -" Normal ` Shear Shear t � ' ' Sample', Stress Stress Stress '': s.a ----�� � § ( � �...�_No�_..� _.. (KSF) �KSF) � E(KS�)_.0 f ,. ° ' � 1 = 1.44 116 0.98 ' ' S.4 , _. _, __ .. _....._ . ..... _.._ ,. .. '; 2 2.88 2.42 ; 2.3'! � 4.0 - 3 ;. 5.76 � 3 95 � 3.75 : 3.a _ _. _.. °._. __. `. : � � Peak�{DEG}: 32 _ �,��0 � ' Saftened� (DEG): 32 � _.. ... .....__. _.__._....�..._..._ w � Peak C (PSF}: 390 ;�.o � E _. __. a E Softened C (PSF}: 260 �.___ . _. y4A . � � __. 0.0 1.4 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.4 6.d 7.t3 NORMAL STRESS(KS�} Sample Description: CLAY,V. SAN�Y,V.MOIST-WET,BROWhI Sample Type: SHELBY Remarks: Direct Shear Test Results Project No.GS05050 TH-2@29-31.5` Fig. B-5 PROJECT NO.GS05050-125 TABLE B- I SUMMARY OF LABORAT(JRY TEST RESULTS m-�:r-a� � ., . -. .-. II . .- � . . �� ,. . . . -� . . � . ����������� � . 0����0 ' ����������� ii�������'i[+�����0 - . ����������� �����00���� • � � �' ����������� ii`�����00���� � . ����������� ����������� ' ' ' ����������� �0���0��00� � � � ����������� �����0�0��� � � � ����������� i�i'i����00�i��� � • � ����������� i�C:����������� � ' ' ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� 'Note Percent silt and clay based on maximum clay particle size of 0.002 mm. Page 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.GS0505Q-125 7ABLE B-tt SUMMARY OF LABORATORY STRENGTH TEST RESULTS :�- • � •- � - • ' , ��- � ����� � � �• '.•.: � � ' • ' � • • � ��� ,� . �� .-. ' . ' .-. . ____� -- �������- • a ����� _�� •� .� • s -�-- -- ����� � �--� . ` � -�-- -- ���- -- -�-_ -- �_-� • � - -- ��-- -_ ���� -- , ��-� �- ������-- ��---��- ��_- ��-- -�-- -- -�-- -- ��-��-�-- ��-� -- ���� -- �---�--- ��-���-- ��---�-- ��---�-- ��-��--- ��-���-- ��-���-- ����-�-��� ��-- -- ��-� -- Page 1 of 1 Alpine Drive $,21 TH-4 p�.e_�xcavatian surface s.2a $,� ; '" � 200� ground surface from fiopo �' 8�'8 ` Planned excavaiion .-. 8.17 0 0 0 � 8.16 X ... ,-, � � 8.15 � v � O $.�� (� r�' � W 8.13 E��� 8.11 8,10 ` ��� Slide stabifization � excavation f' �� , Remnant foundation TH-'I, 2, & 3 Sierra Trail , : ; 8.Q9 .._m.__ __..�.�....,.'..___.,....�..._.�_._.�v...:_.. �,,.����.__�....��..�_.._____�..�..�,�_..,._...�._......�._....�.._,,,,,_.�_..�......�._.�.. _ _..�.x,.._ ...._..._ _...�_�.� .. ,�.......,,_., _......._._ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9Q 100 190 120 13Q i40 150 1B0 170 Project No. GS�5�50-125 Distance (fee#) Figure C-1 8.20 � 8.19 : : ,�..�� �__� � 0 � a.�s '-- 0 � y� $.15 � � a s.�a � c� � $.13 W 8.12 8.11 8.10 Name: Fi�l type 'I Unit Weigh�; '[30 pcf Got�esian: 100 psf Rhi• 34 ° Name: F�11 fi��ae Z lJnit 1Neight: �I3Q p+�f ; Cohesion: 15i? psf i Phi: 32 ° Name: Gravel, clayey (upper �grave(} Unit 1�1#eight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 'I04 �sf Phi: 35 ° �lame: Ctay, sandy Unit VI�'eight� 120 pcf �ohesion: 3QO psf P'hi: 27 ° ,' 8.09 �..�. w.:>�......, .� ����._. �.�:�..�.�.__. _,......._.�:�: _. . _.._. .;, .._,. � �.....__.�.�.�..�.�..._ „ _. .�...��...�,s.. Q 10 20 34 4Q 50 60 70 $0 90 100 '11p 120 130 140 150 160 170 1$� Distance �rail Profile and �fir�ng�h P'ar�met�rs Pra�jec� l�o. �SD5tD50-125 Figure C-2 8.20 : • 8.18 .-� 8.17 O � $.16 � }� 8.15 ,... C O $„14 � tCi � $.13 W 8.12 8.11 8.1Q 8.09 0 See figure �-2 �'��" for soi� descriptions and strengih parameters �aili�rra crtrfat�� 'I0 20 30 40 5 �'rc�ject No. GSU5a5Q-125 0 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 144 150 160 170 1$0 Distance Existing Sl�pe, Criticaf Condiiion Figure G-3 s.2o 8.19 � o s �� ! _ µ�. ��� r� � � , 8.16 �-- , ,�r< � °�'r � ' ...� X 8.15 ?�-. �. c O 8.14 � � � � $ 13 :...�... W 8.12 ��. , 8.11 i---- ~"" ''�.� 8.10 �-- ",,.„� � � � 8.09 �_�._.�_,_.._:....�z�.. . � _.��. �. I.... . ....� See figure C-Z for �oil descriptions 1,_,_,4 and s�reng#h parameter� �,.. .�".. Required minir�um force = 7400 pounds per fooi 0 10 20 30 40 5Q 60 70 80 90 1Q0 140 120 '{3Q 14Q 150 'S60 170 180 Distance ��quir�ed Il�inimum Far�c+e, Upp�r �x+cava�ion Project N�. GSQ5t}5Q-�Zs F��u�� c-� See �i�ur� C-2 �.4 for soil descriptions an+d strength parameters e.2o�- s.�� � �� � a�� ������ �� Required minimum force = 7,0�0 p�+unds per fo�t y ��� YP�, $.'i�i � :�'.r`3�v �� � ���5 �� i � $.$7 � �� �� � �. 0 � �:��� '�� � � ,�� , ° s �� ��'� - ' � v� �� � �, �.� �� �,��� ,,� Re uired minimum force = 16,000 ounds er #aot �' �'� � �� ��� ,��� , � �f � 1� ��; ��� � � . x s.�� _ ��� � �� � �.�.~ ��.� � � , � ,..., �, � ,� „�.... � ,.. c ;����x ���� ��� Ct 8.14 �---- ���� �;,...� � � �,�°' < ��. ,� ; � � � 4..� , , ., y� � f�,,,. . � � " .w^""° ���� d ,.'" �, J��$^^� �»..... � $.13 ' ` Po �„ .. A� v �..._ � �.,� � � � _ . .,�� a ;.� � :� � ._, �.' ��r«� a« „r s�,�:��ar �.�� ��-»>,, � � ' `'ti. Y�, 8.11 �—�- �� ,.,,� a �ti>. 8 1 Q .::, .f.,.�.. �"`ti`, f ���"v ' '�` � �� a�� �'.��j x���i1� �%�: i � "'ia. ; E .. N,� �'a� \\y �� r k � �� � � �\ i¢ ; F :.i € i : $ y, ���1 : � 3 � � a I_._, .�._ �_ � ��~��....��_.� .� �.� _ � �:���.:�..� s.os �._..._�� �.___ �._. ,�� . � ... ... .�. �.��.�.,.��.� 0 14 20 30 44 50 60 70 SO 90 100 'f10 120 130 140 150 164 170 `i$Q Distance Required 1Vlinimum Force, Combined Exc�vation Project No. GS05Q50-1�5 Figure C-5 January 5, 2015 Keith Novick 2486 Fenno Drive Edwards, CO 81632 Re: Zoning Analysis for 1740 Sierra Drive/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1 Mr. Novick, This letter is being sent in response to your inquiry regarding the zoning and development potential for 1740 Sierra Drive. The current zoning of the property is Two- Family Primary/Secondary Residential. According to our records the site is 0.253 acres or 11,020 square feet. This lot size only permits a single dwelling unit on the site (a deed restricted employee housing units may be permitted as a second unit on the site). A lot size of 11,020 square feet equates to an allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) of 4,987 square feet. This allowable GRFA does not include a garage credit of up to 600 square feet and any basement deduction calculated based upon design. Development on the site is impacted by the following elements which are addressed in the Town of Vail Zoning Code: Setbacks – 20 front, 15 sides/rear Site Coverage – 20% of site Landscape – 60% of site Height – 33 feet for sloped roofs Parking required – If GRFA maximized 4 parking spaces are required Slopes in excess of 40% - Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code. Soil condition – Soils report on file Please feel free to contact me should you have further questions. I can be reached by phone at 970-479-2148 or by email at wcampbell@vailgov.com. Sincerely, Warren Campbell Chief of Planning Town of Vail