Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutB18-0111_Approved Documents_1531751801.pdf 75 South Frontage Road Construction West, TOWN OFVAIL B18-0111 Vail,CO 81657 Issued: 07/16/2018 TOWN of VAIL0.ZOffice:970.479.2139 Inspections: inspections@vailgov.com Property Information Address: 4872 MEADOW LN B (210113104014) Unit#:B ParcelNumber: 210113104014 LegalDescription: Subdivision:BIGHORN 5TH ADDITION Block:7 Lot:14 PARCELB Contacts ContactType:Applicant Full Name:Debra Monroe Address: 710 w.Lionshead circle 710 w.Lionshead circle Unit A Vail,CO 81637 Phone: 9704772990 ContactType:PropertyOwner Full Name:4872 MEADOW LANE LLC Address: 4705 PROSPECTST BOW MAR,CO 801231558 Phone: None ContactType:PropertyOwner Full Name:4872 MEADOW LANE LLC Address: Phone: None Contractor Contractor Type:General Company: Paragon Homes Inc. State License#: Phone: 303-525-7775 Projectlnformation ProjectName:Kuelling Residence2017 ProjectDescription: Demolition of existing duplex and new construction of unit B of a separated duplex.New Constructionof two single familyhomes withthe separationagreementthatwas granted. Fees Paid Account:001-0000.31111.00-Building Permit Fee Fee Amount: $5,010.25 Account:001-0000.31123.00 Building Plan ReviewFee Fee Amount: $3,256.66 Account: 110-0000.31060.00 ConstructionUse Tax Fee Fee Amount: $17,273.50 Account:001-0000.31111.00-Mechanical Permit Fee Fee Amount: $940.00 Account:001-0000.31123.00 Mechanical Plan ReviewFee Fee Amount: $235.00 Account:001-0000.31111.00-Plumbing Permit Fee Fee Amount: $480.00 Account:001-0000.31123.00 Plumbing Plan ReviewFee Fee Amount: $120.00 Account: 111-0000.31127.00-RecreationAmenities Fee Fee Amount: $190.20 Account:001-0000.31128.00 Will Call Fee(Building Scope) Fee Amount: $5.00 Account#:001-0000.31128.00 Will Call Fee(Mechanical Scope) Fee Amount: $5.00 Account:001-0000.31128.00 Will Call Fee(Plumbing Scope) Fee Amount: $5.00 Account:001-0000.31530.00WorkStartedPenaltyFee Fee Amount: $6,430.25 TotalPaid: $33,950.86 Conditions CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH PERMITS BECOME VOID: If construction is not begun within 6 months from the date permitwas issued. If more than 5 months elapses betweeninspections. Ifincorrectinformationis given on the application at the time the permitwas issued. --../1., 4's, ChristopherJarecki-Townof Vail Building Official NOTICE: By issuance of this Permitthe applicant agrees to complywith all Titles of the Townof Vail Code and all applicable State and Federal law.Failure to do so will void this Permit and the applicant shall forfeitall applicable fees. PERMIT FEE RECEIPT TOWN OF VAIL Case # B18-0111 Date Printed: 07/16/2018 TOWN OF VAIL - FEES RECEIPT Permit Summary Case Number: B18-0111 Status: Approved Permit Number: Date Started: 04/02/2018 Permit Type: Construction Subc ases Duplex Lot Number: 14 Property: 4872 MEADOW LN B (210113104014) Contacts Contact Type: Applicant Company Name: Kh WebbArchitects Full Name: Debra Monroe Address: 710 w. Lionshead circle 710 w. Lionshead circle Unit A Vail, CO 81637 Email: debra@khwebb.com Contact Type: Property Owner Full Name: 4872 MEADOW LANE LLC Address: 4705 PROSPECT ST BOW MAR,CO 801231558 Contact Type: Property Owner Full Name: 4872 MEADOW LANE LLC Address: Permit Fees Fee Information Account Amount Permit Fee 001-0000.31111.00 $6,430.25 Construction Tax 110-0000.31060.00 $17,273.50 Recreation Amenities Fee 111-0000.31127.00 $190.20 W ill Call Fee 001-0000.31128.00 $15.00 Work Started Penalty Fee 001-0000.31530.00 $6,430.25 Payment Information Date Paid Payment Type Amount Recreation Amenities Fee 07/16/2018 Check $190.20 Paid By:4872 Meadow Lane LLC-Notes:ck#1035 Work Started Penalty Fee 07/16/2018 Check $6,430.25 Paid By:4872 Meadow Lane LLC-Notes:ck#1035 Permit Fee 07/16/2018 Check $6,430.25 Paid By:4872 Meadow Lane LLC-Notes:ck#1035 Construction Tax 07/16/2018 Check $17,273.50 Paid By:4872 Meadow Lane LLC-Notes:ck#1035 W ill Call Fee 07/16/2018 Check $15.00 Paid By:4872 Meadow Lane LLC-Notes:ck#1035 FEE TOTAL $30,339.20 AMOUNT PAID $30,339.20 1/2 °.\) PERMIT FEE RECEIPT TOWN OF VAIL Case # B18-0111 Date Printed: 07/16/2018 BALANCE DUE $0.00 75 South Frontage Road West,Vail,Colorado 81657 07/16/2018 -8:27:43 AM-Generated by:cgodfrey 2 /2 H--P-KU MAR5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Geotechnical Engineering I Engineering Geology Phone: (970)945-7988 Materials Testing I Environmental Fax:(970)945-6454 Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com Office Locations: Parker,Glenwood Springs,and Silverthome,Colorado SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED KUELLING RESIDENCE LOTS 14A AND 14B, BLOCK 7 BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIFTH ADDITION 4872A AND 4872B MEADOW LANE VAIL,COLORADO PROJECT NO. 16-7-596 FEBRUARY 7, 2017 PREPARED FOR: K.H. WEBB ARCHITECTS ATTN: KYLE WEBB 710 WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE, UNIT A VAIL, COLORADO 81657 kyle®khwebb.com TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS - 2 - GEOLOGIC HAZARDS - 2 - FIELD EXPLORATION - 3 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 4 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 5 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 5 - FOUNDATIONS - 5 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 7 - FLOOR SLABS - g - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 9 SITE GRADING -10- SURFACE DRAINAGE - 10 - LIMITATIONS - 11 - REFERENCES - 12 - FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS - EXISTING CONDITIONS FIGURE 1 A- LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS-PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS H-P Rri KUMAR Project No. 16-7-596 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed Kuelling residence to be Iocated on Lots 14A and 14B, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision Fifth Addition,4872A and 4872B Meadow Lane, Vail, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. A site specific review of potential geological hazards that may impact the site was also performed. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to K.H. Webb Architects dated November 15, 2016. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. The potential geologic hazard impacts at the site are also discussed in the report. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION An existing duplex residence on the site will be removed for the new construction. The proposed new building will be a duplex residence consisting of a two-story wood frame structure with attached garages cut into the hillside slope and located on the lot as shown on Figure 1A. The hillside cut will be up to about 16 feet deep and daylight to the west and north. Ground floors are planned to be slab-on-grade. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. H-P KUMAR Project No. 16-7-596 -2 - SITE CONDITIONS The site was occupied by an existing three story duplex residence located as shown on Figure 1. The existing building appears to have a lower level cut about 8 feet deep into the hillside. The terrain was variable and consisted of moderately steep to steep hillside in the southeast and southwest portions of the lot transitioning to a relatively flat and strong slope down to the north toward Meadow Lane in about the northern half of the lot. Slope grades range from about 15 to 50% on the hillsides and about 8 to 4% in the flatter areas. There is a narrow drainage flowing out of the hillside terrain in the south-central portion of the lot to the northwest and into an apparent shallow detention pond with a culvert outlet towards Meadow Lane. The drainage channel area included apparent wetlands that extended to the southwest edge of the proposed building, see Figure 1A. The survey plan provided also notes springs from the bottom of the hillside along the south side of the wetlands area. The site has been graded some for construction of the existing building. Vegetation consisted of moderately thick and relatively large pine trees. The lot was covered by about 6 inches of snow at the time of our field exploration. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Potential major geologic hazards that could impact the subject site consist of rockfall and snow avalanche according to the Town of Vail mapping(Town of Vail, 2000a, 2000b and 2000c). The hazards are noted as high for the rockfall potential and possible influence zone for the avalanche potential. The avalanche hazard risk is mapped in only about the southwestern 2/3 of the lot and onto the building site. There may also be a risk of flooding from the drainage through the site which should be evaluated by the civil engineer. The rockfall risk is due to the bedrock outcrops above the site and are typically not frequent but can damage homes and property when larger rocks fall. We generally agree with the high hazard risk mapping for the rockfall. The avalanche risk occurs from snow pack on steep slopes when weak layers of snow pack develop and/or additional heavy snow or precipitation add to the snow pack. Based on the thick trees on and above the site, there has not been a recent avalanche in this H-P KUMAR Project No. 16-7-596 - 3 - area and the risk is mapped as a potential impact rather than an area of historic impact. We believe the avalanche risk at the site is low. The potential hazards appear to be an active geologic process at the subject site and in nearby areas, and should be expected in the future. However, without long term observations, it is not possible to develop a statistical recurrence probability of the hazards. We are not aware of recent rockfall or avalanche at the site. Although the probability of a rockfall or snow avalanche will hit the residence is likely Iow, a rockfall or snow avalanche has the potential to cause major damage to building with a risk of harm to the occupants. If this risk is not acceptable to the owner, then the feasibility of mitigation should be considered. Rockfall in the area has been mitigated with rockfall catching barriers and avalanche with soil berms or impact walls which may or may not be feasible at the site due to the limited area on the lot behind the residence and the adjacent properties. The mitigation would likely need to extend beyond the property lines and could encompass multiple adjacent lots that are subject to similar potential geologic hazards. If the owner does not plan to mitigate the potential geologic hazards and accepts the risk they may pose on the residence, this should be feasible based on Town of Vail code provided the proposed construction and grading does not increase the existing rockfall or avalanche hazards to adjacent properties including public streets, right-of-ways and easements. We should review the building and grading plans when they are developed. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 5, 2016. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck- mounted CME-45B drill rig. Locations of the borings were limited to the areas drilled due to the existing development, trees and steep irregular terrain. The borings were logged by a representative of H-P/Kumar. H-P ft KUMAR Project No. 16-7-596 -4 - Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils encountered were somewhat variable with respect to type, depths and engineering characteristics. The subsoils encountered at Boring 1, below about 4 inches of asphalt pavement, consisted of medium dense, slightly silty to silty sand and gravel with cobbles and probable boulders that extended down to the drilled depth of 26 feet. The subsoils encountered at Boring 2, below about I foot of organic topsoil, consisted of about 13 feet of medium dense/stiff, clayey sand and silt underlain by medium dense, silty sand and gravel with cobbles that extended down to the drilled depth of 17 feet. Drilling in the sand and gravel with cobbles (coarse granular soils) with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and probable boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in Boring 2 in the deposit. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, and gradation analyses. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the clayey sand and silt soils, presented on Figure 4, indicate moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting with a low hydro- compression potential. Results of gradation analyses performed on a small diameter drive sample (minus 1%2 inch fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown on Figure 5. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table 1. H-P KU MAR Project No. 16-7-596 - 5 - Free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and when checked I day later at depths of about 7%i to 81/2 feet. The subsoils were generally moist becoming wet near and below the groundwater level. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The fine-grained clayey sand and silt soils possess low bearing capacity and, in general, a moderate settlement potential, especially if they were to become wetted. The coarse granular soils possess moderate bearing capacity and relatively low settlement potential. At proposed excavation depths, we expect the subgrade will transition from the compressible clayey sand and silt soils to the relatively incompressible coarse granular soils. Groundwater will Iikely be encountered in the deeper cut areas and require excavation dewatering and possibly subgrade stabilization of soft areas. Spread footings should be feasible for foundation support of the building with a risk of settlement. To reduce the settlement risk, we recommend a minimum 3 feet of compacted structural fill be provided below the spread footings in the fine grained clayey sand and silt soil bearing areas. The structural fill can consist of the on-site coarse granular soils (minus 6-inch fraction) or a suitable granular material such as road base can be imported. A lower risk of foundation settlement would be to extend the spread footings down to bear entirely on the coarse granular soils. Founding the building on micro-piles is also feasible and would provide a relatively low risk of foundation settlement. Provided below are recommendations for a spread footing foundation system. If recommendations for a micro-pile foundation system are desired, we should be contacted. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we believe the building can be founded with spread footings bearing on a combination of the natural sand and gravel with cobbles soils or on a minimum 3 feet of H-P 4 KUMAR Project No. 16-7-596 - 6 - compacted structural fill with some risk of settlement. The risk of settlement is primarily if the fine grained clayey sand and silt soils below the structural fill were to become wetted and precautions should be taken to prevent wetting of these bearing soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils or compacted structural fill should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect initial settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be up to about 1 inch. There could be some additional settlement if the clayey sand and silt soils were to become wetted. The magnitude of the additional settlement would depend on the depth and extent of the wetting but may be on the order of%2 to 1 inch. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 48 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies and better withstand the effects of some differential settlement such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 14 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing fill, debris, topsoil and the required depth of clayey sand and silt soils should be removed to provide a minimum 3 feet of structural fill below footing areas in the non-coarse granular soil bearing areas. Any loose or disturbed soils should also be removed, the subgrade adjusted to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95%standard Proctor density. If water seepage is encountered, the excavation should be dewatered as needed and any softened soils H-P k KUMAR Project No. 16-7-596 - 7 - removed and replaced with coarse granular soils to provide a firm subgrade for footing construction and fill placement. Structural fill placed below the footing areas should be compacted to at Ieast 98% standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. The structural fill should extend laterally beyond the edges of the footings a distance equal to at least the depth of fill below the footing. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations and observe and test structural fill placement on a regular basis prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures up to about 12 feet tall which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures up to about 12 feet tall which are separate from the building and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a Iateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on- site soils. Foundation walls and retaining structures taller than about 12 feet which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a uniform lateral earth pressure of 27.5H in psf where H is the wall height in feet. Cantilevered retaining structures taller than about 12 feet should be designed for a uniform lateral earth pressure of 22.5H in psf where H is the wall height in feet. The wall backfill should not contain topsoil or oversized (plus 6 inch) rocks and be properly placed and compacted. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will H-P--KUMAR Project No. 16-7-596 - 8 - increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90%of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95%of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. Use of a select granular material, such as road base, as the backfill material and increasing compaction to 98% standard Proctor density could be done to reduce the backfill settlement. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.45. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 375 pcf for moist condition and 250 pcf for submerged condition. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist Iateral loads should be suitable granular material compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, appear suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on- grade construction. We expect the excavation subgrade will transition from the fine grained clayey sand and silt soils to coarse granular soils in areas. The fine grained soils may tend to settle especially when wetted and removal and replacement of a depth of the fine grained soils (typically about 2 feet) may be needed to reduce the risk of differential settlement and slab H-P•KUMAR Project No. 16-7-596 - 9 - distress. We should review the exposed subgrade and the need for subexcavtion of a depth of the fine grained soils and replacement with structural fill at the time of construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 6-inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath ground level slabs for support and to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2%passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site coarse granular soils devoid of topsoil and oversized (plus 6 inch) rocks, or a suitable imported granular fill material such as road base can be used. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Free water was encountered during our exploration and it has been our experience in the area that groundwater can rise and local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also create a perched condition. Temporary dewatering of the excavation for construction and a permanent underdrain system for below grade construction such as retaining walls, basement and crawlspace areas to prevent wetting and hydrostatic pressure build-up is needed. It may be desirable to incorporate the temporary excavation dewatering into the permanent underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drains should be placed at each level of excavation and at least I%2 feet below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Several interior lateral drains on about 20 feet spacing may also be needed below the ground floor slabs. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain H-P KU MAR Project No. 16-7-596 - 10- system should contain less than 2%passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The perimeter drain gravel backfill should be at least 2 feet deep, extend to above any seepage in the adjacent excavation cut face, and be covered by a filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or 160N. SITE GRADING There is risk of construction-induced slope instability due to the relatively deep proposed cut into the hillside, especially if groundwater is encountered. We expect temporary cut slopes will need to be no steeper than 1 horizontal (H) to 1 vertical (V) for dry slope conditions and 1%2(H) to 1 (V) or flatter where seepage is encountered. In areas where the cut slope cannot be laid back to a stable grade, consideration should be given to shoring the cut slope face. Soil nail walls are typically used in the area for shoring and can be for temporary condition or as a permanent type wall system. Soil nail walls are typically design/build by qualified contractors with experience in the area. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 (H) to 1 (V) or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. H-P KUMAR Project No. 16-7-596 - Il - 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. This may require a swale on the hillside slope above the building. 4) Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with filter fabric and about 2 feet of the on-site finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 5) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 6) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 5 feet from foundation walls. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure I, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and 1-I-P KUMAR Project No. 16-7-596 - 12 - monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectfully Submitted, H-P KUMAR �' �`O1Rze,,. moi 4 44 _ , air Yr % 32-2ts David A. Young, F.E. ' fe- Reviewed by: S� `�, Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DAY/kac REFERENCES Town of Vail, 2000a, Oficial Avalanche Hazard Map, Town of Vail: Prepared by the Town of Vail, Vail, Colorado (Adopted by the Town Council on October 17, 2000). Town of Vail, 2000b, Official Debris Flow Hazard Map, Town of Vail: Prepared by the Town of Vail, Vail, Colorado (Adopted by the Town Council on October 17, 2000). Town of Vail, 2000c, Official Rockfall Hazard Map, Town of Vail: Prepared by the Town of Vail, Vail, Colorado (Adopted by the Town Council on October 17, 2000). H-P KUMAR Project No. 16-7-596 IN ....f MEADOW LANE =1.101 .O 1 MY.` r """. w % , 9 Fr-L=4- — c , / 11% -.y- , _ ,Lft,. m s . ,/' "T.\,�..�;. ,a1 '� _ -L _I�rY-F} �N. // ' \, �i 4103 Y-. I1 til 1 / ` ti / 1'\-_, �• 11 BORING 2 '; / 111 �.a- ,�, I- .��/ ~ nv n ...s r w • PARCEL 13A 1a�_; .71-F- _ s -� E _ LOT 15B e..i...... .. , `� .�.ISio,O PARCEL t4-A •erfri4armii.'V34: Al4. V I 1117111.0te / '''- , \`,BORING M1 OP . 15. 1 PARCuL�t4 0 EXISTING r., .70.[31 M`l�.y,Re.l r,. /' DUPLEX"hi./ \tO r¢�" RESIDENCE ,../". ii.10-,. / . 6.. 1 _. , ._ 1 ,tk kr-1\till,. 41a s .r. , / 4, %pc / / i + . % ARCELS 1 *.- ST1 �, �„// t ANb i B Ail /� .4,:r...::i Lam/ ..Z. W �re14` • _ _— _ —...._r.wW 1 N,4.-..I.1 ..r n r N44372�'1M-170.0Q'I \ ..5 ..F EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS SF E I I f 1I 15 0 15 0 APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET si s 16-7-596 H—PtiKUMAR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FI 1 AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 9 • EADO F lErW LANE 1IMICIr ii) • '/ t / i \ 7174" ., . ? to• %fit \'" -_ I 444• _ 1_ - r --3"-\\ ff ,xfi f I . •F• LOT 158 - ' •! ® , RESIDENCE �� �, : ; BORING 2 elf Tom: v 1 PARCEL 13A k, \\ r�fM:twau 3I it RESIDENCE ', i k,. �I 'cox PROPOSED 1-1 '1 DUPLEX .Nj�r i i-A.q" 1 �.}. x•' % ,. c) - i, .} .' - � . 'BORING 11� r VZ I.rC %,-Ittyka 046.11 r .,:+X x1+v'� WrR t OA. ) 5 � n L'k.r I PARCEL 14A % I4 \ ' AND 148 1r�y L ` 4 5 �.,pp\yy\ i y .Lv1 ,.r 'J rn• F a PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1 I S)r 1 I1 15 O 15 30 Ix APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET it if LOCATION H-P'�KUMAR LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS iFig. iA AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION BORING 1 BORING 2 EL. 8567' EL. 8566' -0 7 iiiC4, 0 - 110/12 '.}] 11/12 - —5 22/12 11/12 5 - - ' WC=4.0 WC=8.9 _ DD=126 DD=105 - -200=7 .J - - _Q_- — 10 10— L ' 11/12 16/12 - b 6 / -_ - w W 4. I— 1525/12 °; 15—_ o -200=13 w • 0 —20 32/12 20- - -200=28 - — 25 i 25— 50/5 — 30 30— T1 C E o1' :1 El i£ 16--7-596 H-P4LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 LEGEND (4) 5.1 ASPHALT, THICKNESS IN INCHES SHOWN IN PARENTHESES TO LEFT OF THE LOG. Nvz TOPSOIL; ORGANIC SANDY CLAY AND SILT, FIRM, MOIST, DARK BROWN. 7 SAND AND SILT (SM-ML); CLAYEY, MEDIUM DENSE/STIFF, MOIST BECOMING WET BELOW fJ GROUNDWATER LEVEL, BROWN. 7 SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); SLIGHTLY SILTY TO SILTY, WITH COBBLES, PROBABLE BOULDERS, °�: MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST BECOMING WET BELOW GROUNDWATER LEVEL, MIXED BROWN. n. • rjRELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DRIVE SAMPLE; 2-INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE. 11 DRIVE SAMPLE; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT), 1 3/8 INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE, ASTM D-1586. 10/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 10 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REOUIRED TO DRIVE THE CALIFORNIA OR SPT SAMPLER 12 INCHES. ILI DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL AND NUMBER OF DAYS AFTER DRILLING MEASUREMENT WAS MADE. -* DEPTH AT WHICH BORING CAVED WHEN MEASURED ON DECEMBER 6, 2016. t PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL. NOTES 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON DECEMBER 5, 2016 WITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER. 2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. 3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. 4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED. 5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL. 6. GROUNDWATER LEVELS SHOWN ON THE LOGS WERE MEASURED AT THE TIME AND UNDER CONDITIONS INDICATED. FLUCTUATIONS IN THE WATER LEVEL MAY OCCUR WITH TIME. € 0 7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS: il WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216); DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216); i +4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 422); -200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140). j Y 1 i _$ a _t€ r€ 16-7-596 H-P---t-KIJMAR LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 1 I 1 SAMPLE OF: Very Sandy Clayey Silt r I I FROM: Sorin 2 0 5' — r -c_t_,_�1 9 I I I F I WC = 8.9 %, DD = 105 pcf Ili ' 1 I II k ! � I I ' I I I I I! 1 II I ! I ' _ 1 Id ' ` I I I ' I I I I 'I f ' ! I I i ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION I ! i UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE — I ;— � I I I S I I I l DUE TO WETTING .. I - ' � I I ! Hill 1 i j l -2 ----- -- 1 i--_1 , ? I_____,__:___:_,_'-l.I I -- N I 11 1 I I I I I Y I f I I I i I ! 1 I 1 I t I IIII l l i z --1--7-1-1-7 I -1- III' i l l i 1 1 I I '_.T-`..1 I_ , ._.I I II I I —__— o I I 1 I I I WI I „ I 1i_I.[._! -- - I - ! I I_I-! U I. II ' 11I -6 — -- - --I ` I - -- -- -i ► I _.- --- -� -I II --- 1 1IIIil ' 1 I ' i I ' t n.an trot na.AU appy ani la n.a •--- ---i—i—I '-I-- . mIaa taal.a.ma �� l i I nal 6a nprad.—d,aaupt N M.agl.aal llr a.lttM af0•ar!a! II cl4 an/Maaalataa,Inc Sad i I I 1 k. q _m dam.-lln o-as'541. E I I I x .1. 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF 10 100 t e 1 1 s f .S .; s e 1 16-7-596 H-P-45KUMAR SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS MIT PEAINNro U.S.5',Wn.'t] a5R1Ei 4'LEAR SOVARE 0PENIl S 24 HRS 7 1165 43 6111 It 61N BOl11N 19601 46111 154111 4iQa 4102 00l 0 d49/30 016 41 Ae e4 3/JI' 3/4- 1 1 2" 3" 5'e' IOa 9-0 1 i ' I 1 ' 1 I I I I _ I 4 I , I I 1 I— 1 I I+ BO I -} ice– I { ' t I { xa —� I I 1 ! I 1 I Y , I i i 1 T" 7a ! + ' I ' f I 3a 1 I II ea — — I j T— — I ,a ; ! I I 1 ! I I I � ; 5a • �� f 5a I I I I K j I 1 1 { I I x I . I as ! """.""�p +! I i so 1111 I I 1 I I f I I I ± I t i 30 _20 II I f !T11 1 I I i I H---- 1 — II iI I I • I I � i1 I � — BO I I s9 ---j f ' I I I ! I I ' - 90 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 0 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/1.1 I I 1} I I I 1 11 I , 1 1 1 III II I1 1 1 I a 1 1 1 loo .001 .007 .005 .009 .6119 '.037 .075 .100 .3110 1 .600 1.16 12.36 4.75 9.a 19 1 38.1 74.6 1211 Iva .420 2.0 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS 137 SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT CODDLES FINE I MEDIUM COARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL 42 % SAND 45 .. SILT AND CLAY 13 % SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 1 0 151 Y il g 'e i I 3 TZ These lest esel tts apply boy to the R samples wh ch were tested The .f lading report sha nol be reproduced mond In lul, wllhr 6l the rr-Ilan °n approval of Kumar 8 Assnc'oles, Inr Soave analysis 1eslirg is performed :n accordance wllh ASTM DC 2. AS1U 0136 and/ar ASTU 0114'= FT Er 16-7-596 H-P=•KUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 co C) in -o cn ems CU0 rq W ^G 4a.. C Z r t� 0 0 t, U N 0 c3 ct >, .65 o .j -a -a It ›, cas et c . 7.) � CID C/D • L o W W>2 IL W• O C Z Z a i• g 2 0 U) v D W E fgw ggZ < i— w " — Wcc 2m - ..z.O a a. H W CC 1'0 0 )>) J O WZN0.1 ! ( W_ {� CO U rn co N Jaazcn aim u- 1 0 0 03a 2 a° Cl)D ix Q e N re a J m 2 n Cl)N O a0W ^ Z G 1- <cc — =I-I- - o 1-toz - ac; a 5 o zg0 z r a 0 0 0 W a z 2 Z N N 0 4.0 +1 d� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,SACRAMENTO DISTRICT a iI] . )I 1325 J STREET ` ` SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922 June 8, 2018 Regulatory Division (SPK-2018-00350) Attn: Mr. Christopher Kuelling 4705 Prospect St Littleton, Colorado 80123 Dear Mr. Kuelling: We are responding to your pre-construction notification for a Department of the Army Nationwide permit for the Meadow Lane Development project. The approximately 0.5- acre project site is located on an unnamed tributary to Gore Creek,4872 Meadow Lane, Latitude 39.625°, Longitude -106.286944°, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. Based on the information you provided to this office,the Meadow Lane Development project involves the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into 0.06 acres of waters of the U.S., subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project proposes construction of a culvert, portions of one structure, part of two stone patios, and includes the placement of approximately 106 cubic yards of material including a culvert, gravel, structural fill, topsoil and rock. These activities will result in the permanent loss of 0.03 acre of wetlands and 45 linear feet of streambed, and temporary impacts to approximately 0.03 acre of wetlands. The proposed activities would be conducted in accordance with the PCN Impacts Illustrative Plan dated March 31, 2018. We have determined that activities in waters of the U.S. associated with the project are authorized by Nationwide Permit Number (NWP) 29 - Residential Developments. You must comply with all terms and conditions of the NWP and applicable regional conditions. Information about the NWP terms and conditions and Sacramento District regional conditions for Colorado are available on our website at www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re_gulatory/Permitting/NationwidePerm its.aspx. Within 30 days after completion of the authorized work, you must sign the enclosed Compliance Certification and return it to this office. This verification is valid until March 18, 2022, when the existing NWPs are scheduled to be modified, reissued,or revoked. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked, you will have 12 months from the date of the modification, reissuance or revocation to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions. Failure to comply with the general and regional conditions of this NWP, may result in the suspension or revocation of your authorization. Please refer to identification number SPK-2018-00350 in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at our Grand -2- Junction Regulatory Office, 400 Rood Avenue, Room 224, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, by email at Matthew.R.Montgomery@usace.army.mil, or telephone at (970) 243- 1199 X 1017. We would appreciate your feedback on this permit action including your interaction with our staff and processes. For more information about our program or to complete our Regulatory Program national customer service survey, visit our website at www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Requlatory.aspx. Sincerely, tkeitri Matthew Montgomery Senior Project Manager CO West Section Regulatory Division Enclosure cc: Ms. Daiva Katieb Mr. Mr. Lindsay Hirsh, Summit County Engineering COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION Permit File Name: Meadow Lane Development Action ID: SPK-2018-00350 Nationwide Permit Number: NWP 29 Residential Developments Permittee: Attn: Mr. Christopher Kuelling 4705 Prospect St Littleton, Colorado 80123 County: Eagle County Date of Verification: June 8, 2018 Within 30 days after completion of the activity authorized by this permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 400 Rood Avenue, Room 224 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 D LL-CESPK-RD-Compliance@usace.army.mil Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit your authorization may be suspended, modified, or revoked. If you have any questions about this certification, please contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. * * * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above-referenced permit, including all the required mitigation, was completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit verification. Permittee Signature Date 11 / Boulder Environmental Inc. 2400 Broadway St.,Unit B,Boulder,CO 80304 Phone:(303)382-1175 Fax:1 (866)699-4121 April 15, 2018 Paragon Homes Mr.Ed Venerable Ed@paragonhomesdenver.com SUBJECT: Asbestos Survey and Bulk Sampling for Building Demolition 4872 Meadow Lane,Vail,Colorado Dear Mr.Venerable: Attached is the report for the bulk sampling of suspected asbestos-containing materials at 4872 Meadow Lane,Vail,Colorado. This report must be used for complete building demolition purposes only. This investigation was conducted on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Paragon Homes(client). This report and the findings herein shall not,in whole or in part,be disseminated or conveyed to any other party,nor used by any other party,in whole or in part,without prior written consent of Boulder Environmental Inc. Personnel knowledgeable of asbestos containing materials should always oversee demolition activities. Demolition work should be halted and sampling performed by a state of Colorado licensed building inspector if additional materials, which are suspected of containing asbestos, are encountered. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report,please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Chris Maron CO Building Inspector# 615 11Page Boulder Environmental Inc. 2400 Broadway St.,Unit B,Boulder,CO 80304 Phone:(303)382-1175 Fax:1 (866)699-4121 ASBESTOS SURVEY AND BULK SAMPLING REPORT FOR BUILDING DEMOLIT ION OF THE 4872 Meadow Lane,Vail,Colorado Introduction: On April 11, 2018, Boulder Environmental Inc.'s Building Inspector, Chris Maron, conducted an asbestos-containing materials survey. The purpose of the survey was to identify asbestos containing materials (ACM) and materials presumed to contain asbestos (PACM) as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)for the purposes of eventual building demolition. Sampling: During the sampling process,suspect ACM was separated into three EPA categories. These categories are thermal system insulation(T SI),surfacing ACM, and miscellaneous ACM. T SI includes all materials used to prevent heat loss or gain or water condensation on mechanical systems. Examples of T SI are pipe coverings, boiler insulation, duct wrap,and mud packed fitting cement. Surfacing ACM includes all ACM that is sprayed, trowelled, or otherwise applied to a surface. These applications are most commonly used in fireproofing, decorative and acoustical applications. Miscellaneous materials include all ACM not listed in the thermal system insulation or surfacing categories, such as linoleum,vinyl asbestos flooring, and ceiling tile. Boulder Environmental Inc. followed EPA recommended sampling guidelines for identification of asbestos in bulk matrices. A set of one(1), three(3), five (5), or seven (7) samples were collected for each material type and analyzed by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM). Each sample set was systematically analyzed. Upon determination that a sample in a set contained asbestos, analysis of the remaining samples in the set was discontinued. If no asbestos was detected during the analyses, the suspect material was determined to be negative for asbestos content. Suspect materials are assigned numerical values based on an evaluation of the building materials condition at the time of the inspection. The numbers assigned are: 1. Damaged or significantly damaged thermal system insulation ACM. 2. Damaged friable surfacing ACM. 3. Significantly damaged friable surfacing ACM. 4. Damaged or significantly damaged friable miscellaneous ACM. 5. ACM with potential for damage.6. ACM with potential for significant damage.7. Any remaining friable ACM or friable suspected ACM. *Asbestos*Lead*Industrial Hygiene*Safety*Final Air Testing* 2 *Health and Safety Training* Boulder Environmental Inc. 2400 Broadway St.,Unit B,Boulder,CO 80304 Phone:(303)382-1175 Fax:1 (866)699-4121 Results: The following materials are presumed to be asbestos containing: PRESUMED ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS MATERIAL LOCATION CONDITION Tar impregnated roofing* 5,000 square feet on roof Non friable *Certain non-friable asbestos containing materials such as those noted may remain in a building during complete"conventional"demolition of a building. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,Air Pollution Control Division,does not require a notification to be submitted for a project involving the removal of non-friable tar-impregnated asbestos roofing felts. However,if the roofing felt is friable or will become friable during its removal, all of the permitting,notification, certification and waste handling sections of Regulation No. 8 would apply. Discussion: Sample analyses results are reported in percentages of asbestos and non-asbestos components. The EPA defines any material that contains greater than one percent(1%) asbestos, utilizing PLM, as being an asbestos containing material. Materials that are identified as"none detected" are specified as not containing asbestos. Asbestos removal permit or notification requirements: When the quantity of ACBM to be removed exceeds">260 LF or 160 SF or a 55- gallon drum", a permit or notification and a ten working day waiting period are required before a permit is valid. These circumstances also require a notification fee of$80 for a non-friable asbestos removal or a permit fee of$400 for a friable asbestos removal. These trigger levels apply to all SFRD's which are intended to be demolished. Obtaining a State Demolition Permit: Prior to building demolition/relocation/burning, Colorado requires a state issued demolition permit. The building, or portion thereof, must be free of regulated asbestos containing materials before application for the demolition permit. There is a 10 working-day advance notification requirement for permit applications. Day 1 is the Pt business day following the postmark or hand-delivery date.(Working Day means Monday through Friday and including holidays that falls on any of the days Monday through Friday.) *Asbestos*Lead*Industrial Hygiene*Safety*Final Air Testing* 3 *Health and Safety Training* Boulder Environmental Inc. 2400 Broadway St.,Unit B,Boulder,CO 80304 Phone:(303)382-1175 Fax:1 (866)699-4121 An inspector accredited by the EPA and CDPHE must sign a statement (in blue ink) certifying that the building is eligible for demolition to begin the demolition permit application process. If a demolition follows a permitted or noticed asbestos abatement project within 10 business days of the completion of the abatement project,the 10 working-day advance notification requirement will be waived. Upon request, (as it typically serves your project timeline), BEI will forward the required original application, signed in blue ink, directly to the demolition contractor if you have selected one. This way you are not deemed a courier and do not incur further inconvenience prior to beginning the ten working days after CDPHE receives the fee and application necessary to obtain a demolition permit. Emergency asbestos abatement/demolition permits may be issued if project circumstances pose an immediate hazard to public health and environment. CDPHE does not typically waive permit waiting periods because of financial hardships or planning issues. Requests for emergency asbestos abatement/demolition permits must be made in writijg by the building owner to: Permit Coordinator, Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, APCD-SS-B1, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South,Denver,CO 80246- 1530, Phone: 303-692-3100, Fax: 303-782-0278, Email: cdphe.asbestos@state.co.us. Please note that walk-in business address for CDPHE is different from the mailing address on CDPHE forms. Their physical address is 700 South Ash Street,Denver, Colorado. *Asbestos*Lead*Industrial Hygiene*Safety*Final Air Testing* 4 *Health and Safety Training* Boulder Environmental Inc. 2400 Broadway St.,Unit B,Boulder,CO 80304 Phone:(303)382-1175 Fax:1 (866)699-4121 Conclusion: No asbestos removal is necessary prior to complete,conventional building demolition. Please contact Boulder Environmental Inc. and instruct us where to send the demolition notification application. CDPHE will only process complete applications, bearing the signature of a qualified building inspector signed in blue ink. This survey was conducted following A& L Abatement Inc.'s removal of 8,500 square feet of asbestos containing drywall systems. The abatement was completed on April 2, 2018, under permit 18SU0598A. Both sides of the ski lodge wereabated down to the studs and the only remaining presumed asbestos containing material was the non-friable, tar impregnated roofing noted below. The following presumed asbestos containing materials remain in the building as long as they remain non-friable during conventional building demolition: • —5,000 square feet of tar impregnated roofing on the roof Non-friable asbestos containing materials as noted may remain in a building during demolition.Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines should be followed while disturbing or handling these materials. State of Colorado licenses and certifications for asbestos handling are not required so long as materials remain non- friable. Workers disturbing asbestos containing materials must be OSHA/EPA trained and asbestos containing materials must be disposed of in a land-fill approved by the EPA to receive asbestos waste. Workers disturbing materials that contain 1% asbestos or less must be OSHA trained and follow OSHA handling guidelines while handling and disposing such materials. The results of this survey pertain only to materials tested. The laboratory reports supporting these findings above are attached. Please contact Boulder Environmental Inc. if you have any questions or concerns regarding this report. Sincerely, Chris Maron Project Manager *Asbestos*Lead*Industrial Hygiene*Safety*Final Air Testing* 5 *Health and Safety Training* eTEST NETWORK MOLD s ASBESTOS • LEAD Tuesday, December 01, 2015 ASBESTOS SAMPLING REPORT Presented To: :+ .; Table of Contents 1.0 Abstract 3 2.0 Introduction 4 3.0 Project Scope 4 4.0 Property Type 4 5.0 Certifications 4 6.0 Methodology 4 6.1 Guidelines 4 6.2 Homogeneous Areas 4 6.3 Sample Collection 5 6.4 Sample Classification and Quantities 5 6.5 Sample Characteristics 5 6.6 Laboratory Procedures 6 7.0 Inspection Results 7 8.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 8 If the asbestos containing materials (ACM) are disturbed in anyway that would constitute a minor spill. Minor spill guidelines are included on the next page for you reference 8 Appendix A- Sample Photos&Diagram 10 Appendix B - Licenses 11 Appendix C-Lab Report 13 1.0 Abstract Project Date: November 29th, 2015 Report Date: December 1, 2015 Project Address: 4872 Meadow Ln, Vail, CO 81657 Client: SERVPRO of Summit Inspector: Michael Regall, Colorado License # 19847 Laboratory: Reservoirs, Denver, CO Project Type: Limited Asbestos Inspection Results: Asbestos was found in the scope of this inspection. To the Reader: Thank you for choosing eTest Network, LLC for your environmental testing needs. The following report should be all you need to move forward with your project. If you have any questions or if your government agency requires additional information please just reach out to us. We are happy to be a resource for our clients. Sin cerely / r • Michael Regall Inspector, Owner Phone: 970-368-2399 Email: mike@etestnetwork.com Web:www.eTestNetwork.com 2.0 Introduction ETest Network, LLC (ETN) was hired to do a limited asbestos inspection at the project address and collected bulk samples of suspect asbestos containing materials (ACM) within a portion of the property. The inspection's purpose was to identify potentially hazardous ACM prior to a remediation and/or demolition. 3.0 Project Scope The project tested the drywall and texture throughout the left and right unit. 4.0 Property Type This site is a residential condo. 5.0 Certifications ETest Network, LLC is licensed by the State of Colorado, Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE), as an Asbestos Consulting Firm. License Number ACF-20073. Mr. Michael Regall is licensed as an Asbestos Building Inspector by the CDPHE. License Number 19847. 6.0 Methodology 6.1 Guidelines Guidelines used for the limited inspection were established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the CDPHE. Statistically random bulk-samples representative of the suspect ACM of each homogeneous area were collected according to the guidelines published as EPA Final Rule: Title II of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 USC, Sections 2641 through 2654 and in compliance with 40 CFR, Part 763 and CDPHE Regulation Number 8, Part B - "Emission Standards for Asbestos." (Reg. 8). 6.2 Homogeneous Areas ETN has organized field information according to the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) definition of a Homogeneous Area (HA). AHERA defines a Homogeneous Area as "suspect material of similar age, appearance, function, and texture." Samples collected within an HA can be assumed to represent the entire HA so long as the HA adheres to the definition and samples are taken in sufficient quantity to meet at least the minimum standard. Homogeneous Areas are assigned by ETN for each type of suspect ACM in the areas defined by the scope of the limited inspection. 6.3 Sample Collection ETN has collected sample quantities for each HA based on regulatory guidelines outlined in Section 6.4 of this report. The sample locations were randomized based on a simple grid pattern applied to a sketch of the corresponding HA. Sampling is by nature a destructive process and has been conducted only in areas already slated for remediation/demolition. The possibility exists that there may be additional suspect ACM materials hidden from view of the inspector at the time of the inspection which will require a re-inspection and additional sampling. 6.4 Sample Classification and Quantities Procedures for sampling are based on both the type and relative amount of each suspect ACM within the HA. ETN has collected at least the minimum number of samples based on the guidelines below. The area of each HA has been approximated based on field measurements. Types of materials and areas are listed below: A. Surfacing Materials: up to 1,000 ft2 of material requires a minimum of three (3) samples; between 1,000 ft2 and 5,000 ft2 of material requires a minimum of five (5) samples; over 5,000 ft2 of material requires a minimum of seven (7) samples; one (1) sample of each patch B. Thermal System Insulation (TSI): each homogeneous area requires a minimum of three (3) samples; at least one (1) sample must be collected from each patch; and collect enough samples sufficient to adequately assess the material and determine the asbestos content for TSI fittings such as pipe elbows or T's. C. Miscellaneous Materials: collect enough samples sufficient to determine the asbestos content. 6.5 Sample Characteristics ETN inspectors classify sample materials based on friability and condition. A sample may either be friable or non-friable. A friable material is defined by the EPA as "any materials that can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry." By contrast a non-friable material will withstand hand pressure. Sample condition will describe the level to which, if at all, the sampled material is damaged at the time of inspection. - Good: Material with no visible damage or deterioration, or showing only very limited damage or deterioration. - Damaged: The surface is crumbling, blistered, water-stained, gouged, marred or otherwise abraded over less than one-tenth of the surface if the damage is evenly distributed (one-quarter if the damage is localized) - Significant Damaged: One tenth of the surface crumbling, blistered, water-stained, gouged, marred, deteriorated, showing adhesive failure or if material is hanging from the surface (one- quarter if the damage is localized) 6.6 Laboratory Procedures Bulk samples of suspect ACM were analyzed by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM)with dispersion staining, as described in 40 CFR Part 763 and the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). For analysis the samples were sent to a laboratory that is accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NAVLAP). Samples containing more than 1% asbestos are regulated and must be remediated by a licensed firm. Samples reported as "Trace" must be considered as containing over 1% asbestos unless it is re- analyzed using a point count method which verifies it to contain less than 1% asbestos. 6.7 Untested Materials Any potential ACM that is not explicitly listed in the inspection results and lab report is an untested material. All such materials are assumed to be asbestos containing until they have been tested. This includes layers of ACM material that are hidden at the time of the test, layers of ACM material which are underneath the surface layers, areas outside the tested scope of work, and any other potential ACM in the property. In the event that these ACM materials are discovered please contact ETN immediately to have additional testing done prior to any disturbance. ETN is not responsible for spills, cleanup, damages, or any other cost, or legal actions as a result of the disturbance of such ACM materials. 7.0 Inspection Results ETN determined that the following suspect homogenous area(s) (HA) were within the scope of the limited inspection. HA Sample Rooms&Affected Material& Size Type Condition Result Numbers Areas Layers 1 01-07 Throughout Left Unit Drywall &Texture +5000 SM D-FR 5% SQFT CHRY Trowel Texture 2 08-12 Throughout Right Unit Drywall &Texture <5000 SM D-FR 5% SQFT CHRY Key: SQFT—Square Feet G—Good TR-Trace Amount <1%-Further Testing Needed LF—Lineal Feet D—Damaged HA- SM-Surfacing Material SD-Significantly ND—"Non Detect" 1%or Greater—Area has Homogeneous Damaged means there is no asbestos and needs licensed Area MM-Misc Material asbestos present remediation FR-Friable TSI—Thermal System Insulation NF-Non-Friable • Sample level detail is contained in the lab report. 8.0 Conclusion and Recommendations ACM was identified in the residence within HA 1-2 of the scope of the limited inspection and bulk-sampling performed on November 29th, 2015,therefore, according to OSHA standards professionally trained and licensed abatement workers are required to remove or disturb the above-referenced sampled materials. Be sure to isolate areas that contain ACM and prevent any disturbance of the materials. This includes any overspray or other bits of material that may be found on other structural materials in the area of the identified ACM. Turn off all air movement equipment and seal off all HVAC leading to or from the affected areas. If the ACM has been damaged or disturbed in any way it is necessary to immediately restrict access to the space. Workers entering this area must wear all appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Shut down any and all equipment in the affected area including air movement, dehumidification, and HVAC. Be sure to check with certified HVAC contractor to prevent any damage caused by freezing in cold weather environments. Lock the space and place appropriate signage on the exterior building or unit to prevent unauthorized entry. Take note of all layers and areas listed in Section 7.0 of this report and of the Lab Report in the Appendix. Stop work and contact ETN prior to removing any materials not listed in this report. Likewise if the scope of work is expanded after the time of testing, contact ETN prior to removing any materials in other areas of the building. See Section 6.7 for further explanation. If you need assistance in reading any portion of this report or in interpreting any of the results, please contact your ETN inspector. We are happy to be of assistance. If the asbestos containing materials (ACM) are disturbed in anyway that would constitute a minor spill. Minor spill guidelines are included on the next page for you reference.