Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03722PROPERTY Legal Description of A .. SYSTEM DESIGN GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT 109 8th Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone (303) 945-8212 r of Bedrooms (or other) -------. Permit N~ 3 7 2 2 Assessor's Parcel No. This does not constitute a building or use permit. Special Setback Requirements: <'f~#V~ L'Y' I'( ,,U'.J-l-). Date ____________ _ FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROV'Jl(as installed) Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Befor~.Covering Installation System Installer ________________________________________ _ Septic Tank Capacity ______________________________________ _ Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name-------------------------------- Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface -------------------------------- Absorption Area---------------------------------------- Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name-------------------------- Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements _____________________ _ Other ___________________________________________ _ Date _____________ Inspector ___________________________ _ RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE •CONDITIONS: 1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter 25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984. 2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con- nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. 3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine -6 months in jail or both). While -APPLICANT Yellow -DEPARTMENT f INDIVIDUAL SEW AGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION OWNER s-P 12.. \.)./1.I h "Su N Mt'S A : N c. ' ADDRESS 0Io'1 St lfP?rz. tt . C1'\.k£ CONTRACTORTBT /£1.ekef,A ~:rlf.-L..~'-S;iM.c I Jr )I PHONE ________ _ PERMIT REQUEST FOR (...-)"NEW INSTALLATION ( )_ALTERATION ( )REPAIR Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation test holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 4). LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACil.ITY: Near what City of Town ~ DNOA1,,;-P.a Size of Lot / D • l O l QC.... • LegalDescriptionorAddress Lo± )S( Sfirl~"§ 60..V'lc.h&.kd.: S:."llO!l\U- WASTES TYPE: ( ) DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE /.Alt\<_ (vf COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES ( )OTIIER-DESCRIBE. ______________ _ BUILDINGORSERVICETYPE:.~r~~EX.LlB""-L..JH~o=\:fS<-i==----------------- Number of Bedrooms "'2.. ------------~ Number of Persons ------ ( ) Garbage Grinder ( ) Automatic Washer ( ) Dishwasher SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (vJ WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: ______________ _ DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: ___________ _ Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? ______________ _ A site plan is reguired te be submitted that indicates the following MINIMUM distances: Leach Field to Well: 100 feet Septic Tank to Well: 50 feet Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream er Water Coone: 50 feet Septic System te Property Lines: (septic tank &leach field)10 feet YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT A SITE PLAN. GROUND CONDITIONS: 91eMT ~ ~""¥> Hfl H.o/er,l ~ Depth to first Ground Water Table _____________________ _ Percent Ground Slope _________________________ _ 2 lYPE 9F INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED: (v) SEPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT ( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE ( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE ( ) CHEMICAL TOILET ( ) OTHER -DESCRIBE FINAL DISPOSAL BY: ( ) ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) EV APOTRANSPIRATION ( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER ( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) WASTEWATER POND ( ) OTHER-DESCRIBE WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE? PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the Percolation Test) Minutes _____ ,.,,er inch in hole No. I Minutes ____ _.per inch in hole NO. 3 Minutes per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes er inch in hole NO. Name, address and telephone ofRPE who made soil absorption tests:_9_._l1_.S'~-"'"7:_."'1_.f...:¥'---------­ l/hl H~, HP 1.-a.!eek SoZn rLl ... ~ Y, \S"l:\ C.leai,,,....J 3fr.'aj.S 1Co gi"ol Name, address and telephone ofRPE responsible for design of the system: ___________ _ 'Dfi.@" Po~ ...... 'M~w~ Rrl&'.NJ?W-.W" c,NA2 g1r3 ·'li'ti.9 Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applicant or by the local health department for purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the permit is subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations made, information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to be true and comet to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local department of health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any fillsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based upon said application and in legal action for perjury as provided by law. "-t. ~ nm.__,'1-4-=--J~~-1--=-J o-=--L __ _ PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! 3 Designate North Arrow Your Neighbor's Name & Address Your Plot -Shape to Fit (No Scale) \)'~txl~ ~ 5qk"L Locate well, all streams, irrigation ditchs, and any water courses. Draw in your house, septic tank & system, detached garages, and driveway. If a change of location is necessary, you must submit a corrected drawing, before a Certificate of Occupation will be issued. County Road (Note the Road Number and Name) me c\~wpdoos\plot.loc l3AJ ·\ Your Neighbor's Name & Address . ' . ~tech March 13, 2002 Becky Stirling 704 Skipper Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Hep"·orth-Pa·wlak Geotechnical, lnc. 5020 Countv Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com Job No. 102 182 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed Spa, Lot 28, Stirling Ranch, County Road 162, La Casita Road, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Ms. Stir ling: As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and percolation test for foundation and septic disposal designs at the subject site. The study was conducted in general accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to you dated March 4, 2002. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this report. Proposed Construction: The proposed spa building will be a two story wood frame structure approximately 2, 700 sq. feet in size. Ground floor is proposed to be slab-on- grade. Cut depths are expected to range between about 3 to 5 feet. Foundation loadings are assumed to be relatively light and typical of the proposed type of construction. The septic disposal system is proposed to be located to the south and downhill of the proposed building. If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report. Site Conditions: The site was vacant and covered with up to 1 foot of snow at the time of our field exploration. An access drive enters the lot from the south. The topography consists of rolling hills with grades between 10 to 15 % generally sloping down to the west. There is approximately 5 feet of elevation difference across the building footprint. A dry seasonal irrigation ditch is located to the west (downhill) of the proposed leach field. Vegetation consists of native grasses and weeds with thick sagebrush and pinion trees located on the hillside to the south of the proposed . . . Becky Stir ling March 13, 2002 Page2 development. Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating two exploratory pits in the general building area and one profile pit in the septic disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The exact location of the building had not been finalized at the time of our field exploration. The logs of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered in the general building area, below about 'h feet of organic topsoil, consist of stiff, sandy silty clay. Relatively dense basalt gravel, cobbles and boulders in a sandy silty clay matrix was encountered below the clay in Pit 1 at a depth of 5 V2 feet. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a low to moderate expansion potential when wetted. The sample from Pit 2 at 5 feet, presented on Fig. 4, showed a minor collapse potential (settlement under a constant load) when wetted and high compressibility with increased loading after wetting. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavation and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread footings placed on the undisturbed natural subsoils designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf for support of the proposed spa building. Expansive clays encountered at the footing bearing level may need to be subexcavated and the footing level deepened. The expansion potential of the footing sub grade soils should be evaluated at the time of construction. Footings should be a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose and disturbed soils and expansive clays encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to competent bearing soils. Voids created by the removal of basalt boulders can be backfilled with compacted road base or concrete. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost protection. Placement of footings at least 36 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this area. Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit H-P GEOTECH .. Becky Stirling March 13, 2002 Page 3 weight of at least 55 pcf for the on-site soil as backfill. Floor Slabs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction with some risk of slab settlement/heave if the subgrade soils become wetted. The slab subgrade should be evaluated for expansion soils 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 4-inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath floor level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2- inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the structure has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion potential of the soils. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement and walkway areas. A swale should be constructed uphill to direct surface runoff around the building. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of H-P GEOTECH Becky Stirling March 13, 2002 Page4 all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 5 feet from the building. Percolation Testing: Initial percolation testing was conducted at P-1, P-2 and P-3 on March 7, 2002 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. Additional percolation testing was performed at P-4, P-5 and P-6 on March 19, 2002 at the request of Todd Welch with Welch Excavating, Inc. One profile pit and six percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. I. The test holes (nominal 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The test holes were protected from frost penetration overnight by rigid foam insulation. The soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 and consist of stiff, sandy silty clay overlying relatively dense basalt gravel, cobbles and boulders in a sandy silty clay matrix. Percolation tests P-1, P-2 and P-3 were run in the upper clay soils. The percolation test results for the clay soils indicate infiltration rates between 30 and 90 minutes per inch with an average infiltration rate of 60 minutes per inch. Additional percolation tests performed at P-4, P-5 and P-6 were run in the deeper coarse granular soils. The percolation test results for the coarse granular soils indicate infiltration rates between 24 and 28 minuted per inch with an average of 26 minutes per inch. The percolation test results are presented in Table I. In our opinion, the septic system should be based in the deeper coarse granular soils due to the higher infiltration rate. We understand that the septic system will be designed by a civil engineer. 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 expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory pits 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 at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. H-P GEOTECH .. Becky Stirling March 13, 2002 Page 5 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications 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. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Trevor L. Knell Reviewed by: attachments cc: Timberline Engineering -Attn: Dave Powell Welch Excavating -Attn: Todd Welch H-P GEOTECH .. APPROXIMATE SCALE 1· -100' 7050 / ~~40 - -__ ..... _:'~':::.....'"'."""------- -----,,,.-/~..._.--.., ~-----........... ........ -_.. ....... ' ' ' ...... ----------- l ...... ...... ','S-- PITri ........... , PIT 1 I \ P-3 \ • / / ..--_.. --._'" '-P-;!h .6,P-5 .6, / '\PROFILE. .6, 7 P-4 / / l PIT /P- 1 .6,/ PROPOSED // I I I I /P-6 SPA / I / BUILDING/ / I I / ( I I / / ~19JNAf. LOCATION) _.. _.. __ I I/ r /..--,.....---\ ------- 1 I/ / -- I I ~I I / ..-..- 1 I ~I I II /,,,...-- / /OE/ 'j I / / ' - - - - - --1------ / I/fl/ I I I ..-- -\ / tt/t I I I (". I I-ct I I I \ -- / !fit I l \ \ I ~I I . I \ \ I /81 I I \\ ' I I I f ', 11/ I I \ ' It I I \ '\ I I I I I \ ', / \ \\ \\ ........----\ 7030 '\ \ /\ \ J'lq, \\ / I I ~-i. I f I ~ f I .---r~--~ <... I I ·~ I I 7050 \ \ .... .... 102 182 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES I 7080 I / I I _.., / ' / Fig. 1 .. s::; -! 0 5 PIT 1 ELEV.- WC-8.0 00-102 -:Z00-91 WC-9.6 00•97 -200-85 PIT 2 ELEV.• wc-11.0 D0-93 -:Z00-91 PIT 3 ELEV.• 10 LEGEND: NOTES: TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, loose, slightly moist, brawn. CLAY (CL); sandy, silty, stiff ta very stiff, slightly moist to moist, brown. BASALT GRAVEL, COBBLES AND BOULDERS (GM-GC); in a sandy sftty clay matrix, medium dense with stiff matrix, slightly moist to moist, brown and white, calcareous. 2• Diameter hand driven liner sample. 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on Morch 6, 2002 with a Cot 420 backhoe. 0 5 10 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features on the site pion provided. 3. Elevations of the exploratory pits were obtained by Interpolation between contours on the site pion provided. 4. The exploratory pit 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 pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between material t}'Pes and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered In tile pits at the time of excavating. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( ~ ) DD • Dry Density ( pcf ) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 102 182 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 -., ~ .. . Moisture Content • 8.0 percent Dry Density = 102 pcf -200 -91 percent Sample of: Sandy Clay "' 1 From:Pft 1 at 4 Feet ~ ............ c c 0 Cl. x ~ .. "\ w I { c 1 ~ \ \ .. ., \ ... Cl. 2 E Expansion 0 ' u upon 3 wetting 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf Moisture Content = 9.6 percent Dry Density = 97 pcf -200 = 85 percent Sample of: Sandy Clay Matrix 2 From:Pit 1 at 6 Feet "' I~ ~ 1 ~ c ' c CL "'-. " x w I 0 -' \ § \ - :l 1 ~ ., Expansion ... I\ CL E upon I\ 0 wetting u 2 3 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf 102 182 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Moisture Content -11.0 percent Dry Density = 93 pcf -200 -91 percent Sample of: Sandy Clay from: Pit 2 at 5 Feet 0 1 " \ -r--Compression .... ~ ~ upon wetting 2 \ 3 !\ N \ 5 4 o; \ .. ~ Q. 5 E 1 0 0 6 7 8 9 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf 102 182 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. .. • HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH (INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF ATEND OF (MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL (INCHES) !INCHES) P-1 22 15 9% 814 814 8 8 714 714 614 614 614 614 6 6 514 5% 5 P·2 21 15 9% 9 9 9 9 814 814 8 8 8 8 8 8 714 7% 7% p.3 22 15 914 9 9 814 8% 8 8 7% 7Y2 7% 7% 7 7 7 7 6% DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) 1 14 14 1 0 14 14 14 14 0 Y1 14 0 0 14 % y. y. y. y. % % 0 % JOBNO. 102 182 Page 1 of 2 - AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) 30 60 90 Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on March 6, 2002. Percolation tests were conducted on March 7, 2001. The test holes were protected from frost penetration overnight with rigid foam insulation. The average percolation rates were based on the last three readings of each test. The percolation tests were performed in the clay soils overlying the basalt fragments. • . .. '!