Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03752I�^ , GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N° 3752 109 8th Street Suite "$03 Assessor's Parcel No. Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81801 Phone (303) 945-8212 This does not Constitute INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit. ,c l' 11 Kn b. �Ow6r's No Present Address p�P • a - 6o�c � Q l b 1 `1f Phone �4aa System Location�' e � Ie�S Ofd`"' Look Descri� Assessor's Parcel. No. ) t SYSYEIG DESIGN I % Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) �—Other U J A � Percolation Rete (minutes/inch) Number o1 Be�dr(oom/s/(or other) Required Absorption Area - See Attached ` �x�� Special Setback Requirements: i , f � J ( Date nspector , 'FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROV ' �as installed) Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Cdt )Ing Installation 0 OPd�� `System Installer�.� Septicsrr *k Capacity 4 6� w Sep Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name t Septic Tank Access Wlthin 8' of surface . `Absorption Area 12-)(;2V)13) Absorption Area1YPe and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name Adequate compliance with County and State Other Date r.L- fxL Inspector RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE *CONDITIONS: ffffff 1. All installation mustcomplywith all requirementsof the ColoradoState Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Ch for 25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984. 2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully compiled with County zoning and building requirements. n- nection toor usewith any dwelling or structures notapproved bythe Building and Zoning office $hall automaticaliybe avlolatlon ra requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. !I 3. Any person who constructs. alters, orinstallsan Individual sewagedisposal system in a mannerwhich Involves a knowing and mattIrlal variation from the terms or specifications contained In the application of permit commits a Class 1, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine`, e months In )ail or both). r t White -APPL19ANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION OWNER �-Ku. c � � Ccti.�✓�t` ADDRESS TC" e4 Lo PHONE (Dom Cf CONTRACTOR �x mei Cil ? V� C NE�c c c Cts ADDRESS' t'n�1� PHONECD -cln3 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 FACILITY: Near what City of Town'�'�"L2_ C- U Size of Lot (J I rd rye e Legal Description orAd es _ c yj l Ati` \j CO WASTES TYPE: Qq DWELLING (;33 ( ) TRANSIENT USE ( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) OTHER—DESCRIBE BUILDING OR SERVICEE TYPE: /�l f Number of Bedrooms _1 Number (/)� Garbage Grinder ( ) Automatic Washer SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: V) WELL If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: ( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES ('} Dishwasher ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? A site plan is required to be submitted that indicates the following MINIMUM distances: Leach Field to Well: Septic Tank to Well: 100 feet 50 feet Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course: 50 feet Septic System (septic tank & disposal field) to Property Lines: 10 feet YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT A SITE PLAN. GROUND CONDITIONS: Depth to first Ground Water Table Percent Ground Slope TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED: (yQ SEPTIC TANK ( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) CHEMICAL TOILET( ) ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) INCINERATION TOILET OTHER -DESCRIBE FINAL DISPOSAL BY: (t) ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL OTHER -DESCRIBE ( ) VAULT ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE ( ) EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ( ) SAND FILTER ( ) WASTEWATER POND 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 per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes inch in hole No. 3 Minutes per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes ner inch in hole No. _ Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil absorption tests: Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: 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 famished 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 correct 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 falsification 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. Signed J ) nDate Ci —o PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! L Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 1-7 (��(/�� 5020 CountypRoagsd 154 t V Vl i Phone: 970.945-988 olorado 81601 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com April 18, 2002 Darnelda Counts: P.O. Box 1846 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Job No. 102 204 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed Residence, Tract 44, Antlers Orchard, 233 Road, Garfield County, Colorado. Dear Ms. Counts: 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 accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to you dated March 21, 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 residence will be a single story manufactured structure over a walkout basement level located in the area of Pits 1 and 2 shown on Fig. 1. Ground floor is proposed to be slab -on -grade. Cut depths are expected to range between about 3 to 6 feet. Foundation loadings for this type of construction are assumed to be relatively light and typical of the proposed type of construction. The septic disposal system is proposed to be located downhill to the south of the proposed residence. 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 at the time of our field work. The site is located on a southeast facing hillside. The ground surface in the building area slopes moderately down to the southeast at grades between about 5% and 10%. There is about 4 feet of elevation difference across the building area. An irrigation ditch is located about 30 feet to the west of the building area. A small ephemeral drainage is located about 200 feet to the east. Vegetation consists of scattered sagebrush, grass and weeds. Cobbles and boulders are exposed on the ground surface. Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating two exploratory pits in the building area and one profile pit in the septic disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The logs of the pits are Darnelda Counts April 18, 2002 Page 2 presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about I foot of topsoil and 5 to 6 feet of stiff to very stiff sandy clay and silt, consist of relatively dense, clayey to silty sandy gravel with cobbles and small boulders. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the sandy clay and clay matrix soils, presented on Figs. 3 and 4, generally indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a low to moderate expansion potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. A sample of the sandy clay matrix from Pit 1 at 6 feet showed a minor collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted and relatively high compressibility upon increased loading after wetting. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of silty gravel (minus 5 inch fraction) obtained from the site are presented on Fig. 5. The laboratory testing is summarized on Table I. No free water was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist to moist. Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, spread footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf can be used for support of the proposed residence with some risk of post - construction movement if the bearing soils become wet. The movement could be differential between footings bearing on the upper fine-grained soils and footings bearing on the underlying gravels. Precautions should be taken to prevent wetting of the bearing soils during and after construction. The settlement/heave potential of the subgrade 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 encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils. 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 weight of at least 50 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. The clay and clay matrix soils appear to have variable settlement/heave potential which should be further evaluated 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 H -H UEOTECH Darnelda Counts April 18, 2002 Page 3 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 basement 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. Underdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an 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 drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum I % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular material used in the underdrain 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 drain gravel backfill should be at least 11/2 feet deep. An impervious membrane such as 20 mil PVC should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting of the bearing soils. 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. Drying could increase the expansion potential of the clay 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. Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on-site, finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We H -P GEOTECH Darnelda Counts April 18, 2002 Page 4 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 could be needed uphill to direct surface runoff around the residence. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation, such as sod, should be located at least 10 feet from the building. Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on March 28, 2002 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit and three percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. 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 soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 and consist of about 1 foot of topsoil and 6 feet of sandy clay and silt overlying relatively dense clayey to silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders to the pit depth of 8 feet. The percolation test results are presented in Table II. The percolation test results indicate an infiltration rate between 30 and 90 minutes per inch with an average of 60 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. We recommend the infiltration area be oversized due to the relatively slow percolation rate. 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. 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 H -P GEOTECH Darnelda Counts April 18, 2002 Page 5 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. Jo dy Zamson, Jr., P. . eviewed by: e'F�'"v�. Daniel E. Hardin, P.1 :t v 2 3 t7t 7; JZA/ksw attachments H -P GEOTECH LOT 37 PROPERTY BOUNDARY LOT 44 1 POWER I INF APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" - 100' IRRIGATION DITCH BENCH MARK: GROUND AT PROPOSED LL LOCATION; ELEV.-100.0'. ASSUMED ■ PIT 2 PIT 10 PROFILE PIT ■ P 1 Q QP3 102 204I GEPWORT ICALW AK I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS I Fig. 1 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample. Disturbed bulk sample. NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on March 27, 2002 with a Caterpiller 312 Trackhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark shown shown on Fig. 1. 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 types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( X ) DD — Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve LL = Liquid Limit ( % ) PI = Plasticity Index ( R 102 2041 GEOTiEC NICALW AK I LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS I Fig. 2 LL QL 8 PIT 1 PIT 2 PROFILE PIT ELEV.= 102' ELEV.= 98' ELEV.= 92' 0 0 wc-&5 LL —00115 —200077 LLMI 5 PI -20 5 NC08.6 000101 wC08.8 6.0 DD0108 i +4-44L -' -20027 LL021 WC09.5 P103 DD -121 10 10 LEGEND: ® TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, firm, slightly moist, brown. ©CLAY AND SILT (CL—ML); sandy, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist to moist, browns, medium plasticity. GRAVEL (GC—GM); clayey to silty, sandy, with cobbles and small boulders, medium dense r. to dense, slightly moist, gray and brown, slightly calcareous, subongular rock fragments. 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample. Disturbed bulk sample. NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on March 27, 2002 with a Caterpiller 312 Trackhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark shown shown on Fig. 1. 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 types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( X ) DD — Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve LL = Liquid Limit ( % ) PI = Plasticity Index ( R 102 2041 GEOTiEC NICALW AK I LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS I Fig. 2 LL QL 8 1 2 3 n 4 U 5 � 1 .8 CL 0 w 2 U 3 102 204 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 0.1 1.0 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Moisture Content - 6.6 percent Dry Density a 108 pcf Sample of: Sandy Cloy From: Pit 2 at 6 Feet 10 APPUED PRESSURE — ksf SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 100 Fig. 3 eriiu�Moisture Content 6*6 percentDry Density 101 pcfSample at Sandy Cloy Matrix:From: Pit 1 at 6 Feet vm�sx���n ■■■min■�m�wm 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 0.1 1.0 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Moisture Content - 6.6 percent Dry Density a 108 pcf Sample of: Sandy Cloy From: Pit 2 at 6 Feet 10 APPUED PRESSURE — ksf SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 100 Fig. 3 ■■n��■mi�■mm ■111■IrlRllll■■IlAlll w�unw■ne�dnm NIR ��q■n■■Ilil■■11 Nlilp ��I■■II■ U) J D U) w Ui w H i D 1 IIII ' HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 11 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 102 204 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MINANCH) P-1 46 15 91/2 9 1/2 90 9 9 0 9 9 0 9 81/2 112 81/2 8114 1/4 81/4 8 1/4 8 8 0 8 7 314 1/4 P.2 46 15 9 8112 1/2 30 81/2 7 112 1 7 112 71/4 1/4 7 114 7 1/4 7 61/2 1/2 8112 6 1/2 6 5 112 1/2 5 112 5 112 p -g 44 15 11 101/2 1/2 60 10112 101/2 0 101/2 10 114 1/4 101/4 10114 0 101/4 10 114 10 93/4 114 93/4 9 112 114 91/2 9 114 114 Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on March 27, 2002. Percolation tests were conducted on March 28, 2002. The average percolation rates were based on the last three readings of each test.