Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02764 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit 2764 109 Bth Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. GlenwOod Spr)ngs, Colorado 81801 Phona 945-8212 1 This does not constitute INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit. r PROPERTY t - Paul & Christie Cutrigh e sent Addre s P.O. Box 997, New Castle Phone 876 - 5166 Owner's Name Rol System Location S 1 - 3.13 -, New Castle Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. Kock— (--EACfr - (- et c- .. -- G 2_, T' SYSTEM DESIGN 1-0 ptecti t l CPA M 66K cep --a) 3 76 , et a ' no 0 Septic Tank Capacity (galfoj I ( It ft Other C6-C He : n 3(3 Q f/ Mfi1 1 ( Percolation Rate (minutes /inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) Required Absorption Area - See Attached ' Special Setback Requirements: J , � f e Date Q `27 -'t7 Inspector /^ /Cm t �'' r, FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation , '!, System Installer Il �n �‘/ CC) ►2 N(AFi Septic Tank Capacity 11 0 0 Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name r 0 ( P E LA He) • Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface \ j C S Absorption Area 3 2. � 1n Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name I ' •t 1 F I ( T r ` A 1 0 h £ 1 ' Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements V t S l e AA°Veo L e 4 C'• - ,r cp At3ove 2o6 � A x100 / KA19 A coop fie) Date C ) ` 1 7 / Inspector A `�-� t 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 8 months In )ail or both). White - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT... • n / 4/d INDIVIDIJAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION / OWNER 1 4 5 v1/ � da - ADDRESS Po &X n 997 ,41w C64; en CO PHONE e -S/ 4 CONTRACTOR /QX Cor5huo4o/1 ADDRESS PO &X /33/ Nsve24 Cd S /SZ6 PHONE Z`z /-g9 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 Neu' &ss4 n Size of Lot 9 QcrCS Legal Description or Address 4 /678 3// Ago/ /Veto Asik , CO WASTES TYPE: (A DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE ( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON- DOMESTIC WASTES ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: S.,Sfe, R .Ces.dorc Number of Bedrooms 3 Number of Persons ( ) Garbage Grinder ( ) Automatic Washer ( ) Dishwasher SOTJRCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: >A WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: Sf 121. /eS 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: 100 feet Septic Tank to Well: 50 feet Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course: 50 feet Septic System to Property Lines: 10 feet YOIJR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOLJT A SITE PLAN. GRO! JND CONDITIONS: Depth to first Ground Water Table Percent Ground Slope 2 TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED: 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 ( ) EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER ( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) WASTEWATER POND ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE? /th PERCOLATION TEST RF,SIJLTS• (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the Percolation Test) Minutes per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes per inch in hole NO. 3 Minutes per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes per inch in hole NO. _ Name, address and telephone ofRPE 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 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 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 4kC -_)2 c Date 3 97 PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! 3 514j. Dopy. Cd p HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945 -8454 Phone 970 945 -7988 December 11, 1996 Paul and Christy Cutright P.O. Box 997 New Castle, Colorado 81647 Job No. 196 570 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation testing, Proposed Residence, 4678 County Road 311, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. and Mrs. Cutright: As requested, Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and percolation testing for foundation and septic disposal system designs at the subject site. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to you dated October 6, 1996. 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 wood frame structure over a crawlspace located on the site as shown on Fig. 1. Garage floor will be slab -on- grade. Cut depths are expected to range between about 2 to 4 feet. Foundation loadings for this type of construction are assumed to be relatively light. If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report. Site Conditions: The site was vacant at the time of our field work. The proposed building area is located on the eastern slope of a south trending ridge that is relatively flat with about 3 to 4 feet of elevation difference. The proposed leach field is located about 60 to 70 feet downhill to the east of the proposed residence. Vegetation consists of sparse grass and weeds with scattered sagebrush and pinon trees. Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating two exploratory pits in the proposed building area and a profile pit in the septic disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The logs of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered in the proposed building area consist of up to 1 /2 foot of topsoil overlying sandstone /siltstone bedrock. Excavating into the bedrock was difficult due to the rock hardness and refusal was encountered in the deposit. The subsoils encountered in the profile pit excavated downhill to the west of the proposed residence consisted of 2 feet of topsoil overlying 2 feet of silt and 4 feet of • Paul and Christy Cutright December 11, 1996 Page 2 • stiff blocky clay. No free water was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist to moist. The bedrock was dry to slightly 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 bedrock designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. Excavation into the bedrock could require blasting or other rock excavation techniques. Footings should be a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose and disturbed bedrock encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed sandstone / siltstone. 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 10 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 fine- grained soil as backfill, exclusive of topsoil and oversized rock. Floor Slabs: The natural sandstone /siltstone, below the topsoil, is suitable to support lightly to moderately loaded slab -on -grade 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 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 1111 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 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 H -P GEOTECH • • Paul and Christy Cutright December 11, 1996 Page 3 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 6 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. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. Percolation Testing: The results of percolation tests conducted at the site are presented in Table I. The test locations are shown on Fig. 1 and the log of the profile pit is shown on Fig. 2. The percolation rates varied from 27 to 160 minutes per inch. The slower rate of 160 minutes per inch was measured in the stiff clays encountered below the silt. A conventional infiltration system should be feasible if based in the upper silt soils. The system should be oversized due to the relatively shallow depth of the less pervious clays. Mounding of the system could also be needed and should be evaluated at the time of excavation. Limitations: This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other 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 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. H -P GEOTECH • . , Paul and Christy Cutright December 11, 1996 Page 4 If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, EPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECH L,,.; "INC. "t „ o�s, t d son, Jr., '. D '0 Re iewed By: ttboa t •--.'L ‘‘‘ /ONAL t --- Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. JZA /kmk attachments H -P GEOTECH APPROXIMATE SCALE N. I • ACCESS EASEMENT I 400 . .� • \ \\ PROPERTY EXISTING BOUNDARIES � DIRT ROAD 1 BUILDING � TE 1 } • PIT I PI W Iv OP 2 PROPOSED 1 RESIDENCE / OP3 / ,I I � / ' 2 / / / I I / 1 \ 1 / I / \ \ roe / , / / / / /go \ " \ \ p 1 1 1I 1( I I I \ 1 / 1 t 90 1 1 1 1 1 k \ \, \ .I I I I` 1 1 1 \ . ) 1 1 1 1 , 1 I ■ \ 11,, 1 / / / / I I / I / / / ) , APPROXIMATE SCALE / I , / 11' = 100' / i / ' � 1 / , / / / / // / 90 / HEPWORTH - 196 570 1 GEOTEECHNICAL .INC. j LOCATION AND EXPLORATORY 1 F19• 1 ' PIT 1 PIT 2 PROFILE PIT 0 0 t _1 Y d _ 5 Y — n d — o o _ 10 10 LEGEND: N TOPSOIL; sandy silt, slightly clayey, organics, soft, slightly moist to moist, brown. SILT ( ML ); sandy, slightly clayey, medium stiff to stiff, slightly moist, brown. / CLAY ( CL ); silty, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, blocky, greenish brown. ( Weathered claystone ) / / A WEATHERED SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE; medium hard, fractured, slightly moist, light brown to greenish brown. Secondary carbonation. SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE; hard to very hard. dry to slightly moist, light brown. T Practical backhoe refusal. ' Disturbed bulk sample. NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on December 3, 1996 with a backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were not measured and logs of exploratory pits are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory pit locations 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. 196 570 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. • y . . 1 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 196 570 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE (INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION (MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL RATE (INCHES) • (INCHES) (INCHES) (MIN. /INCH) P -1 55 1/2 20 6 1/2 6 1/4 1/4 6 1/4 6 1/4 0 refilled 7 63/4 1/4 160 P -2 60 3/4 20 8 8 0 8 7 3/4 1/4 7 3/4 7 1/2 1/4 80 P -3 41 3/4 10 6 3/4 6 1/2 1/4 6 1/2 6 1/4 1/4 6 1/4 6 1/4 6 5 3/4 1/4 refilled 8 7 1/2 1/2 c 7 1/2 7 1/2 7 6 3/4 1/4 - 63/4 61/2 1/4 27 Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on December 3, 1996. The holes were covered to protect against freezing overnight. Percolation tests were conducted on December 4, 1996.