HomeMy WebLinkAbout02952 ■
ers j t •
r GARFIELD COUNTY \ (BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit 2952 .
109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No.
•
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone (303) 945-8212
This does not constitute
• INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit.
PROPERTY �...I, 1�,�I v j ? b` (05t /] /
Owner's NameGVs't Ve MIt n C G S Lrresent Address '�' (4 a �t 141h `,
one `I f S 23 ( 4
System Location 11 (A V a ` J∎ ` •
Legal Description of Assess Parcel No. ¢� -
• SYSTEM DESIGN /4. V C 0 gy,
Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other
I
I ` /0 7 Percolation Rate (minutes /inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) 1
3i/ %d7 f�A--je l te r. 6n' /)' X3o'17
Required Absorption Area - See Attached , q y
(�YY f ,(I � LtcC¢.? �� --e/lie Y ( tiers �/,t /„ Cnr f
„Special Setback Requirements: 1 !l /! p �^
Date a 1$ '- 96 Inspector lap Anrn t t -h in ^- -f 'b C /YLr -.
yertt
\ FINAL SYSTEM IN !ECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed)
( Call for Inspection (24'hours notice) Before Covering Installation
S c N t ICAvA7)le 6 -
System Installer ``,, TT (` ` }/
Septic Tank Capacity 000 V X jJ
l/ n A /
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name Q V _ CI r' 6 ,
Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface Y L
.3 4q - ' 2 1- co e NC];
Absorption Area ('
Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name 1 N F 1 L ' (LA 1 ry- d 5
^
Adequate compliance with County and State I' gulations /requirements `/ t , S
Other /' ? _
Date l ' s C. /t 1 (1 • Inspector A N fr
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 c
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- III 7 '
nectIon to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning off ice 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
Pr immmimm=a------. INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
• OWNER (- I Ven4rir -e5 /
ADDRESS • I I • s a -
O PHONE 97U'���'S.iA
CONTRACTOR + ' /I' / I.s a.' I .. /. 11 a • • ••
ADDRESS PHONE 915' 0 sig{ o,
PERMIT REQUEST FOR 00 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 311+-- Size of Lot 11 6C ae f
Legal Description or Address
WASTES TYPE: ( ) DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE
(XI COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES
( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: ( 01711YKlrl'r
Number of Bedrooms Number of Persons
( ) Garbage Grinder ( ) Automatic Washer ( ) Dishwasher
• 1: :.0 it • .: r r ' • (>4, WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier:
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: uYiJ4iown
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System?
A site plan k 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
YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL, SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BF ISSUED
WITHOUT A SITE PLAN,
GROI INI) CONDmONS:
Depth to first Ground Water Table
Percent Ground Slope
2
•
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
()0 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?
pERCOT .ATION TEST REST V S; (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 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 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 C. ' t ii . • 2 i' .2 Date it/fat G � it
PLEAS t RAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
FFD11 : Kurtz & Associates, Inc. PHOtE N0. : May. 07 1990 03:4EPM P:
• \ for -Permik : C29 (7u/hi Ven- tcir -e , 1-1 -c_
• HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL., INC. 5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
�.e I e b I ion I i �J( 7 p a Pas 970 945.8454
March 19, 1998 Phone 9709/5.798
A C .C.
E.H. Beamery tAl °.).At - oV'
Atha: Tony Hamrick , oro fief ��
P.O.Box 717 T
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Job No, 198 168
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed
Commercial Buildings, 32369 Highway 6 & 24, West of Silt, Garfield
County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Hamrick:
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 February 20, 1998. The data obtained and our recommendations based on
the proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this
report.
Proposed Construction: Two large single story metal commercial buildings are
proposed to be located on the site as shown on Fig. 1. Ground floors are proposed to
be slab-on-grade. Cut depths are expected to range between about 3 to 4 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 about 30 feet to the southeast of the proposed buildings.
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 ground
surface is relatively flat with a slight slope down to the south. There is about 3 to 4 feet
of elevation difference across the site. A water service line from the existing well
borders the south side of the northern proposed building. The Lower Cactus Valley
irrigation ditch borders the north end of the site and was dry at the time of our field
work. A gully draining to the south is located to the east of the site. Vegetation
consists of grass and weeds.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits in each of the proposed building areas and one 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, below about 1 foot of
topsoil, generally consist of sandy silt and clay. About 5 feet of clay fill from the
backfiil of the water service line was encountered in Pit 2. The profile pit encountered
FROM : Kurtz & RssociateS, Inc. PHONE NO. : May. 97 1998 03:49PM P2
E.H. /learner)
March 19, 1998
Page 2
about th foot of topsoil overlying silty sand and gravel with cobbles. Results of swell -
consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the sandy silt and
clay, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture
conditions and Tight loading. The silt sample showed a low collapse potential
(settlement under constant load) when wetted. The clay sample had a minor expansion
potential when wetted. Both samples were moderately compressible under increased
loading after wetting. 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 construcdon, we recommend spread
footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 1,500 psf for support of the proposed buildings. The soils tend to compress
after wetting and there could be some post - construction foundation settlement, Footings
should be a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns.
Loose and disturbed soils and existing fill 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 Ie fast 36
inures 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 leas,J4SWFoundation walls acting as retaining
structures (if any) should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an
equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 45 pef for the on -site soil as backftll. To resist
lateral loads, passive earth pressure on the sides of footings or grade beams should be
based•on an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pcf,
Floor Slabs: The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly to moderately loaded slab -on -grade construction. The upper silt and clay soils
are compressible when wetted. 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 establ 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 -on -grade to break capillary moisture rise and act as a leveling course.
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.
H -P GEOTECH
•
FRUt1 : Kurt: & Associates, Inc. PHONE N7. : May. 07 1998 03:51PM P3
E.H. Beamery
March 19, 1998
Page 3
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 or imported gravel 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 buildings have 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.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all d 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 backflll.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at
least 5 feet from the building.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on March 11, 1998 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 generally similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on
Fig. 2 and consist of about th foot of topsoil overlying silty sand and gravel except for
percolation hole P -2 which exposed slightly clayey sandy silt. The percolation test
results are presented in Table IL The percolation rates ranged from 5 to 20 minutes per
inch with an average of 10 inches per inch. Based on the proposed septic field location
and subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area
should be suitable for a conventional Infiltration septic disposal system.
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
H-P GEOTECH
FROM : Kurtz & Associates, Inc. PHONE NO. May. 07 1996 03:53'M P4
E.H. Bea cry
March 19, 1998
Page 4
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 pf our recnmme.nrtnrions, and to
+c „i% alai the rnWmmsftlatinna ttavr been appropriately intorproted. Sit,iifiwui design
eltailges tuuy acquire addldonal analysts nr modifications to the rnnnutmeMnk ,,v
presented height. We recommend on -stte 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.
• O O Rf l
N AO C.
Z /
Jordy Z. A Jrfr,E. i , 2 s 7
Reviewed // ltitro9 %%4101.0 , ;aw�i
441 ss/ONAL EN�-
e jc \ )( aice iL ,
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
JZA/ksm
attachments
cc: Kurtz & Associates - Attn: Brian Kurtz
H•P GEOTECH
FRJM : Kurtz & Associates, Inc. F'HOIE C. : May. 07 1996 04:01PM P1
` - 1
�� { a � C I PROPERTY
` BOUNDARIES
l
I I
•/ 1
1
TRACT C
r - - 1 1
PIT 1 1 r- I 1
a I
I 1 I
I \ 1 GULLY
EXISTING
BUILDINGS 1
PITS PROPOSED
IT 2 r"' B UILDINGS 1 1
[11.2 1
r I
PIT 4S P 1 1 1 1
. it...%
p L_ .a
■ PROFILE 1
A PIT
APPF OXIMATE SCALE P 2 A
1
1" 0 80' P,3
/
I
1
STATE HIGHWAY 6 AND 24 SILT, CO —•••-
198 168 ( HEPWORTH - PAWLAK ` LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS I Fig. 1
J GEOTECHNICAL, INC. t AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES t