HomeMy WebLinkAbout03017 } ..- t
i r r _ I
I
. y r i t
3 / GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N 3 0 11
,
? ' i 109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. ry4
t t Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81801
e ' Phone (303) 945 -8212
i) This does not constitute r' c
} 1 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit. i
1 PROPERTY
r+ ' /1 ��� (6. �
I {, Owner's Name CoMMI, CJA f Present Address RI Re co" I Pbone -/-7 ;
i 4 System Location f yf S ` eu a It s Ads l d I
f- n
f # Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No.
Lof 5 Ledo& #i (k 4C JM1ck
1
S SYSTEM DESIGN t
( ' F'
r
, Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other
t !S
i t 1 /2 4 Percolation Rate (minutes /inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) 1 d
8
fC 1
Required Absorption Area - See Attached f;
,• ,
i
is ( Special Setback Requirements: A 1
X f.
1 Date Inspector )
I t i FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed)
le 4
$ Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation
v,
� I CAA.A cXC
< System Installer si. '
•
_ _
;I
Septic Tank Capacity , Z S �� Ii v
f Pi, C t0/0 C(/�I -_(0 41
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name
;e
• Septic Tank Access within
u
within 8" of surface Cot
st
t . ; Absorption Area 1 8 Li 1 •'t I T S ' 1.1 A O 6 now 3 Dr. c9 7' k .
t A bsorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name
1Nr-1`7- r
Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements
t i
Other .4 ? A
Date 1 t 1 `1 01 V Inspector A f i t D s it
) RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE - w
,
9 •CONDITIONS: k k
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 connect 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 i ? '
requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. i
3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material 4
variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I , Petty Offense ($500.00 fine — 8 i
St
r months In Jail or both). t ,
r Wh ite - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT _,_y_
INDIVIDUAL / S � EWA / GE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
OWNER Joel ; YY itrsha ( 0 gr\
ADDRESS / / g C� PHONE X025 — /MI
CONTRACTOR C' / tlis o H-0 m / s Inc
ADDRESS P i0.6ox -log � R;Yk, / 0 g/I,Cv PHONE 970- 7
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 FATIU.ITY -
Near what City of Town gL' aJ 00 s fic /� Size of Lot 3 '
Legal Description or Address .D ( l 6 / �ar 11 fig Ran e 4 , (�/� /'TI 01/ c— t oi 5
WASTES TYPE: Q4 DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE
( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES
( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: g-t//P[ 77/1 c—
Number of Bedrooms q Number of Persons y
c (5) Garbage Grinder Automatic Washer ( Dishwasher
SSOI JRCE AND TYPE OF WATRR SI JPPLY: ()0 WELL ( ) SP RING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier:f1eJ0/ M//
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: N //3" is(/&12- M i
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? O
A site plan is required to be submitted that indicates the following MINIMUM distances:
Leach Field to Well: 100 feet � s i
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 j14JIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED
WITHOUT A SITE PLAN.
('TROT JND CONDITIONS:
Depth to first Ground Water Table
Percent Ground Slope
2
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
(>1 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:
(),Q), 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? >LI
FERCO1,ATION TEST REST II TS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does
the Percolation Test) e;L 4e1 t-S
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: /fe-(I N 7h - P a k c'&
Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: /J 15Y 01 0
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 .4 Q / t4 r Date 7/ 9�
PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
,
A
a g d
a.
�I
I _ � 0
c N N
°
pzi
° '
a. n-1 0
2 Al
2
O S 0
N
c , 7 N •
0
c W
CD 3 N T
A, .; c i R°fro
• A N H
A� ~ N N Lam. °
A
g ^° a a c
.�i c � '! 0. n !J 'O Er
'O n w 1 CA
N CL 03 °= W
c N 00 ° 0
• C CO = R UQ Q l °
N
cr AV w V A ..I
y' n Al 0
G ° a. C
0
. CI. N CD CL va
M. N
a. C
c .
a. c
.ci
o S
c
to N
Z p
B c
0 '-.
R. z
as
a. 0 cr
N 1
N N
•
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945.8454
July 10, 1998 Phone 970945 -7988
Joel Cotton
1450 East 12th Street
Rifle, Colorado 81650 Job No. 198 419
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Testing, Proposed
Residence, Lot 5, Cedar Hills Ranch, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Cotton:
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 required accordance with our agreement for geotechnical
engineering services to you dated June 16, 1998. The agreement was verbally amended
by you to include additional percolation testing. The data obtained and our
recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface conditions
encountered are presented in this report. Evaluation of potential geologic hazard
impacts on the site are beyond the scope of this study.
Proposed Construction: The proposed residence will be a 1 and 2 story wood frame
structure cut into and stepped down the hillside. The proposed building location on the
site is shown on Fig. 1. Ground floors will be slab -on- grade. Cut depths are expected
to range between about 3 to 5 feet. Foundation loadings for this type of construction
are assumed to be relatively light and typical of the proposed type of construction. The
on -site septic disposal system.was originally planned about 30 feet downhill to the
northwest of the proposed residence and then moved to about 125 feet south of the
residence where more favorable percolation rates were found.
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 lot is vacant and located in variable, hilly terrain. The building
site is on a strongly sloping to moderately steep, southwesterly facing hillside with
grades ranging from about 10 to 20 %. Elevation difference across the proposed
residence is about 15 feet. There are several coalescing gullies along the west -
northwest sides of the lot that were dry at the time of our field work. The lot is
vegetated with sagebrush, grass, weeds and scattered juniper and pinion trees.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits at the building site and one profile pit in the original
planned 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 to 1 feet of
topsoil, consist of a layer of medium dense clayey sandy gravel with shale fragments
•
Joel Cotton
July 10, 1998
Page 2
about 1 to 3 feet deep overlying weathered claystone shale bedrock in Pit 1 and very
stiff sandy clay with shale fragments in Pit 2. Results of swell - consolidation testing
performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the sandy clay subsoils, presented on
Fig. 3, indicate low to moderate compressibility under existing moisture conditions and
light loading. One sample (Pit 2 at 7 feet) showed a low expansion potential when
wetted under a constant light surcharge. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a
sample of the clayey gravel with shale fragment subsoils (minus 11 inch fraction)
obtained from the site are presented on Fig. 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in
Table I. No free water was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils
and bedrock were slightly moist to moist.
Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in
the exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread
footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils or shale bedrock designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. Due to
the expansion potential, the footings should also be designed to impose a minimum dead
load pressure of 600 psf. The soils and bedrock may tend to swell after wetting and
there could be some post - construction foundation movement if the bearing materials
become wetted. Precautions should be taken to prevent wetting of the building.
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 or shale bedrock. 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 well reinforced top and bottom to span local
anomalies and better withstand the effects of some differential movement such as by
• assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining
structures should also be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an
equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pef for the on -site granular soil as backfill.
The granular soils should be selectively stockpiled during excavation for re -use as
foundation wall backfill.
Floor Slabs: The natural on -site soils and shale bedrock, exclusive of topsoil, are
suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. There is a risk of slab
heave if expansive materials below the slab were to become wetted. Slab -on -grade
construction may be used provided precautions are taken to limit the risk of slab heave
and a risk of movement is accepted by the owner. Interior partition walls bearing on
slabs -on -grade should be provided with slip joints so that if the slab heaves the
movement is not transmitted to the upper structure. To reduce the effects of some
differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and
•
H -P GEOTECH
Joel Cotton
July 10, 1998
Page 3
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 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 to above optimum.
Required fill can consist of the on -site more granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil
and oversized rock, or a suitable imported granular material.
Underdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration,
it has been our experience in the area were clay soils are present and bedrock is
shallow, that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation
or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also create a perched
condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls,
crawlspace 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 1% 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 or 30 mil PVC should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a
trough shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to help prevent wetting of
the bearing materials.
Surface Drainage: Positive surface drainage is an important aspect of the project to
limit the potential for wetting below the building. The following drainage precautions
should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence
has been completed:
1) Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation excavation materials
should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the
expansion potential of the soils and shale bedrock.
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
Joel Cotton
July 10, 1998
Page 4
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas. Granular 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
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 may 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 should be located at
least 10 feet from the building. Consideration should be given to the use
of xeriscape to limit potential wetting due to irrigation.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted at the site to evaluate the
feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system. One profile pit and three percolation
holes (P -1, P -2, P -3) were dug at the origihal proposed location 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 by the client 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 sandy clay with angular rock fragments. The
percolation test results presented in Table II indicated rates from nil to about 240
min/in. Due to the slow percolation rates, a second site to the south of the residence
was tested for percolation rates. For the southern site (P -4, P -5, P -6), the percolation
tests were conducted in 8 inch diameter auger holes, prepared by the client. The
results, also presented in Table II, indicate percolation rates at this site between about
12 and 30 minutes per inch based on an average of the last two readings. Based on the
assumed subsurface conditions and the percolation test results at the southern site, this
area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. We
recommend the infiltration area be oversized due to the variable percolation rates.
Garfield County may require additional subsoil investigation and percolation testing at
the selected site for the system design.
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, and to the depths shown on Fig. 2, the proposed type of
construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and
H -P GEOTECH
Joel Cotton
•
July 10, 1998
Page 5
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.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - P • _, s al., AL, NC.
��� I J 0
= �Q / oG
r
St We :2 -216 }
David A. Young, P.E. %��, ,7- A94Fjr�
Reviewed By:
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. ,
DAY /ksm
attachments
H -P GEOTECH
LOT 5
BOUNDARIES
P 1
0
PROFILE
PIT . ORIGINAL SEPTIC
DISPOSAL SITE
P3 A P2
PIT 2 PROPOSED
RESIDENCE
PIT 1
o EXISTING
WELL
/
/
l /
/ / / EXISTING
ROAD
/ /
/ /
/ APPROXIMATE SCALE
/ 1 " =40'
/ /
/ / / Q Q LEGEND:
/ / ALTERNATE SEPTIC • EXPLORATORY PIT
DISPOSAL SITE
/ 0 A PERCOLATION TEST HOLE
P 6
/ 200' TO SUBDIVISION ROAD
198 419 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 1
GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
•
PIT 1 PIT 2 PROFILE PIT
0 0
r /� r..."
— N
V — _ ±200 0 wC=12.0 / / d
Ls I LL -30 00 -110 — L,_ — PI =12 / / 5
L 5 ►� WC=7.7 «
u e / _ w
o — — o
O WC =11.8 /
— DD -121 —
10 10
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; organic silty clay. dark brown, slightly moist.
®
CLAY CL ; sandy to very sand scattered angular shale fragments. very stiff, slightly moist.
() Y Y Y. 9 9 Y 9 Y
/ / gray — brown, low to medium plastic.
. , GRAVEL (GC); with occasional cobbles consisting of angular shale and sandstone fragments,
sandy, slightly clayey to clayey, medium dense, slightly moist, gray— brown, low to medium plastic
fines.
iii
WEATHERED CLAYSTONE SHALE; medium plasticity, hard, slightly moist, gray, thinly bedded.
6l 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample. T Practical backhoe refusal.
ffff i Disturbed bulk sample.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on June 18, 1998 with a backhoe.
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 hand level. Pit 1 is about 15' higher than Pit 2.
Logs are drawn to depth.
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 ( Y" ) —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
OD = Dry Density ( pcf ) LL = Liquid Limit ( % )
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve PI = Plasticity Index ( % )
198 419 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
t
Moisture Content = 12.0 percent
Dry Density = 119 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Clay with Shale
Fragments
From: Pit 2 at 3 Feet
0
tc
1
c No movement
d upon
a 2 wetting
o •
0
3
•
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLED PRESSURE — ksf
Moisture Content = 1.8 percent
Dry Density = 121 pcf
s Sample of: Sandy Clay with Shale
Fragments
i
O 1 From: Pit 2 at 7 Feet
c
0
x
w
0
c
o
.
c 1
a Expansion
upon
v wetting
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
198 419 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
I NYORONETER ANALYSIS I 9M ANA YSIS
VIE RFAONGS U.S STANDARD SERE 1 CLEAR SQUARE 0P0IINOS
24 NR 7 161
45 1911. 15 ION. 60 1.111.19 1611. 4 MN. 1 IAN. /200 p00 /50 130 /16 A 0 3/6'1/Y3/4 1 1/t Y S'6' 6 Q
100 I
J
90 I 10
60 I 20
70 I 30
-
U j W
Z 60 _
40 Z
/n I
;C
o I w
n a-
I- 30 50
Z z
W I 0
0 la
re
CC
w 1 a
o_
4a - 60
1 I I I I C
i 70
SO , . . ,
I I
I
20 80
10 I 90
0 1 1 100
.001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.16 2.36 4.75 9.512.s 19.0 37.5 76.2 12752 203
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
OAT TO SI.T µoo
FlNF 1 S MEDAIN (COARSE I FINE GR I COARSE 1 C0691E1
GRAVEL 63 % SAND 30 % SILT AND CLAY 7 %
LIQUID LIMIT 30 % PLASTICITY INDEX 12 %
SAMPLE OF: Slightly Clayey Sandy Gravel FROM: Pit 1 at 3.5 thru 4 Feet
with Shale Fragments
198 419 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
) [ )2 52. ƒ §
( | \ CO 7 3
° "\f 2 \ 2 \f
\�( � � r �
G am f // ƒ U
§
k 8 §
- ( ,! - .
• -J
0 ) ■`-
§ ■ \ 1--
2
0 |§z R
0 §%
_
�/2 |■
4 } t§
$ o . .
_ » 0
\ / ( |Z
a 2 ■
X ) - G
( ? r
|§+ ® ) \
| .
§X - { o ® N
| §
§
1 ! , CN
•
•
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
•
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 198 419
Page 1 of 2
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 54 30 6 5% y.
30 5% 5% 0
60 5% 5% '/. 240
P -2 45 30 5'/. 53/4 0
30 5% 5'/. 0
60 5% 5% '% 240
P-3 48 30 6% 6% 0
30 6% 6'% 0
60 6'% 6% 0 none
NOTE: Percolation test holes were 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep hand dug holes in bottom of backhoe pits and soaked
on June 22, 1998 by the client. Percolation tests were conducted on June 23, 1998 by H -P Geotech. P -1 and P -3
had about 4" to 5" of water remaining from the previous day pre- soaking at start of testing.
•
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 198 419
Page 2 of 2
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)
P4 45 15 8 6% 1%
6% 5 1'/.
5 4 1
4 3 1
3 2% '
2Y. 1'/. %
1% 1% % 30
P -5 30'% 15 8 5% 2%z
5K 4% 1/
4% 3 1%
3 1% 11/4
water added 9 7% 1% \
7'% 6 1%
6 4'/. 11/4
12.
P -6 24% 15 9% 8 1'% 30
8 7 1
7 6'% %
6% 5'f 1
5% 5 %
5 4'% %
4% 4 'h
fr ' w n 4 '1
I v
I n
NOTE: Percolation test holes were 8 Inch diameter auger holes dug and soaked June 22, 1998 by the client. Hole P4 was
in bottom of old backhoe pit. Percolation tests were conducted on June 23, 1998 by H -P Geotech.
CEDAR HILLS ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE
Box 1155 Basalt, CO 81621
Joel Cotton and Marcia Lund
1450E 12th St.
Rifle, CO 81650
July 21, 1998
Dear Joel and Marcia,
Having reviewed your latest plans, we find the roof line changes acceptable and within the
guidelines of the Cedar Hills Architectural Committee.
All other aspects of the review committee have been met as per the previous letter of June
5, 1998.
We hereby approve of your plans and you have our approvals to obtain a building permit.
Thank you for compliance and effort.
Very truly yo
2' /li
Norm Clasen
Cedar Hills Architectural Committee