HomeMy WebLinkAbout03035 1 it
Y •
• 41/ e
COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N` 3 03 5 , c
® 109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. 6
.i Ta , /� - s7�O Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81801 t i
It + Phone (303) 945-8212
Z$ r i.
S This does not constitute r .,
t
4 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit.
3 r
y PROPERTY C :l .
` �. (', l6 &_ 5� —L_ r •
Owner's Nemt+r -+��� �' l -'� Present Address �tI �� Phone 3" A K
System Location
.5a /a C5\1101. (1', ell . .
i e / I 51 M rims /
4 legal Description of Assessor Parcel No. � _ ' _ - - AMP - . ' • - a • , , t
O L_CAC< F.Ec-p 8 S" a ,
r ` SYSTEM DESIGN l� L cA tI' O 860 27 V NITS --'. No iilZ PC Hi 4
t� T -'3 If a �
f ! 1 / 60 6 Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other _ <, A
7. 4 i 7v-. t 3 1, i
4 / •. �, 2 0 T Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms ( other) / $ '
{
ii , r
Required Absorption Area - See Attached
t Special Setback Requirements:
4;
I Date Inspector H. 0 - o /5 r .-) / ce/r / - 6
FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed
Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation ,)
.b'��'
f System Installer \ I ` + I
Septic Tank Capacity /COO I
`
PCS
, Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name _ r
_. I.
`
. y Septic Tank Access within 8 of surface 44 r
1
' '7 di/ �
+ Absorption Area. ��
t Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name
4 3 Adequate • mpljjpce with County and State regulations/requirements ,, • r A i� - ! GV a&P � .
Y 1, C / e T n P` M A A4 4- 4 77 '� 0n" / „ SIR' '
a Other • '- o• / J'! _ FJ, '— 4&
{ Date ay "C I l _ est /. -Ctor/ Arse i _i .. I, .�./ _xi'?" � '
R A IN WITH RECEIP RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE (.
t
t *CONDITIONS: ■
s 1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter ) 'l
25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984.
t 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 Bull ng and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a F t
4 requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. i
r t. 3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual seWage disposal system in a manner which Involves a knowing and material
specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class 1, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine — 8 }
+ : v ariation from the terms or spec "I
months In jall or both). = r
p:
While - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT _ ___ _ __._ _ _ _
- - . INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
-EA .¢ 4661C ,LE ,ur
PRESS ant/ (4-160 &64 4Q J r9CK.0 /# - PHONE 573 - 6C1- 247o
•ONTRACTOR vn7 � bt-/ /yo. T con5 r.
J ADDRESS 81 61Z ? 26 Avg 6'u-'S C-v 8'&o / PHONE ?VS o /
PERMIT REQUEST FOR ('W 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 // F ACILITY;
Near what City of Town 6Lav -no V/72&& S Size of Lot 12 • S 4cn 5
Legal Description or Address ,Lor 3 Simrr/o.v 5 &s<CMgnsMi i&*r, 'CZ 6744-1Y7 £no
WASTES TYPE: KS ( ) TRANSIENT USE
( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES
( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: 'S /F PE-5
Number f Bedrooms _ 3 Number of Persons .5
• >4arbage Grinder ( ) Automatic Wher (Dishwasher
SOI JRCP. AND TYPE OF WATER SI JPPLY: (t/}WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier:
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: 4- S 179fi c 5
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? 430
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
YOUR INDIVIDUAL. SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSIJED
WITHOUT A SITE PLAN,
GROI JNI) CONDITIONS;
Depth to first Ground Water Table
Percent Ground Slope
•
2
TYPE of-INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
( t SEPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT
) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE
( ) NT 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? NO
pE RCOT,ATION TEST RF.SI JI .TS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does
the Percolation Test) --(to 5 PtQ-
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: yP 6 /E` t
n 4ti N42t/,&1& ' j zo. g1 �sy (,,,)5 9ys 75'e
•ame, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: 5 1"/
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.'
l
Signed Date 24 5 1 9 8
PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
•
3
HL12%\ of T Ii- PA%VL.AK GLOT LCHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945 -8454
Phone 970 945 -7988
August 19, 1998
p 14 ri
Lundin/Yost Construction Vic - .C8 0 1
Attn: Steve Lundin
812 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 198 488
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Testing, Proposed
Leoni Residence, Lot 3, Simmons Exemption, County Road 115,
Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Lundin:
As requested, Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and
percolation testing 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 July 14, 1998. 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 two story log structure
above a walkout basement level with an attached garage located on the site as shown on
Fig. 1. Basement and garage floors are proposed to be slab -on- grade. Cut depths are
expected to range between about 3 to 8 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 and to the
west of the building site.
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 building site is located about 500 feet west of County Road 115.
The ground surface in the building area slopes moderately down to the south with about
7 feet of elevation difference across the building site. The lot is vegetated with grasses,
weeds and sagebrush.
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
presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about / foot of topsoil, consist
of slightly sandy clay. The clay in Pit 1 and the upper parts of Pit 2 and the Profile Pit
was brown. The lower clay in Pit 2 and the Profile Pit was white. Results of swell-
Lundin/Yost Construction
August 19, 1998
Page 2
consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the brown clay,
presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and
light loading and a low expansion potential when wetted. 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, we recommend spread
footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. Footings placed on the
upper brown clay should also be designed for a minimum dead load pressure of 600
psf. In lightly loaded areas, it may be necessary to concentrate loads by using a pad
and beam system in order to satisfy the minimum dead load pressure. 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 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. 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 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.
H - GEOTECH
Lundin/Yost Construction
August 19, 1998
Page 3
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. In grade beam
areas, 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 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
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 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 on August 7, 1998 to evaluate
the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit and
two percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. A third percolation
test was performed in the bottom of the profile pit. 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 overlying brown sandy clay transitioning to whitish clay with
depth. The percolation test results are presented in Table II. Based on the subsurface
conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable
H -P GEOTECH
Lundin/Yost Construction
August 19, 1998
Page 4
for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. If the system is based in the
brown clay, the leach field should be designed for an average percolation rate of 60
minutes per inch. If the system is based in the whitish clay, then the leach field should
be designed based on an average percolation rate of 20 minutes per inch.
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
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.
Louts E. Eller
Reviewed by: .#1RE"'i
Daniel E. Harcfrn,:P.E ? 4443
� q . (9f
/
LEE/kink � S...
E N
attachments „2/0 Nilutio '
H - GEOTECH
-s `§
k
0) ) m | | (
Q - ® §r
k in b) iF
e § 0 F
f § « _
Pg
3. K 2 ii / 0
Z 0 «
0
m 5
-1
r k
* k || /§ \
»|i \m \
| m
m
-' - 0
» |6 § 5
? f
i 2■ § k 2 §
C.-
co
1| z
\ / 2
> ` a X � k
\
Moisture Content = 9.6 percent
Dry Density = 100 pcf
Sample of Slightly Sandy Clay
From: Pit 1 at 6 Feet
c
4 1
c
0
O
x
x
W 0
in 0
1 Expansion
a upon
0 2 wetting
O
3
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
Moisture Content = 11.6 percent
Dry Density = 101 pcf
Sample of: Slightly Sandy Clay
c From: Pit 2 at 2.5 Feet
0
c 1
o.
0
x
x
w
I 0
0
a 1 Expansion
E upon
wetting
2
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
198 488 I HG N SWELL— CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS I Fig. 3
PIT 1 PIT 2 PROFILE PIT
•
—0 0
N
.. WC =11.6 / ; w
y — OD ■101 ,
4. __
I $ 5
t
w / — n
m
-
v — WC=9.6 WC =14.2 / — p
p 200= 1 D0 -9
-200=95 —
■.- 10 10
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; sandy clay, organic, medium stiff, slightly moist, brown.
CLAY (CL); sandy, stiff, moist, brown to tan, calcareous to very calcareous with depth.
LL f The lower portion of Pit 2 and Profile Pit were white in color.
I 2 Diameter hand driven liner sample.
� Disturbed bulk sample.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory pits were excavated prior to our arrival at site on August 6, 1998.
2. Locutions of exploratory pits were determined by the client in the field and were approximated on the
site plan by us. ,
3. Elevations of exploratory pits were not measured and logs of exploratory pits are drawn to depth.
Pit 1 was about 2 feet lower than Pit 2 and about 2 1/2 feet lower than the Profile Pit.
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 excavation.
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
198 488 I H E WORTH ICAL, INC. I LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS I Fig. 2
•
APPROXIMATE SCALE
= 150'
LOT 4
•
m
9
Z
LOT
BOUNDARY a
\ n
PROFILE PIT /P 3
LOT 3 0
P 2 0
A PIT 1
■
P 1 ■PIT 2
0
LOT 1
LOT 2
198 488 I PAWLAK I LOCATION OF I Fig. 1
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE 11
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 198 488
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE
(INCHES) INTERVAL DEPTH AT AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION
(MIN) START OF INTERVAL LEVEL RATE
INTERVAL (INCHES) (INCHES) (MIN.I1NCH)
(INCHES)
P -1 50 15 9% 8% 1
8 '/. 8 % %
8 ''A 8 'A
8 7'/. %
7 % 7 'A ''A
7''A 7'A '%
7 ''A 7 %
7 6 '/. '% 60
P -2 90 15 10 8 A 1 %
8'A 7 1'%
7 6 1
6 5 '/ '/,
5''4 5 /
water added 8 %, 7 % %
7 % 7 '/.
7 6 A '/. 20
P -3 101 15 10'% 8% 1''A
(Profile Pit)
8% 7% 1
7 '/. 7 ''A 'A
7'r 7 'A
7 6A 'A
water added 9 ° 9 %
9 8%
8 %. 7'A % 20
Note: Percolation tests were performed on August 7, 1998. The soils at P -1 were mostly brown clay. The soils at P -2 and
P -3 were mostly white clay. P -3 was dug at the bottom of the profile pit.