Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03040 IIIIP , .....7 t , k i f GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N2 3 0 4 n t ;, i 109 Pth Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. 1 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone (303) 945 -8212 i ` P p This does not constitute M a { 1 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit. p A , 1, PROPERTY 'T(�k ��,r, i S o ti� �I( I(av11:L LAvve G P o C�NS-Ilb/ 0 ' 4 110wnei's Name Present Address d i System Location e li 1 I to 1 LK Gten Sett( nc S � R 1 b o / ' r( @ J ,-,� I r r e j so Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. W 1 11 ( ✓O �) Gm 0 V� f ` f 11 /LOCK LeACH- Fett -D Ye 19 S2 i z s e 3 . , SYSTEM DESIGN '+-, V Q N Q Cr S- Q E9 t; 1.1 , i S 11 '7 I s 1 2 S o v v TRGAreNES; ' S � "e A4s c 1 Se ptic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other /iii? Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (Or other) 4 t + e' s i Y 1 Required Absorption Area - See Attached 1. A 1 1 Special Setback Requirements: y f r 0...ft {'_g7j { Date Inspector j i. .. t FINAL. SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) ) 1 i t Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation ) ; System Installer n Ia ti 1 57 i 5 ^ � 1 f Septic Tank Capacity 4 / � Y y c Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name ate p L-/J �V III 1 9 / Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface ,/ a. s i r t tl y Abs Area 9 c3 - S c V t SI gl X 7 7 r .yj'i4 ��S t i M r Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name cc� c f Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements YFT_S ! i Y $. I C • l t Other ( 1 " C k Da f /- 6. 71 Inspector t 4ni)� yk t C i , RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION S i k (! •CONDITIONS: l' A 1. All Installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter .; ' i,. 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- y 4, q 11 nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a y ^ requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. 11 fli i R 3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material I ; variation from the terms or specifications contained In the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.001 Ins — 8 Y f $' months in )ail or both). p t White - APPLICANT Yellow- DEPARTMENT , 4 111.e• INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION OWNER $ 4e j enn i 1 n v, V r∎ e In e ADDRESS 3105 (�lr� Lnotr • PHONE g45 t CONTRACTOR M ' \ \ \e ` ADDRESS PHONE PERMIT REQUEST FOR (4NEW 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 G-1eN,,AD nnok cSyr r S Size of Lot S 1- Ar'.re s Legal Description or Address Unk \\ t, 02.1 \Th\ avno nnit A WASTES TYPE: (4 DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE ( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: Number of Bedrooms 4 Number of Persons .5 (,/j Garbage Grinder (,Automatic Washer ('4'Dishwasher 501 JRCE AND TYPE OF WATER SI JPPLY: ( ) WELL (v)' SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: lazy biavnov 1 „A DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: %Ile,. Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? A) o A site plan is required to be submitted that indicates the following MINIMLJM 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 RE ISSUED WITHOLJT A SITE PLAN See GGROI JND CONDITIONS: a o cL,.e c + ef 0( k Depth to first Ground Water Table 1 Percent Ground Slope 2 TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED: ( A 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? pF,RCOT.ATION TF„ST RFSI IT.TS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the Percolation Test) Mr reed Minutes per inch in hole No. I 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: Noe corn Oct . 'Pt +N L \- 6en teak, . O Q2d. IsL1 O,SC,7 'SWC1 Sys - - 19�SSs Name, address and telephon 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 *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 Y7/72e--. , 2 i Cs ' Date P PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! 3 I {/ 0 k \ 3- \ (. Ro 1 / � \/ c | 7/ 0 0 • / P° To _ [ k Cl., & ) 2 k } k f . / d il / § F \ ( it Q. ~ ƒ « §�« ® 2 9 ,, g -e—n" , i { IIh co rb \ � ^ \ g I « ] j\\� . g e 0 \ w *' a i ,non ° } cn j § § ^ R . a = e 2. " . � / * F cr es 0 itii P t I 0. {/ It m ` \ / / � / \\ /f 0 r • HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945 -8454 August 5, 1998 Phone 970 945 -7988 Steve and Jan Triebel 43 Ranch Lane Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 198 510 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed Residence, Lot 11, Lazy Diamond A, Ranch Lane, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. & Mrs. Triebel: 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 July 27, 1998. 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 two story wood frame structure over a partial basement and crawlspace. Basement floor will 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 about 70 feet downhill to the east of the proposed building area. 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 consists of vacant pasture land. The ground surface is relatively flat with a slight slope down to the northeast. There is a about 4 to 6 feet of elevation difference across the lot. A ditch with about 1 foot of water is located along the western side of the lot. The lot is vegetated with grass and weeds. 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 1 foot of topsoil and 1 to 2 feet of stiff sandy silty clay, consist of relatively dense slightly clayey sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders up to about 3 feet in size. Results of swell - consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed sample of the upper clay, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a minor expansion potential when wetted. The sample showed moderate to high compressibility upon additional loading after wetting. Results of a gradation analysis • Steve and Jan Triebel August 5, 1998 Page 2 performed on a sample of clayey gravel (minus 5 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 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 gravel soil designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. The upper clay soils tend to have variable settlement potential and should be removed down to the gravel soils within the footing area. 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 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 pef 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. There could be some post- construction settlement /heave of slabs placed on the upper clays. 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 gravels 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 H -P GEOTECH • Steve and Jan Triebel August 5, 1998 Page 3 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 1' feet deep. 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 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 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: Percolation tests were conducted on July 27, 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 by others 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 1 foot of topsoil and 2 feet of stiff sandy silty clay overlying relatively dense slightly clayey sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders. The percolation test results are presented in Table II. The percolation test results indicate an infiltration rate between 25 and 90 minutes per inch. H -P GEOTECH Steve and Jan Triebel August 5, 1998 Page 4 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. __ Nov /00 [trey oN 4 1 ,D...o , ,,:. Jordy Z. Ad mso , J. P.E. 3 .9707 �3 tJ Reviewed : , : � i ' ti , ! �u A ; % :�5`ONA4 Ca .,,, ,. 1r i Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. JZA /ksm attachments H - GEOTECH APPROXIMATE SCALE 1' = 100' RANCH LANE l ACCESS EA S E M E NT \ 1 \ / EASEMENT - - - -- / I• 1 P 3 1 PIT 2 PROF • PIT ■ A p 1 1 • 0 PROPOSED 1 P 2 TRACT I PIT 1 LOT 12 1 I I : IRRIGATION 1 I • DITCH 1 1 LOT 11 ■ ■ LOT BOUNDARIES ORy ()ARk RO p HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 1 198 510 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES 0 PIT 1 PIT 2 PROFILE PIT 0 0 — ,,—../ _ — WC-11.8 — - �B9 WC=8.1 7 K1 U. — j ,q� f,q. - D1398 4, 2 00=83 7 q] — ti) a i +4=68 n — ., - J -200-12 a_ J — e 0 — ' o — o i e — �;s 10 1:.G 10 LEGEND: TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, occasional gravel, organics, medium stiff. moist. dark brown. / CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, scattered gravel, cobbles and boulders, stiff, slightly moist, brown, / low plasticity, slightly porous. thy; 4 GRAVEL (GP —GC); sandy, slightly clayey, with cobbles and boulders up to 3 feet in size, 5 dense, slightly moist, light brown, subrounded basalt rock. I SI 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample. Disturbed bulk sample. __ J NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excovated prior to our site visit on July 27, 1998 with a backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features on the site pion provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were not measured and logs of exploratory pits are drawn to depth. Pit 1 is about 2 feet higher than Pit 2. 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. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( R ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 198 510 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Moisture Content = 8.1 percent Dry Density Weight = 98 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Pit 2 at 2 Feet 0 kg -- 0 1 N c / 0 a. w 2 I Expansion ---"" upon c 3 wetting 'N N 0 1- o. 0 4 0 5 6 7 8 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 198 510 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK SWELL— CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I HYDROMEFR ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 111E REAONOS I U.S. STAN0AR0 SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HP 7 HR 45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60 1111.10 MN. 4 114. 1 MIN. 4200 /100 g0 430 416 0 44 3/59/2 1 1/Y S fl G 100 1 1 to b I I . I 20 1 70 I 30 1 0 I 0 Z w 40 z � 1 1- o_ o I it 1— S0 50 w Z w U I W w a a 6o io 1 I 70 30 I I p I I 10 J 90 I 9 1 1 100 .001 .002 .005 .000 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9 .S12S 19.0 37.5 76.2 12752 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SLT MINM12111111M11111 sr.n 4 ir:11■�"1Sk mats GRAVEL 68 % SAND 20 7. SILT AND CLAY 12 9. ' LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Slightly Clayey Sandy Gravel with FROM:Pit 1 at 5 thru 6 Feet Cobbles 198 510 I HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. m 3 k .[ 65 CO » ( | C /• \ | f \ % 7 0) J] ) E . b - ® § |■ / § @ ■ \ \ i ` � e i w _ 0 5 | o±/ _ƒ k�< CO ) | |K 2 G a b ® , §! 0 / < 2 2 w)! 2 _ H I0 co I c 1 8 , |7 , ° N § LO §, r C , HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 198 510 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 62 15 8% 8'% % 8% 8 /4 8 7'% % 7'% 7% % 7% 6'/4 % 6% 6'/ '% 6'% 6% 0 6'/ 6'% '/ 90 P -2 53 15 7% 7 '/4 7 6'% / 6'% 5% '/4 5% 5% '% water added 7%, 6% '/4 6% 6% /: 6'% 5% Y 5% 5'% '% 30 P -3 53 15 7 6 1 6 5% '/4 5% 4'% '/4 4'% 4 /: water added 6'% 6 Y 6 5% '/4 5'G 4% % 4% 4% % 25 NOTE: Percolation test hole were hand dug in the bottom of the backhoe pits and soaked on July 26, 1998 by others. Percolation tests were conducted on July 27, 1998. The average percolation rate is based on the last three readings of the test.