Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03234 i IN I 1 / t ,,,/ 3? Q a: j GARFI�LDCOUNTYBUILDINGANDSANITATIONDEPARTMENT ' . P ermit rl. 1 ' 109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. . 1 ' � Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 9 4. '1 ' Phone (303) 94546212 . £ T his does not constitute F . INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit. 3 i l PROPERTY y � y 1�/,� C ,.I �I/ st d 4 1, `, ' 1 � Eat/ X5 . )1 /W mass G Phone Ii " 7 - 35 ( 3 � ( Present Address O �� Owner's Name , pa C' nuvr h 1 f k o a n l I L rle nck.�i 60 '' t S L oca ti on r( / R S Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. — & ' SYSTEM DESIGN 1 r 'A S ` Q pe A C 4' Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other ±. if , &'u ` % 2 Per Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) • It ' A Required Absorption Area - See Attached g„ 9 a Special Setback Requirements: Y t Date I n _ / I ` 1 — Inspector 4.- ; . .i f 1 FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) ii O.. • I Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation • . d f. } System Installer ;, t" 100 6 L Septic Tank Capacity - - - -- ; C optt . gtir 0� bl ! Septic Tank Manufacturer or Tra Name u k • a Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface �' s . p teAcq- rrCL0 ?, f Absorption Area ( r t ti • ` Absorption Area Type end /or Manufacturer or Trade Name OC x C L E A C N - F r 6 C G ,, r i+ 1! r Adequate compliance with County and State regulations /requirements t./--- f } t Other I —r1 —, M p 4CL )t i - Date Inspector ■ . RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE Z 1 yi j •CONDITIONS: } 1. A installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health I ndividual S ewage Disposal Systems Chtipter 6 25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984. ,i 4 ` 2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con- ::• t ■ 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. i t `, 3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material i k t • variation from the terms or specifications contained In the application of permit commits a Claes 1, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine — 8 °. t .,, months In Jell or both). j ; White - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT _._ INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION • OWNER 0 rapt 61 lnaCi rwci s ADDRESS Pb Box5 Shot vrct$f Ccm 8/15 Y PHONE 9x)-.7513 CONTRACTOR R a. o C 6 ns iThru, c N o n ADDRESS PO Bo X 53L 5; 1? (o 81659- PHONE 1. 76's2 PERMIT REQUEST FOR (✓INEW 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 Ichwood cFrkja_ Size of Lot 1 '/1 ac t_ Legal Description or Address Cccl*'-. i 7awasl„' 1 .S €r#S Re J - 89 be r e f tk L y t� p.�„c)p, / me 4qa o2 s2 6 gtldIlk., Pd. /67 644te+k/toun co / . -. o% WASTES TYPE: ( ) DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE ( I4 COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: S kap. Number of Bedrooms ,0� Number of Persons 0 ( ) Garbage Grinder ( ) Automatic Washer ( ) Dishwasher SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (✓) WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: 0- rn ; /e s Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? A site plan is required to be submitted that indicates the followine 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 ISSUED WITHOUT A SITE PLAN. GROUND CONDITIONS: Depth to first Ground Water Table 30 n -fee Percent Ground Slope cf` wt 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 b R (i 8tle / ILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE? PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (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: N P Ge c' i e c 1 '1 5n a0 Cf2 lS4 C S C, C16o r 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 e Date t — /O — 7 PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! 3 , } 'e 24 2 k 1- � C � E 9 � ` � T R' / f 2 ƒ , r O ƒ • / | @ a n k ' CA \ § GO r 2 / ( ( n a — $ ) - 0 k C \f # \ \ �< c ( n $n i 01 ) T � -1 z { / 2 } } LA) @»;® ` ƒ \ 9 7 t 0- / cx �© / / () \ �} a = e e, „ ) 2 } \ / 0 0 %% ® `9 9 �k0 g ƒ ' 0 1.14) \ c , O r • ƒ \ ( \ 0 A R. 5 > .. \ / • • u Hepworth•Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. ' �l�l P County Road tech Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970.945.7988 8 Fax: 970. 945.8454 hpgeo @hpgeotech.com July 16, 1999 Rando Construction Attn: Joe Rando P.O. Box 536 Silt, Colorado 81652 Job No. 199 497 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Commercial Building, 252 County Road 167, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Rando: As requested, Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study for design of foundations at the subject site. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to you dated June 24, 1999. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this report. Proposed Construction: The proposed building will be a large single story steel structure located on the site as shown on Fig. 1. The height of the building will be about 18 feet. Ground 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 consist of relatively light wall loads and moderate column loads and typical of the proposed type of construction. 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: A single story modular residence is located to the east of the proposed building. The ground surface slope is moderate down to the southwest with about 3 feet of elevation difference across the building site. There is a steep embankment down to Coryell Ridge Road. The embankment is partially comprised of man - placed fill. Vegetation consists of trees along the property lines and a landscaped lawn area. Subsidence Potential: This area of the Roaring Fork Valley is underlain by Pennsylvania age Eagle Valley Evaporite bedrock. The evaporite contain gypsum deposits. Dissolution of the gypsum under certain conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of localized subsidence. Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. The exploratory pits were relatively shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our present knowledge of the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not develop. In our opinion, the risk of ground Rando Construction July 16, 1999 Page 2 subsidence on the property is low but the owner should wa re of the potential for sinkhole potential. Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating three exploratory pits at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The logs of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered generally consists of fill materials overlying relatively dense silty sandy gravel with cobbles and small boulders. Fill was exposed in Pit 2 to the depth of 4' feet. It appears the fill depth may extend to about 6 feet. One foot of topsoil and 21/2 feet of silty sand overlies the gravels in Pit 1. Results of swell- consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed sample of the silty sand soils, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing low moisture conditions and light loading and a low collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted. The sample showed moderate compressibility upon additional loading after wetting. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of the underlying gravels (minus 5 inch fraction) obtained from the site are presented on Fig. 4. The laboratory testing is summarized on Table 1. 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 or compacted structural fill designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf for support of the proposed building. Footings should be a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Existi g fill and loose and disturbed soils encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should a re moved and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural gravels. As an alternative design bearing level can be re- established with compacted structural fill. The structural fill should be granular material and compacted to 98 % of maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should extend laterally out from footing edge at least the depth of fill beneath the footing. 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. Floor Slabs: The natural sand and gravel soils below the topsoil and existing fill are 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 H -P GEOTECH Rando Construction July 16, 1999 Page 3 4 inch layer of sand and gravel should be placed beneath the slabs for subgrade support. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 12% 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 granular soils or imported granular fill devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. The existing fill should be completely removed before placing the under slab fill. Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the building 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. 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. 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 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 H -P GEOTECH APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" = 60' - - PROPERTY / LINES PIT 1 • E EXISTING � PROPOSED RESIDENCE J BUILDING 1 ` _ -- PIT 3 o PIT 2 O O 9 199 497 I GEOTECHNICAL,NINC. I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS I Fig. 1 PIT 1 PIT 2 PIT 3 • PRI _ -- _ti" DD =101 — v z I +4 =62 ■ - u. I 5 *A ' J - 200 =14 5 I . L c o. r _ d 10 10 LEGEND: FILL; silty sand and gravel with cobbles and small boulders, some trash, loose to medium dense, moist, red, angular rocks. ® TOPSOIL; sandy silt, organic, medium stiff, moist, dark brown. t ! " SAND (SM); silty, loose, moist, brown. V .ir GRAVEL, COBBLES AND BOULDERS (GP —GM); slightly silty, sandy, dense, moist, light brown, subrounded rocks. 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample. i Disturbed bulk sample. ..J NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on June 25 and 28, 1999 with o backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features 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 occurate 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. Fluctuotions in water level may occur with time. • 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) DO = Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 199 497 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. • Moisture Content = 6.5 percent Dry Density Weight = 101 pcf Sample of: Silty Sand From: Pit 1 at 2.5 Feet 0 1 Compression upon 2 wetting 0 Vl N 0 E 3 0 U \\ N I 4 5 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 199 497 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. • HYGROMETER ANALYSIS 1 MEW ANALYSIS 1110 READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SCUARE OPENINGS 24 HR. 7 HR 43 NN. 15 MIN. 60 MN.19 MN. • MN. 1 MIN. 6200 /100 960 930 /16 /6 H 3/6'1/2•3/4 1 1/Y 3. 6'6• 6• 100 I 0 90 10 I 60 I 20 70 �' 30 ' ' t 0 Z 60 40 Z Z N N i 1 — Q I w ce z 50 . 1 60 I z 1 Z w w U 0 cz a_ a I a 40 I 60 / -� r JO _ I ' I 70 ../ I , . 20 I 60 I I I I 1 10 ( 1 90 0 I 100 .001 .002 .0435 .009 .019 .037 .074 .130 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 19.0 37.5 76.2 12 ;62 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT I �� IMM g aala int*za{a. COBBLES GRAVEL 62 % SAND 24 % SILT AND CLAY 14 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Grovel FROM: Pit 1 at .3.5 thru 4.5 Feet with Cobbles 199 497 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. • • } }_ k t ! co f f / § J d 6 • r 1 -J . § r \ § / o ' o & (° `- 0 w : ;- al CC • %E E §� _ § u_ I§ - R o \ \ 2 3 O. \ ) z ct § /) 2 2 ) | ! N / O • 1- r-