Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03302 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION OWNER Dav tci V J( 7 N lib c1_ ADDRESS 2_07_l Pi orl o o Dr c-5; 14- PHONEW76 -5844 war L CONTRACTOR ' t ADDRESS PHONE PERMIT REQUEST FOR (x) 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 k Size of Lot r O nit c-S Legal Description or Address LOT 1 I Pe 0,6A Valley f r'ct'czxc\ 00613 Sh,4J Ln . WASTES TYPE: (A DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE ( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: nt(V At- c5#-ohy Loc hofrce_ Number of Bedrooms 4 (euc rc +LX I ( y , Number of Persons 4 ()0 Garbage Grinder (X) Automatic Washer 06 Dishwasher SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: ( ) WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: Pectcth Orchwck (5ac%o)n W4 11) DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? 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 ISSUED WITHOUT A SITE PLAN. GROUND CONDITIONS: j ('200(4' -C'roa-^ NP CG�oke c1. Depth to first Ground Water Table Percent Ground Slope 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 WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE? HO PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the Percolation Test) t4 p Ge o { t' _cL . o, `{� 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: Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: V, I .,Ir\ 1, Ice_ rota-4- y ±) SIZ- t- 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 � II4iT Date 0/ PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! S� Mtso rtac --6 {- 104-.)ey et-p mac) , ot4tv on I- larve3 60,p rccxJ pnsl l-L_ °Y° ak R De, 6ki cbc_I( taunt Q 1`,, :1. at s,14- Mesa Va. 3 Z .< d -4 0 ^ or �0 a 0- z 0 n a (p . g o !• � 7 y h C << ; a PAv Li, 1 l —(‘ D. 0 G. ,,,, O w 0 w ) O n fC FD". 7 z `� c w .JS T w 5 " H` � 1 � I S w z 4___,,_ $ °- - o A n= m in w O 9 c e c 3 o r.. , a v n 0 t . ;7, ` \ Z O r n c \ O O c w H -\ a C a; G • J y O• (4. c- r m w N . 2.. 0 9 C a w. E° m 1 y n p n f O n c a c e T1 p 7 Q C O N �' m d P F o' 9' ? oo .e • U c c 2 g ` c' . to N A w Q 0 • t 10 a o• z O. S G g N w 1.1 P Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. • Gent 1 Phone: 970.9 5n7988 Colorado 81601 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgeo @hpgeotech.com December 31, 1999 Basalt Construction Attn: Dave Hillbrand P.O. Box 110 Silt, Colorado 81652 Job No. 199 948 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed Hillbrand Residence, Lot 17, Peach Valley Orchard, County Road 237, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Hillbrand: 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 Basalt Construction dated December 8, 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 residence will be a single story wood frame structure over a walkout basement level located on the site as shown on Fig. 1. The basement floor is 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 about 200 feet to the south 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 was vacant and covered with about 4 inches of snow at the time of our field work. The ground surface is gently rolling with a gentle slope down to the south - southwest. There is about 20 feet of elevation difference across the property. An active irrigation ditch is located to the west of the building area. The lot is vegetated with brush, grass and weeds. Numerous cobbles and boulders are exposed on the ground surface. Basalt Construction December 31, 1999 Page 2 Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by observing one exploratory pit in the building area and one profile pit in the septic disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The pits had been excavated by the client prior to our field work. The logs of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about 3 1 /2 feet of topsoil, consist of medium stiff sandy silt and clay. Results of swell - consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the clay, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low to moderate compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a minor to low collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted. The samples showed moderate to high compressibility upon additional loading after wetting. No free water was observed in Pit 1 at the time of excavation. Ice was observed in the profile pit at a depth of 61/2 feet. The client stated that he had dug the pit to 8 feet deep and encountered groundwater at 6 1 /2 feet deep the previous day. The upper soils were slightly moist to moist. Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, spread footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 800 psf can be used for support of the proposed residence with a risk of settlement. The soils tend to compress upon loading and wetting and there could be some post - construction foundation settlement. The amount of settlement would depend on the depth and extent of subsurface wetting and could be 2 inches or more. Footings should be a minimum width of 20 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. The exposed subgrade should be compacted prior to placing concrete. 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 heavily reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 14 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 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. The soils are compressible when wetted and loaded. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow H -P GEOTECH • Basalt Construction December 31, 1999 Page 5 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 GEOTE ., INC. Ppp REG /ST % / � i �� A11 .(0 1 1 1/% O ' Sa,O Jordy Z. Adamso , Jr. .: o ° 2' • p7� Reviewed By: # , -P • • �, oT •• � � 1 u v . It (en (. r ‘ 1,US pNple� Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. JZA /ksm attachments H -P GEOTECH • APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" 100' BENCH MARK: GROUND AT PROPERTY CORNER; ELEV. = 100.0', ASSUMED. LOT 9 DIRT ROAD 1 APPROXIMA BUILDING LOCATION KZ • L PIT co 0 t 0 Q J 0 U' r a 1 1 x I I 1 LOT 17 H.) P 1 N Q ° ¢ P 2 4 IIII PROFILE PIT 0 L� P 3 z z 0 U I ROPERTY BOUNDAR 199 948 I GEOTEC NICAL, INC. I LOCATION A DPERCOLA11ONATESTINGTS Fig. 1 Moisture Content = 17.5 percent Dry Density = 103 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Pit 1 at 4 Feet 0 1 Compression upon 2 wetting be c 0 3 m u E 0 4 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 199 948 I GEOTECHNICALA ( SWELL — CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 Moisture Content = 21.1 percent Dry Density = 103 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Pit 1 at 8 Feet 0 1 Compression upon 2 _ wetting A c 0 3 a 0 4 U 5 • 6 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPUED PRESSURE — ksf 199 948 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK SWELL — CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. . 4 HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 199 948 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 49 15 9 8 1 8 7 1 7 6 1/2 1/2 6 1/2 6 1/2 6 5 1/2 1/2 5 1/2 5 1/2 5 4 1/2 1/2 4 1/2 4 1/4 1/4 36 P -2 50 15 8 3/4 8 3/4 8 7 1/4 3/4 7 1/4 6 3/4 1/2 6 3/4 6 1/4 1/2 6 1/4 5 3/4 1/2 5 3/4 5 1/2 1/4 5 1/2 5 1/2 5 4 5/8 3/8 40 P -3 49 15 8 3/4 7 3/4 1 7 3/4 7 3/4 7 6 1/2 1/2 6 1/2 6 1/2 6 5 1/2 1/2 5 1/2 5 1/4 1/4 6 1/4 4 3/4 1/2 4 3/4 4 3/8 3/8 40 NOTE: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked by the client. The holes had been covered with rigid foam Insulation to protect against freezing overnight. The soil temperature at the time of the test was about 40 °. Percolation test were conducted by a representative of Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical Inc., on December 17, 1999. The average percolation rates were based on the last three readings of each test.