HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication-Permit.pdfProject Address 0360 CR 225 RIFLE, CO Owner Information Terry Davis Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-Phone: (970)945-8212
Fax: (970)384-3470 Parcel No. 217906400071 Address 074 CR 225 Rifle CO 81650 Subdivision M' , p~rmit(IJb.SEP"~11~()9"1.3i9 ·f".<ilTl1i1.fype!·Septlc~l;lrrl1it.·. "'WotkG/i'S~ificatiC!I):I'lI!~
Pelmit SI'lIUS:Aclive . Issue Dale: 4/14/2010 Expires: 04/14/2011 Section Township Range 6 6 92 Phone Cell 970-625-9160 Contractor{s) Phone Primary Contractor Required Inspections: Colonna
Construction (970)625-3376 Yes Proposed Construction I Details Septic tank for single family dwelling. FEES DUE Fee Percolation Test Septic Fee -New Total: Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Amount $100.00 $73.00 $173.00 Valuation: $ 0.00 Total Sq Feet: o FEES PAID Inv Total Paytype Amt Paid Amt Due Inv # SEPT-11-09-19905 $ 173.00 Check # 1508 Check # 1507 $100.00 $73.00
$ 0.00 Fo"",pootio"".II, 1 (970)384-5003 Inspection IVR See Permit Record Building Department Copy 2
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 GARFIELD COUNTY SEPTIC PERMlT APPLICATION 1088" Street, Suite 401 , Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Phone: 970-945-82121 Fax: 970-384-3470 /Inspection
Line: 970-384-5003 \V\V'!v . .earfie I d-co untv . com parce'~lh7n9rmOo{; a~roooa7siofS office 970-945-9134) Job t1-ress: {if an address has not bi2d,igned, please provide crlZ' ~(Zl
Name & City) or and legal description 7 I' ~{jA.IN ' Z-2~ , ~ . C-.4, Lot Size: 40 ~ Lot No: Block No: SuW.! Exemplion: Owner: (property owner) Mailing Address ~ e:[ Ph: 1'"~ i>M/~ V7~
c:/-« 72; /: ~ • to. 'is' /G.Jl fRZ5-91f.?O 2~ontlroacutor; tA~ 60 ;0..6: -I ~) t:Ja-~,'(i)n g_ Aadodr,ecss I 94! ? !2rI~ & . Ph~2-)_ -331~ Engineer: Mailing Address Ph: PERMIT REQUEST
FOR: (t1" New Installation ( ) Alteration WASTE TYPE: (~elling ( )Transient Use ( )Commercial or industrial ( )Olher -Describe BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: 't' r--~'-fA , Number 6f bedrooms
14 Garbage Grinder (l11es SOURCE & TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: ( )WELL (\(jSPRING ( )STREAM OR CREEK If supplied by COMMUNITY WATER, give name of supplier: DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER
SYSTEM: .q ""'. ,c s Was an effort made to connect to the CommunIty System? ~L(J AltPh: All Ph: ?/,'t-fS7O(" All Ph: ( ) Repair ( )Non-Domestic wastes ( )No ( )CISTERN YOUR INDIVIDUAL
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITH OUT A SITE PLAN GROUND CONDITIONS: ~IIGD eo' Ve! tvA-~/Z.. Depth to l ' Ground Water Table Percent Ground Slope TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM (ISDS) PROPOSED: (lo'jSeptic Tank ( )Aeralion Plant ( )Vault ( )Vault Privy ( )Composting Toilet ( )Recycling, Potable Use i jOlher. Describe ( )Recycling, olher
use ( )Pil Privy ( )Incineration Toilet ( )Chemical T oilel FINAL DISPOSAL BY: (vlAbsorption trench, Bed or Pit ( )Underground Dispersal ( )Above Ground Dispersal ( )Evapotranspiration
( )Sand filter ( )Waslewater pond ( )Olher. Describe Will effluent be discharged directly Into waters of the state? ( )YES ("'iN0 PERCOLATION TEST RESULT: (10 be completed by Registered
Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does Ihe 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 & telephone of RPE who made soil absorption test: Name, address & telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of
the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and additional test 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 I ?: "';,
. for ~~ed by law. /01-1-'" r.?' t.I~r.., 0 ") OWNERS~ATURE DATE STAFF USE ONLY Permit Fee: !:rkFee: LOCJ T~~~jb l-=t-3 Building Permit #: 4:ll3, OO l ~15 Septic Permit #: ~ ISSUt~':\q_
d (') l.t) -\ ~lCj BU~~~ 4/7/10 APPROVAL DATE
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone (970) 945-8212 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT PROPERTY Permit
137 9 Assessor's Parcel No. This does not constitute a building or use permit. Owner's Name 7It f(.£ Y PAI//5 Present Address o3bO Cl< Zz.s-Phone 62.5= 1/00 System Location. _--.==..s.A.:w/~J1
"£""'___ ______ ________ ________ _ _ Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. _________ _______________ _ SYSTEM DESIGN IN~/ALL£{) Or' 15"& 0 Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) GA R ,J)15.0
ther + ZCJ /Q 9 Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) 4: ----+---75""67-/..51= 9 G) 7 Sit', /-T. /<oU<. A £ L P Required Absorption Area -See Attached 4...s-1-SI(,;:::"-r.
IN fkUcf./+ 1-6 6(1-1/-10 Special Setback Requirements: a 4-4-51(, Fr. 1 tJ J3E.~! s-9 &. <f-/1-/0 Date II-IS-::: /0 Inspector ~ ~ FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed)
Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Insta llation System Installer __-t==-y· -=t=U~A~J,=c;ice= _____________ _______ _ Septic Tank Capacity __. ../1~S"l-'c~JO'----_G=-.:A-'--'t".'.~
, _ ______ ___________ Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name __-,C--·"-e=~<,-,~"",--,U,,· ,,=.l.NL""--P'"---_---'C~&'.-''''-A'''J--'C''=-C£!...<I'''C'_'/'_..;L.=r; _ Septic Tank Access
within 8" of surface ____~ .L.Y--f<'-=t--".'-s-------------------Absorption Area <f Z L S£t? ' ff. /AI W£/f/c/I Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name 38 euulZ5" AI?
c., s t> II-/?? Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements __-J),c/.-'I'-'C=---S'=-________ Other _____ _________ _ _ _ ~ _ ,_----~ _ ~--------Date //-29 -/t/Inspector
.a:~ ~ , RETAIN WITH RECEIPT REZ DSAT CONSTRUCTION SITE CONDITIONS: 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 connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements.
Connection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be·a violation or a requirement of the permit and cause for both
legal action and revocation of the permit. 3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material variation
from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class 1, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine -6 month s in jail or both). White -APPLICANT Yellow -DEPARTMENT
~tech HEPWORTH" PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL SUBSOIL STUDY Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, lnc. 5020 Count\· Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED DAVIS RESIDENCE 0074 COUNTY ROAD 225 GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 109 039A MARCH 6, 2009 PREPARED FOR: TERRY AND TORI DAVIS c/o CIMARRON LAND AND HOMES, LLC. ATTN: BILL
WILDE 73 SIPPERELLE DRIVE BATTLEMENT MESA, COLORADO 81635 Parker .303-841-7119 • Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 • Silverthome 970-468-1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDy ........................................................................ -1 -PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .......................................................
.......................... -1 -SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... -2-FIELD EXPLORATION ...............................
............................................................. -2-SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................. -2-DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
............................................................................. -3 -FOUNDATIONS ....................................................................................................
-3 -FLOOR SLABS ...................................................................................................... -4-UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ...........................................................
'" ........................ -5 -SURFACE DRAINAGE ......................................................................................... -5 -LIMITATIONS ............................................
.............................................................. -6 -FIGURE 1 -LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 -LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES
4 and 5-SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1-SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located at 0074 County Road 225, Garfield County, Colorado. The project
site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose ofthe study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical
engineering services to Terry and Tori Davis dated February 9, 2009. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface
conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and other engineering
characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed
building foundation. This report summarizes the data 0 btained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations
based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Building plans for the residence are being developed. We understand the proposed residence
will be one story wood frame or timber frame construction above a crawlspace or slab-on-grade floor. A detached garage will be located adjacent to the residence. Grading for the structure
is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 2 to 4 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. Ifbuilding
loadings, location or grading plans change significantly Ii-om those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. Job No. 109 039A
-2 -SITE CONDITIONS The property is an undeveloped 40 acre parcel located on the east side of County Road 225 and north of State Highway 6. The building area has been cleared of vegetation.
The surrounding area is vegetated with grass, weeds, sage brush and cottonwood trees. The ground surface is relatively flat with a slight slope down to the south. A large irrigation
ditch crosses the property from west to east and the building area is located uphill and north of the ditch. FIELD EXPLORA nON The field exploration for the project was conducted on
February 26, 2009. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure I to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous
flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with
a 2 inch l.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration
test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency ofthe subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken
and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils consist of about 6 inches of topsoil root zone overlying and
silty sand and sandy silt down to the maximum depth explored of 23 feet. Job No.1 09 039A
-3 -Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, density and percent fmer than sand size gradation analyses. Results of swell-consolidation
testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples, presented on Figures 4 and 5, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. The laboratory
testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked 6 days later and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. DESIGN
RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded
with spread footings bearing on the natural soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. I) Footings placed
on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1 ,500 psi Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed
as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. Additional settlements on the order of 1 to 2 inches could occur if the soils become wet. 2) The footings should have a minimum
width of 18 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their
bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. Job No. 109 039A ~h
-4 -4) 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 also be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55 pef 5) All topsoil and any loose or
disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted.
[fwater seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 6) A representative ofthe geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations
prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slabon-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 li'ee-draining gravel should be placed beneath slabs. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at
least 50% retained on 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. Job No. 109 039A
-5 -UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area 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 crawlspace
areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. Shallow crawlspace (less than 4 feet) and slab-on-grade construction should not require an
underdrain system provided positive drainage is provided foundation wall backfill is well-compacted and slopes away from the foundation. If installed, 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
I foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum I % 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 of2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least I Y, feet deep. SURF ACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: I) Inundation ofthe 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 Job No. 109039A
-6 -recommend a minimum slope of6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the flTst 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill should
be capped with about 2 feet of the onsite soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 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 foundation walls. Consideration should be given to use ofxeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting
of soils below the building caused by irrigation. 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 express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained fi'om the exploratory
borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention
or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice
should be consulted. Our fmdings include interpolation and extrapolation ofthe subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings 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 so that
re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client tor 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 Job No. 109 039A
-7 -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 engmeer. Respectfully Submitted,
Louis E. Eller Reviewed by: Daniel E. Hardin, P. E. LEE/ksw cc: Job No. 109039A
NOT TO SCALE 80' BORING 2. BUILDING AREA 80' '\'-w BORING 1 () wz 80' LL w 50' 0: ct PASTURE ~ § Q rS "~ EXISTING "0 DRIVE ~ ft COUNTY ROAD 225 109039A G~&tech LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY
BORINGS Figure 1 He worth-Pawlak Geotechnical
BORING 1 BORING 2 0 0 23/12 7/12 WC~6.0 WC~4.2 DD~110 5 DD~103 5 -200~30 6/12 4/12 WC~6.7 WC~7.4 DD~96 10 DD~93 10 -200~59 Q) 12112 Q) OJ OJ "-"-8/12 J:: J:: 0. 0. OJ 15 15 OJ 0 0 12/12
11/12 WC~14.0 DD~ 113 20 20 15/12 WC~16.8 DD~110 25 25 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. 109039A cti'cMech He worth-Pawlak Geotechnical LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figure
2
LEGEND: TOPSOIL; organic sandy clay and silt, firm, slightly moist, brown. The site had been grubbed. This is the remaining root zone. SILT (ML); sandy to very sandy, medium stiff to
stiff, loose to medium dense, slightly moist to moist with depth, reddish brown, upper 4 feet appears to be silty sand. 7/12 NOTES: Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. California
liner sample. Drive sample blow count; indicates that 7 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California sampler 12 inches. 1. Exploratory borings
were drilled on February 26, 2009 with 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on
the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were not measured and the logs of exploratory borings are drawn to depth. Boring 1 is about 1;y'; feet higher than Boring
2. 4. The exploratory boring 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
boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free' water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when
checked 6 days later. Fluctuation in water level rnay occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (%) DD = Dry Density (pcl) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
G~&tech HeDworth-Pawlak Geotechnical 109039A LEGEND AND NOTES Figure 3
Moisture Content -4.2 percent Dry Density = 103 pel Sample of: Silty Sand From: Boring 1 at 3 Feet 0 * 1 Compression c 0 ~ upon ·w wetting (J) ~ 2 0. ""-. E 0 "-0 3 "" 4 0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksl Moisture Content = 7.4 percent Dry Density = 93 pcl Sample 01: Sandy Silt From: Boring 1 at 8 Feet 0 *c ~--0 1 ----·w "" ---t-I-Compression '~" ~ upon 0. wetting
E 2 0 0 "-'\~ 3 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksl 109039A G~&tech SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 4 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical
Moisture Content = 6.0 percent Dry Density = 110 pc! Sample of: Silt and Sand From: Boring 2 at 2 Feet 0 ./"" -' "'" "" No movement ?f!. -....... upon c "-wetting 0 1 'iii ";:;~ C/l
~ DE 0 2 0 3 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf Moisture Content = 6.7 percent Dry Density = 96 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silt From: Boring 2 at 7 Feet a ~ No movement ~ upon ?f!. 1 wetting
c '" 0 'iii C/l ~ 2 \ DE 0 0 3 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf 109039A c~£tech Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Figure 5
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 1 Job No. 109 039A SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION ATIERBERG LIMITS PERCENT UNCONFINED MOISTURE
DRY GRAVEL SAND PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR BORING DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY NO. 200 LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE I (%J (%J I (It) (%) ~ SIEVE (%) (%J (PSF) 1 3 4.2 103
30 Silty Sand 8 7.4 93 59 Sandy Silt 2 2 6.0 110 Silt and Sand 7 6.7 96 Sandy Silt 17 14.0 113 Sandy Silt 22 16.8 110 Sandy Silt