Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Application - Permit
December 13,2011 Mr. Jack Wheeler ICM Group, LLC PO Box3433 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC 0805 Buckpoint Road Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-2170 Office (970) 704-0215 Fax RE: LOT 35 MOUNTAIN SPRINGS RANCH-0480 SOUTH MARSH LANE SEPTIC PERMIT No. 4245-"DRAWING OF RECORD" AND INSPECTION GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Dear Jack; This letter represents construction certification of the Lot 35, Mountain Springs Ranch Subdivision septic system pursuant to the plans and specifications prepared by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc. The subject septic system was installed under Garfield County Septic Permit No. 4245, on file in Garfield County. The enclosed "Drawing of Record" represents the "as-constructed" septic system improvements, to the best of my knowledge, with respect to Lot 35 in the Mountain Springs Ranch Subdivision. The final layout of the drain lines reflect a field modification that was necessary, once it was discovered that the south Lot line was closer to the main residence than originally believed. Upon recognizing this reality, new percolation tests were performed at an alternate location (see enclosed drawing for new drip field locations), and a new soil profile hole was excavated. The relocated percolation tests resulted in percolation rates of 22, 32, and 40 minutes per inch. In addition, the new profile test hole was excavated to a depth of approximately 6.5 reet before practical refusal was realized due to the existence of large boulders. The new soil profile hole included approximately 18-inches of topsoil overlying silty, sandy clay with angular rock on top oflarge boulders. No ground water was apparent in the excavation. Based on the percolation test results, we determined that the originally designed drain field size would be sufficient to provide effluent treatment for the residence. On a recent site visit, conducted October 20, 2011, I had an opportunity to inspect most of the components of the septic system with exception of the pump, which had not been installed. During the inspection, I observed the location of the septic tank, pumping vault, supply lines, drip irrigation lines, air relie:flvacuum valve and pipe manifolds. Based on my observations and to the best of my knowledge the system was installed in substantial accordance with the original plans and specifications as depicted on the enclosed "Drawing of Record" and exceeds all required setback requirements. December 13, 2011 Mr. Jack Wheeler Page2 of2 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. A Hydromatic Pump (HPG200) with a 4.5-inch impeller capable of supplying 60 feet of dynamic head at approximately 22.5 GPM, was recently installed per my recommendation. I inspected and recently verified that the pump installation and float level controls were working as designed. I trust that this letter provides adequate certification of the Lot 35 Mountain Springs Ranch septic system installation pursuant to the plans and specifications prepared by my firm. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. PE \ DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. heb:HEB Enclosures: (3) Copies of "Lot 35 Mountain Spring Ranch Septic System-"Drawing of Record" To From: Date: Re Jack Wheeler Jack Albright September 21, 20 11 35 Mountain Springs Garfield County, CO FIELD REPORT 1-JHI ~ Those Present: Jack Wheeler, ICM Group ., .. ,_- Jack Albright, Albright & Associates I was on site on September 20, 2011 to observe the completed framing. It appeared that all of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing lines were in place. The workmanship of the framing appeared to be good. It appeared that all of the required work indicated and coordinated in our revised structural documents dated September 21, 2011 had been performed and was per plan. Please contact us with any questions regarding the above information. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. 11033FR1 Albright & Associates, INC • 970.927.4363 office • 970.927.3039 fax • 402 Park Ave., UnitE • Basalt, CO 81621 • www.albright-associates.com 4'0D :S. MMI-I Ut:N~ #-;o;crs August 23, 2011 Mr. Jack Wheeler ICM Group, LLC PO Box3433 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP. INC 0805 Buckpoint Road Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-2170 Office (970) 704-0215 Fax RE: LOT 35 MOUNTAIN SPRINGS RANCH INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC DISPOSAL SYSTEM (ISDS) Dear Jack; Enclosed are signed copies of the ISDS design for the subject parcel and associated residence. As you know, we conducted a subsurface investigation of the site and have designed an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) in accordance with the encountered soil conditions. SITE CONDITIONS The property is situated adjacent to the 3-Mile drainage in unincorporated Garfield County, Colorado where on-site wastewater systems are the only option for treating residential wastewater. The proposed drain field area is located in ah area with approximately 25% average grades and is situated southwest of the proposed residence. The proposed ISDS was located during a site visit to determine the most suitable location to conduct the sub-soils investigation. A survey of the property was not provided, so prior to construction of the ISDS, we would strongly recommend that the location selected be comfortably within the Lot 35 boundary lines. A potable water well was previously drilled west existing residence, however, based on the current design, there appears to be sufficient setback distance to place the p~O}Josed ISDS system in its currently planned location. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION A 3-bedroom house is currently located on the property. Refer to the ISDS Site Plan on Sheet 1 of 2 (attached) for precise locations and pertinent setback dimensions. The ISDS average daily flow of 450 gallons per day (GPD) was calculated based on current State of Colorado Department of Heath and Environment regulations for a 3-bedroom house and an average flow of 75-gallons per person per day. The hydraulic loading with a peaking factor of 1.5 is therefore 675 GPD. The loading automatically accounts for washing machines and garbage grinders. \ • August 23, 2011 Mr. Jack Wheeler Page2 of4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Percolation test were performed by our office on August 2nd, 2011 and a profile hole excavation was observed. Based on the percolation testing data, the percolation rates were observed as follows; 11.0, 45.0, and 23.0 minutes per inch (MPI) respectively. The tests were taken over a 2-hour period after the holes were pre-soaked for a 24 hour period. See attached percolation test results. The design rate of 45.0 MPI was selected as the basis for designing the ISDS, given the underlying soil conditions. A six (6) foot profile hole was also observed on the site, and no evidence of groundwater was present. The profile hole consisted of one (1) to four ( 4) feet of topsoil overlying stiff to medium stiff, silty clay, light brown to tan in color. Volcanic cobles and boulders were encountered at the six ( 6) foot level and therefore excavating to the eight (8) foot level was simply not practical. Furthermore, there as no evidence of any ground water in the profile hole. We feel confident that the test pit locations represent the nature of the soils and their corresponding impact on the design percolation rate. RECOMMENDATIONS The ISDS design is based on a peak hydraulic loading of 675 gallons per day (GPD) and a percolation rate of 45.0 minutes per inch (MPI). Due to the underlying soil conditions, steepness of the slope, and the existence of rocky outcrops, we have proposed a evapo- transpiration/absorption (ETA) system in order to dispose of the domestic effluent. We have selected a Long Term Application Rate of 0.3 as the basis for the drain field design. We feel, given the underlying soil conditions, that this should be the maximum application rate for the drain field. Based on our calculations on Sheet 1 of 2 attached, the drip irrigation field should be a minimum of 2,250 square feet, comprised offour ( 4) separate drip sections, each having an effective area of 562.5 square feet. Based on Garfield County requirements for a 3-bedroom residence, we have designed the system to include one 1000-gallon dual compartment septic tank with a four ( 4) inch biotube filter. In addition the system should include a 1000-gallon single compartment, dosing tank in series with the septic tank. All tanks should be pre-cast concrete, unless approved otherwise by the Garfield County Building Department (refer to Sheet 1 of 2, attached, for design calculations). Vehicular and construction traffic within the drain field should be limited to minimize compaction of the subsoil matrix. Prior to installation, soil directly below the drain field trenches should be scarified with backhoe bucket teeth to facilitate better infiltration. August 23, 2011 Mr. Jack Wheeler Page 3 of4 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Final grading around the ETA drip irrigation area should channel water away from the system in order to minimize infiltration. Irrigation sprinkler water should not be installed on top of, or inunediately adjacent to the proposed drip irrigation system. INSTALLATON AND OBSERVATIONS The installation of the ISDS should be observed by the design engineer to verify the location, field depths, and separation distances. We recommend that the contractor contact our office at least 48 hours prior to commencing with construction of the system to schedule a site visit. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Periodic maintenance on the system will be required to assure optimum performance. The septic tank should be pumped every two years, and the eflluent filter should be cleaned as necessary during septic tank pumping. Only biodegradable products should be drained into the system and use of a garbage disposal should be minimized. A separate section of the system should be isolated annually to allow that section to rest. This can be accomplished by turning off a different (bed section) isolation valve each year. Water softening backwash can be problematic to an ISDS. It is recommended that a separate drywell be constructed for backwash waste if a water softener is installed. Water in the residence should be monitored to assure that toilet valves are functioning properly to avoid system overload. No chemically treated water from hot tubs, pools, or spas should be drained into the ISDS. If localized subsurface conditions differ from those encountered by the soils engineer, our office should be notified in order to evaluate potential modifications to the ISDS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS All ISDS construction shall be in strict accordance with Garfield County standards, rules, and regulations. Furthermore, the installation contractor shall be knowledgeable with Garfield County regulations and should demonstrate previous experience related to similar ISDS installations. August 23, 2011 Mr. Jack Wheeler Page4 of4 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Please feel free to give us a call if you have any questions or require further assistance with this matter. CONSULTING GROUP, INC. HEB!heb Enclosures: Percolation rate test and design drawings (2 sheets) PINNACLE DESIGN TABLE 1-PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS LOT 35 MOUNTAIN SPRINGS RANCH GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO DATE OF TEST: August 2, 2011 PROFILE HOLE HOLE DEPTH NUMBER OF HOLE (in) 1 42 2 43 3 42 FEET TIME INTERVAL (min) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 DESCRIPTION FALL (in) 0.75 1.50 1.00 1.25 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 INTERVAL PERC. CHANGE RATE (min/in) 20.0 10.0 15.0 12.0 20.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 15.0 20.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Soil percolation rate determined by averagmg last 3 readmgs of test hole Number 2. Use 45 MPI as basis for design PERC. RATE (min/in) Average 11 45 23 Feb. 25. 201 I I :29PM No. 4270 P. I FAX THB Fleisher COMPANY · 0 · ~ 995 CowenDt., Ste. 201 • Carbondale, CO 81623 !&970.704.1515 • fax970.704.l444 • www.thefleiahercomplllly,com Fax Number: 91(;. '58'(, f '(7 6 FaxNumben (970) 704-1444 Date: z. '2{, 1 l No. of pages, including cover: uUrgent uForReview u Please Comment o Please Reply [l Please Recycle This faCilfmile transmission i$ privileged Olld confidential and is intended only fortha usa of the fu.dividual or entity to which it is addJ:eosed. If tho xoader oftheso matorials is not the iotended reclplen~ or tho Olllployoo or agent for delivering such materials lo the in!Mdedxecipie~~t, you are hereby noillied that flll.y dissOlllinction, distribution or copying of such materials fu not authorized by the soJidel'. J£ you have received this transmisainn in orror, pleas(} nofi1Y us inrmediately by telephone and discard the matorillls received. El/Z0 £ 'd'd OW 'ON " oil 3did All\11 Feb. 25. 201 I I :29PM No. 4270 P. 4 Feb. 25. 201 I I :30PM No. 4270 P. 5 Feb.25. 2011 1:30PM No. 4270 P. 6 Feb. 25. 201 I I :30PM No. 4270 P. 7 ~ • ~ .. ·. ~~-~ ~~~ i 1 '• I ' l I i u ' \ Feb. 25. 201 I I :30PM No. 4270 P. 8 I Feb. 25. 2011 I :30PM No. 4270 P. 9 ' •' r . • Feo.25. 2011 1:30PM No. 4270 P. 10 I Feb. 25. 2011 1:31PM No. 4270 P. 11 J : a I II Feb. 25. 2011 1:29PM To: Garfield County Building Depaltment Attn: Mr. Andy Schwaller 108 8111 St. Suite 40! Glenwood Springs CO 81601 From: CDM Group 995 Cowen Drive Suite 201 Carbondale CO 81623 lW: Permi~0!95 -'/>4-l(p:../1. Dear Mr. Schwaller, __/'" No. 4270 P. 2 February 18, 2011 Please note that for your records Mr. Jamee Houthoofd is the new owner of the home at 35 Mountain Springs Ranch Road othe1wise known as Legal Description, South Marsh Lane Lot 35 Mountain Springs Ranch. Please list him as Owner on the Building permit number 0195 and the septic permit nuinber 4245. Contact info as follows Mr. Jamee Houthoofd 9015 Northpoint Drive Beach City TX 77523 Home 281-573-3882 Attached nine pages of approved plans from the Design Review Board file, Thank you and if you have any questions or we can provide any additional information please feel free to call. . ---··-· . ____ . . -------· 995 Cowen Drive, S•ltt 201 Carbondale c Phone 970-704-1515 ext. 134-Fa>< 970- rz.~utevve-d Sfutc-/urtt{ P"lootz-piA111 <; Met (Zoof pi117As. 9/~1 d~ 5ee fiAU S fl.1 B'111l , F~p-16195" j frd-c:J (-[ eftfL-&L "Z,l'l. g[[(p /C(f'5' ~(!ifl_ fl~~*(~S ~ ~ h6ftJf~ 3M ru ~Cit. 1-1:-._w lli6lf1L~ <JLII..-'L* ':)vtw..J'mlf 1\~ %~ ()v;~ l~. 'l~-r( --------~--------------------------------- Garfield County Building & Sanitation Department 108 gh Street, Suite #401 Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Office-945-8212 Inspection Line-384-5003 Amount of Permit$ '2.01 Q5 • S] _,.. '{~i'.qf. ~~~·7f7>~ I NO.l0195 / 108 8'" St:roet, Su!U 401, Glenwood Sprlngs, CO 81601 Permit No: P~one1 9'T0-?4t1·8212/ Jralll970.384-3470-/lnepeot!on L :.a$4-8003 ~ l 0 I q 5 p.,rel. ohodulo No' 21 as-z.Cf!tJd E-o j Job Address: 'is/ fd:> I 2 Wk Ph: -3 Lie. No. 4 Architect/Engineer(:). 0... A~ss: .(!_ Ph: ~""""<:.. Lie. No, 5 Sq. Ft. of Building: .~ -Sq. Ft. of Lz~ "'-'(e 'S Height: ;2.'-( .I No.of~s: 9 ~ge: / 10 y otfTK Permit 11 Valuation of Work: ::jll ~_pnl!i._ ~uble _} ... V On~Site Sewage Diaposal 12 Special Conditions:~,:.,.., I=(} ((.,..,, ~·) ·~7 NOTICE A SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED AND MUST BB ISSUED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO. Total Fee: AGREEMENT Carport: (;V"" Site Plan Adjusted Va~uations: S 2 _)(,, 7 ,.,'5 ,[2. Permit Fee: /7&_0. Cf5" Dated Permit Issued: PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO THE APPUCANT AS OWNER, CONTRACTOR AND/OR THE AGENT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR OWNER TO CONSTRUCT THE STRUCTURE AS DETAILED ON PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMiTTED TO AND REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT, THE SIGNER HEREBY AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND LAND USE REGUlATIONS ADOPTED BY GARFIELD COUNTY PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GIVEN LN 30.28.201 CRS AS AMENDED. THE SIGNER FURTHER AGREES THAT IF THE ABOVE SAID ORDINANCES ARE NOT FULLY COMPILED WITH IN THE LCOATION, ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, AND USE OF THE ABOW DESCRIBED STRUCTURE, THE PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY NOTICE FROM THE COUN'I'Y AND THAT THEN AND THERE IT SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID. THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMTBASED UPON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA SHALL NOT PREVENT THE BUILDING OFFtCIAL FROMTHEREAFI'ER REQUIRING THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN SAID PlANS, SPECJF1CATIONS AND OTHER DATA OR FROM PREVENTING BUILDING OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON THEREUNDER WHEN IN VIOlATION OFTHS CODE OR ANY OTHER ORDINANCE OR REGUlATION OF THIS JURISDICTION. THE REVIEW OF SUBMITI'ED PlANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED THEREAFI'ER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACCEPTANCE OF ANY RESPONSIBILITIES OR UABLITIES BY GARFIELD COUNTY FOR ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DISCREPENClES. THE RESPONSI BIUTY FOR THESE ITEMS AND IMPLEMENTATION DURING CONSTRUCTION RESTS SPECIFICIALLY WITH THE ARTICTECT, DESIGNER, BillLDER, AND OWNER. COMMENTS ARE INTENDED TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND IN SUPPORT OF THE OWNERS LNTEREST. I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE AGR8EMENT ABOVE (INITIAL): !Jir~ ?d $ I l ~~.~CJ Yt~+ee. CJ-db-tJ~ c.-h"*-!b I The following items are required by Garfield County for a final inspection: I. A final Electrical Inspection from the Colorado State Electrical inspector; 2. Pennanent address assigned by Garfield Counzy Building Department posted where readily visible from access road; 3. A finished roof, a lockable house, complete exterior siding, exterior doors and windows installed, a complete kitchen with cabinets, a sink with hot & cold running water, non-absorbent kitchen floor coverings, counter tops and fmished walls, ready for stove and refrigerator, all necessary plumbing; 4. All bathrooms must be complete, with washbowl, tub or shower, toilet stool, hot and cold running water, non-absorbent floors and walls finished and a privacy door; 5. All steps outside or inside over three (3) steps must have handrails, guard rails on balconies or decks over 30" high constructed to all IBC and IRC requirements; 6. Outside greding done to where water will detour away from the building; 7. Exceptions to the outside steps, decks and grading may be made upon the demonstration of extenuating circumstances, i.e. weather, but a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all the required items are completed and a fmal inspection made; 8. A fmal inspection sign off by the Garfield Counzy Road & Bridge Department for driveway installation, where applicable; as well as any final sign off by the Fire District, and/or State Agencies where applicable. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL THE ABOVE ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. - ****CANNOT OCCUPY OR USE DWELLING UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (C.O.) IS ISSUED. OCCUPANCY OR USE OF DWELLING WITHOUT A C.O. WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR VACATING PREMISES UNTIL ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE MET. I understand and agree to abide by the above conditions for occupancr::e aud_~ issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling under building penni! # ..t.O I~~ ~ *foe. tg~ ture Date Bplpplicationfeb2006 VALUATION/FEE DETERMINATION Applicant~ Address 1 a S'JJ s, Date /0~ f\l'.o..rsh . 1.-t\ • Finished (Livable Area): Main /lt.?qz Upper ~liZ. Lower Other Subdivision Mi _}l(i~_s v<n"d..... Lot/Block 3_?' Contractor ~ I\~ Total Square Feet 25 gcJ. 1-7 ~ 'g Valuation Basement: Unfinished Conversion of Unfinished to Finished Plan Check Fee for Conversion Valuation Garage: Valuation 57Ce '/ Crawl SJ2ace: Valuation I <c 9z.. v Decks/Patios: Covered #z 528 Valuation '( Open 4ft;Z Valuation y Total Valuation. ~~ z~ /L ::. { 2. 4: 72. :. 554'f Applicant~ Address ~rtcWwlS, Date 10~ N'-o..lsh I-n. Finished (Livable Area): Main JtrJqz Upper ~9Z. Lower Other Subdivision /1117' __}l(i~~g_s VZa.".J,.._ Lot/Block 3.?" Contractor ou-:J I'"\ -t-V Total Square Feet 25 gcJ t-7 ~ 'lS Valuation Basement: Unfinished Conversion of Unfinished to Finished Plan Check Fee for Conversion Valuation Garage: Valuation 57 (e y Crawl Space: Valuation I~ 9z. Decks/Patios: Covered Valuation Open Valuation y Total Valuation /L ::. /2, Ce 72. ::. 554'f '2 JCe 7 S5,;z_ R~:~ Cf'ArD ?f()S: 57 · JJ..T.NJ titr ~o4. ?3 . ~ ... "U.t J ~'l ~ .'lrp ~ ~ q /'"/'" Mike and Jill Baker 107 Blue Jay Dr. Lakeway, TX 78734 Mountain Springs Rancl1Lot35. September S, 2007 Planning and Building Review Board This letter is to discuss the plan changes in the Permit # / ()/ ' ? We have decided to build a walkout basement due to the excavation of the site, and grade of the mountain. The house site is so deep that the crawl space will have the same wall height wllh or wllhout a basement So the plans will change to show the walkout area to the sides and cliff side of the dwelling. The difference is pouring concrete on the floor, instead of a natural floor. The grade change was so great that the wall on the high side of the house would be 9 It anyway, and not affect the original height of the house. We are enclosing 2 new copies of the affected change, and Chris Cumsille, my Advisor/GContractor csn be contacted wllh any questions at 303.995.8000 cell. I can be reached at the cell number below. Thank you for your quick review of these changes. Mike Baker Homeowner MSR Lot 35 512A70.0788 cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING 970-945-8212 MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS For SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION Including NEW CONSTRUCTION ADDITIONS ALTERATIONS And MOVED BUILDINGS In order to undmsta.nd the scope of the work intended under a pennit application and expedite the issuance of a pmnit it is important that eomplete information be provided. When reviewing • plan and it's discovered that required infonnation has not been provided by the applicant, this will result in the delay of the permit issuance and ill proceeding with building conslnl.ction. The owner or contractor shall be required to provide this information before the plan review can proceed. Other plans that are in line for review maybe given attention before the new information may be reviewed after it has been provided to the Building Department. Please· review tJtls doeument to determhl.e If you have enough information to design your pl'oject and provide adequate Information to facUltate a plail. review. Also, please consider using a design professional for auistanee In your design and a construction professional for construction of your project. Any project with more than ten (10) occupallts requires the plans to be sealed by a Colorado Registered Design ProfessionaL To provide for a more understandable plan in order to determine compliance with the building, plumbing and mechanical codes, applicants are requested to review the following checklist prior to and during design. Applicants are required to indicate appropriately and to submit the completed cl!eckllst at dme of applil:ation for a permit. Plan8 to be Included for a Building Permit, must be on drafting paper at least 18"1<14" and drawn to scale. 1 ., ' )';, I Plms mwt include a floor. plan, a concrete footing a11d foundation plan, elevations all sides with decks, balcony, steps, hand rails and prd rails, windows and doors, including the finish gtadc lin.e and original grade. A section showing in detai~ from the bottom of the footing to the top of the roof, including rlil-bar, a.oc.hor bolts, pressure treated plates, floor joists, wall studs and spacing, insulation, sheeting, bouse-rap, (which is required), siding or any approved. building material. Engineered foundations may be required. A window schedule. A door schedule. A floor fraro.i.n.g plan, a roof frmn.ing plan, roof must be designed to withstand a 40 pound per square foot up to 7,000 feet in elevation, a 90 M.P.H. wind speed, wind exj)Osure B or C, an.d a 36 inch frost depth. All sheets to be identified by number and indexed. All of th.e above requirements must be met or your plans will be returned. All plans submitted must be incompliance with thJ: 2003 IRC. I. Is a site plan included that identifies the location of th~ proj)Osed structure or aclditio.n and distances to the property lines from each corner of the proposed structure(s) pr11pared by a licensed surveyor and has the surveyors signature and professional stamp on the drawing? Properties wi.th slopes of30% or greater must be shown on the site plan. (NOTE Section: 106.2) Any site plan for the placement of any portion of a structure within 50 ft. of a property line and not within a pr~viously surveyed building envelope on a subdivision final plat shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor l!l:ld have the surveyor's signature and professional stamp on the drawing. Any stru.ctl.lre to be built wlthin a building envelope ofa lot shown on a recorded subdivision plat shall include a copy of the building envelope as it is shown on the flll8.l.p!at with the proposed structure located within the envelope. Yes -1a~ 2. Does the site plan abo include any other buildings on the property, setback easelllents and utility easements? Please refer to Section 5.05.03 in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution if the property you are applying for a buildins permit on is located on a comer lot. Special setbacks do apply, Yes 114-s 3. Does the site plan include when applicable the location of the I.S.D.S. (Individual Sewage Disposal System) and the distances to the property lines, wells (on subject property 1111d adjacent prop?'Jies), streams or water courses? Yes 1if~ · . 2 4. Does the site plan indicate the location and direction ofthe County or private road accessing the property'// Yes. __ ,_;__ 5. Do the plans include a ibundation plan indicating the sia, location and spaciq of all reinforcing steel in accordance with the IRC or per stalllped engineered design? 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Yes, ___ _ Do the plans ~e the location and size of ventilation openings for under floor crawl spaces ao~ clearances requJred between wood. and earth? . · Yes, ____ _ Do the plans~ the. size and location of ventilation openings for the attic, roof joist spaces and soffit · Yes 1 · Do the plans include design loads as required by Garfield County fur roofsnow loads, (a minimum of40' pounds per sqllllre foot up to & including 7,000 teet above sea level), floor loads and~? Yes . Does the plan lm::lude a building section drawing indicating foundation, wall, floor, and roof construction?/ . Yes'-----'--- Does the buiki.Jng section drawing inc:l.lude size and spacing of floor joists, wall studs, ceiling joists, roof rafters ot..W!sts or trusses? Yes .,.,r Does the building section drawing or other detail ini:lude the method of pOsitive connection of aU columns and bealns? Yes. _____ _ Does the elevation plsn lndicale the height of thE: building or propased addition from the undisturbed gra~e to e midpoint between. the ridge and eave of a gable or shed roof or the top of a fiat roof'? '!ding height measurement usually not to exceed 25 feet) Yes·---~- Does the plan include any stove ~r zero ciea.ram:e fireplace planned for .installation including make and model and Colorado Phase ~ifioations or phase II .EPA certification? Yes No / · 3 14. 15. Hi. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Does the plan. include a masonry f!IePlace including a fireplace section indicating design to comply with the IRC? / Yes No · Does the plan i ude a window schedule or other verification that egress/rescue windows fiom sleeping oms and/or basements comply with the requirements of the IRC? Yes · No ·· Does the pl¢· elude a window schedule o,r other verification that windows provide natural light and ven lation for all habitable rooms? . . Yes No . Do the plans indicate the location of glating subject to hwnan impact such as glass doors, glazing immediately adjacent to such doors; glazing adjacent to any surface normallyused as a walking surface; sliding glass d~or ; f!Xed glass panels; shower do?rs and tub enclosures and specify safety glazing for thes areas1 Yes . No __ .;... __ _ b the location of all natural illt!d pet:rolel.lm gas furnaces, boilers and water heaters indicated on the plan? · . Yes No . . Do you unttand that if you are building on a parccl of land created by the ex:emption process or t subdivision process, are building plans in compliance with all plat notes and/or covenants? · Yes No. __________ _ Do you understand that ifyou belong; to a homeowners association, it is your responsibility to obtain wrl pennission from the association, if required by that association, prior to submitting a appUcatioll for a building permit? The building permit applicatio.n will not be accepted '!bout it. · . Yes No _____ _ e only resld•ntlal structure on the parcel? Yes __ '-"¥---No Ifno·Explain:. _____ __ 22. Have two 2) co1nplete sets of construction drawings been submitted with the application? Yes._""---- 23. Do you underst . d that the minimum dimension a hom.e can be on a lot is 20ft. wide and 20ft. long? Yes No _____ _ 4 24. Have you de!J6,ed or had tlus plan desigued while considering building and other constructionJde requirements? · Yes No · . 2S. · Do your plan;:c ply with all zoning rules and regulations in the County related to your properties zen iiistrict7 · Yes · No _____ _ 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Does the pl~ancurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will ree~ve a final inspect.ion by e Garfield County Building Department? . Yes No · · . · Do you und stand that approval for design and/ or construction changes are requil'ed Prior to the appliea ion ofthese changes? · Yes No ____ _ Do you understand that the Building Department will collect a "Plan Review" fee fi:om you at the tim~. e 1 f application submittal and tha.t you will be required to pay the ~'Pexmit Fee" as well 68 a.n "Road Impact" or "Septic System" fees required, at the time you pick UJl your building p it? . Yes No ____ _ Are you aware that you must call in for an inspection by.3:30 the business day before the requested in ectlonln order to receive it the following bus.iness day? Inspel:tlons will be made fr, m 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Inspections are to be .caned in to 3 4-5003. Yes No ____ _ Are you aware th ! requesting inspections on work that is not ready or not accessible will result in a $50. re-inspection fee? Yes No. ____ _ Are you aware that u are required to call for all inspections required under the IRC in.cluding approv n a final inspection w:lw:.to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy and occupancy~ building? Yes ' No.,..._ ____ _ Axe you aware that t Permit Application. must be signed by the Owner or a written authority being giv for an Agent and that the party responsible for the project must comply with the IRC? Yes, _____ _ No ____ _ 5 33. 35. 36. 37. Are you aware that p · r to submittal of a building permit application you are required to show proof of a driv ay access permit or obtain a statement from the Garfield County Road &. Bridge Depart en.t stating on.e is not necessary? You can contact the Road & Bridge Department at 5-8601. Yes No. ____________ _ Do you understand that you wm be required to hire a State of Colorado Licensed Electrician an.d Plumber to perfo installations and hookups, unless you as the homeowner are performing the work The license number of the person performing the work will be requited at time of a licable inspection. Yes No. ______ _ Are you aware, that on the front of the Building Penrut App.llcation you will need to fill in tbe Parcel umber for the lot you are applying for this pennit. on prior to submittal of a building pe t application? Y ur attention in this i~ appreciated. Yes No·~------------- Do you know that the local fire! strict may require you to submit plans for their review of fire llllfety issues? Yes ~ No (please check with the building department about this requirement) ~ON. \})zo,\e 'v · Do you unders d that if you are planning on doing any excavating or grading to the property prlo to issuance of a building permit that you will be required to. obtain a grading ~cr:ut7 ~~~ -\)g,ev9-~ . l hereby acknowledge tha I have read, understand and answered these questions to the best of mY'Ailllllli!', Signatur f · ~r Phone: ( .<:;1:) t./W 0 78'7( (days); r ' Date Project Name: l-of 3~ Notes: If you have answered "No" on any of the questions, you may be required to provide this infonnation at the request of the Building Official p1ior to beginning the plan review process. Delays in issuini the permit are to be expected. Work may not proceed without the issuance o:f a permit. If it .is determinl>d by the Building Official that additional information is necessary to review the applicatioll and plans to detennine minimum compliance with the adopted. codes, the application 6 · may be placed behind more .recent applications for building permits in the review process and not reviewed until required information has been provided and the application rotates again to first positiou for review, delay in issuance of the permit or delay in proceedin.g with canstt:uction . . BpminreqFeb2005 7 PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST Applicant 5-AKEa.. ]Juilding Jli/,_Engineered Foundation J!LDriveway Permit ~m vcyed Site Plan /50 ( ~tic Permit and Setbacks -~de/Topography 30% ____dt;ach Residential Plan Review List ~inimum Application Questionnaire __&4L_subdivision Plat Notes _f:ffL_Fire Department Review ~aluation Determination/Fees ~ Line Plans/Stamps/Sticker ~ach Conditions ~lication Signed ~ Reviewer To Sign Application __ Parcel/Schedule No. J!::L 40# Snow load Letter-Manf. Hms. "-·A Soils Report GENERAL NOTES: Date {0-Zf, ·Gf Planning/Zoning LProperty Line Setbacks ~/.tf 30ft Stream Setbacks ftll. Flood Plain .DJ:._Building Height ~ing Sign-off ASlLRoad hnpact Fees &HOA/DRC Approval ~de/Topography 40% JJJ.__Planning Issues }.Jij__Subdivision Plat Notes g)ff ~'1>1'411.,..) MSCL "et I I ~ 6,\la C) v-I~ '-")'1-z. l.flD CilU . I I I I November 5, 2006 Garfield Building and Planning RE: Mountain Springs Ranch Homeowners: lot 35 Dear People, Please find enclosed the letter from Mountain Springs Ranch Architectural Committee to Mike Baker Lot 35. We have approved his house location. He has received a building permit from your department and has now begun his project. Sincerely, Mabel Macdonald and Julie Coy, MSR AC Contact 947 9593 October 29, 2006 To: Mike Baker From: Mountain Springs Ranch Homeowners' Association Architectural Committee Dear Mike, The Architectural Committee approved your building plans during its meeting immediately following the October 3, 2006 Annual Meeting of the Homeowners' Association. Architectural Committee members in attendance included Tom Casperson, Julie Coy, Bob Littler, Cyndie Rippy, Char Stuart, and Stephen Wolfe. You are still responsible for meeting the following requirements: 1. The height of the home should be minimized to the extent possible within your current building plan to mitigate the visual impact to Tony and Sandy Threinen' s home. 2. You still need to bring your preferred roofing material to the Architectural Committee for approval. Our aim is to assure that your roof is sufficiently fire resistant and blends in color with the surrounding vegetation, again to minimize the visual impact to Threinen' s view. Many of us on the Architectural Committee feel this can best be accomplished by using asphalt shingles with a high fire rating, similar to that used by Stephen Wolfe on his home, to avoid the inevitable reflectivity of metal roofing materials (even those designated 'non-reflective'). 3. As discussed at the Architectural Committee meeting, we still need to see your plans regarding placement of a berm with substantial evergreen conifers on top, directly between your home and Threinen's, as high on your lot as possible. We want the combination of the berm and the trees you plant to obscure your home from Threinen's view in as few years as possible. 4. You still need to come to an agreement with the Road Committee regarding your plans to avoid damaging the road during your construction process or creating any problems with winter or early spring access to your neighbors' homes on the east side of the saddle. That agreement must be made separate from this communication. Respectfully, Julie Coy Secretary, MSRHA Parcel Detail . ' Page 1 of 3 Garfield County Assessor/Treasurer Parcel Detail Information As!le.SS.QILTie.'l~l!r~Lf'mpertylit'Cl!!'Qb I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search !::Ierk.& Recorder Reception Search Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Land Detail I Photographs I TaxArea II Account Number II Parcel Number II Mill Levy I I oo8 II R080909 II 218529100131 II 63.502 I Owner Name and Mailing Address IBAKER, MICHAEL RICHARD & JILL RENE I 12804 LAKEWAY BLVD I !AUSTIN, TX 78734 I Legal Description lsECT,TWN,RNG:29-6-89 DESC: SEC 29 IN2N2NE. SEC 20 PT OF ls2S2SESW &S2S2SWSE. DESC: AKA LOT 35 !MOUNTAIN SPRINGS RANCH. LOT:35 IPRE:R080389 BK:0533 PG:0982 BK:0533 IPG:0940 BK: 1673 PG:728 RECPT:671079 IBK:1673 PG:726 RECPT:671078 BK:1022 IPG:0079 BK:0914 PG:0651 Location Physical Address: IIGLENWOOD SPRINGS I Subdivision: I Land Acres: 1135.63 I Land Sq Ft: llo Section II Township II Range I II II II http://www.garcoact.com/assessor/parcel.asp?Parce1Number=218529100131 10/30/2006 Parcel Detail . . Page 2 of3 II 29 II 6 II 89 II Property Tax Valuation Information II Actual Value II Assessed Value I I Land: 155,oooll 44,9501 I Improvements: oil ol I Total: 155,oooll 44,9501 Sale Date: 113/2112005 Sale Price: 11150,000 Basic Building Characteristics . Number of Residential lo I Buildings: Number of Commllnd lo I Buildings: No Building Records Found Tax Information Tax Year II Transaction Type Amount I 2005 II Tax Payment: Second Half ($1,427.21)1 2005 II Tax Payment: First Half ($1,427.21)1 2005 II Tax Amount $2,854.421 2004 II Tax Payment: Whole ($3,062.44)1 2004 II Tax Amount $3,062.441 2003 II Tax Payment: Whole ($2,701.40)1 2003 Tax Amount $2,701.401 2002 Tax Payment: Second Half ($1,337.06)1 2002 Tax Payment: First Half ($1,337.06)1 2002 Tax Amount $2,674.121 2001 Tax Payment: Whole ($1,345.78)1 2001 Tax Payment: Whole ($1,345.78)1 2001 Tax Amount $2,691.561 2000 I Tax Payment: Second Half ($1,428.63)1 2000 II Tax Payment: First Half ($1,428.63)1 2000 II Tax Amount $2,857.261 II II ,, http://www. garcoact.com/ assessor/parcel. asp ?ParcelN umber=2185 29100131 10/30/2006 Parcel Detail . ' 1999 II Tax Payment: Whole II ($2,258.80)1 1999 II Tax Amount II $2,258.801 Top of Page A>s~~-s_oL.Ra!abaJ>"_S"arch Options I Treasurer Database Search Options Clerk & Recorder Database Search Options Page 3 of3 The Garfield County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Garfield County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2005 -2006 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. http://www .garcoact.com/assessor/parcel.asp?ParcelNumber=2185291 00131 10/30/2006 f, {5o-aD GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT 108 Eighth Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado! 81601 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT PROPERTY Phone (970) 945-8212 Permit 4245 Assessor's Parcel No. This does not constitute a building or use permit. Owner's Name J-;o,. W, N\·~.hC>J Q Present Address IOJ !blAA SLS 0.\.\ br. Phone( S I'Z-) ~ -/0 :0 l'if'~ System Location "5. rwwsh ( 0 I L C)--\ 35 IY\'\D -srr g,aX\.C'h I kl1J)5 Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. 2 I ~ 5 -'2 q /-0 0 -I ·~ I SYSTEM DESIGN ______ Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) ______ ,Other ______ Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) ____ _ Required Absorption Area -See Attached Special Setback Requirements: Date ______________ Inspector ___________________________ _ FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation System Installer _______________________________________ _ Septic Tank CapacitY------'---------------------------------- Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name---------------------------~--- Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface -------------------------------- Absorption Area----------------------------------------- Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name ------------------------- Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements Other ________________________________________________________________________________ _ Date _________________________ Inspector ____________________________________________________ ___ RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT 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. Con- nection 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 I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine-6 months i.n jail or both). White-APPLICANT Yellow-DEPARTMENT INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION ADDRESS __________________________ ___ PHONE _____ _ PERMIT REQUEST FOR ~EW 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 ofT own {;pkv._...,..,J :5,o(;"").J Size of Lot 35"'" ~c.l.e ") Legal Description or Address to+ ;s-:;-~ ':?at\ ~ So (Y\oJ5~ l-n. G S • I "'J ' WASTES TYPE: ~DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE ( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES ( ) OTHER-DESCRIBE ____________________ _ BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: ___ _,k"'--·~Jf-----'-t/-'-'~==-------:::r------ Number of Bedrooms _____ 3= _______ N.umber of Persons. __ --'?"::__ __ )/'J Garbage Grinder l><l.Automatic Washer SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: ~WELL If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: (>):Dishwasher ( )SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM:_---:-_.---_ __,_/1/.-"--F-k+---- Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? ___ __:_;J_o __________ _ 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 (septic tank & disposal field) to Property Lines: 10 feet YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT -Y A SITE PLAN. GROUND CONDITIONS: Depth to first Ground Water Table ______________________ _ Percent Ground Slope ____________________________ _ 2 TYPE ~5 ~IVII>lJAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED: (/( S~ICTANK ( ) AERATIONJ'LANT ( ) VAULT ( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTINGTOILET ( ) R.ECYCL.ING,POTABLE USE ( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE ( ) CHEMICAL TOILET( ) OTHER-DESCRIBE. ____________ _ FINAL D~~SAL BY: ( .-( ABS RPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( l EV Al'OTRANSPIRA TION ( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER ( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) WASTEWATER POND ( ) OTHER-DESCRIBE -4.\. WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS 01' THE STATE?..]J;,_ PERCOLA'UON TEST @SULT$: (To be completod by Reaisteted Prot'eso:iona1 Ensincer, if the Engine~ does the Percolation. Test} Minutes'----"'er illoh in bole No. 1 Minutes --~--~''or inoh in hole No. 3 Minutes per illcb in bole No. 2 Minutes, ____ ___.per inch in bolo No. _ Name, ad.drcas and telepbone of:RPE who made soil absorption W5ts: ------------ Name, address and telephone of R.PE respOilBible for design of the system: ---~----- Applicant aclmcwltdpl that the COU!plr!fll•t oftho awlica\ion is =onditional upon suchi\111hermandatory and lldditiOIIOl tests 1111dtql0r1! as may be teq~irod by the local health dep&ttmont to bemadt md furllished by the applicant or by the local bullb lkp-for pUIJlOBed o!tho ""$1U&lion oflbe appllca1ion; ;~~~d tbe issullllct of tho pe!lllit is subject to such lemlil and conclitlons all doemedn"""iSIIY to inauro compli;~~~ce with rules and regulatkms madt, illfonnAIIOJ\ and JI!Porls aubm\lled berewitll and requirad to be submitted by the applit8111 lU10 or vJII be roproscmt!O<l to be lnltand correct to 1bo best of~ knowledge ami bill.£ and are dosil!llld to be relied 011 by lbeloCIII departtncrrt o!IMsllh in I!'Vallllltin 11 thullli8Cor pU!pllses of iuutna the psrmit applledforb~rein; l furthor undor$tlll4 ths;t Ill!' falll!!aotlon oc lllisrepres.mationmay result In the denial of the &ppliclllion or rsvoea!IQI\ ofacy permit arazrtec! b1181dUJlQn itid llppllcalicn "'din lea a! aotlon forperjuty as plb>ided bylaw. gL----_ Sisned '/2 Date I,/ z .. -/ C> 10 I I EASE DRAW AN ACCURATE :MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! ,, .... fYWe &t;.\ia o~~ 6'1z /.flO rn ~ \ ' I .•. c:.c52)tech HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL July 30, 2007 Mike Baker 107BiueJayWay Lakeway, Texas 78734 Hepworth~ Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glen\Vood Springs, Colorado 8!60! Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax:970-945.8454 emaih hpgeo@hpgeotech.corn Job No.l07 0478 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed Residence, Lot 35, Mountain Springs Ranch, South Marsh Road, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Baker: ·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 June 20, 2007. 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 ofthis study. Proposed Construction: The proposed residence will be a two story log structure over a crawlspace located on the site as shown on Figure I. Cut depths are expected to range between about 4 to 10 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 north of the bouse. 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 at the time of our site visit. An access road had been constructed into the building area. The building area slopes moderately steep down to the east at grades of 20% to 25%. The hillside becomes very steep below the building area. The site is vegetated with grass, weeds, tall oak brush and aspen trees. Basalt cobbles and boulders were visible on the ground surface. Parker 303-841-7119 • ColoradoSprings 719-633-5562 • Silverthorne 970-468-1989 -2- Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by observing two exploratory pits in the building and leach field areas at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. The logs of the pits are presented on Figure 2. The subsoils encountered, below about 2 to 3 feet of topsoil, consist of I to 2feet of clayey sand overlying highly weathered basalt flow with tuffaceaous siltstone and sandstone. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples ofthe clayey sand, presented on Figure 3, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a minor expansion potential when wetted. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of sandy clayey silt from Percolation Test Hole. P2 (minus%-inch fraction) obtained from the site are presented on Figure 4. The laboratory test results are SUIDIDarized 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 soil or basalt flow material designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of2,000 psffor support of the proposed residence. Footings should be a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose and disturbed soils and loosened basalt flow material encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural subsoils or basalt flow. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost protection. Placement of footings at least 42 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 assuroing an unsupported length of at least I 0 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 pcffor the on-site soil as backfill. A sliding coefficient of 0.4 and passive earth pressure of 350 pcf equivalent fluid unit weight can be used to resist lateral loads on the foundation. Floor Slabs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction (if any). 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 Job No.I07 0478 -3- 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 this area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also 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. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the waH 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 of2 inches. The drain gravel backfiJI should be at least 1 Yz 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. Job Na.I07 0478 -4- 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 may 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 5 feet from the building. Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on June 21, 2007 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit (Pit 2) and four percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Figure 1. 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 our testing. The soils exposed in the percolatiol,l holes are similar to those exposed in Pit 2 shown on Figure 2 and consist of clayey sand overlying basalt flow. The percolation test results are presented in Table 2 and ranged from 13 to 120 minutes per inch with an overall average of 53 minutes per inch. The USDA classifications of the clayey sand soils is a "Loam" with a long term acceptance rate of 0.5 gallons per square foot per day. Mounding of the septic system may be needed due to the shallow basalt flow depth. A civil engineer should design the infiltration septic disposal system. Limitations: This stndy 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 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 futnre. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice should be consulted. 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 Job No.I07 0478 -5- 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 bas 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. Respectfully Submitted, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK. GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. Reviewed by: SLP DEH/vad attachments Figure 1-Location of Exploratory Pits and Percolation Test Holes Figure 2-Logs of Exploratory Pits Figure 3 -Swell-Consolidation Test Results Figure 4 -Gradation Test Results Table 1 -Summary of Laboratory Test Results Table 2 -Percolation Test Results cc: H-P Geotecb-Atto: Jason Deem Job Na.J07 0478 / / I I I I / I 7950 I I I / 7940 I / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /7930 / " 7920 / /' .- / 7910 / / / / /' /' / / 7900 / 7890 I _-r--- .... ------- / / / P1 ...-/ / ti _.,. P4 //AP2 // -- 107 0478 fk L.l. / _.,. b..Pa _.,. .... _.,....--7880 _.,..AI' PIT 2 ,. _.,. ,. 7870 _.,. / / PROPOSED / / ,. / 7860 RI>SfOENCE / / ,. "' 7850 _...,.,. ...... / / ,. ..,.,...._.,. / / / / / / ,...... ...... / / ,.,..,... ..,.,..-/ / / _...-/ / / .-/ / / / / _.,. / / - - APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" ~ 100' o~. HEPWORTH.PAWLAKGEO'J'KCHNJCAL LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES Figure 1 1iS ,f ' .c ii ., Cl 0 5 10 LEGEND: PIT1 ELEV.= 7909' WC=24.3 00=93 -200=26 PIT2 ELEV.= 7890' WC=20.4 00=103 g TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay with organics/roots, medium stiff, slightly moist to moist, dark brown. ~ SAND (SC); clayey, with angular rock fragments, medium dense, moist, yellow-brown. BASALT FLOW; with tuffaceous sandstone/Siltstone, highly weathered, yellow brown. ~ 2' Diameter hand driven liner sample. t ~ J Disturbed bulk sample. NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated wllh a backhoe prior to our arrival on-site on June 21, 2007. 0 5 10 2. Locations of exploratory pits were selected by owner and were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were obtained by Interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided. 4. The exploratory pit 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 pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was observed In the pits. Fluctuation In water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (%) DO = Dry Density (pcij -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 1070478 ae~. HRPWCIRTH•PAWlAK GEOTECHNICAL LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Figure 2 1iS ,f ' .c ii ., Cl Moisture Content = 24.3 perce nt ~ Dry Density = 93 pcf 'c/1. Sample of: Clayey Sand ~ z From: Pit 1 at 3 Feet 0 i'ii 1 z ~ ~ ~ 0 ' ) ~ i5 ~ i'ii 1 IB -( 1\p rr: D.. ~ 2 () Expenson upon 3 wetting 4 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE ( ksf) Moisture Content = 20.4 perc ent Dry Density = 103 pcf Sample of; Clayey Sand From: Pit 2 at 3 1/2 Feet 1 0 ~ 'c/1. ~ r--...., ~ z 1 Q ( ...... rn !\ ffi a: 2 D.. ' ::!i No movement 0 upon wetting () 3 4 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE ( ksf) ~ ·'-SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 3 107 0478 I I SIEVE I CLEAR I 24 tl!J:, ,j t\\J., on~~~:~.~INGS I U.S. STANDARD SERIES 0 46 = ~4MIN.1 liN. #lOO #100 #50 #: 0 #IS ~ 1/6' V4" 11/Z" 3' 5'6" 8' 100 10 90 80 30 70 60 50 40 70 30 60 20 90 10 0 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .150 .300 .600 16 2.36 4.75 9612.519.0 37.5 76.212'52 203 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MIWMETERS ~~~~rnffi~~~~~~~ GRAVEL 6 % SAND 42% SILT 34% CLAY 18 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % USDA SOIL TYPE: Loam FROM: Pit 2 at 3 to 4 Feet 107 0478 c~Etech GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figure 4 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOnCHNICAL. HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 1 Job No. 107 0478 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATTERBERG UMITS UNCONFINED MOIS11JRE DRY GRAVa SAND PASSING UQUIO PlASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOIL OR PIT DEPTH CONTENT DENSTIY NO. 200 UMIT INDEX STRENimi llEDROCK lYPE (%) (%) SIEVE (%} (pcfl (%) (%) (PSF) ~ 1 3 24.3 93 26 Clayey Sand 2 31h 20.4 103 Clayey Sand P-2 3-4 1 32 67 Sandy Clayey Silt USDA-LOAM ·. • 0 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTii (INCHES) Pl 39 P2 50 P3 37 P4 40 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE2 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS LENGTH OF WATER WATER INTERVAL DEPTH AT DEPTiiAT (MIN) START OF END OF INTERVAL INTERVAL .HNCHE!j) GNCHES) 15 8Vz 6Vz 61/z 4Vz Water added 8 6 6 4% 434 3% Water added 10Vz 8 8 6'14 6'14 5 5 4 15 9Vz 8 8 6 7/8 6 7/8 6 6 5 3/8 5 3/8 43/4 43/4 43/8 4 3/8 4 4 3 5/8 15 8 7Vz 7Vz 6 3/4 6 3/4 6Yz 61/z 6 6 51/z 5Vz 5'14 5'14 4 7/8 47/8 4Vz 15 6'14 6 6 5 7/8 5 7/8 5% 5% 5 5/8 5 5/8 5Yz 5Yz 5 3/8 5 3/8 5'14 5'14 51/8 DROPIN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) 2 2 2 1'14 . 1 21/z 1314 1'14 1 1Yz 1 1/8 7/8 5/8 5/8 3/8 3/8 3/8 'h 3/4 Y4 Vz 1fz Y4 3/8 3/8 '14 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 JOB NO. 107 0478 AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) 13 40 40 120 Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits. Percolation tests were conducted on June 21, 2007. The average percolation rates were based on the last two readings of each test. -. GIUII;TY,. • .• /_ J. ,,_ For Inspections Can 384-5003 APPR.f1fi!DiDO NOT JU'Jl:.IU -·bate //o11. ~fJII " -1-F PLAc&DfO DRAIN FIELD f2 ( 4) SEPARATE DIP FIELD SECTIONS (2" SCH 40 PVC) DRAIN FIELD #I 2" SC/-1. 40 PVC SUPPL Y LINES TO EAC/i FIELD ~ \\ SECTION (TYP.) ~ DISTRIBUTION VALYfS I~ VALYf BOX .........._ 2" AIR/VAC VAL Yf / IN 30" DIA METER VAULT AREA OF NEW PERGOLA TION TESTS AND DRAIN FIELDS /:_INSPECTION PORT (TYP.) I DRAIN FIELD #3 DRAIN FIELD #4 107' :t- / ( \ \ / / / ____, / \ \ \ I I \ \ \ I \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ) I ) I I I I I ' I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ I I I I I I I I I \ 3-BEDROOM RES IDEN CE \ 'L---------.----------~ ~ // 2" SCH. 40 PVC 111:::_:::::~---o;;;:::: SUPPL Y LINES L --------TO EACH FiELD --------------- RECORD DRAWING THIS RECORD DRAWING CONFORMS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, AS OBSERVED BY THE ENGINEER. THE DRAWING SHOWS THE OBSERVED LOCATION OF THE WORK, WHILE THE INFORMATION SHOWN AND INCORPORATED BY THE ENGINEER INTO THIS RECORD IS ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT, THE ENGINEER WILL SECTION (T'YP.) NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR lHE CONSTRUCTION OR METHODS USED BY THE CONTRACTOR ' NOR FOR !HE ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICH COULD RESULT. DRAWN & OESICN£0 BY.' ' / '-~--------------- 4" PVC SEWER LINE -------- LOT 36 HE. B. REVIEWED BYe PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. CHECKED 8 Y: DATE.- HE. B. -------FOR ------------CDNSUL TING [NGINETRS e 0805 BUCK POINT RDAJJ CARBONJJAL£, CD 81 623 e (970) 963-2170 - CLEAN OUT LOCA TION :1: 1, 000-GALLON ----------SINGLE-COMPARTMENT PRECAST TANK* WITH WITH SUBMERSIBLE PUMP -------- LOT 35 MOUNTAIN SPRINGS RANCH GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO 35 AC. ± ------ N FEET 20 0 GRAPHIC SCA LE 1 inch "' 20 ft . ------- 20 FEET ~---------------- SPEC/FICA TIONS AND DESIGN CALCULATIONS DESIGN CRITERIA RESIDENCE -3 B.EDROOMS LOADING 75 GPO PER PERSON AVERAGE LOADING -Q = 450 PERGOLA TION RATE = 40 MIN./IN LONG TERM ACCEPTANCE RATE (L TAR) MAX = 0. 3 GPO/SF AREA = (1.5X 0)/LTAR TOTAL AREA = 2,250 SF USE A TOTAL AREA = 2,250 SF DRAIN FiELD SPEC/FICA TIONS AREA -2,250 SF TREA TMEN T UN/ T SPECif7CA TIONS MINIMUM CAPACITY = 1000 GALLONS LINEAL FOOTAGE -1,250 @ 2 SF/LF RECOMMENDATIONS-ONE 1,000-GALLON TWO-COMPARTMENT SEPTIC TANK AND WITH BIOTUBE FILTER AND ONE 1000-GALLON SINGLE VA'ULT NUMBER OF SECTIONS -4 AREA PER SECTION = 562.5 SF TRENCH WIDTH -2 FEET MIN. PIPE LENGTH = 70.3' -PUMP SET AT 140 :t-GALLONS PER DOSE WITH 30 GPM AT 60 FEET OF HEAD GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO LOT 35 MOUNTAIN SPRINGS RANCH SEPTIC SYSTEM ''DR A WING OF RECORD" SCALE NJS. SHEET 110.- JOB NO: 20H-15 I OAT£ 12-IJ-11 I OF I