HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 07.14.1998BCC 7/14/98
Revised
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for Lester Crain accessory dwelling unit
APPLICANT: Lester Crain and David and Sigrid Murray
LOCATION: Section 34, Township 7S, Range 88W. A five and one half (5.504)
acre tract located off County Road (CR) 100, which intersects with
State Highway (SH) 82.
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXISTING ZONING:
Lot IB, amended plat of Lot 1, Goose Creek Subdivision, 183 Blue
Heron Lane. To allow an accessory dwelling unit of 1,000 square
feet to be place on an existing lot which was preciously subdivided.
The apartment is proposed to be located above a detached garage.
A new well will be drilled to service the proposed accessory
dwelling unit.
A new septic system will be installed to service the proposed
accessory dwelling unit.
Blue Heron Lane which intersects with County Road (CR) 100.
Five (5) other homes currently utilize this road.
Agricultural Rural Residential (A/R/R) Density
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/R Density to the north
A/R/R Density to the south
A/R/R Density to the west
A/R/R Density to the east
I RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Proposed Land Use Districts map for Study Area 1 shows the subject site as within the Low
Density Residential (10 acres or greater per dwelling unit) district. The designation of low density
is based upon major flood plain, on -lot disposal system, and soil constraints.
Page 1 of 5
II. PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Description: The lot originally existed as an eleven (11.008) acre tract which
was forcibly split in half in 1995 through a court ordered process as a result of a
divorce. The Goose Creek Subdivision approved lots of between 7.5 and 13 acres
in size. The subject site is located approximately one (1) mile east of the Town of
Carbondale. The lot contains no structures at present (See Figure A).
B. Adjacent Land Uses: Agricultural and residential land uses are located adjacent to
the site.
C. Development Proposal: The applicant is proposing to create a two (2) bedroom
rental apartment on a five (5) acre lot (See Figure B).
III. REVIEW AGENCY AND OTHER COMMENTS
Staff did not forward this application to review agencies for comment.
A comment from a neighboring property owner is enclosed for review (See Figure C).
A letter from the Goose Creek Subdivision is enclosed for review (See Figure D).
IV. MAJOR ISM TES AND CONCERNS
A. Zoning: The subject site is currently zoned A/R/R Density which allows for a
minimum lot size of two (2) acres and a single family dwelling unit by right along
with other agricultural uses. A boarding or rooming house is allowed by
conditional use, and an accessory dwelling unit is allowed by special exception
approval.
Subdivision: No subdivision is proposed with this application.
Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of
1994 calls for a minimum lot size of ten (10) acres due to the physical constraints
of the site.
Soils/Topography: The site is generally flat. The site is located in an area of high
groundwater table.
Page 2 of 5
Road/Access: The subject property has access off of Blue Heron Lane, which
intersects with CR 100. The applicant proposing a driveway to access the garage
structure.
F. Fire Protection: The applicant has forwarded the application for comment to the
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. The letter agreeing to provide fire
protection services to the accessory dwelling is attached as Figure E..
Water: The applicant has submitted evidence of a water allotment contract from
the Basalt Water Conservancy District and obtained a permit on 12 June 1998.
H. Wastewater: The applicant is proposing to install an on -lot disposal system. The
site is located within 3/4 of a mile of a sewage treatment facility.
Road Impacts: The amount of traffic use of the lane currently servicing the home
site has not been discussed in detail in the application. The existing driveway is
proposed to accept the traffic generated from the new home which is estimated at
ten (10) vehicle trips per day which is the industry standard. The applicant states
that two (2) vehicles are estimated to be generated from this proposal.
V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
A. Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 as amended:
1. The applicant will need to supply approval of a well permit prior to
issuance of a Special Use Permit [Sections 5.03(1) and 5.03.021(4)]. It
would appear from the submission by the applicant of Figure F on 6 July
1998 that this item has been adequately addressed.
2. Lighting on the proposed structure shall be situated so as to shine down
and towards the structure and not outward and onto any neighboring
properties [Section 5.03(3)].
3. The applicant shall submit evidence of approval of the accessory dwelling
unit from the subdivision's Homeowners Association [Section
5.03.021(3)].
4. All construction will be required to conform with the county's building
code regulations [Section 5.03.021(7)].
Page 3 of 5
The location of the feeder ditch should be re-sited since its current location
runs adjacent to the home [Section 5.03.10(2)]. It would appear from the
submission by the applicant of Figure G on 6 July 1998 that this item has
been adequately addressed.
6. The applicant should indicate the size of the proposed detached garage
area. The site plan shows the garage as attached while the narrative states
that the structure will be detached. [Section 5.03.10(2)].
The plan should include a note that no wood burning fireplaces are
allowed, and that all stoves shall meet the requirements of the state, on this
site in accordance with the recommendation of the Garfield County
Planning Commission.
8. The plan should include a note that only one dog is allowed on this site in
accordance with the recommendation of the Garfield County Planning
Commission.
B. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1994: Staff Recommendations -
The comprehensive plan recommends that areas without central water
systems be required to provide evidence that adequate and safe water
provisions can be provided to the site prior to project approval [Sections
7.0 Objective, 7.5 Objective, 7.1 Policy].
10. The comprehensive plan discourages the proliferation of ISDS and
suggests that sites be carefully evaluated for their soil constraints and
drainage characteristics in order to ensure that the site can handle a system
prior to project approval. An engineered design approved by the state may
be required [Sections 2.0, 7.0, 7.3 Objective, 7.1 Policy, 7.3 Policy].
11. The comprehensive plan encourages that plans be evaluated in accordance
with their ability to adequately handle the traffic generated [Section 3.0
Objective].
12. The site is located within the Urban Sphere of Influence of the Town of
Carbondale. Therefore, the project must be consistent with the town's
local municipal land use policies. As such, the Town of Carbondale should
be provided with a copy of the proposal so that comments may be
provided, particularly in reference to the location of the proposed septic
system which is within close proximity to the town's water supply system
on the Roaring Fork River. The site is located upstream of the town's well
field and in an area of high groundwater table.
Page 4 of 5
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Garfield County Planning Commission has put forth a recommendation of conditional
approval of the application for the Special Use Permit for the Lester Crain accessory
dwelling unit to the Board of County Commissioners upon completion of the above listed
items 1 through 7 regarding this application.
The following two (2) issues raised in the staff report for the Public Hearing before the
Garfield County Planning Commission are still concerns of staff:
a. The applicant should be required to comply with the individual sewage disposal
regulations (ISDS) of the county. A per and probe has been performed and
revealed that an engineered "mounded" ISDS would be advisable (See Figure H).
The protective covenants require review and comment by the Town of Carbondale
of any new ISDS [Section 5.03.021(5)].
b. The precise width of the driveway surface should be revealed by the applicant. In
addition, Blue Heron Lane should comply with the minimum design standards of
the county's road specifications. The width and the surface of Blue Heron Lane
should be discussed in the application and shown on the site plan. Street
improvements to provide safe and convenient access, and to adequately
accommodate the traffic volume generated by the proposed use, should either be in
place or be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Staff measured the
width of the roadway in the field as ranging from twenty (20') feet at the junction
with CR 100 to fifteen (15') feet at the point of access to the site.
The applicant should discuss the total amount of traffic which will utilize the lane.
Given that a total of six (6) homes will be utilizing this lane, including the current
proposal, the access road is characterized as semi -primitive. Semi -primitive
roadways require a minimum of two (2) eight (8') foot lanes with two (2) two (2')
foot shoulders of a gravel surface. In addition, a forty (40') foot right of way is
required. The applicant should demonstrate that such road provisions are either in
place or will be upgraded for the portion of the road which provides service up to
the subject site [Section 5.03(2) and 5.03.12].
C-p.M z l-kCr c.cs x•a-v> 11Eb%o ci 2 U^ 7t-prott uirt+
c) yet Mork For t.uiv z\ Skt v r.9 e$ ca set's en-. a_
v a k z -if s5 b 2.S s-Pvr' cAloct.fa cur, q 4-c fb etci .
Page 5 of 5
60
t
cr4-
4
v % ta \
V ISI' uo
1 PQ g .2
A. �• cri c J \ \ QO•�Q\• g_°' kph 1 CS
B^s\'•\\\ \ 4Q'' 1 =
IL
16 II ��. \1 1 .�
`691,NE +• 9S .\\ )/+ 1
.../.1:1;1.4. // M \. / •! ::: :71 d II n
G R' F J N
• ,t �.
ki
81 p > z g o a��\rs,� i{\1 \ 1 i
%IQ��,� /
IN11 V�\ \\ 1'
IV QNN�p 1* \ \ ` 1 \\ `, \ \ `
> OOq�Q� ,\ \
IJ II II 1 n 1 PPn�' w K\\ \\ ` • ` ``
�I QKFJ= '�1\ l.\ ,
r `
C!iS O``.`• o\ \\�\ 1 1
J ITS,.., �� \
t.- \
i I I I ,pA,,cc o. t ,` \\ a� \
I I \\i\;\ S `\
FIGURE B
J
yI
I . I I91i-int,v s� 1\\Ca \\\ \\`
I IA
*' I= L * ,, \ \\\\\\ \ \ .- tr
.
d 1
/ `1 tv/l�`1 \ \
'1I 3.N•pp pO11• .2\ 1 \
/� , 1 COCII YN]OOYIx 1 \ \
N dYIIY Ino \
OGR•FJZG \1 \ ,
`P1 \
IS.`It11
? 09 w1/41 1 1
PO A)9� 'It �;1
aQQve�\` 1 1 Ivl
11,
Q0' x ► 1
I\1 \"1
,.6t0Q
c
,Wed •
nn•
AI .Ca61.00 S
"PM PuD.
,08:967 -1„ 21, 66.005'
•
••..
flaw , 09
x
FROM : CRRMICHREL CONSTRUCTION INC
PHONE NO. : 1 970 963 1466 Jun. 03 1998 08:35PM P2
Pg9e I FIGURE C
May 28, 1998
Planning Department
Garfield County
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Special Use Permit, Lot 18, Amended Plat of Lot 1, Goose Creek
Subdivision
Dear Commissioners,
We are the neighbors directly to the North of the applicant.
We feel it is unfortunate that we are put in the position to try
and defend the original county land use plan for the above
mentioned subdivision. Years ago, when Goose Creek originally
applied for a subdivision, several issues were brought to the
commissioner's attention that caused them to downsize from the high
density requested to one residence per 10 acre lots.
It was our understanding that these lots could not be easily
split. Apparently there is a law allowing for a lot split in the
case of a divorce. This is what happened to Lot 1. Kent and
Percilla Jones were able to split the lot, through the courts,
without approval of the commissioners.
Now the Applicant would like to house another family on their
lot, bringing a total to four residences on one 10 acre parcel,
(Kent Jones currently has two dwellings). This unfortunate
proliferation of house -holds is continuing, with and without your
permission in an area that has already had long debates and
research done to establish the zoning currently in place.
There are several reasons the above Special Use Permit for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit should be denied. The private access road
to this property is a dead end, single lane, dirt road with no
maintenance association. The road is usually in disrepair, making
it unsafe for additional traffic, not to mention emergency
vehicles. It has always been a big problem collecting money from
the existing neighbors to grade the road once a year. We have
several neighbors who refuse to pay for any road maintenance,
putting the burden on the few responsible neighbors. When the
county tax assessor appraises our property he always takes into
consideration the bad road access and the fact the road is not
maintained on a regular basis. For years we have tried to start a
road maintenance association, with no luck. This road can not take
any more unnecessary added usage.
The other issues that the commissioners looked at during the
original application were the wetlands around the property. There
.FROM : CRRMICHREL CONSTRUCTION INC
Page 2
PHONE NO. : 1 970 963 1466 Jun. 03 1998 08:35PM P3
is an abundance of wildlife
there are several areas of
people, dogs and traffic
Also, there was concern for
the ground water is very
system on the Roaring Fork
that stay in the area all year, because
constantly running water. Additional
will certainly impact this wildlife.
putting in added septic systems, where
high, so close to Carbondale's water
River.
We are in an extremely uncomfortable position and don't want
any hard feeling with our new neighbor, but we have to strongly
disagree with the application. The original zoning decisions were
appropriate for this particular area and should not be changed.
Thank you for your consideration into this matter. '
Sin
L- Lary and Lisa Carmichael
MAILRUX:fC%7C/PIIIICTIA%7E...V1.311PRIS.NET.@NUIIRER=28 LIAILUOR:/C%7C/PROGRA%781/NETS...@C-SERVL30PR13.NR'rSNU11UER=28
Figure D
Subject: RE: Mr and Mrs. David Murray ADU application.
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 16:50:24 -0600
From: "JONES" <MBT@sopris.net>
Reply -To: <mbt@sopris.net>
To: "garfield county plan & zoning" <garcopin@rof.net>
CC: "kent" <mbt@sopris.net>
June 16, 1998
Goose Creek Subdivision
P.O. Box 132
Carbondale, Co. 81623
To whom it may concern:
Goose Creek Subdivision has always supported the right of the
owners of each of the over 5 acre lots to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit
on their
property by special use permitted by the County. We therefore have no
problem with
the Murrays building an ADU on their property and trust you will
expeditiously grant
their request.
Sincerely,
W. Kent Jones
Goose Creek
Subdivision
1 01? 1 00/17/9817:48:40
Figure E
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
June 5, 1998
Sigrid & David Murray
P.O. Box 808
Carbondale, CO 81623
7II
JUN 0 8 1998 i"
BARFIELD COUNTY
300 Meadowood Drive
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 963-2491
Fax: (970) 963-0569
RE: Proposed Residence & Accessory Dwelling Unit, 0179 Blue Heron Lane, Garfield County
Dear Sigrid & David:
Your proposed residence and accessory dwelling unit on Blue Heron Lane are within the Carbondale
& Rural Fire Protection District. Initial response for fire and emergency medical services would come
from Station No. 1 in Carbondale. Water supplies for fire protection would initially be limited to
water carried on responding fire apparatus (approximately 5,000 gallons). Response time to your
property is approximately 10-15 minutes.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
ice^
Bill Gavette
Fire Marshal
07/06/1998
Form No.
APPLICANT
16:03 9709274624
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Figure F
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203
(3031886.3881
DAVID MURRAY BUILDER
LESTER CRAIN
C/O SIGRID MURRAY
P.O. BOX 1995
BASALT, CO 81621
(9701927-9127
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL
PAGE 05
OWNER'S COPY
634
WELL PERMIT NUMBER 049863 ---
DIV. 5 CNTY. 23 WD 38 DES. BASIN MD
Lot: 1E1 Block: Filing: Subdiv: 0008E CREEK
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTY
SE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 34
Twp 7 S Rng 88 W 6th P.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
3900 Ft, from SOUTH Section Line
600 Ft. from EAST Section Line
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material Injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the permit
does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested
water right from seeking relief in a civil court action.
2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval
of a variance .has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation
Contractors In accordance with Rule 18,
•
•
3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37.90-137121for the construction of a well, appropriating ground water tributary to the Roaring
Fork River, as an alternate point of diversion to the Basalt Conduit, on the condition that the well shall be operated only
when the Basalt Water Conservancy District's substitute water supply plan, approved by the State Engineer, is In effect
and when a water allotment contract between the well owner and the Basalt Water Conservancy' District for the release
of replacement water from Ruedi Reservoir is in effect, or under in approved plan for augmentation. BWCD contract
#3.3.5.315.
4) The use of ground water from this well le limited to ordinary household purposes inside one (1) single family dwelling and
a detached accessory dwelling (located on a individual residential site, Identified as 0179 Blue Herron Lane, Carbondale,
CO), the Irrigation of not more then 1,000 square feet (0.023 of an acre) of home gardens and lawns, and the watering
of two (2) head of livestock. All use of this well will be curtailed unless the water allotment contract or a plan for
augmentation Is In effect. This wen Is located on a 6.504 acre tract described as lot 1B, Goose Creek Subdivision.
5) The maximum pumping rate shall not exceed 15 GPM.
6) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed one (1) acre-foot (325,850 gallons).
7) A totalizing flow meter must be Installed on this well and maintained in good working order. Permanent records of all
diversions must be maintained by the well owner (recorded at least annually) and submitted to the Division Engineer upon
request.
•
8) The well must be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit.
9) The owner shall mark the well In a conspicuous place with well permit number(s), name of the aquifer, and court case
number(s) as appropriate. The owner shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings.
10) This permit has been approved for the location noted above. You are hereby notified that you have the right to appeal the
issuance of this permit, by filing a written request with this office within sixty (60) days of the date of Issuance, pursuant
to the State Administrative Procedures Act. (See Section 24-4-104 through 106, C.R.S.). -'t/ 6'r• -.7.2/9e
NOTE: Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 23-2393-341-01-007
Assessor Tex So`edule Number: 112030
APPROVED
DMW
Receipt No.
Sad Erpin..r
DATE ISSUED JUN 121998
C
Sy
EXPIRATION DATE JUN 1 2 1999
a
07/06/199816:03
•
4
9709274624
064
Figure G
br
d
a
tn
�a
r
DAVID MURRAY BUILDER
02
43W
1
s
1
ti
I
2
¼
I
c•
•
la+�a+R7 4,1181/ sic
Cr, y rrw • w l I I, A
'a1/m oa 01.
•09;96! ',FA stmzr
fln2, ,as
II
1
_..--- }—
—1 -
5 ) 3377 '3t Ca 9
Lv'nw P'^"Q
Figure H
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
April 24, 1998
David and Sigrid Murray
P.O. Box 1995
Basalt, Colorado 81621
Subject:
GAAFIELD COUNTY
5020 Road 159
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945-8959
Phone 970 995-7988
Job No. 198 252
Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed
Residence and Barn, Lot 1B, Goose Creek Subdivision, 183 Blue Heron
Lane, Near Carbondale, Garfield County, Colorado.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Murray:
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 April 10, 1998. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the
proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this
report.
Proposed Construction: The proposed residence will be a two story wood frame
structure. A barn with an upper level of living area is proposed about 40 feet to the
northwest of the residence. Both structures will have slab -on -grade floors. Cut depths
are expected to range between about 3 to 4 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 40 to 50 feet
southwest of the proposed barn.
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 3 inches of snow at the
time of our field work. The ground surface in the building area is relatively flat with a
gentle slope down to the north. An existing pond is located about 100 feet to the north
of the proposed barn. A ditch connects the pond to an existing wetlands south of the
site. The lot is vegetated with grass and weeds. Cattails are present near the pond to
the north.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits (one in each proposed building area) and one profile pit
David and Sigrid Murray
April 24, 1998
Page 2
in the septic disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The logs of
the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about one foot of
topsoil and nil to 3 feet of slightly organic silt and sand consist of relatively dense
slightly silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders. Results of a gradation analysis
performed on a sample of the gravels (minus 5 inch fraction) obtained from the site are
presented on Fig. 3. Groundwater was observed in the pits at the time of excavation at
a depth of about 41/2 feet and the upper soils were 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 gravels designed for an allowable soil
bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for support of the proposed residence and garage. Due to
the relatively shallow groundwater, excavation dewatering may be needed for
construction of the footings. Footings should be a minimum width of 16 inches for
continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose and disturbed soils encountered at the
foundation bearing level within the excavation should be removed and the footing '
bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural gravels. Exterior footings
should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost
protection. Placement of footings at least 36 inches below the exterior grade is
typically used in this area. Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and
bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10
feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures (if any) should be designed to
resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf
for the on-site soil (excluding oversized rock) as backfill.
Floor Slabs: The natural gravel soils, are suitable to support lightly to moderately
loaded slab -on -grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential
movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with
expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints
should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint
spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on
experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free -draining gravel
should be placed beneath slabs to facilitate drainage and act as a leveling course. 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.
H -P GEOTECH
David and Sigrid Murray
April 24, 1998
Page 3
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill
can consist of the on-site gravels devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the residence and garage have been
completed:
1) 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.
2) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement
and walkway areas.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on April 15, 1998 to evaluate
the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit and
three percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The test holes
(nominal 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow
backhoe pits and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in
the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 and
consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying slightly silty sandy gravel with cobbles and
boulders. The percolation test results are presented in Table I. The percolation test
result indicate an infiltration rate between 4 and 20 minutes per inch with an average of
about 13 minutes per inch. The percolation rates were based on the last three readings
of the test. Based on the shallow groundwater, a "mounded" system may be needed.
The county may require that the septic disposal system be designed by a civil engineer.
Limitations: This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at
the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience
H -P GEOTECH
David and Sigrid Murray
April 24, 1998
Page 4
in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions
may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be
notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes.
We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As
the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations
presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation
bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
ORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
JZA/ksm/rso
attachments
H -P GEOTECH
Page 5
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1" = 80'
[ ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT
( BLUE HERON LANE )
t
I P 1 P 2 • • • ...... . ..
I A A J.OTEK.1.4
:::::::r?:*::::.• . • • .: • • ..
.x.:-.........::::::
• PROFILE PIT 1 Vhj
1 PIT
1 •
A PROPOSED
1 BARN 1 I
I 1
I /
1 I
WETLANDS
•
LOT 1B 1 I
\ I I
1 / I
1 1 I1 1I
1 \ 1 1
1 PIT 2 1 1
1 • I r
1 1 I
1 PROPOSED I I
1 RESIDENCE
EXISTING
DITCH
• 1 1
1,-I
II
I11
r3
I I
et,
10!
Se&.--
"let
I k
.1-
1 I
I
EXISTING I /
POND I /
1 /
LOT 1A
198 252
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS
AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
Fig. 1