Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3468GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT 109 8th Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81801 Phone (303) 945.8212 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT Pernik N° 'J468 Assessor's Parcel No. This does not constitute a building or use permit. PROPERTY / % y/��, #n�� (j/� /��CP�V/ ]� C Owner's Name 60 LAI mcK f La � Present Address '?AAlmPre4le.� 6.S Pho� a `a001– System N Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. SYSTEM DESIGN Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Required Absorption Area - See Attached Special Setback Requirements: Date Inspector Number of Bedrooms (or other) FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) Cell for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation System Septic Tank — 3l, l 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 regulationstrequirements Other / Date /�rcrr' // u' ZOO % Inspector - 147 Pu ff' C-l2liW &je LAG. 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 inslallsen individual sewage disposal system ina mannerwhich 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 -8 months in Jail or both). AUG -30-02 FR1 09:05 AM HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING FAX NO, 970 945 2555 P. 01 April 3,2001 Garfield County Building & Planning 109 Eighth Street, Third Floor Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Carter ISDS — HCE No.2011023.59 Lot 15, Teller SpdW Subdivision To Whom It May Concern: On March 26, 2001, High Country Engineering (HCE) personnel inspected the construction of the ISDS located at Lot 15, Teller Springs Subdivision in Garfield County, Colorado. HCE's original design called for a 39 -unit Infiltrator Equalizer trench system with one 2000 -gallon septic tank. At the time of inspection, the contractor had constructed the trench system and installed a 2000 -gallon concrete septic tank and the required chamber units. No backfilling had taken place. Field personnel observed that the depth of the installed units did not necessitate ventilation and advised the contractor to install standard inspection wells. Otherwise, the installation of the system was in conformance with the intent of the design. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us. HIGH COUNT ENGINEERING, list( �l t1 C Ro ). Neal P.E. Project Engineer Cc: Steve Carter 923 Cooper Avenue, 14 ]nnnim Drive East Suite B-144 Glenwood Springs. CO 61601 Englewood. W 80112 Telephm,,(M)94S-6676- Fax (970) 9452555 Telephone(303)9250544-Fax(303)925-0547 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION OWNER L -An -A Sn��HWz�1� ADDRESS '('Ste QALtn&!�. kyF PHONE e1 �F� 4x02 CONTRACTOR 0 w K)d f� ADDRESS PHONE PERMIT REQUEST FOR (q() NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation test holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 4). LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY: Near what City of Town GL-eAptorc-) Size of Lot S.01 Ac,P*S Legal Description or Address L t�'T 15: Tlr Lig g ' V 4 4A� bs WASTES TYPE: BUILDING OR SERVICE Number of Bedrooms, ()Q Garbage Grinder (Y,) DWELLING ( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE ) WELL ( ) TRANSIENT USE ( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES ( ) STREAM OR CREEK If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: ((1 s, v i f1 r z ., „ < DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: man o Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? corn A site plan is reauired to be submitted that indicates the followine MINIMUM distances: Leach Field to Well: 100 feet Septic Tank to Well: 50 feet Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course: 50 feet Septic System to Property Lines: 10 feet YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT A SITE PLAN, GROUND CONDITIONS: Depth to first Ground Water Table Percent Ground TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED: (� SEPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT ( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE ( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE ( ) CHEMICAL TOILET ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE FINAL DISPOSAL BY: ( ) ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) EVAPOTRANSPIRATION UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER ( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) WASTEWATER POND ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE? PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the Percolation Test) Minutes t ! per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes Z D per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes 30 per inch in hole NO. 3 Mnutes per inch in hole NO. _ Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil absorption tests: k P Gro - l s e - h , Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applicant or by the local health department for purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the permit is subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations made, information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local department of health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based upon said application and in legal action for perjury as provided by law. Signed Z�L-&- i1 /i Date10411k()- PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED: (� SEPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT ( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE ( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE ( ) CHEMICAL TOILET ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE FINAL DISPOSAL BY: ( ) ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ( UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE ( ) SAND FILTER ( ) WASTEWATER POND WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE? Nu PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the Percolation Test) Minutes 1-5 per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes :30 per inch in hole NO. 3 Minutes ----2.O per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes per inch in hole NO. _ Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil absorption tests: 14P Geo - 4 e c_ h , Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such fiuther mandatory and additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applicant or by the local health department for purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the permit is subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations made, information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local department of health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based upon said application and in legal action for poury as provided by law. Signed �� (�� �� 9� Date l 0 1ko C) PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! 3 G� b1 tech October 31, 2000 Steve Carter and Laura Sothwick P.O. Box 2218 Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970.945.7988 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgeo©hpgeotech.com Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Job No. 100 804 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed Residence, Lot 15, Teller Springs, Garfield County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Carter and Ms. Sothwick: 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 September 29, 2000. 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 11/2 -story log structure over a walkout basement level located on the site as shown on Fig. 1. A detached garage is planned for future construction to the west of the proposed residence. Ground floors are proposed to be slab -on -grade. Cut depths are expected to range between about 3 to 6 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 50 feet downhill to the southeast of the proposed residence. 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 field work. The proposed building location was staked. The ground surface in the building area has a gentle slope down to the east. The terrain becomes steeper to the east of the proposed building location down to the Roaring Fork River. An irrigation ditch is located to the west of the building site. Some piles of fill are located on the lot. The lot is vegetated with scattered sagebrush, grass and weeds. Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating three exploratory pits in the building areas and one profile pit 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 1/2 to 1 foot of topsoil and Steve Carter and Laura Sothwick October 31, 2000 Page 2 nil to 2 feet of stiff sandy silty clay, consist of relatively dense slightly silty sandy gravel with cobbles and scattered small boulders. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed sample of the clay, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and moderate to relatively high compressibility upon additional loading after wetting. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of the gravel (minus 5 inch fraction) obtained from the site are presented on Fig. 4. No free water was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist to moist. Subsidence Potential: Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies Teller Springs. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained sandstone/siltstone and limestone with some massive beds of gypsum. There is a possibility that massive gypsum deposits associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite underlie portions of the lot. Dissolution of the gypsum under certain conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of localized subsidence. During previous work in the area, a few sinkholes were observed in the terraces close to the Roaring Fork River at Teller Springs. These sinkholes appear similar to others associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite in areas of the Roaring Fork Valley. Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. No evidence of cavities was encountered in the subsurface materials; however, the exploratory pits were relatively shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our present knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not develop. The risk of future ground subsidence on Lot 15 throughout the service life of the proposed residence, in our opinion, is low; however, the owner should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole development. If further investigation of possible cavities in the bedrock below the site is desired, we should be contacted. Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread footings placed on the undisturbed natural gravel designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. The clay soils tend to compress after wetting and should be removed from below footing areas. Footings should be a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. The clays and loose 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. The exposed subgrade should be moistened and compacted prior to placing concrete. Voids created by the removal of large rock should be backfilled with compacted sand and gravel or concrete. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost protection. Placement of footings at least 36 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this H -P GEOTECH Steve Carter and Laura Sothwick October 31, 2000 Page 3 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 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 predominately granular soil as backfill. Floor Slabs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. The clay soils are compressible upon loading after wetting. 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 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 the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls and basement 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 wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 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 of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 11/2 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. H -P GEOTECH Steve Carter and Laura Sothwick October 31, 2000 Page 4 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. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the fust 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the fust 10 feet in pavement and walkway areas. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on October 26, 2000 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 scattered boulders. The percolation test results are presented in Table 11. The percolation test results indicate an infiltration rate between 13 and 30 minutes per inch with an average of 21 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. 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 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 H -P GEOTECH Steve Carter and Laura Sothwick October 31, 2000 Page 5 construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, HEPWORTH- PAWLAK Jordy Z. Adamson,/Jr., Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak,P.E. JZA/ksw attachments REG) INC. H -P GEOTECH APPROXIMATE SCALE \ 1" = 100' \ PROPOSED \ \ \\ \ PIT RESIDENCE \ \ 2 PIT 3 QP -3 \ \\ \ 7P-2 � \ \ 1 PROFILE Qp_7 \ \ \ PIT \ \ \ �UTU G \ \ \ GARAGE \ \ \ PIT 1 \ \ LOT 13 \\ \ \ \ �m \ LOT 15 \ \ 1 \ \ \- 1 GAS LINE EASEMENT \ \ \ 1 1 - \ \ ^ _ \A SPUR DRIVE 100 804 GEOTECHNICAL,NINC. I AND PIERCOLATION TESTOHOLESS I Fig 1 m 4 1 t m 0 PIT 1 PIT 2 PIT 3 PROFILE PIT ELEV. = 101' ELEV. = 103' ELEV. = 100' ELEV. = 100' 0 0 WO -9.5 ' OD -90 4• o- +4-81J -'100-2 Im. 5 a 10 LEGEND: rlTOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, scattered gravel, organic, firm, slightly moist, brown. CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, stiff, slightly moist, brown to reddish brown, porous, slightly calcareous. 10 INGRAVEL (GP—GM); sandy, slightly silty, with cobbles, scattered small boulders, medium dense to dense, slightly moist, light brown. 2' Diameter hand driven liner sample. i Disturbed bulk sample. -J NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on October 25, 2000 with a backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were measured by instrument level and refer to Pit 3 as elevation 100.0' assumed. 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 encountered in the pits at the time of excavating. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC — Water Content ( X ) DO = Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve —200 - Percent passing No. 200 sieve I 100 804 I HEPWORTH — PAWLAK I LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS I Fig. 2 I GEOTECHNICAL INC. Moisture Content = 9.5 percent Dry Density = 90 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Pit 1 at 1 Feet 0 1 2 No movement upon wetting c ° 3 N d a a E 4 U 5 6 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 804 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 OD § \ �! & \ )| e — ` § ), / /k G 2G 0 §� co �)§/7 } ,|! _ ® E (N HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 100 804 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MINANCH) P-1 .42 15 water added 9 7 '% 1 % 13 7 Y4 5 '% 2 5Y4 3 % 1 Ya 9 % 7 % 2 7 % 6% 1 Y. 6 Y4 5 1 A 5 4 1 P-2 36 15 water added 10 8 'h 1 '/2 20 8 Ya 7 1 % 7 5%1'/4 5 % 4 % 1 9 '/4 8 '/2 1 Y4 8% 7 % % 7 % 7 % P-3 40 15 9 8 1 30 8 7 % % 7 Y4 6 Ya % 6 Y2 6 Y3 6 5 Y, YI 5 '/2 5 /z 5 4 % /2 Note: Percolation test holes were dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on October 25, 2000. Percolation tests were conducted on October 26, 2000. The average percolation rates were based on the last two readings of each test. 2