HomeMy WebLinkAbout02387 � ` •
Ya
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit n : 23871
109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. ttsr R
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81801 t
Phone (303) 945-8212
This does not constitute 0
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit.
PROPERTY
ii
Owner's Name
James E. Double Present Address P.O. Box 1124, Glenwo Phone 945 -9255
System Location 1135 Auebinger Drive, Wastbank Mesa, Lot 42, Glenwood Springs
Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. 666
SYSTEM DESIGN p i
Septic Tank Capacity )
p y (gallon Other {4 }-
Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) 3 T
Required Absorption Area - See Attached 1
•
Special Setback Requirements:
Date Inspector
FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) 1 (
Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation
G
System Installer 1LJp l_7 c l.G? -S t ). Z r , v -7 i j5 aa
Septic Tank Capacity 1 064a 44
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name /`fQQ«}Fteta_ i
Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface (J f- S G
v
Absorption Area / /)./ / y
Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name /6) / IT? //I •(‘) if is- 7. <, n1. S t3
Adequate compliance with County and State regulations /requirements (
Other
/
Date
y
/'�i - Si 7- 'qty. Inspector 4 .r s( Lb 7 e. •
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SI E
*CONDITIONS: ! t
1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter 1 1
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 1
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& 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 3
months In jail or both). {
Applicant: Green Copy Department: Pink Copy t t
. _. SYs in IS Rr4vinao TO 6 c ,y�
. p�-, ra° 6Y 9 Catona00 «0 •
Rffearran•W P F
INDIVIDTJAI. SEWAGE DISPOSAJ. SYSTEM APP( (CATION
OWNER Tmes E. - Doa /<
ADDRESS fie •60t /124/ pyc.PHONE 91/s- -tzs'r
CONTRACTOR Ow n c ✓
ADDRESS PHONE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR (•-yisrEW 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).
J.00:ATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY: COUNTY ollar{i•e /p/
Near what City or Town / /e n sons I Spr: ny t Lot e/ z
Legal Description W. c/hof ,l.' e4ncL, P. U. D . F,' /:n, a1E y
WASTES TYPE: (Dwelling ( ) Transient Use
( ) Commercial or Industrial ( ) Non - domestic Wastes
() Other - Describe
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: its, 6 n /,'+
Number of bedrooms: 3 Number of persons •/
(Garbage Grinder (tomatic Washer (shwasher
SOURCE ANT) TYPE ()F WATER SI JPPLY: O WELL () SPRING () STREAM OR CREEK
Give depth of all wells within 180 feet of system:
If supplied by communtiy water, give name of supplier: £.o /6a j,t
(TROT JND CONDITIONS:
Depth to bedrock:
Depth to first Ground Water Table:
Percent Ground Slope:
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM:
Was an effort made to connect to community system?
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:
(VI 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? A/
•
pERCOLATION TEST R PSI II,TS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer)
Minutes per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes per inch in Hole No. 3 .
Minutes per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes per inch in Hole No.
Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil absorption tests:
Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system:
Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the appliction 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 purposes of the evaluation of the application; and the
issuance of the permit is subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to inusre compliance with
rules and regulations adopted under Article 10, Title 25, C.R.S. 1973, as amended. The undersigned hereby
certifies that all statements make, 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 bre relied on by the local department of health in evluating the same fro 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 „7 /--ivice441 / Date AO a/ �y
pi .EASE DRAW AN ACCT IRATE MAP TO YOIJR PROPERTY
. Co owly coey
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
November 22, 1994 n Fax 303 945 -8454
IJ Phone 303 945 -7988
Jim and Sandy Douglas NOV 3 0 1994
1100 Mount Sopris Drive p,�
Glenwood Springs, Colorado b0I D
8I Job No. 194 527
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 42,
Filing 4, Westbank, Garfield County, Colorado.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Douglas:
As requested, Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and
percolation test for design of foundations and septic disposal system at the subject site.
The study was conducted as verbally requested by Jim Douglas. 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 above a partial walkout basement /partial crawl space level. Ground floor will
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.
If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those
described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations presented in
this report.
Site Conditions: The lot is located in the northern part of the filing downhill of
Huebinger Drive. Overhead power lines are located along the south property line and a
storm water detention pond is located in the uphill northwest part of the site. The
ground surface is strongly to moderately sloping down to the northeast and is covered
with sage brush, grass and weeds. Below the building site the ground steepens and is
irregular from gully erosion and is covered with pinon and juniper trees.
Jim and Sandy Douglas
November 22, 1994
Page 2
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits, one near the northeast corner and the other near the
south side of the proposed residence. Pit 1 is located near the percolation holes to the
northeast. The logs of the pits are presented on Fig. 1. The subsoils encountered,
below about 2 feet of topsoil, consist of sandy silt and clay with scattered gravel.
Results of swell- consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of
the silt and clay soil, presented on Fig. 2, indicate low compressibility under natural
low moisture conditions and moderate collapse (settlement when wetted under constant
load) and high compressibility when loaded after wetting. No free water was observed
in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist.
Foundation Recommendations: The soils encountered at the site are low density and
compressible when wetted even under light residential loading. Considering the subsoil
conditions encountered in the exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed
construction, spread footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil can be used for
support of the proposed residence provided the risk of settlement and distress is
accepted by the owner. Footings should be designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 1,000 psf and have a minimum width of 20 inches for continuous walls and
2 feet for columns. Settlements could be on the order of 2 to 4 inches depending on the
depth and extent of wetting and could cause post construction structural distress. Loose
and disturbed soils at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be
removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils.
The exposed subgrade should be moistened and compacted in footing areas. Exterior
footings should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost
protection. Placement of footings at least 36 inches below the exterior grade is typically
used in this area. Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and
bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 15
feet. The foundation should be constructed in a "box like" shape and minimize the use
of isolated columns. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should be designed
H -P GEOTECH
Jim and Sandy Douglas
November 22, 1994
Page 3
to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 55
pcf for the on -site soil as backfill.
Floor Slabs: The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. There is a risk of post construction settlement
due to subgrade 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 may 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 more than 4 feet deep, 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
H -P GEOTECH
•
Jim and Sandy Douglas
November 22, 1994
Page 4
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 1 1/2 feet deep. An impervious
membrane such as 20 mil PVC should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough
shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting of the bearing
soils.
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 at least 2 feet of the
on -site 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 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 will 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
10 feet from the building.
6) The potential for subsurface wetting from the nearby detention pond should be
considered in siting of the building. The pond could be lined nearest the
building site to reduce the subsurface wetting potential.
H -P GEOTECH
•
Jim and Sandy Douglas
November 22, 1994
Page 5
Percolation Testing: Three percolation tests were conducted just down hill to the
northeast of the building site. The percolation test results, presented in Table II and the
subsurface profile at Pit 1 indicate the use of an infiltration septic disposal system
should be feasible at the tested site. The proposed disposal area is above a steep down
slope and adequate setback and depth of the system should be provided to maintain
slope stability. A civil engineer may need to design the system.
Limitations: This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
other 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. The
depth of the compressible upper soils and the settlement risk to the building could be
evaluated by drilling exploratory borings. The site is underlain by the Eagle Valley
Evaporite and evaluation of the future subsidence risk due to dissolution of the bedrock
is beyond the scope of this study.
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
H -P GEOTECH
•
Jim and Sandy Douglas
November 22, 1994
Page 6
bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GF,O COSICAL, INC.
� 15222 0;3
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. y « A /r /-z., 4/:
1t CPS/ SI
Reviewed By: y q� ....• ..•,„c)./ ••
6s4et_n_c
\
.E �OF COto.-
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
SLP /rr
Attachments
H - GEOTECH
•
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY PITS
Job No: 194 527
Catum: Ground Surface Pepared By: ME, H -P Geotech, Inc. Date: 11 -13 -94
Reviewed By: SLP, H -P Geotech, Inc. Date: 11 -21 -94
Type /Size of Hole: Backhoe Pit
Pit No: 1 Pit No: 2
Location: Profile Pit, Leach Field, Northeast side . Location: Residence, South side
Depth,Ft. Visual Description of Depth,Ft. Visual Description of
Class. Material Class. Material
0 - 2 OL Topsoil; organic sandy silt, dark 0 - 2 OL Topsoil; organic sandy silt,
brown. dark brown.
2 - 8 ML -CL Silt and clay; sandy, scattered 2 - 8 ML -CL Silt and clay, sandy, scattered
gravel, medium stiff, slightly gravel, medium stiff, slightly
moist, light brown, porous moist, light brown, porous
calcareous. calcareous.
Bottom of Pit @ 8' Bottom of Pit @ 8'
No free water No free water
Samples: Samples:
4 ML -CL 2" Diameter Hand Driven Liner. 4 ML -CL 2" Diameter Hand Driven Liner.
8 ML -CL 2" Diameter Hand Driven Liner
0
Fig. 1
0 - Moisture Content = 8 percent
Dry Unit Wetgnt 2 90 pct
c Sample at: Sandy Silt and Clay
.(n 1
8
From: Pit 1 at 8 feet
k I
I
2 "IL
3 Compression
Upon Wetting
•
4
5 I I j i 1 I I I I 1
• , !
1 I I
1 1 I I
8 I i � I i L 1 l j l
i I 1 I I I I! I 1 I I
I 9 • o co
0.1
APPLIED oRESSUPE — kst
I I ; 1 H I I 1 Moisture Lament = 7.4 percent
! 1 1 1 pry Unit Weight = 81 oct
I 1 1 1 Samoie or: Sandy Silt and Clay
.Q 0
i o 1 I I From' pit 2 at 4 feet
I N 1 ! I I I I 1 !
a I I1 I • 11 I
2 I 1 i Compression
Upon Wetting 1 ! , I 1 1
3 1 ' ! ! i
i 11111 !
4 ,. 1
i ' I
5 1
6
111 1 II
7 I • I I i ! .
8 0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — kst !
194 527 HEPWORTH SWELL- CONSOLIOATION TEST RESULTS I Fig- 2 I
GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. 11
N
N
ill
>. > m
z 0 U U 0
O g u C C C
Z 3 8 P8 o t0 c @
Y
p U) U) V)
t
c c c
(0 (0 0)
6 co Z r V ! 0
J v
J D
Q N
Z t h = -
U w
W
O a s1
W — o igi
0 ul h-
he m a
4 Q O t o o
J ~ 00 R � 5 E R n co
Q K n s x ^ co
4
J
d u. '
± o
cc_ cc
2 gy .
LV D 5 a(
2
0 o
v
i z 0
a
u
3
1 B .- N
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 194 527
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE
(INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION
(MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL RATE
(INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) (MIN /INCH)
P -1 54 30 9 7 2
7 6 1/2 1/2
61/2 51/2 1 30
P -2 46 30 101/2 81/2 2
8 1/2 7 1/2 1
71/2 61/2 1 30
P -3 50 30 9 1/2 7 1/2 2
7 1/2 5 1/2 2
51/2 41/2 1 30
Note: Holes were hand dug in bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on November 13,
and the tests were conducted on November 14, 1994.