HomeMy WebLinkAbout02421 r m ..wr.. .`. m i .F;..ry�`F!a ,: ?nw*",; af?" r.. ^rt+ne++�ae .. ..,.,,,.....z.��t.+. m• w
.., *1 . .. 1 *
3P
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N' 2421 k $
109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. '
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81801 N ii
Phone (303) 945 -8212 t(
E :
This does not constitute 1
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL. PERMIT a building or use permit.
PROPERTY ("
Owner's Name Troy Clark Present Address 0077 Ptarmigan Ur. G. S. Phone_ 945.2656 ¢ `
r
System Location Lot 17. Springridse. 0466 Springridge Drive, Glenwood Springs
N
Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No.
SYSTEM DESIGN
P
Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other 5
Percolation Rate (minutes /inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) ;'
Required Absorption Area - See Attached r ' .
4
Special Setback Requirements: I
y Date Inspector 4
FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) li!!f
Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation $ t
// 1 i
0
System Installer_ t-(/ 1 1 F R
e
Septic Tank Capacity / 2 5- I
e¢
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name C n l0 Z ft- N cl 4 `,;
Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface lj'r i 1i
` ,�J 6 l
Absorption Area RD
7 ■✓ /! r 'r1-4/- -)L2 ' _= __/ An ` 't 4 r % 0 .1j 1;'
Absorption ArezeType and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name 7 77 1j 4 / t% lr 1/ -p. 'I- - P >
Adequate compliance with County and State regulations /requirements_j_ -- - - -- - -- - - t i
It
P
Other 4
(
Date ; 7 1 Inspector � _' -__ rL r. . S)
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE
ii
•CONDITIONS: ( f
1. All installation must comply with all requirements of fhb Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter N° 1
25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984. i .
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. a
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 i f
m in jail or both).
1
Applicant: Green Copy Department: Pink Copy
JNDIVIDT TAT, SEWAGE DISPOSAT. SYSTEM APPLICATION
OWNER t r o y l_ , C / /106..k
ADDRESS on 77 PTA RM/5an DR. G. La C. ('n. PHONE Qt - a las 4
CONTRACTOR - S',3,... <
ADDRESS PHONE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR (4NEW 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.00ATION OF PROPOSED FACH,ITY: COUNTY 6) ,Q v.Ci ex. /5
Near what City or Town r., Jav vice A Cs Lot /7
Legal Description
WASTES TYPE.: (Dwelling ( ) Transient Use
( ) Commercial or Industrial ( ) Non - domestic Wastes
( ) Other - Describe
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: C3 c:-iv r
Number of bedrooms: 4 Number of persons
Garbage Grinder ( 9 Automatic Washer ( Tbishwasher
SOT MCP. AND TYPE OF WATER ST JPPT.Y. () WELL () SPRING () STREAM OR CREEK
Give depth of all wells within 180 feet of system:
If supplied by communtiy water, give name of supplier: .3 n r.. '-s Id-AA .. C .. L
C,ROIJND CONDITIONS: S ` 1 C."
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:
( ) Absorption Trench, Bed or Pit ( ) Evapotranspiration
(4 Underground Dispersal ( ) Sand Filter
( ) Above Ground Dispersal ( ) Wastewater Pond
( ) Other - Describe:
WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE? ,r/®
•
PERCO!.ATION TEST REST JI.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:
-At- way Y� - (91.1 A- /r✓. ..a-n J Jrj $ q /q ( - 7756
Name, address : nd telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: _
r _ ¢ 7
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 'ey (C L Date a/ i y 7s
pi (EASE DRAW AN ACCURATE. MAP TO YOIJR PROPERTY
•
A , •
IIEPWORTH -PAWL, AK GEOTECIINICAI, INC, 5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601
February 16, 1995 Pax 303 945-8454
Phone 303 945 -7988
Troy Clark
0077 Ptarmigan Drive
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 195 118
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 17,
Springridge Subdivision, Garfield County, Colorado.
Dear Mr. Clark:
As requested, Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study for
design of foundations at the subject site. The study was conducted in accordance with
our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to you dated January 30, 1995.
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 one story wood frame
structure with a heated slab -on -grade floor located on the site as shown on Fig. 1. Cut
depths for footings are expected to range between about 3 to 4 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 site was vacant and covered with about 6 inches of snow at the
time of our field work on February 2, 1995. Vegetation at the site consisted of grass
and weeds: The lot is located in a broad drainage that slopes moderately to gently down
to the northwest. The slope in the proposed building area is about 5% with 1 to 2 feet
of elevation difference across the building footprint. Rock outcrops of the Maroon
Formation were observed on the ridge above and about 400 yards northwest of the site.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating three exploratory pits 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 foot
of topsoil, consist of reddish brown, stiff, sandy silt and clay. About 2 1/2 feet of
Troy Clark
February 16, 1995
Page 2
slightly silty sand was encountered in Pit 1 overlying the silt and clay. Results of swell -
consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the sandy silt and
clay, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture
conditions and light loading and a minor collapse potential (settlement under constant
load) when wetted. The silt and clay exhibited moderate compressibility under
increased loading after wetting. 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 designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 1200 psf for support of the proposed residence. There could be some post
construction settlement if the bearing soils become wet. 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 soils.
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 should be designed to resist a
lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 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 could be differential settlement if the
subgrade soils were to become wet. 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
H -P GEOTECH
Troy Clark
February 16, 1995
Page 3
experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 -inch layer of free- draining gravel
could be placed beneath slabs to act as a leveling course and provide a break for
capillary moisture rise. 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.
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.
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.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were performed on February 2, 1995 in 3
locations as shown on Fig. 1. The tests were run in small holes (12 inch diameter by 12
inch deep) hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits. The test holes were soaked
H -P GEOTECH
•
Troy Clark
February 16, 1995
Page 4
with water on the day prior to the test. The soils exposed in the percolation holes were
similar to those encountered in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 and consisted of stiff
sandy silt and clay. The percolation test rates varied from 60 to 120 minutes per inch
with an average rate of 80 minutes per inch. A conventional infiltration septic system is
probably possible at the site but may need to be oversized due to the relatively slow
percolation rate. A civil engineer should design the infiltration septic disposal 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. I, 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
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 soil engineer.
H -P GEOTECH
•
•
Troy Clark
February 16, 1995
Page 5
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECINICAL, INC.
p1 W11 ! 1( Eii4 j
REr1 g �'//i
� .<.. r
�J ( a :Z
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. 2 24443 f
� e
•• °c; .
,9• v
ti t .......
Reviewed Reviewed By: 'O / / / /�SN / ON 1 AL ts'm
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
DEH /rr
Attachments
cc: Enartech - Attn: Chuck Peterson
H - GEOTECH
Lot 15 Lot 16
SPringridge Drive
\ \ \ Drainage
\ \Easement
7 ``G\
\
o \ \
Lot 17
o , C ---- Boundary \
° n
CO I \ �\ /
o
Pit 2 Proposed House /
p -1 is
0 . Profile 1
• Pit 1 �
l
P -2 0 1 - - - - - -
•
P-3 Pit 1
mis
es sm.
0 35 70 140
Approximate Scale in Feet
195 118 HEPWORTH PAWLAK
I GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. Location of Exploratory Pits Fig. 1
•
♦ Pit 1 Pit 2 Profile Pit
0 0
. -
tI WC =1.6
y �� j L – 200 =10 /� L,iC =8.5 —
a)
2 a
a. , 200 _, o
o ' � .10.9 -200 =83 i - - '; �
t ----5 DD =102 WC =5.7 5 —
�DD =106 7 _
A 7/ // _ &
10 10
LEGEND:
ti TOPSOIL; sandy silt, organic, frozen, dark brown.
ty SAND (SM); slightly silty, slightly gravelly, medium dense, slightly moist,
reddish brown.
F SILT AND CLAY (ML -CL); sandy, stiff, moist, reddish brown, slightly
, calcareous.
I S] 2 -inch Diameter Hand Driven Sample.
- i Small Disturbed sample.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on February 2, 1995 with a rubber -tired backhoe.
2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the
site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory pits were not measured and logs of exploratory pits are drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory pit locations 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 ( %)
DD = Dry Density (pcf)
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
195 118 I HEPWORTH PAWLAK I GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. Logs of Exploratory Pits I Fig. 2
. Moisture Content = 10,9 percent
Dry Unit Weight = 102 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay
o I • From: Pit 1 at 4 feet •
.N 1 ,
N
G1
tr
a
e 2
o Compression
Upon Wetting
3
4
•
5
6
8, I1�
0.1
100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
Moisture Content = 8.6 percent
■ Dry Unit Weight = 99 pcf
i I I i 1 1 I Sample of: Sandy Clayey Silt
1 I ' From: pit 2 at 3 feet
o
o. I
S 2
• i
3 /I
No Movement
4 Upon Wettinc
5
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
195 118 HEPWORTH- PAWLAK SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS I Fig. 3 I
GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. 1
. .
CO
6 >-
co gE ) & § »
� / 0 } /
J \ 0 >
/ 3 CO 03 CO
1 |i
\ / ||||
§ §-
/ §
0 = 0
1 2 � ;
�
o ..
/ \ |
E — § � z -
0 u
<�
e
q o
\ _1 2 % G
= §
0 < \ |
= . � +
(E|! / @ )
§§ o! r co { = e
1! ' \.- r m
.- N
• . • •
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 195 118
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 50 15 10 9 1/2 1/2
9 1/2 9 3/8 1/8
Water Added 11 10 3/4 114
10 3/4 10 5/8 1/8
10 5/8 10 1/2 1/8 120
P -2 48 15 10 9 3/4 1/4
9 3/4 9 1/2 1/4
9 1/2 9 1/4 1/4
9 1/4 9 1/4
9 8 3/4 1/4 60
P3 52 15 10 91/2 1/2
9 1/2 9 1/4 1/4
Water Added 10 1/4 10 1/4
10 9 3/4 1/4
9 3/4 9 1/2 1/4 60
Note: Percolation test holes were dug and soaked on February 2, 1995. Percolation tests
were performed on February 3, 1995. The soils in the percolation test holes consisted of
reddish brown, stiff sandy silt and clay.