The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02823 C ,,,, "^+- '.. Ah9 Y.- 7 ,yc,': 71 r vrr -y. y.-u r ,-- -- .,,!m 7. -.1 i T"`,9,7-., ,mr: w- #,+"'yS, ti: M �� GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit 28 109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 \,1 �,� Phone (303) 945-8212 1 eCS'i' ^ — �` This does not constitute INDIVIDUAL SE '' DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit. ,r PROPERTY Owner's Name John & Alice Bershenyl Present Address 98Q4 CR 117 • Glenwood SpriApise_ 944 - 7479 System Location 28 o t : • '- • ' • . • ' ' 1 ' ' -' Legal Desc of Assessor's Parcel No. SYSTEM DESIGN 4 QQ // Sept Tank Capacity (gallon) Other 4 t' Percolation Rate (minutes /inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) 3 y i p / S D . * * 1 - f 0 ckk,S ee p1 Iv 7 £341 Required Absorption Area - See Attached 1/,s.. 7 )j fn7 -R4ran ky-.l` / » ?R r' c >4 e S Special Setback Requirements: 70 Ili r 1 1.. r R Ai 0 R -U ...54. / , / H /+' 8 _ (1 /� Q Date J r) -J -9 / Inspector P A I`( )? y / L"� r"VD k - t /J 4- P' t/✓' ' A FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) t Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation System Installer l(//x �ta�`+ ei Septic Tank Capacity r/r/ Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name Cifra - .e — C -L lea l Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface \r` 0 Absorption p C !/5 0y) et "Ca \ e' / t 8" 'i.+n1Z .4_ Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name - y Adequate corn Hance with County and State regulations /requirements I Other (, //'ten// / ,�4/� Date /� � ? — 9 y Inspector .4 (y4.T+�1J , '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 — 8 months in jall or both). White - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT INDJVIDIJAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION J k �� c� , rsk t11' OWNER O . � � ._ ADDRESS • C nn . , — PHONE 97 9tf 232 CONTRACTOR _2 t kC JK y fl rbqin ADDRESS �S85 `Tl Id 1444 AV.,. (61e.Awad.SPA Q., PHONE ?vs- SS8o1 PERMIT REQUEST FOR (ANEW 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 PROPOSE, LITY: Near what City of Town (j`e-t1.6c vy OtOr 1.‘A, S ` Cl Size of Lot al, 790 S >^�.( dl Legal Description or Address Sc. 3 N 76 - -R ?. WASTES TYPE: (✓DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE ( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES ( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE 1 I BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: ( 4n U (aC ur ed Ft 0 111 e_ Number of Bedrooms 3 Number of Persons _ 3 ( ) Garbage Grinder (vl automatic Washer (p15ishwasher SOTIRCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: ( ) WELL ( ( ) STREAM OR CREEK If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? i • tltn i •1 it t 1 ! • i i t h; •i i tt• fully %n INI M ii to • 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: -7- Depth to first Ground Water Table /V g t 1r 'U Percent Ground Slope 2 TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED: ( (/5" 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? to PERCOLATION TEST RF,SI JLTS • (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the Percolation Test) 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: (-l ". ' 4L - '7ciu) /at h.�figc n u'.\ S D20 Q� I CV b (en.carod Se n:15 y5 C n G ( Lo1 4PMn..c 97o - 9YS. g tatj 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. Signed9 l ln... /..rmn..4., Date le4 / I )9 77 PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! 3 APPROXIMATE SCALE 1 " =50' EXISTING IRRIGATION DITCH 1b' 4- . PIT 1 ❑ WA, 1id (ik .._ sJgie✓ )IAi. F E /ec.t. c. /149PO PROPOSE' GO /+n•, • mir—_fro014- BUILDING 4— /045 --are r _ 3 Pia. •f ! �'d yie. 0 a PIT 2 EXISTING 48 P4 0 OF1LE `' /( I i Q RANCH I i'� PIT JDO HOUSE EXISTING 5 1;\ 4 0 z ai3j 62_ IV 7 FENCE r 1 O. X dP:yb : � W LL COUNTY ROAD 117 197 360 I HEPWORTH — PAWLAK I LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST HOLES Fig, 1 NC GEOTECHNICAL, I. ■ HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 June 30, 1997 Fax 970 945 -8454 Phone 970 945 -7988 John and Alice Bershenyi 2833 County Road 117 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 197 360 Subject: Additional Percolation Testing, Proposed Residence, 2833 County Road 117, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bershenyi: As requested, Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical performed additional percolation testing at the subject site. The results are presented in this report. We provided a subsoil study and percolation testing at the subject site under Job No. 197 360, dated June 19, 1997. Additional percolation test holes P -4 and P -5 were dug and pre- soaked on June 23 by Mr. Bershenyi. A representative of Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical performed percolation testing on June 24, 1997. The test results are summarized on Table I. The percolation test hole locations are shown Fig. 1. Subsoils encountered in percolation test holes P -3, P -4 and P -5 consisted of clay with scattered cobbles. Due to the various percolation rates, we recommend the system be designed based on a percolation rate of 60 min /inch. If you have any questions, or we may be of further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. i ; \ U \ \I lln Louis Eller ` o � • I• 24443 j Rev. By: DEH % A 7/, hi /Q ZE LEE /kw 9��F - -?3,•„•••••••••„ G ‘ . attachments ��6�iuSSNO /NAV \ \ \�o� L APPROXIMATE SCALE = 50' • EXISTING IRRIGATION DITCH • PIT 1 ❑ PROPOSED BUILDING Q P2 AREA _ P3Q ■ Q Pt ❑ PIT 2 EXISTING P4 A PROFILE RANCH I Q PIT HOUSE J EXISTING P5 FENCE w w LL __ COUNTY ROAD 117 197 360 I GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST HOLES Fig. 1 4 HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 197 360 HOLE 140. 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-4 40 15 101/4 10 1/2 10 93a /4 93/4 91/4 1/4 9'/ 9' /a 1 91/4 9 Ya 9 8% A 83/4 81/4 1/2 81/4 81/4 / 60 P -5 37 15 93/4 8% 1 8%4 8 '4 8 7'h 1 7'h 7 h 7 634 h 6' 6'/4 /4 6'/4 5% 'h 30 water added 8 71/4 '4 HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 159 Glenwood Springs, CO 8160] Fax 970 945 -8454 June 19, 1997 Phone 970995 -7988 John and Alice Bershenyi 2833 County Road 117 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 197 360 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed Residence, 2833 County Road 117, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bershenyi: 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 5, 1997. 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 single story modular structure over a crawlspace. Cut depths are expected to be up to about 4 feet. Foundation loadings for this type of construction are assumed to be relatively Tight and typical of the proposed type of construction. The septic disposal system is proposed to be located about 60 feet south- 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 is located in an irrigated field about 200 feet to the north of the existing ranch house and to the west of County Road 117 . The ground surface in the building area is relatively flat with a slight to moderate slope down to the east. An existing irrigation ditch is located about 30 feet northwest of the building site. The site is vegetated with grass and weeds. Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating two exploratory pits in the building area 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, consist of stiff sandy silty clay. Results of swell- consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the clay, presented on Figs. 3 and 4, indicate low John and Alice Bershenyi June 19, 1997 Page 2 compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a low to moderate collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted. The samples showed moderate to high compressibility upon additional 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 1,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. The soils tend to settle when wetted and there could be some post - construction foundation settlement if the bearing soils become wet. The amount of settlement will depend on the depth of compressible clays and extent of wetting. 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 12 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. 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 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 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved H -P GEOTECH John and Alice Bershenyi June 19, 1997 Page 3 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. 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 11, 1997 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit was excavated at the location shown on Fig. 1. The three percolation holes had been drilled by the client using a 12 -inch diameter auger and soaked one day prior to our test. 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 sandy silty clay. The percolation test results are presented in Table II. A percolation rate of about 30 minutes per inch was measured in hole P -3 which had cobbles in the bottom. Holes P -1 and P -2 had a very slow to no percolation rate. Occasionally, the sides of auger holes in clay can be smeared and result in low percolation rate. We recommend the percolation tests be run in hand dug test holes. It is possible that a different location of the disposal system will be needed. 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 construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to H -P GEOTECH John and Alice Bershenyi June 19, 1997 Page 4 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 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 0 E S� l i v � .:41.1 Apq ! ' .. . -1 .Vp,y �so'� r /o ; 2 Jordy Z. danhon, Jr. P.E. '0; 29707 -:]j Rev wed By. //. 0 # 1 13 (�/y / � , ; 4 ,� 1 .� A b an #‘14.. c . , Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. JZA /kw attachments cc: Bucky Arbaney H -P GEOTECH L APPROXIMATE SCALE = 50' EXISTING IRRIGATION DITCH • PIT 1 • PROPOSED BUILDING 0 P2 AREA --� P3 • A P1 • PIT2 EXISTING PROFILE o RANCH I PIT HOUSE EXISTING z FENCE in W LL COUNTY ROAD 117 197 360 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I AND PERCOLATION CO ATIONLOTESTOHOLES PITS I Fig. 1 PIT 1 PIT 2 PROFILE PIT — 0 0 — N / — — $ — — we - io.7 / — I 5 - 200 -88 Wo-10.7 / 5 I _ 00-03 / — o 0 — / o w■a.6 / 00 -83 - - 200-78 — LL■27 — 10 % •12 10 — LEGEND: N TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, stiff, moist, dark brown. N 4/ 1 CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist to moist, reddish brown, slightly calcareous, slightly porous, low to medium plasticity. Scattered sandstone cobbles and boulders in Profile Pit. 1 52 2- Diameter hand driven liner sample. NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on June 10, 1997 with a backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features on the site. 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 ( X ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) —200 an Percent passing No 200 sieve LL = Liquid Limit ( X ) PI = Plasticity Index ( X ) 197 360 I HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Moisture Content = 10.7 percent Dry Unit Weight = 99 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Boring 1 at 4 Feet 0 1 Compression 2 3 upon wetting c 0 CO «0 0 a 4 E 0 U 5 6 7 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 197 360 I HEPWORTH — PAWLAK SWELL — CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. • Moisture Content = 10.7 percent Dry Unit Weight = 93 pcf 0 Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Boring 2 at 5 Feet 1 2 3 upon 4 wetting 5 6 N 7 0 8 q 0 0 1- E 9 0 U 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 - - 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 197 360 I HEPWORTH — PAWLAK SWELL — CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. / , ■� ( | | 3A 3 t # t \ / / | | | � ) § | j @ 2 \ � . . 1 LLca 6 2 0� CO & \ ) |$ N CL. % 2 \ |! � _ �rg CI. | ° + §| | 2 g §2 �� 6 § § - N m 9 _ • • . 0 HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 197 360 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 8 - 7 IA 7'A 7'h % 7'h 7'h 'h 7% 7y ' 714 7% 14 lye 7 ye 120 P -2 42 15 8 8 - 8 8 - 8 8 - 8 8 - 8 8 - - P-3 36 15 8 71/2 3 4 71e 6'/ % water added 71/2 7 '/2 7 6'h h 6y 6 h 6 5'1 h 30 NOTES: Percolation test holes had been drilled using a 12 -inch diameter auger and soaked one day prior to the testing. Percolation tests were conducted In the holes on June 11, 1997. Cobbles were observed at the bottom of P -3.