HomeMy WebLinkAbout03231 +P ` r 'v i �... i . P .
•
W
i GARFIELD COUNTY / BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N: 3 2 3 1 t 4
' 109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. );
'" Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Y
i , Phone (303) 945 -8212 i
. S This does not constitute
t INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT a building or use permit. j F
t
' frybo
- PROPERTY ,
I e
C t DR G' S' P ho e 975 - -0 1 7 '
O wner's Name �� A� ��O r • e. Present Address Mc A e __ '
System Lbcation OI — 7 CO T to RCS ` i R.r le 6'ry t 13 Sjl "5 W V60 r .
Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. (&k'SI b cm K -Fi(1ny 1 * 4 4,071 #33
a �J y p
i ) SYSTEM DESIGN
1
i ; Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other
fl • u
NI f N
t 1 /L Percolation Rate (minutes /inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) w. i
Required Absorption Area - See Attached il
Ir y
F r
K 1 Special Setback Requirements: r -
fr Date Inspector
i ' FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed)
) Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation r )
1
l System Installer n LI/ ICI e K. -
Septic Tank Capacity D O S I Si G .Si ?T e FA - --- t
r f
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name . `
r
I
Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface 1
{
- I i Area ' S Q - S O F 'Z b' I N p f L'T (L A 70vtJ 4 MA'S of 7 �A ' •
r
s
4 Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name in F ft- T ( S
I ,1 a ,
S k '
Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements f 0 W f-f Pit . . C:A t'Ci i v
I
+ Other S t MCrkPCKrW6 ( O.k. D Oq TEI'Ci#ok? yh9lbo✓
) ta
Date q ....1(4 -9 , r ( Inspector ti :
1 i
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE
`
°
*CONDITIONS: j
1. All Installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Hee Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter p ?
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. 4 r
3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system In a manner which involves a knowing and material c $
variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine — 8 'z
1 r months In )ail or both). .
1
F' White - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT
•
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
( p9- UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER
( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) WASTEWATER POND
( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE?
PERCOLATION TEST RES TS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer if the Engineer does the
Percolation Test) / . t ,4ttl. /7 /1t
A
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: 1• P & 7?C'--1-)
Name, a and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system:- s✓CVQ�/,OiuAI
7 0J2-
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 i./� L Z. jai . Date V5/91
PLEASE DRA AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
APPROXIMATE SCALE
LEGEND 1 = 40'
/ • EXPLORATORY PIT
o PERCOLATION TEST HOLE
O�°'FS e,
tit
r --
/ 1
LOT 32 / BUNG — — \
SETBACK
LINES ILDI
/ I
/ PIT 1
/ •
' 1
/ w
/ d
LOT 31 / PROPOSED I 0
/ RESIDENCE w
/ cc
/ o
/
1 - °o
/ •
O. \��`� \`�\ • PIT 2
/ `` � N ∎ \! � �� � l OFILE LOT 33
/ `� ` ` ` 4
L � �•o ° .gyp REG " '��4,
r: %co
v'P In<F'
. V <0 '..
LOT 34 ! • r ' , ; u � + "
�&
r
"/ / / /uq wwl`���"�
Ma1RE N0.
Septic System Weaver Residence
Site Plan y am\
- 40' I DAN:
AUw.t a] lave SHEET OF 1 / IANCANLZLA AND A53i7AA1FS INC
RAM BY: I CWD BY: I APPD BY: PLAN N0. PONT a•— as INN - lam 1N1Pa AMMR PROJECT:
NN TAZ TAZ 11102fl.ptloAp amaom VMS COLORADO mm 010) 046 inn
■ ■ li cpw orth- 1'awtak Geotechnical, Inc. I I'
5020 G e t Glee Co County Road I,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado KIldll
Phone: '1711- 945.798K
Faa: 9711-945 -8454
hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
August 9, 1999
Joe Weaver
1055 Park West Drive
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 199 559
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed
Residence, Lot 33, Filing 4, Westbank Ranch P.U.D., Garfield County, li
Colorado
Dear Mr. Weaver:
As requested, Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and li
percolation test for foundation and septic disposal designs at : to subject site. The study ' J i ll
was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services
to you dated July 15, 1999. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the
proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this i l
report. Evaluation of potential geologic hazard impacts on the site are beyond the scope II
of this study.
I
Proposed Construction: The proposed residence will be a one story wood frame
structure with an attached garage located on the site as shown on Fig. 1. Ground floor I II
of the residence will be structural over crawlspace and the garage floor will be slab -on- I p
grade. Cut depths are expected to range between about 4 to 6 feet. Foundation I CI
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 planned to he located
southwest and downhill of the residence.
If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those I ii
described above, we should be notified to re- evaluate the recommendations presented in 11
this report.
Site Conditions: The lot is vacant and located on the west side of Dolores Circle. The I,I
ground surface in the building area has a strong slope down to the west with about 8 to I,I
10 feet of elevation difference across the building site and about 20 feet across the lot.
The lot is vegetated with sagebrush and weeds and may have been partially cleared of III
vegetation in the past.
Sub urface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by �q
ating two exploratory pits in the building area and one profile pit in the septic ill
1
d: •posal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The logs of the pits are 111
Joe Weaver
August 9, 1999
Page 2
presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about 1' feet of topsoil, consist Ili
of medium stiff sandy clayey silt. Medium dense silty sand with gravel (shale ICI
fragments) was encountered in Pits 1 and 2 at 5 feet and 9 feet, respectively. Results of {II
swell- consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the silt soils, III
presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and jp
Tight loading and moderate compression under additional loading after wetting. The Ip
samples showed a low collapse potential when wetted under constat load. No free water Ili
was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist.
Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the III
exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread I�
footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil designed for an allowable soil bearing III
pressure of 1,500 psf for support of the proposed residence. The soils tend to compress III
after wetting and there could be some post - construction foundation settlement if the Ili
bearing soils become wetted. Possible sources of wetting include surface water p,
ponding, excessive irrigation and utility line leaks. Precaution should be taken to Ili
prevent wetting of the bearing soils.
Footings should be a minimum width of 20 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for {p
columns. All topsoil and loose or disturbed soils encountered at the foundation bearing II
level within the excavation should be removed and the footing hearing level extended
down to the undisturbed natural soils. The footing subgrade should then be moistened III
and compacted. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate cover above their III
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 and better withstand the
effects of some differential settlement such as by assuming an unsupported length of at {I
least 14 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to Il
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. To reduce the effects of some differential
movement, floor slabs should be separated from all hearing walls and columns with
expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints
sh Ad be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint
ing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on
crience and the intended slab usc. A 4 inch layer of sand and gravel can be placed IF
H -P GEOTECH
Joe Weaver
August 9, 1999
Page 3
beneath slabs to 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 12% 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, deep crawlspace areas and basement levels, 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. The drain gravel
should be underlain by an impervious membrane, such as 20 or 30 mil PVC, placed in a
trough shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to help prevent wetting of
the bearing soils.
Surface Drainage: A perimeter foundation around shallow crawlspace areas should not
be needed with positive surface drainage as discussed below. 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
H -P GEOTECH ' n
Joe Weaver
August 9, 1999
Page 4
recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved bI
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement
and walkway areas. A swale may 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, such as sod, should
be located at least 10 feet from the building.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on July 21, 1999 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 sandy silt with scattered gravel. The percolation test results are presented in y • !I
Table 11, indicate average percolation rates of from about 15 to 16 minutes per incit//_'1
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and ttiie 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 and to the depths shown on Fig.2, 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
HP GEOTECH
Joe Weaver
August 9, 1999
Page 5
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.
L L 7 is E. Eller
Reviewed by: %N inn
�
0 � p . x / 11 •
J �
O •
David A. Young, P. - 216 j
Wii 34-97 /Wiz
LEE /kk /ksm '�� � 0� 11 Ilk
attachments
cc: Kurtz & Associates, Inc. - Attn: Brian Kurtz
Zancanella Associates - Attn: Tom Zancanella
I ' i
II I,
ICI
I I
H - GEOTECH
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 199 559 .
I
IlI l
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE
(INCHES) INTERVAL DEPTH AT AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION I
(MIN) START OF INTERVAL LEVEL RATE
INTERVAL (INCHES) (INCHES) (MIN. /INCH) 1
P.1 46 15 9Y. 7'% 2 It '/. 5 % 1 +G I
6% 5 %
5 4 1 ��'
water added 6 'h 5 Y 1 _
5Y. 4% 1 t
4 ° 4 ' (
4 3 1 16 '/a i ll
P -2 62 15 10 7 Y. 2 '%
7' 6'/. 1'/. If
6'/. 5 1'/. I,I
6 3' 1'% I1
water added 7 '/r 6 'y 1 II
6%, 5Y. 1 I 11I
5 l 4K 1 i
4A 3 Y 1 16 II
P -3 56 15 11 '/. 9 2 /•
9 7 % 1 % i,.
7% 6 1'/.
6 5 1
j i
5 4 1 I II, I
• 4 3 1 II{
3 2 1 Illr
2 1 1 ii - I
Note: on 1 20 1999 Percolation reads were pe formed on 21, 1999 by Geotech. of backhoe pits presoaked I ;
'1
.
I