HomeMy WebLinkAbout03301 0 0
` GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N 2 3 3 0 1 ', ' r
' t
109 8th Street Suite 303 Assessor's Parcel No. ;
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 51801 a
Phone (303) 945-8212
n ;
This does not constitute
a building or use permit. 1 {
a 7 INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT
.s PROPERTY
i •t Owner's Name \ ' ( ' S`" � ( 10 R ( a r ' Present Address P7) N" 3 t t 6 P hone / ' � �. 0 97 A7 ` •
' ` U 1 Lof q ( 6(en
1 System Location ,) � ��� ` -�
R i a 5 R ; fps
HUM S u kd i ✓ r s , o rt 060/,
(' Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No.
�Oc k �e�� HecJ /�Sn
' ' SYSTEM DESIGN /I�i lrrat Tas 14 'lie n& h, S
/02 Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other 30 O , ' '�E
1
4 v
t /a 3 w i NPercoletion Rate (minutes inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) r i
7p.
S ;
Required Absorption Area - See Attached
f - Special Setback Requirements: '
, 4 Date — Inspecto �� u t d - ' .r
t FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as Installed)
Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation
kp
` ± System Installer y Y
4!
R Septic Tank Capacity 1 Zcb — ,,,�� �,f — / 1 �
t.
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name /� /Ed-
.. i Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface __ - Y-E -�- - -_ - kr)
Absorpt Area
S 3.e
Absorption Area Type and /or Manufacturer or Trade Name
1 ,
i Adequate compliance with County and State regulations /requirements
( 1, t
y Other / / p : .8 v
!C Date `f -(9` 00 , I -
A
s RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE
4 *CONDITIONS: "'
i i 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 -
ii g nection to orose with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a
y requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit.
i ,
3. Any person who constructs, alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system In a manner which involves a knowing and material
y variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class 1, Petty Offense ($500.001 ins —8 C '
months in )ail or both). ;
i
• White - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT
r '
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
OWNER (14 /// f 9;65
ADDRESS 23X 776 ,j ac� l - o PHONE yg 7 PVC
CONTRACTOR - "./717 ,-- n-
ADDRESS PHONE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR (' 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 (/l�.lj/'i�&'ve Size of Lot /9 At#CS
Z
Legal Description or Address !/ l / /it7`' �v�v U /fY
WASTES TYPE: (DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE
( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON - DOMESTIC WASTES
( ) OTHER - DESCRIBE
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: 51 Ay IC, Irma l y d we (1; f
Number of Bedrooms -r Number of Persons
(4' Garbage Grinder (4- Automatic Washer (#1't shwasher
SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (,WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier:
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: (S — i%n /c
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System?
A site Ulan is required to be submitted that indicates the following 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 Slope
2
IYPE,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? /7U
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (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:
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 _ Date /- /.7 - , 0 00
PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
FEB -25 -2000 13 26 H -P GEOTECH P.03'13
Bill Gibson
February 22, 2000
Page 2
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits in the building arca 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 foot of topsoil, consist of
sandy silt and clay. Results of swell - consolidation testing performed on relatively
undisturbed samples of the silt and clay, presented on Figs. 3, 4 and 5, indicate low
compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a low to
moderate collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted. The samples
were moderately to highly compressible under increased loading after wetting. The
laboratory testing is summarized on Table I. 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 1,200 psf for support of the proposed residence. The soils tend to compress
after wetting and there could be some post - construction foundation settlement. The
amount of settlement would depend on the depth and extent of wetting and could be on
the order of two inches or more. Precautions (described in this report) should be taken
to prevent subsurface wetting. Footings should be a minimum width of 20 inches for
continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose and disturbed soils and existing fill
encountered at the foundation beating 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 14 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 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. 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
FEB -25 -2000 13:28 H -P GEOTECH P.05113
Bill Gibson
February 22, 2000
Page 4
Proctor density in landscape areas. Free- drairilng 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 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 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 should be located at
least 10 feet from the building. Consideration should be given to the use
of xeriscape to limit potential wetting due to irrigation.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on February 3, 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 holes were
protected from freezing overnight. The soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar
to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 and consist of topsoil overlying
sandy silt and clay. The percolation test results are presented in Table II. 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.
H•P GEOtECH
FEB -25 -2000 13 :28 H -P GEOTECH P.06/13
•
_ . Bill Gibson
February 22, 2000
Page 5
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 geotechnical
engineer.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PA • G • ECHMCAL, INC.
Lotus E. Eller
Reviewed By:
o patto4, 444,
���
ina_p1/4_,IX . Daniel E. Hardin, P. _ ° � 24443
IX 1 (2s'/en�
LEE /ksm 0 '"F •••.•.•N•
S�ONAI Ep
attachments
H GEOTECN
FEB -25 -2000 13 29 H -P GEOTECH P.08,
' PIT 1 PIT 2 PROFILE PIT
.2 0 0
— —
1 WC -7.7 —!
OD -91 WC -9.6
t 5 — 200 =64 OD =90 5 r
g r — 200 -62 -- $
_. o
-- WC =9.8 —
— OD-90
....„ 10 — 200 -66 10 _.
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; sandy silt, organic. frozen. dark brown.
_7 SILT AND CLAY (ML —CL): sandy to very sandy, scattered gravel. medium stiff, moist,
/ reddish brown, low plastic fines.
I S' Y Diameter hand driven liner sample.
NOTES:
1. Explorotory pits were excavated on February 2, 2000 with a bockhoe.
2. Locations of exporotory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features
on the site pion provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory pits were not measured and logs of exploratory pits are drawn to depth.
Pit 1 is obout 3 feet higher than Pit 2.
4. The exploratory pit locations and elevotions 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 troneitlons may be groduol.
6. No free water was encountered in the pits of the time of excavating.
Fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results: ,
WC - Woter Content ( % ) .
DO - Dry Density ( pcf )
—200 - Percent passing No. 200 sieve
iCC 147 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK 1 i r:
nS nc rXPi r?RATORY PITS 1 Flo. 2
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
FEB-2S-2000 13:29 H -P GEOTECH P.e9 /13
• •
Moisture Content in 7.7 percent
Dry Density - 91 pcf
-200 m 64 percent
Sample of; Sandy Silt and Clay
From: Pit 1 at 3 Feet
0
1 L I .
_, _-- Compression
a --_" " upon
wetting
\ 1
3 ,
4 •
•
K 5 ,
y 5
G 6 .
F 0
S
U
8
9 , \
I
1
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - kef
Inn , 1 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK 1 SWFII.- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 1 Fig. 3
' GEOTECHNICAL. INC. I 1 1
FEES -25 -2000 13:30 H -P GEOTECH P.10/13
iv Moisture Content o 9.8 percent
Dry Density - 90 pcf
-200 - 66 percent
Somple of: Sandy Silt and Cloy
From: Pit 1 of 7.5 Feet
0
1 _
2
Compression
upon
3 wetting
4 ..
5
6 . \ , .
te
7 _
c
0
y .
A
a
8 -
0
9
10
O .\.\ : 4,
11
12 .
13
14
I
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf 1 , A7 "
1 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK 1 cwE I _CANSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 1 Fig. 4
"'� , 1 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I "
1 1
FEB- 25-2000 13 31 H—P GEOTECH P.12/13
• r _ -
8
> T >
`i v v Q
fo
c to
> >
c
N via; cu
y
J D
ct z cc Eli!
H Y
El N 1
o W _ 0
0wF- I
:C El
i 1- 512 111S, st c0 c'.4
..I g
CZ
" - _ .
O
o a � .
W 0 Vi E = 15
111 0 0
1— 0 0
11 e n co
n i u
of of
4 to
E
s
1
FEB -25 -2000 13:32 H -P GEOTECH P.13/13
r .
• HEPWORTH•PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
•
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB N0. 100 147
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 44 15 10 71/2 21/2
7 1/2 6 1 112
6 5 1/4 3/4
5 1/4 4 1/4 1
water added 6 3/4 6 3/4
8 51/4 3/4
5 1/4 4 1/2 3/4
4 1/2 4 1/2 ( 23
P-2 48 15 01/4 71/2 1 314 1111 \ \
7 1/2 6 1/4 1 1/4
6 1/4 5 1/2 3(4
51/2 41/2 1
water added 7 1/2 6 1/2 1
6 1/2 5 314 3(4
5 314 5 1/4 112
5 1/4 4 1/2 3/4 1 23
P•3 47 15 10 1/2 9 1 1/2
9 73/4 1 1/4
7 3/4 7 3/4
7 6 1/4 3/4
water added 7 1/2 6 3/4 3/4
6 3/4 6 3/4
6 5 1/2 1/2
5 1/2 5 1/2 26
4
NOTE: Last three readings were used to determine the average percolation rate. Holes were protected from he 0,. •. 'might.
TOTPL P.13